the home of online investigations

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

How the Dutch Safety Board Proved Russia Faked MH17 Evidence

October 15, 2015

By Eliot Higgins

With the release of the Dutch Safety Board report into the downing of Flight MH17 it is now possible to compare the evidence gathered by the Dutch Safety Board with claims made by the Russian Ministry of Defence in their July 21st 2014 press conference on the downing of Flight MH17. In Bellingcat’s “Russia’s Colin Powell Moment – How the Russian Government’s MH17 Lies Were Exposed” four claims made by the Russian Ministry of Defence during the press conference were examined and shown to either be lies, fabrications, or both. While the Dutch Safety Board report does not cover all aspects of the Russian Ministry of Defence’s July 21st press conference it was still possible to compare the Dutch Safety Board’s conclusions to some of the claims made by the Russian Ministry of Defence.

MH17’s Flight Path

One of the Russian Ministry of Defence’s key claims was that MH17 had been redirected out of its flight corridor, making a significant turn clearly visible on the image they presented of MH17’s flight path, shown below:

4-Flight-path-2-

Data from the preliminary Dutch Safety Board report published on September 9th 2014 showed that this claimed flight path was a fabrication, with the following comparison created by Bellingcat clearly showing the difference between the Russian Ministry of Defence claim and the Dutch Safety Board’s findings in their preliminary report:

The below map is from the final Dutch Safety Board report showing the route of Flight MH17, which confirms the route published in the preliminary Dutch Safety Board report:

MH17 Route

This is final confirmation that the Russian Ministry of Defence presented a fake map of Flight MH17’s flight path in their July 21st 2014 press conference, and lied about the flight path during the press conference.

The Ukrainian SU-25 and Radar Data

The Russian Ministry of Defence presented the following image, which they claimed represented aircraft in the area at the time:

SU25

The Russian Ministry of Defence then stated the following:

At that time there were 3 civilian aircrafts:

Flight from Copenhagen to Singapore at 17.17;

Flight from Paris to Taipei at 17.24

Flight from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur. Besides it, Russian system of air control detected the Ukrainian Air Force aircraft, purposed Su-25, moving upwards toward to the Malaysian Boeing-777. The distance between aircrafts was 3-5 kilometers.

The Russian Ministry of Defence also presented a video of what it claimed was radar data showing aircraft in the sky at the time:

They then stated the following:

At 17.20 P.M. at the distance of 51 kilometers from the Russian Federation state boundary and the azimuth of 300 degrees the aircraft started to lose its speed obstructively which is quite distinctively to be seen on the table of the aircraft characteristics. At 17.21 35 seconds P.M. with the aircraft speed of 200 km/h at the point of the Boeing crash there is a new mark of the aircraft to be seen. The aircraft was steadily monitored by radar stations of Ust-Donetsk and Butirinskoe during 4 minutes period. Air control officer having enquired the characteristics of newly appeared aircraft couldn’t possibly get them because it is in all likelihood that the aircraft had no secondary deduction system amounted on it, which is put typically for military aircraft. The early detection of this aircraft appeared to be quite impossible because the air situation control is usually performed by radars working in a standby mode which detection possibilities at the given distance are over 5000 m altitude.

As part of the Dutch Safety Board investigation radar data was requested from Ukraine and Russia, with the results of the requests detailed in section 2.9.5 of the report:

Radar Data table

Russia was unable to provide any of their raw or process data, only providing a video of the radar screen showing what they claimed was processed primary and secondary data. The Dutch Safety Board states in section 2.9.5.3

Radar russia

Russia claims its data retention policies resulted in the data not being stored, and this is examined in detail in section 2.9.5.3 of the report. Regardless of regulations, and whether or not Russian followed them, it seems extremely odd that a few days after the downing of Flight MH17 Russian would use this data as part of its MH17 press conference, but not save a copy of the data for the Dutch Safety Board investigation, or the criminal investigation.

However, based on the information presented by Ukraine and Russia the Dutch Safety Board was able to come to a conclusion about other aircraft in the air at the time MH17 was shot down. In section 3.4.2 it referenced the second object that appeared on the radar, identified as an aircraft by the Russian Ministry of Defence:

Debris

The Dutch Safety Board made the following conclusions on the presence of other aeroplanes near Flight MH17 in section 10.2:

DSB Conclusion

In conclusion, it is clear to see that the claims of the Russian Ministry of Defence of an SU-25, or other military jet, close to MH17 were totally false, and they purposely misread radar data (also examined by other experts who came to the same conclusion as the Dutch Safety Board) to support their false claim a military jet was near to Flight MH17.

In addition to the above claims made by the Russian Ministry of Defence in their July 21st press conference it has been previously possible to prove the Russian Ministry of Defence lied about three other key claims, detailed here. It is now clearer than ever that the Russian Ministry of Defence’s reaction to the downing of Flight MH17 was to create lies and fabrications and present them to the world, only days after Flight MH17 was shot down, killing 298 people.

