New study shows BUK videos are fake
A new study by Sergey Mastepanov on the videos showing a BUK in Eastern Ukraine on July 17 concludes that these videos are fake.
This conclusion is remarkable as Bellingcat will finaly publish its latest study at February 24. The Bellingcat report is said to conclude that about 20 Russian people must know who shot down MH17.
The Bellingcat narrative is completely based on these faked videos and photod.
All three videos have problems suggesting that the vehicles, including the Buk launcher, were added into the videos with the help of photo and video manipulation software, such as Adobe Photoshop and Adobe After Effects. The vehicles in the videos are most likely just photoshopped images. The videos have common characteristics: the vehicles have low picture quality and are blurry, they are shown at a far distance (excluding the Luhansk video), at a limited angle, you cannot see the wheels spinning of any vehicles, and in two videos, the truck with the Buk are visible only for about four seconds. Two videos were uploaded by anonymous accounts that have no other videos, one of which was created on the day of the incident. The third video was uploaded by Ukrainian officials. Evidence exists of deliberate deception by Ukrainian officials concerning the location of the area shown in the Luhansk video.
Read the very detailled report here
I’ve only read the summary plus the section on the Luhansk video, but the author doesn’t present any real evidence that the BUK was photoshopped into that video.
He lists what he believes are signs of video manipulation, which he also sees in the other two videos:
“Summary
All three videos have problems suggesting that the vehicles, including the Buk launcher, were added into the videos with the help of photo and video manipulation software, such as Adobe Photoshop and Adobe After Effects. The vehicles in the videos are most likely just photoshopped images. The videos have common characteristics: the vehicles have low picture quality and are blurry, they are shown at a far distance (excluding the Luhansk video), at a limited angle, you cannot see the wheels spinning of any vehicles, and in two videos, the truck with the Buk are visible only for about four seconds.”
…
“Luhansk video. The video is of low quality and is blurry, just like the truck with the Buk. You cannot even see the wheels spinning. It shows the vehicles at a limited angle for only four seconds. It is possible to create the animation of the truck and the Buk as seen in the video with just having one photoshopped photo of the truck and the Buk.”
Considering that the videos are supposed to have been taken by undercover agents, the video isn’t particularily “low picture quality” or “blurry”, and neither does it have a very limited angle or duration. You can’t expect studio quality in those conditions.
When the camera position and lighting are far from ideal, it’s no surprise that there isn’t enough resolution to show the wheels of the truck spinning. Anyway, much of that fine detail will be lost in the compression into a lossy format like MP4.
It doesn’t make any sense why the Ukrainians would want to create a fake Luhansk BUK video anyway. As the author says, it shows a very unlikely scene of the Russians making their getaway:
“The video shows the Buk launcher with a missing missile, but the Buk’s back is covered. Since the video was allegedly made about twelve hours after MH17 crashed, the driver is aware of what happened. Let’s pretend that you are one of the separatists and you shot down MH17 by accident. Would you then take this strange and dangerous route, cover the Buk’s back, but not the missiles, and parade the Buk with a missing missile in a major city, such as Luhansk? I don’t think so.”
The only explanation for the alleged photoshopping that I can find in the report is that the Ukrainians wanted to be “caught” – they set a trap for the Russians.
Sorry, but that sounds a bit like like a conspiracy theory. Kiev is not really that clever.
The report does highlight one real problem with the Luhansk video. The telephone number on the yellow plate is not even the slightest bit visible. The number can be seen on that sign in the Torez photo, assuming that it’s the same truck with the same sign.
Even allowing for motion blur, the video should have enough resolution to show something recognisable as numbers on that sign.
You can make out the double blue stripe on the cab, and also the door handle. You can also see the shape of the letters on the billboard, which are roughly the same size as the telephone number, even when the camera is zoomed a bit further out.
So you should be able to at least see some kind of shape of the black digits of the phone number on a yellow background on the truck’s sign.
It’s possible that that one part of the video was deliberately blurred out, maybe to cover up a descrepancy between it and the other images. That’s much easier to do than inserting a moving BUK and truck into the video.
The only other possible explanation I can think of is that the “Russians” painted over the sign somewhere between Torez and Luhansk. That seems unlikely when you consider how recklessly they allegedly parade the Buk through Luhansk in the video.
The report provides a very good description of the history and content of the Luhansk video. It’s a pity that the speculation in it about the “added Buk” distracts from that information. That’s a lot like the argument about the real location of the video, where many people say it was not shot in Luhansk.
I should just add that the most important thing about the Luhansk video is that, whatever it shows, it’s not the getaway vehicle with a Buk launcher that shot down MH17. There are many reasons to believe that that’s not what it shows, including the reasons given above.
What about the width of the BUK in the Luhansk vid, Brendan. Do you think its possible it was small enough to fit behind the yellow plate?
And about the Torez picture: Do you think its possible the 88 cm high low-loader can almost completely hide behind grass only about approximately 20 cm high?
No, its a real good guess beforehand, these images have been manipulated as were the Paris Match pix with a probability boarding on certainty.
Now Sergey has proven the Snizhne vid contains a manipulated frame, the curtain has fallen for this one too.
The Buk in the Luhansk video looks to me a different Buk. The front side is higher. I agree with you Brendan. I don’t think the video’s were manipulated, if so why not create the “Luhansk” video in a Krasnodon setting. The Luhansk video proofs nothing, that is why they said at first the video was made in Krasnodon.
>if so why not create the “Luhansk” video in a Krasnodon setting
Maybe they did not have a base video in Krasnodon to insert the image into.
It’s not clear why SBU named Krasnodon, while at the same time saying it was shot by their operatives.
New issue about the video have been recently found. Apparently south of Luhansk had no electricity on 18th after the power unit/building/hub (not sure about the right term) for the area got destroyed. But on the video you can see street lights on. Street lighting gets switched off first during power shortages.
Well, then you should come up with an explanation why the Snizhne vid contains a frame with digitally cut tree:
Forensic analyst Charles Wood reproduced Sergey’s method with other tools and got the same:
, You should read The Grand Chessboard by Brzezinski (Carter and Obama adviser) and once you understand what pivots and game changing events are, please reconsider labeling something a conspiracy theory. It’s not a conspiracy, it’s documented and established agenda.
