the home of online investigations

The Lost Digit: Buk 3×2

May 3, 2016

By Bellingcat Investigation Team

Translations: Русский

cover_buk

Full report: (EN)  stock_save_pdf    (RU)  stock_save_pdf    (DE)  stock_save_pdf

In November 2014, Bellingcat published a report that identified the Buk TELAR (missile launcher) that downed Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 as “Buk 3×2,” originating from Russia’s 53rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade of Kursk. The Buk was called 3×2 due to an obscured middle digit, which was not identifiable at the time of the report’s publication.

buk_compare

Left: Paris Match photo Right: Buk 3×2 in June convoy

missing_digit

The missing digit

In a new report, we positively identify the middle digit of this Buk by matching seven characteristic features on Buk 3×2, including a unique dent on a side panel, the white marks on the chassis, and the cable arrangement connecting to the missile erector.

Features on Buk 3x2 that will be compared

Features on Buk 3×2 that will be compared

The middle digit is a three, thus identifying the number of the Buk that downed MH17 as “332” before the middle digit was obscured. In this new investigation, members of the Bellingcat investigation team collected and analyzed dozens of photographs of Buk TELARs that have been posted online by members of the 53rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade since 2010.

telars

Buk TELARs 312, 322, and 332

The full report gives details on the process in determining that these three TELARs were the only possible candidates for identification. After comparing the seven unique features, Buk 332 was the only TELAR that had even one of these features in common with Buk 3×2 from materials recorded in Russia in June 2014 and eastern Ukraine on July 17 and 18, 2014. The seven examined features were: side skirt profile, wheel type (combination of hollow wheels and spoke wheels), dent in the left side panel, arrangement of cable connections to the missile erector, white mark on both side skirts, font and exact spacing of digits, and the shape and size of oil/soot deposits by exhaust

The full report, downloadable here, provides a detailed analysis of each of these seven features. This summary will compare a few of the most conclusive features.

A high-quality photograph of Buk 3×2 taken in Alexeevka, Russia shows an inverted S-shape dent on the left panel.

3x2-dent

Clear photographs were available of this same left panel for Buks 312, 322, and 332. A comparison of the three panels below shows that Buk 332 has the identical dent on the panel:

Comparisons of left panel dents on Buks 312, 322, and 332, along with 3x2

Comparisons of left panel dents on Buks 312, 322, and 332, along with 3×2

Another identifier for identifying the correct Buk is by studying the cable connections to the missile erector on the revolving turret. There are four cables on both the left and right side leading to the missile erector, providing us with eight cables to compare.

buk-cables

After studying a number of Buks, it becomes clear that there are different arrangements and lengths to the cables. In the following two figures, the cable connections of Buk 3×2 is compared to the ones of Buks 312, 322, and 332.

buk-cables-1

Here, on the right side, only Buk 332 shows a similarity to the cable arrangement of Buk 3×2. The blue-marked cable four is connected to the top plug on the turret chassis. Buk 312 and 322 show a different cabling, and cable four is connected to the bottom plug. Also, Buk 312, 322 and 332 show a distinct shape of the cabling, and only the shape of Buk 332 resembles that of the cabling of 3×2.

buk-cables-2

The comparison on the left side allows only a partial comparison. It is not possible to see the plugs on the turret chassis. However, Buk 332 shows the same distinct spread of the cabling in the middle that is also visible on 3×2.  Nothing comparable is visible on 312 or 322.

Taken individually, none of the seven identifying characteristics allows a definite identification. However, taken in sum, it becomes clear that Buk 332 is the only logical match for Buk 3×2.

features_table

Furthermore, comparing the features of Buk 3×2 in Russia and Buk 332 to the available materials of Buk 3×2 in Ukraine (called the “Separatist” Buk below) reveals that these three Buks are actually one in the same.

features_table2
Many of these features, such as spoke wheels and the H-2200 mark, do not or very rarely appear on Ukrainian Buks. In particular, the Buk TELARs of Ukraine’s 156th Anti-Aircraft Regiment, which was based near Luhansk, Donetsk, and Mariupol in 2014, do not share any visible similarities among the compared characteristics with Buk 3×2, either in Russia or Ukraine. We can say with confidence that on 17 July 2014, the Russian Buk TELAR numbered 332 of the 53rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade based in Kursk was filmed and photographed in eastern Ukraine. This specific Buk, previously identified as Buk 3×2, was filmed moving to the center of the launch area estimated by the Dutch Safety Board for the missile that downed MH17.

Acknowledgments:

Credit should be given to various Russian-language online communities for helping to locate some of these materials and provide useful investigative leads. In particular, Bellingcat would like to recognize the efforts of the communities of flight-mh17.livejournal.com and forum.smolensk.ws for their efforts and keen eyes, particularly regarding the discoveries of the dent in the left panel of Buk 332 and details relating to the road wheels of Buk TELARs.

Bellingcat Investigation Team

The Bellingcat Investigation Team is an award winning group of volunteers and full time investigators who make up the core of the Bellingcat's investigative efforts.

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:

222 Comments

  1. Dario

    Great job.
    One curiosity about the images of the dents. Isn’t the 3X2 convex and the 332 concave?

    Reply
    • Aric Toler

      Looking it over a few more times, still looks to be the same to me. Top (smaller) dent bends outwards, bottom (much larger) dent bends inwards. Hard to get a read on exact dimensions due to no available video in high resolution, but seems sufficiently clear in the available photographs. Another issue is that photos were obviously taken at different angles/distances, so dent seems exaggerated in 332 photo compared to 3×2 due to that (but I’m sure you noticed that of course).

      Reply
      • Dario

        After your explanation I see what you mean and I agree with you!
        I was thinking the differences were due to a different shape design of the lateral plate but now I’m convinced that it was really a dent (much evident in Buk 332). Moreover in 332 seems the bend has a flat surface, in 3X2 it has been possibly partially fixed (the edge, highlight by the sunlight, seems more thin). Despite this, the dent position and dimension is so similar that the two images must have been taken from the same Buk. Thanks Aric, great work!

        Reply
  2. Greg Rabinovich

    The problem with a “Russian Buk” that was used to shoot down MH17 is that there exists a video of the Buk being transported by a notorious white Volvo truck seen on the Paris Match photo. The video was filmed on March 17, 2014 at a block post near Donetsk and constitutes proof that the Buk in question is Ukrainian. The video titled “Buk № 312 filmed at Yasinovataya GAI post – 17.3.2014” (youtube.com/watch?v=2jJdE1KSskA) lingered on YouTube unmolested until I posted a link to BC a few weeks ago. Today, I wanted to repost the link only to discover that the video had been scrubbed:).

    Thanks a lot for letting me know that a) I am dealing with professional propagandists able and willing to destroy evidence and b) the video drives a stake through the bellingcat’s MH17 narrative. Notably, in addition to the video having been scrubbed, BC changed its tune: “Buk 312” morphed into “Buk 3?2”:). Don’t take my word for it, google ‘bellingcat “buk 312″‘ and you shall find how BC identified the Buk in the past.

    I have bad news for “open source” fraudsters: the Internet is nearly impossible to scrub. Any video, image or newspaper article ever posted to the Internet still exists somewhere waiting to be discovered. It took me about 5min to locate a copy of the scrubbed video at another website. Scrub this: kontrtube.ru/videos/3433/buk-312-v-yasinovataya-post-gai-17-03-2014/ ;). If you do, I am going to either locate another copy or upload a copy of the video that I downloaded today.

    Reply
    • barry

      hi greg i have both videos that were filmed but i believe the were filmed in mid march 2014 four month prior to mh 17….ukr army admitted that rebels never captured any of their buks …..buk 312 was photographed at kramatursk airbas in late aug 2014 …point being they were always in ukr army possession

      Reply
    • Benjamin Birdsey

      And the Russian Ministry of Defense has not yet used this video to prove that the Buk was Ukrainian?

      Reply
      • Greg Rabinovich

        The video only proves that a narrative peddled by Ukraine’s secret police and, more recently, bellingcat has no basis in fact. It does not prove that the Buk 312/3?2 was used to shoot down MH17.

        Reply
        • Black Star

          Ukrainians transported the Buk to russian-controlled territory, in an bright white truck of all possible vehicle colours, shot down the plane and then returned the missile system to Ukrainian-controlled territory, all without a single person on site taking a single photograph?

