It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 7
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 07:46 AM
a reply to: Chadwickus

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

And some have doubts about the Bellingcat report...looks as though they have done their homework.

posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 08:11 AM
The whole mystery could have been solved in half a day by the autopsies of the pilots.

Some fragments are found in the bodies of flight crew, pilots. We have to investigate them to see if they are fragments of the plane. If they are not, it might be fragments of the objects, coming from outside. We’re not sure yet what these pieces are fragments of. Experts are working with bodies,” DSB spokeswoman Sara Vernooij said.

Please help me understand how parts of the fuselage was found miles behind the last FDR point? Is it possible for a plane fly without cockpit 3-4 miles after "high altitude disintegration"?

posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 08:35 AM

originally posted by: maghun
Is it possible for a plane fly without cockpit 3-4 miles after "high altitude disintegration"?

I am not an expert but it SURE is.

Wouldn't it be much, much more unlikely if a plane in motion that has been hit would immediately fall "straight down"? Obviously this is physically not possible! I would expect parts of the plane to "fly" several miles, even after disintegration.
edit on 11/15/2014 by NoRulesAllowed because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 11:31 PM
I am kind of surprised one some things about this image. First off, there was some blatant efforts to discredit it on twitter, with some so blatant they tried to claim the plane was flying the wrong direction in the wrong area!

The plane is clearly a Mig-29 or SU-27. Depending on which, it is either flying at altitude or slightly lower. The missile range suggests an R-27 missile or possible an R-73 at the limits of its range.

I tried to upload the full size image, but it seems imgur and other places do not like 5000px images. Using a mostly full 777 weight and altitude (~FL330) the plane would travel quite far even in dead free fall, and even further with some sort of gliding path that you would expect from light materials designed to create lift and reduce forward air resistance.

Seems to me that this is pretty strong evidence for being a real photo, and when you combine with with all the other evidence, such as fragmentation on the right side of fuselage, reports of fighter jets, radar reports, etc. Ukraine has both Mig-29s and SU-27s, as well as R-73 and R-27 missiles, both of which come in proximity-fragmentation varieties.


posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 11:33 PM
a reply to: Nodrak

Except that it's been proven in this thread that the "Malaysian" plane is actually a stock photo of a test 767 in Boeing colors, and not even a 777 at all.

That's an Su-27 that was photoshopped in firing the missile. It has wingtip rails, the MiG-29 doesn't.
edit on 11/15/2014 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 11:53 PM
a reply to: Zaphod58

I've scanned the thread, didn't see any posts about the logo, but I will check again. The one post about the 767 claims 777's do not have the square control surface, but I can show it does.

777ER was MH-17, shown on wikipedia with the square control surface that was disputed earlier. I also saw you talking about radar guided missiles and where they would impact on the plane. The R-73 and R-27 both use IR targeting, with the R-27 having additional radar targeting. The highest IR source would the close engine, which when struck with a proximity fragmentation missile would likely reach to cockpit, considering inertia and blast waves.

I am a bit confused by your statement about the fighter. If its an SU-27 its photoshopped? Both planes are in active Ukraine Air Force service and both are capable of using the R-27 missile and R-73.

The point about the sun direction is about the only valid argument I saw while browsing the thread. I will take another look, but I suspect the cammo pattern may be messing with that.

To address one of the arguments you made earlier as well regarding the missile size: The R-27 missile caries a 40kg warhead, while the SAM buk missiles are 60 - 70kg warheads depending on missile type. That's a pretty small deviation to try to claim the A2A missile would not be powerful enough.
edit on 16-11-2014 by Nodrak because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 12:02 AM
a reply to: Nodrak

Both planes are photoshopped. Little details are wrong, such as the tail width, and APU exhaust that sticks out behind it, that makes the 777 distinct. If you zoom in on the fuselage there is a logo forward of the wings, while Malaysian's logo is directly over the wings.

The exact same photo was used in Boeing's image gallery.

edit on 11/16/2014 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 12:40 AM
a reply to: Zaphod58

Again I am confused. They took a low resolution stock Boeing photo and expertly photoshoped out the shadows on it, but then made amature photoshop mistakes according to the people in this thread...

Unfortunately I cannot find any pictures of a 777ER200 from a top down view to provide counter evidence (the internet seems to be void of them, only 777ER300's which are a different fuselage size), so I guess Russia did it. I have already disproved the basis for the assumption that it was a 767 based on the square control surface present on 777ER200's.

posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 12:44 AM
a reply to: Nodrak

It's low enough resolution that most people aren't going to look closely at it, and see the little mistakes. This thread went five pages before anyone even tried to do a detailed analysis of the aircraft itself.

Just look at the plane in the "satellite" photo, and then at the comparison Boeing 767 from their technical page, and you can see that it's the same. What are the odds that a random 777 flying over the Ukraine would look EXACTLY like the Boeing 767 picture that was in that post? Down to the same angle of flight, and everything.

The 767 has a deeper aileron than the 777 does.

From below:

From above:
edit on 11/16/2014 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 02:07 AM
a reply to: Zaphod58

I saw the one bottom pic, but I was worried it would not be acceptable. I took that pic, and the stock Boeing pic, and the photo, and tried to achieve the same comparison that i've seen in other places.

The image overlaying the 767 stock image to the main image have been highly manipulated. I'm talking about this one:

Taking both source photos, I can only achieve the same effect by significantly altering the 767 image. The image from the bottom of the 777 requires far less manipulation to get it to fit. It also cuts off the top of the wing off the 767 picture...

Check out my subpar photoshop here: (The 767 required significant deforming to get it to 'fit')

I will say that there are some points that are solidly showing this photo is not all it seems to be. Namely the Clouds and the calculated camera height. Also I wanted to tank you for taking the time to consider what I'm writing.

posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 02:39 AM
a reply to: Nodrak

There's no chance that a random 777 flight is going to match perfectly with a stock 767 picture from Boeing though. Down to the shadow on the forward fuselage showing a logo.

Look at your, as you put it, subpar photoshop. The elevators on the 777 don't match up. The ones on the plane in the picture are wider, as are the 767 elevators.



You can see it some in both those pictures. The 767 elevators are slightly shorter and fatter, while the 777's are longer and thinner.

posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 02:43 AM
I have a journalist as a source may i add in what he says about this? according to hi he has different opinion on this issues.
edit on 16-11-2014 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 03:52 AM
I made a massive mistake in regards to the distance between the two aircraft. Indeed the ground distance is ~50km as people have been mentioning, but the camera angle makes the aerial distance between the two planes roughly only 700m, which is apparently within the 30mm's effective range. Just some more food for thought.

posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 05:31 AM
a reply to: Agent_USA_Supporter

I have a journalist as a source may i add in what he says about this? according to hi he has different opinion on this issues.

Well tell your source they already debunked it in the original forum it was posted.

Better yet ask your source how the name on the plane mysteriously moved before being shot enjoy.

the Malaysian plane with it's logo...

Now the one from the so called satellite pic...

So does your source believe it to be the same plane because if he does your source is terribly wrong and the report is a sham.

And the good folks at Bellingcat proved it.

posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 05:51 AM
a reply to: Zaphod58

The image appears to show either an F-22 Raptor or an F-14 Tomcat.

The swept back wings are pretty characteristic.

You keep pointing that a ground to air or an air to air radar or IR guided missile would either home in on the largest part of MH17, like the fuselage if the missile was radar guided, or home in on a heat source, like the engines, if the missile was IR guided.

You don't mention though there are guided missiles that are neither IR or radar guided, but use laser painting or purely optical guidance or are hybrids of both types....the pilot paints (illuminates) a laser beam on the part of MH17 he or she wished to hit and the missile goes where the laser is painted...this could easily have been the cockpit...take out the cockpit, you prevent the pilots from raising hell on the radio and letting the cat out of the bag by reporting who was attacking them, and with the cockpit destroyed and pilots dead, you are assured of killing the aircraft.

Most of these missile with alternative guidance systems could have been specially retrofitted to an F-22 or a F-14, even if these fighters didn't ordinarily carry a particular or specific Laser or hybrid guidance missile, each plane could easily have been customised for a one off kill mission like MH17 seems to have been, with the 20mm Gatling cannon making sure of things if needed.

I point this out as we all know, where there is a will there is always a way..especially where international shenanigans, and political crap slinging and propaganda values are highly evident as they are in this case.

The bottom line for me, as an untrained, armchair spectator is a fairly simple is highly likely Kiev downed MH17, supported and abetted by Western / European powers for strategic Anti-rebel propaganda purposes. The coup was most likely instigated by the West for geopolitical purposes, to install a more Euro / West friendly regime in Ukraine, with Ukraine being strategically important geographically for expansion of military assets and equipment such as missile placements smack dab on and along the Russian border.

posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 06:13 AM
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Ukrainian TV professional analysis:

posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 06:17 AM
a reply to: MysterX

The image appears to show either an F-22 Raptor or an F-14 Tomcat.

Or it shows an SU 27 or a Mig 29...

Both Russian made planes...not even close to an American made plane.

And by looking at the pic it appears to be the SU 27.

posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 06:24 AM
a reply to: maghun

Ukrainian TV professional analysis:

Imagine that Putin flying a Israeli jet.

But this is closer to the truth than your OP...

And please provide a source for the pic you posted.

Here is where you can find the pic I posted and more info on the pic in the OP as being fake.
edit on 16-11-2014 by tsurfer2000h because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 06:59 AM

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: Zaphod58

The image appears to show either an F-22 Raptor or an F-14 Tomcat.

The swept back wings are pretty characteristic., like...oh dear goodness gracious...for real?

You man, you just went full retard with that statement. How can you confuse the shape of a Raptor with that of a Tomcat and that of a Flanker? I think it's high time for you to change your glasses.

Have you even cared taking a look at the Bellingcat report?

Here, for you. Read, compare and check everything you yourself need for getting a better understanding of the situation:

You'll be able to find things like this picture here:

Which confirms the nature of the weapon used to shoot down MH 17 and its angle of impact in regards to the aircraft fuselage. And many other things.

Please, i know ATS is a conspiracy site but have a look at how real things work before coming up with wild speculations.

edit on 16-11-2014 by CiTrus90 because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-11-2014 by CiTrus90 because: spelling...

posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 08:30 AM
a reply to: MysterX

Are you serious? That's not even desperate reaching, that's just pulling crap out of the air. The F-22 has a diamond wing shape, that looks nothing like the fighter in the picture, and the F-14 is only flying in Iran anymore, so apparently the Iranians did it. It has a thinner wing than the fighter in the picture as well. Not to mention that the plane in the picture has missile rails on the wingtips, which means it must have been an F-16!



It doesn't look ANYTHING like those.

As for missiles with alternative guidance, except for optical guidance, which is rare, air to air missiles are almost exclusively radar and IR guided, because of range, and other issues. It's extremely difficult to hold a laser on a maneuvering target to guide a missile for ANY length of time, and you don't design a missile that's useless unless you're against a large non-maneuvering target. Then when you arm with it, and you end up against fighters, you're screwed.

Optically guided missiles, in an antiaircraft, or air to air role, aren't targeted against specific places on the aircraft, they use optical algorithms to determine planform the aircraft and still hit near the middle of the aircraft.

Unless you're going to say that they used a ground attack missile to do it, which isn't going to leave a signature anywhere near what we see with MH17.

Nice try at making things up though.

new topics

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in