the home of online investigations

Interview with “WowihaY,” the Man Who Narrated MH17 as it Happened

July 27, 2015

By Aric Toler

The anonymous Twitter user @WowihaY has long been documenting the conflict in eastern Ukraine, especially as it has affected his hometown of Torez. He came to a degree of notoriety on July 17, 2014, as he was one of the most influential Twitter users in chronicling and deciphering the downing of MH17. Along with documenting witness accounts of a Buk traveling through Torez hours before the plane’s downing, @WowihaY posted the now-infamous photograph of a smoke trail rising above fields south of Snizhne–the smoke contrails of the missile that brought down the passenger plane. The following is an English translation of an article by Olga Bespertova that appeared in Fakty.ua on July 25, 2015, with the first public interview of @WowihaY.

Olga Bespertova

Those who are not narrow-minded in relation to this story can assert with absolute certainty: the international investigation of the Malaysian Boeing catastrophe that was shot down on July 17, 2014 in the vicinity of Torez is going on the right track thanks to several residents of Donbass. These residents have provided experts with invaluable images and information that has played a key role in establishing the “authors” of the tragedy and exposing the lies of the Kremlin.

As of now, it is forbidden to make the names of the witnesses public. But one of them (we will call him Vladimir), in an exclusive interview to Fakty, has agreed to tell (but not revealing absolutely everything, of course) how, in a few hours after the disaster, all of the world news agencies had already reported on the involvement of the terrorists with the tragedy, and a folder with indisputable evidence was lying on the table of the head of the Ukrainian state by the next morning.

 

Vladimir, where were you on July 17, 2014?

In a Ukrainian city. Thing is, the pressure from the supporters of the so-called Donetsk People’s Republic was harsh, because I’ve never hidden my views, therefore there was a real threat to end up dead in a basement. In June my family and I left our hometown Snizhne.

But both then and now I know about everything that happens back home. An advantage of our group is that there are local informants who are forging victory behind enemy lines.

There were bloody battles last summer in the vicinity of Savur-Mohyla. 1 I closely followed the course of these battles. The information was very contradictory, so I gathered data bit-by-bit from various sources. Since the situation at this stretch of the front changed almost every hour, I kept poring over every line, even in the comments of trifling news, in order to find important and useful information for Ukrainian soldiers. I had channels of communication established with them.

Planes had been flying over our region, and the terrorists dreaded them. Time and time again they tried to bring down the “birdies.” Sometimes they succeeded.

On July 17 at about noon, I “caught” a message that a hauler was pulling some sort of obscure covered-up equipment through Torez. At 12:05pm I received a text “Birdies, beware!” from a person who was well-versed in weaponry. He suggested that they were transporting a “Buk” anti-aircraft missile system.

You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to understand why a large piece of equipment was riding about close to the hottest point of conflict at that time.

At 12:16pm I posted a message about this on Twitter2. People immediately reacted by writing that they had also seen the Buk and two vehicles escorting it3. They photographed the launcher that was being openly transported along the roads, but they were afraid to upload the photos online because it would have been very easy to figure out where the shots were taken from, and they would be severely punished for this.

So, from that moment on, I couldn’t tear myself away from my computer screen. Based on replies from Torez and Snizhne residents on social networks, I was able to establish the following route for the anti-aircraft system: Torez city center – Centralnyi poselok neighborhood – the area of the entrance into Snizhne – the entertainment complex “Varna,”4 where the Buk was taken down from the hauler.

Similarly, I established its route into Snizhne: Donetsk – Khartsyzk – Zuhres – Shakhtarsk.

At about 4:20 pm local social networks were full of reports about how a plane was shot down over Torez. Visitors of anti-Maidan sites (in particular the “Dispatches of Igor Ivanovich Strelkov,” that wrote about the victories of “Novorossiya” and the horrors of the “Kiev junta”) were in euphoria – a Ukrainian AN-26 had allegedly been shot down.

Right away I turned to the people who could most authentically and objectively figure out what had actually happened, and very carefully tried to find out whether the pilots were alive or not. I know a story from around the same period when, over a few weeks, residents of some village nursed a wounded Ukrainian pilot who had ejected out of his plane, and then transported him across the front lines. This, without any exaggeration, is a noble civil action.