          Where were the russians during all that time, since they were able to arrive to the site of the shot down jet immediately.

          But take no offence. I am just jesting with you, since the proof against the real shooters (russian regular military disguising as ukrainian separatists) is really overwhelmingly strong.

          Reply
        • Sam

          What proof does Russia have for alternatives like zombie Fligtht etc…

          Russia Disinformation as usual.

          Reply
    • boggled

      Sorry Greg, major fail and already debunked over and over again
      Wrong truck – the one from your video has taller cabin, no driver side intake duct, etc
      Wrong trailer too
      You are full of failures on many issues
      You are as bad as MFA Russia with their (and yours also) physics and 3D spatial analysis.

      Great work everyone that contributed to this report!

      Fare thee well

      Reply
      • Greg Rabinovich

        Debunked by who? If the video did not undermine bellingcat’s conspiracy theories, why was it scrubbed shortly after a link to the video was posted to the bellingcat’s blog?

        Destroying evidence is evidence of guilty mind. BUSTED!

        Reply
        • Steven

          To which end. Perhaps you would like to comment on Russia not saving and supplying either primary or secondary radar raw data to the DSB so that the video footage of their radar used in their press conference could be verified?

          What possible reason could they have for a not saving this data and secondly not wanting to supply this evidence to the official investigation? Should we draw any inference from that Greg?

          Reply
        • boggled

          Search for the city Greg, it has been debunked and discussed in even RF forums.
          The video has been on the net forever.
          As well as images of the overnight detention of the vehicles.
          Many still on VK.

          Why it was brought down from your link is anyone’s guess.
          Nothing to do with BC though.
          Might be someone who reads BC and saw your post and felt it had been bashed enough in various forums.

          Might have been you yourself in your Trollop logic that took down the video and then blame BC for doing it as is SOP for many Russian operations.

          Who knows.
          Doesn’t matter

          The trucks are completely different.
          The trailers are different
          The BUK is different than the one that left with 1 missile missing.

          U failed, just like other attempts of illogical logic by you.
          Keep up the good work, you only give RF a bad name by your simple lies being exposed.

          Fare thee well

          Reply
          • boggled

            Gregovych Rabinovych, U do not know what VK is?
            Really?
            It is Russian social media platform (for those others who do not know)
            I believe Gregorovitch is just pulling my leg being the Kremlin defender he is.

            Fare thee well

        • LOL (@Emacs232)

          By everyone who knows even a little about signal and image processing. Those BCers are just a bunch of incompetent amateurs who knows basically nothing about these fields and just lack of common sense.

          Reply
          • Sam

            Everyone knows Russia shot down ma17

            Russia is a country full of paid trolls, liars and murders.

            How can you have a LOL name as a Russiaian who murders innocents?

    • Sam

      Greg,

      The first of many Russian propagandists that will post in this thread.

      Typical Kremlin disinformation tactics.

      Reply
    • Thord

      Greg Rabinovich.
      You are right, both trucks are white. But that is the only similarity. The first truck is a Volvo (Swedish brand) The second is a Daf (dutch brand). How can you believe that someone would not see the difference between them??

      So do over and do it right. I’m sure you can dream up something else 😉

      Reply
    • Iurii Filatov

      To compare the figures of the video and BUK that an photos. They are different.
      They are different in the writing style.
      In the video, the correct figures on the photos made in Photoshop

      Сравните цифры на БУКе из видео и с тем, что ан фото. Они разные.
      Они разные по стилю написания.
      На видео цифры правильные, на фото сделаны в фотошопе

      Reply
  3. Ivan

    Misdirection. How does any of this proves with 99,9% certainty that Russians or Ukrainians shot down MH17? or any evidence that this particular Buk HAS actually shot down MH17? Could you please provide some evidence for that? There were many Buks in the area. Russian and Ukrainian within firing range and reach. https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2016/03/11/8229/

    Is there is a video/reliable witness statements that this particular Buk has fired any missile that day? or perhaps a forensic examination of all Buk launchers in the area? Buk’s computers/logs – Ukrainian/Russian that day? Chemical analysis? Even of the soil – to find traces of the rocket launch? Without it you can’t even hypothesize with 50% certainty it was this particular Buk that shot down MH17. Why not the others – be in Russian or Ukrainian – doesn’t matter – show us proof. Why this one and not the others from the area? “Being in the vicinity” isn’t good enough to prove shooting down.It has to be caught in the act with credible evidence to go on.

    Reply
    • Black Star

      “How does any of this proves with 99,9% certainty that Russians or Ukrainians shot down MH17?”

      You are taking numbers out of your hat.

      “or any evidence that this particular Buk HAS actually shot down MH17?”

      Pictures of the Buk on site, before with a full missile load, afterwards with a missile missing.

      “There were many Buks in the area. Russian and Ukrainian within firing range and reach. ”

      How many Buks do you believe were there? 10? Or just that one? Because unless you give a number, you just have to accept the number others have arrived to. Mind you, the missile shot itself has been located extremely accurately. Do you really think there were several Buks within an area that is just a few hundred meters across, some from Ukrainian army, others from Russian army?

      ” or perhaps a forensic examination of all Buk launchers in the area”

      Well this would be extremely conclusive proof, althougn unneeded since we already know where the shot came from. Maybe you should call your personal representative in the Russian Duma and ask for him/her to request that information, since Russian army is the only one that has hands-on access to russian missile systems?

      Reply
    • GJR

      With enough circumstantial evidence you can get a conviction in many courts of law.
      Interesting that you don’t seem to have an issue with the fact that Russian Buks should not have been in Ukraine in the first place.

      Reply
    • Sam

      Nice whataboutism considering the quality of the Russia court system.

      Calm down troll.

      The only proven 100% is that all the RussIan lies stories are lies

      Until you trolls put forth a viable (not lie) alternative, Russia is guilty.

      With all the power of the Russian government , why has every scenario easily disproved?

      Russia government are murders supported by Russian people.

      The Russian people should be ashamed.

      Reply
  4. Ivan

    So many emotions – clearly you are a very balanced and unbiased, analyst?

    1. “Pictures of the Buk on site, before with a full missile load, afterwards with a missile missing.” – Where are these pictures in your report, sir/madam? Before and After same launcher with some verifiable time-stamps. Without references your comments are just hot air, sir/madam.

    2. Even if you could produce such imagery in the court of law of any country where the rule of law exists – you’d have to prove – that this particular launcher has fired a missile which in fact has hit MH17 and brought it down. Establish a connection. Link. Yes, you’d have to subpoena all Buks within firing range. All 3 or more. Why hasn’t UN/ICC done that? Why didn’t you called representatives of your country in OSCE, UN and asked them to draft a subpoena for proper investigation? No matter the outcome – you should have done that and publish the letter of request. Clearly if It comes from Bellingcat – they’d listen.

    3. “How many Buks do you believe were there? 10? Or just that one?”
    According to you 3 at least: https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2016/03/11/8229/

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmJpv-_Mp9M

    Ukrainians didn’t deny having Buks in the vicinity, while having sufficient firing range to bring down the plane. Here is order of battle (approximation) for all 3 launchers:
    https://www.newkaliningrad.ru/forum/uploads/gallery/album_2184/gallery_6489_2184_349642.png

    I hope that you can produce an accurate graphical mapping, time-line,GPS coordinates for ALL Buks that day, not just the rebel’s one. If you are correct – it will only strengthen your argument. However maps, multiple evidence – clearly shows that at least 3 launchers in the vicinity could have done that. So which one has done it? Solid proof?

    4. Unless you can prove that rebel’s Buk and not 2 Ukrainian’s has fired and shot down MH17 in graphical evidence – it can be any of these 3. All 3 (or more) had the capability and range to shoot it down. I’m not saying let’s discard your theory – but unless you have more sound, reliable proof to go on – it will remain only a theory, mere speculation. From your tone – it’s clear you are determined to prove that Russians are responsible not Ukrainians.

    No offence, but to me it seems you’ve got a confirmation bias – a cognitive trap junior analysts fall for. You already have a theory (Russians are guilty) and you accept only pieces of evidence that fit your theory – instead of impartial, neutral evaluation of ALL the facts.

    Your pattern of thinking (having an obsessive theory and then trying to fit facts to that theory only) reminded me of the the movie series “The Unit” Season 4 Episode 10 “Mislead and Misguided” Where DOD Under-secretary, hot shot analyst based on satellite imagery was staging a hit on what he thought was an anthrax lab, turned out to be dope factory (narcotics).

