Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
WIederling
Posts: 9346
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: JIT convinced to have Irrefutable proof that MH17 was downed by BUK Missile in rebel controlled location

Mon Oct 03, 2016 9:27 am

salttee wrote:
As far as criminal prosecution goes I agree that nobody will ever be brought to justice, but for different reasons than yours, Russia is going to continue to stonewall it. Unless Russia becomes a liberal democracy in the next 40 years or so, the perpetrators will live perfectly normal Russian lives.


Guess why the US recinded on joining the International Criminal Court and introduced provisions in other treaties to prohibit prosecution of US crimes covered by the ICC.

But they appear to be screaming for the RF to be prosecuted in some kangaroo court of their choosing. Funny. Endlessly funny.

Never seen so much hypocrisy scooped up in one single nation.
Murphy is an optimist
 
salttee
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: JIT convinced to have Irrefutable proof that MH17 was downed by BUK Missile in rebel controlled location

Mon Oct 03, 2016 2:45 pm

If this clown is allowed to trash this thread too, it might as well be closed.
 
alfa164
Posts: 3661
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:47 am

Re: JIT convinced to have Irrefutable proof that MH17 was downed by BUK Missile in rebel controlled location

Mon Oct 03, 2016 3:56 pm

salttee wrote:
The point I have been making in the last dozen or so posts in this thread is a technical one, it is that without a search radar a TELAR is blind. It is as useless as a blind infantryman. It is totally without logic to believe that "rebels" would have been given use of a stand alone TELAR; they could not make any use of a TELAR without some way of finding targets. The radar that exists on the TELAR has one purpose: to lock on to and track the target that has been designated by the command vehicle. The TELAR radar initially feeds that target location to the launcher so it can point the launch in the right direction and then to the missile (with constant updates) until the missile's terminal guidance takes over. What it cannot do is search for targets except in a most cumbersome inefficient way. It is unreasonable to think that the Russian military would attempt to use a BUK M1* as a standalone weapon. It is for this reason that the premise of "rebels" being given the use of a BUK TELAR cannot be considered a possibility.


You are certainly dogmatic in your determination to convince us that would be impossible; however, it flies in the face of fact. We agree that a BUK launch vehicle can operate in stand-alone mode; your argument is that, its radar is so limited that it would never spot the airliner flying above. I think we agree that its built-in radar is normally used to track the target being engaged. In addition to that, though, that radar can be operated in a target-detection mode, allowing it to autonomously (i.e. launch vehicle only) engage targets that are present in the radar's forward field of view. This mode was introduced as a consequence of the system's performance in the 1982 Lebanon War; it bypasses the safety features of the main radar. Thus a TELAR, alone in the field, with limited IFF capability (that extended function exists in the command vehicle with the search radar) is aiming at targets without full knowledge of what that target is.

Simply put, if a BUK TELAR were operating individually it would be blind to most IFF information - but it is still capable of finding and bringing down an aircraft.

Here is another person who agrees that it is very possible (he believes it is almost certain) that the BUK TELAR was in operation without its control module:

http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com ... down-mh17/

That is a much more researched and detailed description that I can offer here. However, it does point out in pertinent detail:

"The operating mode of a lone TELAR without assisting Snow Drift radar and other vehicles operation is called autonomous mode. A TELAR operating on its own (not with the Snow Drift radar) does have IFF and NCTR as well. The onboard computer Argon-15 is connected with IFF and NCTR modules and provide info about target. Without IFF permission target cannot be locked and a missile cannot be fired. However the commander can overrule and press a button so a missile will be launched, even if IFF says it is friendly aircraft....

The main difference between capabilities of Command Post plus Target Acquisition Radar and just a TELAR (as used in MH17) is in the identification of targets. A CP/TAR st can use info from different sources (civilian net, other radars), but TELAR in autonomus mode only own info (but TELAR can be connected to CP and use TAR info and directed from range even launch missiles)"


I am not so bold as to say it is certain that the BUK was operating without its control module, but I am confident in saying it could have been operating that way. So far, there is no empirical evidence either way, and I am waiting for evidence - not someone's dogma to convince me.
I'm going to have a smokin' hot body again!
I have decided to be cremated....
 
alfa164
Posts: 3661
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:47 am

Re: JIT convinced to have Irrefutable proof that MH17 was downed by BUK Missile in rebel controlled location

Mon Oct 03, 2016 4:14 pm

WIederling wrote:
salttee wrote:
As far as criminal prosecution goes I agree that nobody will ever be brought to justice, but for different reasons than yours, Russia is going to continue to stonewall it. Unless Russia becomes a liberal democracy in the next 40 years or so, the perpetrators will live perfectly normal Russian lives.


