MH17: what we know 22 months later
by 
At May 17 it was 22 months ago MH17 was shot down. This post will describe what I think happened.
There are simply too many unanswered questions. I do not believe the complete story is “BUK was delivered by Russia and shot down MH17”.
Examples of the many questions I have:
- why Ukraine did not close its airspace while it must have know about presence of BUK sysyems
- Why did Poroshenko did not send a letter to the next of kin as response to their request to hand over radar data?
- why was the transponder of MH17 transmitting unreliable data two minutes before the shotdown.
- why did DSB not mention this in the report?
- why and by who was the crashsite shelled after the bodies were recovered?
- why many cockpit roof parts disappeared from the crash site?
- why DSB has been not open about the investigation and leaves many questions?
- why Ukraine did not tell/DSB did not report about the destroyed radar station?
- why Ukraine did not hand over primary radar images
- why Russia deleted raw primary radar recordings?
- why Russia did not present a single, consequent story about what happened
- why Russia presented numerous clear lies and fakes
- why did Russia block the initiation of a UN tribunal
The Joint Investigation Team (JIT) will most likely release in July 2016 the exact type of BUK missile and the location it was launched from.
After two years we will finally know the weapon used. However we still do not know who is responsible.
My observations so far;
- separatists stated before July 17 they would shot down aircraft. Immediately after the shot down, on vKontakte it was claimed an Antonov was shot down. This was also reported in Russian press. There was also an eyewitness who mentioned seeing a missile. This was all within a few hours after the downing.
- Revealing the truth would have serious consequences for relations between Russia, EU and the United States. Maybe the current situation (western public believes Russia did it, Russian public believes Ukraine did it) is the best scenario. Putin has been punished by sanctions. No court case initiated by states to Russia. Move on.
- therefor all parties agreed to maintain a situation in which not a single state is blaimed presenting irrefutable evidence and taken to court
- Russian Federation main objective seems to be to spread as much as confusion as possible instead of one thing: present a consistent story with irrefutable evidence Russia showing they are not responsible for downing MH17
- Malaysia could be the only state which is looking for truth.
- DSB concluded a BUK missile downed MH17
- the missile was launched from an area of 320 square km mainly controlled by separatists
- Separatists had a good reason to use heavy surface to air missiles to down Ukraine air force jets
- there was heavy fighting around the area south of Snizhne
- Russia presented a lot of evidence most of which was easily proven to be faked
- DSB investigation results and way of performing investigation has raised quite a few doubts
- Not a single evidence points to an Ukraine BUK responsible for shot down of MH17
- An air to air missile is extremely unlikely to have downed MH17. Both R27 and Python require too many non-logical conditions. For example for a Python missile, the Georgian Airforce must have used a SU25KM to down MH17.
- Dutch government is acting weird , not logical and seems to hide facts
- US government refuses to release their evidence to the public
- Ukraine government and SBU made a few false claims.
- Websites supporting Russian Federation or separatists (like globalresearch.ca but there are many more) only job seems to spread confusion/mist without presenting facts or even telling complete nonsense. For example fort-russ.com in this article.
I believe on July 17 a BUK TELAR was transported on a lowloader plus Volvo truck from Donetsk to Snizhne, There are simply too many photos and videos which show the transport. Shadows are consistent with the timeline. Although the speed required to reach Zuhres is a bit high compared to the speed estimated on the May 12 video and the Zuhres video.
The smoke plume photo is likely to be genuine. Shadows were calculated and fit the time. Is the plume of a BUK missile, something else or was the smoke added using Photoshop? Unsure.
Did the BUK we saw on the videos and photos shot down MH17? Not sure. But likely.
There is a possibility the Ukraine Secret Service used the BUK convoy as a way to cover-up a false flag operation. Could an Ukraine fighter jet have shot down MH17? Highly unlikely. The report published by Russian journalist Albert Naryshkin (aka albert_lex) did not mention any air to air missile in use by the Ukraine air force. The report suggested the only weapon capable of downing MH17 was the Israel made Python air to air missile. Naryshkinm has some good contacts with Russian authorities as the report he published contained some undisclosed photos taken in the area where DSB performed the reconstruction. Additionally, the Russian Ministry of Foreign affairs quoted parts of his blogs in a reply to Bellingcat. So I conclude the most likely air to air missile seen by Russia is the Python.
Nobody so far has been able to show photos of the fragments used by the Python. Also the weight of the explosives is relative light. As Ukraine officially does not own the Python missile nor can it be carried by fighter jets of Ukraine Air Force. Only the SU-25KM which is modernized by Israel is a candidate. Georgia is the only operator in the region of this type of aircraft.
As nobody was able to come with a reliable story about air to air missile, I believe it is very unlikely an A2A missile downed MH17.
Could it be a planned operation by the secret services of Ukraine and US. Could they have fooled the BUK crew somehow? Facts are there were no US passengers flying on MH17. Malaysia is a state with much better relations with the Russian Federation than with the US. And the Dutch Safety Board has a special legal protection in the Netherlands which prevents investigation information not published to be released to the public. Last but not least, the Dutch State is a strong ally of the United States. This could all be a coincidence but should be noted.
by
* Revealing the truth would have serious consequences for relations between Russia, EU and the United States.
Do you have any facts to back this up?
* therefor all parties agreed to maintain a situation in which not a single state is blaimed presenting irrefutable evidence and taken to court
Do you have any facts to back this up?
* the missile was launched from an area of 320 square km mainly controlled by separatists
How do you know what parts were under control of the seperatist and what not?
* Separatists had a good reason to use heavy surface to air missiles to down Ukraine air force jets
Why did Ukraine have BUK’s in the area before MH17 was shot down? Seperatist dont have aircrafts
* there was heavy fighting around the area south of Snizhne
you just said the area was mostly under control of the sepearist!
* Russia presented a lot of evidence most of which was easily proven to be faked
Like what? Who or what do you mean with “Russia”? Russian government? Russian media? both? Ukraine lied about pretty much everything even before MH17 was shot down. Including the assasination attempt on Koenders
* Not a single evidence points to an Ukraine BUK responsible for shot down of MH17
Did someone actualy look into this? Who tracked down all the BUK’s Ukraine had in the area before MH17 was shot down?
* Websites supporting Russian Federation or separatists (like globalresearch.ca but there are many more) only job seems to spread confusion/mist without presenting facts or even telling complete nonsense. For example fort-russ.com in this article.
You seem obssed with Russia! How many lies have we seen in MSM? You never botherd to write anything about that.
It looks like this blog is truning into a 1 on 1 copy of bellingcat.com
Maybe I should just ban the kind of comments like the one above. The questions by anti-bellingscam show an absolute either ignorance or an intention to create noise.
Next comment of this quality will be banned.
You can ban me admin! I dont have a problem with that at all. But before you do please answer my questions first.
My nick anti-bellingscam is 100% acurate as Eliot Higgins previous investigations were nothing but rubbish and MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) already made that clear a long time ago.
>>* the missile was launched from an area of 320 square km mainly controlled by separatists
>How do you know what parts were under control of the seperatist and what not?
For example I’ve gone through militant reports (16jul) and the 320km2 area was definitely under rebel control.
+The edge areas closer to front line were not sane for any BUK.
On military maps we see that retreating party does not update their map very fast, that’s why liveuamap is often more accurate than official UA map or pro-rebel map.
>>* Separatists had a good reason to use heavy surface to air missiles to down Ukraine air force jets
>Why did Ukraine have BUK’s in the area before MH17 was shot down? Seperatist dont have aircrafts
They took their BUKs away from the area during spring&summer.
No UA BUK is seen near the 320km2 launch area around 17Jul.
>>* there was heavy fighting around the area south of Snizhne
>you just said the area was mostly under control of the sepearist!
Fights were south of snizhne + south of SaurMogila + south/around of Marinovka 16Jul, UA was retreating.
My quick map:
Militia reports 16Jul
> Both R27 and Python require too many non-logical conditions.
Actually it is any Buk version. There are two technically(that is without the answer on the question who did it):
– intentionally;
– by mistake;
the first one requires that the whole crew and those supporting it’s operation (ATC, commanding chief etc) are familiar with the horrible task. So i reject it.
The second one (by mistake) has two possible scenarios:
– MH17 was mistaken for a military jet;
– MH17 was mistaken for a cargo;
Military jets have a very distinctive from airplanes radar signature. They also change behavior when illuminated by a radar (because of an alarm is triggered) : evading, jamming are things very recognisable by radar sensors. Air defense crews are routinely trained on tracking of airplanes with the launch part is switched off for safety. They would see the very habitual picture of a civilian airplane on their displays, distinctive from a military jet. The crew also must not be connected by any means with their commanding center because the latter knows that it IS a civilian airplane. “Retargeting” (launched at one target but acquired another target in fly) is unknown for Buk.
Some tactical basics prevent a Buk crew IN THE AREA from attacking a cargo (or even a military jet) on the altitude 10km. Such a target (if posing a threat) is to be a prey of others, more distantly placed air-defense units (e.g. on the Russian territory if your prefer to consider Russia’s guilt). The reason to send a Buk there is to defend objects/units from low-flying threats. It shortens the time required for acquisition (more strong return signal) and the missile fly time, increasing chances to hit. By attacking the high-flying target they would discover their position selected for low-flying threats and break the order to wait for the latter. This type of behavior is very discouraged and prohibited by all armies.
The imaginable Ukrainian cargo wouldn’t fly at that altitude because it is bound to resupply Ukrainian units along the border. It MUST already begin descending for that task. The Buk crew would not fire at non-descending target. Here one of Ukrainian explanation for “mistaken for a cargo” arises. That is that the crew believed that the target is closer than it actually was. But a Buk crew has indeed one detached operator to measure the distance. Very unlikely.