Within ten minutes, a friend of mine sent a message: something had exploded to the north of Torez, in the vicinity of the “Progress” mine. At first there was a weak boom, and then it crashed with such force that windows shook in houses located a few kilometers away. He, having heard the sound, immediately jumped up to the balcony and then onto the roof of the high-rise building and took a few shots – gigantic clouds of black smoke dissolving into the sky. He sent me this photo.

No one really knew anything. At around 5:30pm, an active correspondence began on social networks. Everyone unanimously reasserted that a Ukrainian transport plane was shot down, carrying the bodies of soldiers. I started to comb through the Internet. At 5:50pm I received a text message that a civilian aircraft likely crashed and that “the area of the Hrabove poultry farm it was a ‘bloody mess’: corpses of women and children are strewn across the field.”5 Shock!

All the guys and I agreed not to reveal anything while it was still unverified and we were not sure that it was the truth. At 6:00 pm I read a message on the site “Information Resistance” that communication had been lost with the Malaysian flight MH17 – it had disappeared from radar screens while flying over that very territory.

At 6:18 pm I published this information on my Twitter account.

At 6:37 pm residents of the village of Hrabove sent photos from their phones, taken from the location of the tragedy, that made my hair stand on end: a corpse of a baby was lying on the field, a child about a year old.

At 6:45 pm I received a second photo – some kind of part from an aircraft. At 7:03 pm, a third – a mug with a photograph of three boys. Maybe a family that was flying out for vacation. Right then the villagers called: they wouldn’t be able to find anything else out, as a column of extremely angry DNR-ites [soldiers of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic] had arrived, and the onlookers were driven off the field.

I posted all three photos online.

 

Were you the first to publish the photos?

Yes. It was only after 10:00 pm that there were more photos of the location, where on that day the Buk was spotted, and the video of its movement in the direction of Snizhne.6

 

Now for the most important thing. How did you discover the rocket’s trail?

This is an unbelievable story. At 7:18pm I was in contact with my friend – the same one who took the photo from his balcony. Having looked at the image more closely, he noticed an important detail: on the opposite side from the Boeing crash site, there was a strange vertical column of grey-whitish smoke visible, very similar to the trails of a launched missile. The smoke was barely visible, so my friend didn’t even pay attention to it. But he saved the photo in the “RAW” file format, i.e. without any distortions caused by software or hardware compression of an image file, and then, as he said, after a little bit of editing of the brightness, he could “bring the trail to light”.

Having compared the direction of the shot, the location of the photographer on Google Maps, together we figured out where the volley was fired from – from the area of Savur-Mohyla.

But in order to more accurately determine the launch location, we needed a “second line,” at the very least. We put all the effort to ringing up our acquaintances, looking for witnesses…It’s not like they fired from a Kalashnikov! We found a person whom we have unfortunately lost contact with. Back then, he specifically described where and how he noticed a white trail. Everything matched up.

This data allowed us to intersect the line of the shot and the line described by witnesses, and thus we were able to more accurately established that they fired from the territory between the villages Red October [Chervony Zhovten] and Pervomaysky.

And only then I published my friend’s widely resonating photo, which became one of the main pieces of evidence in the case. Many have said, and even now they keep saying, that the photo was fake, it was all set up. But later, at least four people from different countries independently investigated this photo. The unanimous conclusion: it’s genuine.

 

And what did the experts say?

That we had calculated everything very precisely. And the camera, which took the photo, and the original photos were transferred to the Dutch. The author of the photographs and I have already given testimonies  to the investigators. Over time, the international experts have established right where the fatal shot was fired from. They matched the objects that were in the photo with geographic objects on a map; having pinpointed the location, they located the position of the photographer, the direction of the shot, and so on.

They have also elaborated upon the weather conditions. At the moment [of the crash], this area was located in a zone of variable cloudiness—here is where the border of the cloud front passed, and 15 kilometers to the north it was raining. That is, in the zone where they presumably launched the rocket, the weather conditions were different from those at the crash site. I still remember, someone wrote: “They shot down a civilian airliner – the sky is crying for the people.”

