Russia: Don't look for who did the MH17 shootdown

[tupac chopra]

While it's true it can be altered, unless you're an expert you will leave evidence it has been altered.
Even an expert will probably leave clues

No, date can be altered by a non expert just fine.
But you said it contained time which was not consistent with shadows and general time frame so these french decided to correct it?
But that would prove that time was probably manipulated and there is no reason to believe the date was correct.

Not the French IIRC , but Bellingcat who claimed to be in contact with Paris Match

 

[Ford]

Only sources to be trusted are Russian. Always truthful Russian media are. All others are assholes...especially Dutch!

 

[barbos]

No, date can be altered by a non expert just fine.
But you said it contained time which was not consistent with shadows and general time frame so these french decided to correct it?
But that would prove that time was probably manipulated and there is no reason to believe the date was correct.

Not the French IIRC , but Bellingcat who claimed to be in contact with Paris Match

In other words, we don't know the date that photo was taken.
What about place, can it be identified?

 

[bilby]

Nope.

Any halfway competent person can download a freeware or shareware tool that will untraceably alter metadata. It's just information in a file - it's not like photoshopping a picture, where skill is needed to manipulate it, and even skilful edits can often still be detected; it's just a small amount of encoded text and numbers. Changing some or all of that text is easy; detecting that it was changed is almost impossible, unless the changes are very clumsy indeed (such as a picture of the Eiffel Tower with the GPS coordinates changed to say it was taken somewhere in Moscow).

Yes, metadata can be altered, hence the the original question, how that photo was dated?

The same way photos have always been dated - by the use of various bits of supporting evidence, none of which are immune to manipulation.

If you want to know when it was taken with 100% certainty, then that is impossible - but only in the sense that nothing you didn't see yourself can be certain; a favourite PRATT of the creationists. How do you know? Were you there?

You can't even prove that Russia exists; I believe that I flew over Russia a few times on flights from Australia to Europe and vice-versa; but I only have the airline's word for it - for all I know they could have been flying round in circles over Poland, or China, or Alice Springs, while the map showed the little plane icon inching its way across the Caspian Sea, and then over Russia and Ukraine.

For all I know, the whole nation is an elaborate hoax, and the area between the East coast of Belarus and the West coast of Alaska is all ocean.

Indeed, the entire world could be about 2000km across; with a high resolution video playing in the "windows" of intercontinental airliners, while the plane sits on a shaking platform, and thousands of scenery shifters get rid of all the British foliage, animals, towns and climate, and replace them with Australian ones, while I try to sleep on the long "flight".

It is easy to make everything seem doubtful - whether it is actually the truth or a lie. But it is harder to make a lie seem real - hence the sudden disappearance of the 'most likely' idea that MH017 was shot down by a Ukrainian fighter jet with an air to air missile (remember that 'hypothesis'?)

Now perhaps the plane wasn't shot down by Russian-backed separatist rebels. But if it wasn't, we need a better hypothesis to replace that one - an hypothesis that fits ALL of the facts as well as, or better than, the separatist rebels hypothesis. It's not enough to cast doubt on the leading hypothesis, because you can cast doubt on ANYTHING. What you need to do is to find a plausible alternative. And that has proven impossible.

The 'Ukrainian air to air hypothesis' was garbage, and has quietly been dropped by its proponents.

The 'Ukranians with their own BUK' hypothesis is less awful, but it has one GLARING problem - whoever shot down the plane was trying to shoot something down. And the only plausible airborne targets in the area at the time were Ukrainian.

It is believable that Russian or Russian-backed forces who somehow had a BUK might see an aircraft approaching from the West on their radar, and decide it was probably a Ukrainian aircraft, and worth taking a shot at - the separatists were already enjoying taking down Ukrainian military aircraft in the area, and were quite proud of their successes in doing so. Few if any Russian aircraft were in that airspace; certainly they were not flying combat support missions or otherwise doing things that might inspire the Ukrainian forces to try to shoot one down; and as the airspace was controlled by, and used by, the Ukrainian military, any Ukrainian anti-aircraft unit would have been very aware that most (if not all) targets in the skies above them were friendlies - making identification a priority before opening fire.

