Alleged Satellite Photo Says Ukraine Shootdown of MH17 340
theshowmecanuck (703852) writes A group calling itself the Russian Union of Engineers has published a photograph, picked up by many news organizations (just picked one, Google it yourself to find more), claiming to show that MH17 was shot down by a Ukrainian fighter plane. The interesting thing is the very quick ad hoc crowd sourced debunking of the photograph using tools from Google maps, online photos/data, to their own domain knowledge backed up with the previous information. It would be interesting to understand who the "Russian Union of Engineers" are and why they in particular were chosen to release this information.
uh, no? (Score:5, Interesting)
If this is real, that has got to be the worst pilot I've ever seen.
You don't fire at such a square angle. You want to be behind or in front. You also don't fire missiles when you're so damn close.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It is probably a fake, but Ukrainian pilots are indeed crappy. They lack training and flight hours. Here [youtube.com] is an example of how they fly
Re:uh, no? (Score:5, Interesting)
I've watched the Russian original, and it's very weird. Their claim is that pilot first strafed the cockpit with guns which resulted in cockpit detaching from the aircraft, which they claim Dutch investigators have confirmed. The goal was apparently to silence the crew and prevent calls for help. Then the aircraft fired a heat seeker into the engines causing aircraft to spin out of control and crash.
Their other point on the other hand sounded much more reasonable. They note that BUK missile makes a very brightly visible plume and persistent smoke trail as it goes through its trajectory, and there were apparently no confirmed instances of footage of this in relation to the plane. Considering just how obviously exceptional it would look in the sky and how many photos there are of pretty much anything weird happening in the warring region, it does sound odd that no one got any footage of the missile. It should be visible for tens of kilometers in all directions.
Overall, the case is getting stranger with every relevation.
Re:uh, no? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would they bother with the missile if they had disabled the flight deck?
Re:uh, no? (Score:5, Insightful)
I've watched the Russian original, and it's very weird. Their claim is that pilot first strafed the cockpit with guns which resulted in cockpit detaching from the aircraft, which they claim Dutch investigators have confirmed. The goal was apparently to silence the crew and prevent calls for help. Then the aircraft fired a heat seeker into the engines causing aircraft to spin out of control and crash.
Their other point on the other hand sounded much more reasonable. They note that BUK missile makes a very brightly visible plume and persistent smoke trail as it goes through its trajectory, and there were apparently no confirmed instances of footage of this in relation to the plane. Considering just how obviously exceptional it would look in the sky and how many photos there are of pretty much anything weird happening in the warring region, it does sound odd that no one got any footage of the missile. It should be visible for tens of kilometers in all directions.
Overall, the case is getting stranger with every revelation.
Why would they bother with the missile if they had disabled the flight deck?
Because this is is an really strange story that does not make sense on any level. I would have expected better fiction, even from a conspiracy theorist. The fighter in that picture looks like a MiG-29 or a Su-27 to me. The UkAF has both of these fighters and they can fire BVR missiles. BVR missiles are big fat 3.5-4 meter long monsters with a massive range and a large warhead intented for air to air use for anything up to bomber and large transport sized aircraft. The main BVR missile variants used by the RuAF and the UkAF are the R-27 (Nato code: AA-10) and the newer R-77 (Nato code: AA-12). The range of the AA-10 and AA-12 BVR missiles is something like 80-110 kilometers. I'm not sure if the Ukrainians have any AA-12s but they definitely have the older AA-10 whose seekers they have extensively upgraded to the point where they are still able to sell the AA-10 abroad for use on modernized MiG-29s and SU-27/30s with other air forces. So why the hell would a Ukrainian air force fighter have had to shut up the crew of MH17 with gunfire before downing the airliner with a WVR missile (presumably an AA-11, 7kg fragmenting warhead) when they could have picked MH17 off with a more powerful AA-10 radar guided missile (which has a 39 kg fragmenting warhead) that more closely mimics a BUK? I'm pretty sure that even if a UkAF fighter had fired a BVR missile from a 60 degree cone behind MH17 to make sure the crew did not see it coming (a more realistic scenario), they could still have fired it from about 25 km away and that missile would have come like a bat out of hell for the crew of MH17. They wouldn't have known what hit them, i.e. no need for gunfire and with a 39 kg warhead... you can imagine the rest.