The results of our initial calculations and the research conducted by professionals much later differ only a bit—we were off by just 300-500 meters.

 

Do you know where the Buk went to after that?

On July 17, 2014 at 9:06 pm there was a message that it was near the Snizhne supermarket “Furshet.” People were writing that, most likely, they wanted to get rid of it. I was not able to trace where it was taken after that. Late in the evening in the “Donetsk People’s Republic,” people are afraid to be out on the streets. Moreover, many were hiding from the shelling in cellars and garages.

By the way, a week later, I listened to a record of conversations dated July 17th in the Zello app, where there is a separatist channel “Shakhtarsk – Torez – Snizhne” on the theme of “Our guys – great job.” Plenty of other details surfaced, in particular, we got three localities in Snizhne where people witnessed the Buk missile.

Unfortunately, they all live in occupied territory, so they are not yet able to testify.

 

How did the President of Ukraine find out about the results of you and your friends’ work?

The chain of events has already been described in the media. Close to midnight on July 17, when a more or less clear picture had emerged, we passed all the information to the Donetsk regional councilman Vitaly Kropachev, known for his pro-Ukrainian views. He passed it to Anton Gerashchenko, the advisor to the Interior Minister. Further than that, I don’t know. But the speed of transmission of the information was instantaneous.

I still continue collect data on this tragedy. A time will come when the whole world will know exactly who is guilty for what happened. Among my friends and myself, there is no doubt who caused the death of 298 civilians. Yuri Butusov, editor-in-chief of Censor.net news website, has written that we should receive an award7. My friend and I feel that the best reward for ourselves would be the liberation of the Donbas, and punishment for those who shot down the Boeing and those who gave them the order.

Aric Toler

Aric Toler has written with Bellingcat since 2015 and currently leads the Eurasia/Eastern Europe team. Along with his research into topics in the former Soviet Union, he organizes and leads Bellingcat's Russian-language workshops for journalists and researchers. He graduated with an MA in Slavic Languages & Literatures from the University of Kansas in 2013, focusing on Russian literature and intellectual history. After graduation, he worked for two years as an intelligence specialist in the private sector. If you have any questions, or have a story idea related to eastern Europe or Eurasia, you can contact him at arictoler@bellingcat.com

Join the Bellingcat Mailing List:

Enter your email address to receive a weekly digest of Bellingcat posts, links to open source research articles, and more.

Support Bellingcat

You can support the work of Bellingcat by donating through the below link:

101 Comments

    • cr0c

      Дык а отчего он ‘хуевый’ это ваш ‘герой’ хех…

      Reply
    • John

      Phenomenal reporting and investigation from real Ukrainian patriot. However, the rebels did not knowingly shoot down civilian plane – they thought military. They were likely abhorred by it when discovered, but deaths of hundreds of civilians needs to be punished. The Ukraine authorities also should have warned this plane. I think they secretly wanted rebels to make mistake like this so that world would be against the rebels – this worked. The only thing that must happen is that Putin stop supplying rebels with soldiers (“voluntary” or not), weapons, ammunition, and close the border and punish those who cross over to fight. This is 100% Putin’s fault. The world must stop this madman. He caused brother to fight brother. Forced NATO to come closer to border. He is worst thing for the good people of Russia. He has brain-washed Russians to think that getting Crimea was good. He brainwashed them to think the West is evil and nazis. He will cause WWIII … and for what?

      Reply
  1. Gabriele Gordon

    @ Aric Toler:

    Why do you say that WowihaY’s hometown was Torez when he himself states that his hometown was Snizhne, a city he probably left already June 2014?

    “Thing is, the pressure from the supporters of the so-called Donetsk People’s Republic was harsh, because I’ve never hidden my views, therefore there was a real threat to end up dead in a basement. In June my family and I left our hometown Snizhne.
    But both then and now I know about everything that happens back home. An advantage of our group is that there are local informants who are forging victory behind enemy lines.”

    Do you know more than him or is he lying?

    Reply
    • boggled

      Similar translation word for different meaning I am guessing Gabriele.
      I cannot propose to speak for Aric, he would know more then I, but you might be searching for an urgent answer?

