Satellite images show clearly that Russia faked its MH17 report

a reply to: Xcathdra

I mean if that's what you believe then that's what you believe. But you could just be honest and say you actually dont know. Because no one knows.

originally posted by: AVoiceOfReason
a reply to: Xcathdra

I mean if that's what you believe then that's what you believe. But you could just be honest and say you actually dont know. Because no one knows.

Everything I have posted about Russia has originated with Russian media and government releases.

The evidence to dates supports the narrative that Russia was involved in the shoot down of MH17. It would have been easier for them or the rebels to admit they made a mistake and targeted the wrong aircraft.

a reply to: Xcathdra

No it kind of doesn't since we still don't know where the missile was fired from or by whom. But well know in October right?

a reply to: AVoiceOfReason

Well for most people we have known for sometime the rebels / Russia brought it down but October is when the official dutch investigation is suppose to be completed. If it implicates rebels or Russia there will be quick denunciations. Russia will, again, manufacture evidence to support its lies, like it has done so many times now.

a reply to: Xcathdra

So was it the rebels or Russia? You don't sound too sure. It can't be both. And why can't it have been the Ukrainians? They had buk launchers. But it was launched from territory they didn't have, but we don't actually know where it was launched from and we don't exactly know what territory they were or weren't in.

You don't know. You think you know. Or at least your ego thinks it knows. But you don't.

a reply to: AVoiceOfReason

they are one in the same.

The "rebel" leaders have proven that.
The captured Russians have proven that.
The latest OSCE report on Russian troops in Donetsk have proven that.

a reply to: AlphaStrike1001

The bellingcat analysis of the russian images is bullsh*t, says the inventor of the programs they used.


Dr. Neal Krawetz
‏@hackerfactor

@WeBaGeMyghty Yeah... chalk this up as a "how to not do image analysis".

twitter.com...

a reply to: greyhat

Then you should be able to explain why.

Your link is just a twitter page with no description of what mistake bellingcat might have made.

Unless you can get onto at least some detail you simply have nothing.

I would love to review any evidence you have to the contrary but if you are just here to post blanket statements with out supporting facts or data sets do not even bother replying to my post.

originally posted by: AVoiceOfReason
a reply to: AlphaStrike1001

What do i misunderstand?
All you do is admit the fact that you do not even know what your video is trying to claim.
I have a basic idea of what it is saying and i am calling it a red herring and giving evidence to support my conclusion.

You then support your lack of understanding by bringing up claims of other sat images that you do not understand.

Your argument is a collection of logical fallicies.
Your red herring is supported by appeal to ignorance and closed out with a deflection from the given topic.

a reply to: AlphaStrike1001

Read my other posts in this thread. Bellingcat has found nothing, they just sold some fake reports to the press.

a reply to: greyhat

The only other post you have on this thread is a few line mention of an unspecified NATO satellite image.

If they are fake reports you should be able to explain point by point what flaws you seem to have found.

Your mention of some NATO sat image without any point of reference or details is simply illogical deflection from the op.

So i ask one more time, what am i misunderstanding and please explain what flaws you see in the bellingcat report so we can go over parts of interest. If you are unable to do this you simply have nothing.
Currently you have provided nothing other than blanket statements without any supporting fact or set of facts.

You are not the first poster to claim belling cats report is flawed but no one thus far has got into any detail or has been able to explain as to why and how it is flawed.

a reply to: AlphaStrike1001

Bellingcat was cherrypicking on different possible explanations of what they found. Ask the author of the ELA program who confirmed this was bs.

a reply to: greyhat

What exactly did bellingcat cherry pick?

I would ask and review the data but you provide nothing to go on.

Error Level Analysis (ELA) is one of the simpler algorithms, and many people implemented their own variants. The twitter page you link to gives no information and furthermore does not say anything about ELA.

But i did look up the dr you cite. What his claim is based on is another report from someone other than himself. And that report did say that some aspects of the russian image were in fact faked.

And it by no means refutes the whole of bellingcats report.

Some quotes from that report.
in the context of bellingcats ELA:
" I do not want to judge here, wether the MoD pictures are fake or not. I just want to point out, that from your analysis, it is not possible to determine if at least picture 4 is a fake. I will cover picture 5 in a later blogpost."

The report does conclude that the dates on the russian image were faked

" the date of the picture released by the MoD is indeed wrong which should make us question: Why?"

Conformation of images proving that the dates were faked
" Digital Globe IDs: 19.06.2014: 10300100338C0B00 02.07.2014: 1030010034CD4700

Compare the clouds. Yo can also see the cutover area (the area with the removed trees) in the 02.07. preview pic."