For example: Why would Ukraine refuse to hand over and why did the Dutch Safety Board or Dutch State prosecutor not ask for radar data? The data could contain evidence in favor of/gainst Russia and the same for Ukraine. In what case would Ukraine not relase the radar data?
Connect the dots. Wake up and smell the coffee.
Eugene wrote: [It’s not clear why SBU named Krasnodon, while at the same time saying it was shot by their operatives.}
Here is maybe why. On the 17th at a press conference the Ukrainians said that a video of a buk already existed in Lughansk. This is likely the video we have.
later on they wanted to say that they had evidence of the video on the morning of the 18th July heading back to Russia.
They there fore claimed it was in Krasnodon so that people didn’t realise that this video preexisted the downing of MH17
Great link. Thanks.
I don’t agree with critique by Brendan. Manipulation of videos and photos is more important than discussion about location. Faking of videos and photos and the method they were implanted is a direct evidence of false flag from Ukrainian side. There is literally nothing to argue about anylonger.
In regards of Lughansk video, everyone forgets about another “historic” perspective. A blunder by Bellingcat that ruins the special operatives story from Avakov https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/08/13/billy-six-interview-investigating-the-luhansk-mh17-buk-video/
I wonder what Bellingcats were smoking when they created that art piece
What is the blunder?
They replace Avakov’s special operatives by an old lady whose nephew is a Lughansk Republic supporter. No follow up by “independent” open source investigators. At least they could ask their friend Avakov to comment on this undercover babushka Natasha. They put so much effort on secondary or even thirdly evidence from Facebook fake account but simple question to real account is impossible for them to conceive. If it is not a blunder, please help with more relevant term.
I mostly agree on what Brendan wrote.
In the end most likely all videos are real. Even the paris match “screenshots”. There was a BUK, like witnesses confirm and MH17 debris prove.
What needs to be done is to interview the photographers and other eyewitnesses & find the persons who shot the missile.
(With a little common sense everyone should understand that Kiev would not be able to arrange that caliber false flag. They can not even tell the difference of their and russian military HW.)
“In the end most likely all videos are real. ”
The report directly shows video manipulation mistake in Snizhne video. But you just keep blind. Fantastic Stength of your tunnel. No earthquake can destroy it.
So now you keen to listen to witnesses, none is still identified by name, except of debunked photographer of Buk missile trail. He doesn’t know physics of sound propagation. But should not be too strict. Many people don’t know. You for example. While for planes in the skies on 17th we have several witness identified by name. But you don’t like them because…. Just because
“for planes in the skies on 17th”
We know for sure there was no plane near MH17.
We know for sure MH17 was exploded by BUK that came from ahead of the plane.
We know Russia (and UA) lied and continue to do so.
That much we know.
What is left is to find the persons who were at the launcher and who gave the order. Currently there is sure death penalty locally for anyone speaking against novorussia.
“We know for sure there was no plane near MH17.”
The only thing we know is that Russian MOD didn’t provide convincing evidence that plane was there. Everything else is just your speculation.
“We know for sure MH17 was exploded by BUK that came from ahead of the plane.” that statement is totally wrong. You absolutely cannot be sure about. Just the fact that there is no reason why command vehicle with Snow drift radar cannot redirect the missile to any direction they want, is already puts professionalism of DSB in big question. How can they blindly assume that in terms of ground projection missile will go in straight line? There are even youtube videos where Buk missile makes nearly 90 degrees turn. Then we have direct evidence of DSB at best misreprenting but most likely deliberately Manipulating data, in order to fit a pre-required solution. And of course there is a very low probability that pilot and co-pilot would not notice the missile with thick plume behind approaching from in-front and thus, not provide at least some comment about it for voice recorder.
And finally you seem to be totally ignorant of the article discussed here. But let me summarise consequences for you. The only party that was 100% sure about BUK already on the day of disaster were Ukrs. Their argument was based mainly on 4 things: 1) intercepted telephone conversations; 2) social media messages of rebels boasting about downing AN26, like from girkingirkin; 3) anonymous fee hours lived accounts on social media providing photos and videos of BUK within rebel territory; 4) BUK trail photo from Ukr retired officer.
#1 was found to be a poor job of stitching several unrelated intercepts together – fake evidence. #2 – is just plain stupid, as Strelkov for months was telling that he doesn’t have any social media account, the existing ones are shills and rebel related information should be checked only on one particular website. #3 – the article here clearly showed that at least one video was digitally manipulated in a way that is used for inserting new objects in that video. Other videos were also shown to be vulnerable to manipulation. More to this the specific cut/duratikn of the videos indicates that they were manipulated because any longer piece would make manipulation hard to hide. #4 – proven to be a fake story from Ukr officer who is not aware of how sound propagates. So all 4 arguments are discredited but we still have a fact that Ukrs new that BUK missile hit the plane hours after the event. There is only one reason left why they new this information with such sureness, they shot missile. Although there is still an option for rebels shooting the missile but then Ukrs taking over control of it and redirecting it at MH17. In this case again they would know so precisely what happened but it doesn’t make them look better. Case is more or less closed.
> And of course there is a very low probability that pilot and co-pilot would not notice the missile with thick plume behind approaching from in-front
Firstly, the missile’s engine had burned off at least 15 seconds before it hit the plane. So, there was no “thick plume”.
Secondly, pilots are oblivious on long flights at cruising altitude until something beeps. It is an incredibly boring job to watch the dials for 10 hours on end. The view outside is not particularly exciting either. Do you look out the window much while flying? I don’t, and people around me neither. Potentially the pilots could have noticed the approaching missile during the last second, but this is not very likely. Also, if they received the course correction request, they’d normally look down to re-set the autopilot, and not out the window.
> Just the fact that there is no reason why command vehicle with Snow drift radar cannot redirect the missile to any direction they want, is already puts professionalism of DSB in big question.
The missile inertial guidance can indeed receive updates from the ground during the first phase of flight, but I don’t think there are manual means to control this, unless you hack the Buk. During the second phase, after the seeker has caught the target, the missile only flies towards the target (using proportional navigation pretty much) and is not be steerable from the ground.