      I am guessing that the word for hometown – ‘place where I was born’, ‘place where I grew up and spent most of my life’ , and ‘place where I last lived’ as well as ‘place I now call home’ are all very similar words and might get translated the wrong way.

      As you can see even in English I can give the word hometown different meanings and what it may mean to you might be different to someone in California and different to someone in England, etc.
      I imagine the Russian word for hometown might have multiple meanings as well.

      Why are you so concerned about it? Does it really matter to the context of the rest of the article and the additional facts that are revealed?
      Shouldn’t you be commenting on those?

      Fare thee well

      Reply
    • ppitm

      Torez/Snizhne are essentially the same town. Look at a map. I’ve been on Savur-Mohyla overlooking both of them and it’s hard to see where one ends and the other begins.

      Reply
  2. Oleg

    Did anyone see the article called…….MH17 – ‘Buk plume’ burns witness – Part I……it claims that the plume photo is not real How can we refute it?

    Reply
    • David Jones

      Thanks for that Oleg. It’s a very interesting article.
      1) Did Neal Krawetz really say the photo was manipulated?? Wow!
      2) The smoke that was there looks like it came from a chimney not from a buk.

      Could that all be true?

      Reply
    • PatSinc

      Oleg,
      I’ve just followed the link and admittedly haven’t read Part 2. Part 1 is quite long and not exactly convincing. The first part deals at length with the question of why we can’t see a plume of white smoke against white clouds several miles away, at least 8 minutes after launch, when the supposed launch site isn’t in the field of view of the photograph. This smoke would have been made by a few hundred kilograms of propellant spread over more than 20 km. In that photo, the area taken up by around 100 tonnes of kerosene burning with black smoke is not that large. I’m not really surprised that I can’t see 500 times less white smoke spread over a far wider arc against a white background. I don’t understand how you found this section particularly convincing.
      The next section compares what purports to be a zoomed in section of the “Buk plume” image with an older photo, except that the zoomed in area doesn’t correspond at all to the “buk plume” image in that no smoke is visible in that spot in the published image and the sky is a totally different colour. Some further analysis then tries to work out where that smoke came from based on a photographer’s determination of the range. He seems to have determined this without knowing what size object produced the smoke, and it certainly looks more than 3 miles distant. Oddly, there is also no record of any photographer called Michael Kobs available on the internet. This section suggests no answer and just seems to be a waste of space – possibly included to distract.
      The next section discusses how two websites suggested possible launch sites nearby in rebel territory, but doesn’t conclude that either were incorrect. It then goes on to discuss the Almaz-Antey presentation which has already comprehensively been shown to be less than ironclad.
      Next we have a section where Dr Kravetz tells us that the image has been altered, which is what Wowihay said anyway. I’d also note that one of the photos in the article had also been altered and one other apparently misrepresented by van der Welff. Other experts appear to disagree with the Dr. and he doesn’t tell us what was altered – i.e. what was added or removed, so I don’t really see how he is able to prove that the alteration wasn’t the enhancement Wowihay claimed.
      The article then ends up making the criticism that anonymous witnesses were quoted, which could demonize a political opponent – one what already has a long and bloody record of murdering critics and those who embarrass it.
      Should I read Part 2 as well?

      Reply
  3. boggled

    Oleg, suggest you read –

    http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/three-issues-with-the-fake-photo-claim-of-max-van-der-werff/

    many items have gone through the ringer but he still carries out his campaign of misinformation.
    More then likely funded by the Kremlin or Sputnik and supplied with Kremlin contributors.
    Contributors he refuses to name.

    The comments there are part of what should be read.
    Obviously part 1 in the blog is later then this article was written and tries to continue the Kremlin funded deception.

    Says a lot but actually makes no proofs that I can see.
    His three conclusions are –
    Ukraine provided and manufactured fake evidence – since they handed over the evidence they collected and said here you go, here is all of it, you sift through it and make your judgments, we are open to discussion if you have any questions or want clarification about anything.
    The DSB has said those photos are not fakes.