    Can watch it here: http://www.tv.com/shows/the-unit/mislead-and-misguided-1240050/

    Quote: “Confirmation bias: Focus on information that affirms your beliefs and assumptions.

    Cognitive biases can result in perceptual blindness or distortion (seeing things that aren’t really there)

    Information biases include the use of heuristics, or information-processing shortcuts, that produce fast and efficient, though not necessarily accurate, decisions and not paying attention nor adequately thinking through relevant information.

    Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-jim-taylor/cognitive-biases-are-bad_b_3307172.html

    I’m not saying you are wrong, sir. I’m saying you don’t have enough to prove your theory, you don’t have sufficient facts and you haven’t sufficiently examined the evidence on 2 Ukrainian launchers within firing range of MH17.

    I care only care for the facts and truth. Not speculation. Can’t blame the innocent party or let the guilty part walk away. Do your job better, sir/madam. Less emotions, more facts, more evidence and do the Analysis of competing hypotheses (ACH) without anti-Russian or pro-Ukrainian prejudice. Ukrainians should come clean at least by submitting their launchers for international forensic experts examination and broadcast world wide. No theories, pure scientific facts. All launchers examined.

    Reply
    • Steven

      Quite so. So here is a question. Given that the Russian MOD is apparently confident of the location of the Ukranian ordinance on the day why then have they not been able to produce any evidence of these weapons having been fired?

      Given they know the locations any blast marks on the ground should be more than apparent and easy to spot.

      Thus far I have seen no such evidence. Have you? To my mind it is one thing to suggest that Ukraine had BUKs in Ukraine (where else would they have them?) It is another to illustrate that they were fired.

      Reply
    • boggled

      Ivan, do you think Russia’s AirDefense could not detect a missile flying at 10km at less than 50 km from Russia’s border?
      Why have they not discussed this?

      Do you want to discuss that RF AD cannot protect Russians and see a missile coming at them from Iran, North Korea, or NATO?
      Why is MoD RF silent about this?
      Why did they not use their unprocessed or Early Warning radar to prove to investigators an Ukrainian jet might be flying near MH17?
      Instead say they destroyed and did not offer it, because MH17 did not land in Russia.
      Why?
      RF government does not want to help solve MH17 international disaster?

      Use your head before answering these please.

      Fare thee well

      Reply
      • stranger

        That are just speculations. Early warning reporting might or might not see the Buk launch. I saw, and can probably find, on the Dutch report they said the missile would hardly be visible on radar, when trying to justify the absence of (primary) radar data especially from Ukrainian side.

        Please don’t forget Ukraine had radars to defend the borders, because they announced Russian jet violated the border, which likely was not true. Ukraine had buks with supporting Kupol radars in the vicinity. So if Russia could potentially have seen the launch, Ukraine was even more likely to see it, because their radars were closer.

        Ukraine said they didn’t provide radar data because no flight activity was on this date, that’s why they allergedly turned off all military radars in the vicinity. ‘Less know – better sleep’ Nevertheless in the recent BBC documentary they mention at least 7 witnessers who saw military jets on that date. Does not mean the jet shot Boeing, but they were seen. BBC also showed that on a day before Ukrainian jet destroyed a living building in Snezhnoe. So who is lying here? Why Ukraine didn’t provide their radar data?

        Reply
        • Steven

          They did. They supplied secondary radar data and the raw data to verify it.

          Russia supplied neither primary data, secondary data or raw data to support any of its claims.

          I am assuming in my reply that you know how both of these types of radar work. For Russia not to be able to supply either is, frankly, staggering.

          Reply
          • stranger

            Steven, you know how both of those radar types work. Secondary radars Ukraine provided whether row or cooked was not able to detect missile or military planes just by design. Secondary ones are called radars just by analogy, like a Guinea Pig, which neither guinea nor a pig.
            Russia did provide the primary and secondary processed records. Didn’t provide raw data or military radar data. Probably for exactly the same reason Ukraine didn’t – to hide military activity at least.

          • Steven

            No Stranger. Section 2.9.5 of the DSB report clearly states that what Russia provided was

            “Video film of radar screen showing processed primary and secondary data”

            It also states that none of

            Primary radar – Raw data
            Primary Radar – Processed Data
            Secondary Surveillance radar data- raw data
            Secondary Surveillance radar data- processed data
            ADS-B data

            Were available from the Russian federation. All bar the Primary raw and processed was supplied by the Ukraine.

            The report went on to state that

            The Russian Federation did not provide the radar data stating that no radar data was saved, but instead provided the radar screen video replay, which showed combined surveillance primary and secondary radar. In the absence of the underlying radar data (so called raw data) the video information could not be verified. For analysis, raw data is preferred to processed data. The screenshots and video films made of the data, as displayed to the controller, whilst of use, were the least preferred media for analysis.

          • stranger

            “All bar the Primary raw and processed was supplied by the Ukraine.” No, That is simply incorrect, please take another look at the report to be sure.

            Ukraine provided only raw and processed secondary radar data. Ukraine didn’t provide any neither raw nor processed primary radar data.

            Dutch report clearly provide the reason or an excuse from Ukraine – ‘all civilian primary radars were off for maintenance, all military ones were off due to no military activity in the air on that date.’That is verbally started in the Dutch report.

            Secondary radars are based on transponder communication rather than on the identification of a flying object in the first place. Secondary ones may be quite enough for civil plane navigation and guidance. But they are unable to give any more information other that the plane transmitted itself. So they contribute nothing material to the investigation by design as I understand.

            I suspect that raw primary radar data contains just everything an antenna can capture. Might be the traces and position of other radars in the area, might be military communications, might be everything else is captured as well. So hardly any state may wish to reveal basically a spy bearing indicator deep inside their territory. But that is just my guess. The fact is neither Ukraine nor Russia provided raw primary radar data.

          • Steven

            Also re your simply incorrect point. There is a table in section 2.9.5 of the report clearly stating who provided what.

            I suggest you read it. You appear to be misremembering

          • Steven

            Actually stranger i think having read your point again we are saying the same thing to clarify
            Ukraine provided raw secondary, processed secondary and ads-b.

            Russia provided none of these or any primary data, raw or processed.

          • stranger

            What is “ads-b”? Ukraine didn’t provide any primary radar data. Secondary radars are not radars in the classic definition, you are telling as if it doesn’t matter primary of secondary since they are both called ‘radars’. The difference is about the same as see something by your own eyes or being retold by somebody else.

            Russia did provide the processed, filtered radar data in the form of the video. They didn’t provide (or didn’t store the raw data) for the reason I guessed above. That was also not at the Russian territory, so they were not obliged to store.

            Why I believe Ukraine had primary radar data, first of all because the witnesses contradict to their official statement, second because monitoring the sky if the primary responsibility and concern of any state, especially in the situation where Russian planes were allergedly reported.

          • stranger

            Steven, exactly as in the table by your link. I just not sure what ADS-B is. In general I’d recommended to refer the original sources such as Dutch report itself. We are telling about the same, just should not equal primary and secondary radar capabilities.

          • Steven

            Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast.
            Planes transmit their location periodically to a satellite allowing it to be tracked.

            It was how the dsb report was able to take issue with Russias assertion that the plane was taken off its flight path.

            Re your point about radar. If i may, this is the best way to think of it. Primary will spot anything that a signal might bounce off. Secondary is the equivalent of having the phone number of the pilot, you spot the plane send him a message and he responds with a message (via transponder)
            It is the main way that civilian air traffic control monitors planes
            (Which is why russia and china and the uk et al go nuts when military planes switch them off, in essence they cant see them because they dont use primary radar to track them.)

          • Steven

            Also stranger, and i am really not having a go with this but, a video of the what you say the processed and raw data illustrates is not the same as providing the data. Its no where near.

            Its the equivalent of this, you take a photo, you then put it into photo shop and doctor the image.

            You then present the finished image as the genuine article, with no work having been done to it.

            It would stand to reason that you would want to see the original file. Just as we all want to see the original, raw data of the plume of smoke photo.

            The fact that russia didnt save it is a bit of a nonsense, it is saved automatically to any system. Unless the system is switched off. What you have to do is to choose not to keep it. I.e delete. Russia made mo assertion that its primary or secondary radar was switched off for any reason. They simply decided to not keep the data, the day after one of the worst air incidents in living memory took place on its door step.

          • stranger

            “It was how the dsb report was able to take issue with Russias assertion that the plane was taken off its flight path.” that is not so, please spend some small time to review the original Dutch report instead of Bellingcat’ inarrow focused interpretation. The Dutch report confirms the plane diverted 7 nautical miles (or something I don’t remember) to the north due to a thunderstorm.

            As for how both types of radar works we are completely on the same page. Russia also don’t like when numerous US spy planes fly next to her borders with turned off transponders. That is a common problem.

          • Steven

            Stranger. With respect you can read the report and clearly see that the plane does not follow the flight path that the Russian military stated that it did.

            The data that was used to verify this was the ukranian data. It had to be as no other data was provided by any other party.

            Re this i have read the report. It is section 2.1 and the flight was moved not for a storm but for a build up of air traffic. The flight path is clearly labelled and when overlaid with that provided by the Russian military you can see it is clearly wrong.

          • Steven

            Also, 7 nautical miles. Thats (just over) 8 miles. Thats nothing. A 777 cruises at 560mph. It covers that distance in less than two minutes.
            The russians were inferring in their statement that they were being manouvered far wider than that.

            You can see that for yourself.

          • stranger

            Steven, Russian generals said the plane diverted to the north. How many people laughed and said we saw on flight24.com that the plane flew directly. Did Dutch report confirm the plane diverted – yes it did.
            Russian generals also showed a drawn diagram not in a right scale where this spike to the north was exaggerated for visibility. Is it a lie? An exhageration, but strictly speaking is true.
            Ukrainian secondary radar data contributed nothing as I think because as you said the same data is transmitted by the plane via sattelite to multiple receivers all over the world so nothing new is contributed.
            Dutch report never ever stated the video provided by Russian was not accurate or contradicted any other evidences including Ukrainian telemetry records. i don’t remember right now if they analyzed this video carefully or just said as an excuse that there were no raw data – may be they did.
            As for the video verses the original data. What you are saying about doctored images is correct but that concerns the difference between the raw and processed data, but not between already processed data and their video representation. The video was based on the processed data, not raw, that’s what was made clear, but would it be easier if what is drawn on the video would be provided in like an excel file or whatever format.

          • Steven

            Stranger. For an air investigation they will look at the video that is provided.

            They will then verify the video with the raw data so as to ensure that every body is being open and that you can clearly rule out any foul play on behalf of those maintaing the air space.

            Russia has supplied nothing to allow its video to be verified. When set against the recorded secondary data and the ATC information you can clearly see there are differences. That has to, by definition bring into question the veracity of the Russian military’s claims.

            You raise the point of the Russian military feeling the need to perhaps exagerate the movement of the plane? Why? What in God’s name would make them believe that it was appropriate to exagerate the change in course? The clear inference is simple the Russian military implied that the plane was being manouvered, unecessarily and thus nefariously.

            As you and i both know given we have both read the report that is not the case.

          • stranger

            Steven, the report, p 25 states mh17 requested to divert 20nm to the north due to ‘cumulonimbus clouds’. Actually it diverted only 6.5nm, but left the borders of the original corridor as can be clearly seen at p26 fig 3 and p41 fig 7 shows. IF it were rebels they might have thought the plane was turning towards them.
            p40 in general RF video recording is consistent with Ukr secondary data. Dutches found nothing wrong or contradicting to Ukrainian radar data on this video recording.
            The only difference is the second mark at RF primary radar at 13.20 for about 5 min. Ukrainian data might have even confirmed that IF they provided primary data. So again there is no any contradiction with any available data.
            So where did RF MOD lied? At least not here – If they wanted to doctor the video and provide a legend of a fighter jet they would have drawn something more consistent with this legend, at their data the second mark appears only after the explosion.
            Please note a large portion of the Dutch report dedicated to the responsibility of Ukraine to close the sky in the war zone, which was not completely done – the ceiling was only up to 9km and the avia companies were not properly informed on the possible risk.

          • stranger

            Why mod wanted to exhagerate, because Russia was appointed guilty as soon as the plane was shot. Economic sanctions were applied immediately EU – on 30 of July. Without any court or evidences. US distributed their diagram when the missile was launched from under Snezhnoe. Why don’t you request US to show at least the processed but original sattellite images proving that, not even the raw data? Just for the same reason – to confirm they are not lying.

        • Steven

          Also in that documentary there were several eye witnesses who swore there were no other planes seen on that day. There was also the lady resident in Red October who states quite categorically there were no planes and a missile was fired, practically over her head.

          Re the eye witnesses for the idea of jets, frankly, from 30,000+ feet below what they likely saw was the plane splitting and heading into two different directions.

          Reply
          • stranger

            No, no, I’m not saying jets shot Boeing or jet were flying at 10km. They bombed the ground targets and were flying very low. Local people keen that sound very well. I can found you the witnesses that jets were present, some of them from Ukrainian tv. BBC documentary also mention them.
            I’m just saying the excuse Ukraine provided to Dutches that there were not jets, that’s why there was no any primary radar data is very likely untrue. So the question is why to hide?

          • Steven

            Stranger. Maybe they are telling the truth. Russia were in a unique position to provide information to verify their assertion that an SU-25 was present. They did not.

            You are (and forgive me if I am wrong) in essence saying that, because the SU-25 would have been flying with no transponder and no radar exists that can confirm or deny that they were there we cannot rule it out. Despite there being no physical evidence of weaponry commonly carried by an SU-25 being found by the dutch to have brought down the plane. Thus it has to remain on the table as a cause, despite there being no physical evidence of its involvement.

            Would you regard that as a fair appraisal of your point?

          • Steven

            Also stranger. Just as an aside, I grew up in Wales. The RAF would use the valley that I lived in to train for low level flying. When you have had a tornado jet skim the roof of your house believe me it is a sound you do not forget (You don’t hear it until it’s a mile past you). Were the planes flying low that day I believe that the local, eye witness accounts would have made the point that you are, that of the height because you do not forget the specifics largely due to you jumping out of your skin.
            Thus far, I have only seen eye witness accounts that discuss the planes at altitude.

            I also find that footage, though harrowing, to be of interest. At no point is the camera man’s attention taken by any other plane. Let alone two. The camera does not move from the main section. I find that strange if we are to give credence to the idea of another plane. There is no comment re another plane and the camera man does not attempt to capture any footage of another plane. I would suggest that were there any other plane in the area there would have been some comment or attempt to film it were there the possibility of capturing a “dog fight”
            I freely admit this is conjecture on my part, but that is the feeling I get when watching. There was no other plane at that altitude.

          • stranger

            There are witnesses that people heard sound of military jets but didn’t see them on that date.
            Let’s assume Ukraine had primary radar data but didn’t provide it. Potentially these radars could have captured the missile track. So that hypothetically again we could tell if it was or was not launched from Ukrainian state controlled territory.
            The absence of military activity in the air was named officially as an excuse for not providing these data to Dutch, and that is clearly stated in the Dutch report.

          • Steven

            I quite agree Stranger, but then we also have the other issue. Lets leave aside the SU25. The Russian MOD apparently know exactly where the Ukranian BUKS were on the day in question. Thus they know exactly where to look to find physical evidence of the launch of a missile. They have provided no such evidence.
            Roland Oliphant went to Snizhnoye on the 22nd of July and filmed this.

            http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10984530/MH17-the-clues-which-may-lead-to-missile-launch-site.html

            I believe the Russians, should be looking for something similar at the locations that they think the Ukrainian BUKS fired from.
            Would you agree?

          • Steven

            Let’s assume Ukraine had primary radar data but didn’t provide it.

            Why would you assume that Stranger? Also why is that the Ukraine’s activities raise such questions with you but the clear and documented reluctance of the Russian Federation to engage with the investigation and provide any data does not?

            To be frank, I won’t make that assumption. Nor will I infer anything from Russia apparently forgetting to press the record button on their tape machine on that day.

          • Mr.Bushkin

            Steven, the plane in your video must have been hit by an infrared guided missile, as you can easily judge by the flames around its right engine, which one of the two main heat sources.

            This completely contradicts the Buk theory, you are trying to prove.

          • Steven

            Mr bushkin. Whilst its nice that you are taking part. That is utter, utter, nonsense.

            It must have been a heat seeker because there is a fire in one of the engines after it has been hit.

            Thank you, genius.

            Shrapnel can easily cause an engine fire, as well you know.

            The point i made was there were no other planes. In regard to the type of weapon it was. The dsb report has clearly identified it. Alas your, frankly savant, like ability to identify weapons from the aftermath of a hit from some 30,000 feet below wasn’t called upon.

            I’m sure we can all agree that was a real loss.

          • Mr.Bushkin

            Quote: “Shrapnel can easily cause an engine fire, as well you know.”

            Steven, there is absolutely no way for a Buk missile detonated on the left side of the cockpit to cause fire.on the right engine.

          • stranger

            Steven, your video above – it is An 26 shot under Donetsk from possibly a handheld SAM, that is not MH 17. Is it??

          • Steven

            Mr Bushkin in fact there clearly is, as you can see from the reconstruction of the cockpit the weapon detonated to the left hand side of the cockpit and spread left, thus heading towards the right engine. You can also clearly see shrapnel damage to the right side of the cabin where shrapnel went through the plane. So, it is quite apparent that shrapnel would cause an engine fire to the right side.

            https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=mh17+cockpit&espv=2&biw=907&bih=414&tbm=isch&imgil=YcS5ZoF7BtpeAM%253A%253BhLPD1sotSsHGiM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%25252Fnews%25252Fworldnews%25252Feurope%25252Fukraine%25252F11928778%25252FMH17-hit-by-Buk-missile-Ukraine-plane-crash-Russia-live.html&source=iu&pf=m&fir=YcS5ZoF7BtpeAM%253A%252ChLPD1sotSsHGiM%252C_&usg=__cZlc_j169xAJqwgwQyADC95e_c4%3D&ved=0ahUKEwiG-dLFzMLMAhVIsxQKHQECBu8QyjcIJQ&ei=Mw8rV8aTI8jmUoGEmPgO#imgdii=YcS5ZoF7BtpeAM%3A%3BYcS5ZoF7BtpeAM%3A%3BP0YWFDeoie-WFM%3A&imgrc=YcS5ZoF7BtpeAM%3A

          • The rat

            The plane in the video is an Antonov An-30 shot down by SA-7 missile. 2014-06-06.

        • boggled

          Ukraine may be completely telling the truth for radar that were in range of the BUK that shot MH17 were down or destroyed.
          SSR is all required for civilian air traffic.

          U many modes of radar and communications.
          In varieties of passive and active.
          They may have been in silent mode waiting for a spotter to tell them to boot up, I do not know.

          DSB unclassified report may have stated they only had access to UA SSR, but JIT has access to Ukrainian PSR data. I am not sure.

          It is obvious there was other classified data from reading the report that was not used in the report, but was used to confirm the DSB investigators findings.

          It is obvious from the RF side that they claimed they provided a video and that is ALL they did provide and ALL they were going to provide and the rest has been destroyed.
          That is troubling to the victim’s families.

          Was there a Ukrainian PSR radar that could see and record MH17 and its track? Maybe even see the missile in its unprocessed radar data?
          We shall have to wait to see if it is used in the criminal trial.

          DSB report made plain and clear their report would not lay blame and they went to great lengths to avoid doing that, while still giving a clear idea of what the weapon was and vicinity where it was launched from.

          As to UA’s versus RF radars being closer, it depends if you are talking mobile or base station radar.
          RF MoD stated at least 2 radar base stations tracked MH17.
          Both very near Ukraine’s border.
          How many mobile?
          How many early warning?
          How many military bases had radars turned that way to attempt to protect the skies of Donbas 4 NAF?
          With all this radar and their big presentation, why nothing about BUK?
          Why no proof of SU25 or MiG flying provided in presentation or to investigators with the unprocessed radar data to give the investigators a chance to confiorm or deny?

          As far as the witnesses go? Why didn’t MoD provide the proof of it?
          They surely have the capabilities.
          So was the allegation of fighter jet just a show?
          I think you know my answer to that.
          Witnesses claim a lot of things on TV, even Yeti, so many can get their chance to be on global media.
          I am not saying all are lying.
          They may be incorrect about the day.
          May have been coached.
          May have seen another of the 100 aircraft that flew that flight path that day and thought it was UA plane.
          May have another motive, I do not know.

          It is important to have supporting evidence if you make a claim, and so far there is not anything provided by RF on that front.
          Except for MoD empty allegation and a claim by Motrolla’s gf about UA planes shadowing civilian flights.

          Lots we still do not know yet and only guessing on, me included.
          And I am probably wrong on a few of my guesses.
          I agree.
          DSB investigators stated they had access to many different forms of SSR data that Ukraine provided.
          Was there more, like Ukrainian PSR data, that the cleared people had access to?
          We shall find out.

          From Russia, a video with no unfiltered data is clear.

          Fare thee well

          Reply
        • boggled

          Stranger, look up
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voronezh_radar

          It states about DM version…
          RF expert claimed it can see football at 6000km distance and at 100m altitude.

          And U want me to believe Early Warning systems could not detect BUK?
          SU25?
          MiG?
          All planes or missile at less than 50 km from Russia – Ukraine border that it was watching to protect ethnic Russians and soldiers whose GPS had dead battery?
          Is this what you want to tell the RF citizens?
          Is that what RF MoD wanted to say?

          They have it, made allegation but never provided 1 piece of proof.
          Except for a video of filtered SSR and PSR data which may have been created like they do in Hollywood with unprocessed data days after.
          With this selective filtering, they could have hidden a RF MiG crossing into Ukraine and returning.
          Maybe witnesses are right there was a plane, a Russian one.
          Or was it all a circus show?

          Fare thee well

          Reply
          • stranger

            The early warning radars sounds impressing but what are they actual capabilities and what regions and directions are actually covered? As it is known there are regular radars and beyond horizon radars which can cover distances comparable with the earth perimeter. The particular specifications and capabilities may vary. I don’t know.

          • boggled

            Stranger, they have been rotated since the first day there were built.
            Last coverage I looked at had it just covering southern Crimea and Black Sea over.
            That was before the Crimean referendum.
            I am guessing if Russia is sending all these tanks and recruiting for NAF on the streets of Moscow and Petrograd, that they could invest in adjusting the radar to cover Donbas also.
            If not that, there are plenty of mobile radars I have located on Ukraine’s border.

            They saw something, and as opposed to helping solve it, which would help NAF out quite a bit if it was UA BUK.

            They gave a radar video that MIGHT have been faked or filters adjusted not to show certain items.

            Mobile units, Early Warning, or base stations – It does not matter – the Kremlin saw what happened.

            And with Kremlin controlled media and Olgino boys and girls pushing 20 different conspiracy theories, something doesn’t add up.
            Surely you can put 2 & 2 together can’t you?

            I know you are more intelligent then your average Olgino brat that just repeats from a standard script given to them by managers.

            Yes, there is a larger picture here.
            U have come around about Crimea.
            I believe you will come around about MH17.

            The bigger picture is more complicated as you know, and that is why no major indictments have happened over Odessa or Snipers.

            Justice and the true stories are coming.
            People of Ukraine are trying to hold and get both Odessa and Snipers solved even though some of the judges and politicians are slowing it down.

            I will be willing to accept those scary facts when they are released in the complete timeline, will you?
            Even if it shows Pravy Sektor and other pro Kyiv groups are responsible.
            Will you if AntiMaidan groups are ?

            I imagine both of us will have some large feet to swallow on that day when it comes, but it is coming.

            Fare thee well

        • Steven

          What does the U.S have to do with Russia not providing evidence of any recording of radar? Of not saving any radar? That is an abdication of its responsibilities in regard to a comprehensive investigation of the events that took place, simply from a pure civic air authority point of view.

          But the interesting point that you see is that the Americans should publish satellite imagery because Russia refuses to run its aviation industry according to internationally agreed norms? And, it would seem chose to abdicate their duties on the very date that a plane was blown out of the sky at their front door.

          Stranger, i have read many of your posts here and its not often that you resort to this but i believe you are engaging in “whataboutery.” And i dont think it reflects the spirit in which our conversation is being had.

          The point is this. Russia has, according to the Dsb report singularly failed to provide any evidence by which a thorough investigation of their claims can take place. They had the data and chose not to keep it or supply it. They supplied only video, which we have agreed is unsuitable.

          Despite this the Russians have consistently proposed alternative narratives, yet again and ,crucially, not provided any evidence that bears scrutiny to support them.

          Reply
          • stranger

            US claimed they had a direct evidence of the launch site and trajectory spotted from an intelligence satellite. They made that image public and showed something to Dutch investigation members under a signature of non disclosing. You see everything Dutches investigated in the report concerning numerical simulation, detonation point, missile trajectory is no more than an indirect very error prone way in what concerns the launch site determination. US claims they saw it just in the first place and affected the investigation but left themselves in the shadow and didn’t make the evidences public. We may only hope we will see it in the scope of the criminal investigation later.
            As for the Russian radar data – there is nothing contradicting other evidences or otherwise crucial at the video which makes it critical to be confirmed or not. I believe Russian delegation has never pointed to much attention to this record. Maybe just a slight possibility the missile may have been visible – so it should have been provided, as well as Ukrainian data, as well as US top secret images.
            As for the propaganda from whatever side based on that, who cares about propaganda.

          • Steven

            Lets be homest stranger, you know what its going to show.
            Whats more if you dont find the available evidence compelling i doubt very much satellite imagery will convince you otherwise.

            Russia wants to drag America into it so that they can bring forth the whole world is against us natrative.

            Simply focus on what Russia has and has failed to do in this instance. I dont think you one of them but you can see the agents at work on boards such as this and bellingcat and eliot higgins twitter feed, you can see the active work that is taking place in a (futile) attempt to change the narrative, to tackle this, the problem that the Russian government simply didnt conceive is that we are all spies now. Even their own soldiers, every piece of dash cam footage, every social media post can be scrutinised, located and by making a daisy chain of all of them a picture can be put together.

            And, tellingly as with the dsb report when presented with a real opportunity to provide any meaningful evidence Russia has always declined the opportunity. I dont think you can argue other wise.

            As to why? Well, maybe, just maybe, there is some truth in all of this stranger.

            Russia didnt mean for this to happen, but it simply spiralled out of control. They supplied weapons to their proxies, they made a mistake. But, to admit the mistake is to admit the lie and they put armed forces into Ukraine.

            When faced with the consequences of that any lie will do.

          • stranger

            America is playing very substantial role in this conflict from the very beginning. Playing the worlds’ policeman and actively trying to reconfigure the trading flows with Europe and pacific region. Sanctions are completely US initiative and the release of sanctions would start from Europe in the reverse order. I’m neither blaming nor proposing any conspirocy with regards to Russia.

            That is not like Russia is trying to drag America into that, Russia would prefer to have America out of that more likely.

            The direct evidence US has – completely makes all the work of Dutch investigation useless because answers the question in the first place. Provided it exists and provided it is real.

            As a technically inclined person you surely understand how many limitations and assumptions Dutch investigation implies concerning the launch site determination. It is reverse tracked started from the hole pattern at the fuselage while this part of the fuselage was almost not present. So US striking evidence actually bypass it all.

            Russian official position was the Antey arguments and experiment. Which is also not 100% convincing.

            Will see probably who was lying over time like 20-50 years, when nobody would care already.

            That is also a question of how the mass public is treated like idiots by all the sides for their particular interests….

          • Steven

            Stranger. The long and the short of it is this. Bellingcat are in all likelihood right in their assertions as to what happened. This is what i believe. I won’t be as presumptious as to what you believe.

            Now, has the american played a hand in this? Yes. Absolutely, the timing of the maidan, whilst Putin had to smile for the cameras at sochi? Completely but Putin was naieve in thinking he could just buy Yanukovych and the country would follow.
            America threw the money at the little man. But geo-politics, (and ukranian geo politics had been rumbling for 10+ years) aside Russia has behaved rashly and, in my opinion, stupidly. It is widely believed that sergei lavrov was livid with putin over the Ukraine. He is a politician that doesnt deserve the fate bestowed on him, to have to peddle this nonsense. You cannot simply annexe a state without serious repurcussions. Russia has chosen agression over diplomacy. Lavrov knew what Putin didnt. This was a rash and short sighted move borne from anger.

            So what have you gained? They have lost the Ukraine for generations, torpedoed the economy, taken on extra mouths to feed with the crimea, are having to pump money into Donetsk to keep that going and what have they/you gained? Really?

            It is reductive, short sighted and it will not end well for any of us.

          • stranger

            Do you think America has a right to interfere into the regions it neither understands not is able to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions? Post Soviet space and the Middle East.
            Ironically that US satellite images makes everything Bellingcat is doing useless as well, really if they actually saw where it was launched.

          • Steven

            How well does Russia understand the post-soviet space?

            Latvia, Estonia, Georgia, Ukraine?
            Dare one say Poland?

            Hardly running toward the Russian Federation with open arms are they? As to whether you feel America has the right. Frankly its not the question to ask.

            What does Russia have to offer to any of these countries other than threats? A brighter economic future? Or just hey remember the good old times when it was , well, soviet.

            America wouldn’t have sway anywhere were there a very clear alternative for the better.
            Putin is not building bridges, he is building walls. Almost twenty years in power and the Russian exonomy is entirely dependant upon international oil and gas prices and the whims thereof.

            As to your point that America holds the key. On the one hand you say they should have no influence in the soviet space. Now they hold the key to telling you whether your government shot down a plane because your government won’t play with the investigators? Well. If you dont want them having a say Russia is quite capable of telling the truth about what they saw. At every opportunity they have chosen not to and are thus inviting american influence, to then say how can you interfere?

            Just as you are.

          • stranger

            American politics has also completely failed at Ukraine and demonstrated the inability to resolve the situation, which they indirectly also helped to create. No wonder Victiria Nuland recently went to Kyev and pressed Poroshenko to follow the Minsk. America is limited by the necessity to coordinate everything towards Russia with Europe. Finally the warming will be started from Europe and US would have no choice but follow. The question would be if Europe accepts Crimea as Russian, or the confrontation would be frozen for decades.

          • Steven

            American politics hasnt even started in the Ukraine. It’s started in Russia.

            Sanctions, isolation politically, economically, capital flight. This is the work that America and Europe has done. They wont waste their time on the ukraine until they can be sure putin wont grab for more.
            Putin has, in many respect played into american hands, he has in two years undone 8 years of economic growth. Like i said earlier, politics is about ensuring you have a better offer than the other side. Russia doesn’t nor will it. Unless you are assad. And that is merely a short term play about saudi oil out of turkey and attempting to maintain the price.
            Russia has nothing else other than that. It means by default it is making itself vulnerable as it cant really control the strength of its economy.

            Like it or not, america can push that button any time it likes.

          • Steven

            And if you think sanctions are going anywhere before the JIT reports, forget it. When it does report unless russia gives up the guys who did it sanctions are likely to stay in place too. Thats politics.

          • stranger

            Yes I have no illusions, the sanctions will be here for decades. Although the oil price drop hit Russia much harder than any other sanctions. And why the drop coincided with all those events is a separate question, related to redivision of power in the Middle East, releasing sanctions from Iran and increase in US shell oil export and probably many other reasons not completely under control of any country. Hardly it is a button US can control at any moment.

            Russia will never give up Crimea, and Crimea will never want to return to Ukraine, even after Putin is gone, so it is not about Putin already. US may use it as a reason or an excuse to push Russia out of European markets and as an argument in own internal politics, for example as now the election campaign, or just reserve it as a leverage it can use if needed.

            Nevertheless US should be very careful because European interests directly contradict to such politics. Even though Europe completely agree to push Russia until Donbas is settled down, after it is resolved, hopefully by the end of the year. The question would be what to do about Crimea. European interests may overweight the US coherence and ability to influence. Europe may decide against US just because of the pressure, as it was in Neitherlands with the Ukrainian association referendum. When it was to a high extent Dutch protest against Brussel’ pressure.

            If Europe removes sanctions US sanctions would be already irrelevant – they would isolate only themselves.

            It is good to hear at least that you are saying it was isolation of Russia coming from the west, many here believe that it was Putin to raise anti west sentiments and self isolate Russia from the west.

            Hopefully there will be peace in Donbas first, then will see. Russians are custom to hard times and whatever will be. Low oil prices, hopefully will motivate to work better in other areas. Just my opinion, other people may think differently.

          • stranger

            And to give in to sanctions is also not an option whether Russia is right or not, because after that it will always be used as an instrument. That way should not be appreciated. Again I cannot tell for other people, there are different opinions.

          • stranger

            “American politics hasnt even started in the Ukraine.” with all respect you might be not well informed. US military instructors stay in Lvov and teach Ukrainian army. Bayden gave a speach from Ukrainian parliament blaming them in inability to fight corruption and behaved as is he was a master there. Nuland pushes Pirishenko to implement Minsk in the way Russia insisted. During Maydan Nuland discussed the candidacy of the new prime minister from the opposition, it was chosen to be Yatsenyuk, as if they were taking about own colony or something. It seem like Ukraine is under an external management.
            On the other hand US may not be interested to support Ukraine other than clashing it with Russia to avoid any possible reintegration on the post Soviet space, but that might be already biasing into conspiracy. There are such theories in US itself and particularly Bdzhezinsky wrote about that a lot, but I cannot claim the current US politics is so.

          • Steven

            Oh no, i dont mean that there isn’t military support. There has to be, but the notion of introducing a pluralistic party system has yet to begin.

            The banking system and the overhaul of that will come first. If anything. That will take years.

            Whats more in all likelihood it will stir up again. For the donbass to be viable they need Mariupol. In all likelihood they will go for that, probably this or early next year, after the elections in Russia.

            Like i said though you dont build consensus through re drawing maps and if one was truly worried about Nato this is the wrong way of calming the situation. When it comes to Nato, russia cant really do anything.

            This isnt meant to be sabre rattling but Turkey shoots down a Russian jet, for all the talk what can Russia do? Nothing really. If the US shoot one down when they get close to a war ship again (which was closer to poland than Russian territory, what can Russia do? Say it wasnt warned?)

            Far from being the strong man of Europe Putin is making a big show of a weak hand. Turkey called his bluff and other than telling people to go to the Crimea for holiday, what could Putin do? Rant. No more.

            The oil price, that is a sanction in itself, there has obviously been collusion on the international markets to affect the oil price. Its worked and it highlights the lack of diversity in the Russian economy. Putin is trying to invade and hold physical land mass. The world has moved on from this, all you do is paint yourself as the jilted ex who cant handle change.

            Like I said and i truly believe this, Russia does not (currently) offer a better deal for any of the former Soviet countries, to have them back in the fold so as to tie up political influence and shore up demand for your natural resources is reductive and frankly, last century.)

            Nationalism and an expansionist foreign policy will not bring influence and threatening countries like estonia, sweden and Latvia makes Russia look weak not strong. Lavrov was right to be angry at Putin, he lashed out and for it he simply has more mouths to feed and bills to pay, more crumbling infrastructure and Ukraine, if they have any brains will stick em with it, its a complete and utter mess and its entirely of his own making.

            If we believe some of the more, ahem, colourful ramblings of some of the protagonists here, America won Ukraine from Russia with 5bn (which some russians seemingly spend on violins, given its such a small amount of money) and a bag of cup cakes. In contrast Russia, has shot itself in the foot on the international stage and shown itself to be incapable of being an honest partner in international relations. MH17 is the crystallisation of that.

          • stranger

            Well, all US military help to Ukraine consists of a couple of old decommissioned Hammers some of them can hardly move on their own, no lethal weapon is supplied. It is believed the Minsk peace agreements should be accomplished.

            I don’t believe there will be an offence to Mariupol and elections in Russia has nothing to do with that. For all this time, the last 2 years there was only one single attempt of separatists to extend their territory, exactly to Mariupol, and the attempt was immediately withdrawn, not because they could not have taken it, but probably due to the noise raised in mass media and the international pressure.

            Oil prices drop is not a sanction actually, those are some global process which hardly anyone can control, America can launch some reconfiguration but nobody can guarantee where it would go what what it would end up with. There are many players involved and affected by that either.

            You are describing as if it is a computer game, Turkey shot a plane what you can do, America won Ukraine from Russia, while Russia us threatening Sweden, who is stronger here. Why Sweden, don’t forget also there is Finland on the way, or is it just PR to convince Sweden joining NAT0. Actually once upon a time Peterburg and all Finland was the territory of Sweden but that is the only connection i can see, and the fact Sweden is still is not in NAT0.

            And what Russia was expected to do when Turkey shot the plane? First of all there were no any tensions with Turkey, Russia was probably unaware and underestimated Turkish interests and involvement into Syrian, but didn’t expect the ‘stub in the back’. On the other hand NAT0 also didn’t support Turkey, it is a headache for NAT0 to take responsibility for such recklessness of own unstable members…

          • stranger

            …Russia is able to defend itself from NAT0 in a very hypothetical case of a full weight war. While definitely Russia cannot stand in any local conflict, but there would always be a risk of a local conflict to get out of control and escalate up to nuclear strikes exchange. NAT0 with all their bragging and demonstrative behavior is not interested and is not looking for a conflict. Bragging is their profession and job security for the government funding, and that also requires to invent a new scarecrow.

            America didn’t win Ukraine from Russia, maybe only helped to destabilize and ensure that two large closest neighbors would fight each others instead of being able to make up together any competition to american interests in Europe. I don’t want to dwell into conspirology though. Russia also played a much higher destabilizing role of course.

            Ukraine is very special for Russia, and worst of all Ukraine itself is separated inside into more pro-russian south-east and anti-Russia west. The last 20 years of experiments for looking for a unifying national idea didn’t end up well. Now they see the national idea in unifying against Russia, that would not end up well also. When you are enumerating via comma that Russia is threatening Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania and Sweden (please take a look at the map where Sweden is) that is not serious, really.

            As for expansionism, you are from Britain, you said from Wales, right? Do you remember the British-Argentinian war just recently in 1982 over Falklands islands? And where are Falklands and where is Britain. Ukraine means for Russia much more apparently. Why double standards, aren’t they?

          • stranger

            “As to your point that America holds the key.”
            A key or a lie, how do You know? Apparently a complete disregard to the public.

          • stranger

            That reminded me a funny clip made maybe in 2011-2012 long time before Ukrainian events. Sweden minister of defend claimed Sweden would not stand a week in case of Russian invasion. That was all about joining the country to NAT0, absolutely nothing to do with Russia itself.
            The clip seemed funny that time, now looks sad:
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dcq_tdxnq4
            That is still funny that you mention Sweden.

        • Steven

          You tell me stranger. Apparently it is quite difficult, even for professional soldiers to tell them apart.

          Reply
      • Sam

        The data was destroyed because Russia murdered civilians.

        That’s why Russia invented such stories such as a zombie plane.

        The Russians should be ashamed of inventing such stories.

        If you invent such crazy lies, you must be guilty of committing the crime.

        Stran

        Reply
    • stranger

      “No offence, but to me it seems you’ve got a confirmation bias – a cognitive trap junior analysts fall for. You already have a theory (Russians are guilty) and you accept only pieces of evidence that fit your theory – instead of impartial, neutral evaluation of ALL the facts.”
      That’s true. All variety of biases in the most classic definition, as can be found on any book for financial analysts for example, when describing how not to do a research.

      Reply
    • Black Star

      “Where are these pictures in your report, sir/madam?”

      My report?

      “you’d have to subpoena all Buks within firing range. All 3 ”

      Good luck trying to subpoena Russian army. They tend to ignore such information requests.

      This is not about what was on firing range, this is about what was on the exact spot where the missile fired. Two different things as I hope you understand.

      “You already have a theory (Russians are guilty) ”

      Or you just dismiss all evidence.

      “Your pattern of thinking (having an obsessive theory and then trying to fit facts to that theory only”

      Your pattern is to ignore evidence and then accuse others of having no evidence. I would call that pattern of thinking as moronic.

      “I’m not saying you are wrong, sir. I’m saying you don’t have enough to prove your theory”

      Very ordinary speak from a so called denialist. Be it science, politics or crime investication, the denialist never has enough evidence to change his pre-chosen opinion.

      Reply
  5. Greg Rabinovich

    Ukraine’s secret police posted a screenshot from a “Buk 312” video filmed in March, 2014 to its website claiming it was a Russian Buk that shot down MH17 returning to Russia.

    Why did Ukraine’s secret police fabricate MH17 evidence?

    Reply
        • Steven

          It doesn’t, I am just providing the gentleman with the opportunity to prove he isn’t completely full of it.

