Ukrainian Separatist commander comes right out and admits they had a BUK from Russia

a reply to: DeadSeraph

Eh the US knows who shot it down.

The rebels may have them, but the Ukrainian has many (i believe I read 40) of the BUK systems.

And speaking of "plain sight", it's being said that a number of satellites "saw" the missile en-route to the airliner. If satellites spotted and recorded this brief event, why couldn't they spot the Malaysian Air MH-370 as she flew for hours and hours (supposedly) before (supposedly) running out of fuel and crashing?

Because military satellites are positioned over war zones, not over vacant stretches of water where no war exists.

As for that 'evidence', I think that if it existed, it would have been shown by now!

It should be obvious that both Russia, NATO and the US have spy satellites over this conflict. They all know what happened. Why this game is being played is anyone's guess.

It seems likely we know that a BUK11 shot the aircraft down, the only question is who was operating it at that moment.

P

a reply to: pheonix358

I believe this 'game' they play is way above us, and if we would know the truth, we would be shocked how the world really works... I do believe all of them know, but now it's the media war between the sides first, because they have to control the regular people somehow.

a reply to: pheonix358

Because military satellites are positioned over war zones, not over vacant stretches of water where no war exists.

Do you understand how satellites work? They don't just magically hover over a certain location...

They orbit the earth, many times per day, and still require certain weather conditions in order to operate in ideal conditions. They aren't just giant eyes of sauron that can see anything anywhere, at any time.

They cross certain regions of the earth at certain times. The most sophisticated spy satellite known to man could still miss a certain event if it isn't directly over that region at exactly the right time, with clear weather conditions. It might be able to detect certain things (such as a missile launch), but it's not like it can just beam live HD footage to youtube of events happening on the ground. But I guess if it could that would make it social media, and thus invalid, right?

originally posted by: pheonix358

And speaking of "plain sight", it's being said that a number of satellites "saw" the missile en-route to the airliner. If satellites spotted and recorded this brief event, why couldn't they spot the Malaysian Air MH-370 as she flew for hours and hours (supposedly) before (supposedly) running out of fuel and crashing?

Because military satellites are positioned over war zones, not over vacant stretches of water where no war exists.

As for that 'evidence', I think that if it existed, it would have been shown by now!



P

Well then, that explains it. Even though the MH-370 was presumably flying for hours, there was no urgency (or possibility?) of moving a satellite over the ocean to investigate. I've been watching too much science fiction, where generals say "Move MD2 over that position so we can get a good look.". The real-world is much different apparently.
-cwm

a reply to: DeadSeraph

Sometimes I wonder on here!

Do you understand how satellites work? ...

They orbit the earth, many times per day

They cross certain regions of the earth at certain times

Jeez man, sometimes I wonder. For your edification and enlightenment.

Wiki

Geosynchronous satellites have the advantage of remaining permanently in the same area of the sky, as viewed from a particular location on Earth, and so permanently within view of a given ground station. Geostationary satellites have the special property of remaining permanently fixed in exactly the same position in the sky, meaning that ground-based antennas do not need to track them but can remain fixed in one direction

P

a reply to: pheonix358

sometimes you wonder about what? your ability to read?

From your own source:

A geosynchronous satellite is a satellite in geosynchronous orbit, with an orbital period the same as the Earth's rotation period. Such a satellite returns to the same position in the sky after each sidereal day, and over the course of a day traces out a path in the sky that is typically some form of analemma. A special case of geosynchronous satellite is the geostationary satellite, which has a geostationary orbit – a circular geosynchronous orbit directly above the Earth's equator. Another type of geosynchronous orbit used by satellites is the Tundra elliptical orbit.

Do you understand what this means?

Another disadvantage of geostationary satellites is the incomplete geographical coverage, since ground stations at higher than roughly 60 degrees latitude have difficulty reliably receiving signals at low elevations. Satellite dishes at such high latitudes would need to be pointed almost directly towards the horizon. The signals would have to pass through the largest amount of atmosphere, and could even be blocked by land topography, vegetation or buildings. In the USSR, a practical solution was developed for this problem with the creation of special Molniya / Orbita inclined path satellite networks with elliptical orbits. Similar elliptical orbits are used for the Sirius Radio satellites.

geosynchronous satellites by very virtue of physics have to be placed in orbit around the equator, thus they are STILL subject to weather conditions and further subject to atmospheric lensing/diffraction depending on how far away from the equator the target they are attempting to view is.

