Not as important as petty rockets in Israel, but apparently Malaysian Airliner downed by rocket fire

[Ford]

So you're leaving yourself an option open where given the opportunity you can walk back everything and blame it all on those pesky Ukrainians.

I can't parse that to have any contextual meaning.
Maybe it's squirrel brain of yours.

Sorry. I forgot that you're plunging through a layer of Kremlin propaganda every time you post here. Allow me to simplify:

I think it is great that you admit pro-Russians were probably responsible. That's a huge step.

I understand that every fiber of your being wants to blame this on "the West."


Don't struggle. I'm sure that someday you may be able to admit that Russia is maybe involved in some other shenanigans. Not today, of course. Baby steps. Baby steps.

 

[tupac chopra]

What evidence do you have that it was?

The aircraft ELB came down 32 nautical miles (59km) from Donetsk Airport on bearing 078 (12^o North of due East).

According to this map, published by the BBC on 18 July, the area East of Donetsk was, at that time, under rebel control.

According to YOUR OWN source, the maximum range of the BUK M1, (which according to YOUR OWN source is the system the Ukraine has available), is 16km; so the missile can only have been fired from a rebel controlled area, or by somebody other than the Ukraine forces.

You didn't read the source properly. That analysis (assuming it even has merit) is based on a missile "in pursuit" fired from Chernukhino, and that whoever fired it had to quickly react as they didn't know it was coming



And so you will also note if you read the source that his conclusion is.

RESUME OF ANALYSIS: What all this means is that if a BUK rocket was launched from the territory controlled by the Militia, the Boeing would have fallen much further to the south-east – i.e. will into the Russian territory. Otherwise, there would have been not time to detect the aircraft, perform electronic capture and launch the rocket. If this was a BUK, and not a jet fighter, then it is most likely that the launch was made from the territory controlled by the Ukrainian army, and the rocket was sent “chasing after” the airplane.​

 

[laruan]

 

[tupac chopra]

View attachment 687

Yes we certainly can't tolerate what the government in Kiev is doing. Bombing kindergartens, dropping phosphorus bombs , killing journalists and shooting at hospitals. And now apparently firing missiles and passenger jets.

 

[bilby]

The aircraft ELB came down 32 nautical miles (59km) from Donetsk Airport on bearing 078 (12^o North of due East).

According to this map, published by the BBC on 18 July, the area East of Donetsk was, at that time, under rebel control.

According to YOUR OWN source, the maximum range of the BUK M1, (which according to YOUR OWN source is the system the Ukraine has available), is 16km; so the missile can only have been fired from a rebel controlled area, or by somebody other than the Ukraine forces.

You didn't read the source properly. That analysis (assuming it even has merit) is based on a missile "in pursuit" fired from Chernukhino, and that whoever fired it had to quickly react as they didn't know it was coming

And so you will also note if you read the source that his conclusion is.

RESUME OF ANALYSIS: What all this means is that if a BUK rocket was launched from the territory controlled by the Militia, the Boeing would have fallen much further to the south-east – i.e. will into the Russian territory. Otherwise, there would have been not time to detect the aircraft, perform electronic capture and launch the rocket. If this was a BUK, and not a jet fighter, then it is most likely that the launch was made from the territory controlled by the Ukrainian army, and the rocket was sent “chasing after” the airplane.​

I note that you have conveniently forgotten that I told you earlier that 'pursuit' is only significant when firing on supersonic fighters; the speed differential between a SAM and an airliner doing Mach0.82 is so large that the airliner is effectively stationary from the POV of the missile.

As for not knowing it was coming, several hundred airliners used that airway on that day. There was always one coming - unless you think MH017 was specifically targeted, and that no other airliner would have been fired upon. Even then, reading the flight plan would give several hours notice of the plane's approach.

That entire analysis is deeply flawed; I referenced it only as a source you might trust for the range of the missiles in question. That one datum is the only part of it that matters to my analysis.

If you accept that figure, the rest of the (sourced and referenced) information in my post leads inevitably to the conclusion that the aircraft was shot down from rebel controlled territory.