The Separatists, on the other hand, could quite reasonably have had an 'if it flies, shoot it' policy, 'knowing' that all air traffic above them was enemy traffic. All that would require was an unawareness that international civil air traffic used a corridor above their war zone.

The question that must be answered is simple - we can assume that whoever shot down MH017 believed that they were engaging a legitimate enemy target. If the Russians, or the separatists, thought it was another Ukrainian military aircraft, then that explains that. But if the Ukrainians were the ones who shot it down, the question is "What did they THINK they were shooting at?".

This wasn't the 4th of July, when they just fired a rocket for shits and giggles. It was an aimed shot at a (presumably misidentified) target. So what was the target believed to be? A plane coming from the direction of Kiev, in airspace dominated by Ukrainian aircraft, is a very strange target for a Ukrainian anti-aircraft unit to engage without 100% positive ID.

 

[tupac chopra]

Yes, metadata can be altered, hence the the original question, how that photo was dated?

The same way photos have always been dated - by the use of various bits of supporting evidence, none of which are immune to manipulation.

If you want to know when it was taken with 100% certainty, then that is impossible - but only in the sense that nothing you didn't see yourself can be certain; a favourite PRATT of the creationists. How do you know? Were you there?

You can't even prove that Russia exists; I believe that I flew over Russia a few times on flights from Australia to Europe and vice-versa; but I only have the airline's word for it - for all I know they could have been flying round in circles over Poland, or China, or Alice Springs, while the map showed the little plane icon inching its way across the Caspian Sea, and then over Russia and Ukraine.

For all I know, the whole nation is an elaborate hoax, and the area between the East coast of Belarus and the West coast of Alaska is all ocean.

Indeed, the entire world could be about 2000km across; with a high resolution video playing in the "windows" of intercontinental airliners, while the plane sits on a shaking platform, and thousands of scenery shifters get rid of all the British foliage, animals, towns and climate, and replace them with Australian ones, while I try to sleep on the long "flight".

It is easy to make everything seem doubtful - whether it is actually the truth or a lie. But it is harder to make a lie seem real - hence the sudden disappearance of the 'most likely' idea that MH017 was shot down by a Ukrainian fighter jet with an air to air missile (remember that 'hypothesis'?)

Now perhaps the plane wasn't shot down by Russian-backed separatist rebels. But if it wasn't, we need a better hypothesis to replace that one - an hypothesis that fits ALL of the facts as well as, or better than, the separatist rebels hypothesis. It's not enough to cast doubt on the leading hypothesis, because you can cast doubt on ANYTHING. What you need to do is to find a plausible alternative. And that has proven impossible.

The 'Ukrainian air to air hypothesis' was garbage, and has quietly been dropped by its proponents.

The 'Ukranians with their own BUK' hypothesis is less awful, but it has one GLARING problem - whoever shot down the plane was trying to shoot something down. And the only plausible airborne targets in the area at the time were Ukrainian.

It is believable that Russian or Russian-backed forces who somehow had a BUK might see an aircraft approaching from the West on their radar, and decide it was probably a Ukrainian aircraft, and worth taking a shot at - the separatists were already enjoying taking down Ukrainian military aircraft in the area, and were quite proud of their successes in doing so. Few if any Russian aircraft were in that airspace; certainly they were not flying combat support missions or otherwise doing things that might inspire the Ukrainian forces to try to shoot one down; and as the airspace was controlled by, and used by, the Ukrainian military, any Ukrainian anti-aircraft unit would have been very aware that most (if not all) targets in the skies above them were friendlies - making identification a priority before opening fire.

The Separatists, on the other hand, could quite reasonably have had an 'if it flies, shoot it' policy, 'knowing' that all air traffic above them was enemy traffic. All that would require was an unawareness that international civil air traffic used a corridor above their war zone.

The question that must be answered is simple - we can assume that whoever shot down MH017 believed that they were engaging a legitimate enemy target. If the Russians, or the separatists, thought it was another Ukrainian military aircraft, then that explains that. But if the Ukrainians were the ones who shot it down, the question is "What did they THINK they were shooting at?".