Many illogical if’s surround any Buk version.
“Retargeting” (launched at one target but acquired another target in fly) is unknown for Buk.
That scenario is unknown but there are systems attachable to fighter jets or ground attacking planes that can retarget semi-active missiles, like BUK, to a phantom target. BUK missile can even be made to believe that it is chasing fighter jet going upwards. No need fpr reflected signal from the airliner. The system directly talks to the “brains” of the missile. Base TELAR would not be aware of what is happening
The possibility of a Russian military jet with Khibiny(or the like) is excluded because Ukraine wouldn’t hide their primary radar data in this case.
So this implies US involvement because Ukraine doesn’t have such systems (or i am unaware). What to do with all people in charge for accounting of such advanced pods? More eyewitnesses – more unlikely.
Ukrainian jets can not communicate with NATO weapon, a western-made jet is required. More complex – more unlikely.
Such systems are sold by Israel and Belarus, as minimum. I think there are more
Here is one of the systems that confuses semi-active missiles atrachable to helicopter. They have one for fighter jets as well, but desrciption tgere is less detailed. http://defin.by/en/products/talisman/
“The modulated reemission
simultaneously with the echo signal
from the helicopter results in the
wave front distortion, recognized by
the antenna systems of the hostile
RESs, which exerts an integrated
effect on angle, range and velocity
(Doppler)measuring instruments
and tracking systems of the hostile
RESs. This effect shows itself in the
form of stable false targets (marks)
spaced at a considerable distance in
range, Doppler, azimuth and elevation
from the true position data of the
object under protection. ”
For you a jamming device can somehow retarget a Buk. It can confuse it, but not re-target. Devil is in the details. And you’ve proven that once one start delving into details, your knowledge and understanding turn out to be either wrong or superficial.
You again with this retargeting fantasy? Everyone interested check out the discussion ending with the following post, with a brief summary of the technical skills of the above poster.
https://whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/dsb-final-report-doubts-damage-of-left-wing-and-left-engine-nacelle/#comment-16818
GFY, Eugene.
Antidyatel:
1: the missile aims at the SU-25 which flies below the MH17.
2: The SU-25 drags the track upward and rises straight up to the MH17. It drags the missile to the MH17.
[If the moment the launch is detected the jet goes vertically up and illuminates the seeker from vicinity (<1km) of mh17.]
3: A second jet redirects the seeker to the coordinates of MH17.
http://tinyurl.com/zxn6nda
It is ecen simpler. According to Raetheon promotional video some of such systems totally simulate the target plane and do not require the host plane. Everything is fixed on wing missile
https://youtu.be/0acJ3xyhaJo
Meaning that BUK crew was perfectly believing in flying in Su25, while it wa phantom even before the launch. So no even nerd for retargeting as such. Abd this is against modern systems, not prehistoric lonely BUKM1.
We know that AWACS were flying around Romania. Just good for support of such operation. Range of Raetheon missiles is ~1000 km, just enough to pull this of.
In any case, it is more or less confirmed that rebels had a BUK. video recorded by them on arrival to the scene indicates that till then they were sure that they have shot at SU25.
We also know now with certainty that Ukrs were aware about the BUK in rebel territory. Not sure how many days byt there was a time to plan the false flag. Rebels aee aware that they shot the plane, Russians as well. They also know that the target was SU25. That is why the whole radar claim appeared. They new that something had to be there but could not figure what, within such short time. I wonder if they figured it a bit later and that caused John Kerry to be less vocal.
Logic Reason (@gsobjc),
[Military jets have a very distinctive from airplanes radar signature. They also change behavior when illuminated by a radar (because of an alarm is triggered) : evading, jamming are things very recognisable by radar sensors. Air defense crews are routinely trained on tracking of airplanes with the launch part is switched off for safety. They would see the very habitual picture of a civilian airplane on their displays, distinctive from a military jet. The crew also must not be connected by any means with their commanding center because the latter knows that it IS a civilian airplane. “Retargeting” (launched at one target but acquired another target in fly) is unknown for Buk.]
If I am well informed a solitary Russian BUK TELAR, that’s were we are talking about, cannot discriminate between Ukrainian military airplanes and the MH17:
– That really does require the seclusion of a BUK TAR radar car with “a full-function identification FRIEND-OR FOE (IFF) and NON-COOPERATIVE SYSTEM TARGET RECOGNITION (NCTR) modes (motor resonances)”. And so on what they did not have. At least, the BUK TELAR has but very limited IFF / NCTR capability, in which it perceives the MH17 as enemy aircraft!
And furthermore the crew of the BUK TELAR had not the slightest information about the MH17. If they only had Flightradar on their handy they would have identified the passenger plane immediately.
So, they must have been sure this was the plane to shoot down. And now we go into a labyrinth of scenarios with complicated interactions. I give the following example:
Andrew // August 27, 2015 at 8:25 pm //
Admin:
“The simple reason it that as soon as the radar of a BUK is switched on, it can be detected by the enemy. And thus can be destroyed. Now tell me why a spotter telephone call is nonsense.”
If the spotter call is at 16:18:XX and the BUK radar is not even turned on, but the missile is fired by 16:19:28-30, with at least a 24 second launch sequence, then a go-to-launch command is spoken around 16:19:01-05.
We are getting down to mere seconds to fire up the radar and find the target. How realistic is that?
The only way this works is if the rebel crew has also been pre-fed a flight plan which would make them immediately find MH17 because they already knew where to look. Otherwise, in searching for an AN-26 flying slowly at 7 km they wouldn’t find MH17 at 10 km and flying much faster.
This implies a Ukrainian double-cross via the supposed spy at Dnipropetrovsk and the deliberate shootdown of the civilian plane through the agency of manipulation of the targeting by the rebels to make them think MH17 was a military transport.
[The imaginable Ukrainian cargo wouldn’t fly at that altitude because it is bound to resupply Ukrainian units along the border. It MUST already begin descending for that task. The Buk crew would not fire at non-descending target. Here one of Ukrainian explanation for “mistaken for a cargo” arises. That is that the crew believed that the target is closer than it actually was. But a Buk crew has indeed one detached operator to measure the distance. Very unlikely. Many illogical if’s surround any Buk version.]
[The Buk crew would not fire at non-descending target.]
I cannot agree for the BUK crew had to lock on for about 25 to 27 seconds, so they could infer distance and height:
http://tinyurl.com/jvb3mkj
[But a Buk crew has indeed one detached operator to measure the distance.]
At July 17, 2014 separatists had no spotters, and the weather was bad etc etc, this is a troublesome scenario.
But I do agree that the shooting down scenario of the MH17 by separatists is totally illogical and not realistic. In all my scenarios separatists have the lowest likelihood of the MH17 downing. But there is one exception and that is misleading by the SBU about the kind of incoming aircraft.
> That really does require the seclusion of a BUK TAR radar car with “a
> full-function identification FRIEND-OR FOE (IFF) and NON-COOPERATIVE
> SYSTEM TARGET RECOGNITION (NCTR)
I get from russian forums where former “PVOshiniki” are present that Buk has the display where a signal from the target is showed during the “measurement phase” of acquisition. That signal differs for different (in size, type) aircrafts.
> So, they must have been sure this was the plane to shoot down.
This is my impression too. A couple of people on the forums who had hands on experience with Buk quite convincingly said that it was impossible for the Buk commander not to know about the plane speed or height. This is due to the way the parameters are displayed, and due to the training which would teach them to make decisions about selecting corresponding launch modes based on the speed and height parameters. Some people posit that somehow the crew were made think that the plane was a military transport. But Il-76 would still not be able to fly with the 777 speed, and the crew would have guessed that they might be looking at a civilian aircraft, especially that they’d normally see those at the altitude.
The crew would also know that a military transport would likely start descending to do its job. They could have waited to make sure that they are not shooting at a civilian aircraft. But what we are told is that the rebels shoot the plane that was coming closer at almost the largest accessible distance for Buk and chose not to wait.
How to explain “RU/rebel BUK scenario” to shoot at airliner.
1) crew did not dare to hesitate when spotter detected plane was informed
2) crew believed airspace was closed from civilian planes
3) crew was drunk
4) someone fooled crew to target airliner (SBU / some mentally ill person)
5) Bezler wanted to end the war at no cost?
Interesting issue. A lot of job for JIT.
And to confuse the hell out of everyone Kreml supplied rebels with modified Buk missile, with 80 percent of fragments (and 100 percent of bowtie fragments) made of ice, which evaporated mid-flight leaving no holes.
Remember the downing of MH17 could lead to a court case. Not all evidence found, like all bowties, needs to be published in the open. There is a lot the public does not know at the moment, but JIT nows.
The gap between public information and JIT inside knowledge provides websites/press/governments to suggest all kind of things.
The DSB were hesitating in collecting the evidence exactly for that reason: hoping the evidence will dissappear and the rigging will not be that obvious.
However, despite their efforts, they manage to bring wreckage with 350 documented holes. And not a single bowtie? Give me a break. Even the small piece of Il-86 I used for the hole density estimation containing in total 26 holes had two bowtie holes.
Even Almaz-Antey was sure it was not a modified missile, but a standard M1 instead.
Example:
BUT we have no info of what kind of modified warhead Almaz-Antey used in attempt to prove they did not do it.
sotilaspassi, you probably haven’t watched the AA presentation, or haven’t understood it (the interpreter was indeed awful). AA went into great length talking about their readiness to present any obtained data in a raw form to any official parties parties interested, and about their willingness to repeat the test on request with external witnesses present.
And guess what, have Dutch or Ukraine governments expressed their interest? No. And I’ll tell you why. Because AA has not cheated and asking them to repeat the test is bound to eventually make you look fool.
Sotilaspassi,
2. BUK crew possibly believed the airspace was closed for civil aircraft below 9,700 meters. Maybe they expected an AN-26.