          Reply
    • oui oui

      what is sure is a buk in Ukraine with a hidden digit , before the downing of mh17
      it’s a russian buk or a ukrainian buk
      operated by the ukrainian army or the separatists
      this give four possibility
      in fact three because the ukrainian army with a russian buk is not a possibility
      the ukrainian army with a ukrainian buk hidding this digit to bring the idea that it’s a russian buk , not clear
      the separatist with a ukrainian buk hidding a digit brings the idea that it’s a russian buk , the contrary of their interest
      the separatist with a russian buk hidding a digit to bring the idea that it’s a captured ukrainian buk is the only acceptable possibility , proven here , despite the weakness of our senses and so much fog
      what was a russian buk doing in Ukraine as it is proven that it was in Ukraine

      Reply
    • boggled

      Did (Do) you ever think logically…
      that the BUK presented might be just a descriptive image
      to show reporters what a BUK looks like
      and not an actual image of the guilty BUK?
      Might be the case in this instance 🙂

      Fare thee well

      Reply
      • Black Star

        What about geolocation, timing and the fact that even the crew of this Buk are all known?

        Reply
      • boggled

        My comment was meant for Greg (in case it was not obvious)
        Sorry for not making it clear.

        Fare thee well

        Reply
    • Mx

      You are a very smart guy )). Let’s get it straight.Why don’t we all,including you, take into account only such evedence that is bullet proof and acknowledged by all sides?
      And evidence that’s is questioned by at least one side we do not consider at all.If we do so we can make conclusions.Otherwise there will a mess of mind-blowing staff.
      For example photos of BUK 332 taken from many sides and angles and containing unique elements.Such photos exist and so far I don’t see anybody claiming that they are fake.Right? What’s the point of making shitty remarks like “Why did Ukraine’s secret police fabricate MH17 evidence”. We may agree that it’s your opinion.And only yours.If your opinion is not backed by real evidence then it’s buulshit.May we expect that you don’t bother us again?

      Reply
    • Sam

      Greg

      Wait…..

      You don’t understand stock photos?

      Maybe you should leave the Internet.

      The only reason you are posting on this website is because you know Russia murdered the civilians on ma17.

      Reply
  6. Mx

    I suggest that from now on we all deal only with existing non-fake evidence,such as photos,videos,CVR recordings and so on. And fully dismiss statements like “Why didn’t OTHER side provide us with this or that.Let’s deal only with data that WAS provided ), Who prevents Mr.Putin and company from providing us with data that is non-questionable? If you insist that it was Ukrainian book so OK,what specific BUK you mean, Its number,photos of this BUK and witnesses who saw it here or there.So far what we have from Russia is that Ukraine HAD BUKs.Wow! Really? So what?

    Reply
  7. Iurii Filatov

    Die Hauptfrage . Warum geheime Untersuchung?
    Das von der britischen und der US versteckt?
    Warum sind nicht Aufnahmen mit schwarzen yaschkov veröffentlicht?
    Warum Konföderierten Fragmente der Ebene und die Leichen der Getöteten durch Artilleriefeuer der Streitkräfte der Ukraine gesammelt?
    Google Übersetzer – Scheiße!
    Главный вопрос. Почему расследование секретное?
    Что скрывают англичане и США?
    Почему не опубликованы записи с черных ящков?
    Почему конфедераты собирали обломки самолета и тела погибших под огнем артиллерии вооруженных сил Украины?
    Гугл переводчик – говно!
    (надеюсь последнюю фразу этот долбанный переводчик перевел правильно?)

    Reply
    • boggled

      Yuri
      Sorry you have such hard time with google translate.
      Try to answer
      1) Why secret investigation?
      — no secrets, DSB was investigation by Air Authority to determine what destroyed MH17 and What could be done to prevent it in the future.
      JIT will handle Criminal Investigation, and they are not done yet.
      This investigation remains secret until they issue arrest warrants for criminals.
      It will be revealed in Criminal Court Case (ICC)
      2) Where is hidden Ukraine and USA evidence?
      — This is part of Criminal Investigation and may be used in court and may not be.
      3) Why are photos not published with unfiltered data?
      — They are part of Criminal case and that is kept secret by prosecutors until trial.
      4) Why did Ukraine shell the crash site?
      — It may have been NAF shelling crash site in false flag.
      I think there was fighting in the area and Ukraine may have attacked fighters, but
      were not attacking crash site intentionally.
      Ukraine trying to destroy evidence in 50 KM disaster area?
      Is this what you believe?
      It would take big bomb to do that, and Ukraine gave up theirs in 1994 after signing Budapest Memorandum.
      U know the one that said Russia must respect Ukraine’s borders and laws?
      Hope I have helped U 🙂

      Fare thee well

      Reply
  8. Jakshy

    Much of the “evidence” put forward about who did what is circumstantial, and would be of doubtful use in a court of law.
    What is more reliable is the evidence from the piecing together of the aircraft remains by the Dutch inquiry team who seem to have done a remarkable job of reconstructing MH17 from 1000’s of pieces!
    This forensic evidence shows clearly how the aircraft was destroyed. The type of damage to the cockpit skin and windows indicates the cause was from outside, and of a pattern similar to what would be caused by a warhead of the type on a Buk surface to air missile.
    Pieces of the warhead and chemical traces found in the bodies of the flight crew & elsewhere confirm this, and with deep analysis could possibly point a finger at the batch of missiles involved.
    How much more will be discovered will depend on the resolve of the Dutch and their inquiry. The big question as to who “pulled the trigger” will be more difficult without the honest, truthfull statements from all parties. Very unlikely!
    Something not resolved was HOW the Ukrainians could get a Buk launcher with 4 missiles, deep into a territory full of Russians/Rebels and out again without being spotted, let alone captured. The “Ukes” would never take such a risk, unless it was disguised as Russian with Russian personnnel???
    The final question, and I ask this as a person who spent over 40 years of his life as a pilot both military and civil, WHY were civil aircraft flying anywhere near this warzone anyway?
    Airlines, and governments who were blind to this risk should
    be the first culprits in the dock…

    Reply
    • Greg Rabinovich

      “Something not resolved was HOW the Ukrainians could get a Buk launcher with 4 missiles, deep into a territory full of Russians/Rebels and out again without being spotted, let alone captured. ”

      Who said they had to? Are you referring to a phony Buk missile launch area found in the DSB report? It is impossible to reconstruct a missile trajectory from coordinates of a single point – the point of warhead detonation.

      Reply
      • Mx

        Guys let me speak with Greg Rabinovich in his native language )
        Изя,или Вася или кто ты там.Ты что нас всех за ид*отов принимаешь?

        Reply
        • boggled

          Nice and classy Mx
          Greg or Gregorovitch is who he is
          Пе́сня та же, поёт она́ же.

          Right Greg?

          Fare thee well

          Reply
      • Steven

        Greg, i mean this kindly. You are out of your depth.

        Again. Russia states that it knows where Ukraine had BUK launchers. Given this they should know where to look for the blast marks which are indicative of a launch. Thus far Russia has produced no evidence of any physical damage at these sights which would indicate that a Buk was fired by the Ukraine.

        So given you know where to look, why cant they/you produce it?

        Reply
        • Greg Rabinovich

          I don’t care what Russia or, for that matter, Ukraine claims. Both are suspects in the downing of MH17, and cannot be trusted.

          Reply
          • Sam

            Haha, both are not suspects, the Russians are guilty.

            You don’t care, then stop posting!!

            You are a disinformation specialist as your job.

            Russians murdered innocents….

    • boggled

      Damascus airport is still open Jakshy.
      Ukraine pit flight restrictions according to what they understood was happening in their country.
      They expected MANPADs from putin
      They did not expect putin to send in a BUK that shoots to 72000 feet

      putin never warned them he was sending it either

      Would you be screaming the same way about airspace if North Korea sent a SAM system 50 km into Russia and took out a Russian plane?
      That Russia should have closed its air space because of this surprise event?

      That is what it was, surprise and shock.

      Airplanes were safe, as long as putin did not send any mid to high altitude SAMs.
      He did
      That blame falls squarely on Kremlin shoulders.

      Fare thee well

      Reply
      • Mx

        That’s right. Mr.Putin himself has always denied supplying separatists with Russian weapons. And separatists denied having Russian weapons too. Especially such sophisticated as BUK. So there was no reason to close airspace.If everywhere on the planet where shooting occurs we start closing airspace then airtraffic will have to be cancelled completely

        Reply

Leave a Reply

  • (will not be published)