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.

 

German Bundestag says MH17 not shot down by BUK

page: 2
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 09:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58


It's not a 100% accurate way to do it, especially if two systems are similar, or use the same radar, but they can narrow it down pretty close, and in a lot of cases, they can tell you exactly what system it is.

So why didn't they? If it was ground based , then the AWACS would have detected the sweep or search radar, lock on and missile terminal homing, right?

I'm not up on the BUK but I get the feeling they are leaving something out. Their conclusions are as ambiguous as telling everyone they have determined the jet body was pierced by "multiple high speed objects".

An air to air missile or gun platform would have the same effect and would not be ruled out by such a statement.

The "…and another signal…" portion of this "new information" also alludes to the only other possibility… another jet in the area. A military jet with military radar.

Let me run down the scenario I think played out and you can critique. A Ukrainian SU 24 hopes to avoid the BUK's in the area. They would know if they are there. The SU 24 climbs into the sky to closely parallel the flight path of the jet, near enough to give the pilot reasonable assurance they won't fire for concern of hitting the jet.

For whatever reason, the BUK locks onto the SU 24 and fires a missile. The jet jams or uses countermeasures including evasive maneuvers to avoid being hit, maybe even approaching the jet liner to confuse the missile guidance. At the last moment he veers away and the only target now on the missiles radar is the jet liner.

The warhead homes and explodes riddling the plane with a thousand diamond shaped "high speed objects."

Embarrassing to both sides and maybe why we have only been given vague references.

Both sides are guilty as sin and want to best forget the incident. I hope that pilot sleeps well at night.

The only other alternative would be that the pilot closed with and fired his gun at close enough range to know what he was shooting at and I highly doubt that.
edit on 8-10-2014 by intrptr because: bb code




posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 09:22 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Prior to this no one had even hinted that there was even one AWACS in the area, let alone two. At the distance they'd have to be out, they were lucky to detect a tracking signal, let alone a launch signature, and homing radar.

If there was another aircraft in the area, ATC radar would have picked it up. The only time another object appeared near the flight track was after the aircraft broke apart.



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 09:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58


The only time another object appeared near the flight track was after the aircraft broke apart.

Well it would have to have been nearby anyway to be "appearing" like that. I know the official line. I don't know the reality of how close it was to the jet liner before or after, however.

I understand your position in that regard, too. You just mirrored that official story. You even called it an "object" just now. Thank you.



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 09:41 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Because that's all it was. It was an object on radar, and could have been anything. Without being able to identify it, there's no way to say what it was. And if there WERE two AWACS in the area, they would have been able to pick up a plane, even at low altitude. If they didn't, there wasn't one near MH17.



posted on Oct, 9 2014 @ 05:23 AM
link   
What if the Russians have deployed a new ground based radar that is not yet in the AWACs database? That would be "unidentifiable."



posted on Oct, 9 2014 @ 06:36 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

It may be that they just don't want to say. It is doubtful that they wouldn't be able to narrow it down pretty quickly unless it was some ECM transmission, but it may even be from an "ally" system.

I am also not clear on whether they mean an unidentified third radar transmission, or an unidentified signal (scatterer returns from their own system i.e another object). The implications are very different.



posted on Oct, 9 2014 @ 07:08 AM
link   
Is the fact that one of the passengers was found, wearing an oxygen mask in any way relevant at this point?

This disclosure (today/yesterday) from the Dutch Foreign Minister Frans Timmermans (who) has said that one of the 298 people killed in the downing of a Malaysia Airlines plane over eastern Ukraine was found wearing an oxygen mask.

www.bbc.co.uk... to see more.

From what I read, this information was available from early on, as he says, did the passengers have time to look at each other in a silent goodbye. Not a nice thought. But looking at the layout of the planes remains, the cockpit fell to earth more quickly than the main body seems to have done.



posted on Oct, 9 2014 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58


Thanks for all the answers so far - very informative thread.

Regarding the AWACS being in the aerea:




zwei Awacs-Aufklärungsflugzeuge der Nato, die sich zum Zeitpunkt des Absturzes im polnischen beziehungsweise rumänischen Luftraum befanden, die Maschine der Malaysia Airlines per Radar erfasst.


Translates to: one NATO AWAC was in polnish, the other in rumainian airspace at the time of the crash.



posted on Oct, 9 2014 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: svetlana84

I'm shocked that they picked up ANYTHING being that far away. That's stretching the range, even for an AWACS. The Romanian aircraft I could see picking something up, as it was a lot closer.



posted on Oct, 9 2014 @ 12:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: douglas5
This subject has been very very quiet since it happened and the black boxes were recovered , if any proof of Russian involvement was found they would have been screaming it from the roof tops and plastering it 24/7 across the msm .




Not if it would result in strong calls for action.



posted on Oct, 9 2014 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Since they are snooping radar bands rather than looking for their own returns, they are getting the transmitted signal power vs. the received signal power from say one of their own transmissions. The power signal amplitude to be snooped is astronomically greater than what is normal for radar send/receive range limitations.



posted on Oct, 9 2014 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: svetlana84
My German is furchtbar...is the document an official declaration of the Bundestag, or is it something a legislator read into the record? Makes a difference, eh?


edit on 9-10-2014 by JohnnyCanuck because: ...just because.



posted on Oct, 9 2014 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Halfswede

Oh, I get that, but 700+ miles (Ukraine to Poland) is still an amazing distance for the signal to go, and be strong enough to identify it by type. That's why I said the Romanian aircraft is more plausible, but even that's 400 and some odd miles.



posted on Oct, 9 2014 @ 01:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
What if the Russians have deployed a new ground based radar that is not yet in the AWACs database? That would be "unidentifiable."


Correct. And base-frequencies are sometimes changed within a broad band so that team A doesn't know exactly what frequency to jam or what threat is being detected when the frequency is detected. I might have one SA-2 on one frequency and another deployed using another new previously unused frequency. If you haven't seen that frequency before and your equipment isn't designed to look for it, the new frequency does not appear on the RWR. That's bad news for the pilots. Something like this happened in the Yom Kippur war. The Israelis had RWR and ECM pods to counter SA-3 and SA-2 threats, but they were not equipped to detect or jam the bands and frequencies used by the SA-6. They had no idea they were being targeted until a missile was in the air, and the jamming was completely ineffective against it because it was not using the known frequencies. There was a hasty refit (including to US systems!) to counter the threat and losses went way down.
It doesn't matter as much now that we have more processing power, and something like the E-3 is collecting and analyzing any radiation it gets a peek at. Most modern systems are frequency-agile within a broad range. If a signal is being jammed, you can hop frequencies back and forth and there is a delay before the jammer detects the new frequency and starts jamming it instead. Higher processing power in jammers has largely negated that ability, and for the most part the US approach has been to simply swamp the entire band of the threat instead of individual frequencies. It's always a bit of cat-and-mouse. An "unidentified signal" simply means something (who knows what) was broadcasting something on a frequency that has not been previously categorized or linked to a known platform. Or even possibly (I don't know the circumstances or nuances of the original statement) a frequency that is simply used by one or more platforms. If we knew the frequency, we might know more about what that signal was.



posted on Oct, 9 2014 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: _Del_


What about satellites that can pick up missile launches?


edit on 9-10-2014 by Logarock because: n



posted on Oct, 9 2014 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Halfswede
a reply to: Zaphod58

Since they are snooping radar bands rather than looking for their own returns, they are getting the transmitted signal power vs. the received signal power from say one of their own transmissions. The power signal amplitude to be snooped is astronomically greater than what is normal for radar send/receive range limitations.


Right. Inverse square law and what not. The received signal is only going half the distance that a return bounce would need to, and the reception of that foreign signal would depend on the antenna on the E-3 and the broadcast strength of the signal from the emitter. There would be no relation to the E-3's own active-detection range with it's radar.



posted on Oct, 9 2014 @ 01:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: _Del_


What about satellites that can pick up missile launches?



Something like DSP or SBIRS uses infrared frequencies to detect launches. I don't know if the heat bloom from a SAM would be enough to be detected. Possibly, but they filter out signals below a certain threshold so that you don't get missile launch warnings at NORAD everytime someone has a bonfire
It's possible it was strong enough to be detected even if it was filtered out. SBIRS is supposed to be very sensitive, but there are only a couple of them at the moment. If they did detect the signal, then they should have a good indicator of where the launch took place if they review that data.



Edit: Did a little looking, and this article mentions both SBIRS and ELINT satellites as possible sources of data when the US claimed it had determined the launch location.
Satellites critical to collecting evidence in MH17 tragedy
edit on 9-10-2014 by _Del_ because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2014 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Logarock

i posted this story last night
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I think we are at the handbags at dawn stage between the big two , but maybe one will land a big punch on the sly



posted on Oct, 11 2014 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Johnny, the statement comes directly from the German Bundestag, as an answer for a "kleine Anfrage' (sort of a the same as a FOIA request in the US) the link i posted in the OP goes straight to the official Bundestag (parliament) website. So ti can't get more official than that.

Though what speaks volumes is the information not provided, such as:

- what was the other 'unidentified' signal
- what mission the NATO AWACS have been on in Poland and Rumania who picked up the signals
- why it took so long to come forward with this info (instead of pointing towards a BUK-system in the first weeks)

Also quite telling is that none of the german mainstream media picked this story up.



posted on Oct, 11 2014 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: svetlana84

NATO and the US have been flying Baltic security missions for the last couple of years, including AWACS coverage. They've also been flying training in Poland since Poland bought F-16s from the US several years ago. The Air Force has more or less permanently based aircraft in Poland to train their Air Force on the F-16 and the best way to use them.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join