3. Crew likely was not drunk.
But you are right there must have been an evil interaction with Kiev, as the separatists had nil information about the incoming aircraft, were out of spotters and even didn’t consult Flight Radar. That’s a very likely scenario but without proof the best scenario is Kiev itself shot down the MH17. We will wait for the whistleblowers.
That is jumping to conclusions. So far there are far more direct indications/proof that a Russia supplied BUK shot down MH17.
Because of the many questions we do not have an answer for, Kiev is by some regarded as potential culprit.
So far there is little to none evidence in the public. No Ukraine BUKs seen/photographed in the area south of the road Donetsk-Snizhne
No eyewitness telling about seeing /hearing a BUK launch.
DSB which calculated an area where the launch took place mostly under control of separatists
Russia telling many lies
Russia vetoing a UN tribunal
I can go on and on with arguments which point to Russia responsible for the shotdown. Maybe they were provoked, maybe it was a stupid mistake by the BUK crew.
Remember, a US Navy crew, professionals, multiple persons managing the missile, shot down an Iranian airline.
Accidents happen.
It was not BUK.
BUK strike elements are very high speed. Metal fragments struck the aeroplane at a speed of 4,500 – 9,000 km/h (Appendix N)
BUK strike elements can’t make ragged edges of holes as MH17 at so high speed.
In this comment it looks if I’m jumping to conclusions, but my intention is to bargain with scenarios.
Indeed, a likely scenario is the separatist launched the BUK. That’s what I said. But they had no motive and I do not like to postulate errors, mistakes, drunken crew etc as legitimate reasons. That comes down to deus ex machina scenarios even if they later turn out to be right.
I think in this stage of the investigation we must build logical scenarios funded on motives. Then only Kiev had a motive. So, in a motivated scenario Kiev must set the first step with a false flag and then the separatists complete the job.
But the problem with such a scenario is the interaction, which lowers the total chance of success. That’s why I said it would be much better if Kiev also shot down the plane. That would be an excellent scenario with the highest total chance of success.
Do I belief this? That’s not the point, it is just the easiest scenario with only two steps and with the total chance on the basis of motivation and not on error, mistakes or a drunken crew. Solely to prevent tunnelvision I want to keep open all scenarios even if they seem ridiculous.
[Russia telling many lies, Russia vetoing a UN tribunal]
That might be after the fact behavior. You may be right, you may be wrong. Russia had no motive but a faction within the Russian army could.
Until we have proof we must keep all scenarios open which are not yet falsified. Warhead 9N314 and 9N318 can be seen as falsified by the albert_lex histogram. But the profile of 9N314M is confirmed. That’s a very important conclusion though warhead 9N314M itself is not proven. So what is the next scenario? It can be built from the separatists, from Ukraine or from both.
@Basic : we can do all kind of logical thinking and spend a lot of time.
There is a simple explantion for all this: the crew in the BUK made a mistake. Mistakes are made by humans. See the shotdown of an Iranian airliner by a US NAVY ship. Complete crew, highly trained. Captain decided to launch missile to what he believed was an Iranian fighter jet.
Now tell me why this is not likely for a BUK crew: they believed the saw IL76 on their screen. Their mission was to destroy all enemy aircraft. Someone put pressure on them, telling for sure it was an IL76. Maybe young crew, easy to put under pressure.
Admin,
-The crew in the BUK made a mistake. That would be easy reasoning. Do you really think the Americans shotdown that Iranian plane by accident? I never believed it. I think humans are unconscious thinking animals.
Mind your line of reasoning: because the crew was complete and highly trained it could not have been done purposely and so it must have been a mistake. I would conclude the other way around that a highly trained captain must not ‘believe it was an Iranian fighter jet’. Maybe he unconsciously saw a chance to kill a lot of Iranians.
Besides, the radial speed behavior of a passenger plane is quite different from a fighter jet. And this alleged fighter jet must have been steady going into one direction as a passenger plane. Then, why would it not be a passenger plane? I don’t know if they already had Flightradar and ADS-B responders. Anyway it looks logically completely unjustified.
[Now tell me why this is not likely for a BUK crew: they believed the saw IL76 on their screen. Their mission was to destroy all enemy aircraft. Someone put pressure on them, telling for sure it was an IL76. Maybe young crew, easy to put under pressure.]
This is a very good scenario. I earlier concluded they did not use Flightradar though they had plenty of time. Also they were out of spotters. So probably they knew nothing from planes from the direction of Kiev.
Separatists had no clue about this incoming MH17. Who was it to set pressure on them? Who told them for sure it was an IL-76? Do we really think their own comrades had the intention to mislead them to shoot down a passenger aircraft? Of course not, we have to complicate this scenario with the interaction with the Ukrainians. It is too easy to think the crew was young and easy to put under pressure.
Basic, you have zero evidence to back up your “scenario is Kiev itself shot down the MH17” claim.
Part of not blaiming Russia is in the technical details about the damage caused by a BUK. There is very limited information on the BUK available in the public domain. The information available is not sure if it can be trusted. Who knows who is the source of that information and the agenda of the person releasing info into the public domain?
Citizen journalists have law of physics. Those do not lie.
Some questions :
“Revealing the truth would have serious consequences for relations between Russia, EU and the United States.”
What kind of “serious consequences” do you expect in the case that Russia is to blame for MH17 ?
More sanctions ? War ?
US and NATO are allready going in that direction. And they would be very pleased to nail down Russia on MH17. So why should they hide the truth if they would have irrefutable evidence against Russia ?
Quite different is the situation if Ukraine is the culprit.
Then US and EU would have every reason to conceal the truth.
It would be virtually impossible to maintain the sanctions against Russia.
But the sanctions are the core in this geo-political game.
The chess players fear nothing more than to have to apologize to Russia.
“the missile was launched from an area of 320 square km mainly controlled by separatists”
Marcel, you yourself have gathered enough evidence to the contrary on this site.
“Not a single evidence points to an Ukraine BUK responsible for shot down of MH17”
Why has Kiev denied that they had BUKs stationed in the ATO zone ?
Why the SBU presented their own BUK as Russian ?
Why was the SBU obviously prepared to blame the separatists and Russia ? They spoke about a BUK before any expert arrived at the crash-site. How did they know it was not a bomb on board ?
Why is it impossible to buy satellite imagery from certain areas in the ATO zone at the time around July 17/2014 ?
Did you try for example to buy the satellite photo taken at July 17/2014 and provided by Stratfor ?
You will not get it ! WHY ???
“I believe on July 17 a BUK TELAR was transported on a lowloader plus Volvo truck from Donetsk to Snizhne.”
Okay, you don´t believe that photos and videos are faked.
But what irrefutable evidence do you have that photos and videos are dated on July 17/2014 ?
A single proof would satisfy me.
“There is a possibility the Ukraine Secret Service used the BUK convoy as a way to cover-up a false flag operation. Could an Ukraine fighter jet have shot down MH17?”
Why do you only mention an Ukraine fighter jet as possibility for a false flag operation ? Why not an Ukrainian BUK ?
If if was loud and clear Russia is behind this, the consequences would be far more than the current banning from G8 and the sanctions.
The most possible has been achieved from now: Putin is the bad guy.
Show me the evidence. The maps all showed the biggest part of the 320 square km was controlled by separatists. This does not mean that a Ukraine BUK could enter the area somewhere though.
The BUKs showed in that video where very far from where MH17 flew. SBU made some stupid mistakes, one of them showing an Ukriane BUK. Ukraine is close contact with the US. As soon as US SBIRS detected a SAM launch and the news broke of MH17, Ukraine leaders were informed by the US.
Did you try to obtain the images? What was the result? Please come forward with facts.
“
The Stratfor image makes clear a truck very similar to the Volbo drove at exactly the position where it should be related to the video discovered at May12. The petrol prices at the petrol station does not exclude July 17. There are just too many circumstances that fits the scenario in all those videos and photos. Yes, some have suspicious aspects. But those do not make these photos/videos fake.
A BUK from Ukraine could have been used. However there is none evidence presented so far for this. All eyewitness talk about a missile south of Snizhne. There is a field which all of a sudden was ploughed/burned after July 17. There is a photo showing a missile plume. There is a faked Russian satellite photo. There are zero other Russian satellite photos.
I do not rule out an Ukraine BUK, but it is extremely unlikely.
A possible scenario is that Ukraine and the US somehow managed the Russian BUK crew to fool and provoked to shot.
> Revealing the truth would have serious consequences for relations between Russia, EU and the United States.
The U.S. goal is to isolate Russia, to make it a pariah. Actually, this goal has been achieved to a large extent, but not 100% as yet. The U.S. would be happy to present irrefutable evidence of Russia’s responsibility for the shootdown of MH17 and thus seal the isolation of Russia.
On 7 June, the Ukrainian website apostrophe.com.ua published an interview with Eliot Higgins, translated into Russian. Below is an English-language brief of the interview presented by 112.ua
http://112.international/ukraine-top-news/bellingcat-names-key-challenges-for-mh17-investigation-5690.html
“Responding to the question as to how results of the official investigation would influence Donbas conflict and the world’s attitude to Russia and Vladimir Putin, Higgins said: ‘I believe, it would be hard for other countries to have something to do with the country, which caused the deaths of 298 people, lied and falsified evidence afterwards’, – Higgins said.”
“Did you try to obtain the images? What was the result? Please come forward with facts.”
I requested several times to purchase imagery from Digital Globe on July 16 and never got the courtesy of a response.
Admin wrote : „The maps all showed the biggest part of the 320 square km was controlled by separatists.“
Fights around Saur Mogila – Fights around Amvrosiivka – Fights between Marynivka and Krasnyi Luch.