Re:uh, no? (Score:4, Insightful)
> modern aircraft stay airborne for a long time even without any active controls because of fly-by-wire
Perhaps, but they don't stay airborne at all when the front of the aircraft is missing. And since the controls are on or around the flight deck, losing that would take the FBW offline anyway.
> The goal was apparently to silence the crew and prevent calls for help
Pffft. Nothing silences a crew like blowing them up with a missile. Just ask KAL 007.
> They note that BUK missile makes a very brightly visible plume
No it doesn't. The booster is very smoky but the upper stage is pretty clean firing. Here's what a missile actually looks like:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:F-105_dodging_SA-2_over_Vietnam.jpg
Note that even though the engine is still firing in this case, there is no visible trail. That's not always the case, but just like any aircraft, the trail is caused mostly by physical effects on the atmosphere and thus highly dependant on the state of the weather.
> does sound odd that no one got any footage of the missile
Oh come on. Next time you're walking around, see how many people are looking up at planes. And how many of them are taking pictures?
> Overall, the case is getting stranger with every relevation
Sure, if you know nothing about aircraft, missiles, photography and are prone to believing conspiracy theories.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Again, the investigators of the Malaysian jet that they suspect went down in the Pacific debunks this very well. Their working theory is that cockpit itself was completely burned out, alongside all control surfaces and computers. Fly by wire computers however are spread across the aircraft AND FULLY REDUNDANT. That means that even if you lose all of the cockpit, the other computers will simply take over the work and continue steering the plane.
And as AC below pointed out, no one care about upper stage. The
Can we stop with the magic fire theory? (Score:2)
Their working theory is that cockpit itself was completely burned out,... Fly by wire computers however are spread across the aircraft AND FULLY REDUNDANT.
Are you retarded? A fire that traverses from the cargo area to the cockpit takes out enough "FULLY REDUNDANT" systems AND SENSORS THAT THE SYSTEMS RELY ON much less of course utterly messing with structural integrity is not going to leave a plane flying for hours and hours, changing course and altitude along the way.
If that's the "working theory" then w
Re:uh, no? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
How about, instead of spreading misinformation, point the readers to the actual video footage of BUK missile launches and let the viewer decide for themselves?
I'm pretty sure you know the answer to that question already.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but it was an unexpected reply.
Re: (Score:3)
Please ask someone with approximately a 3rd grade education how to define the phrase "do not expect". I'll give you a hint, it does not translate to a refusal.
After the third grader helps you with the meaning of the phrase, I would appreciate if came and apologized out of courtesy. Since you were trolling, I have no such expectation but it would be appreciated.
Re: (Score:3)
How about, instead of spreading misinformation, point the readers to the actual video footage of BUK missile launches and let the viewer decide for themselves? After watching these, it's clear, that there is a very distinct vertical trail left by the booster stage, that is visible for many miles around.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... [youtube.com]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... [youtube.com]
> Sure, if you know nothing about aircraft, missiles, photography and are prone to believing conspiracy theories.
Good advice. You have to show your bias more more accurately, or everyone would see it.
The first of those videos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXgToM8cbBI) shows the smoke trail dispersing and becoming difficult to make out within about half a minute. The missile is launched at 1:20 into the video and the root of the trail is half gone at 1:50. I'd say there's maybe a 90-second window (at most) for anyone with an average smartphone camera who want to gather evidence of a launch with this missile system.
You also have to factor in that an unsuspecting civilian who is standing a couple of mile
Re:uh, no? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not saying Russia is innocent or that Kiev is guilty....
Technically that's correct even if that's how you roll. The rest of your post pretty much ignores Russia and smears Ukraine.
I'm curious, how it is that given your hypersensitivity towards the US government and its actions that Russia doesn't merely get a pass from you, but you've been an apologist for its actions in Crimea? And Ukraine?
The whole situation in the Ukraine is a mess. Both sides (East and West) are being dishonest about everything. Who do you trust when everyone is a liar?
How about the people and countries not invading Ukraine with their armed forces (including tanks and artillery), or actively firing into it with artillery?
