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.

 

Satellite photo of fighter jet zapping MH17

page: 6
15
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 07:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: paraphi
a reply to: smurfy

With the greatest respect, all of what you state from the "experts" CV does not make him a default expert in the field of air accidents and mechanical forensics. He's had a few political roles, so one should be suspicious of his motives.

Just saying, but I'm sure an internet university could give him a degree to top it all off.

Regards

There you go again, you give nothing but use rhetoric like, looking after an aerodrome and nothing else, I gave what I got from his profile which is a tad more, so you honed in on the political part that I GAVE YOU. The ball is your court now, so disprove everything that's in his profile, it doesn't matter to me..I don't have an axe to grind, just trying to make sense of it all. Someone did this, that's the starter for ten..if you have an opinion who did it, spit it out, but it better be good. I have yet to see one good post that opines to who did it, I do see a lot of innuendo.
CiTrus90's post gives us a lot to think about, and it is well constructed, no getting away with that since the source picture is from official Russian at the top end..and I looked at CiTrus90's source picture in magnification which bears out what he/she is saying. [SIC] it does not mean that the story ends there, I can wait to see what the Dutch can make of their findings.
In the meantime the MSN newspapers are taking up this story at least online, but don't expect that they will all put it in print. Anything else? maybe, everybody and their granny expects that there should actually be some satellite imagery of that event from some source, that includes Dutch investigators, have you seen it?
edit on 14-11-2014 by smurfy because: Text.




posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 07:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Poland deeply involved in the Ukrainian "revolution", polish "volunteers" fighting in the "new democratic anti terrorist forces" from the beginning of the genocide in Ukraine.

But I agree with you, as the "shutdown" was not successful and there are huge problems with blaming it on Putin or the militia, it was not a polis ace, but the best ukrainian Kolomoisky could afford...

In case of a perfect false flag attack the militia is guilty, the plane crashes in the right place near the russian border (where at that time big part of the ukrainian army was surrounded and later 438 of them fled to russia), the Ukrainians can go in with OSCE and secure the border, save the battalion and so on...

Not to mention the perfect planning: two hours before the Gaza Invasion.



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: maghun

Except that if that was the case, they certainly blew that, didn't they. And what does Gaza have to do with anything?



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 10:35 PM
link   
a reply to: maghun

This is some good info.

Here in BC I remember CBC radio saying that it was fired apon from the ground by a Sam ( surface to air missile). Nothing was said about it being shot by a mig...

Why can't we ever get the truth?!?!?!?!
edit on 361114p53614 by snypwsd because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 10:43 PM
link   
a reply to: snypwsd

Because the evidence is that it was shot by a SAM. The photo is faked, and the information put forth in the blogs doesn't match the physical evidence.



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 10:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: snypwsd

Because the evidence is that it was shot by a SAM. The photo is faked, and the information put forth in the blogs doesn't match the physical evidence.

I don't think I can leave the final word to you here...

My opinions on MH17 are clear: IMHO I think that a SU-27 (possibly two of them) were involved in the incident. I believe that at-least one, probably two, air to air missiles were used (radar guided and IR) causing an outcome that matches witness accounts.

Never the less, I understand your position - I just disagree. I don't think we should continue that debate here



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 10:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Blister

And can you explain the little details? How they hit the cockpit? How a plane similar in size was hit by two air to air missiles, with 88 lb warheads, and flew for 10 minutes after, making radio calls, and remaining in controlled flight? How the ATC transcripts don't mention any other planes? The CVR apparently doesn't mention any other planes? How air to air missiles, which have relatively small warheads, caused a 777 to just explode in midair?

You know, the niggling little details.



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 11:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Blister

And can you explain the little details? How they hit the cockpit? How a plane similar in size was hit by two air to air missiles, with 88 lb warheads, and flew for 10 minutes after, making radio calls, and remaining in controlled flight? How the ATC transcripts don't mention any other planes? The CVR apparently doesn't mention any other planes? How air to air missiles, which have relatively small warheads, caused a 777 to just explode in midair?

You know, the niggling little details.

Come on, you know that a radar guided missile launched head on could take-out MH17. Heck, it probably detonated within twenty feet of the cockpit (laser aboard the missile measures the distance between the missile and the target, ya know, and triggers detonation when close), producing the high velocity projectile damage to the front-starboard and through area.

An IR missile, launched from the west of MH17 - west because that way the sun is not going to negatively effect the guidance at 4.30pm local time - could hit the fuselage, engines, or wings - or a combination thereof, depending on warhead and guidance specs.

So yeah, a double whammy, one from behind and another from ahead (or from the side), could cause serious structural damage. Sometimes the damage could be minimal, other times terminal.

You ask what caused a the 777 to "just explode in midair?" The missile/s exploded causing the aircraft to suffer serious damage and consequently disintegrate, maybe aided by "explosive" decompression and extreme structural stresses caused by loss of its skin and loss of structural integrity caused by direct high velocity projectile impact.

I question, if MH17 actually exploded in a great fireball upon missile impact. Maybe it did, but I have seen no evidence yet to show this. Obviously, there would have been explosion/s directly due to the missile/s exploding.

Ultimately, a SAM may have taken down MH17. I'll keep my mind open to that possibility, but at the moment, given the factors we know, to me air to air missiles are the culprit.

All for now.



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 11:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Blister

So the crew didn't notice the Su-27 coming head on at them, firing a missile? Neither did any radar systems? I find that hard to believe.

As for the whole sun thing, that hasn't been a factor since Vietnam. IR seekers have advanced to the point where they're multifrequency seekers now.



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 11:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Blister

So the crew didn't notice the Su-27 coming head on at them, firing a missile? Neither did any radar systems? I find that hard to believe.

As for the whole sun thing, that hasn't been a factor since Vietnam. IR seekers have advanced to the point where they're multifrequency seekers now.

From the range the missile can be fired? And a missile that is extremely fast? And a missile that has little or no trail?

No, I don't think a human being would have time to spot it and react.

As for radar systems, the Russian authorities have already disclosed that radar activity was unusual at the time. It is even possible that ground-based fire control systems were involved in the attack.

We simply do not yet know, and maybe never will.



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 11:40 PM
link   
I was going to post earlier that this seemed fake.. Without reading the story or anything.. Just by looking at the image I was wondering how tf does a satellite pick that up.. and even better yet the terrain changes on the close up...

Cause the interception would have been in the woods.... and planes dont fire missles that close do they?
edit on 11/14/2014 by ThichHeaded because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 11:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Blister

The Russians also claim that they had a radar that picked up an Su-25, that was in standby at the time, which is impressive. It also supposedly didn't pick up a target until after the flight broke apart into pieces that were large enough that they would have been seen on radar.

The Su-27 uses the AA-10 medium range missile. That means the best chance for a kill, even against a 777 is going to be relatively close. The closer you get, the higher the PK, even against non-maneuvering targets. That would have put it close enough that the crew should have seen something, either the fighter, or the missile launch. The initial launch leaves a very noticeable trail.

ATC should have seen something on radar, which I'm pretty sure the Russians wouldn't have known if it was "weird". Someone should have said something, even if it was "What's this" after seeing a target they weren't expecting on their radar.



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 02:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: smurfy
The ball is your court now, so disprove everything that's in his profile, it doesn't matter to me


I am not seeking to disprove anything you said about Valentin Vasilescu's profile. This is the Romanian expert, cited by Pravda.ru as a sufficiently believable subject matter expert who goes on to bash around a few statistics that prove his idea that MH17 was shot down.

My point is that he's no more qualified than (say) me to make judgements on what happened. He's no expert. He's not seen the wreckage (apart from photos, like all of us), he's go nothing about him other than the fact he's been in the Romanian air force and is now a politician. How does that make him an expert in the complex world of forensic ballistics and air accidents? It does not.

Pravda's article is the opinion of a non-expert. It is idle speculation by an amateur, sufficiently over-blown to fool people into thinking he's credible.

Regards



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 02:32 AM
link   
a reply to: paraphi




My point is that he's no more qualified than (say) me to make judgements on what happened. He's no expert.


So, you're a MIG pilot then?



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 05:34 AM
link   
a reply to: CiTrus90

Brilliant. Kudos to you!


That makes it absolutely definitive that the passenger jet in the subject image was "shopped in". And obviously, as the lighting on the "fighter jet" is completely wrong, it was as well.

Trouble is, that image is now "out there" on the web and no doubt even years from now, people will drag it out as "proof" of their version of what happened. (Never mind the fact that it's the wrong model Boeing Aircraft! :lol


But at least here, we have it on record that the image is a hoax -- and not even a very good one.



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 05:57 AM
link   
The bigger issue here now is, who put that out there? Its easy to assume it was the Russians trying to point fingers, which in turn places blame on them? Who benefits from placing an obvious hoax into the "independent" news channels?

Kind of reminiscent of the "pods" on 911, don't you think? Curious...



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 06:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Rosinitiate
Good point. Could even be a case of wheels within wheels. It would be easy to point fingers at the Russians or their supporters. That's the obvious thing to do.

On the surface, because the faked image is so badly done, it suggests amateurs. But perhaps that's the idea. Meaning that if eg an intelligence agency wanted to perpetrate such a hoax and make it believable enough to cast grave doubts on the "other side's" version of events, they'd be sure to at least get the lighting right (on both aircraft) and also use the right model Boeing. So, most would suspect it wasn't the work of an alphabet agency.

However, what if the primary agenda was to muddy the waters as much as possible? For any side or faction involved, that can have advantages. Putting out a faked-up image is quite naturally going to cast doubts on any other images or data that might become public later on. Or even whatever is already in the public domain.

Smoke and mirrors and all that.



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 07:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Rosinitiate

THIS site says the image first turned up on a Russian message board on October 15.

Also that Russiam state television ran it on November 14.



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 07:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: Rosinitiate

THIS site says the image first turned up on a Russian message board on October 15.

Also that Russiam state television ran it on November 14.



Perhaps it worked better than they had hoped? So the original image comes from a "George Bilt", and was ran on a Russian News cast before quickly "analyzed" and determined a hoax due to so many inconsistencies.

So either it was Russian propaganda intended for domestic purposes? I am sure Russian citizens are just as capable of smelling bull# though. Besides Russia has already released data, if they had this than surely it would have been released some time ago.

Alphabet agency making an obvious fake and getting it to run on Russian state TV would be a golden disinformation success. As now it casts doubt on any version proffered by Russia. If true, brilliant!

I just don't see what could have been gained by Russia to release this crap. It's not like they don't have the latest graphics package.

Or lastly, amateurs having kicks at the expense of mankind.....
edit on 15-11-2014 by Rosinitiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 07:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Rosinitiate




The bigger issue here now is, who put that out there?


It is sourced to Russia's Channel 1, which in itself makes the picture suspect. Now where they got the picture has yet to be known.



new topics




 
15
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join