It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Edit: And it seems the Russian Govt has been caught editing the Russian Wiki since the shooting to read that the M1 can reach 10,000m........oops! Is that your source???
originally posted by: ScrutonEyez
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul
Edit: And it seems the Russian Govt has been caught editing the Russian Wiki since the shooting to read that the M1 can reach 10,000m........oops! Is that your source???
Lol, you started this idiotic story? The specs are all over the internet. It reaches 33.000 ft.
Russia edited the WIKI.......LOL!
Really guys? Did they forget to edit the entire internet?
I would find it hard to describe your actions as anything other than lying.
Or grave stupidity. Pick one.
originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
This is currently being ignored by Western Media...
Before you claim "pro Russian propaganda" remember that Media is meant to be impartial...
RT are quite clearly showing all angles including calls for sanctions from David Cameron, as well as Obama's latest press release...
So let's just agree the agenda is coming mainly from Western outlets!!!
Let the RT bashing begin!!!
originally posted by: Flatcoat
I see this thread has devolved into a pissing contest, instead of focusing on the whole point of the thread - What was the aircraft doing there in the first place? Especially after Kiev said it had no military aircraft in the vicinity.
originally posted by: ScrutonEyez
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul
I would find it hard to describe your actions as anything other than lying.
Or grave stupidity. Pick one.
the thread examines the claim that there was an aircraft there - and IMO the evidence supplied by Russia is nonsense.
originally posted by: Flatcoat
I see this thread has devolved into a pissing contest, instead of focusing on the whole point of the thread - What was the aircraft doing there in the first place? Especially after Kiev said it had no military aircraft in the vicinity.
originally posted by: Flatcoat
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul
the thread examines the claim that there was an aircraft there - and IMO the evidence supplied by Russia is nonsense.
Well then, maybe the Russians should have tweeted it. That seems to be the new global standard for judging the veracity of information.
Have you actually looked at the evidence they produced to support their claim there was a Ukrainian a/c shadowing MH17 - or are you just pissed because I did and actually found the obvious problems with it?
originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: Flatcoat
How does a fighter jet stay in the same place for that time. The lateral movement of the target was basically zero.
TSo, in dot point format;
-The video RU MOD provided was of the unified (ie civilian) traffic control system.
-That system conforms to most current computerised ATM systems found in EU, US, AU and many Asian countries.
-The display of MH17 (and others ) on the video is that of PSR and SSR data coupled with Flight Plan (FPL) data
-The coupling process fails at the time of the missile strike, as evidenced by the appearance of a square. Logically, the result of catastrophic system failure on the aircraft is that the transponder fails to squawk the required code anymore, forcing a decouple.
-what is left once the FPL decouples and the SSR data is gone due to transponder failure is the Primary Surveillance radar paint of MH17. This paint is co-located with the square from the Flight Plan, they diverge as the projected FPL position of MH17 moves away based on expected normal speed of a B777, from its actual (damage and falling wreckage) location as per the PSR
-The radar paint that the RU MOD tries to describe as the phantom SU25 is in fact the MH17 primary paint of what is now falling wreckage
originally posted by: ScrutonEyez
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul
Lol, you started this idiotic story? The specs are all over the internet. It reaches 33.000 ft.