This isn't even close, and yet you seem befuddled by it? Really?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe because not everything is black and white? Maybe because asking intelligent, objective questions doesn't mean you are an "apologist"? Maybe because intelligent people usually know when they are being bullshitted, and when a conversation goes like "Well, that is an interesting perspecti
Re: (Score:3)
Putin has troops in Ukraine trying to take territory from Ukraine, NATO doesn't. But if you think that "cablegate" is the equivalent, please do point out how? It seems to me that your "abhorrence" of Putin doesn't seem to go so far as to opposition to open aggression.
Over 5 billion dollars was provided to the Euromaiden movement prior to the "revolt" by the US Government and US think-tank groups. At least some of the new leaders had, and have, affiliation with Nazi parties. They walk around with ski masks and AK 47s in Government offices and US media announces how "Free" the Ukrainian people are after this revolt. Regular ole people have been massacred [wikipedia.org] all over the Ukraine on both sides, simply for having a different view on what would be best for the Ukraine.
Neither
Re: (Score:2)
The other reasonable point was that the airplane was hit by a continuous rod warhead which is more typical for air to air missiles. Buk missiles are usually HE-frag.
Re:uh, no? (Score:5, Informative)
> that the airplane was hit by a continuous rod warhead
It absolutely was not. The images of the fragments *clearly* show shrapnel, and there isn't any evidence of anything hitting the plane that's longer than maybe an inch.
Re: (Score:2)
> that the airplane was hit by a continuous rod warhead
It absolutely was not. The images of the fragments *clearly* show shrapnel, and there isn't any evidence of anything hitting the plane that's longer than maybe an inch.
And you are basing this on what? A few low resolution pictures in some news reports?
Re: (Score:3)
How about the Dutch preliminary report, that contains those photos?
Re: (Score:3)
There exist photos of Buk-style warhead shrapnel, still embedded in the MH17 crew seats.
Re: (Score:3)
The continuous rod thing (in practice it is usually an unfolding circle) basically just slices things off. It doesn't create the many tiny holes.
Re:uh, no? (Score:5, Insightful)
Their other point on the other hand sounded much more reasonable. They note that BUK missile makes a very brightly visible plume and persistent smoke trail as it goes through its trajectory, and there were apparently no confirmed instances of footage of this in relation to the plane. Considering just how obviously exceptional it would look in the sky and how many photos there are of pretty much anything weird happening in the warring region, it does sound odd that no one got any footage of the missile. It should be visible for tens of kilometers in all directions.
Overall, the case is getting stranger with every relevation.
Pro russian/rusian forces used BUKs to shot down three other Ukrainian planes days before the MH17, got any pictures from those? No? see, not so weird.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:uh, no? (Score:5, Insightful)
Overall, the case is getting stranger with every relevation.
No, no it is not. This is a pretty blatant forgery - for a step-by-step walkthrough of what's obviously faked about it (including screenshots of the months-old Google Maps images and others that were used) please visit here [bellingcat.com].
Giving this any credence by saying the case "gets stranger" is like reading some 9/11 truther's article and saying that it makes the truth behind the attacks "more puzzling." It doesn't. It just shows that some people are either disconnected from the truth or (in this case) willing to actively fabricate things to obscure it.
Re: (Score:2)
They note that BUK missile makes a very brightly visible plume and persistent smoke trail as it goes through its trajectory, and there were apparently no confirmed instances of footage of this in relation to the plane.
And you believe them why?
Considering just how obviously exceptional it would look in the sky and how many photos there are of pretty much anything weird happening in the warring region, it does sound odd that no one got any footage of the missile. It should be visible for tens of kilometers in all directions.
Just like they got pictures of the plane before it crashed?
Re:uh, no? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because the only thing they could do that would work is sending NATO troops into Ukraine, which would be mighty fucking risky. And not risky as in "we could lose a few thousand troops for no damn good reason and waste a $Trillion or three doing it," risky as in nuclear fucking war.
So they decided on sanctions. Apparently the sanctions are pretty effective, because there's no good economic news out of Russia.
Re: (Score:2)
So they decided on sanctions. Apparently the sanctions are pretty effective, because there's no good economic news out of Russia.