> How can they blindly assume that in terms of ground projection missile will go in straight line?
At least during the second phase the missile will fly quite straight if the target flies straight, which is our case. The reasons for this are:
-The missile field of view is pretty narrow – only around 10 degrees. If the target is lost out of this narrow sector the missile will self destruct in 3 seconds.
-The missile cannot steer much during the un-powered flight as this will result in a great loss of kinetic energy: a 90 degree manoeuvre for an object with as low glide ratio as that of a Buk will kill most of the speed.
AA might have sweetened their estimate for the possible deviation from straightness of 4 degrees, but not by much. Other knowledgeable people estimate it to be under 10 degrees.
> There are even youtube videos where Buk missile makes nearly 90 degrees turn
On those videos a few things might have happened:
-You see the sharp turn into the level flight after the initial boost (~4 seconds).
-You see the plume sheered by layered winds, thinking that was the trajectory.
-While watching along the trajectory, which is true for most Buk videos, a sort of perspective compression takes place. For example, these rails are a lot straighter than they look on the picture: http://www.buzzodd.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/8.jpg
Or plane landings can look a lot more dramatic with a high zoom:
Due to the perspective compression the real deviations would be smaller than how the look.
-We don’t see from the ground what a missile is doing after the engine has burned off.
> there is still an option for rebels shooting the missile but then Ukrs taking over control of it and redirecting it at MH17
This is a very long shot. How do you even define the task for the pilot of the plane to act as an initial/fake target? If you look into details you’ll see that it is ridiculously difficult to pull such a trick, and can only by suggested by people with superficial knowledge. A lot easier for Ukraine would be to simply plant fragments from a wrong missile, and this is what they did.
I think you need to try to raise quality of your arguments or you are not helping the case.
Eugene,
You are right about the time limit of engine work but you forget that in such long distance approach the missile will have to cross the field of view of the pilot, while engine is still on. hence there will be a white column that will stand out of the cloud cover in front of the dark blue sky horizon. Very unconventional view and noticeable view. The black dot approaching (with slight angle it will be cylinder for quite a while before intercept) is also quite distinguishable.
Regarding pilot attention you would be right if there was no ATC transcript (unfortunately black box transcript is still a secret), which shows that less than 1 minute before the intercept pilot was informed that he should change the direction because of the incoming traffic. Pilot acknowledged the information and was going to perform the maneuver. ATC controller didn’t indicate the distance to the incoming traffic. After two plane collided above Switzerland, killing more than hundred children from Russia. Pilots are very careful about such messages from ATC. And they definitely start looking around for other planes. So yes, pilots are not often paying attention to the skies around but not in this case.
Missile indeed poorly controlled without engine. But while the engine is on it can make turns off high G. See here from 2:20
DOn’t forget that Snijnee location is just the fairy tale by Ukraine and Bellingcat. What if the missile was shot from a much closer location to the intercept zone at a low flying Su-24. The initial direction of missile is irrelevant. While command center with Snow Drift Radar can redirect it while the engine is still on. Or if Su-24 crosses the potential path of the rocket and plane within the field of view of the seaker. Then much stronger signal of Snow Drift can overpower reflection from the TELAR. Tell me why is it impossible. But forget about the Snijne as the launch.
Antidyatel,
> But while the engine is on it can make turns off high G. See here from 2:20
I think I’ve seen all Buk launch videos. There appear to be three distinct phases of flight:
1) Initial climb of around 7 seconds. During this phase the missile climbs straight along the rail direction.
2) Then it switches to the actual inertial guidance. It recalls the direction to the meeting point and follows it (possibly receiving updates to that direction from the ground).
3) Quite close to the target the seeker catches the reflected signal and the missile switches to the PN from the seeker. This scheme is employed to work around the limited sensitivity of the 30cm antenna.
On that video we probably see the switch from the phase 1 to 2. The turn to the side is caused by the wrong original orientation of the shoe (I was always interested if it was possible, thinking not). It is also possible that the part of the video starting from 2:20 needs to be rotated by 90 degrees, making it resemble the other videos a lot better (try it, it looks like it makes more sense this way).
> Tell me why is it impossible. But forget about the Snijne as the launch.
Let’s first try to define the task to the pilot:
-You need to keep between that ground point on the ground and the 777 behind you.
-Then when you see the launch from that point, wait till the missile gets close (to make sure that it switched to the seeker guidance, which happens quite close to the target).
-Perform the evasive maneuver. But don’t worry we will be lighting the 777 behind you, so the missile will switch to it.
-Remember that you need to keep yourself on the missile-777 line quite precisely – within 10 degrees (the missile field of view), or the missile will not switch over.
Military pilots are quite aware that their chances in a dual against a Buk are low. I don’t think many would like to act as a fake target.
Now. As I said the Buk switches over to the seeker quite close to the target, due to the small sensitivity of the little antenna. At this point the 777 will need to be visible to the seeker, and, as you say, actually be brighter. But the pilot cannot be close to 777 because he needs to keep below 5 km, not to be detectable by civilian radars. Then the distance from the missile to 777, at this point will be a lot bigger than the distance to the fake target. Therefore the reflected beam from 777 has to be (a lot)^2 stronger than the reflected beam from the fake target. This is not achievable.
Additionally, have you thought about the signal frequencies? How do you make sure that the frequency of the stronger beam matches that of the Buk? Measure it? Buk can potentially, AFAIK, shoot at multiple targets at once (correct me if I am wrong, not too sure) thus it needs to employ several frequencies to guide the missiles independently.
A planned false flag provocation like that would need to rely on random factors. If you ever premeditated a crime, you’d know that any factors beyond your control have a great negative impact on the perceived chances of success. You just don’t premeditate by greatly relying on chances.
It’s very hard to believe that it’s a BUK missile that makes that sudden sharp turn at 2:29 in the video.
It seems to go against the laws of physics to say that the Buk could lose so much of its forward momentum so quickly. Sorry to anyone if they find the following paragraph a bit technical, as it probably requires some knowledge of vectors.