This wasn't the 4th of July, when they just fired a rocket for shits and giggles. It was an aimed shot at a (presumably misidentified) target. So what was the target believed to be? A plane coming from the direction of Kiev, in airspace dominated by Ukrainian aircraft, is a very strange target for a Ukrainian anti-aircraft unit to engage without 100% positive ID.

It's better to use evidence that to assume and speculate.
Do you have any evidence?

Some US intelligence analysts seem to think it was a rogue element of the Ukrainian army.
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/10/13/mh-17-the-dog-still-not-barking/

Last year, another source briefed by U.S. intelligence analysts told me they had concluded that a rogue element of the Ukrainian government – tied to one of the oligarchs – was responsible for the shoot-down, while absolving senior Ukrainian leaders including President Petro Poroshenko and Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk. But I wasn’t able to determine if this U.S. analysis was a consensus or a dissident opinion.

they might have shot down the plane because they were losing.
If so then it has worked extremely well
It would also explain why Kolmoisky was sacked.

See.... we can all speculate without any evidence.

 

[tupac chopra]

Not the French IIRC , but Bellingcat who claimed to be in contact with Paris Match

In other words, we don't the date that photo was taken.
What about place, can it be identified?

The place has been identified now, although originally Paris Match gave the wrong location. So they didn't even know which is weird, considering they had the photo on the front page

 

[Ford]

In other words, we don't the date that photo was taken.
What about place, can it be identified?

The place has been identified now, although originally Paris Match gave the wrong location. So they didn't even know which is weird, considering they had the photo on the front page

Keep earning that paycheck.

 

[bilby]

The same way photos have always been dated - by the use of various bits of supporting evidence, none of which are immune to manipulation.

If you want to know when it was taken with 100% certainty, then that is impossible - but only in the sense that nothing you didn't see yourself can be certain; a favourite PRATT of the creationists. How do you know? Were you there?

You can't even prove that Russia exists; I believe that I flew over Russia a few times on flights from Australia to Europe and vice-versa; but I only have the airline's word for it - for all I know they could have been flying round in circles over Poland, or China, or Alice Springs, while the map showed the little plane icon inching its way across the Caspian Sea, and then over Russia and Ukraine.

For all I know, the whole nation is an elaborate hoax, and the area between the East coast of Belarus and the West coast of Alaska is all ocean.

Indeed, the entire world could be about 2000km across; with a high resolution video playing in the "windows" of intercontinental airliners, while the plane sits on a shaking platform, and thousands of scenery shifters get rid of all the British foliage, animals, towns and climate, and replace them with Australian ones, while I try to sleep on the long "flight".

It is easy to make everything seem doubtful - whether it is actually the truth or a lie. But it is harder to make a lie seem real - hence the sudden disappearance of the 'most likely' idea that MH017 was shot down by a Ukrainian fighter jet with an air to air missile (remember that 'hypothesis'?)

Now perhaps the plane wasn't shot down by Russian-backed separatist rebels. But if it wasn't, we need a better hypothesis to replace that one - an hypothesis that fits ALL of the facts as well as, or better than, the separatist rebels hypothesis. It's not enough to cast doubt on the leading hypothesis, because you can cast doubt on ANYTHING. What you need to do is to find a plausible alternative. And that has proven impossible.

The 'Ukrainian air to air hypothesis' was garbage, and has quietly been dropped by its proponents.

The 'Ukranians with their own BUK' hypothesis is less awful, but it has one GLARING problem - whoever shot down the plane was trying to shoot something down. And the only plausible airborne targets in the area at the time were Ukrainian.

It is believable that Russian or Russian-backed forces who somehow had a BUK might see an aircraft approaching from the West on their radar, and decide it was probably a Ukrainian aircraft, and worth taking a shot at - the separatists were already enjoying taking down Ukrainian military aircraft in the area, and were quite proud of their successes in doing so. Few if any Russian aircraft were in that airspace; certainly they were not flying combat support missions or otherwise doing things that might inspire the Ukrainian forces to try to shoot one down; and as the airspace was controlled by, and used by, the Ukrainian military, any Ukrainian anti-aircraft unit would have been very aware that most (if not all) targets in the skies above them were friendlies - making identification a priority before opening fire.