 

Eliot Higgins

Eliot Higgins is the founder of Bellingcat and the Brown Moses Blog. Eliot focuses on the weapons used in the conflict in Syria, and open source investigation tools and techniques.

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.

142 Comments

  1. Jan

    Jolly well performed analysis of all the evidence and facts around this tragic incident. Thanks a lot for putting light to who, very likely the Russian supported rebels, murdered all these completely innocent people. It is sad to repeatedly observe that the evilness of human beings towards other human beings never stops. I truely hope that the criminals who cowardly erased so many lives one day will account for their act, at least giving the relatives a bit of comfort and perhaps contribute to avoid that similar incidents occur again.

    Reply
  2. Dj Field

    If its a cover-up orchestrated by Russia I still support them and so should every sane European worth his name.

    So Russia is the bigger evil here because of this? Is Russia forcing countries to do as they say otherwise they face sanctions and intimidation? Is it Russia that ignore their allies and do what ever they want with their foreign intervention or do they actually have dialogue and intervene when asked by legitimate leaders?

    If I’m not misstaken, the owner of the Brown Moses blog, Eliot Higgins got approached a time ago by certain western media outlets and political think tanks, and suddenly started a hardline anti-russian rapporting with this Bellingcat project.

    Is it just me or is this a bit suspicious? Why this obvious bias? You could have more than enough material investigating all the failed US geopolitical policies around the the globe that Russia never could deliver.

    Reply
    • bellingcatadmin

      If Russia didn’t lie about things constantly then we wouldn’t have anything to write about. Maybe you should ask for some honesty from them rather than thinking we’ve agreed some anti-Russian bias with “certain western media outlets and political think tanks”.

      Reply
    • Andrea

      No, russia isn’t forcing anyone…but as they try to go with the enemies (join EU/NATO) they simply invade few regions and destabilize legitimate governments… (abhazia, crimea, donbass, south ossetia….)

      Nothing important from your point of view i guess….

      Reply
    • Alain

      It is just you. No obvious bias. Just facts that you don’t like, but facts nevertheless…

      And, no need to counter up thing with the US. The US are as bad as Russia, definitely (Bush deserves its cell in the Hague, along Putin, no problem !)

      Reply
      • Randy Dread

        depends what you call facts.

        i wouldnt class what Bellingcat bases its theories on as undisputed facts, far from it.

        Reply
        • Salazar

          Oh randy, let’s be honest what passes for facts in that canyon like skull of yours is beyond most of the readers here.

          Even when a report is exhaustively written illustrating point by point that the Russians have attempted to lie you still troll on their behalf.

          Is it really just because, to quote your good self, “they go hard”?

          Though quite what that means is also a mystery seeing as you have been at pains these last few months to insist that Russia have done very little at all.

          The enigma wrapped in a riddle that is Randy.

          The Midlands very own exponent of that ancient russian tradition, vranyo.

          Reply
    • Anon.

      >Is Russia forcing countries to do as they say otherwise they face sanctions and intimidation?

      Most definitely, where sanctions are in form of inflated prices for natural gas.

      >Is it Russia that ignore their allies…

      Do the words “Budapest memorandum” ring a bell for anyone?

      >…and do what ever they want with their foreign intervention…?

      Abkhazia, Transnistria, South Ossetia, Ukraine, Syria?

      >Why this obvious bias? You could have more than enough material investigating [something else]

      They could, of course. They investigate what they want and provide hard facts as proof. You have every right to investigate what you want, and thinking people will listen to you provided you care to back your conclusions with facts.

      Why do I need to state all these obvious things?

      Reply
    • GJR

      You want to give Russia a pass for orchestrating a cover-up of the deaths of nearly 300 civilians? Russia isn’t being accused of leaving the toilet seat up. Their looking increasingly culpable in these deaths or at a minimum protecting the guilty.

      Reply
    • Taavi Teder

      No it’s not just you. The big problem with the DSB report is that Ukraine, one of the prime suspects was one of the parties investigating and was able to veto any information it did not want in the report.
      So, the report was never independent. We need a truly independent investigation which means Ukraine cannot be involved, for starters

      Reply
      • viedforlulzyetlost

        Remarkably, DSB has come out with the changes participating states wanted to get into report, and Ukraine’s only qualm was about a wording regarding Crimea.

        So there’s that. Little qualm with theory of yours.