Oh and in part two of the report the author who you cited dr is referencing does confirm the sat image went through photoshop.

" Someone added the seen annotations and therefore he needs some kind of editing software. Well, in this case Adobe Photoshop"

I am actually glad you brought this up because there are a lot of propagandist waiving this doctors words around without looking at the report he is referencing.

a reply to: AlphaStrike1001

I'm not deflecting jack. The debunking used methods that are unreliable in trying to objectively prove something. If you want to tell me its not relevant then go ahead, but don't make the argument about other things.

originally posted by: AlphaStrike1001
a reply to: Greathouse

It was for sure an open and shut case yet i had posters on infowars refuse to accept such simple facts. I concluded that what ever the kgb is calling themselves now are active on that site. I think putin has put much effort into his blogging army.

KGB -> FSB and they are crawling all over InfoWars (god only knows why) and ATS

a reply to: AVoiceOfReason

The debunking used methods that are unreliable in trying to objectively prove something.

Well then as it has been asked before...can you explain why that is?

You see just saying it over, and over doesn't validate a claim you can't explain.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Russia is still at it -

M H17 Was Downed by Guided Missile - Buk Manufacturer

Engineers from the Russian Almaz-Antey corporation, manufacturer of the Buk missile system, said at a press conference Tuesday that the Malaysia Airlines flight MH17, which crashed in Ukraine on July 17, 2014, was downed by a guided missile.

The manufacturer's investigation and comparative analysis revealed the missile to be a Buk-M1 missile, which is used by the Ukrainian military.

I agree. Russia is still at it.


The 9M38M1 is still in service with the Russian Military.

Here is one displayed during 2014 in St Petersburgh.



9M38M1 catching fire in Chita during the Victory Parade in 2015.

a reply to: tommyjo

Russia also uses that missile type -



Does Ukraine Have 9M38M1 Missiles?

Earlier this week, Russian arms manufacturer Almaz-Antey presented its analysis of the downing of MH17 in an attempt to prove its “non-involvement in the MH17 tragedy.” The company concluded that while MH17 was downed by a 9M38M1 missile fired by a Buk M1, that particular type of missile has not been used by Russian forces since 1999. Bellingcat has since shown that, despite the Russian firm’s claims to the contrary, the 9M38M1 missile is still used by Russia, as seen in pictures as recent as March of this year.

Russian arms manufacturers and the Russian MoD don’t hold a monopoly on falsehoods and dubious claims, however. On June 4, Interfax quoted Ihor Smeshko, an advisor to the Ukrainian president and former head of the SBU as saying, “As far as I know, Ukraine sold its last Buk to Georgia.” Presumably, he was referring not to the Buk M1 missile system, but rather the 9M38M1 missile in response to claims that it may have been stolen from a Ukrainian military warehouse seized by rebels. According to the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms, Georgia received 48 Buk missiles from Ukraine in 2007, along with a Buk M1.

Unfortunately for Mr. Smeshko, a number of videos and pictures of Ukrainian Buks have been uploaded to social media since 2007, more than a few of which can be seen armed with 9M38M1 missiles. The 9M38M1 can be easily distinguished from other Buk missiles by its long fins:

CLICK LINK TO SEE PHOTO ATTACHMENTS


A cellphone video uploaded March 5, 2014, shows a convoy of Buks and other Ukrainian military vehicles parked along the side of a road. Four Buks (numbered 321, 312, 331, and 332, respectively) can be seen with 9M38M1 missiles.


A video uploaded on May 8, 2014 shows a Ukrainian Buk numbered 121 being hauled by a trailer. Despite the video’s title, we geolocated this video not in Kramatorsk, but the nearby city of Krasnoarmiisk.

On July 16, 2014, a day before the downing of MH17, the Ukrainian Army released a video touting its “anti-terrorism operations” in eastern Ukraine. Halfway through the video, a Buk can be seen armed with missiles displaying the long, telltale fins of the 9M38M1.


We could go on; this is just a sampling of the open source evidence confirming that Ukraine — like Russia — still employs 9M38M1 missiles on its Buk missile systems. That being said, Mr. Smeshko’s erroneous remarks only serve to distract from the real issue — and the real evidence — of who is responsible for shooting down MH17.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: tommyjo

Russia also uses that missile type -

I am sorry, but the bellingcat supplied pic looks manipulated in ELA.




They refer to a reuters pic.

Try to resize this in order to make type number prints to look like the bellingcat pic!

uk.reuters.com...

a reply to: greyhat

Russia also uses the missile type.