Guess why the US recinded on joining the International Criminal Court and introduced provisions in other treaties to prohibit prosecution of US crimes covered by the ICC.
But they appear to be screaming for the RF to be prosecuted in some kangaroo court of their choosing. Funny. Endlessly funny.
Never seen so much hypocrisy scooped up in one single nation.


Would you care to discuss the facts presented in the JIT report, or are you just hoping your rants will distract us from that?

Let's face it: Russia got caught. Now the issue is who will suffer the consequences.
I'm going to have a smokin' hot body again!
I have decided to be cremated....
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 11886
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: JIT convinced to have Irrefutable proof that MH17 was downed by BUK Missile in rebel controlled location

Mon Oct 03, 2016 5:20 pm

PlanesNTrains wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:

Again - fine. Honestly, I have a lot of doubt, regardless of how the investigation unfolds, about what A.net will say anyhow. There are clearly a variety of strong opinions here, including those of paid shills, and nobody is going to change the minds of a lot of them.



Well I will repeat myself: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” ― Daniel Patrick Moynihan

So I will only believe the official investigation, the might be biased and might have an alternative motive.


My apologies, but I'm not clear if you are saying you would believe an official investigation or you think it will be biased? "...the might be biased..." is throwing me off.


I am saying that I only believe the official explanation, they have the resources to do forensic investigations towards physical evidence or digital one. I don't think Bellingcat is biast, I don't believe it is a CIA front - like suggested by the Russians, but I do believe they lack the recourses that my government has to do the research to come to conclusions beyond a reasonable doubt. So they guesstimate, and I would like to threat them as such.

What I meant with the quote is that questioning the conclusions of the JIT is pointless and debating about them as well. They did an excellent job and I have seen nothing to the contrary. If you want to question the conclusions of the JIT-investigation, be my guest, but the bar is high, very high.

Now we just have to wait for the next step, and according to the Australian minister we can expect that stap to be finish at years end or at the latest next spring.

For now we know Russia is involved one way or another and now we have to wait what van be proven to the extend of the involvement of the Russian government. For me there are three options now:
a. Russian military did it, Russian BUK, transported by Russian soldiers, fired by Russian soldiers, 100% Russian controlled (perhaps radar images provided by Russian authorities, civilian or military
b. Russian military supplied the BUK, it was transported by Ukraine opposition forces, fired by Ukraine opposition forces (Russia did provide support in the sense of training and delivery of weapons)
c. BUK was stolen from Russian forces by Ukraine opposition forces and it was transported by Ukraine opposition forces, fired by Ukraine opposition forces.

a. Russia did, they should take 100% responsibility for this incident.
b. Russia did provide advanced military hardware to a bunch of novice forces, they should take 100% responsibility for this incident. (this is like giving a 2y/o a gun and be surprised someone was killed)
c. Russia is responsible for locking away dangerous materials and the Russian military can't be trusted. Then we have the biggest problem of all.

My guestimation is scenario b.

Russia however will never admit it, because then it will be known that Russia has been lying the whole time for not being involved and supporting the Ukrainian opposition, while we all know they do, like they do in Georgia, Moldavia, Crimea. It can't be proven yet that Russia is the driving force behing the civil-war in Ukraine.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 11886
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: JIT convinced to have Irrefutable proof that MH17 was downed by BUK Missile in rebel controlled location

Mon Oct 03, 2016 5:43 pm

WIederling wrote:
salttee wrote:
As far as criminal prosecution goes I agree that nobody will ever be brought to justice, but for different reasons than yours, Russia is going to continue to stonewall it. Unless Russia becomes a liberal democracy in the next 40 years or so, the perpetrators will live perfectly normal Russian lives.


Guess why the US recinded on joining the International Criminal Court and introduced provisions in other treaties to prohibit prosecution of US crimes covered by the ICC.

But they appear to be screaming for the RF to be prosecuted in some kangaroo court of their choosing. Funny. Endlessly funny.

Never seen so much hypocrisy scooped up in one single nation.


I concur that the US is sometimes hypocrite in its reaction and they put themselves above the law, and it is a bloody shame that they haven't signed the ICC treaty. Chances that a US official will be send to The Hague are slim indeed, but they can be arrested and taken to court by the ICC, if they got arrested in a other country. In that sense they are not above the international law. Russia doesn't extradite it's citizens either, so 1-1 for that.