        Reply
  3. Sean Lamb

    But is also interesting that Ukraine didn’t provide any primary radar either processed or raw.
    A telling omission since the primary radar would confirm or refute the large number of eyewitnesses who said that saw a military aircraft visible below the cloud layer – I mean the Ukrainians even released intercepts of the rebels claiming to be firing at it with their low altitude shoulder held weapons. MH17 would not have been visible to the naked eye from the ground prior to the missile strike.. So while it is true that there is “no evidence of other aircraft”, the Ukrainians did not hand over the only data source (aside from the numerous eye witnesses) that would contain such evidence..
    If the Russians were prepared to fake a video capture of radar screen then faking the raw data would be even easier – all it would be is a bunch of numbers. So I would hesitate to assume bad faith on behalf of the Russians personally, but obviously I come from a slightly different perspective than Bellingcat as I view the death of nearly 300 people as an important matter in and of itself, not simply a delicious geopolitical opportunity to be exploited. But its wrong to say the Dutch Air Safety Board “proved” the Russians were lying, they didn’t accept their primary radar evidence as reliable and no other primary radar was provided by any one else. There is no radar evidence that an SU-25 was there, there is no radar evidence to say it wasn’t. There is simply a void

    It seems to me an illogical conclusion to conclude the signal after the missile strike was debris if you don’t accept the signal before it was genuine – why couldn’t both be faked? If you genuinely believe the video grab evidence is tampered with, then you just discard it entirely, you don’t just discard the bits you find inconvenient.

    Also interesting that all the Dutch animations used overcast or heavy cloudy conditions. Probably reading too much into this, but it may indicate that they accept the BUK smoke trail photo is either a fake – or more likely – taken the day before when conditions were clear and cloudless.

    To be honest, I expect I am reading too much into this. Had the Dutch Air Safety Board been aware of the issue they would have done all their reconstruction animations using blue clear cloudless skies. It probably never even occurred to them that they needed to tamper with the atmospheric conditions. The Americans should send someone over to taser the person who slipped up.

    Reply
    • Robert E

      Please read carefully before you react:

      Your claim:
      “But is also interesting that Ukraine didn’t provide any primary radar either processed or raw.”

      My reaction:
      In DSB report is explained why no primary radar (raw or processed) is received.

      Your claim:
      But its wrong to say the Dutch Air Safety Board “proved” the Russians were lying, they didn’t accept their primary radar evidence as reliable and no other primary radar was provided by any one else.

      My reaction:
      The Russians didn’t provide primary radar evidence! Zero Zero Zero
      Russia violated ICAO Annex 11 paragraph 6.4.1 by not saving their raw data (primary and secundary)

      Your claim:
      ” but it may indicate that they accept the BUK smoke trail photo is either a fake – or more likely – taken the day before when conditions were clear and cloudless”

      My reaction:
      BUK smoke trail photo has not been a part of DSB investigation. That photo is part of the JIT investigation. Therefore no conclussion can be drawn about that photo from the DSB report.

      Reply
  4. Andrea

    Sean Lamb – October 15th, 2015
    “they didn’t accept their primary radar evidence as reliable”

    #1: There is difference between “not accepted” (as you state) and “did not provide” (as DSB states).

    #2: you are talking about “signal before” the strike….can you point out where do we have a signal before strike ?

    Reply
    • tourist

      Read original DSB report. There is analysis of noisy signal in the cockpit’s microphones just before all recordings stop.

      Reply
      • Andrea

        0.o ? use a noisy signal in a microphone to prove the presence of another plane ?!?!?

        Nobody said there was a second plane except MoD (that told other lies before), MoD isn’t able to give any radar data…the DSB explaining the other radar signature was debries of the plane…

        But why the hell an hipothetical plane is so important if even russia said MH17 wad hit by a BUK ????

        Reply
        • tourist

          stupid guy… the noise is the explosion of the BUK just a meter away from the cockpit. Open the original report, look at page 44/45, 110…113, 136/137.

          Reply
    • Sean Lamb

      #1: There is difference between “not accepted” (as you state) and “did not provide” (as DSB states).
      The DSB correctly states the Russians provided a video grab of the radar screen showing the secondary and primary processed data. The Ukrainians provided to primary radar in any form whatsoever. An Su-25 will only appear on primary radar. If you exclude the Russian evidence, then you have no basis for saying whether an Su-25 was there or not. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
      If you find the absence of raw primary radar data from the Russians suspicious, why are not holding the Ukrainians to the same standard?

      #2: you are talking about “signal before” the strike….can you point out where do we have a signal before strike ?

      Yes. It is here:
      https://wp4553-flywheel.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Debris.jpg

      Reply
      • Andrea

        I’m reading the whole report now…i’ve just read:

        ukrainian primary radars were not working due to scheduled manteniance (page 38)

        I’ll read the whole thing before other comments…

        Reply
        • Правда

          They simply use this information to help determine the location of the blast, which is possible because the cockpit has multiple microphones. They did NOT use this information to rule out the presence of a Sukhoi.

          But Sean: Mother Russia, unlike Ukraine, did provide primary and secondary radar data, albeit not raw. Where is the Su-25 on their data? Why would Russian sources not be forthcoming with ANY data definitely proving the presence of a fighter plane Ukraine is desperate to hide, when that would profoundly embarrass any investigations into the cause so far?

          Reply
      • Robert E

        The SU25 posibility is not excluded because of absence of raw radar data.

        Damage (the wholes) is not consistent with an A2A missle or 30mm boardcannon.
        No fragments have been found of an an A2A missle or 30mm boardcannon.
        Russian video of primary and secunary radar doesn’t show any other plane nearby MH17 (besides the commercial aircrafts)
        and maybe i forget 1 or 2 more

        Reply
  5. Алексей Медведев

    Если быть до конца объективным, то…
    1. На представленном в отчете голландцев Б777 шёл по границе выделенного ему коридора и после пролета траверза TAGAN, вышел за пределы установленной ширины коридора (воздушной трассы), т.е. де факто уклонился влево. Уклонение довольно значительное по времени, но не по расстоянию. После пролета траверза GANRA экипаж воздушного судна (по указанию с земли, либо по собственной инициативе) предпринял меры по выходу на трассу.

    По всем канонам в любой стране мира скажут о том, что уклонение за пределы установленного коридора (воздушной трассы) – у голландцев заштрихованная белым полоса – было.

    1.1. Картинка МО РФ схематическая. Принципиальная разница между двумя картинками заключается лишь в том, что у голландцев РНТ TAGAN проходится траверзом, буквально “по срезу” выделенного коридора, а на представленной схеме МО РФ до РНТ TAGAN воздушное судно следовало строго по коридору и прошло над данной радио-навигационной точкой.

    Если голландскую схему нарисовать от середины коридора, то вот эта во “петля” и вырисуется. Если же российскую схему сдвинуть до левой границы воздушной трассы, то “петля” разгладится.

    1.2. С учетом вышесказанного понятно, что разница в отображении несущественна и принципиально ничего не меняет. Но, попытаемся понять, откуда эта разница взялась и кто более прав в этой ситуации.

    1.2.1. Во всех нормативных документах, регламентирующих деятельность, если воздушное судно находится в пределах воздушной трассы (выделенного коридора), то диспетчер не обязан акцентировать внимание экипажа на фактическом местоположении, а экипаж не обязан строго придерживаться оси. Ну, идет по срезу, докладывает прохождение контрольной точки, диспетчер подтверждает ее, а непосредственно ли он прошёл или с каким-то допустимым отклонением – орангутаново. Вот в этом и фишка.
    Россияне, не имея возможности сравнительного анализа наземных средств слежения с данными “черных ящиков” с воздушного судна, ориентировались на “данные по умолчанию”, т.е. если отклонения на конкретном участке не было, следовательно рисуем его в середину трассы. Голландцы уже разбирались в полете самолета, сравнивая показатели, поэтому их информация, на мой взгляд, точнее. Т.е. просто точнее. Потому что всё в этом мире относительно, всё следует рассматривать с учётом какой-то погрешности. И учитывать данные, исходя из этого обстоятельства. Так что вывод о том, что информация МО РФ и информация расследователей противоречит друг другу, ошибочен.

    Идём дальше…
    А был ли мальчик? – т.е. а был ли самолет…
    Внимательно смотрим картинку таблицы. Исходя из таблицы мы видим, что информации с “первичкой” не было представлено ни одной из сторон. Украинская сторона предоставила только данные по “вторичке” и т.е. “видеофильм”, т.е. информацию с радаров. Российская сторона тоже предоставила “видеофильм”, т.е. информацию с радаров.
    Поскольку речь идет о военном самолете, то он может как может наблюдаться на экранах диспетчерских локаторов, так и не наблюдается, поскольку гражданские диспетчеры на рабочих местах получают обработанную информацию с вторичных локаторов.
    Теперь внимание! Российская сторона, как известно, предоставила “картинку” военного сектора структурного подразделения гражданской компании (ФГУП “Госкорпорация по ОрВД”). В России гражданский и военные секторы Единой системы Организации Воздушного Движения (ЕС ОрВД) давно уже объединены в единую структуру. Принципиальная разница диспетчера гражданского сектора и военного сектора как раз и отличается в том, что диспетчер военного сектора чаще работает в “первичном” режиме. Вот и вся, собственно, разница между двумя этими фильмами. Поскольку первичной информации не представила ни одна сторона, то любой расследователь обязан был сконцентрироваться на том, что чтобы получить её во что бы то ни стало, поскольку данные обеих сторон не подтвердили друг друга. Вот если бы данные обоих сторон были идентичны, тогда да, тогда можно было бы не ковырять дальше – хотя ковырять до конца является прямой обязанностью человека, который желает изучить все незначительные казалось бы детали.
    А здесь мы слышим, данные вторичной радиолокации, представленные украинской стороной, не подтверждают нахождение военного самолета, поэтому мы решили отмести информацию с локатора диспетчера военного сектора и не интересоваться, откуда у них взялся на экране военный самолет. Бред же!