Even if the missile could turn its orientation sideways that quickly, it has very little to cause a sudden forward deceleration. It only has the air resistance on the surface area of its cylinder and fins to slow it down. That’s not enough to dissipate most of the power of a Buk launch in less than a second.
And even if it could manage to turn that quickly, the air resistance should cause the missile to deform, maybe even snap in two.
If the video is not a fake, then the thing suddenly turning is more likely to be the target than the missile chasing after it. Look at what that part of the video shows: It contains the overlapped videos of two flying objects, but it does not say what they are. After a while, both of their contrails fade out of view, and then we see the explosion. The way I see it, the object that’s flying more or less straight is the Buk, and the one making the sudden turn is the target.
Brendon,
> The way I see it, the object that’s flying more or less straight is the Buk, and the one making the sudden turn is the target.
It well can be. Buk is designed to also shoot at the so called “ballistic” targets, such as other missiles.
The Buk that’s launched at 2:08 also changes its direction (at 2:18), but much less dramaticaly than the sharp turn of the other object later. The Buk’s trajectory looks like how Almaz-Antey describe the change from a straight line path to a more ballistic one after about eight seconds.
Eugene, I didn’t understand about the 90 degrees rotation. Pay attention that it is no just direction that is changed the climbing angle is also changed, so it is not just change in direction. It looks like a totally new target was given to the missile.
7 seconds for initial phase is too long. Minimum target Distance that BUK can engage is 3 km. So initial phase will not be longer than 5 seconds. I don’t think that multiple targets are distinguished by radar frequency. Frequency hopping is one of the features for BUK system to avoid jamming, if I understand correctly. So they will shoot themselves know the leg if each missile relies on particular frequency. Plus missile antenna is not frequency specific. Just a general X-band. Target differentiation is likely done through coordinate and range data, in assumption that target cannot teleport and thus, break the continuous trajectory.
Now, in regards scenario of redirecting the missile. Just to clarify, this is in assumption that rebels actually launch it, which we don’t know about. Launch by Ukrainians themselves is still more likely scenario that makes them so sure that it was a Buk. To understand how the redirection could work, you need to add two I witnesses into the picture. And in contrast to Bellingcat /SBU witnesses, these two didn’t hide their identities. One is the lady, forgot the name, that informed in June 2014 that Ukr planes are flying in the shadow of the airliners. Meaning that they only fly when they can be just below the airliner, not so difficult to do with known data from civil radars. Then we have Bulatov Lev Aleksandrovich http://7mei.nl/2015/05/30/lev/
Listen to what he witnessed. The jet sharply goes up. Then after a while explosions. Now imagine that Ukrainian jets are constantly flying under the passenger airliner. Ukrainian intelligence knows about rebel BUK TELAR. Snow drift radars a brought close to the battle lines, although doesn’t need to he too close due to large range capability. Russian MoD have detected increased activity of Ukrainian Kupols(snow drifts) in the days leading to the tragedy. Now, when rebels finally decided to use their TELAR at a low flying jet, the pilot get a message from the ground and immediately start to climb up. Within seconds he will be close to the airliner and in view of the missile antenna. Kupol’s illumination beam is just 0.5 degree wide and the power is very high. Plus airliner reflection cross section is much larger than for Military jet. And so you get the scenario with much less random parameters. And it also puts the testimony of Bulatov -the only witness who was ready to testify under oath – in correct perspective and as actual piece of the puzzle. He was dismissed my media only because su-24 didn’t seem to have capability to destroy airliner in this fashion. But if SU24 was just a bait then his description start to make sense.
Brendan, Buk missile is designed to withstand turns with up to 25G force. So sharp turns are not an issue, as long as they have thrust behind. Air resistance in front is irrelevant until the engine is off. Then yes, you can’t make sharp turns. You need this turning capability in order to chase F15s and destroy them with 90% probability.
The second missile explodes at the end of the video, I don’t think it is a target. The contrails of both missiles in the video are the same. After turn the second missile actually makes similar parabolic climb as the first missile just viewed from the side.
Antidyatel, the only way that an object with the mass and speed of a BUK missile can change direction that quickly (approx 90 degrees in less than a second) is if it bounces off something solid. Even if the Buk could suddenly swing itself around with perfect accuracy, it doesn’t have the thrust to quickly reverse the forward momentum which it has taken several seconds to create.
Antidyatel,
> I didn’t understand about the 90 degrees rotation.
As if someone had shot the part starting at 2:20 with a smart phone in portrait orientation and then did not rotate the video back while composing. Smartphones were not widely used then, however, so I don’t now think that was the case.
> 7 seconds for initial phase is too long.
Looks like 7-8 seconds based on your video. Though the video might be slowed down and the right length is 4 seconds or so.
> Minimum target Distance that BUK can engage is 3 km.
Maybe flight program is changed depending on the target distance.
> I don’t think that multiple targets are distinguished by radar frequency. Frequency hopping is one of the features for BUK system to avoid jamming, if I understand correctly. Plus missile antenna is not frequency specific. Just a general X-band.
If Buk employs frequency hopping then the missile only listens on one frequency (which might get selected from a small supported bank before the launch). If it does not it still listens only a set frequency because it also measures the Doppler shift to get the target approach speed (which is used to modulate the detonation delay).
> To understand how the redirection could work, you need to add two I witnesses into the picture.
I remember seeing those witnesses, but I could not make sense of how flying in the shadow of a passenger plane could help against manpads in use. Possibly this way the Russian/Donetsk civilian radars could not distinguish the warplanes from civilian aircraft and could not warn the rebels on the ground.
> Now imagine that Ukrainian jets are constantly flying under the passenger airliner.
If the fake target was close to 777 then it would be visible to the civilian radar after 777 fell. If it was below 5k, then 777 should have been illuminated by a ~50x (an order of magnitude estimate) more powerful beam for the target switch-over. This already makes it pretty much impossible. Plus a fake target pilot could not precisely (within 10 degrees) keep on the Buk-777 line. This idea of Ukraine making a plan based on re-targeting is a fantasy.
Eugene, the turn of the rocket is quite smooth and continuous. So it unlikely that there was stitching in the video.
Regarding shadowing. It was already discussed here that rebels could have something stronger than MANPADS by the time of the interview of the lady. Otherwise her statement doesn’t make sense indeed.