    And he thinks he has proven the above photos as fakes – he hasn’t.
    And that Westerbeke said – a factual statement

    I would suggest keep searching around to see where he is challenged in other places.
    Obviously you will not find it on his twitter since he is his own admin there.
    But all I see in his statements are more Kremlin propaganda and misdirection and someone willing to lie for a little profit to be gained.
    Max is no one with factual claims to what I read.
    You have to make your own opinion and If you have specific questions that jump to mind, you should ask them, just not a general how we going to battle Max.
    He is his own worst enemy in the statements and facts he presents in my opinion.

    Fare thee well

    Reply
    • Mad Dog

      Guys like WowihaY risk their lives to do this kind of stuff and his contacts still in the area are under even greater threat. Hopefully, the JIT has obtained all the information it needs for the moment, without the need to put any one else in danger. The baby, children, family discussion brought tears to my eyes. Sad. But hell, Putin has no qualms about launching SCUDS into populated areas of Grozny since the Russkies have no concept of collateral damage.

      Reply
    • David Jones

      It’s pretty damning if Neal Krawetz thinks the smoke photo is a fake though.
      Dr Neal Krawetz is a computer security specialist, forensic researcher, and founder of FotoForensics!!!
      He would know if the photo was a fake wouldn’t he?

      Reply
      • Mad Dog

        Well, not really. Dr. Neal has his own problems. He has been called out on several issues, but the big one relates to the Hansen photo which he strongly insisted was a composite. Investigation of the RAW file showed that no retouching outside of normal rendering similar to techniques used with film was used. “Furthermore, the analysis purporting photo manipulation is deeply flawed, as described briefly below.”
        So, according to a number of photo experts, Dr. Neal may not know if a photo is a fake or not. Of course the Russian media has jumped all over this to show the world that the missile contrail photo is a fake “according to the well known expert Dr. Neal K”, but that is about par for the course for those hacks.

        Reply
  4. Sean Lamb

    Interesting interview (and interesting timing as I was just examining WowihaY’s twitter stream yesterday). Can I say upfront I think that WowihaY is a fundamentally good person who has had the misfortune to be caught in the web of great power politics. He is the invidious position of being caught between the Devil of Svoboda and the Deep Blue Sea of his neighbors in Torez or if you like between a rock and a hard place. I don’t envy him at all.

    Having said all this I think WowihaY makes one very significant involuntary confession here: “This is an unbelievable story.” And indeed it is.

    This is a list of the tweets made around the time of the crash

    https://twitter.com/search?q=from%3AWowihaY%20since%3A2014-06-01%20until%3A2014-07-19&src=typd

    From this I am going to propose a possible solution/explanation, but stress that is just a tentative hypothesis and I don’t wish to attack WowihaY in any way whatsoever, whose position as a patriotic Ukrainian I have the deepest sympathy for. (I should also add apologies for the Google Translate).

    The twitter stream contains 3 pictures in the immediate aftermath:
    1. A picture of the smoke column in a clear blue sky
    2. Perhaps the single most awful picture from the tragedy – a dead infant lying in a field
    3. A satellite map showing the alleged position of the Buk

    These are not the pictures of a bonafide person wandering around in a scene of great chaos snapping whatsoever comes to hand, these are the deliberately selected images in a prepared propaganda war. Fortunately we don’t need to point the finger at WowihaY here, as he is quite open in admitting to the BBC on the 18th July that he is part of information campaign (in response for a request for an interview)
    “@jamiewh_ I’m sorry, I’m just the last link in the chain of information received. Now the area is not live. war in the gates. left town”

    What is also interesting is what he tweets just before the downing:
    3 танка и бронированный КАМАЗ с зениткой и людьми на борту через #торез на #снежное фото не ложу.запалю осведомителей.
    3 tanks and armored KAMAZ with anti-aircraft guns and the people on board through the # # Torez on a snowy picture not lozhu.zapalyu informants.

    Just possibly a little bit cute – he tweets seeing a Buk before the incident? Well, its possible of course.
    Then curiously, like everyone else he appears to be thinking an Su-25 has been downed as well:
    По поводу пилотов, упавшего самолета. К сожалению, вести не утешительные. два 200-х 🙁 #Торез
    As for the pilots, the plane crashed. Unfortunately, lead is not comforting. Two 200 x 🙁 # Torez

    I assume my interpretation is right here: if a civilian airliner has just crashed you don’t say “oh dear, I do hope pilots got out alright though”. This suggests to me that WowihaY, like everyone else, saw a Su-25 but didn’t see MH17 way above the cloud layer.