    Почему Россия не представила комиссии необработанные данные по “первичке” и “вторичке” абсолютно понятно – с них гриф секретности никто не снимал, российская сторона неоднократно заявляла о том, что готова предоставить доступ к данной информации специалистам-расследователям для изучения на месте.

    Почему Украина не представила комиссии необработанные данные по “первичке”, ограничившись “вторичкой”, тоже понятно. Во-первых, это тоже наверняка информация, охраняемая государством. Ну, а во-вторых, она могла полностью опровергнуть необработанные данные вторичной радиолокации. Ну или подтвердить её. Украинская сторона подтвердить данные “вторички” по ряду причин, судя по информации голландских экспертов, тоже не захотела.

    Так что вопрос “А был ли мальчик?” остаётся открытым, поскольку ни одна из сторон ни опровергла сам факт, ни опровергла его. Подозревать кого-то из сторон в злом умысле, я полагаю, не стоит. Скорее предположить, что обе стороны не имели никакого доверия к данной комиссии и, по принципу “на всякий случай”, не раскрыли свои карты до конца. А ответить на вопрос “А был ли мальчик?” можно только если сравнить необработанные данные первичной радиолокации обеих сторон. Так что ничуть не сомневаюсь, что когда-нибудь мы услышим чёткий и вразумительный ответ и по данному вопросу.

    С уважением,
    Алексей Медведев

    Reply
    • Andrea

      GOOGLE TRANSLATE:

      To be completely objective, then …
      1. In the report submitted to the Dutch B777 walked along the border corridor allocated to it and after passing beam TAGAN, went beyond the established corridor width (airway), ie, de facto dodged left. Evasion is quite significant at the time, but not the distance. After the passage of the beam GANRA flight crew (at the direction of the ground, or on its own initiative) has taken steps to exit the track.

      By all canons in any country of the world would say that evasion beyond the established corridor (airway) – the Dutch shaded white band – it was.

      eleven. Russian Defense Ministry schematic picture. The principal difference between the two pictures is just that the Dutch RNT TAGAN passed abeam, literally “on the slice” dedicated corridor, and on the present scheme of Defense of the Russian Federation to the RNT TAGAN aircraft should strictly along the corridor and passed over this radio navigation point.

      If the Dutch scheme to draw from the middle of the hall, here in this “loop” and emerges. If the Russian scheme to shift to the left border of the airway, the “loop” smoothed.

      12. In view of the foregoing it is clear that the difference in the display is negligible and essentially does not change anything. But we try to understand how this difference come from and who is more right in this situation.

      1.2.1. All normative documents regulating the activity, if the aircraft is within the airway (dedicated corridor), the manager is not obliged to focus on the actual location of the crew, and the crew is not required to adhere strictly to the axis. Well, going by slice, report passing the checkpoint manager confirms it, and he went directly or with some tolerance – orangutanovo. That this feature.
      The Russians, unable to ground-based comparative analysis of tracking data “black boxes” from the aircraft, guided by the “default data”, ie if the deviation in the specific area was not therefore draw it into the middle of the track. The Dutch have already dealt in flight aircraft, comparing performance, so their information is, in my opinion, exactly. Ie a skilful. Because everything in this world is relative, everything should be considered, taking into account any errors. And take into account data on the basis of this fact. So the conclusion that the Russian Defense Ministry information and investigative information contradicts each other wrong.

      Go ahead…
      Was there a boy? – I.e. Was there a plane …
      Carefully look at the picture of the table. From the table we see that the information from the “primary” has been submitted by either party. The Ukrainian party has provided data only on “secondary housing” and that “Video”, ie information from the radar. The Russian side also provided the “video”, ie information from the radar.
      Since this is a military plane, it can as it may be observed on the radar screens of dispatch, and is not observed, since the civilian dispatchers workplaces receive the processed information to the secondary radar.
      Now, attention! The Russian side is known to provide a “picture” of the military sector of the structural unit of the civil campaign (Federal State Unitary Enterprise “State ATM Corporation”). In Russia, civil and military sectors of the Unified System of Air Traffic Management (ATM EU) has long been integrated into a single structure. The principal difference dispatcher civil sector and the military sector is just different in that the controller in the military sector often operates in “primary” mode. That’s all, in fact, the difference between the two films. Since the initial information did not provide any party, any investigator had to concentrate on what to get her in whatever was because the data on both sides did not confirm each other. Now, if these two sides were identical, then yes, then we could not pick on – pick up at the end it is the direct responsibility of the person who wants to explore all the seemingly insignificant details.
      And here we hear, secondary radar data provided by the Ukrainian party, does not support the finding of a military aircraft, so we decided to dismiss the information from the radar controller of the military sector, and are not interested in where they come from a military plane on the screen. Brad back!

      Why Russia is not submitted to the Commission on raw data “primary” and “secondary housing” is absolutely clear – with their secrecy has not been removed, the Russian side has repeatedly stated that it is ready to provide access to this information specialist investigators to study on the spot.

      Why Ukraine has not provided the raw data for the Commission “primary”, limiting the “secondary”, is also understandable. Firstly, it is also certain information protected by the state. Well, and secondly, it can fully refute the raw data of the secondary radar. Well, or confirm it. The Ukrainian side confirmed these “secondary” for several reasons, according to the information of the Dutch experts, too, did not want to.

      So the question, “Was there a boy?” Remains open, since none of the parties nor denied the fact, nor denied it. Suspect someone of the parties in malice, I think, not worth it. Most assume that both sides had no confidence in the commission and on the principle of “just in case”, did not disclose their cards until the end. And to answer the question, “Was there a boy?” Can only be compared if the raw data of the primary radar of both parties. So I have no doubt that someday we will hear a clear and plausible answer, and on this issue.

      Yours faithfully,
      Alexei Medvedev

      HAHAHA

      Reply
    • Pavel

      “Почему Россия не представила комиссии необработанные данные по “первичке” и “вторичке” абсолютно понятно – с них гриф секретности никто не снимал”
      В отчёте DSB сказано, что в ответ на просьбу предоставить данные первичного радара, Россия отказалась это сделать, заявив, что они были уничтожены. Мол, срок хранения истёк. Ни о какой секретности там речь не идёт. Так что не надо придумывать то, чего не было.

      Reply
      • Andrea

        GOOGLE TRANSLATE:
        ” Why Russia is not submitted to the Commission on raw data ” primary ” and” secondary housing ” is absolutely clear – with their secrecy has not been removed ”
        The DSB report said that in response to a request for data from the primary radar , Russia has refused to do , saying that they were destroyed . Like, the shelf life has expired. About any secret out there not talking . So no need to invent something that was not.

        MY ANSWER:
        No kind of secrecy: russian said they have no data…no data at all…they said that!
        At least read once that report and stop making idiot claims that can be confuted after reading few lines of DSB report !

        Reply
  6. Andrea

    Ok… now i’ve read the report…at least the most interesting parts, i’ll try to summarize:

    The only certain thing is that at 15:20:03 the black box recording stops, its emergency transmitter automatically turns on and with the expected delay of 30″ satellites record this signal at 15:20:35.

    As i said before in DSB report is stated that Ukrainian primary radars were under scheduled manteniance and therfore no data was collected from them. Russian ones instead erased their saved datas cause they tought they were allowed not to keep them as the crash happened outside their nation (and this is a violation of ICAO rules).

    Ukrainians gave DSB their secondary radar records and a video replay. Russians instead only provided a video replay as they erased other datas.

    Secondary radars is based only on the signals collected trough the transponder. Primary radar instead uses radio waves reflecting upon surfaces. Usually both systems are used together.

    In russian radar after crash time (15:20:03) a “new” primary objective is visible between 15:20:47 and 21:08 and later between 21:18 and 21:57 … by this time secondary marking of MH17 is off (no more transponder).
    This means that there is something else in the sky and can be a misterious plane that earlier was invisible (MoD story) or MH17 splitted in few segments big enough to be detected by the radar (DSB supports this last story).

    In DSB report they exlude A-A missles and cannons as there were too many holes and they collected from bodies fragments with a Bow-tie shape that are not present in any other warhead except Buk ones.

    Feel free to disagree with this but READ DSB report first and add some proofs to claims

    Reply
    • sotilaspassi

      “This means that there is something else in the sky and can be a misterious plane that earlier was invisible”

      What plane can hover like that item we see on radar?

      Really. There was nothing else than MH17 and then debris.
      RU destroyed their data deliberately, because the original data would have blown also their 5000m lie of radar coverage.

      Reply
      • Andrea

        Totally agree…a “plane” tha t floats appearing and disappearing from radars…
        but i mentioned that hipothesis not to hurt those trolls 😉

        Reply
        • boggled

          I also believe they ‘destroyed’ the primary radar data, or hid them away like they did the Molotov-Ribbentrop documents and others about Stalin’s crimes, because they show the BUK being fired and the missile going up to MH17.
          You do not honestly think they would give JIT or the world evidence that would implicate them or their proxies, do you?

          Over 100 hundred planes flew that day in that region, and MH17 was taken down.
          Random target, intentional target of MH17, or screw up and targeted a plane that they thought was another one will be some serious questions for JIT to consider.
          Ukraine from the get go said the actual target was a Russian plane that would be passing near by.

          With the actual captures of the various communications of Russian officials and separatist’s leadership (mostly Russians also) about military matters that have turned out to be factual, I have an idea they may be right.

          Russia meant to target a Russian Aeroflot plane full of Russians as a pretext to invade Ukraine and pretend to be a peace keeping force, and the BUK crew screwed up big time.

