MH 17 from another perspective

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Ahh, yes but the SU27, which the Ukrainians also have is definitely capable of all these things.

RT (well that female reporter anyway) have stuck to their guns about it being an SU 25. Given that they are all amateurs and there is zero residual evidence of this mystery plane, there is nothing saying it was not the su 27.

The man with the binoculars only described the plane as being metallic coloured. So a big assumption has been made by someone as to the actual model of the plane. I don't even know how Russia would know what plane was in the air near mh17, if any at all.

The separatists however were convinced there was another plane in the air, with several social media posts claiming that a second plane was shot down at the same time as mh17. That seems to have died off and been hushed up as soon as the realisation that a passenger jet was downed.

a reply to: markosity1973

And a so called expert eyewitness that supposedly worked at the base they launched from claimed that three Su-25s left, and one came back with the pilot muttering about it being the wrong plane or something to that effect.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: intrptr

Are you saying that an ordinary person can't tell the difference between a boom and a steady roar? Or don't know how to describe the two?

Are you suggesting that nothing is ever lost in translation between 2 languages?

a reply to: markosity1973

I think part of the reason why Russia claimed SU25 was their radar returns suggested that it was, presumably by the type of transponder or IFF code.

Radar can be spoofed. A more likely candidate would be SU27 in my opinion.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: markosity1973

I think part of the reason why Russia claimed SU25 was their radar returns suggested that it was, presumably by the type of transponder or IFF code.

Radar can be spoofed. A more likely candidate would be SU27 in my opinion.

Why would the Ukrainians spoof their transponder? If they were about to commit a false flag, wouldn't they just turn their transponder off? Also, are you implying that Russian intelligence officers are too incompetent to figure this out on their own?

a reply to: Salander

Except they've brought forward alleged witnesses, including one that claimed to work on the base where the aircraft are from that have all said they physically saw Su-25s that were involved. Are you saying they can't tell the difference between the two?

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: markosity1973

I think part of the reason why Russia claimed SU25 was their radar returns suggested that it was, presumably by the type of transponder or IFF code.

Radar can be spoofed. A more likely candidate would be SU27 in my opinion.

Why would the Ukrainians spoof their transponder? If they were about to commit a false flag, wouldn't they just turn their transponder off? Also, are you implying that Russian intelligence officers are too incompetent to figure this out on their own?

The radar might have been spoofed, NOT the transponder. If it WAS spoofed, likely some sort of transponder would have been an essential part I suppose. I offer ONLY conjecture here--I've never been to Russia and have no comment on their intelligence officers.

Zaphod

It may have been a modified 25, I don't know. I offer only conjecture here. The Russians claimed early on their radar indicated it was climbing 25s. I cannot recall if Carlos identified aircraft type in his communications.

a reply to: Salander

Carlos doesn't exist, so anything he said would have been what Russia said.

The Ukrainian air force doesn't fly the modified Su-25s that would have been required. As has been stated many times.

a reply to: Salander

The radar might have been spoofed, NOT the transponder.

Why would the Russians spoof their own radar?

a reply to: Zaphod58

So you say Zaphod, so you say.

a reply to: Salander

So it's been proven Salander, so it's been proven.

originally posted by: Salander
I cannot recall if Carlos identified aircraft type in his communications.

Why are you bringing up "Carlos"? The person claiming to be a Spanish Air Traffic Controller working in Ukraine exists and was on RT back in May 2014 with a gripe against the Ukrainians. Think about it? Why are the Russian ICAO not insisting that this man Carlos be brought forward as a star witness and his testimony put on the official record?

Consider that his Twitter account was hi-jacked purely to spin the MH17 and Ukrainian fighter story or that "Carlos" himself invented the story? Here is Carlos back in May 8th 2014 on Russia Today.



Even the Spanish Embassy released a statement in regards to "Carlos"

Full reply from Spanish embassy to The Spain Report via e-mail on the existence of "Carlos, @spainbuca, the Spanish air traffic controller" in Ukraine: "This is not the first time we have been asked about him. This "Carlos" was also active during the Maidán revolution in Ukraine. We have no knowledge of "Carlos" having been in Ukraine. There is no record of his passing through the Consulate, and no one from the (relatively small) Spanish colony knows him. The airport where he supposedly worked for several years told us at the time that all of their air traffic controllers are Ukranian, and that in any case they have never employed any Spaniard for that or any other task. Furthermore, the last information he was posting before the airline tragedy was of the same sort. He was saying, for example, that he lived in Kiev and had been threatened by radical extreme-right elements. No Spaniard or national of another country—to my knowledge—has ever been threatened in this country."

www.facebook.com...

Do you not think that the likes of the Russian ICAO would have investigated this person and brought him forward as a star witness? Images of him appeared on the web without his face being obscured so this guy would be easily tracked down and his identity known.

The following link has a full face shot of "Carlos". So why hasn't "Carlos" been brought forward as a star witness by Russia or provided evidence to the international investigation team? Consider that the guy was living in a fantasy world!

wakeupfromyourslumber.com...

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: markosity1973

I think part of the reason why Russia claimed SU25 was their radar returns suggested that it was, presumably by the type of transponder or IFF code.

Radar can be spoofed. A more likely candidate would be SU27 in my opinion.

Why would the Ukrainians spoof their transponder? If they were about to commit a false flag, wouldn't they just turn their transponder off? Also, are you implying that Russian intelligence officers are too incompetent to figure this out on their own?

Because the perfect ruse would be to spoof your radar with the SU25 and shoot the plane down knowing that everyone will say what they are on here; There is no way the SU25 could have done it.

Here is another version of the SU25 story - from a dodgy looking source (just putting it out there)

Why MH17 was most likely shot down by a fighter jet

THIS story is full of holes - namely because the black boxes do not record any error alarms from the engine being shot out.

However it does point out another plausible scenario for the SU25 - it did not need to be that high anyway. They suggest an ATA missile might have forced the plane to come lower (could have been launched from the 7000m ceiling of the craft and hit it) then as the plane came lower (probably severely disabled and already about to crash) they shot it up some more, causing it to break up.

This scenario would require the damage from the missile to take out the cockpit first, doing the damage seen in the wreckage. The big if is whether it managed to disable the blackboxes and stop them from recording any errors. Still doubtful probably, unless the units were tampered with by the rebels. Which again makes no sense, since this whole theory blames their enemies, the Ukranian govt.

a reply to: markosity1973

The data recorders are in the tail, with their own power sources. The only way to disable them is to hit them. Shooting the cockpit wouldn't disable them, and would set off numerous alarms that would have been recorded.

And that's the flaw with the fighter theory. No air to air weapon would cause an aircraft the size of a 777 to suddenly explode, unless it was a one in a billion shot. And that's exactly what the data recorders show. Everything was normal, there were no alarms, no technical issues with the aircraft, until the data recorders suddenly stopped recording. About the only way for that to happen is if all input into the recorders stopped at exactly the same time, and both recorders show the same sudden stop. So both had to be hit at exactly the same time.

The odds of that happening, without the cause being catastrophic structural failure are astronomical. As for tampering, the recorders are sealed, and would show if someone opened them or tampered with them. The investigators said there was no evidence of anyone doing anything to them.

a reply to: Salander

Radar can be spoofed. A more likely candidate would be SU27 in my opinion.

Please do us a favor and let the Defence Ministry in Russia know, because they think it's the SU 25 that did it.



And let the manufacturer of the BUK know it wasn't a BUK like they say did it, and it was a radar spoofing SU 27.



Good luck.

a reply to: markosity1973

Why MH17 was most likely shot down by a fighter jet

So when are you going to be like Switzerland and show a neutral view with a different perspective?

I ask because now that you've posted a russian insider article...you are only pushing one side and their perspective through Russian government owned media...how is that a different perspective?

I have asked this once I know, but I never got an answer, so any chance you might answer it?

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

I realize this is off topic, but I love the Ministry of Defense's interior designer:



Some of his earlier work:





I can see why Putin likes him.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

A neutral view demands that one do a good forensic examination, almost but not quite impossible in this situation.

But the pictures already shown on this thread show forensic evidence consistent with cannon fire.

The facts show a huge propaganda surge by the US and its MSM, which I viewed personally. I know propaganda when I see it. On the weekend after the shootdown, Kerry appeared on all 5 Sunday talk shows here in the US, pushing the story that was not true.

Some of us might be more perceptive of propaganda than others.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Hmm, so I went looking for pictures of the reassembled wreckage and found this

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Obviously a lot more assembly to be done, but the bit of tail section that they put together looks remarkably undamaged for an area that was supposed to have been hit with a missile.

If anyone has newer pics, please share. If the tail section was also targeted, I'd be far more inclined to believe the buk missile idea.

a reply to: markosity1973

A SAM wouldn't target the tail. It is radar guided and would head for the center fuselage or nose. The only way the tail would have been hit would be an air to air IR missile from behind.

The tail wasn't targeted though. There is zero evidence that it was damaged in anything but the impact with the ground, which goes to my point that there was almost no way for the recorders to suddenly stop the way they did.