    Then we get the picture of smoke column in the clear blue sky – this is similar to the photo of the Buk in Torez where the sky was very blue also. Now I don’t claim this is definitive, but I have not seen any significant wide open areas of blue sky in the videos shot in the immediate aftermath. I also note interview with the Ukrainian air intelligence officer that boggled kindly provided where he talks about pilots reported being pinged with radar, but that shortly before the downing of MH17 one of his pilots reported getting a visual identification of the Buk. Tentatively I will suggest this visual sighting by the pilot was on the 16th or 15th – both days of cloudless blue skies.
    Here is the proposal:
    The Buk was moved through Torez on the 16th and the photograph with the blue sky dates from that day. On that day also an Su-25 went to try and get a visual of it and elicited a firing from the Buk and that is the day the smoke trail was photographed. I am guessing that an Su-25 that is putting all its concentration into shaking off a Buk missile can probably do it, otherwise the pilot could just bail in the 10 seconds between firing and missile impact – if notified by ground observers. Now I do understand the concept of metadata, but I am afraid an audit system that men can make, men can also break. Though it maybe not impossible to find some sort of trail on the memory card if you look hard enough.

    That’s my suggestion: the smoke column and the Torez ground photo of the Buk both date to the 16th of July when conditions were cloudless.

    As always, welcome comments.

    [PS. Why yes, Mr Putin, I would be delighted to spend a week as your guest in your Sochi dacha. Would it be possible to bring along the lovely Miss Olga Kuzkova, who I feel sure with supportive and compassionate mentoring can be shown to see the error of her ways?]

    Reply
    • David Jones

      Thanks Sean for a thoughtful post.
      1.Can you explain why you believe the smoke in the sky is from a buk, and not a chimney or something else?
      2.Why is there two different colors of smoke.
      3. A What do you make of Dr Neal Krawetz’s claim that the photo is digitally altered and that Bellingcat’s analysis is faulty?

      Thank you

      Reply
      • Sean Lamb

        Hi David,
        I guess I would make it clear I just put forward possibilities for consideration – I don’t claim to definitively know what happened. People who believe they can prove one thing or another sitting at their laptop are at best suffering from delusions of competence and at worse they are on the slippery slope of calling themselves “citizen investigators”.

        3. I don’t know anything about photoshop so I can’t comment. I used to work in lab that published falsified research and retained an interest in falsified science when I left. I know in the lab that I was in we would never use photoshop to falsify data as we were too afraid of being caught. From online discussions I did learn there is a small section of scientists who do use photoshop, but they are invariably the incompetent ones and they invariably get caught. Hence my basic prejudice: photoshop is for amateurs. Perhaps that isn’t the case here.
        2. Don’t know.
        1. To my untrained eye it looks more consistent with a missile trail than chimney smoke. A chimney would both be more continuous and more dispersed higher up. Bottom-line is: I don’t know. I am just putting forward a proposal. To get the required image would be fairly straight-forward, set the camera’s date to a day forward, insert a new memory card, take photo. All metadata, RAW image file data would look completely tamper free.

        There might be some evidence that could be found that could back this proposal up. One, you might have satellite images that can give an estimate of the level of cloud cover in that direction in the late afternoon.

        I am of the opinion that every time the separatists fire their Buk(s), they moved it to a new location to avoid being targeted. That would mean that the Buk might not even have been in Snizhne that day at all.
        Events on the 16th
        A. Fired at Su-25
        B. Photographed at Torez moving back to Donetsk
        C. Next day – photographed by Paris Match moving out of Donetsk to some unknown location.

        Curiously, the Ukrainian military did report a plane being shot down on the 16th – they claimed implausibly that the missile was fired from Russian territory. They said it was hit at Amvrosiyivka which is about 20 km south of Torez. That is well within the range of Buk at Szihne (or just south) and so entirely plausible with the photo under discussion being taken the day before.