          With so many flights along that corridor on July 17 2014 and only MH17 hit, says to me it was an intentional targeting of a civilian plane and not a mistaken military one.
          Too many safeguards in a BUK and a BUK has never accidentally destroyed another civilian target in its decades of use.

          To give the order to target a civilian plane, and confirm the order to destroy goes allll the way up the food chain to the leaders in the Kremlin.

          Will the Kremlin be made a fool of by dragging it all the way to court and try to get off on a technicality?
          Or will they admit their guilt with caveats and still look like fools and liars?

          Between now and Feb or March 2016 when JIT releases some of its findings will be very interesting indeed.

          Fare thee well

          Reply
      • Sean Lamb

        The ability for primary radar to pick up a signal will depend both on the distance from the station and altitude. The Russians claimed that the Su-25 climbed from 3000 to 5000 meters, so presumably below 3000 meters Rostov loses visibility at that distance.

        Even if the Ukrainian civilian primary radar was not working due to maintenance – an explanation I find suspiciously convenient – there still should have military primary radar available. The idea that on the border in a period of active hostilities there was no primary radar operating when mh17 was downed, should simply be laughed at.

        In my view the role of the Su-25 was simply to draw ground fire to create a fog of confusion in the minds of the rebels as to their possible responsibility.

        Reply
          • Sean Lamb

            I guess if we all shout “there was no Su-25” in unison then it will become true.

            Humans and magical thinking.

          • Salazar

            Sean. It’s not my opinion. It’s in the report. There is no evidence of an Su-25 being anywhere near MH-17. This is dismissed as a theory as the evidence clearly states the signal was debris falling from the plane.

            So, one of assertions is backed up by the findings, one of ours isn’t.

            You’re making suppositions which are backed up by exactly nothing.
            At all.

            Theories are meant to be supported by evidence not be proposed in complete isolation of the evidence.

            So because you don’t like the evidence you’re just proffering a line of nonsense with no basis in fact. You would have as much evidence to say that puff the magic dragon and dumbo carried out an air raid.

            There was no SU-25. To say otherwise flies in the face of every piece of verifiable evidence.

          • Sean Lamb

            Well, there is numerous eye-witness accounts and radio intercepts talking about an Su-25 flying visible below the cloud layer – including from the gentleman who supplied the Buk smoke trail photo.
            In the agreed absence of any primary radar data we have no basis to reject this eye-witness testimony.

            Its one thing to accept the inability of the Ukrainians to provide any primary radar data in the area of their traffic control operations. It is entirely another thing to say had this data existed it would have disproved the eyewitnesses.

          • boggled

            Thanks Salazar, now I have to go out and see if I can find a Puff the Magic Dragon movie, and while I am at it a HR Puffinstuff one too.

            Sean, Russian MoD had military and ATC primary radar painted all over that region, some from higher elevations that were looking for aircraft.
            They even had MIGs within radar range.

            They made the allegation of a SU25, with just a small object on ATC primary of a piece of MH17 debris, wing or tail is my guess.

            IF they wanted to prove a military jet, they could have if there was one.
            They could not and did not.
            Therefore, there was NO other aircraft within 33 KM of MH17 when it was hit.

            Let me reiterate for you, DSB sent Russia the report June 2nd 2015.
            IF RF wanted to prove and there was a military plane flying at that time, they had the capabilities.
            They did not, and did not dispute that to DSB and make a case.
            Therefore there was no military aircraft within 33 km of MH17 when it was hit or later.
            Regardless of how many witnesses Kremlin sponsored propaganda pays or finds to make that claim.

            Fare thee well

          • Sean Lamb

            And remember this?

            “Major: So, it was Chernuhinsk guys [militants at the Chernukhino checkpoint] who downed the plane. From Chernukhino checkpoint. The Cossacks at Chernukhino. The plane disintegrated in the air, near the Petropavlivsk mine. The first “two hundredth” (dead body), [they] found the first “two hundredth.” A civilian. ”

            Unless you think the Chernukhino checkpoint also had a radar based Buk system then they were firing at a visible target below the cloud cover.
            Or have Kremlin propagandists infiltrated the Ukrainian signals division?

          • boggled

            Sean, if you look at the time of the tweet it was early morning and discussing the day before shootings.

            The other conversation with Grek – Alexander Afendikov Grigoryevich
            was one discussing the destruction of MH17.
            You can’t get clearer then that.

            You should get the original version and transcripts, because you got lied to on the translation.
            when they discuss ‘near the Petropavlivsk mine’ they actually mean out past it somewhere, but in that direction.

            NOTHING about a SU25 on the day of MH17’s destruction, just like the DSB report.
            Sorry you live in denial and cannot look further then the front of your nose and are scared of facts.

