Satellite photo of fighter jet zapping MH17

a reply to: intrptr

Or use a SAM that's common in that region, and it gets passed off as an accidental shootdown, in a case of mistaken identity.

a reply to: maghun
Nice to post a snip from somewhere. Just ask yourself "who is Valentin Vasilescu", the "expert" and cited in the article. It's not a trick question, but who is he. I image he must be a air accident expert with a specialism in (say) forensic air explosives, or some other similar field, but no, he's a former deputy commander of an airfield.

'nuff said.

Regards

a reply to: Zaphod58

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

Or more likely, hit center mass or the engines.You already stated this. Now its "could hit the nose".

So "could" cannon rounds.

You can't rule it out.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Or use a SAM that's common in that region, and it gets passed off as an accidental shoot down, in a case of mistaken identity.

I used to think that until I saw the pics of the cockpit window and the wing. That stinks to high probability heaven.

I also by the way noticed the "tin snip" cutout of the impact area in that region just below the cockpit window. If anyone tried to hide evidence on the ground that is also very suspicious.

Guys, first of all, that's not even a 777, but a 767...





Moreover, as pointed out already, the lightning is off.

The perspective is off.

Let's not even talk about the fact that's pretty impossible to achieve a shot from that angle.

And, conclusive bit of info: you see the airline's logo in "satellite" pic on the plane? It's in front of the engines, aye?

Ok.

MH 17 had its logo on top of the wings. Not there...




[Mods, move to hoax pleeease?]

originally posted by: paraphi

Nice to post a snip from somewhere. Just ask yourself "who is Valentin Vasilescu", the "expert" and cited in the article. It's not a trick question, but who is he. I image he must be a air accident expert with a specialism in (say) forensic air explosives, or some other similar field, but no, he's a former deputy commander of an airfield.
'nuff said.
Regards

Experience,
Military pilot's licence for supersonic aircraft MIG-21; ATC air traffic controller's licence/instructor's training; Specialisation in airport management and crisis management following terrorist attacks (training course in Dublin - 1998); PROFESSIONALS ACTIVITIES : Profession: officer, Ministry of National Defence ; MIG-21 pilot; Assistant commander of International Bucharest Otopeni Airport; Member of Parliament - deputy; member of the Committee for Defence, Public Order, and National Security;

Not a trick answer, that's his profile...I don't say I believe it, I don't say I don't, just not so singular as your 'profile' of him.

a reply to: CiTrus90

I'd call that a thorough debunking. Awesome work.

a reply to: Zaphod58

And this guy is considered an expert? Really?

Sorry, here is the link: pravda.ru

Some new and useful information for me, expert or agent, i can not judge:

The plane could not be shot down by Buk-M1 as there was no electromagnetic radiation from the missile complex registered.

However, the Romanian expert believes that it was not a Ukrainian Su-25, as the plane could not reach the altitude of 10,300 meters and strike the Boeing due to the poor level of training of Ukrainian flight personnel and technical imperfection of old Su-25. Vasilescu indicates that radars show Su-25 identically to MiG-29 fighter jet, as the planes have identical reflective surface area.

Vasilescu added that MiG-29 of the Ukrainian army are armed with GSh-301, 30 millimeter gun, with a rate of 1,500 rounds per minute. The gun was loaded with 150 shells containing tungsten alloy. "These shells go through targets, leaving traces of perfectly circular shape. They do not explode inside the cockpit, they are not incendiary, but can kill the crew and destroy the cockpit, which can be seen in the presence of holes with their edges opening outside on the opposite wall.

The death of the crew and the depressurization of the cockpit made the Boeing spin instantly, and the plane fell apart at an altitude of two thousand meters. In the air, there was neither fire, nor bomb explosion.

The Romanian expert noted that Polish military pilots are best trained in south-eastern Europe and have many hours of flight time (180-200 hours per year). "They are familiar with the airspace of Ukraine, they took part in all exercises that Ukrainian Air Force has organized in the last four or five years. Polish Air Force has 31 MiG-29 jets, 16 of which were re-equipped by specialists of Israel Aerospace Industries. The planes received new avionics (multifunction color displays (MFCD), GPS-guided weapons, data-link support, UHF / VHF RT-8200 Rockwell Collins radio station and MDP video technology, etc.). Polish pilots were trained by Israeli instructors who have extensive experience in destroying a variety of air targets, concluded Valentin Vasilescu.

a reply to: smurfy

With the greatest respect, all of what you state from the "experts" CV does not make him a default expert in the field of air accidents and mechanical forensics. He's had a few political roles, so one should be suspicious of his motives.

Just saying, but I'm sure an internet university could give him a degree to top it all off.

Regards

a reply to: maghun

Someone remind me, is Pravda.ru the tabloid Pravda or the propaganda Pravda. We know from the black box that MH17 did not break up at 2km. Decompression occurred at cruising altitude and break up happened almost immediately after.

Double

a reply to: maghun

No way did that plane break up at 2,000m. That's only 6500 feet or so. That's way too close to the ground go spread large pieces of debris over such a huge area. Again, you're looking at large pieces of debris that is found five miles away from other debris. This debris field covered a massive area, which means that it was still at high altitude when it broke apart. The CVR, FDR, and radar tapes also would have shown something like that. The radar data released by Russia shows a high altitude inflight break up.

a reply to: CiTrus90

Mods, move to hoax pleeease?

I have three hoax posts, all come from ukrainian sources... Please give the Russian TV "Chanel One" a chance!

"satellite" pic

The today "satellite photo" may be an UAV image from about 36-37.000 feet, distance between the planes is at about 400 m.


The yesterday screenshot showed "something" on the other side of 777:


The G20 summit will end on Sunday, and Tony Abbot has his own evidence too.

This move by Putin is probably why the Russian Navy is just off the coast of Australia. My guess is Putin will return to Russia that way.

a reply to: maghun

distance between the planes is at about 400 m.

Too close for a missile shot.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Is good in pravda that it has comment section (and seemingly lazy moderator)?

Questions from August:

Where are the recording from flight control and the cockpit? Why were they confiscated and made secret? What are they hiding? Where are the transcripts? What are they hiding? Why did it disappear from the news the minute Russia started releasing evidence? Why was a ukie fighter jet stalking a passanger plane. What was it doing so close to the airplane when the plane went down? Where is the US sat data that would prove their purported assertions? Why did ukrainian secret services release youtube videos to the media purporting to be a recording between the Donbass defenders and Russian handlers? Why did they upload this " evidence " on youtube a day before the plane was shot down?

What we know now?

a reply to: maghun

That's not a UAV image. UAVs use cameras, and Synthetic Aperture Radar which gives you an almost camera like image. That's a radar image, taken from what they originally said was a Russian long range radar that was in standby and could only see above 16,000 feet. That's debris falling after the aircraft broke up.

a reply to: intrptr

It could be an ukrainian pilot with less than 40 hours/year experience...

"How far the plane Ukrainian fighter has he approached the flight MH-17? Before aim and open fire on the flight deck, a length of 6 m section, the B-777, which has a length of 64.8 m, is to enter into a whole line sight of a fighter pilot. As the best way to hit the cockpit was an approach almost perpendicular to the direction of flight of MH-17, the pilot of the fighter jet was in the right conditions to superimpose the focus of its weapons on the firing point from the distance of 900 m from B -777. If the approach speed was about 280-300 m / s, the repetition of the attack is impossible, the fighter pilot had 3-4 seconds to all these maneuvers, since it must be released from the attack at a distance of 150m. This implies an automatic result of dozens of hours of training in simulators and flight conditions similar to those when the flight MH-17 was shot down conditions."

The author Valentin Vasilescu states Ukrainian military pilots, fly on average less than 40 hours / year and do not have the skills needed for close air combat (dual) enabling them to shoot down Flight MH-17... He notes Polish military pilots do have those skills. And that is where he leaves is. No explanation of why or how Polish military pilots would get involved in this. Nor any proof of it.

a reply to: maghun

Notice the last line. Why in God's name would Poland allow one of their pilots to get involved in this? What did they get out of it? That's a ridiculous theory. Poland wants to be left alone. If they did this, and it came out that they did, it would be a disaster for them.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Sorry, I corrected the previus post a little.

a reply to: maghun

The author Valentin Vasilescu states Ukrainian military pilots, fly on average less than 40 hours / year and do not have the skills needed for close air combat (dual) enabling them to shoot down Flight MH-17…

The trouble I have with that is that its not an enemy combatant. Compared to an attack aircraft a large slow target like an airliner is flying in a steady, straight line, completely predictable, allowing plenty of time to set up an attack. Unarmored, unarmed and unaware airline pilots aren't really looking around to see who is shooting them down either.

The best approach to hit the cockpit with a burst from the cannons is from the same altitude, from behind and slightly abeam.