The Separatists, on the other hand, could quite reasonably have had an 'if it flies, shoot it' policy, 'knowing' that all air traffic above them was enemy traffic. All that would require was an unawareness that international civil air traffic used a corridor above their war zone.

The question that must be answered is simple - we can assume that whoever shot down MH017 believed that they were engaging a legitimate enemy target. If the Russians, or the separatists, thought it was another Ukrainian military aircraft, then that explains that. But if the Ukrainians were the ones who shot it down, the question is "What did they THINK they were shooting at?".

This wasn't the 4th of July, when they just fired a rocket for shits and giggles. It was an aimed shot at a (presumably misidentified) target. So what was the target believed to be? A plane coming from the direction of Kiev, in airspace dominated by Ukrainian aircraft, is a very strange target for a Ukrainian anti-aircraft unit to engage without 100% positive ID.

It's better to use evidence that to assume and speculate.
Do you have any evidence?

Some US intelligence analysts seem to think it was a rogue element of the Ukrainian army.
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/10/13/mh-17-the-dog-still-not-barking/

Last year, another source briefed by U.S. intelligence analysts told me they had concluded that a rogue element of the Ukrainian government – tied to one of the oligarchs – was responsible for the shoot-down, while absolving senior Ukrainian leaders including President Petro Poroshenko and Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk. But I wasn’t able to determine if this U.S. analysis was a consensus or a dissident opinion.

they might have shot down the plane because they were losing.
If so then it has worked.
It would also explain why Kolmoisky was sacked.

See.... we can all speculate without any evidence.

Sure.

But some speculation is obviously stupid, because it flies in the face of evidence, logic and reason; while other speculation is plausible and fits with all of the actual evidence.

I am not interested in proving to you that I am right; or even in persuading you to consider it as a possibility - because that would be a total waste of effort on my part. I am writing for the third parties, who can look at what I say, and at what you say, and make up their own minds.

I am confident that few will swallow your crazy conspiracy theory, whereby the Ukrainians decided to commit mass murder in public, on the off chance that they might just be able to pin it on the poor maligned Russian backed separatists. You might not have any problem with insanely complex conspiracy theories; but most people are aware that conspiracies in the real world have to be thought by the conspirators to have some reasonable prospect for success, before the event.

 

[tupac chopra]

Yes, metadata can be altered, hence the the original question, how that photo was dated?

The same way photos have always been dated - by the use of various bits of supporting evidence, none of which are immune to manipulation. .

That's not true. the photo was dated because Paris Match told us the date. Nothing more. But hey...they couldn't even get the location right. Paris Match had the wrong location.
Clearly they don't know what they are talking about.

Think about it. Paris Match, who published the photo didn't even know where it was taken. Yet apparently we should ignore that and just accept what they say about the date. Only an idiot would accept what Paris Match said.

 

[barbos]

Yes, metadata can be altered, hence the the original question, how that photo was dated?

The same way photos have always been dated - by the use of various bits of supporting evidence, none of which are immune to manipulation.
<skipped lots of words>

Supporting evidence can be manipulated too.
Fact is, if there is no date on any of these pictures they are pretty much worthless.
And i think these internet investigators tend to simply assign July 17 date to every available photo.

I have hard time believing russian military allowed to take some of these photos after the fact.
I mean Assuming russians (not rebels) are responsible there would be no photos of BUK after disaster. They would cover damn thing and transport it at night without anyone taking pictures. Also I really doubtful russians (not rebels) would bring it into the city (Donetsk)
I think these are pictures of captured BUK and they were taken right after it was captured, they drove it around not knowing what to do with it, and rebels had no reason to hide the fact at the time that's why there are so many pictures. I believe they twitted one picture themselves too.

Also some of the pictures could in fact come from SBU (Ukrainian "KGB"), just to add some "positive" noise.