The Russian military seems to have lots of money, for things like sending gear along the Ukrainian border. So I guess we are punishing the Russian people only for the military shooting down a civilian plane?
Yeah those sanctions are working GREAT.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So they decided on sanctions. Apparently the sanctions are pretty effective, because there's no good economic news out of Russia.
The Russian military seems to have lots of money, for things like sending gear along the Ukrainian border. So I guess we are punishing the Russian people only for the military shooting down a civilian plane?
Yeah those sanctions are working GREAT.
Yes, that is exactly how sanctions work. They take time, and they put pressure on the people to put pressure on their government. You've got a user id lower than mine and you claim not to know even something basic like that? I would say you are just a liar, playing stupid, to defend Puti. No way somebody that stupid would spend over a decade on slashdot.
Re: uh, no? (Score:3)
Those sanctions worked great on Iraq. How many innocent children starved to death because of sanctions? How well are sanctions working out for the north Koreans? I know! they can just put some pressure on their government!
Re:uh, no? (Score:5, Interesting)
What else can we do?
Putin has apparently just accidentally killed several hundred civilians, most of whom are part of a nuclear-armed alliance. And he won't even say "oops."
The reason those countries are in that alliance is that they expect us to have their backs when somebody does that kind of shit to them.
Now if we respond militarily, which has the advantage that a) it would target the people who actually blew the plane up, and b) if it worked would work really well; we face the disadvantage that c) our military aim isn't perfect so we'd probably nail a bomb shelter full of civilians, d) much of the Russian military is conscripted, e) invading Russia is historically speaking a really ineffective policy, and f) if we did so Putin might nuke Seattle.
Which leaves sanctions. Sanctions are slow, and they tend to hit a lot of innocents, but military action is worse (ie: Bush's invasion of Iraq ended the sanctions that killed thousands, but only by starting a war that killed hundreds of thousands and refuses to end).
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that many of the sat images come directly from google...in the year 2010, yeah they're fake.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Look, it's Russian propaganda. We know that it is fake, they know that we know that it is fake.
That still doesn't prevent them from using it internally to motivate a military operation in Ukraine.
The military operation will probably be over before people have stopped arguing about the photograph.
Re:uh, no? (Score:5, Informative)
It is a fake. A very bad, undeniable, fake.
Say the satellite is orbiting at 200km. The planes are flying at 10km. (I'm being generous on both these figures.) The planes are only 5% closer to the satellite than the ground, so perspective would only make the aircraft look 5% larger (barely enough to notice) than they would on the ground.
Now look at the satellite photo again. Compare the fighter to the roads and farm plots it's flying over, and compare the 777 to the terrain features and especially the airport (I think) on the left side of the photo.
(If you're curious, the fighter in real life has a 15m wingspan, the Boeing a 60m wingspan.)
Re:uh, no? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That depends on how persistent the missle's smoke trail is.
Re: (Score:2)
Never mind that the fighter is at such a distance to the airplane, that it would crash into it in 2 - 3 seconds.
Re: (Score:2)
Not all missiles work that way.
An AIM-7 Sparrow would, but an AIM-9 Sidewinder would not, at least not one fired off a wing tip rail. Those launch right off the rail and do not "free fall" at all.
The most dramatic example is the AIM-54 Phoenix, being a very long range, very heavy missile, and frankly, it doesn't fall very far before firing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: uh, no? (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't matter that it's obviously fake. These images were all over Russian media to cause a flurry of indignant response in favor of the Russian military and political position. Tomorrow's papers and newscasts won't bother to dissect the glaring errors -- all that matters is that millions of people saw "proof" that it was the evil Ukrainians all along. Sadly, many will believe the smear campaign.
After all, 10 or 20 million people honestly believe that your president was actually born in Kenya, simply because someone made up a preposterous tale that they desperately wanted to believe.
Re: (Score:2)
In the short term in Russia proper that's true.
But everyone else knows this is more then a bit fishy. In fact it's ridiculous BS.
And in the long-term it's really, really hard to duck responsibility on something like this for an extended period of time. We blew that Iranian airliner up, gave the dude who did it a medal, but within a decade we had to take responsibility and pay substantial damages. Libya was able to duck responsibility for quite a bit longer after the Lockerbie bombing, but even Gadaffi had t
Re: (Score:3)
No, not even the Dutch themselves. http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/e... [onderzoeksraad.nl]
Obviously they're in on it, the clog-wearing cheesehead bastards.
Re:uh, no? (Score:5, Funny)
How do you know the Ukrainians don't have fighter jets the size of a farm?
Re: (Score:3)
You mean setting aside the astonishing coincidence of a satellite taking a snap of an otherwise entirely innocuous airliner passing along relatively undisputed land at *just* a quarter-second after the Ukrainian jet fired a missile at said airliner?
Even if it WAS a Ukrainian jet (and not a terrible photoshop) one would have to suspect a Russian planted flight officer, just based on that timing alone.
Dear Mr Putin: http://www.mydamnchannel.com/y... [mydamnchannel.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Russian propaganda for the home audience (Score:5, Informative)
People tend to believe their first media (Score:2)
I've seen the same kind of thing. I know a lady who's from Serbia. Very smart woman, and she's lived in the US for a couple decades, immigrated and become a citizen. However, when it comes to world news, she believes the Serbian media over all others. It's pretty bad too, it makes Fox News look credible (well almost) with the level of propaganda and shit. However, to her, that's the truth.
It seems a somewhat common thing that whatever you start getting your news from first is what sticks with you as the "tr
Re: (Score:2)
As a counterpoint, my first news sources were local community newspapers and nationally syndicated TV news -- both of which I avoid like the plague now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, when you leave the good old soviet union, and end up in a country that is war focused, leading attack after attack all around the world, in instances against legitimate elected governments and supplying training, equipment and funding to rebel fighters with doggy ethics at best..
then your own country gets roasted for supporting rebels who opposed an illegal government overthrow...
Well I would question everything that government had to say too.
Re:Russian propaganda for the home audience (Score:4, Interesting)
I think the only target audience is the Russian public, most of whom believe everything that Putin's propaganda machine feeds them.
They don't even have to believe it. Disinformation works even it it only serves to create confusion and cast doubt on the facts.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't even need to be confused, or have doubt. They just need to know what the propaganda says, so they can parrot it and not have to move to Siberia.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, since you've asked - yes, of course it is [livejournal.com]!
They really have to outdo each other, right? (Score:2)
Admittedly it took a little, but I can understand how having to outdo the Ukrainian minister saying Russia is about to drop Da Bomb on them in pure bullshit propaganda takes a while.
Quite frankly, news about that whole shit are simply not interesting any more. The average episode of CSI contains more realism than any of the news we get from that area.
Did you say.... (Score:2)
...the Soviet Union of Engineers?
Doesn't matter (Score:2)
Like those who eat up the partisan politics in the US, or those who refuse to accept evolution as established science, the pro-Putin apologists don't care to be told the evidence was fabricated. That's not going to change their belief that it is genuine. Nothing will shake their beliefs. If you could show them actual video footage of the shooting of the plane by the separatists, if you could bring forth the actual people who shot the plane down and secure their confession in person, the response would be
False flag (Score:3)
Re:False flag (Score:4, Informative)
It's on Channel 1 http://www.1tv.ru/news/leontie... [1tv.ru]
Can't get more mainstream Russian media than that, so it's the real deal, not some attempt to smear Russia with a bad photoshop job.
Re: (Score:2)
If there really was a 'George Bilt' from MIT leaking classified satelite images, you can bet your ass it would be all over the news. He'd be in Gitmo by now, and his wife would be slobbering over journalists.
Re: (Score:3)
So someone is trying to make it look like Russia is releasing this garbage which looks prepared by some Ukrainian half-wit.
Umm... if Russian is not "releasing" this, why is Russian state television showing this and claiming it is real?
DOES NOT COMPUTE... NOMAD ERROR? ERROR? ERROR? EXAMINE.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Eh.. yeah. But those countries were in Asia. And even there Putin won't be able to pull shit like that any longer, what with China breathing down his neck.
Where are the government functionaries? (Score:3)
Interesting photo (Score:2)
Implies that area (and possibly others) are under constant surveillance.
I wonder how long until they can stream video from a satellite, store it, and go back later and watch the movements after a crime to see where and possibly who did it.
If they can't already.
The plane is the wrong type (Score:5, Informative)
If one is to believe the Russians (ha!) the picture shows a jet which is clearly not an Su-25 but rather a more modern Mig.
First, look at the wings. An Su-25 has a very shallow swept wing design which is because it is for ground attack. You need wings which are stable at slow speeds.
The jet in the forgery clearly has very sharp swept back wings consistent with all modern jet fighters.
In addition, if you look closely at the picture the Russians provided, there are no pods on the wingtips of the jet shown. Now look at the Su-25. Pods on each wing tip.
Also, the elevators (the small wings at the back of the jet) are too large in the picture provided. The Su-25 has much smaller, more narrow ones.
Second, look at the nose of the jet in the forgery. Long and pointy. Now go look at a picture of an Su-25. Shorter and more stubby, similar to a Harrier.
Finally, there is issue of ceiling. The Su-25 has a max ceiling of 23,000 feet. Most 777s fly from 35,000 to roughly 60,000. If the Su-25 was flying at roughly the same altitude as the jetliner, that means the pilot was flying higher than Mt. Everest without any oxygen because the Su-25 does not have a pressurized cabin.
Granted, none of this will matter to the Russian people, but anyone who has two brain cells can clearly see this isn't even close to being an Su-25 as the Russians claim.
Re: (Score:3)
You don't even need to delve into details like that. Just consider the relative size of the objects in that picture - the planes, and the ground underneath them.
Rebel Actions Following the Shootdown (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Here (Germany) it was reported that investigators couldn't visit the crash site for a long time because it was in a war zone.
Due to the current armistice the investigators now continue to salvage the wreckage, with separatists apparently helping out [spiegel.de]
Re:Yet Another Fake Picture (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a laughably bad fake ... but speaks volumes about the lack of math or science training amongst reporters to propagate this stuff.
Re:Yet Another Fake Picture (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not for 'lack of training' that they propagate this stuff. The boss wants it on the front page. Makes for a good whodunit.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess these folks are the Russian version of FOX news?
Re: (Score:3)
Laughable doesn't begin to describe it.
The damned airplane is as large as a small town in that image.
Re: (Score:3)
Too many smoke and mirrors on this, and sadly, I don't think we will ever get the truth.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It does, though not much. Most forget that before this incident, most of the Europe was very much on the fence about who was more aggressive in the conflict.
Downing of a plane with a lot of Dutch on board triggered a heavy anti-Russian sentiment in a lot of European countries. It was literally a turning point in propaganda warfare.
But to be fair, even if we found out today that it was Ukrainians who did it, the damage has already been largely done. EU has taken the path it took, and a ship this big doesn't
Re:Yet Another Fake Picture (Score:5, Insightful)
The most common (cheapest) ground based heat seeker missiles in use today detonate prior to impact and throw shrapnel (multiple, small, high velocity projectiles) into the target to obtain the widest kill radius. It's like the difference between buckshot and a slug. And yes there are missiles of all sorts where the warhead stays intact until impact but they are usually more high end (expensive) and need the guidance systems intact as long as possible to make sure it goes through the right window or down the correct air shaft when launched from several miles away.
Re:Yet Another Fake Picture (Score:5, Insightful)
> What we do know is that the plane was downed with multiple, small, high velocity projectiles
Yes, it's called "shrapnel".
> even entertain the possibility that this was cannon fire
Because cannon fire has a minimum size of the puncture it can make, the size of the shell. The resulting marks on the aircraft will be a circle of that size, given a nice face-on strike, or elongations if the angle was more glancing. It can get much larger if the metal tears.
Now look at the image. There are many, many holes in the aircraft that are much smaller than a cannon shell. In fact, there are quite a few that are exactly the size of a piece of shrapnel.
So that's why "west no one seems to want to even entertain" the idea, it's clearly false.
Re: (Score:2)
Explosive machine gun rounds from the cannon would cause larger holes, not smaller ones. They're not big enough rounds to have both explosives and a bunch of shrapnel, like a grenade. And they wouldn't fly fast enough or far enough to be useful for dogfighting if they were that big. ;)
Keep trying though, maybe Puti will give you a big bare bear hug for thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
It's hard to take that possibility very seriously.
Cannon fire is a bunch of bullets that are exactly the same shape and size. This leaves a bunch of identical holes in the wreckage. Frequently they're all in a line.
OTOH, an air-to-air missile blows up before it hits the target, peppering it with shrapnel, The shrapnel puts lots of holes in the plane, but they aren't all exactly the same size, and there's just a mass of them where the missile hit.
The pictures of wreckage we've seen show the latter, not the f
Re: (Score:3)
Two points:
1) We know the rebels were using anti-aircraft weapons in the area because they said they were using anti-aircraft weapons. They got an AN-26, an SU-25, and an IL-76. I never read CNN because they are too damn cheap to do their own research, which means in international news they almost always end up parroting the President's line. But the BBC had extensive coverage of all three shoot-downs, it's quite skeptical of the official line (check out the Hutton Inquiry if you don;t believe me), and all
Re: (Score:2)
And then there is good old free speech loving USA who accepts everyone, no matter their race, birth place or sexual practices. [latinpost.com]
I mean for fuck sakes, you can't even hid behind the claim of a mad dictator thos this kind of crap.
Re:Wouldnt surprise me if there is a sat photo (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, where is Obama's birth certificate? I bet he wasn't even really born!*
* this message brought to you by Conspiracy Nuts. Now available in BBQ and Maple flavours.
Re: (Score:2)
MACBETH:
I bear a charmèd life, which must not yield
To one of woman born.
MACDUFF:
Despair thy charm,
And let the angel whom thou still hast served
Tell thee, Macduff was from his mother’s womb
Untimely ripped.
Re: (Score:2)
Truth is highly variable in a war zone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Truth is the first casualty of war.
Usually before the war even officially starts.
I wouldn't be surprised if murdering the truth was done on occasion specifically to facilitate starting the war that follows.
Re:In Soviet Russia (Score:5, Funny)
In Soviet Russia, photo shops YOU!
Re: (Score:2)
Not bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Just out of curiosity, what would Mossad have to gain from something like this? I could see them trying to give Al Queda or ISIL some bad press, but what would they have to gain from making Ukraine look bad?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I have no idea why a sane person would suspect Mossad.
Some sane people suspect Mossad of secretly supporting the Russians in their war against Georgia, because they may actually have gotten something they could use out of that (Russian support against the Iranians). But they really don't give two shits about who owns Luhansk and Donetsk, but they definitely give a shit whether the Russians hate them because a nuclear-armed Security Council state could make life very uncomfortable for them. So they are gonna
Re: (Score:3)
I see no evidence that anyone who sounds sane does suspect Mossad.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, that's simple. The Russian tradition of conspiracy theory always blames the Jews. If you're the sort of person used to reading and believing conspiracy theories that justify Russia, it would take exceptional intellectual effort and insight to realize blaming the Jews makes no sense at all in a particular case.
Re: (Score:3)
Some interesting ways to track this.
MI6 or CIA got something found in Russia and it was rushed out to the media. FSB just watched to track the origins, publication and expected Western media results.
Russia released the image internally to follow the image to expose some internal NGO or other well funded netw
Re: (Score:3)
If anything is "obvious" here, it is that this is the propaganda equivalent of a False Flag attack. My guess is CIA/Mossad.
But surely the CIA/Mossad would be clever enough to realize that Anonanonaon would quickly figure out their False Flag strategy and expose them on Slashdot, so they'd know better than to try it... meaning that the only remaining explanation is that Russia put out the fake photo as a False False Flag attack, to make the CIA/Mossad look bad!
This is why you never go in against a Russian when death is on the line!
Ok conspiracy 'tard (Score:2)
Or perhaps more likely "pro Russian shill" next time, spend a little more time doing research before you put together your bullshit theory. See you seem to have missed one little detail: This came from Russian TV. This isn't something that surfaced in the US, purporting to be originally from Russia, it was on Russian national television.
So, maybe think your bullshit conspiracy through next time,a nd make sure you know the sequence of events.
Re: (Score:2)
How many colored people live in the Ukraine? Hmmm? Just sayin'. Coloreds are all the same.
All the people who live there are colored.
Most of them in various shades of beige.