What makes you think a geosynchronous satellite should be able to provide you with footage of the launch or even a crystal clear image in the first place?

Again I ask you, do you understand the nature of satellites and satellite imagery? Did you even review the satellite "evidence" Russia released? what, in your expert opinion, does it prove? Why do you feel that the U.S should have smoking gun satellite imagery of the event?

ETA:

Right from RT itself:

10. Why haven’t US officials revealed the evidence supporting claims that the MH17 was shot down by a missile launched by the militia?
“US officials claim they have satellite photographs proving the Malaysian airliner was shot down by a missile launched by the militia. But no one has seen these photographs so far. As far as we know, there was indeed a US satellite flying over southeastern Ukraine on July 17 from 17:06 to 17:21 Moscow time.

“This satellite is part of an experimental system designed to track and monitor the launches of missiles of various ranges. If our US colleagues have imagery from this satellite, they should release it for the international community to examine it in detail. This may be a coincidence, but the US satellite flew over Ukraine at exactly the same time when the Malaysian airliner crashed.”

So which was it? A geosynchronous satellite or a geostationary satellite?

Oh for heavens sake. We are not talking about a satellite used to bring you Disney Channel.

We are talking of the hundreds of Military and Spy satellites up there.

We are also talking of NATO defense systems that watch the Russian border like nerds at a strip show.

There is such complete coverage that NATO can just about see a flea farting

We are not only talking about visual satellites. Many countries are watching this and the other hotspots continually.

The way you are trying to put it is that there is only one lonely little spy satellite zooming around feeling lonely. If you have to use other orbits then you need a few working together for complete 24/7 coverage, let alone what high altitude UAVs can do these days.

The US can detect almost any large missile launch anywhere in Russia and Russia can do it straight back.

What do you think the NATO missile shield does?

P

a reply to: rickymouse

If the US provided evidence, I would probably evaluate it and if it looked right I would accept it. But they say they have evidence but do not show it to us. Why can't they show it to the American people?

Why show your hand, as Russia is just stepping all over itself with these funny debriefing of the events. They seem to have a hard time getting the facts straight. At least their version of facts that is.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

So which was it? A geosynchronous satellite or a geostationary satellite?

Wow, they can change wiki pages but can't even use the internet for finding out info on this satellite...amazing.

spaceflightnow.com...

a reply to: DeadSeraph

Your post and link assumes the US info maybe right, that it was NOT shot down by a Ukrainian Jet fighter pilot which was also in range or a BUK system they reported was "moved out" 2 weeks in a AP puff piece how they were "winning" the war, people tend to forget whom the aggressors have been in this conflict and whom overthrew a duly elected government and want to call the defenders of the elected government rebels when in fact it was the US backed coup force that has been doing all this media spinning and fiction....and who knows what other kinds of crooked business, remember folks we are dealing with the same people that have gone all over the middle east spreading "Arab Spring" and after that has failed miserably maybe now meddling in the Ukraine for the love of pipelines...or "democracy". This has been a plan on the books with Brzezinski since the 70s, same old encircle and isolate Russia BS. the EU has been a failure, many don't want to belong to it, as it comes with US strings attached, we are seen not as a force for good but a force for destruction....in the middle east....in Europe now with this nonsense. We go from Russia hating gay people to them shooting down planes and nobody bats an eye at how distracting this maybe from the Democrat leaders FAILURES, nevermind that Snowden sits in Russia while constant propaganda gets pumped into the media about how bad Russia maybe, I wouldn't put it past them to blow up a plane to make Putin and Snowden look like the devil, not enough people dislike Snowden, and it wouldn't surprise me with all that has been told to the international and US community that they want to get rid of him, and if they can't reach that far into Russia than they will create enough tension to make them give him over...unless we want to go to war with Russia, maybe we should think about how we look like a society full of people unable to figure out how to analyze PR and govt propaganda to the rest of the intelligent international community. This spying business has made America a joke and naturally people are going back to using typewriters to avoid being spied on.....thanks to Snowden, the NSA cannot control the world, sure they can murder or setup murder for the CIA to carry out, but they cannot make everyone else give up their personal lives and info anymore, that will stifle and stymie them for many years to come, they have become very much similar to angry kids that want break stuff in order to try and make the genie go back.

The Ukrainian Security Service updated their webpage with proofs of Russian BUK, by deleting the photos that were proven to be fake.

Look to the bottom of the page.

Here is the current version: www.sbu.gov.ua...

Old version:
htt p://wayback.archive.org/web/20140721205539/htt p://www.sbu.gov.ua/sbu/control/uk/publish/article?art_id=129099&cat_id=39574


Sorry, can not seem to link properly this...

Conspiracy theorising is a useful exercise. enables us to watch a wide range of opinions come in from a mix of world experts thru to crazy guys, and then converge onto our own opinions. long live ATS so far im thinking the rebels did have a buk, and they had used it against Kiev military, but as soon as the mh17 crashed, they were ordered to get it out of the country quick (we saw the transporter video). russian satellites saw 3 other ukrainian buk move into the area few days before, AND all their location transponders switched on. what for ? no rebel planes to shoot down there. then the sa-25 fighter was seen following the mh-17 what for ? a good guess is to verify the aircraft and report down to the missile battery. then there was the audio recording of ground commanders sounding shocked the debris had fallen into peoples yards. so NOW it looks like Kiev had grabbed an opportunity to frame the rebels, by shooting down a civilian to give them extremely bad press, and chose poor MalaysianAir while the mh370 was still "sinister" in public minds. but russian Defence presentation is excellent and credible. yankee satellite was also overhead at exactly right time. CIA supply Kiev, trying to get ukraine into Nato, so they can install even more missiles around Putin (he already warned them about Poland), so no doubt CIA was watching the whole event, knowing what was being planned.... ill put 100$ on this scenario, any takers ? now we wait for mr.Putin - what next wise judo man ? those MIC cowboys are dangerous, he knows it, and is acting very calculatingly calm, but dont underestimate his resources, enough to blow the # out of the pervert o'bummer if necessary... but they both know M.A.D. so its all a bit childish threats left and right. why not try peace ? be friends to Russia and China, they are both great Nations. listen to the philosopher John Lennon, and "imagine" ....


a reply to: DeadSeraph

It's another fabricated lie;

Reuters Debunked: Khodakovsky Denies Interview Aspects

globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.ru...:+Mi shsGlobalEconomicTrendAnalysis+%28Mish%27s+Global+Economic+Trend+Analysis%29

The discrepancies were so big I stated "It appears to me Reuters may have stretched this interview quite a bit."

Thus I am not surprised to discover Khodakovsky challenged huge aspects of that interview, in terms of things he stated, did not state, and even timing of events.

Reader Jacob Dreizin, a US citizen who speaks Russian and reads Ukrainian provides this translation from the Ria.Ru post "Khodakovsky Denies Talking About Buks"

Additionally, he told the TV channel RT that he has a video recording of the interview which he can present from his end, in order to prove that he did not speak to the agency [Reuters] about the presence of air defense systems amongst the militia.

Damning Contradictions

Khodakovsky neither admitted nor denied the rebels had Buks. Once again, here is the damning contradiction as I presented earlier.

"Khodakovsky said his unit had never possessed BUKs, but they may have been used by rebels from other units."

Now look back at the opening Reuters lead-in: "Alexander Khodakovsky, commander of the Vostok Battalion, acknowledged ... the rebels did possess the BUK missile system and said it could have been sent back subsequently to remove proof of its presence."

Here is the major contradiction: "What resources our partners have, we cannot be entirely certain. Was there (a BUK)? Wasn’t there? If there was proof that there was, then there can be no question."

Khodakovsky never saw a Buk. Here is the precise statement as reported by Reuters: "That BUK I know about. I heard about it."

And blah blah blah.

This is not the point.

Question is, do you, American people, really want war with us?

Considering the pattern, I have no doubt that ATS will either block, ban, or all together delete any information which is to the contrary to the official State Department story, but the question is the same, are YOU, a guy going about daily life, reading up on stuff, ready for a real war?

I'm in Russia right now, and this is the question, because people here, are ready to defend their land.

So go ahead, ban, delete, deny, but know this, if war is really what American people want, Russia is ready, and just as the last time, will fight to the death.

Is that what you want?