 

[tupac chopra]

It's better to use evidence that to assume and speculate.
Do you have any evidence?

Some US intelligence analysts seem to think it was a rogue element of the Ukrainian army.
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/10/13/mh-17-the-dog-still-not-barking/

Last year, another source briefed by U.S. intelligence analysts told me they had concluded that a rogue element of the Ukrainian government – tied to one of the oligarchs – was responsible for the shoot-down, while absolving senior Ukrainian leaders including President Petro Poroshenko and Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk. But I wasn’t able to determine if this U.S. analysis was a consensus or a dissident opinion.

they might have shot down the plane because they were losing.
If so then it has worked.
It would also explain why Kolmoisky was sacked.

See.... we can all speculate without any evidence.

Sure.

But some speculation is obviously stupid, because it flies in the face of evidence,

You don't have any evidence. You talk about it a lot, but really 99% of what you post is your own over inflated opinion and speculation. But when you get called on that you spit your dummy out.

 

[Ford]

You don't have any evidence.

And again we've got the official Russian talking points.

 

[bilby]

It's better to use evidence that to assume and speculate.
Do you have any evidence?

Some US intelligence analysts seem to think it was a rogue element of the Ukrainian army.
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/10/13/mh-17-the-dog-still-not-barking/

Last year, another source briefed by U.S. intelligence analysts told me they had concluded that a rogue element of the Ukrainian government – tied to one of the oligarchs – was responsible for the shoot-down, while absolving senior Ukrainian leaders including President Petro Poroshenko and Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk. But I wasn’t able to determine if this U.S. analysis was a consensus or a dissident opinion.

they might have shot down the plane because they were losing.
If so then it has worked.
It would also explain why Kolmoisky was sacked.

See.... we can all speculate without any evidence.

Sure.

But some speculation is obviously stupid, because it flies in the face of evidence,

You don't have any evidence. You talk about it a lot, but really 99% of what you post is your own over inflated opinion and speculation. But when you get called on that you spit your dummy out.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is what the psychologists call "projection".

 

[Will Wiley]

The same way photos have always been dated - by the use of various bits of supporting evidence, none of which are immune to manipulation. .

That's not true. the photo was dated because Paris Match told us the date. Nothing more. But hey...they couldn't even get the location right. Paris Match had the wrong location.
Clearly they don't know what they are talking about.

Think about it. Paris Match, who published the photo didn't even know where it was taken. Yet apparently we should ignore that and just accept what they say about the date. Only an idiot would accept what Paris Match said.

That is correct. the Paris Match foreign correspondent relayed that the photo was taken in Snizhne.
http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/07/28/why-is-paris-match-on-the-location-of-a-buk/

If they didn't know where it was taken then why trust their time or date?

Bellingcat claimed the photo was taken at 9 am
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-...7-inside-russia-controlled-by-russian-troops/

When it was pointed out that the shadows did not match 9 am, they changed their time to 11 am
Then Bellingcat crowdfunded the purchase of a satellite photo of Donetsk, where the Paris Match photo is alleged to be taken, assuming it is not a fake, at 11.08 am.
Guess what wasn't in the photo, even though it covered a large area. The buk was not there. Then Bellingcat tried to change their estimation of the time to earlier in the day.

There is no evidence to tie the "photo" to that day. the other photos are just as problematic. But hey, if people want to believe these things that is ok, but they should not claim they have evidence to support their belief. Unless someone wants to suggest some?

There are plenty of people claiming the photo is a fake too. Here is just one
https://hectorreban.wordpress.com/2...k¨-paris-match-buk-photo-decisively-debunked/

 

[Will Wiley]

2.Evidence of warhead fragments moving longitudinally back through the plane. Impossible if the missile came from Snizhne.

What evidence is this and how do you rule out ricochets?

Jayjay here is a photo of one part of the plane. Look at all the holes caused by preformed fragments that moved longitudinally through the plane. Do you really think they all ricochets?

 

[barbos]

They say Paris Match reporter took the picture. I don't understand how they reported wrong time and location in this case.