And read these threads :
https://whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/very-detailled-study-on-ukraine-army-positions-near/
https://whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/despite-military-maps-showing-differently-ukraine-army-drove-through-separatists-controlled-area/
Antidyatel wrote in the above thread :
„At the time of crash total number of rebels was approximately 10,000. Assuming uniform distribution you will get a fraction of a rebel per square km. In reality they were concentrated in 4-5 locations. Hence, the whole premise of “rebel controlled territory” is stupid and total invention by Ukrs. They could go anywhere without any resistance till they reach a concentrated force.“
I fully agree with Antidyatel´s assessment of the situation in July 2014.
Admin wrote : „Ukraine is close contact with the US. As soon as US SBIRS detected a SAM launch and the news broke of MH17, Ukraine leaders were informed by the US.“
What evidence do you have that US SBIRS detected a SAM launch ?
Kerry´s words ? The Government Assessment ?
That´s only hot air. Not a single proof was delivered.
It could be the other way round : SBU reported to US about a BUK launch.
And US Government made the appropriate assessment.
Admin wrote : „Did you try to obtain the images? What was the result? Please come forward with facts.“
I tried to obtain the Stratfor coordinates 48°01’13.3″N 37°59’25.7″E from GeoEye-1 via „European Space Imaging“ in Munich.
Not available. „The sale presents a national security threat to Ukraine“, I was told. They gave me a hint to the Ukrainian national space law.
It seems to me that Ukraine has full control what satellite imagery will be released and to whom.
As Stratfor has cut out the usual data of satellite photos, we don´t know on which day “their” image was made.
And Bellingcat keeps silent, too.
Liane, would you pls contact me at ?
thanks
Please give all details you have about „The sale presents a national security threat to Ukraine“. 1) Who at European Space Imaging in Munich issued the statement? 2) you have it in writing? 3) Did you ask why Stratfor and Bellingcat can buy but you cannot? 4) et cetera
Hector and Max,
unfortunately the contact was by phone.
But as it seems to be important to you, I will try it again and go in their office. May be I can manage to get something in a written form.
But it will take me some days.
Theoretically (practically it seems unavailable), it would be interesting to see a sat image of certain location in Donetsk on 17 July:
https://whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/bellingcat-presents-new-social-media-evidence-for-buk-presence-in-donetsk/
In March, Bellingcat found a post in the social media network VKontakte about the Buk convoy reportedly having been seen in Donetsk in the morning of 17 July: “…As of 9:15 am, the vehicle was located at the intersection of Shakhtostroitelei [Boulevard] and Ilycha [Prospect, aka Avenue].”
Precise time, precise place.
Liane: can you please provide me the details about your statement below? I am in touch with European Space Imaging for purchasing satellite images. So far I am not told that pictures are ‘national secret’
quoting Liane
I tried to obtain the Stratfor coordinates 48°01’13.3″N 37°59’25.7″E from GeoEye-1 via „European Space Imaging“ in Munich.
Not available. „The sale presents a national security threat to Ukraine“, I was told. They gave me a hint to the Ukrainian national space law.
It seems to me that Ukraine has full control what satellite imagery will be released and to whom.
Marcel, just try to order the Stratfor image.
If they supply it to you, then they have fooled me.
If you does not get that picture, then they probably have told me the truth.
Perhaps they have now become more cautious with their statements.
>>“the missile was launched from an area of 320 square km mainly controlled by separatists”
>Marcel, you yourself have gathered enough evidence to the contrary on this site.
Has he? This web site has been very open to all evidence, but so far nothing that would enable other direction than from ahead.
But let’s be open. Let’s see if there appears some info that would explain why missile from south would not detonate when proximity fuse already see MH17 ~20m before the target (etc).
So far only BUK seen there (around 17Jul) drove inside that 320km2 area. Launch from that area has also eyewitnesses etc.
Kreml fabricated material does not count (no matter if they route it via Almaz-Antey).
> the Georgian Airforce must have used a SU25KM to down MH17.
Ukraine provided Georgia some sophisticated weapon in the past.
Why do you think it is impossible vice versa?
Wanted to ask exactly the same question.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/world/europe/30ukraine.html?_r=0
This New York Times article is about claims by the then Ukrainian opposition that the Ukrainian government secretly supplied weaponry to Georgia in 2008, before and at the time of the Russo-Georgian war. Apart from that, NYT quotes official data concerning 2007 supplies:
In 2007, Ukraine sold Georgia 74 T-72 tanks, some armored combat vehicles, a BUK M1 surface-to-air missile system, two 2S7 self-propelled artillery guns, among other weapons, according to the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms.
So because Ukraine supplied weapons to Georgia, a Georgian SU-25KM shot down MH17? Sure.
So what about the Python weapon? What do we know what sharpnel size, shapes etc?
-We do not have any evidence Geogian SU operating in Ukraine.
-Georgian SU25 is not stealth we should see it on radar waiting for MH17 on same altitude otherwise it can not hit cockpit.
-Tiny python missile is not able to destroy jumbo-jet cockpit.
-SU25 modifications can not efficienty attack airliner at 10km.
> We do not have any evidence Geogian SU operating in Ukraine.
Many things go unreported in this world.
> Georgian SU25 is not stealth
Neither any other aircraft. You mix reality with computer game experience. ‘Stealth’ is a marketing term. All can be visible in certain circumstances. And the visible one can not in other conditions.
> we should see it on radar
The radar range is the distance where the PROBABILITY of detection has a defined value, usually 0.5. It is important to understand that DETECTION IS NOT GUARANTEED. The chances depend on conditions (weather, jamming, landscape, signal processing algorithm, radar emission power, even sun activity).
That radar did not have primary contact with even bigger B-777. The MH17’s mark was interpolated for some period of time before ‘something’ was switched on/off ~45secs after the hit. This ‘something’ can be jamming or a radar power change (supposedly on the ATC controller’s request), may be the both.
We shouldn’t see Su-25 (or another jet) if even the B-777 was not visible for the primary part of the ATC center.
> Tiny python missile is not able to destroy jumbo-jet cockpit.
Air stream is able with its drag force applied to the hole made by a tiny missile (or even by a round).
> SU25 modifications can not efficienty attack airliner at 10km.
Mantra without facts. Su-25 can reach 12km, can fly controllably at 11km. It is real pilots’s experience. RB-47s were shot down at around that altitude by cannon fire from Mig-17s and MiG-19s (not far superior to Su-25 aircrafts and the much bigger, not evading B-777 does not require special capabilities for an attacking plane). The MH17 debris bears marks of cannon fire. It was missed in the DSB report. Sometimes silence tells more than saying.
>Many things go unreported in this world.
-Irrelevant. Outside Russia, people demand proof before they approve prosecution.
>Neither any other aircraft.
Irrelevant. You know what I meant.
(btw, my friend developed SW code that could locate US stealth fighter in 20meter accuracy, above Norway, in y2002 or so.)
>The radar
10s after MH17 cockpit was blown to pieces, we see the helicopter near MH17 flight corridor, 40km ahead of MH17. I believe the helicopter is below clouds, so Rostov radar saw everything above 2km or so.
I do not fully know why there was such big delay before MH17 mark was changed from SSR to PSR mark, some filtering must have been used. RU did not reveal it, they deleted the data.
>Air stream is
Bullcr*p. See aloha airlines tragedy and many more examples.
>> SU25 modifications can not efficienty attack airliner at 10km.
>Mantra without facts.
I have facts (from suhoi, from pilots, from SU25 modernization specs), you do not.
>Su-25 aircrafts and the much bigger, not evading B-777
B-777 flew faster than SU25 can ever fly. etc etc.
Ukraine airforce did not have weapon to do what was done to MH17.
BUK has been confirmed being the murder weapon, no other evidence has been found.
Any comment suggesting a Georgian SU-25 was used, or a cannon was used will be deleted from now on
For a A2A missile I want strong evidence, no bullshot stories.
>> We do not have any evidence Geogian SU operating in Ukraine.
>Many things go unreported in this world.
It’s interesting the facts that Ukraine supplied Buks to Georgia surfaced by chance. They were “leaked” by the parliamentary commission head investigating the matter Valeriy Konovalyuk. He then received multiple threats and was accused of treason and leaking classified government information. If not for him, we would not know anything officially. Such matters do often stay secret forever.
I bit disappointing to learn that admin holds the above picture in his mind. I thought the desire to find the truth and the ability to live with major unanswered questions should not be encountered together in the same person.
If you look at Russia’s Board #1 route from Greece to Russia, you will get an impression that The Leader Of The Free World knows damn well who the target was.
2.why was the transponder of MH17 transmitting unreliable data two minutes before the shotdown.
Could you give any link on that subject? This fact unknown for me well complements my theory.
avherald.com
http://avherald.com/h?article=47770f9d
Avherald is a very reliable website. Does not use FR24 for transponder data.
SSR transponder might misbehave if targetted with strong radar?
Any similar problems seen with the other 60flights of the day?
Could partially explain why MH17 was not detected to be civilian.
Interesting for flight safety.
O.K. Marcel I have found:
“when the transponder data became unreliable at 13:18Z (position N48.28 E38.08) and was lost at FL330 at 13:20Z. ”
This is very interesting but the time 13;18 is not consist with Rostov radar data and FDR data.
If you look to the Rostov radar data the position E38.08 ( N different) MH17 took on 13:17 and one can see a jump in the recorded path in that point which could be caused by transponder instability. Also FDR data (page 33 preliminary report) shows increase in vertical acceleration about 13:17:16
It looks like the first attack on MH17 was on that time but too far from the airplane.
I wonder if a “jumping” SSR position can be explained by GPS jamming station in Donetsk?
Admin’s questions:
10. why Russia did not present a single, consequent story about what happened
11. why Russia presented numerous clear lies and fakes
Perhaps, Russia (government) are not sure what happened.
Russia’s MoD made a stupid mistake on the 21 July press conference when it identified the location of the three-missile-Buk video as Krasnoarmeisk. Ukraine’s SBU made a stupid mistake by publishing the photo of Ukrainian Buk.
Numerous lies and fakes could have been the initiative of various “experts” and journalists willing to make their input in “providing evidence”. The infamous sat image with a huge Boeing could not have been made by professionals from the secret service (FSB).
abcd! ’10. why Russia did not present a single, consequent story about what happened’ – who is Russia? Are you talking about MoD, AA, or somebody else?
’11. why Russia presented numerous clear lies and fakes’ – apparently I have issues with my memory. Would you please remind me those ‘clear lies and fakes’?
Thank you so much in advance.
Those questions were not mine, they were put by Admin. Ask Admin what he meant.
Please read the Bellingcat site for debunks of RF MoD lies.
Because the primary goal of Sergey seems to be make sure Russia has nothing to do with this drama, instead of searching for truth, he has been banned from this website.
This website is not for people adding deliberately mist,noise and/or confusion.
I see that I am no longer banned.
Does this mean that I can continue here cite evidence for my theory:
BUK + 2cannon salvo + air-air (or air-ground) missile.
I have found a lot of evidences. I think this scenario is most likely. I sent the evidences to the Australian prosecutor.
You are still on moderation. Any suggestion to cannon fire will not be published. Because it is nonsens. Try another site.
Any suggestion on A2A needs strong prove: show fragments size, shapes, numbers in warhead. If nonsense: blocked
>Bellingcat site for debunks of RF MoD lies.
+1
Bellingcat has multiple valid observation vs RU MOD lies, even if not all of them might be valid.
No one can mistakenly fabricate fake sat images.
No one can mistakenly see SU25 in PSR ATC video when there was none.
etc…
‘No one can mistakenly fabricate fake sat images’. – who did? Thank you for your readiness to help, Sotilaspassi.
RU MOD press info had several fake/misdated/fabricated sat images.
Here is a new scenario that might explain why all parties are not adequate in explaining of what happened and lie through their teeth. All a guilty.
1) under cover story that rebels captured Ukr BUKs, Russians moved in few Telar systems across the border. The acquisition of targets ia performed by TAR and command post placed still on Russian side of the border. Sbu collected photographic evidence od TELAR movement for several days, which would later be leaked through phony social media accounts.
2) initial success is AN26
3) ground intelligence informed ukrs that one BUK is parked in Snezhnoe on 16 JULY. and they send SU25s to destroy it. It was not successful. They destroyed civilian target, while one of their planes was downed ( later blamed on Russoan Mig).
4) Ukrs request supoort from USA and support is granted.
5) on 17 july, AWAKS are in the sky above Romania. Usa military transport plane was sent to West Ukraine. Not unusual practice under cpver of Rapid Trident exercise plannedy for July 2014 http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/20/british-military-ukraine-exercise. Wonder if anyone has data on such plane on that date.
6) while still in the sky thw transport plane releases Raetheon wing missile/s with 500 NM range.
7) the target radars for deception are Russian TAR at the border. So Russians were totally convinced that SU25 was approaching and that is why they were confident to name thw plane at July 21 presentation and so desperate to treat anything as it’s signal on civilian radar recording.
8) actual two Ukrainian SU25 were following the missile at a distance and at low altitude with a task to destroy TELARs that reveal themselves by rocket launch. That is why there were witnesses seeing Ukrainian jets at low altitude approximately at the time of MH17 downing, but those jets didn’t participate in downing themselves. And they were not visible on Russian civilian radar due to low altitude.
9) the Phantom SU25 was flying at altitude above 5km, to prompt BUK launch.
10) Russian command post instructs TELAR to attack the Phantom SU25. Most likely the TELAR launching the missile was not at Snezhnoe but much closer to Hrabove.
11) the CW illumination radar is switched on by BUK only on final stage of the missile flight. Till then the crew has no way to detect the Phantom. By the time the illumination radar is on, and launch locatikn close enough the proximity fuse is engaged.
11) when no return signal comes to TELAR from expected location, the crew has very short timw to react and they find any close target in the area, which is MH17. (Based on history of documwnted blood thirsty ideas from western military, like operation Northwoods and Pike, I suspect that phantom was used to perform an evasive maneuver towards MH17, to make sure that MH17 is in the illuminatikn beam)
12) MH17 is hit. And hit from below, with missile facing upwards, which might explain the damage pattern better (hitting of whole right side of the airliner up to the tail section and of the wing with engine).
13) rebels are sure that they hit SU25, which explains the bewilderment of the team that first arrived at the crash site. They looked for SU25 remains. Russians knew that MH17 was hit but they also knew that missile was shot at Su25. So working hypothesis became that SU25 shoots MH17, while rebels shoot at su25.
14) Su25 following the Phantom see the disaster unfolding in front of their eyes. That is why they didn’t accomplish the mission but instead started flying around the crash site.
15) Raetheon missile returns back to Kiev’s controlled territory.
So 1) Ukrs knew about BUKs but didn’t close the airspace, more to this dangerous operation to provoke Buk launch, in vicinity of the passenger plane was performed
2) Russians provided murder weapon against all international laws and executed the hit of target, although being deceived on the nature of target. But still they were also aware that passenger plane was in vicinity and didn’t take precautions
3) USA instigated the disaster with deliberate aim of downing passenger airliner. The orchestrated media campaign before dust settled at the crash site is a good indicator of it.
So all parties are guilty but there is incriminating evidence against all of them, thus the whole issue with investigation looks like theatre of absurd.
This scenario can explain many otherwise contradictory accounts.
‘2) initial success is AN26’- you lost me here, my Ukrainian non-brother. I value Dutch secret service way above Stratfor, bloggers, leaving alone Bellingcat. AN26 was downed by manpad, according to MIVD, therefore it was downed by manpad.
Maybe you can tell why Putin didn’t fly to Europe for many months after this tragedy, and why he chooses such weird routes now? You seem very knowledgeable.
at anti theory
So far we do not have any evidence of BUK being in rebel area before 17Jul.
>8) actual two Ukrainian SU25 were following
For that Ukraine would use better SU/MIG and R27 missile with “to radar source” seeking missile.
>10) Russian command post instructs TELAR to attack the Phantom SU25. Most likely the TELAR launching the
missile was not at Snezhnoe but much closer to Hrabove.
That would not explain secondary shrapnel cone hitting the engine. (etc)
NO BUK was seen near Hrabove.
Would Hrabove TELAR be in range for TAR in RU?
>11) the CW illumination radar is switched on by BUK only on final stage of the missile flight.
From what I know so far. TELAR illuminates the target before launch and illumination is on untill warhead has
detonated. I’ve not read that “illuminator” or missile control unit could be changed midflight.
>11) when no return signal comes to TELAR from expected location, the crew has very short timw to react
From what I’ve read so far. Illuminating beam is 180m accurate. So f.jet (jet with afterburner, not SU25) closing MH17 would be seen by PSR.
+With a flip of switch crew can detonate the missile.
>12) MH17 is hit. And hit from below, with missile facing upwards,
That is against the evidence we see on MH17.
>13) rebels are sure that they hit SU25
ITAR-TASS reported very fast after the shoot down that AN26 was targetted. +They knew SU25 does not fly at 10km with weapons.
>14) Su25 … started flying around the crash site.
No-one did report SU25 on the day of MH17 crash. (it seems the day after they were trained to)
A lot of photographs exist 1…5 minutes after the crash, we see no f.jet below clouds.
+PSR shows there was no f.jet above clouds.
Soli,
You misunderstood my post. Su25 were not there to shoot the mh17, they were there to destroy TELAR after it reveals its location by firing at phantom. See the full promotional video of Raethoen missile designed for tricking SAM systems to reveal themselves. It precisely describes the situatikn here
https://youtu.be/0acJ3xyhaJo
Half or even 2/3 of the distance to target semi-active missile is flying based on data from TELAR to a predefined location. Proportional navigation is then switched on. This is when CW illumination is switched on. There is no need for it beforehand. It will only expose TRLAR location. Ask Eugene about it;)
If missile doesn’t find target within 3 seconds of switched on proportional navigation it will self destruct, according to BUK TELAR operation manual.
So crew was quite pressed on time to find that target. And TAR from Russian territory specifically informed them about the target there.
Don’t use TASS that went for sensational news, based on fake Strelkov social account. Just watch the video recorded by rebels at the crash site. They were talking about hitting Ukrainian jet, not transport plane.
We can skip the direction of the missile issue. But wasn’t tail section of MH17 hit by shrapnel, as indicated in A-A presentation?
Banned, reinstalled and then banned again BBC report, had interviews with locals specifically seeing low flying Ukrainian jets flying around the crash site. Psr Would not see those planes as they were flying below 3km. I repeat, in the scenario the jets are not participating in downing of MH17. They are hunting TELAR
Ukraine has r27 missiles that can destroy TELAR when TELAR switch on it’s radar.
I have not seen english version of A-A material, it clearly is meant for the brainwas of russians.
I do not believe on A-A, they lied too many times.
Where is your evidence of shrapnel damage on tail section? I have not seen shrapnel damage in tail.
(but the whole MH17 was in the area of possible secondary fragmentation damage)
R27 is air-to-air missile. Unless you mean something else https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-27_(air-to-air_missile)
In any case, for any anti-radar missile the TELAR has to switch on the radar. Raethoen system forces such switch. Although in case of BUK TELAR supported by TAR for target detection the switch on time will be short for reliable triangulation. That is why in Raethoen presentation ground attacking aircraft (following phantom at a distance) are used to destroy missile launching units based on visual and radar data.
