Satellite photo of fighter jet zapping MH17

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: maghun

So a source from Russia, confirming that it was a Ukrainian MiG firing the missile. Confirmation bias? What's that?

Even if the scenario was "probable", it is highly unlikely anyone would reveal the satellite image.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: grey580

The missile wouldn't have had any trouble hitting the plane, as its top speed is above Mach 2. The problem is that it wouldn't have homed in on the cockpit. Radar guided missiles home in on the largest signature, be it EM or radar return, and that is the center wing box, not the cockpit.

There are some classes of anti-aircraft missiles that are actually designed to fly up alongside the fuselage of an aircraft and release a ring of shrapnel just behind the cockpit.

a reply to: Mirthful Me
Darn... Good point on the time.

Actually, Donetsk isn't on CEST anyway. We on CEST are 1 hr ahead of UTC, but Ukraine is on EET, which is UTC/GMT +2 hrs. But this was in summer, so the time there would have been UTC + 3hrs (EEST), making it 16:20. That obviously puts the sun more westerly.

Funnily enough, that would make the lighting on the fighter jet even more odd as it would be coming from behind the port side and at a lower angle, leaving much of the starboard side in shadow. It would also affect the bigger plane...

I wonder if whoever shopped that image made the same mistake on the time as I did? I mean, even allowing my "plane position" is a little off (60 km would not affect the lighting a great deal in these latitudes), the sun in that "satellite" image is just about perfect on the passenger jet for 13:20 local time. It just happens to be wrong for the real time based on UTC!

I agree on the missile track. And considering the rate at which A to A missiles accelerate I'd be amazed if any satellite would happen to catch one as clearly as that.

originally posted by: maghun
Loud noise, huge contrail, no video?

Yes, I find it amazing that no one with a half decent camera was pointing it into empty sky at the exact moment a missile was launched, so as to catch the evidence. It's a lame excuse to say there's no video!

The only amazing thing about the OP is that people are actually believing it!

Just to point out on the photo, that the ground resolution is poor while the resolution of the airliner is sharp. Somehow, I think that even the most imaginative people would recognise this is a bit of a giveaway as to the authenticity of the image. Why focus a satellite camera on empty sky?

Also, for you die-hard believers of Western propaganda, take note that 1TV.RU is 75% owned by the Russian Government, so is just like all the other Russian media (inc. RT.com) spouting the same old misinformation to cloak Russia's disastrous meddling in Ukraine affairs.

Regards

a reply to: maghun

And if there was, then that would have been suspicious because someone caught it on camera.

There's no way that anyone can say that they "definitely weren't at 30,000 feet". There's no way to tell altitude from the ground without some kind of assistance.

There is zero credible evidence that a fighter was used to shoot this plane down. A 30mm gun wouldn't cause a sudden disintegration, and the holes in the skin are far too small to be 30mm holes. No air to air missile would cause a sudden disintegration. Planes have been hit by two large air to air missiles and flew on for awhile afterwards. Air to air missiles wouldn't hit near the cockpit, unless fired from the front, which the crew would have seen and commented on, which would have been picked up by the CVR.

A SAM on the other hand, has a large enough warhead to cause a plane the size of a 777 to suddenly shatter. A high explosive fragmentation warhead would send out shrapnel that causes the holes we see in the skin and structures. A missile fired from the ground wouldn't have been seen by the crew, unless they were looking for it. A SAM fired from the front would detonate near the cockpit as the proximity fuse activated.

A SAM makes sense. An air to air shoot down doesn't, even before you look at the evidence.

a reply to: JustMike

Actually Donetsk is in the MSK time zone... I figured that out shortly after posting, which is +3 to UTC... Now factor in the 33,000 ft flight level... I'm not sure either aircraft is illuminated correctly, much less the ground level structures.

a reply to: stormcell

You do realize that antiaircraft missiles are not the same as air to air missiles right?

And exactly which missiles are these.

a reply to: Zaphod58

definitely weren't at 30,000 feet

10 km. Maybe a 777 is visible in that distance, but a fighter jet?

There is zero credible evidence

All the primary evidence lies on the field at the crash site under ukrainian army shelling. In a plane-crash case isn't the wreckage the most important evidence?

A SAM makes sense.

Can NATO detect a SAM launch?

So the photo is debunked, i agree.

Explosive tipped armor penetrating cannon rounds could penetrate the cockpit and detonate interior to the skin making in and out holes like we see in the photos of below the cockpit window… Smaller than 30 mm penetrators reflects that the armor penetrator core portion of the round is smaller than 30 mm diameter. In and out holes reflects upon the round penetrating then detonating inside the skin, tearing jagged holes back out the skin.

Targeting the cockpit is a solution to the problem of avoiding forensics associated with warhead impacts and diamond shaped fragmentation hole patterns in the plane (either centrally from a lateral attack or from behind), and in bodies. Let alone the frag pieces retrievable to prove a missile hit. Haven't seen any pictures of those.

An attack on the cockpit itself by a cannon would present the best possible solution to bringing down the aircraft with minimal damage and insuring it does come down. without cock pit control at those speeds and at that altitude, loss of control would almost certainly result in a break up of the aircraft while still high up (which it did). Hiding such an attack becomes easiest when we consider this as a solution to large missile warheads and shrapnel remaining in bodies and super structure.

It also explains this.

a reply to: maghun

Obviously it's NOT all in that field since they've been able to release a report based on evidence from the aircraft wreckage. Then there are the ATC tapes, the radar tapes, the recorders from the plane that all give a good bit of evidence. Plane crashes have been solved without all the wreckage.

You can't detect a SAM or an air to air launch from a distance unless you are the target and have specialized equipment on your plane to tell you that you've been targeted. They don't have enough of a signature to show up at long distance.

a reply to: Mirthful Me

This time size thing gets more confusing by the minute. (Pun intended.)

MSK is now UTC +3 hours, but before Oct 26 this year it was UTC + 4 hours. However, that's not relevant for the case at hand because MSK was not the official time zone in Donetsk in July this year.

Ukraine is officially in the EET zone, which is UTC +2. In summer until their "DST" ended on Oct 26, they were on EEST, which is UTC +3.

Back in July this year Donetsk was still using the same time as Kiev (EEST). It's only been in recent weeks (as the "Donetsk People's Republic") that Donetsk has gone to MSK, as has Luhansk.

TLDR... When the aircraft was brought down in July, the local time was EEST, which was UTC +3 -- and not MSK, which on that date was UTC +4. So 1320 UTC was 1620 local -- which was the time another member mentioned as the local time when the incident occurred.

In any case, whether we go by the official local time on that date or the unofficial MSK that some factions there may have been using, the sun's true position in the sky is not reflected in the image of that fighter jet.

a reply to: intrptr

Whatever happened caused an instantaneous disintegration of the aircraft. An air to air gun shot wouldn't do that, even if they hit the cockpit. The recorders showed a decompression, followed by almost immediately ending, indicating an in flight breakup, which is supported by the debris field.

If we add in the change of altitude capabilities of the aircraft in question in publications on line to reflect the lowered altitude ceiling, and the intentional direction of the aircraft to a specific place by Ukrainian air traffic control, and the various rumored reports of a second plane in the area, both by eyewitness and radar track…

then it becomes ever clear this was intentional downing from the air by fighter aircraft, with guns.

As Zaphod has already pointed out it is unlikely that a missile warhead detonated on the forward portion of the plane, and I agree with his assessment.

a reply to: intrptr

An air to air missile. A SAM on the other hand could detonate near the nose.

The radar data doesn't show another aircraft, except commercial flights. The supposed fighter was detected by a radar that was in standby mode at the time, and not detected until after MH17 had been hit and come apart. It also disappeared right about the time that the debris would have dropped out of radar coverage.

a reply to: Zaphod58

caused an instantaneous disintegration of the aircraft.

This Romanian military airport commander (Nostradamus from August) disagree with you:

originally posted by: Mirthful Me

My issue is the missile track... Juvenile in the shop job, with the assumption the fighter aircraft was stationary (no trail behind the aircraft), and modern missiles leave almost no exhaust trail, especially downrange... Google some air launch videos. I doubt any missile track would be visible from a satellite perspective...

That's interesting too, since all the eyewitnesses on the ground say there was no dirty great trail that there should have been from the old BUK ordinance on the ground. This is suggesting that no missile was fired at all from anywhere, that's exactly what some German Colonel said some time ago. By his reckoning, had the plane been hit by a missile, any misslie, it would have been an instant fireball. Now, the Dutch are doing their investigating and they already have this to say,
"The pattern of damage to the aircraft fuselage and the cockpit is consistent with that which may be expected from a large number of high-energy objects that penetrated the aircraft from outside." You can make your own mind up about this, and say that is a fragmentation missile, but nothing is given as yet. Cannon fire though, which will have the same tell tale entry, (smooth and small) and exit, (ragged) as a bullet wound to the body, the difference between the two being exponential....the exit wound can be huge, and I have seen that, so it will be interesting what the Dutch final report comes up with. The other thing is that it is inconceivable that both Russia and the US/Western Europe intelligences were not on the ball and watching what was going on in general from above in that region, so someone is holding out, unless they were having a cup of tea when the plane was attacked..what do you think?

originally posted by: maghun
a reply to: Zaphod58

caused an instantaneous disintegration of the aircraft.

This Romanian military airport commander (Nostradamus from August) disagree with you:

WOW! I've just posted on a German officer saying the same thing.

a reply to: maghun

Wow, talk about convoluted. A Ukrainian MiG-29, flown by a Polish pilot. Really?

So wait, let me get this straight... A Surface to Air Missile can destroy a B-52 (48 meters long, with a large wingspan), which is designed to take damage, by blowing it apart, but the same missile WON'T destroy a fairly fragile commercial aircraft that doesn't have near the damage capacity that a military aircraft does.

And this guy is considered an expert? Really?

So when exactly did this guy have his hands on the wreckage? Or examine the recorders? Or listen to the ATC tapes? Or examine the radar data? He's basing his guess on the same thing everyone else is. Pictures on the internet.

a reply to: Zaphod58

An air to air gun shot wouldn't do that, even if they hit the cockpit.

Whether the "multiple hi speed projectiles" that hit the cockpit were from a missile warhead or cannon ammo "mini warheads" is a bit hard to tell,no?

You already said and I agree, a missile targets either heat or in the case of radar guidance, the largest profile (center mass). There is no evidence of this on the engines or in the center portion of the plane. Neither are there frag pieces from such a warhead found in the plane or the bodies of the victims. Surely, something to be avoided if you intentionally plan to down an aircraft filled with innocent people.

Shooting the cockpit with a burst of canon fire would wreak whatever untold damage to the systems and besides killing the pilot could make the plane go wildly out of control resulting like you said in a break up still high up.

Doing it from slightly abeam at horizontal altitude instead of directly behind, above or below ,would also mean that the least number of shots would do the job without holing passengers or enough of the planes engines or fuselage.

In other words if you planned to shoot down an airliner and hide that you did thats how you would do it.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: maghun

Wow, talk about convoluted. A Ukrainian MiG-29, flown by a Polish pilot. Really?

So wait, let me get this straight... A Surface to Air Missile can destroy a B-52 (48 meters long, with a large wingspan), which is designed to take damage, by blowing it apart, but the same missile WON'T destroy a fairly fragile commercial aircraft that doesn't have near the damage capacity that a military aircraft does.

He didn't say that Zaphod and you know it.