So it's possible that the separatists had a Buk, likely captured. What they conclusively did not have was the radar infrastructure required to operate at 10 000m. Kiev has several Buks, and the radar network, and the air traffic control, which diverted the plane from it's usual course.
Where is @spainbuca?
Also, despite the total BS being disseminated by some, and the impressive media disinformation campaign, there is only 1 single piece of incontrovertible evidence that we have of the incident, except for the flight path change.
That evidence is Russian civilian radar records of the Sukhov which shadowed the jetliner at low altitude, before approaching the jetliner at 10 000m at the exact time of the incident.
That does not include Russian military rader, nor any other civilian or military records which plainly do exist. Russia has openly challenged the US to produce evidence of a Buk missile launch, which is what was directly claimed earlier by the US.
There is no evidence that a Buk SAM brought down the jetliner.
There is hard evidence that a Ukrainian Sukhov SU-25 acted like a prime suspect in a murder case.

And the US is so funny, this is an official US press briefing:

In terms of who fired the missile, "we don't know a name, we don't know a rank and we're not even 100 percent sure of a nationality," one official said, adding at another point, "There is not going to be a Perry Mason moment here."
...
The officials made clear they were relying in part on social media postings and videos made public in recent days by the Ukrainian government, even though they have not been able to authenticate all of it.

The entire NATO installation is trying to figure out whodunnit from you-tube videos.
The false voice recording video was courtesy the Ukrainian secret service, who made it 2 days before they were supposed to, and were too stupid to hide the evidence.

This is a text book false flag operation: commit an atrocity, provide a smokescreen for the real method, scream any nonsense you like at your victim, and then pretend it was all a misunderstanding.

All this is plain to see, and those on this thread screaming the official line: you're pathetic, both in your thinking and debating.

For the others: the real conspiracy is why MH370 was used, why some of the bodies in MH17 were several days dead, and why the known perpetrators are getting away with murder?

a reply to: harryhaller

The BUK system does not need a "radar infrastructure." to fire on an aircraft. In fact, if it is not tied into a radar infrastructure, it makes it nearly impossible to distinguish if the target aircraft is civilian or not. It alone can detect and track a plane at that altitude. A well-trained crew would have known MH-17 was a civilian air line. The hastily-trained rebel crews skipped the first few steps that would have allowed them to know that, instead they simply fired the system.

Don’t Think Russian Rebels Can Learn How to Fire an Anti-Air Missile? Try This Simulator

The U.S. believes Russia’s proxy rebels in eastern Ukraine received training from Russian advisers on to operate a 9K37 Buk missile system that destroyed Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 on July 17.

Turns out, people are training themselves how to operate sophisticated surface-to-air missile systems.

After the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, the Hungarian amateur surface-to-air missile community—yes, there is a community for this—got access to detailed documentation on how to operate the country’s various, decommissioned Soviet-made SAMs. The sleuths also got into contact with some of the out-of-work operators and came close enough to photograph the instrument panels.

Put it all together, the result is a free simulator—known as SAM Simulator—that is a close approximation of the real thing. There’s no Buk missile launcher. But the 2K11 Krug is available. Both the Buk and the Krug use semi-active radar homing missiles.

Also, the rebels had access to both Russian-supplied BUKs and captured Ukrainian BUKs. Both are Russian made systems. The rebel commander had admitted rebels had been receiving hasty military training in Russia since the separatist movement began after the Russian invasion of Crimea.

Russia supplied missile launchers to separatists, U.S. official says

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

This is from your source..

“We do believe they were trying to move back into Russia at least three Buk [missile launch] systems,” the official said. U.S. intelligence was “starting to get indications . . . a little more than a week ago” that the Russian launchers had been moved into Ukraine, said the official.

The official’s comments, made on condition of anonymity to speak about intelligence matters, came as a top Ukrainian counterintelligence official said his service has conclusive proof that Russia supplied the missile that shot down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over territory controlled by the separatists.

I'm not trying to be facetious, but do you really find those sort of statements to be credible? For example.."We do believe" and "starting to get indications" all from an unnamed official. They offer absolutely zero evidence whatsoever. This is basically some anonymous person saying "Trust me, I'm from the government."

a reply to: Flatcoat

Except videos and photos of a BUK system being trucked back to Russia was caught by an amateur videographer and linked to above.

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

But no-one knows where or when those videos were taken. All they prove is that someone somewhere transported a BUK system.

Either the BUK missile system is extraordinarily awesome or Ukrain fighter jets are crap. Can't seem to miss with these missles. Hope our aircraft can handle them. They appear to be very accurate at least against Russian made jets and Boeing 777.

Maybe we should buy some for our defense against them lol