The postion of the missile is less critical at the moment. We can even assume Snezhnoe launch location for a while. The question is, could Raethoen system trick Russian TAR across the border to give command to TELAR within rebel controlled territory. And can it explain why Russians were so adamant to claim presence of SU25 during the incident. Can such scenario place all pieces of the puzzle within non contradictory scenario? (There was no possible reason for Russians to shoot the airliner. And it is very improbable for them to shoot it by mistake in normal situation). Presence of phantom su25 seen by Russian TAR as flying at 5-7km altitude would be reckless but sufficient reason for them to shoot the missile. After launch TELAR crew had little visibility of what was happening. While TAR had little time to assess and react to situation when missile just passed through phantom without detonation. So nobody gave command for missile self destruction.
Regarding directikn. Number of holes made to internal spars at shallow angles was discussed here. https://whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/damage-of-mh17-does-not-rule-out-a-launch-from-zaroshenskye/
Snezhnoe launch direction has difficulty explaining those.
Damage to the tail is schematically indicated on this page. https://medium.com/@ReggaeMortis1/russian-aviation-expert-debunks-leaked-mh17-report-b08b00d365a6#.fto2tji9p
But I admit that I cannot find actual images of damages that this schematic is using to make such conclusion
R27 can be equipped with a radar signal seeker.
That kind of combination target to radar and/or radio source on ground or on air.
(no link for the specs for now, most air forces have that kind of “tools”, I was told in 1991)
“R-27EP AA-10 Alamo-F, a longer range passive anti-radiation missile with a range of up to 70 nm (110 km)
The Avtomatika 9B-1032 X-band anti-radiation seeker equipped R-27P/EP has been reported, designed to kill emitting fighters in the forward quarter by homing on their radar emissions. It is the first anti-radiation homing air to air missile ever deployed in quantity, and the seeker is credited with a detection range of ~130 nautical miles. It is also reputed to be one of the fastest air to air missiles ever built.”
It does not make any difference if the radar/radio source is in mast, in air or on ground. R-27EP takes it out.
Nasty tool to clean large enemy areas from any radar / radio. (-> could be one reason why UA took all BUK units far away from RU border)
It is written in wiki
“Missile cannot be fired at altitude less than 3 km againist a target with background earth, if launch range is less than 6 kilometers. ”
I think you are mistaken that this missile can be used against ground radar. Plus it is not necessary. There are other special missiles designed for this purpose.
In any case, such missiles are useless if radar is not illuminating anything. The short time of illumination by TELAR in the proposed scenario also makes it unlikely to perform reliable triangulation for sending missile not by radar signal but by place. Thay is why SU25 were needed to follow the Phantom and finish the firing TELAR using visual from missile trail.
That 3km limitation is only for semi-active radar seeker IF target is closer than 6km and IF earth is on the background.
Otherwise this applies for semi-active seeker: “Interception altitude varies from 20 meters to 27 kilometers.”
For R-27EP seeker there is no limit that I have found.
Some history: http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?24787-Vympel-offers-new-R-27EP-anti-radar-missile
R-27 SAM http://www.janes.com/article/53591/ukrainian-industry-offers-surface-launched-r-27
Anyway, whatever. If I wanted to take out TELAR I would escort vanilla AN26 (or large drone) with MIG29/SU27 and R-27EP.
Antidyatel, thanks for this informative scenario.
I have seen the Raytheon video and am concerned about this prototype of proxy war between Russia and the US, where the US came to the rescue of Ukraine and Russia helped the separatists. It is good to show this type of warfare. But I think Russians with their Israeli contacts already knew from the Raytheon scenario long before it was operational.
And for a few BUK-TELARs Russia would not risk a world war with that stupid guy in the White House. They already knew Obama as completely unreliable and extremely dangerous. He cannot think three steps ahead, and Raytheon is only two steps to the third world war.
And this operation would mean the total involvement of the US air force in Donetsk, because the Ukrainians did not have any knowledge or experience with Raytheon. So Russians would give this scenario no chance. But it looks realistic for the near future.
Maybe by bringing in GRAD, Pantsirs and possibly BUKs the ultimate goal of the Russians was to force Ukraine to stop civil aviation above Donetsk. Then, both Ukraine and Russia were on the race to the edge of the ravine but Ukraine did not want to see the danger and did not stop timely: it continued international flights until a passenger plane really was shot down.
Why Russia wanted to force Ukraine to stop civil aviation? Well, then they could give separatists plenty of BUKs, without the danger of committing war crimes any longer. And then separatists did not need Russian crew on their TELARs and could go ahead on the Ukrainian air force. But now they cannot give BUKs to the separatists any longer because in retrospect they would admit to have given them earlier.
So civil aviation has been the lever principle in the diplomacy war between Russia and Ukraine but it turned out totally irresponsible.
These systems are quite new and designed with a view of Russian modern systems. Old BUKs would be no match for sure. I don’t know how much effort was put by Russia but I think they didn’t expect such move by USA, without official announcement of USA involvement. That is why they brought BUKS and from Bellingcat trail videos it is clear that Russians brought old models to the border.
The main point for me is that such scenario is that it explains that desperate insistence by Russians on Ukrainian SU25 and why rebels were confident that there should be a downed Ukrainian jet somewhere, when they came to the crash site. The onlu reason for them to think this way, that their TELAR team was involved in a way I described, while Russians across the border were in shock and silent observing airliner disintegrating, while primary target being ignored by missile.
The stage for the event was prepared by Trident military excercises, which provided a legitimate cover for USA military transport to land in Western Ukraine and for AWAKS to fly in the area.
It just seems to glue together all the inconsistencies in the incident. And provides better explanation for propaganda war based on “independent” secondary sources. I just can’t buy the explanation that USA is just trying to savw face of Putin and prevent WW3. As such it is opposite. Putin was declared guilty within seconds and with academic certainty. Later USA was slowly retracting accusations and toning down in arrogance. Russians probably do not have direct prove for Raethoen scenario but they have something. If truth cpmes out both parties are criminally viable. So I guess they prefer to make a deal. The trade is on who would be scape goat: rebels or UKRs.
Antidyatel,
Well, most intriguing and heuristic hypothesis. Maybe you’re right and this is a window on a completely new scenario.
But the implication of this scenario would be the US are the principal cause of the downing of the MH17. They would have done this deliberately with inside information about this outcome.
For they knew very well there was civil aviation above Donetsk and only they knew from the risks of shooting down a passenger plane instead of a nonexistent SU-25. That would explain the retreat of John Kerry when informed about this action.
BUK strike elements are very high speed. Metal fragments struck the aeroplane at a speed of 4,500 – 9,000 km/h (Appendix N)
You can’t make ragged edges of holes as MH17 at so high speed.
This wa a very disappointing article as the author seems ignorant of a great deal of the evidence, and seems to prefer to raise nonsensical questions as though they were indisputable facts. I will not waste my time enumerating all the errors and fallacies. Many of the earlier commenters have done just that.
I suggest that people read appendix T of the DSB Report and the Dutch Security Services report that T summarises. The essential point is that the Dutch Security Services concluded that the separatists did not have possession of BUK missiles, nor the means to fire them, nor the motive.
The second key point is that there were three US satellites overhead at the material time. They had the capacity to identify what was fired, from where, and by whom. According to Fred Westerbeke, the head of the JIT investigation, the US data have been supplied to the inquiry. There are a number of issues about exactly what can be released publicly.
There is a relatively simple question to pose. If the US satellite data showed conclusively that the separatists were responsible do you not think that we would have heard about it ad nauseum?
Can I also suggest that the theory that best fits the evidence is one of two things: it was either a deliberate attack on a civilian airliner with the intention of setting up Russia to take the blame, as we have seen played out; or the real target was Mr Putin’s plane and MH17 was desperately unlucky to be where it was when it was.
Oh please James, do not play the “the target was Putin’s plane’. Sick of this nonsense.
Sick of all those complete nonsense sites suggesting that ECHR did not accept the application.
We need truth now.
>ignorant of a great deal of the evidence
Please be specific, if you know any evidence that proves someone else than pro-rebel guys did it.
James O’Neill,
Your main point is invalid:
[The essential point is that the Dutch Security Services concluded that the separatists did not have possession of BUK missiles, nor the means to fire them, nor the motive.]
They concluded they had no information:
(ctivd-toezichtsrapport-nr-43-nl-hr-011015-def.pdf)
– The AIVD had no information to indicate that the separatists had an operational powerful air defense system before the crash of MH17, for example a Buk-systeem, also called SA11.
Last years the Dutch cut back on intelligence gathering in Ukraine.
The strangest thing in this disaster is:
Why did the Dutch governement immediatly and without hesitating ruledd out the possibility that Ukraine did it?
Ukraine had plenty of BUK units and misiles. Ukraine had a motive. Ukraine was on the crime scene.
Weapon, motive and presence on a crime scene is always enough to identify as a suspect.
Instead the Dutch governement teamed up with the suspect and even signed a non disclosure agreement.
Frits -> The obvious answer: because the United States informed the Dutch what they saw. Because another scenario like a false flag is not the most obvious to think of in the first 24 hours after the shot down.
Lets see what JIT presents in summer.
When MH17 cockpit photos emerged it also became pretty clear that missile has come from ahead and BUK on rebel lowloader was already seen.
Valid questions, mostly, especially:
> why Ukraine did not close its airspace while it must have know about presence of BUK sysyems
It was clear airspace safety was out of their control.
I would like to see Ukraine put responsible & to pay compensation for the victims.
> why many cockpit roof parts disappeared from the crash site?
+Why was those parts put in place on the reconstructed fuselage.
> why Ukraine did not hand over primary radar images
They said PSR was under maintenance, but more detailed explanation should be demanded.
> why Russia did not present a single, consequent story about what happened
> why Russia presented numerous clear lies and fakes
+1
>The Joint Investigation Team (JIT) will most likely release in July 2016 the exact type of BUK missile…
I think we know it already, but it is good if more in depth info/results are published.
> Separatists had a good reason to use heavy surface to air missiles to down Ukraine air force jets
+1
> Russia presented a lot of evidence most of which was easily proven to be faked
+1
US published less -> lower number of possible fakes. 😉
> Not a single evidence points to an Ukraine BUK responsible for shot down of MH17
+1
> An air to air missile is extremely unlikely to have downed MH17.
+1
> Dutch government is acting weird , not logical and seems to hide facts
No comment. You know it, I do not.
I just think Dutch are OK in reliability vs big players like USA etc.
> US government refuses to release their evidence to the public
I really do not think they have anyting but SIGINT + SBIRS data. Military intelligence data can be hard to verify by third party.
I believe the “fussy” SBIRS data plotted on 3D map is all they ever can offer vs MH17.
> Ukraine government and SBU made a few false claims.
+1
Indeed. SBU seems highly incompetent and corrupted.
>I believe on July 17 a BUK TELAR was transported on a lowloader plus Volvo truck from Donetsk to Snizhne, There are simply too many photos and videos which show the transport. Shadows are consistent with the timeline. Although the speed required to reach Zuhres is a bit high compared to the speed estimated on the May 12 video and the Zuhres video.
+1 +1
Exactly my thoughts.
The most weird video, IMO, is the Luhansk video of BUK launcher heading to south.
I would love to learn why anyone would be moving a BUK via that risky route. There can be good reasons, I hope I one day can study it enough to understand.
>The smoke plume photo is likely to be genuine. Shadows were calculated and fit the time. Is the plume of a BUK missile, something else or was the smoke added using Photoshop? Unsure.
+1
I did not yet manage to match the movement of the smoke vs time vs launch location.
>Did the BUK we saw on the videos and photos shot down MH17? Not sure. But likely.
+1
/me too hasty writing again
+Why was those parts NOT put in place on the reconstructed fuselage.
etc…
For some reason the Dutch were not in a hurry to recover the wreckage. We will never know why not all states requires a cease fire.
Why started Ukraine an offensive end of July making the crashsite dangerous to work on for recovery.
So important pieces are missing. Some parts were recovered later, like the roofpart shown in the Russia Today documentary. The part was not included in the reconstruction but shown to the press. I am not sure if TNO/NLR used this part in their investigation.
Still many unanswered questions on the reconstruction
>For some reason the Dutch were not in a hurry to recover the wreckage.
That was very frustrating to observe. Most likely investigators did not go because Ukraine said it was dangerous.
Meanwhile reporters and relatives were on the site.
>Why started Ukraine an offensive end of July making the crashsite dangerous to work on for recovery.
I’m not sure if it would have been possible for them to not to continue.
1) Their troops were trapped near the border.
2) Did rebels stop the fight at any moment in July?
3) Rebels were getting more troops and weapons from Russia, so perhaps UA thought it was their last change to end the war against terrorism.
4) They wanted to get control of the crash area for various reasons (to plant evidence?, stop evidence theft?, stop rebels from tampering the evidence?)
Compared to all your very sophisticated and informed posts i will sound very naiv, bur my reasoning goes like this:
– 3 days the event Kerry declared in all the Sunday Morning Talkshows, that the US know exactly, who was responsible and tnat they could prove it.
– the US did not come up with any material evidence
So I conclude:
– Kerry lied, they have no evidence whatsoever
or
– They have evidence, but it points to a different direction, so it can’t be made public.
To me this is pure logic. Could somebody pls. tell what’s wrong with my reasoning. Does it really take all that knowledge of technical details to come to a conclusion?
It is not logic at all. This is politics. Suppose the United States made some deal. They know Russia supported the separatists. They know a Russia supplied BUK shot down MH17. Most likely by error. By presenting irrefutable evidence Putin would be in a very nasty position. The western public might demand severe actions.
Russia is needed for many political issues like the Middle East.
There are many reasons why truth is not revealed (yet).
> Russia is needed for many political issues like the Middle East.
Russia has an important asset – it is one of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council. During the last four or five years, Russia vetoed all draft UNSC resolutions offered by the U.S. or/and its allies and aimed at toppling Syria’s Bashar Assad. If Russia had not had the permanent seat on the UNSC and thus had not had the right to veto, the U.S. would have got their way in Syria long ago and would not have to deal with Russia in the Middle East (or elsewhere). For the U.S., stripping Russia of the permanent UNSC membership would be a highly desirable achievement. An irrefutable proof of Russia’s responsibility for the shootdown of MH17 would be perhaps enough to make that happen.
US published their evidence in 2014.
It match what was found out later.
DSB saw the data and said it was inline with their findings.
JIT team said they have the data to use if they wish.
I think I’m realist when I say US had no HARD (“and see through”) evidence of exact origin of the missile. But it is possible SIGINT recorded TELAR radar signal (+location) and SBIRS possibly saw BUK coming above clouds, before it burned all it’s fuel. US might believe in their data, but I say it’s irrelevant and almost impossible to verify.
Solitpassi wrote: I think I’m realist when I say US had no HARD (“and see through”) evidence of exact origin of the missile.
No..we know that the Americans had a satellite overhead, and we know that they saw the launchsite. John Kerry told us.
Why are they hiding it. Who are they protecting?
They published public version of their data already in 2014.
But you seem to say you can see through the original US RAW data.
Do you know if this is part of their SAT data file:
“010011100010011101100011001011101”
I’m not able to see through it. I have no means to decode it. Doubt US gives me sources of their decoder SW etc..
(+I doubt they were able to see 650kg missile through clouds, so the accuracy could be low. US state they can see through clouds but I have not yet used military heat sight that can see through fog/cloud.)
Compare Donbas 17.07.2014 and now.
Maybe this is a reason why Russia still hiding theirs proofs.
Admin: why do you assume every story that comes from a Russian person must come from the Russian Federation?
Does every story that comes from a an American come from the american government?
There is one important thing that has been left out.
Why is America hiding the launch site??????
To comment on a few things, I can’t understand why someone still believes the narrative behind the deleted Strelkov_info message:
>> Separatists stated before July 17 they would shot down aircraft.<> Immediately after the shot down, on vKontakte it was claimed an Antonov was shot down.<> This was also reported in Russian press.<>There was also an eyewitness who mentioned seeing a missile.<>This was all within a few hours after the downing.<<
Which logically says nothing. Within the first moment EVERYBODY thought the same. There is no evidence whatsoever pro-separatist media outlets, like LifeNews or Strelkov_info, used first-hand accounts of a shooting.
Its the remarkable absence of first-hand accounts of a possible shooting at that very moment, that is interesting!
Spreading this disinformation was good luck for the SBU. Few hrs after people started to claim Strelkov conceiled evidence of the shooting – because the message with wronf info was retracted – they came up with the (fake) Bezler confession taps.
Unfortunately some info I wrote is missing in this post because of quotation problems.
It came down to this:
http://imgur.com/0apYCX0
Tarasenko was a proKiev nationalist, involved in many other alleged evidence.
The admins of Strelkov_info were obviously that desparate to find info about the downing, they even used his information to construct their second message – the one with the wrong info later retracted.
>>Not a single evidence points to an Ukraine BUK responsible for shot down of MH17<<
Thats because we don't know where the Ukrainian Buk units were at that moment, which is pretty usual. We have some footage of movements, but not that many.
When operating in the area south of Shakhtarsk and north from Amvrosievka, almost empty for kilometers, nobody will record them (maybe even out of fear, to copy an argument made by Bellingcat all the time).
But now admin is insinuating absence of knowledgde is an argument AGAINST Ukrainian involvement, which is very interesting.
Its imperative for the Ukrainian government to show where the Buk belonging to the 1st and 2nd brigade of the 156th regiment were at that moment.
Though the Russians may have misdated some SAT imagery, its important to speculate about the question why they issued the information shown. In this case: where were the operative Buks from Avdeevka airforce base A-1428 on july the 17th.
>> why Russia did not present a single, consequent story about what happened<<
Obviously admin has the impression this might say something of guilt, otherwise he wouldn't have mentioned it.
I would call this a "red herring". Its irrelevant.
1. Why should there be one story? Its usual a story is developping itself along time because new evidence or facts come up. Holding on to a story against all counter-evidence, like Bcat and the entire (pro)western community does, says more about their level and purpose of operations.
2. One could say with as much authorative power, the reason of the multi-facetted Russian story is because they are NOT knowing anything about the real operations behind the downing. If speculating about possible scenarios is a sign of guilt, then lock up the police force as thats what they are supposed to do.
So actually, mentioning this point is an implicit case for tunnelvision – having only one internally consistent story taylored to a certain culprit without investigating competitive scenarios.
> For a A2A missile I want strong evidence, no bullshot stories.
It seems you have different quality standards for different versions.
Buk version is built only on the impression created by pictures, videos, social network messages and dilettantes’ work – very fragile things to make conclusions. No hard facts support it. It IS a “bullshit story”.
Because the undoable things (that is the damage with ballistic and math applied) are against it:
– the real point of blow is 1.6-1.8m from the cockpit;
– the hole density (the number of holes) points to a smaller (than Buk) warhead;
– some holes have the size ~30mm;
Easy to check. So i have to point you that the right approach in any investigation is to make conclusions from facts not vice versa.
-A-A demonstrated 70kg is not enough from 4m distance.
-shrapnel holes prove variable size shrapnel in warhead (6…13mm shrapnel match)
-A-A confirmed twice it is BUK and nothing else
-larghe fragments found -> SAM (BUK)
-bowtie fragments found -> BUK M1 model
-BUK missile pieces found from inside of plane parts and human bodies
-SAM launch has lot of eyewitnesses
-BUK was seen by eyewitnesses
-BUK was photographed many times
-BUK was filmed many times
-BUK was seen from satellite
-Rebels said they have several BUKs
-rebels lost one BUK missile between 17Jul and 18Jul
-rebel announced they shot AN26 with BUK
-etc.
Yeah, not a BUK.
But show me 30mm holes on MH17.
> we see the helicopter near MH17 flight corridor, 40km ahead of MH17.
any proofs that it was a heli and not a balloon?
That place is in Rostov ATC responsibility area contrary to the Rozsypne.
(ATC centers are not interested in objects below 6km outside of their responsibility zone. Their software filters heavily unwanted echo marks).
> RU did not reveal it, they deleted the data.
According to the DSB Russia has a policy to not store primary radar raw data.
It is impossible to intentionally delete something not stored before by the policy.
The primary processed (not raw) data are stored and is keeping by Rosaviatsia.
The DSB lied regarding this.
This issue is still unclear for me. Because Storchevoi claimed at one moment at the Rosaviatsia’s briefing that “all necessary data” are stored.
> See aloha airlines tragedy
a different aircraft built in a different epoch from different materials
the different altitude, the different speed, the pilots were alive, avionics
was undamaged, controllable fly, the different damaged place… all different.
It seems you apply the logic ‘never happened before’ to argument.
Let apply this logic to the Buk and what would we get?
Impossible because a Buk did never shot an airliner down.
Bad (and luckily good) things are doomed to happen the first time.
>> we see the helicopter near MH17 flight corridor, 40km ahead of MH17.
>any proofs that it was a heli and not a balloon?
Balloon is not visible in PSR.
Balloon does not move like that.
Balloon does not appear + diosappear.
Cloud base was pretty low. Doubt heli would be above clouds, would not make sense.
It is possible that filters went off or PSR power was increased automatically, immediately when SSR stopped working, because the heli suddenly appeared. (but no f.jet is seen)
>> RU did not reveal it, they deleted the data.
>According to the DSB Russia has a policy to not store primary radar raw data.
Right. That is illegal. RU should not be part of international aviation.
>It is impossible to intentionally delete something not stored before by the policy.
They payed back the video from the stored original raw data.
They generated the ATC view at least twice from the raw material.
So they had the stored data, that is 100% certain. But they deleted it.
>> See aloha airlines tragedy
>a different aircraft built in a different epoch from different materials
So you think jumbo-jet is weaker. LOL!
>the pilots were alive,
DSB stated forward fuselage of MH17 was ripped of because explosion + shrapnel.
Aloha did not have that, even when lost upper half of forward fuselage.
According to DSB MH17 cocpit ripped away from the main body in 3 seconds, so why mention alive pilots? You think alive pilots could have saved MH17.
You have made too many claims without proofs.
Helicopter below clouds is the most logical explanation for the “UFO” on radar. Feel free to find some realistic alternative for it (appears+disappears, moves below200kmh, fly towards Ukraine border, does not seem to fly in straight line).
For RU originally having the raw SSR+PSR DATA, see this:
http://web.archive.org/web/20141101190830/https://whoisstrelkov.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/decoupled.jpg
<- The radar video shown by RU MOD few days after crash was recorded from radar data playback.
and https://whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/small-rusian.jpg
this helps you to not to believe in magic invisible jet attacking MH17
You find the analysis of forward fuselage breakoff happening, by the explosion+shrapnel in 1…3 seconds after warhead detonation pressure wave, from DSB material. (emergency beacon timer was triggered when high G forces was detected, after fuselage balance was broken, etc)
-> you then understand that the destruction of MH17 was done by just one large weapon
(FDR,CVR,ATC,debris field, wreckage, radar material, all confirm this)
Then…
Find out what size are the rivets & their drill holes.
Then compare.
(quick draft)
-> you will not become fooled then by “magic (variable size & square) bullet hole believers”
Forum engine ate part of my post:
“…small-rusian.jpg
– The photo is image of radar data playback (or a fake drawing)
Education:
https://whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/russian-atc-lesson-101-the-phantom-su25/
https://whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/russian-radar-does-not-show-any-ukraine-fighter-aircraft/
– this helps you to not to believe in magic invisible jet attacking MH17
You find…”
Some of the questions can easily be answered if you assume that MH-17 was a false-flag attack which is covered up. Some arguments for this case:
Obviously Ukraine did not close its airspace because they wanted to make this “accident” happen. Keeping the airspace open was mandatory in this sense.
In the first days after the crash – after the bodies were recovered – the Ukrainians clearly were trying to delay the investigation. They shelled the crash site to prevent investigators travelling from Kiev to the crash site. The placed BUK shrapnel found later by Jeroen Akkermans (and possibly also placed BUK missile parts) can be interpreted as an Ukrainian attempt to cover up what happened and to provide “evidence” for a BUK missile. I do not know if cockpit parts really disappeared, but removing evidence which does not fit the BUK narrative makes sense in case of a false-flag.
Apparently later all parties agreed to cover-up the shootdown and the “unknown BUK launched from somewhere” seems to be the narrative consented to in the background. From this agreement on all parties behaved (or lied) according to the story accepted, which explains why Ukrainian radars were in repair, why the Russians deleted their raw radar data, why the Americans won’t show their satellite images (if they exist), and why there are many open questions regarding the DSB report.
This “unknown BUK” is a “political missile” as I already tried to explain in another post – obviously the West has no proof for a separatist BUK launch and the Russians seem to be happy with this reasonable compromise because they cannot enforce their version (a fighter jet shot down MH-17 using AAM) against the huge majority of western countries involved.
You have to think the unthinkable to understand …
> You have to think the unthinkable to understand …
That is a silly argument. “Thinking the unthinkable” is in your case making the involved parties very powerful: parties that can do false-flag attacks and cover those up.
Everything can be easily solved if you make the parties very powerful. For example: Some of the questions can easily be answered by introducing an malevolent god. You have to think the unthinkable to understand …
Nice misinterpretation.
What I meant is that – at least for some people – it is very difficult to understand that there was no BUK missile involved when the mass media tell you hundred times a day seven days a week that MH-17 was shot down with a BUK missile.
One element seems missing from the however unlikely “Python” option in the list from the article. Georgia also owns, besides the BUK (another interesting angle perhaps?) the Python 5 or heavier Derby(Python-4) missiles mounted as SAM on the mobile platform called SPYDER (1)(2). These have been reported being in use already on the Georgia-Russia war and at least one installation also went “missing” during that conflict (2), presumably captured by Russians because who else?
This appears to be the SPYDER short range (SR) model with a max altitude range listed of 9km but this is dependent on the presence of rocket booster modules. More information is welcome also on HE fragmentation warheads used in the missiles (Python and/or Derby).
This is interesting in the context of ongoing Georgian and Ukrainian military cooperation through GUAM and the presence of the “Georgian Legion” as well as Saakashvili’s party/militia members in East Ukraine as well as the earlier Maiden square (3)(4). Not to mention the seriously failing air defenses which cost Georgia the 2008 war when Russia moved in with their (not that overwhelming) air force, something Ukraine was openly afraid of starting spring 2014. The paranoia seems clear enough to supply some motive and opportunity for this scenario to remain somewhat viable (until falsified).
Last but not least, there’s this Mikheil Saakashvili, former Georgian president who started/pushed the Georgia-Russia war, left his country in 2013 under pressure, became quite involved in the Maiden revolution and was granted Ukrainian citizenship and became Governor of Odessa Oblast in Ukraine in 2015. (5)
(1) http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=526
(2) http://www.cast.ru/files/The_Tanks_of_August_sm_eng.pdf
(3) http://www.ibtimes.com/east-ukraine-russia-conflict-meet-georgian-soldier-who-cant-stop-fighting-moscow-2078618
(4) http://journal-neo.org/2015/10/08/mamuka-mamulashvili-a-threat-to-georgia-s-national-security-or-everyone-else-s/
(5) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikheil_Saakashvili
Note: the SPYDER SR truck mounted launcher is actually listed with intercept altitude of “> 9km” for non-boosted Python based missiles according to the marketing flyer from the manufacturer, Rafael (1). This means this SAM option, however remote, cannot be yet excluded yet based on specification or current owner.
(1) http://www.rafael.co.il/marketing/SIP_STORAGE/FILES/1/1201.pdf
There exist bowtie holes in Mh17 wreckage and bowtie fragments were found from crew.
Does Python/spyder have bowties?
Does it have other fragment sizes?
Did you know Almaz-Antey found full match, done by three different fragment sizes and said only BUK possible of all SAM options?
(For those silly and insane theories, R27 based SAM manufactured by Ukraine would be a better option.)
All the SPYDER/Python options involve fragmentation warheads. The specifications are not public to my knowing and it would unusual if they were since it’s a modern missile in use as SAM but more so as AAM in the most modern and relevant fleets.
The relevance of my post however, was the potential availability of a SPYDER SR vehicle in this conflict, since it was documented by some as being used against the Russians before, by Saakashvili’s troops but then got seemingly “lost”, all a few years before MH-17.
The big difference with other theories: SPYDER SR is a relatively light-weight truck mounted mobile unit, much easier to transport than a BUK. And it’s obviously a simpler more stealth option compared to refurbished SU25’s flying around with all the ground crew involved in such operation (the common Python reference).
Although still a long shot theory, it would solve possible any demand for a closer detonation distance and a smaller but effective warhead being used (eg lower fragment count). It would also show way less, almost no contrail, compared to old BUK (and this is important for any 4th generation SAM, because of detection rate).
The downside: needs to explain current BUK parts being recovered and it would involve extended cover-up to make it look a Russian BUK did it. This would mean possible extensive premeditation. But I’d like to see this option being excluded nevertheless and not just ignored.