 

[Horatio Parker]

The 'Ukranians with their own BUK' hypothesis is less awful, but it has one GLARING problem - whoever shot down the plane was trying to shoot something down. And the only plausible airborne targets in the area at the time were Ukrainian.

Yes. The rebels have no AF, no planes. So why would Ukraine deploy a valuable but in this context useless weapon? And shooting down Russian planes would seem inadvisable, if not downright suicidal. So why take the chance?

It is believable that Russian or Russian-backed forces who somehow had a BUK might see an aircraft approaching from the West on their radar, and decide it was probably a Ukrainian aircraft, and worth taking a shot at - the separatists were already enjoying taking down Ukrainian military aircraft in the area, and were quite proud of their successes in doing so. Few if any Russian aircraft were in that airspace; certainly they were not flying combat support missions or otherwise doing things that might inspire the Ukrainian forces to try to shoot one down; and as the airspace was controlled by, and used by, the Ukrainian military, any Ukrainian anti-aircraft unit would have been very aware that most (if not all) targets in the skies above them were friendlies - making identification a priority before opening fire.

The Separatists, on the other hand, could quite reasonably have had an 'if it flies, shoot it' policy, 'knowing' that all air traffic above them was enemy traffic. All that would require was an unawareness that international civil air traffic used a corridor above their war zone.

The question that must be answered is simple - we can assume that whoever shot down MH017 believed that they were engaging a legitimate enemy target. If the Russians, or the separatists, thought it was another Ukrainian military aircraft, then that explains that. But if the Ukrainians were the ones who shot it down, the question is "What did they THINK they were shooting at?".

This wasn't the 4th of July, when they just fired a rocket for shits and giggles. It was an aimed shot at a (presumably misidentified) target. So what was the target believed to be? A plane coming from the direction of Kiev, in airspace dominated by Ukrainian aircraft, is a very strange target for a Ukrainian anti-aircraft unit to engage without 100% positive ID.

Some sites have said that military planes sometimes shadow civilian aircraft to "hide" in their radar.

I wouldn't know about that, but if so then it could be more a case of someone with training outsmarting themselves than a drunken lark.

 

[barbos]

Yes. The rebels have no AF, no planes. So why would Ukraine deploy a valuable but in this context useless weapon? And shooting down Russian planes would seem inadvisable, if not downright suicidal. So why take the chance?

You have not served in Ukrainian Army, have you?
It's an established FACT that Ukrainian so called Army had BUKs distributed pretty close to the "frontline".
Why would they do that you ask? Because their generals are idiots and they are still using their soviet era tactics/strategy which was based on war with actual NATO army with everything including Air Force. Also they were really expecting russian invasion and they were accusing Russia in actually flying fighters (Su-27 etc) and shooting all these planes at the time. So there is no surprise they had all these BUK radars on.
Now all you need is a drunk commander deciding to conduct a training exercise using an actual passenger plane as a target.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Yes. The rebels have no AF, no planes. So why would Ukraine deploy a valuable but in this context useless weapon? And shooting down Russian planes would seem inadvisable, if not downright suicidal. So why take the chance?

You have not served in Ukrainian Army, have you?
It's an established FACT that Ukrainian so called Army had BUKs distributed pretty close to the "frontline".
Why would they do that you ask? Because their generals are idiots and they are still using their soviet era tactics/strategy which was based on war with actual NATO army with everything including Air Force. Also they were really expecting russian invasion and they were accusing Russia in actually flying fighters (Su-27 etc) and shooting all these planes at the time. So there is no surprise they had all these BUK radars on.
Now all you need is a drunk commander deciding to conduct a training exercise using an actual passenger plane as a target.

Fact? By whom? Russian propaganda ministry?

And what are the military standards of the rebels? Grenadier Guards? Delta Force?

I seem to recall that Russian soldiers traded their arms for vodka in Chechnya during that war. Probably a Dutch story. Of course the rebels never drink.

A friend of mine's father was a Wehrmacht vet on the eastern front in WWII. He was taken prisoner and escaped four times due to drunk Red Army soldiers.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

:mod: