Ukrainian Su-25 fighter detected in close approach to MH17 before crash - Moscow

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

From your source

As someone with experience in this field I felt an obligation to explain to others what they are seeing when the RU MOD try to invent a narrative based on a lack of understanding of a very complex system.

So basically the Russian Ministry of Defense doesn't know how read a radar screen, but this bloke does.....after all he does have his own blog.

a reply to: Flatcoat

That's his opinion - possibly not well expressed since English does not seem to be his first language.

Personally I think the Russian MOD is perfectly capable of reading a radar screen.

Just that they aren't telling the truth about what it shows - and since we are pretty sure that they CAN read a radar screen they are both liars (for not telling the truth) and idiots (for thinking no-one else can read a radar screen)

originally posted by: roadgravel

The Su whent under the 16400ft limit of the radar after it had passed Mh17. That is why it is not showing any movment

Wait, it's under the level of detection by radar but is detected?

Not to mention a radar system with a minimum detection altitude of 16,000ft? What bizarre system is this?

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

But do you think the Russian MOD would officially release this information if it could be so easily debunked? I mean, you can call the Russians what you like, but stupid they are most definitely not.

a reply to: Flatcoat

I imagine it was primarily for home consumption - they don't really care what the rest of the world thinks, this is just to cover their own arses at home and to provide "plausible deniability". Just like the news items we have coming out of Iran, or North Korea or other unsavoury places - we know it's bunk, but at home where "foreign media" is either banned, heavily restricted or just simply discredited at every turn, it works.

a reply to: stumason

Yes, but the same could be said for the west. Most non-americans know that information that comes from the U.S. is bunk. I live in Spain, and I can tell you first hand that most people here consider U.S. media an absolute joke.

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: Flatcoat

I imagine it was primarily for home consumption - they don't really care what the rest of the world thinks, this is just to cover their own arses at home and to provide "plausible deniability". Just like the news items we have coming out of Iran, or North Korea or other unsavoury places - we know it's bunk, but at home where "foreign media" is either banned, heavily restricted or just simply discredited at every turn, it works.

The thing is. Moste People dont know more than what they get from the News. The russian debrief no mater if its a mixe between a lie and the truth. They wouldnt know. IF a general shows up on TV and descirbes a radar video, they assume that he is telling the truth.

What can 50 People on ATS do? Not a damn thing. I told a few friend of mind about this event, they didnt even care, they said that Putin was a bastard no matter what the truth is.

a reply to: Flatcoat

Same here in the UK - while we do have our share of slanted news outlets (Sky News is the UK's FOX), there is a wide variety from across the full spectrum so you can usually read between the lines and get a good handle for the truth, such as it is.

I briefly watched FOX once during the 2006 Lebanon War. I turned off pretty quickly when a flashy intro sequence to the conflict came up with dramatic music and the title "Battleground in the Holy Ground", like it was some sort of PPV wrestling event...

a reply to: spy66

Quite! The same applies in the West I suppose.

Very few will dig around for the story behind the story...

a reply to: stumason

Too true, that's why I like ATS. You can get the opinions of real people, not some clown on the teli.

originally posted by: Flatcoat
a reply to: stumason

Too true, that's why I like ATS. You can get the opinions of real people, not some clown on the teli.

But how do we know that we are dealing With facts if the Sources are lying?

It basically mean that we are just spinning up New Versions of old lies.

a reply to: spy66

But how do we know that we are dealing With facts if the Sources are lying?

Ask that to those who think Russian media is the only media telling the truth.

And we do have a few of them on ATS.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: spy66

But how do we know that we are dealing With facts if the Sources are lying?

Ask that to those who think Russian media is the only media telling the truth.

And we do have a few of them on ATS.

Russia are the only once who have physically showed something. The opposition "The US" have showed nothing physical to back up their claim. They havent even comented on the russian radar evidence to high light that there are mistakes there.

Its like the US dont give a damn, the US just change the subject towards that the crash site have been tampered With. And are pushing that story now.

a reply to: spy66

To be fair, the US/West/Ukraine have been showing sat imagery, taped conversations and the like which has all been shouted down as "fake" by the pro-Russian crowd.

Personally, I'm sure the US/West knows the radar images from the Russians are questionable, for reasons stated in this thread from more learned persons than I, why dignify them by debunking them?

Likewise, the Russians don't waste much (if any) time debunking the Western claims - instead they just continue to trot out their own version of events instead and pretend like the sat imagery, taped conversations etc don't even exist.

It is worth noting the difference between the two sides - the "Western" media (at least in Europe) is showing both sides claims and counter-claims, while "Russian" media (such as RT) seems to devote it's entire time pushing the Kremlin line and not even mentioning the evidence the West has, as if it doesn't even exist. I find that quite telling....

a reply to: spy66

Russia are the only once who have physically showed something.

And that something they say is evidence has changed to hopefully back their claims. They first say it was an SU 25 that was shown following the airliner, but even when the manufacturer says the plane is incapable of that feat they still insist and even change the wiki page for it to back their claims.

Now why would they not know the capabilities of a plane they produce in country, and even use in their armed forces?

Also you said it yourself how can one trust a source that has lied, and been proven to lie about the incidents in Ukraine?

And Russia has proven it has no problem lying to the face of the rest of the world concerning events in Ukraine.

a reply to: spy66

Its like the US dont give a damn, the US just change the subject towards that the crash site have been tampered With. And are pushing that story now.

And that story isn't true how?



And of course you have seen the VICE video that shows them removing parts of the crash site, so how is that not considered tampering?

In fact here is a little screen grab from that video.



That isn't a body they are moving, so that would be called tampering.

originally posted by: Flatcoat
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

But do you think the Russian MOD would officially release this information if it could be so easily debunked? I mean, you can call the Russians what you like, but stupid they are most definitely not.

Incredulity at releasing something easily debunked doesn't stop it being easily debunked.

So either yes they are that stupid, or the release was solely for domestic consumption, and the translations, etc., are now "proof" that "the west was told the truth and they refuse to believe it" - which wouldn't surprise me in the least.

I am more inclined to the later - they don't care what you or I think - it is solely for domestic propaganda purposes.

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
I am more inclined to the later - they don't care what you or I think - it is solely for domestic propaganda purposes.

Indeed - I said as much in a previous thread about their supposed radar evidence.

They knew it wouldn't stand up to scrutiny, but when they can effectively silence any rebuttal of that "evidence" in their own country, all the natives will here is the "evidence" provided by the Russian state, thereby shoring up support for the regime.

Whilst in West, we at least get fed both sides of the story and, as is evident here on ATS, there at least some who have such distrust, or for some reason think the Sun shines out of Putins' arse, that we bicker over it, therefore ensuring that the water is truly muddied, which is precisely what they want.

originally posted by: stumason

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
I am more inclined to the later - they don't care what you or I think - it is solely for domestic propaganda purposes.

Indeed - I said as much in a previous thread about their supposed radar evidence.



Whilst in West, we at least get fed both sides of the story and, as is evident here on ATS, there at least some who have such distrust, or for some reason think the Sun shines out of Putins' arse, that we bicker over it, therefore ensuring that the water is truly muddied, which is precisely what they want.

In the west you get fed two lies, Our lies about their Version, plus Our dictated lies of Our own version.