That is not proof that the rebels did it; but it does mean it would have been very hard indeed for somebody else to - a Ukrainian Buk would have had a very hard time getting into range without the rebels taking it out on the ground.

 

[dystopian]

Which video do you think is not a fake?

I already linked one of them earlier in the thread. I will not repeat myself.

What photos are you talking about.

No, what photos are YOU Talking about. You're the one claiming they were faked without providing any evidence or even the photos themselves.

Why don't any of you guys ever provide evidence?.

Why don't you? Why doesn't Russia? You CLAIM russia has provided evidence, but it really hasn't. What it has released is a bunch of vague maps, random claims, and images it claims to be radar screengrabs; which aren't very credible.

the US government has said they have no evidence of a BUK coming from or going to Russia.

They've said the exact opposite.

The Ukranians have said the rebels did not get one of their. All the photos I have seen have been debunked.

None of the photos have been debunked. Russia saying they're faked does not represent a debunking.

We how are you suggesting these reports be verified?

The same way we verify any eyewitness report; by first establishing the identities of the eyewitnesses, then establishing their whereabouts during the relevant timeframe, and then matching their story with the actual facts.

 

[dystopian]

Well you have moved the goalposts Dystopian put up, but that's not really your fault. He said ..."others which are certainly NOT faked " So Dystopian is now claiming there are multiple videos "certainly NOT faked" ...and further he said ..."some of these photos have reliably and independently been sourced to the location in question."

I have already, earlier in this thread, pointed to a video and photo which have indeed been independently sourced to Torez; and for which there is zero evidence that they're faked.

But as for that daily mail link, at least some of those photos have been debunked.

Provide this supposed 'debunking'. Once again, Russia claiming they're faked does not mean much. Provide the arguments, point to the stray pixels, provide SOMETHING other than baseless claims. Please.

Even the USA is now being ultra cautious and saying one of the videos in "not confirmed".

First of all? Where has it done this? Second of all; who gives a shit? Saying x is not confirmed doesn't mean it's faked.

photo seems to show this. And plenty of people are denying that.

What photo? They haven't released any photos that show your version of events.

 

[dystopian]

Are you implying that the ones which reported lies about Odessa incident are dependent and have not corrected their obvious lie?
Care to give a link to these independent western media outlets?
And no, bloggers don't count. Something with a TV station, or actual paper paper.

When have they ever lied? Give me specific examples where they knowingly lied. I have only ever seen them report the facts as best they were/are known and put forth reasonable interpretations thereof. Incidentally, it's pretty fucking hypocritical to start saying how bloggers don't count when pretty much the only sources spinning your chosen narrative on odessa (or the plane, or anything else) are themselves bloggers and conspiracy websites.

Really? that's what you think I think?

That's what I *know*, that's what *everyone* knows.

Fucking ukrainians themselves pretty much confirmed that they were lying, that there were all unarmed ukrainians, and there were no snipers

When the fuck do governments ever confirm that they were lying? If you're going to try and convince me, at least have semi-plausible arguments instead of complete bullshit.

and drone on and on about how the western media don't support your interpretation. And you use odessa whenever you're faced with arguments you can't defeat by actually addressing them. Fuck off about Odessa, it has nothing to do with the plane; and the fact that in your opinion western media don't pay enough attention to it does nothing to absolve the blatant disregard for the truth in the Russian media. The western media may not be perfect, but at least it doesn't routinely outright lie to us like Russian media does.

You mister is full of shit!

Lol, okay. I will interpret that statement as evidence that I hit a nerve. What's the matter, can't stand the fact that I so easily pointed out your MO? Maybe you're upset that you yourself didn't even consciously realize you were doing this.

 

[dystopian]

They were not destroying evidence.they were searching the plane, they said it themselves in the intercepted phone conversation.

Searching a plane does not entail cutting up the bits of debris with weapon marks on them, nor does it entail going to town on the cockpit with fucking power saws.

How do you think they found black boxes?

Since when does recovering a small bright orange box require the deliberate cutting up of pieces of wreckage that clearly aren't hiding it?

How do you think they determined that plane contained no weapons?

Are you fucking kidding me? It was a CIVILIAN plane; you don't have to cut up the wreckage to determine that.

You mister is incredibly biased against russia and can't see anything which does not support your incredibly retarded and biased hate against russians.

So far western media lied way more than Russian state media.

I'm sure you could provide evidence of this claim.

Oops, what I meant to say was; I'm sure you could provide absolutely zero evidence of this claim.

 

[tupac chopra]

That is not proof that the rebels did it; but it does mean it would have been very hard indeed for somebody else to - a Ukrainian Buk would have had a very hard time getting into range without the rebels taking it out on the ground.

You are not in any position to say that though, as you are getting your information from the internet. Unless you know the precise movements of the rebels, and whether the maps you download bear much semblance to reality at all points
What I am saying is that these are the kinds of questions that need to asked, and in time people who are actually competent to answer them will.
Whether the guy who wrote that blog is right or wrong we don't know. I think you'll happily admit you're not competent to answer these kinds of questions though.
What we can say is that he is on the right track as far as asking the right questions goes.

If the missile was fired from rebel controlled territory then the Americans would simply release the information.
That they aren't doing that should set your bullshit detector off.

There is not one piece of evidence that points to the missile coming from rebel territory...not one.

But I encourage you to keep thinking maybe some will turn up.

 

[tupac chopra]

I have already, earlier in this thread, pointed to a video and photo which have indeed been independently sourced to Torez; and for which there is zero evidence that they're faked.

Where? Who independently verified it?
What are you hiding? Why are you hiding it?

 

[tupac chopra]

I have already, earlier in this thread, pointed to a video and photo which have indeed been independently sourced to Torez; and for which there is zero evidence that they're faked.

Where? Who independently verified it?

No one...no one has properly examined them I call bullshit.

No one even knows who is responsible for the images. For you to claim they are independently verified is bullshit!

 

[bilby]

That is not proof that the rebels did it; but it does mean it would have been very hard indeed for somebody else to - a Ukrainian Buk would have had a very hard time getting into range without the rebels taking it out on the ground.

You are not in any position to say that though, as you are getting your information from the internet. Unless you know the precise movements of the rebels, and whether the maps you download bear much semblance to reality at all points
What I am saying is that these are the kinds of questions that need to asked, and in time people who are actually competent to answer them will.
Whether the guy who wrote that blog is right or wrong we don't know. I think you'll happily admit you're not competent to answer these kinds of questions though.
What we can say is that he is on the right track as far as asking the right questions goes.

If the missile was fired from rebel controlled territory then the Americans would simply release the information.
That they aren't doing that should set your bullshit detector off.

There is not one piece of evidence that points to the missile coming from rebel territory...not one.

But I encourage you to keep thinking maybe some will turn up.

Yes, yes, nobody can ever know anything; yada yada.

Save it for the philosophy forum.

The evidence strongly suggests. That it is not 100% certain does NOT mean that all hypotheses are equal.

Most likely, I am right; most likely you are wrong.

But for some reason you prefer to back the outside chance. Well, there is one born every minute.

That you dismiss my well sourced evidence does not make it disappear; there is a difference between "There is no certainty that...", which is true; and "There is not one piece of evidence that points to...", which is an outright denial of what I just placed right before your eyes.

It is evidence; unless you can provide a contrary piece of evidence from a source at least as reliable as the BBC, you are no more convincing than a kid in the playground who responds "is not" to everything.

If the BBC have it wrong, no doubt you can find evidence of their error. Something more convincing than covering you eyes and saying "I can't see one price of evidence...".

There are none so blind as those who refuse to look.

 

[dystopian]

I have already, earlier in this thread, pointed to a video and photo which have indeed been independently sourced to Torez; and for which there is zero evidence that they're faked.

Where? Who independently verified it?

I did it my motherfucking self, you can do it too, assuming you don't keep looking away when your eyes see something they don't like. I explained how to do it in the post; just dig through the fucking thread for fuck's sake, it's not that hard. All you need is the photos/videos, clearly visible landmarks in them, and a fucking map.

What are you hiding? Why are you hiding it?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But right now what we have is
1.Several lines of "fake" evidence trying to point to the rebels.
2.The USA claiming to have evidence against the rebels but not releasing it
3.The Ukrainians in Kiev claiming to have evidence against the rebels but not releasing it.
4.Loads of people such as the ones in this thread claiming that the rebels did it, but having Zero evidence.

None of this points to the rebels, yet apparently we know they did it, without having to rely on evidence.

Fake? Just because they say things you don't like doesn't make them fake. Here's a summary of what we have:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6ee_1405625074

 

[Loren Pechtel]

They were not destroying evidence.they were searching the plane, they said it themselves in the intercepted phone conversation.

Destroying. That's not how you conduct a search.

How do you think they found black boxes?

The location of the black boxes isn't secret. The only time they're hard to find is if they are separated from the rest of the wreckage.

How do you think they determined that plane contained no weapons?

Why would they even be looking for weapons? One look at the wreckage is enough to show it was a commercial airliner and not a Ukrainian warplane.

- - - Updated - - -

It does look more and more like if the plane was shot down using a BUK launcher, and that the Ukranians from Kiev are complete amateurs when it comes to fabricating evidence.
First there was the fake video supposedly with rebel forces admitting to the shooting down, which had the wrong timestamp.

Except that's a system bug that has already been demonstrated with other videos, including the steps to reproduce.

 

[barbos]

Searching a plane does not entail cutting up the bits of debris with weapon marks on them, nor does it entail going to town on the cockpit with fucking power saws

They forgot to ask you how to search a plane
Just give them a call and remind that you are always there for the advice.

 

[barbos]

Destroying. That's not how you conduct a search.

Nope, that's how they conduct a search.

How do you think they found black boxes?

The location of the black boxes isn't secret. The only time they're hard to find is if they are separated from the rest of the wreckage.

Yeah, and if they did not know, they could have asked Loren Pechtel.

How do you think they determined that plane contained no weapons?

Why would they even be looking for weapons?

Because they need weapons

One look at the wreckage is enough to show it was a commercial airliner and not a Ukrainian warplane.

And everyone knows commercial airliner simply can not carry weapons.
Again, they forgot to ask Loren Pechtel.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And so you will also note if you read the source that his conclusion is.

RESUME OF ANALYSIS: What all this means is that if a BUK rocket was launched from the territory controlled by the Militia, the Boeing would have fallen much further to the south-east – i.e. will into the Russian territory. Otherwise, there would have been not time to detect the aircraft, perform electronic capture and launch the rocket. If this was a BUK, and not a jet fighter, then it is most likely that the launch was made from the territory controlled by the Ukrainian army, and the rocket was sent “chasing after” the airplane.​

Huh? The plane only needs to be in radar range for detection and acquisition. Against a dumb opponent it doesn't even need to be in flight range to fire. What counts is the intercept position--so long as that it within the range of the missile it will hit even if the target was beyond range when you push the button. (Against an aware and competent opponent this will normally just waste a missile as they'll turn aside and let the missile run out of energy.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

View attachment 687

Yes we certainly can't tolerate what the government in Kiev is doing. Bombing kindergartens, dropping phosphorus bombs , killing journalists and shooting at hospitals. And now apparently firing missiles and passenger jets.

All your sources seem to be from a very pro-rebel site.

And none of them address whether they were valid targets or not. Just showing the protected nature of what was hit doesn't prove that they weren't being misused.

As for that journalist killing:

Having escaped with locals he told Vesti: “I ran over to our guys and to the soldiers wounded in the explosion, while trying to get some footage and help people to safety. We walked for a kilometer… it was dangerous walking in the open," he said.

In other words, the reporter was with troops. Sorry, but an embedded reporter takes basically the same risks as the troops they're with. While they shouldn't be aimed at, neither are they spared when weapons are aimed at the troops.