            Fare thee well

          • Sean Lamb

            “Sean, if you look at the time of the tweet it was early morning and discussing the day before shootings.”
            Na – its an issue with the time stamp.
            Unless you think this tweet was also sent early morning…..?
            https://twitter.com/WowihaY/status/489807649509478400

            “The other conversation with Grek – Alexander Afendikov Grigoryevich
            was one discussing the destruction of MH17.
            You can’t get clearer then that.”

            Precisely, unless you are claiming there was another Buk at Chernukhino then the checkpoint had been firing at a visible plane that was buzzing them. On the conditions of that day, MH17 would not have been visible from the ground.

          • boggled

            Sean, hover over the date stamps in the following tweets, it gives the 1st tweet first after the initial one and you get an idea of the actual times.

            I admit the times of initial tweets is somewhat buggy and not the best thing to rely on, checking the following tweets is a priority in all important messages, if there is one.
            If there isn’t, it is important to do a little more legwork to nail it down.

            The translation in the SBU(?) posted you tube clip is not the best to use to interpret what was said.
            You should search for a better transcript.
            They were trying to figure out what was shot down and who shot it down, they figured it was a group of Cossacks that they knew had a BUK, but they were not sure, and they were not in the loop about the covert operation of the BUK coming from Kursk.

            A person had a followup conversation with Grek afterwards, transcripts are here –
            https://cgrozev.wordpress.com/2014/07/20/an-interview-with-grek/

            Grek and interviewer states –
            Q: “Let me ask one last question. On that very day, in addition to MH17, was there ANOTHER plane that was taken down, about which you might have had that discussion?””

            Grek: “Our militias did not shoot down any plane, at all.

            He did not say, yes our guys got one SU25 or shot at one.

            He emphatically claims they had no planes shot down (including MH17 which we know is a lie and he was not in the inner circle to know what happened)
            They were making a bunch of guesses and assumptions, but it was no evidence of another shooting which you can tell with a better translation and understanding the context, I believe.

            Fare thee well

          • tourist

            The SU 25 only was created/invented virtually to confuse the world. It was clear from beginning that a BUK shot down MH17. There were too many public available photos, videos and caught up and later published communications from the seps which confirmed that. Just a day after the crash this was clear, ukrainian and western governements already had this informations from their secret sevices. Russia just created the SU 25 and other theories to distract everyone from the truth.

        • Andrea

          Little genius… read DSB report as there you can find all the infos u need:
          ukrainian civil primary radar was under SCHEDULED manteniance…not malfunctionig or other suspicious things.
          Ukrainian military primary radar was turned off as there were no military flights in the area.

          is all written…too hard to use few neurons before claiming things that can be confuted in 5 seconds ?

          Reply
  7. Bernd

    One year ago, directyl after the press conference fail of the Russians I was writing about false conclusions coming from the radar data shown on video. I was writing about missing SU25, capabilities of the SU25 and that the dots on the screen were most likely falling debris.

    Obviously the JIT came to the same conclusion.

    At least the Russian side isn’t claiming an attack by Su25 anymore…As far as I know.
    But nonetheless, comments sections of German news papers and magazines people ARE still coming up with a jet fighter attack.

    by now it became a conspiracy theory and according to my experience arguments will be fruitless…

    Reply
  8. Luc

    I would like to see the USA satellite Picts they claim to have of the buk,,,because that would or should provide proof with out a doubt of who,where, instead of all this guess work ,,,there happy to show satellite Picts of Russia in Syria but MH17 they hide there so called evidence,,,it’s one of the reasons I don’t believe what we are being told

    Reply
    • boggled

      Luc, Russia in Syria is not really a criminal investigation on an International scale.
      Yes, I like you wish Digital Globe or other satellites would make free their images from that day.

      However, the reasons for USA withholding from the public the SBIRS and other satellite data, I believe, is because it is part of a criminal trial that will end up getting held in the Hague Tribunal.
      They do not want a witch hunt of Russians, they do not want civil war in Russia.
      They want the Kremlin to act like a man and fess up.

      The Kremlin has decided to act like immature criminals and children and play the blame game in its sponsored media and with its TROLLop army.

      Syria is just a clusterf*ck of a conflict, and that showing RF troops there is just something for the history books, and nothing relating to a Hague Tribunal – yet.

      MH17 is a Tribunal case that will play out in courts so DSB, who has the data, JIT, who also has the data, and USA, who believe in Justice for alland have the data and more, are withholding it for certain reasons, some of which I stated my beliefs above.

      DSB did not need to show the data for them to complete the mission protocols they were giving by IACO and the UN.
      JIT might release them, them might just hold them for a few select people because Iran, Russia, and North Korea, even China, and terrorist groups would love to know the capabilities of those satellites and the USA does not want them to find out.

      Fare thee well

      Reply

Leave a Reply

  • (will not be published)

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

TRUST IN JOURNALISM - IMPRESS