        Reply
        • David Jones

          Thanks again for a thoughtful reply Sean.
          If we look at the photographs (and we can look on Bellingcat in the earlier article on the smoke trail) we see some dark smoke lower down and then strangely some different lighter smoke higher up.
          This dark smoke seems to be a regular phenomenon at the spot. there are photos on the web of much the same smoke on other dates. this smoke seems to be real.
          The white smoke above it seems to have been added to the photo and Dr Neal Krawetz had outlined the tell tale signs of the manipulation.

          I tend to be open to the Torez photo being from the 16th and there is some social media evidence for that.

          Reply
  5. Mad Dog

    Sean, again I must respectfully disagree with your theory. Most of the things you discussed can be explained, but the other options you offer still lack any evidence to back them up. Of course, the first thought that came to mind was that a military plane was shot down. Even the perpetrators first thought so. Who would have thought it was a passenger plane. So, I don’t think this is a deal breaker. The other stuff you mention comes off as just another version of your earlier “double low-boy” theory, i.e. pretty fanciful thinking, but nothing to back it up. Hopefully Boggled will comeback with another very detailed rebuttal (where does he get the time?), but still nice to see you keeping the pot boiling.

    Reply
  6. Oleg

    I think that smoke plume is from a chimney because smoke appears in the same place in a photo taken in June this year. it is at the Voskresenskaya mine it seems. Nothing to do with a buk missile

    Reply
    • boggled

      Oleg(2) I think your wrong.
      IF it was just a smoke plume from a chimney of the plant then there would have been lots of photos and witnesses stating that right away
      There wasn’t.
      I believe it was a smoke plume from a Surface to Air Missile.
      And it is factual.
      The fact that it has taken this long for even one person to put it out there or make this claim means that this person probably photo shopped something there.
      or that it is irrelevant.
      The BUK plume is just that.

      MadDog, I think your spot on, no one expected any civilian airliners to come down.
      The expectation especially after all the fights at Saur Mogilia or Savur-Mohyla.
      Even someone who works at the plant would have discounted it by now, and made it known it was a chimney from the mine.
      Or even the mine’s own site.

      They haven’t.

      Sean, I think the BUK sighted were damaged ones removed by the ‘rebels’ from Ukrainian bases.
      I can’t remember if the full account (not just that article) states it was on the ground at the base with rebels controlling the base, on a lowboy or it was relocated and stationed somewhere for pickup or if it was a fully or partially functional one.
      I would also point you to
      http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/launch-location-detected-of-missile.html

      And look at the clouds, there are other sites that actually document the passing of clouds.
      Clouds grow and change and in a hour a lot can change with the weather with as fast as upper level winds blow.
      Which I am sure you know and acknowledge.
      You can stand facing north and see one perspective and another for each of the cardinal points.
      It is only completely overcast on larger storm fronts.

      To David Jones about point 2.
      I am imagining that a missile’s engine is like a car.
      First off to get it off the ground it is full throttle to get it away from the launch vehicle, then when it attains a straight up flight path if it is attacking a high altitude target it backs off to conserve fuel.
      Watch a NASA rocket launch.
      It is kind of like a F15 launching from an aircraft carrier, it burners afterburners for launch, then backs off for normal flight once it gains altitude.
      point 1, see above comment.
      point 3, I do not want to get in a tit for tat issue about Neal, he is intelligent and knows his stuff, however like many statements in the Kremlin funded media, I take his viewpoint stated with a grain of skepticism.
      Sean I loved your joking about your FSB handlers, cute.

      Fare thee well

      Reply
    • David Jones

      That’s right Oleg. There is black smoke in exactly the same place in those photos from June. there is a mine there.

      Reply
      • Gabriele Gordon

        Which means that the Bellingcat claim that the black smoke is part of the white Buk contrail is debunked. Bellingcat gave no valid explanation anyway why this black smoke should crawl along and the white smoke should rise in a 90 degree angle.

        At least Bellingcat admitted that it relies on biased information by pro-Kiyv info-warriors who live far away from the Donbass region and just post what unconfirmed trusted sources with the same political view are “reporting”. Especially this new twitterer from Donezk spreads nonsense. No Buk, no Volvo.

        Isn’t it telling that all these “sightings” prior to the publication of the MH17 crash are without pictures?

        Reply

Leave a Reply

  • (will not be published)