Nevertheless have you looked at Russia to find a nation full of hypocrisy. Blaming the US for conducting airstrikes against ISIS forces in Syria, while annexing Crimea, more or less annexing two parts of Georgia and one part of Moldavia. Putting Ukraine in a civil-war.

Kangaroo court is your shameful frame. Not even going to response to that.

Russians will be prosecuted if the proof is enough against specific persons.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
salttee
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: JIT convinced to have Irrefutable proof that MH17 was downed by BUK Missile in rebel controlled location

Mon Oct 03, 2016 5:46 pm

alfa164 wrote:
We agree that a BUK launch vehicle can operate in stand-alone mode

No, we don't agree on that, An early version BUK TELAR (M1 model without phased array radar) such as the one used to bring down MH-17, would work in stand alone mode in the same manner as an infantry soldier would function while blind, sure, he can shoot towards sounds but he's not likely to hit anything. A BUK without a search radar is in more or less the same position.

alfa164 wrote:
In addition to that, though, that radar can be operated in a target-detection mode, allowing it to autonomously (i.e. launch vehicle only) engage targets that are present in the radar's forward field of view.

Wrong, there is no such thing as "target detection mode" for a pencil beam target tracking radar such as an M1 BUK TELAR. An operator can scan the sky blindly looking for returns which he is unlikely to find, and someone can label this futile activity "autonomous mode" or "target detection mode" if they want, but that dog won't hunt.

I'll take it to another level of technical detail, let me explain that when radars emit pulses from their antennas, the pulses are seen to have a shape. Because of the physical shape of their antennas, search radars emit a pulse that is less focused than a tracking radar's pulse, it is elongated in the vertical component, this is done so that it can spot targets at any altitude. A tracking radar, sends out a conical beam which is focused as tightly as possible so as to maximize the precision of target location. A search radar display screen CRT uses phosphors that retain their glow for a longer period of time (in milliseconds) so that the operator does not miss a faint target; a tracking radar screen is made with instant on/off phosphors so as to reflect instantaneous changes in the return (in modern flat screens this effect is mimicked with software.) The BUK search radar has an effective range of at least a hundred miles, because it is necessary for someone looking for targets to see things that are beyond the range of the site; the BUK tracking radar's range is limited to about 20 miles, because that's the max range of the missile. So if you attempted to find a target with the tracking radar it would probably be gone by the time you discovered it and got locked on (if you discovered it).

A tracking radar cannot be used as a search radar, end of story.

alfa164 wrote:
In addition to that, though, that radar can be operated in a target-detection mode, allowing it to autonomously (i.e. launch vehicle only) engage targets that are present in the radar's forward field of view. This mode was introduced as a consequence of the system's performance in the 1982 Lebanon War; it bypasses the safety features of the main radar. Thus a TELAR, alone in the field, with limited IFF capability (that extended function exists in the command vehicle with the search radar) is aiming at targets without full knowledge of what that target is.

A couple of points here, the first is the architectural design of the BUK system did not come about because of experience in the 1982 conflict. It came about because by 1982 anti-radiation missiles were in the inventory of everybody in the west, so a Soviet ally having an AD system with search and tracking functions in one location was a guaranteed point of failure. Thus, they split the tracking job away from the search function, and put the tracking radar on the mobile launchers and considered them expendable. My other point is that this subject if IFF is a moot point. IFF almost certainly wasn't used on 17 July 2014, even with the command module in operation. Military use of IFF isn't done the way the public thinks it is, but that's another story.

alfa164 wrote:
Here is another person who agrees that it is very possible (he believes it is almost certain) that the BUK TELAR was in operation without its control module: http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com ... down-mh17/
That is a much more researched and detailed description that I can offer here. However, it does point out in pertinent detail:

That is a compilation and attempted explanation of technical information by someone who is a writer but who is not well versed in the field he is writing about. The host of the site that presented it admits that the piece came from an unverified source he included in his introduction:
I decided to keep the information on this page as long as it is unproved the information is incorrect.

There are a number of factual errors in the description of the BUK system, I'm not going to go into detail picking it apart but I categorically say that the writer didn't understand his subject matter. I encourage you to research the BUK system if you're going to continue expressing opinions on it, but I suggest that you find better sources. Wikipedia is not bad but it does not mention IFF at all, yet as I said, that is unimportant anyway.

alfa164 wrote:
I am waiting for evidence - not someone's dogma to convince me.