The illumination beam of Kupol’s is 0.5 degrees. For TELAR is is roughly 1.4 by 2.4 degrees, giving you ~13 times difference in power density. CW power for Kupol is 16-18 Kw, while for fire dome it is 2 Kw. So your 50x figure is not so implausible.
In the proposed scenario while the jet is ascending it will be overlapped on the radar with the mark for the airliner. On the way down it will appear on the screen until it drops below 5 km again. Can it be distinguished from large debris is a another question? I don’t know. But your claim of implausibility is made too soon.
To keep the plane within 10 degrees field of view is not so difficult. The problem is arranged in such a way that missile will always go from low altitude to high. Jet just need to go straight up and the condition is more or less ensured. It is really not a difficult scenario.
Definitely not just a fantasy.
Your statement about Doppler should be dropped. For Doppler measurement you need both source and receiver. While Buk missile has just a receiver. Measurement principle doesn’t work this way. Please read about proximity fuse, it is a separate system from receiving antenna in Buk missile.
Well simply ignoring all counterevidence is also a way to react.
What eyewitnesses are you talking about? The AP account issued after the crash? The people they put on stage, in their 25 july article, who saw a BUK at the same road where the famous GirkinGirkin had tweeted about?
Or the realtime infowarriors relaying second hand, sometimes contradicting info?
The Euromaidan facebook message, perhaps, not confirmed by even one single reply?
Or the people the JIT looked for in their SBU/Bellingcat structured tunnel?
And where are the pro-separatist accounts of the BUK movement? There was a huge conspiracy involving every pro-separatist in the Donbass to not issue any information about transport along the hundreds of kilometer from Millerovo – Sjevernje – Krasnodon – Donetsk – Snizhne – Luhansk – Sjevernje?
I´m not surprised intelligent people are coming to the conclusion that the buk videos/photos are fakes. What can you expect when a team of deceit operatives (Bellingcat) is turned into the “official” western investigation? Or when there´s no original files of the photos/videos, also why do the authors remain unknown and of course don´t come forward? The fact is there was no russian buk in eastern ukraine. Where is it? No one has proved it. That´s a fairy tale to hide the dark motives why mh17 was shot down.
>The fact is there was no russian buk in eastern ukraine.
The fact is there was a BUK in the area that was under rebel “control”. (“control” as it can be in messy war situation)
I (+most others +DSB) know it because BUK missile hit MH17 and it came from ahead of MH17.
> Where is it?
It was scrapped very fast. Buried in some old mine or melted with other recycled metal.
>No one has proved it.
From ahead coming BUK missile proved without any doubts from any independent professional. So there must have been a TELAR near MH17 flight path.
So far there is no indications that it would have been UA BUK. There are some indications that it was a Russian (like 90% of the HW on the hands of the novorussia soldiers at the time).
>That´s a fairy tale to hide the dark motives why mh17 was shot down.
It is believing in fairy tales, if you think there was some dark (CIA) motives to bring down MH17. (IMHO)
DPR/LPR/novorussia just wanted to stop support flights to the UA troops that were trapped near the border, without the need to launch SAMs from Russia’s soil. Then they made the fatal mistake.
Plenty of ukrainian buks in eastern ukraine but no russian ones to be seen. Can you should me one russian buk at least? (please don´t use fake images/videos)
I can show you some, but I will have to use photos that Ukrainian intelligence supplied that seem to be dated wrong (if they are even real).
I can’t show you any that can be verified in even the most superficial way though
There were no russian buks in eastern ukraine. The americans know this well, hence the fake material by ukrainian sources.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-crisis-airplane-intelligence-idUSKBN0FO00B20140719
“There was no U.S. intelligence showing an SA-11 crossing the border into Ukraine, the Pentagon said.”
Every child knows that it is possible to fake videos and photos.
But that is not absolutely necessary. It is enough if one uses the wrong date.
And therein Andriy Lysenko seems to have a certain amount of practice.
Article November 12/2014:
„Speaking on Monday at his regular press conference, the military spokesman Colonel Andriy Lysenko said the region had been “flooded with a large number of enemy personnel and advanced weaponry”. As proof, he presented a video showing a convoy supposedly moving from Russia to Snizhne in Donetsk region. The problem, as military bloggers later pointed out, was that the video was shot in March in an area now controlled by Ukrainians.“
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-crisis-fragile-ceasefire-gives-way-to-increased-wave-of-military-activity-in-the-east-9857182.html
Brendan:
“…the only way that an object with the mass and speed of a BUK missile can change direction that quickly (approx 90 degrees in less than a second) is if it bounces off something solid. Even if the Buk could suddenly swing itself around with perfect accuracy, it doesn’t have the thrust to quickly reverse the forward momentum which it has taken several seconds to create.”
Let’s say the SAM has burnt all it’s fuel, it’s traveling at 700 m/s and it performs a maximum aerodynamic 90 degree horizontal turn (no vectored thrust) following an arc of 700 meters in length in one second – 1/4 of a circle whose radius is approx 1500 meters. Is such a maneuver inconceivable in the horizontal plane?
WTM, we are talking about the case when engine is still working. It is initial stage, just after booster
Antidyatel:
“…we are talking about the case when engine is still working. It is initial stage, just after booster.”
Sorry for the misunderstanding – do we have any data from A-A (or perhaps from other reliable sources) regarding the maneuvering limits of 9M38 type missiles at differing stages of their flight?
Brendan, I should have been more careful. Please don’t take 90 degrees turn so literally. The video is shot in perspective and there will still be a forward momentum. So the radius of trajectory curvature will not be infinitesimally small. But it is still small enough.
Here is what Israeli pilots have seen when Buks were shot at them. The contrails indicate pretty sharp turns for missiles.
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/four-israeli-f-15s-dodged-syrian-missile-fire-to-attack-urgent-targets-a28cff11323d#.2mkg2htut
Eugene,
You stopped commenting about the possibility of MH17 pilot noticing missile approaching from the front. Are you still sure that it is a low probability event?
Antidyatel,
> Your statement about Doppler
should be dropped. For Doppler
measurement you need both
source and receiver.
Not necessarily. Knowing wave source velocity, which is zero in our case of stationery Buk on the ground, is enough.
> You stopped commenting about the
possibility of MH17 pilot noticing missile
approaching from the front. Are you still
sure that it is a low probability event?
Yes I still think so. Even if pilots did look out the window, a fresh Buk plum will not be very noticeable at a 15 km distance. Furthermore, it will not be a sight of danger worth shouting about.
“Not necessarily. Knowing wave source velocity, which is zero in our case of stationery Buk on the ground, is enough.”
Show me, which part of BUK missile can discriminate frequencies. And how do you imagine the receiver on the missile moving at 700 m/s going to use Doppler effect in determining the detonation delay. You don’t make sense. This is beyond the fact that BUK missile has a proximity fuse that is totally independent of the signal from the TELAR or Kupol. It is just a separate device.
You seem to be quick to ignore important topics. You gave 50x figure on power and used this as an argument to dismiss the suggested scenario. When you are shown that Kupol actually can give you more than 50x power density than TELAR, you go silent? Very immature. Please consider at least acknowledging arguments.
15 km was not a problem for Ukrainian photographer to pay attention tot he alleged plume and consider it important for photograph (the estimated distance is >12 km from his flat to alleged launch location). And this is in a zone where rocket launchers are operating on the daily basis. In case of pilot the vertical plume in the sky just in front is definitely a not an ignorable sight. Particularly as the plume will not be just stay there but actually grow in front of pilot’s eyes. And human is much more sensitive to details which are changing with time in the picture. Same argument goes to noticing the approaching missile. Yes, missile goes fast. And at 10 km it will look like a dot. But it will be a moving dot that is growing in size with time. Human eye resolution at day 0.0128 deg, giving 0.45 m resolution for 2 km distance (>2 seconds before the intercept). Buk missile diameter is 0.4 m. In reality it will not be flying perfectly straight at pilot, so effective visible cross-section with fins will be much larger. But the main point is that the black dot on a mainly uniform background will be moving and changing in size, while the pilot would be looking around for approaching objects from a far. Remember that ATC didn’t provide distance to and direction from for the approaching traffic.
> Show me, which part of BUK missile can discriminate frequencies.
The same part that discriminates frequencies on a satellites dish of a traffic police speed radar. It’s called circuitry. The Buk seeker continuously tracks the reflected frequency and therefore knows the target approach speed. One of the signals that go from the seeker to the warhead is a voltage proportional the approach speed. That is if you read textbooks.
Buk missile has a small bank of 32 supported frequencies (different quartz crystals), some of which are selected pre-launch for use. This is again speaks against the retargeting fantasy of yours.
> And how do you imagine the receiver on the missile moving at 700 m/s going to use Doppler effect in determining the detonation delay.
The detonation delay depends on the approach speed to make sure the missile explodes after it has flown past the edge of the target by a few (3?) metres. What’s so difficult in understanding that? A modulation of the delay is needed because Buk is designed to engage targets with a wide range of speeds, from helicopters to other missiles. It can kill those targets both while coming from ahead or chasing from behind. Therefore the range of possible target approach speed is enormous.
> You don’t make sense.
This is because you are full of erroneous information. Let’s bring up the summary of your performance on this thread, shall we?
-“Thick plume”. You apparently did not know that the missile would fly unpowered for a rather large distance before it would hit the plane.
-“Impossible to get the speed for a Doppler shift if the source and the receiver are not the same”. That’s a pretty basic mistake for a physics PhD. Poor.
-You don’t know “which part of the missile” can discriminate frequencies, while there are plenty of real life devices around you that do.
> This is beyond the fact that BUK missile has a proximity fuse that is totally independent of the signal from the TELAR or Kupol.
I hardly understand what you mean here. The proximity fuse roughly consists of the following: slit antenna, delay circuit, and the fuse itself.
> You seem to be quick to ignore important topics.
It is not interesting to argue with you. You make bold claims while at the same time showing that you don’t know basic relevant information.
> You gave 50x figure on power and used this as an argument to dismiss the suggested scenario. When you are shown that Kupol actually can give you more than 50x power density than TELAR, you go silent? Very immature.
You don’t know how much more powerful Kupol is compared to Telar. This is classified information and your estimates can be very wrong. My estimate of 50x is also very rough (up-to an order of magnitude).
Let’s dissect the retargeting fantasy more:
-Pre-launch (and possibly continuously via ground commands) the Buk missile receives a Doppler shift to listen at. This is done to facilitate the seeker regaining the reflected signal (Does anyone remember Huygens probe problem of this kind?). This will also prevent the seeker of seeing a target with a wrong speed. If the fake target’s pilot wants to mimic the 777, he will have to match the 777 speed too, or the chances of the seeker switching over to 777 could be reduced.
-Illumination frequencies are not known ahead of time. They are randomly selected from a bank pre-launch. Kupol needs to somehow measure which frequency Tellar illuminates the 777 with and match it. Otherwise, 777 will be invisible to the Buk missile seeker. I don’t think that a frequency scanning function is available on Kupol.
-The flight path of a Buk missile initially goes quickly up. At the point when the guidance is switched to the seeker the missile is very high up, likely higher than the 777. At this point the fake target has to be on the missile-777 line, so also at or above the 777 altitude. If the fake target is far away from the airliner it would be well distinguishable on civilian radars. Therefore, the only realistic possibility for retargeting is only when the fake plane keeps close to 777. But in this case:
1) This fake plane must somehow secretly disappear from radars after the 777 falls (or keep falling near 777 till 5k, which would be another fantasy).
2) The pilot of a fake plane needs to do evasive manoeuvre after the missile has switched to the seeker guidance, not before. At this point the missile is pretty much invisible as the fuel had burned off long ago. Even if the kamikaze pilot of the fake plane spots the missile during the last second or so, it’s well not enough time to evade it.
3) Buk crew will know that what they are shooting at looks very much like a passenger plane and will not be so eager to press the button.
Overall, this plan is indeed only a product of wild imagination and is impossible in practice.
As to the rest of your comments. Even if there is merit in what you say there is no use in bringing up the argument that the pilots must have seen the missile, because it’s not waterproof. If there is a scope for doubt, the argument gives us nothing. The doubts are:
-Pilots were less likely to be looking out the window than not. Whatever you say in response does not have much weight to me, because my opinion is at least remotely based on pilot accounts. There must be pilots reading this thread. Why would not you speak up?
-The plume was not very noticeable. At the point of impact the closest distance to the plume was around 15 km. And we don’t know whether it would be visible or not, it can even be white-on-white. The plume itself did not constitute a sight of danger for the reason of great distance.
-The missile itself would be noticeable only for around a second or so. I don’t think this is enough time to figure out what’s going on and shout.
Hahaha. You have too much aplomb for no particular reason. Will go through the whole reply later but just want to ask. Do you know how Doppler works even? You do understand that missile speed in relation of reflecting target will affect the frequency received by missile antenna. And this effect will be even stronger than contribution from plane speed. And now tell me, oh professor con-geniality, which frequency or which quatz crystal will be chosen in the missile program before launch? you can choose any radar frequency from TELAR as example. Where do you get such ideas?
Now let’s dissect Mr. Obnoxious.
“Buk missile has a small bank of 32 supported frequencies (different quartz crystals), some of which are selected pre-launch for use.”
Don’t know where you got this information. The only thing similar was a perspective rocket 9K37M3 that seem to be still under development and has 36 target channels that will enter service in 2016. The purpose of Doppler based discrimination has no relation there to the estimation of explosion distance but just for discrimination of different targets based on signatures introduced into spectrum based on Doppler shift. The primary targeting is still based on Line of sight error signals. Tell me how Doppler will help you to estimate distance to target that turned 90 degrees in relation to the missile trajectory.
“I hardly understand what you mean here. The proximity fuse roughly consists of the following: slit antenna, delay circuit, and the fuse itself”
Please read about the proximity fuse before posting.
“Антенная система РВ служит для излучения электромагнитных колебаний, создаваемых СВЧ-генератором, и для приема электромагнитных колебаний, отраженных от цели.” http://bookini.ru/zenitnye-raketnye-kompleksy-buk-raketa-9m38m1-ustrojstvo-i-funktsionirovanie/45/
Proximity fuse on BUK missile has its own radio generator and receiver. He doesn’t need your signal from TELAR or from KUPOL. You are really embarrassing yourself. Stop it.
“This is again speaks against the retargeting fantasy of yours.”
Let me give you some more understanding of the problem. http://www.rusarmy.com/pvo/pvo_vsk/zrk_buk.html
“При работе в составе ЗРК при управлении от КП СОУ может использоваться в качестве пусковой установки, в режиме стрельбы с “чужим подсветом” и принимать участие в решении комплексом задачи координатной поддержки.” Do you really need me to explain the meaning behind the “чужим подсветом”? BUK TELAR has it as basic function that KUPOL or another TELAR can support in guiding the missile launched from it, for the purpose of fighting against radio electronic suppression. Obviously your fantasy with 32 crystals can by flushed away.
“You don’t know how much more powerful Kupol is compared to Telar. This is classified information and your estimates can be very wrong.”
Nope. This information is freely available. But I’m tired of doing literature review for you.
The redirection of missile by a powerful beam from a system that is closer.
Obtekay
Antidyatel,
> “Buk missile has a small bank of 32 supported frequencies (different quartz crystals), some of which are selected pre-launch for use.”
Don’t know where you got this information. The only thing similar was a perspective rocket 9K37M3 that seem to be still under development and has 36 target channels that will enter service in 2016.
I was hinting that the information is coming from textbooks, haven’t you noticed? Specifically the infamous Buk textbook by Ieltsin. Russian quote from page 21: “Радиолокационная головка самонаведения (РГС), установленная на ракете 9М38М1, полуактивная, доплеровского типа, предназначена для выработки и выдачи в автопилот команд, обеспечи-вающих полет ракеты по принятому методу наведения, а также для выработки и выдачи в радиовзрыватель (РВ) команд и сигналов, обеспечивающих работу РВ. Наряду с традиционной для ГСН радио-аппаратурой в РГС включены дешифратор сигналов радиокоррекции и упрощенный аналог инерциальной системы с датчиками линейных ускорений и спецвычислителем. В состав РГС также входит один из четырех сменных приборов, позволяющих устанавливать по восемь литерных частот каждый (32 литерных частоты).”
Also note that the quote mentions that the seeker sends the signals to the fuse, specifically the one about the approach velocity to modulate the explosion delay (find somewhere else in the book).
Additionally note that the very same quote specifically mentions the seeker being of the Doppler type.
It occurred to me that you asked the question about “what part differentiates the frequencies” because you thought that the missile just looks for any soft of radio emission regardless of frequency. And having such basic knowledge about how the system works you make bold claims about possibility of re-targeting.
Ok, even if you don’t know the system, I have no clue why you continue questioning that the frequency differentiation can be employed. 20 buck Chinese RC toys have the capability to select/replace the quartz’s. In Buk this is employed for the same reason as in the RC toys – to stop interference between different items (missiles). In Buk it is also employed to remove possible hindrance by the enemy. Buk system is exported to a number of countries. You don’t want to loose possibility to use the system in case it surfaces on the other side. The frequency setting blocks are, therefore, made easily replaceable, and are guarded similarly to cipher units.
> Tell me how Doppler will help you to estimate distance to target that turned 90 degrees in relation to the missile trajectory.
Telar keeps sending the updates about the changed target speed in the form of updated Doppler shift. I said that already.
> “I hardly understand what you mean here. The proximity fuse roughly consists of the following: slit antenna, delay circuit, and the fuse itself”. Proximity fuse on BUK missile has its own radio generator and receiver. He doesn’t need your signal from TELAR or from KUPOL. You are really embarrassing yourself. Stop it.
Yes, and I specifically said “*slit* antenna”, so that you don’t mix it up with the seeker antenna. But you did it anyway. Go ahead, examine the quote and embarrass yourself.
Buk missile has overall three antennas. The third one is a low-gain antenna located somewhere on the back. I don’t know where exactly, but I suppose it can be just a wire going along an edge of a fin.
> Do you really need me to explain the meaning behind the “чужим подсветом”? BUK TELAR has it as basic function that KUPOL or another TELAR can support in guiding the missile launched from it, for the purpose of fighting against radio electronic suppression. Obviously your fantasy with 32 crystals can by flushed away.
No. It is simply you being unable to guess that Kupol also has the same frequency setting block.
Basically, you continue to act like I described before: making bold claims without knowing relevant technical information. And your character, laziness or whatever stops you from augmenting your reasoning by consideration other real-life examples such as RC-toys, satellite dishes, etc.
I guess, my reply was somehow detected as spam by the site. Here it is as an image:
http://uploads.ru/zhGDe.png
Eugene, so I admit that you were right about the bank of 32 frequencies. But the actual wording mean that those some frequencies that are pre-selected count as 8 frequencies. And guess what, 8 frequencies are those that Telar will be switching to if the enemy is using radiolectronic counter-measures. Why would they need to switch frequency for this? Because the enemy is capable of tracking the Telar CW signal and use the exact frequency to fight the missile. When such attempt is detected Telar shifts frequency in 1.3 seconds, Which is enough as the missile guidance systems allows for the loss of target for up to 3 seconds before self-destruct. However, if the counter measures are not directed at missile but are used to redirect it at a target beyond the range of the missile, TELAR would not know that problem exists. This quite a common tactics against SAMs already described in literature, usually accomplished by another plane. But nothing stops Kupol or another TELAR that has prior information on any of those frequencies to redirect the missile. The function of guiding missile with foreign illumination (чужая подсветка) is described on page 8 of the same book and in other sources that I quoted earlier. This function is used when the launching TELAR is suppressed radioelectonically or malfunctions. So if Ukrainians had a prior knowledge about which frequency bank is in missiles or if they detected rebels signal there was no problem of redirecting it, in the scenario of SU24 flying just below MH17.
I’m glad that you finally corrected yourself. And missile indeed need another receiver to track the Doppler shift due to relative movement of missile from the source. And that is why I claimed that just seeker cannot perform correct Doppler shift measurement.
The proximity fuse is indeed based on Doppler but what you are not capable of reading in the same book, is that the fuse has its own source and receiver. It doesn’t need information from the seaker, which will be quite inaccurate. If you make an effort and read the book, you can find for example in the description of figure 9 that 48 — крышка передающей антенны радиовзрывателя; 48а — крышка приемной антенны радиовзрывателя; 49 — лючок №2. There is no need for the fuse to get speed information from the main seaker that is relatively inaccurate. If fuse has its own source, which doesn’t need to be powerful as it has to work in PROXIMITY, he can perform simple mathematics for detonation. Just second paragraph after the one that you quoted to me says that the fuse is of active type Радиовзрыватель (неконтактный, импульсный, активный). The only information that he will need from seaker is when to switch on and when to self-destruct in case of the miss. Please, read carefully the chapter on the fuse electronics. It is quite clearly described there.
Obviously the quartz frequency corresponds to the base frequency to compare the reflected frequency against (to get the doppler shift). A corresponding quartz is selected on a Tellar.
After making such trivial mistakes that i listed, i dont think you have much chance in catching me on anything. You can even extend your search sitewise, mr poorly educated.
Nice try. Let’s agree that I’m uneducated. Now, my dear professor, be so king and explain how rocket’s so “called circuitry” circuity can establish the speed of a moving plane that is illuminated by stationary radar and which is approached by rocket with constantly varying speed magnitude and projection on imaginary intercept line? You do understand that frequency will change with the speed of receiver, don’t you?
And again, this is apart from the fact that detonation location is determined by proximity fuse that has its own source and antenna, totally independent of antenna that we are talking about.
The Zugres Buk video was shot on the 5th of July (that day the area was under UA control), according to the person who shot it. Interview with him on the very balcony the video was shot from:
The commentator says more interesting revelations are coming.
The balcony glass has the same defects as can be seen on the original video. So the place is confirmed. The account on YouTube was created yesterday, likely for the purpose.
Max vd Werff visited the place and asked questions to inhabitants. the apartment was inhabited by an alcoholic man, who was not regularly at home. He passed away about 5 months after the crash. Possibly it was used as a SBU observation post.
See his “Lying for justice” on kremlintroll.nl
The weather of the 5th doesn’t match, anyway the wind doesn’t.
North-eastern wind, not southern or south-eastern
http://meteo.ua/archive/329/zugres/2014-7-5
> the apartment was inhabited by an alcoholic man
An alcoholic would unlikely be filming.
The fact that a man from the apartment died could be tracked/verified. If the flat was used as an SBU observation post, then we should expect some contradicting information coming forward.
Those videos have under 200 views. There are really few people are interested in the subject nowadays
Interesting video in both Russian and English language. My personal believe is that this is an actor telling he filmed the convoy at July 5.
Lets try to find out weather conditions, who controlled the area at July 5 to see if the statements makes sense.
He’s a genuine person living at the correct address, the Russian Community have confirmed that. Whether he’s telling a truth or not is the only question.
Want to see his passport. Andrey Andryushin = Andrey And = But it was also MASH, , someone who blocked me after I asked from whom he had got the video.
Ukrain-at-war said in a 2015 blog this was a “SBU video”. Now it has been made by this man still living in the apartment?
Hector, I am looking. The person is from Zugres as his old deleted VK page seems to confirm this.
http://radaris.ru/p/%D0%90%D0%BD%D0%B4%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B9/%D0%90%D0%BD%D0%B4%D1%80%D1%8E%D1%88%D0%B8%D0%BD/
He went to school N17, which is also close to the place.
> blocked me after I asked from whom he had got the video
Was it today?
Yes, it seems to be him.
No he blocked me earlier. I have asked him again if he is the man interviewed.
It’s all pretty strange so far. The guy is likely local. It is possible that the twitter/Youtube accounts that supplied the video in the first place were named after him, but were not actually him.
Is he lying now? If he was the original person who filmed the video, in his place, I’d stay silent now (unless offered what I could not refuse). His now deleted VK account was created very long time ago (by ID).
He probably can produce the original video if he is not lying.
I wonder if it is possible to see the creation date of those accounts BC say they got the video from?