The fact that you so far are unable to understand what I'm saying doesn't make it dogma.
I have presented valid and accurate technical evidence.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9346
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: JIT convinced to have Irrefutable proof that MH17 was downed by BUK Missile in rebel controlled location

Mon Oct 03, 2016 5:52 pm

alfa164 wrote:
Would you care to discuss the facts presented in the JIT report,


What facts?
There is more similarity here to a medieval witch hunt than anything else.
Ever seen "Name of the Rose" ? See the same methods used
to come to the conclusion that the "culprits" must burn?

This started out with a desired outcome and then did not stop until they had
invented / misappropriated together their "facts" to fit the story.
Murphy is an optimist
 
alfa164
Posts: 3661
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:47 am

Re: JIT convinced to have Irrefutable proof that MH17 was downed by BUK Missile in rebel controlled location

Mon Oct 03, 2016 6:05 pm

salttee wrote:
alfa164 wrote:
We agree that a BUK launch vehicle can operate in stand-alone mode

No, we don't agree on that, An early version BUK TELAR (M1 model without phased array radar) such as the one used to bring down MH-17, would work in stand alone mode in the same manner as an infantry soldier would function while blind, sure, he can shoot towards sounds but he's not likely to hit anything. A BUK without a search radar is in more or less the same position.

alfa164 wrote:
In addition to that, though, that radar can be operated in a target-detection mode, allowing it to autonomously (i.e. launch vehicle only) engage targets that are present in the radar's forward field of view.

Wrong, there is no such thing as "target detection mode" for a pencil beam target tracking radar such as an M1 BUK TELAR. An operator can scan the sky blindly looking for returns which he is unlikely to find, and someone can label this futile activity "autonomous mode" or "target detection mode" if they want, but that dog won't hunt.

I'll take it to another level of technical detail, let me explain that when radars emit pulses from their antennas, the pulses are seen to have a shape. Because of the physical shape of their antennas, search radars emit a pulse that is less focused than a tracking radar's pulse, it is elongated in the vertical component, this is done so that it can spot targets at any altitude. A tracking radar, sends out a conical beam which is focused as tightly as possible so as to maximize the precision of target location. A search radar display screen CRT uses phosphors that retain their glow for a longer period of time (in milliseconds) so that the operator does not miss a faint target; a tracking radar screen is made with instant on/off phosphors so as to reflect instantaneous changes in the return (in modern flat screens this effect is mimicked with software.) The BUK search radar has an effective range of at least a hundred miles, because it is necessary for someone looking for targets to see things that are beyond the range of the site; the BUK tracking radar's range is limited to about 20 miles, because that's the max range of the missile. So if you attempted to find a target with the tracking radar it would probably be gone by the time you discovered it and got locked on (if you discovered it).

A tracking radar cannot be used as a search radar, end of story.

alfa164 wrote:
In addition to that, though, that radar can be operated in a target-detection mode, allowing it to autonomously (i.e. launch vehicle only) engage targets that are present in the radar's forward field of view. This mode was introduced as a consequence of the system's performance in the 1982 Lebanon War; it bypasses the safety features of the main radar. Thus a TELAR, alone in the field, with limited IFF capability (that extended function exists in the command vehicle with the search radar) is aiming at targets without full knowledge of what that target is.

A couple of points here, the first is the architectural design of the BUK system did not come about because of experience in the 1982 conflict. It came about because by 1982 anti-radiation missiles were in the inventory of everybody in the west, so a Soviet ally having an AD system with search and tracking functions in one location was a guaranteed point of failure. Thus, they split the tracking job away from the search function, and put the tracking radar on the mobile launchers and considered them expendable. My other point is that this subject if IFF is a moot point. IFF almost certainly wasn't used on 17 July 2014, even with the command module in operation. Military use of IFF isn't done the way the public thinks it is, but that's another story.

alfa164 wrote:
Here is another person who agrees that it is very possible (he believes it is almost certain) that the BUK TELAR was in operation without its control module: http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com ... down-mh17/
That is a much more researched and detailed description that I can offer here. However, it does point out in pertinent detail:

That is a compilation and attempted explanation of technical information by someone who is a writer but who is not well versed in the field he is writing about. The host of the site that presented it admits that the piece came from an unverified source he included in his introduction:
I decided to keep the information on this page as long as it is unproved the information is incorrect.

There are a number of factual errors in the description of the BUK system, I'm not going to go into detail picking it apart but I categorically say that the writer didn't understand his subject matter. I encourage you to research the BUK system if you're going to continue expressing opinions on it, but I suggest that you find better sources. Wikipedia is not bad but it does not mention IFF at all, yet as I said, that is unimportant anyway.

alfa164 wrote:
I am waiting for evidence - not someone's dogma to convince me.

The fact that you so far are unable to understand what I'm saying doesn't make it dogma.
I have presented valid and accurate technical evidence.


Sigh... you will just have to take your conclusions to the JIT. After two years of detailed investigation, they disagree with you.

"A Dutch-led team of international investigators has released its findings in the criminal probe on the MH17 crash, concluding the plane was shot down by rebels in eastern Ukraine by a Buk missile system brought from Russia. Moscow has repeatedly denied supplying weapons to the rebels.

The Joint Investigation Team (JIT) consists of investigators and experts from the Netherlands, Belgium, Australia, Malaysia and Ukraine. The team was tasked with determining who was responsible for the incident in which Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 came down over eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014.
"
I'm going to have a smokin' hot body again!
I have decided to be cremated....
 
alfa164
Posts: 3661
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:47 am

Re: JIT convinced to have Irrefutable proof that MH17 was downed by BUK Missile in rebel controlled location

Mon Oct 03, 2016 6:11 pm

WIederling wrote:
alfa164 wrote:
Would you care to discuss the facts presented in the JIT report,


What facts?
There is more similarity here to a medieval witch hunt than anything else.
Ever seen "Name of the Rose" ? See the same methods used
to come to the conclusion that the "culprits" must burn?
This started out with a desired outcome and then did not stop until they had
invented / misappropriated together their "facts" to fit the story.


Still another rant... still no facts...

And "the Name of the Rose" was a work of fiction... just like your postings. But I hope you are earning bonus rubles this week...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... ctory.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/magaz ... .html?_r=1
I'm going to have a smokin' hot body again!
I have decided to be cremated....
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 11886
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: JIT convinced to have Irrefutable proof that MH17 was downed by BUK Missile in rebel controlled location

Mon Oct 03, 2016 6:27 pm

alfa164 wrote:
Sigh... you will just have to take your conclusions to the JIT. After two years of detailed investigation, they disagree with you.

"A Dutch-led team of international investigators has released its findings in the criminal probe on the MH17 crash, concluding the plane was shot down by rebels in eastern Ukraine by a Buk missile system brought from Russia. Moscow has repeatedly denied supplying weapons to the rebels.

The Joint Investigation Team (JIT) consists of investigators and experts from the Netherlands, Belgium, Australia, Malaysia and Ukraine. The team was tasked with determining who was responsible for the incident in which Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 came down over eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014.
"


I fully agree with you for taking down the ney-sayers here. But the JIT didn't reach the conclusion yet that the Ukrainian opposition downed the MH-17, might be Russian soldiers (on vacation is the expresion used by Russian officials).
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
alfa164
Posts: 3661
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:47 am

Re: JIT convinced to have Irrefutable proof that MH17 was downed by BUK Missile in rebel controlled location

Mon Oct 03, 2016 6:54 pm

Dutchy wrote:
alfa164 wrote:
Sigh... you will just have to take your conclusions to the JIT. After two years of detailed investigation, they disagree with you.

"A Dutch-led team of international investigators has released its findings in the criminal probe on the MH17 crash, concluding the plane was shot down by rebels in eastern Ukraine by a Buk missile system brought from Russia. Moscow has repeatedly denied supplying weapons to the rebels.

The Joint Investigation Team (JIT) consists of investigators and experts from the Netherlands, Belgium, Australia, Malaysia and Ukraine. The team was tasked with determining who was responsible for the incident in which Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 came down over eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014.
"


I fully agree with you for taking down the ney-sayers here. But the JIT didn't reach the conclusion yet that the Ukrainian opposition downed the MH-17, might be Russian soldiers (on vacation is the expresion used by Russian officials).

Thank you; I can accept that correction. I was quoting the story in The Independent which indicated findings had included the conclusion that the rebels were responsible.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 35621.html

That still seems to be the insinuation, considering "The JIT has reconstructed the weapon’s journey using data from rebels’ mobile phones, as well as photos and videos showing it being escorted by pro-Russian rebels wearing unspecified uniforms", but you are correct; whether or not the rebels actually pushed the firing button is still to be determined..
I'm going to have a smokin' hot body again!
I have decided to be cremated....
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 11886
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: JIT convinced to have Irrefutable proof that MH17 was downed by BUK Missile in rebel controlled location

Mon Oct 03, 2016 7:18 pm

Next step by the Russian authorities.

The Dutch ambassador to the Russian Federation was invited by the Russian vice president to talk about the MH-17. Russia wants that the JIT includes recently "found" radartracks. Moscow wants the JIT also to research not closing the airspace by Ukraine as one of the primary causes. The news agency Interfax reports.

The Dutch ambassador emphasized that the Netherlands wants the guilty put on trail and insisted that Russia complies with UN resolution 2166. Resolution 2166 states that the perpetrator must be found and tried. Russia didn't vetoed it, so they are bound by this resolution.

http://www.nu.nl/algemeen/4330905/mosko ... trekt.html
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 11886
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: JIT convinced to have Irrefutable proof that MH17 was downed by BUK Missile in rebel controlled location

Mon Oct 03, 2016 7:20 pm

alfa164 wrote:
Spyhunter wrote:
I would hate to disappoint my fans, including scbrinl! I daresay this thread will be locked soon, so I shall make my points quickly.
.


Your fans? They seem to be in hiding. Perhaps your handlers may be watching, though...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... ctory.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/magaz ... .html?_r=1



Russian trolls work from 9am till 9pm, st Petersburg time, so we'll have to wait a few hours for their response ;-)
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 11886
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: JIT convinced to have Irrefutable proof that MH17 was downed by BUK Missile in rebel controlled location

Mon Oct 03, 2016 7:22 pm

alfa164 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
alfa164 wrote:
Sigh... you will just have to take your conclusions to the JIT. After two years of detailed investigation, they disagree with you.

"A Dutch-led team of international investigators has released its findings in the criminal probe on the MH17 crash, concluding the plane was shot down by rebels in eastern Ukraine by a Buk missile system brought from Russia. Moscow has repeatedly denied supplying weapons to the rebels.

The Joint Investigation Team (JIT) consists of investigators and experts from the Netherlands, Belgium, Australia, Malaysia and Ukraine. The team was tasked with determining who was responsible for the incident in which Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 came down over eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014.
"


I fully agree with you for taking down the ney-sayers here. But the JIT didn't reach the conclusion yet that the Ukrainian opposition downed the MH-17, might be Russian soldiers (on vacation is the expresion used by Russian officials).

Thank you; I can accept that correction. I was quoting the story in The Independent which indicated findings had included the conclusion that the rebels were responsible.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 35621.html

That still seems to be the insinuation, considering "The JIT has reconstructed the weapon’s journey using data from rebels’ mobile phones, as well as photos and videos showing it being escorted by pro-Russian rebels wearing unspecified uniforms", but you are correct; whether or not the rebels actually pushed the firing button is still to be determined..


Because it is this sensitive, I would like to talk only about conclusions the JIT reached in terms of what really is known about it.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
2175301
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: JIT convinced to have Irrefutable proof that MH17 was downed by BUK Missile in rebel controlled location

Mon Oct 03, 2016 7:27 pm

WIederling wrote:
alfa164 wrote:
Would you care to discuss the facts presented in the JIT report,


What facts?
There is more similarity here to a medieval witch hunt than anything else.
Ever seen "Name of the Rose" ? See the same methods used
to come to the conclusion that the "culprits" must burn?

This started out with a desired outcome and then did not stop until they had
invented / misappropriated together their "facts" to fit the story.


The "Facts" are as follows:

1) The recovered warhead shrapnel pieces in the aircraft and in bodies of the crew only match to the latest two generations of one specific missile warhead in the world. Those 2 warhead designs are installed in Russian BUC Surface to Air Missiles (and their naval counterpart), and are not known to be used in other types of missiles.

2) Some of the recovered missile components that were blasted into the air frame are a match to only 1 model of the Russian BUC missile, other parts are a match for multiple Russian BUC Missile models.

3) There was no missile or warhead fragments recovered that match any Air-Air missile, or any other than a Russian BUC missile.

That is hard physical evidence. Anyone from any nation can view it (with appropriate controls).

The combination of possible warheads and specific model missile can be used to identify who would own that combination.

Those are your hard facts.

A bit less solid - but; convincing to a high degree: The blast pattern of shrapnel damage to MH-17 is consistent with a Generation II warhead design (and not Generation III).

So we know where what the missile came from (and where it did not). What I have read is that ONLY Russia had that exact model missile and warhead combination in inventory. I have not seen any claims to the contrary. Instead, it seems that a lot of people keep trying to claim that its a missile from another country, etc.

Now, which generation of launcher (and various capabilities between generation of launcher), exact location fired from, who fired, timeline of movement, etc. Does not have as solid of evidence; and I will even agree is debatable in certain areas. But, when you are holding the warhead shrapnel and pieces of the missile itself... which are unique in shape and size to only one missile. That's hard factual evidence not subject to debate.

Have a great day,
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 11886
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: JIT convinced to have Irrefutable proof that MH17 was downed by BUK Missile in rebel controlled location

Mon Oct 03, 2016 7:39 pm

2175301 wrote:
exact location fired from


This too is beyond debate. It is just fact, supported by multiple witnesses all pointed out the direction in which they saw the missile launch, all point to a specific piece of land, the field was burned after the missile fire, the field was covered with tracks, the width matches the BUK launch-vehicle, telephone calls support the same location, telephone mast connected to the cellphones of the Ukraine opposition points to the same location, photo's of the launch plume support the same location, radartracks of US warplanes point to the same location.

So what is there to debate about?
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
bhill
Posts: 1861
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 8:28 am

Re: JIT convinced to have Irrefutable proof that MH17 was downed by BUK Missile in rebel controlled location

Mon Oct 03, 2016 7:49 pm

Pretty sure the launcher type/generation can be gotten from the videos and stills of the thing passing by all those witnesses...



"Now, which generation of launcher (and various capabilities between generation of launcher), exact location fired from, who fired, timeline of movement, etc. Does not have as solid of evidence; and I will even agree is debatable in certain areas. But, when you are holding the warhead shrapnel and pieces of the missile itself... which are unique in shape and size to only one missile. That's hard factual evidence not subject to debate. "

Have a great day,[/quote]
Carpe Pices
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 11886
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: JIT convinced to have Irrefutable proof that MH17 was downed by BUK Missile in rebel controlled location

Mon Oct 03, 2016 7:52 pm

bhill wrote:
Pretty sure the launcher type/generation can be gotten from the videos and stills of the thing passing by all those witnesses...



"Now, which generation of launcher (and various capabilities between generation of launcher), exact location fired from, who fired, timeline of movement, etc. Does not have as solid of evidence; and I will even agree is debatable in certain areas. But, when you are holding the warhead shrapnel and pieces of the missile itself... which are unique in shape and size to only one missile. That's hard factual evidence not subject to debate. "

Have a great day,


Well not directly, that is circumstantial evidence. Don't think that will held out in court.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
bhill
Posts: 1861
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 8:28 am

Re: JIT convinced to have Irrefutable proof that MH17 was downed by BUK Missile in rebel controlled location

Mon Oct 03, 2016 7:54 pm

Pretty sure the launcher type/generation can be gotten from the videos and stills of the thing passing by all those witnesses...



"Now, which generation of launcher (and various capabilities between generation of launcher), exact location fired from, who fired, timeline of movement, etc. Does not have as solid of evidence; and I will even agree is debatable in certain areas. But, when you are holding the warhead shrapnel and pieces of the missile itself... which are unique in shape and size to only one missile. That's hard factual evidence not subject to debate. "

Have a great day,[/quote]


I suspect it was Russian...a suspicion mind you...Flag Rank AA officer that does not like Ukrainians, "loaned" one out. Because I cannot image one of those weapons "waltzing" out of the motorpool or laager without SOMEONE in the chain of command knowing where all of the TO&E that they signed for is every moment of the day....ESPECIALLY loaded with 4 warshots...
Carpe Pices
 
2175301
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: JIT convinced to have Irrefutable proof that MH17 was downed by BUK Missile in rebel controlled location

Mon Oct 03, 2016 8:38 pm

Dutchy wrote:
2175301 wrote:
exact location fired from


This too is beyond debate. It is just fact, supported by multiple witnesses all pointed out the direction in which they saw the missile launch, all point to a specific piece of land, the field was burned after the missile fire, the field was covered with tracks, the width matches the BUK launch-vehicle, telephone calls support the same location, telephone mast connected to the cellphones of the Ukraine opposition points to the same location, photo's of the launch plume support the same location, radartracks of US warplanes point to the same location.

So what is there to debate about?


That evidence indicates a Missile battery was in that field at that time and appears to have fired a missile (the ground can be burned by other means). It is not direct hard evidence that a missile fired from that location was the exact missile that impacted MH-17. I admit, that it is very solid evidence in support. But, what if there are other fields in the general area with similar tracks and burn marks (which might be possible). How many BUC systems were in the area?

If you review the JIT information one of the more "intriguing" pieces of evidence is a "court admissible" report issued based on "secret intelligence" where select individuals were allowed to view the "secret intelligence" and validate the evidence was consistent with intelligence resources in the area and verify that the report was based on that intelligence. That report is not on the general public site (or at least I have not found it) and I have not gone digging to see if I can find it elsewhere.

That report may provide key data. Things that I think is possible would be missile track records from ground to MH-17. Also, that report may contain evidence that there was only 1 BUC missile system in the possible area for a shoot-down (the one in that field). I would also consider that definitive evidence to link that field with MH-17.

Please keep in mind that there are "hard facts" and there is evidence that supports. The shrapnel and missile debris in the MH-17 wreckage are hard facts; as is from which missile and possible warhead they originate from.

I personally consider most of the other information in the "Evidence that supports" category. Much of it at least approaches, and parts exceed, my USA standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt." But, I have not yet concluded that there could not be alternate explanations. I do understand that not everyone operates to my degree of "plausibility"

Have a great day,
 
salttee
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: JIT convinced to have Irrefutable proof that MH17 was downed by BUK Missile in rebel controlled location

Mon Oct 03, 2016 10:30 pm

alfa164 wrote:
That still seems to be the insinuation, considering "The JIT has reconstructed the weapon’s journey using data from rebels’ mobile phones, as well as photos and videos showing it being escorted by pro-Russian rebels wearing unspecified uniforms", but you are correct; whether or not the rebels actually pushed the firing button is still to be determined..

That implies nothing. The Russians would have required security for their TELAR as it traveled across the border into Ukraine territory. That security would be best provided by the "rebels". So it is only to be expected that "rebels" would have been involved.

This present assumption of yours, along with your above false assumption that the Dutch had stated that the launcher had been manned by rebels, are just the two most recent examples that show you have your mind set in one direction and are rejecting out of hand anything that goes against your (unfounded) beliefs. Once again, there is not a shred of information to even indicate that anyone other than members of the Russian 53rd Brigade manned that TELAR, let alone prove such a thing. I eagerly wait for you or anyone else to prove this wrong.

bhill wrote:
Pretty sure the launcher type/generation can be gotten from the videos and stills of the thing passing by all those witnesses...

Bellingcat identifies the TELAR seen around Snizhne as an M1 type, which is the older type without phased array radar. The Dutch report lends support to that by stating that it wasn't one of the newest warhead type (not a type III warhead.)

bhill wrote:
I suspect it was Russian...a suspicion mind you...Flag Rank AA officer that does not like Ukrainians, "loaned" one out. Because I cannot image one of those weapons "waltzing" out of the motorpool or laager without SOMEONE in the chain of command knowing where all of the TO&E that they signed for is every moment of the day....ESPECIALLY loaded with 4 warshots...

I agree with this, it could have been anybody in the chain of command from the Battalion commander to Putin. I suspect that it was the Machiavellian ex-KGB Mr. Putin himself though. But I have no proof.
 
alfa164
Posts: 3661
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:47 am

Re: JIT convinced to have Irrefutable proof that MH17 was downed by BUK Missile in rebel controlled location

Tue Oct 04, 2016 1:39 am

salttee wrote:
Once again, there is not a shred of information to even indicate that anyone other than members of the Russian 53rd Brigade manned that TELAR, let alone prove such a thing. I eagerly wait for you or anyone else to prove this wrong..


Nor is there a shred of evidence that any members of the Russian 53rd Brigade manned the vehicle. Indeed, there is no empirical evidence to point to either scenario, and, if there were, the JIT would have published that in their report. I am not so presumptuous to think I know more than the group of investigators who have spent two years collecting and sifting through the evidence. Others are.

salttee wrote:
I agree with this, it could have been anybody in the chain of command from the Battalion commander to Putin. I suspect that it was the Machiavellian ex-KGB Mr. Putin himself though. But I have no proof.


With that, I must agree with you: you have no proof.
I'm going to have a smokin' hot body again!
I have decided to be cremated....
 
User avatar
atcsundevil
Moderator
Posts: 4289
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:22 pm

Re: JIT convinced to have Irrefutable proof that MH17 was downed by BUK Missile in rebel controlled location

Tue Oct 04, 2016 3:25 am

This thread has veered rather significantly from it's original topic, and the majority of the discussion is no longer rooted in civil aviation. Political discourse and conspiracy theories do not belong in this part of the forum. Because of this, the thread will be locked, as the aviation portion of the discussion has seemingly dried up, and too often resorted to insults and abusive commentary.

Those users wishing to continue this discussion (including the political element) are welcome to open a thread in the non-av forum of this site.

atcsundevil ✈️

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos