Satellite Images prove Russian Artillery Was Fired From Russia Into Ukraine

universitypost.dk...

It's amazing how a guy not only finds the time to figure it out but lay it out for us. Not to mention his focus shouldn't even have to be on this. Since our media is to busy laying out opinions instead of facts we'll have to leave it to guys like this at the Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences.

A University of Copenhagen scientist has been developing a new method in his spare time that has wide political implications. It shows that artillery systems were fired from Russia during the Ukrainian conflict in 2014. A fact previously denied by the Russian government.

Sean Case, is a postdoctoral researcher at the Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences, at the University of Copenhagen (UCPH). His research at university focuses on different environmental impacts associated with agriculture. However, besides this job, he has been following the Ukraine-Russia conflict on the internet for months. He decided to look at satellite imagery from Google in the Ukraine/Russia border.

a reply to: PrivilegedPeasant

My my what a surprise! The Russians send in the army...they damn sure will back the troops up with indirect munitions....especially when they are in easy shooting range.....
The Russians aren't the only liars in this conflict however.....don't forget that .....

a reply to: PrivilegedPeasant

One would think that after the US ran off to the UN to produce bogus satellite pics of the invasion into kwaite and got that crying girl to tell how Sadam was throwing babies on the floor out of incubators they might try to come up with their own legitimate satellite pics to prove their case .I guess the new way for the state dept is to use social media and this new guy might just be their go to . LOL ETA I really like the first comment to this piece .

"The results of this report can be seen on the Bellingcat blog..."
Bellingcat aka Elliot Higgins aka Brown Moses. Yes... a most trustworthy CIA asset.
thetruthserumblog.blogspot.com.au...
ELIOT HIGGINS AND THE CIA
I was hoping that the born again Eliot Higgins, previously incarnated as Brown Moses, would have seen the error of his ways and recanted.
But apparently not.
The CIA is running the neo-Nazi coup in Ukraine. The CIA is also running the Islamic State and all other Jihadi organisations in Syria. Yet Higgins is still trying to prove that Assad, defying all logic and against all other evidence on Youtube, decided to provide NATO with their perfect casus belli and kill thousands of his own people. Higgins and Belling Cat are also still pushing the theory (and that is all it is despite NATO media and politicians proclaiming it as gospel) that Russia provided the separatists with the alleged BUK that shot down MH17. So far they have not answered the bleeding obvious questions:
1. why would the separatists transport a smoking gun BUK through territory controlled by Kiev Nazis?
2. how could the separatists transport a smoking gun BUK through territory controlled by Kiev Nazis?
One of my suggestions to 2. is by magic carpet.
The point about MH17 is that NATO, with the CIA as its beating heart, has refused to make public the evidence that it claims it has to prove that MH17 was shot down by separatists, instead relying on Higgins and Belling Cat to, over a period of 4 months, produce a report that proves nothing but the vanity of Belling Cat, using nothing more than coloured squiggly lines drawn on by the authors to claim that Russia shot down MH17.
Yet the CIA has just been exposed as the lying, torturing nest of scumbags that we all knew they were before the recent report was released!!!
The CIA serves Wall Street just as MI6 serves Buckingham Palace and The City of London.
I was hoping that Higgins would recognise that maybe, just maybe, he is on the same side as liars and torturers more brutal than Islamic State. But despite tweeting and retweeting tweets that condemn and mock the CIA over this report, Higgins is still steadfast in his belief that bona fide lying torturers are being honest over Syria and Ukraine.
Dear Lord. Heaven help us if this man is helping to create the next generation of 'journalists'.

That didn't take long for the us to be faulted somehow.

Anyways, how you got your asbestoss britches on.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

One would think that after the US ran off to the UN to produce bogus satellite pics of the invasion into kwaite

Um, you do know that really did happen, so there was no reason to make bogus satellite pics of it?

And I am pretty sure Kuwait knew when Iraq invaded them so again it was real.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

You see here is where your source hurts himself...

1. why would the separatists transport a smoking gun BUK through territory controlled by Kiev Nazis?
2. how could the separatists transport a smoking gun BUK through territory controlled by Kiev Nazis?

The BUK in question was in separatists held territory and didn't drive through Ukrainian held territory, so if he can't get that right how does one believe anything else he says?

Here is a good little article on Mr. Higgins...

www.businessinsider.com...

The problem with those claiming this is all nonsense and propaganda is that this is supported by the OSCE, an INTERNATIONAL group of observers on the ground monitoring the impact sites and assessing where these strikes are coming from.

They are using identical methods to calculate the angle and direction of incoming fire, the only difference is that this guy is doing it from a safe distance. He's using exactly the same methods of calculating the impact sites and locating their origin, so unless he can magically teleport to Ukraine to falsify impact sites and somehow fake the positions of what is clearly Russian military on Russian territory, there is very little anyone can say to refute the physical evidence.

originally posted by: Rocker2013
The problem with those claiming this is all nonsense and propaganda is that this is supported by the OSCE, an INTERNATIONAL group of observers on the ground monitoring the impact sites and assessing where these strikes are coming from.

They are using identical methods to calculate the angle and direction of incoming fire, the only difference is that this guy is doing it from a safe distance. He's using exactly the same methods of calculating the impact sites and locating their origin, so unless he can magically teleport to Ukraine to falsify impact sites and somehow fake the positions of what is clearly Russian military on Russian territory, there is very little anyone can say to refute the physical evidence.

When Bellend-Cat first came up with this, the original article also stated caveats, that the calculation methods were also prone to inaccuracy and could not therefore be taken as positives.
Thus, he is full of crap, just like all the other crap that he and others keep coming out with as evidence of the many Russian invasions of Ukraine.

If NATO and the US (same thing) had any real concrete irrefutable evidence of anything at all, they'd be posting it within seconds of getting it and shouting it from the rooftops. So far, all they have shown, after all these months, has been laughable, unproven or just plain made up.

Given the amount of satellite and likely airborne surveillance they are subjecting the whole area to, the fact that they cannot produce any evidence to back up the assertions speaks volumes. Of course, the complete lack of evidence doesn't stop them constantly feeding the lies that the MSM parrot like the good little lapdogs they are.

a reply to: Rocker2013

Do you have the OSCE reports ? So far it's all been social media and anonymous sources from deep deep within the bowels of DC ...Where is the CIA reports ..They were some of the first US boots on the ground but have been silent sense this crap started .

Oh oh, Russia caught red handed in a thread with real confirmed proof.

I see the first responder went with some other source's all out disinformation assault. There's enough pro Russsians around here they should be ashamed they got scooped by a copy paster.

Another garbage anti-Russian thread using garbage evidence provided by people with known ties to Western Intelligence agencies.

OP, you've fallen for US State Department propaganda like many other ATSers.

originally posted by: stirling
a reply to: PrivilegedPeasant

My my what a surprise! The Russians send in the army...they damn sure will back the troops up with indirect munitions....especially when they are in easy shooting range.....
The Russians aren't the only liars in this conflict however.....don't forget that .....

I find it very difficult to believe that IF Russia were going to send troops in, we would still be looking for evidence of as much. If Russia had decided to send troops into Ukraine it would be extremely obvious, because they would commit a large force, which is what would be needed to achieve any meaningful military objectives. Russia has been accused of secretly deploying soldiers disguised as civilians as well. Uniformed soldiers would be one thing. If this was the case then Russia would not be trying to hide the fact that they had sent in troops. If they sent in non-uniformed fighters then this would be to hide their involvement. Now if they were trying to hide their involvement, the non-uniformed fighters they sent in would not have the logistical support of the military apparatus, because this would be a dead giveaway.

I refuse to believe Russia is that stupid when it comes to military matters. They are either trying to hide their involvement, in which case they would not make it blatantly obvious that the Russian military was supporting troops. And an artillery barrage is quite blatant and obvious. Not a barrage you say, but isolated cases of less than an entire battery, maybe even a single artillery piece? What sense does it make for a force as powerful as Russia to deploy such minute forces, when those forces have no combat power whatsoever when it comes to achieving military objectives? And war is fought for objectives, not for the sake of fighting itself. IF Russia would get involved in Ukraine, it would be for a reason, and their modern military would have precise objectives laid out by the high command.

It just makes no sense whatsoever. And what happened in Crimea is different from a military perspective, and many people have a problem understanding that Russia viewed the capture of that region, with the important Black Sea naval base, as necessary for their future military survival, and thus the survival of the entire nation if a war were to break out. They did not do it because they wanted to conquer Ukraine. Rather, their entire military strategy for that particular region hinges on that particular naval base, the possession of which gives them many more strategic options in the event of war. It is even important in peacetime where the military is concerned. There are even some economic benefits from control of the base. So that is completely different from sending forces into Ukraine after that event, and people need to realize this.

The reason I quoted the post I did is because too many people believe that Russia is waging war on Ukraine, when there is no concrete evidence that this is the case. The fighting going on is likely due to partisan forces from both countries. Just because civilians go to Ukraine from Russia to fight does not mean the Russian military sent them. It is ridiculous to think as much. And there are partisan forces in Russia and Ukraine with access to artillery as well. Then there is the fact that the article presents NO direct evidence that artillery was fired in the first place. And if it was, there is no evidence it came from Russia. A crater in the earth does not mean that artillery was responsible, and neither does multiple craters. Then you have to ask yourself what the purpose of shelling that area would be in the first place? What is there worth shelling? If there were fighters there that were being attacked, they would have been long gone after the shelling started, meaning that there was no reason to barrage the entire area and leave enormous amounts of craters. There are just too many things that make no sense or that are circumstantial or just plain guesswork. I am also skeptical that one can determine the direction of artillery fire by the craters left in the ground, considering that numerous factors will determine the size and shape of the crater, one of which is the substrate being impacted. Craters will vary in size based on the ground composition alone. It also depends on the angle at which the shells struck the ground, and the best one could do is get a very general direction of fire, by no means precise. There are just too many variables that cannot be accounted for, thus I view statements such as those made by the scientist in the article as partial propaganda. But even if there were artillery craters from a battery originating in Russia, this does not imply the military was responsible. In fact, given the proximity to the border, Ukranian military forces could have easily pulled an artillery piece or a mortar over the border, fired into Ukraine, and blamed it on Russia. This is something that has been done multiple times throughout history, in one form or another.

a reply to: JiggyPotamus

In fact, given the proximity to the border, Ukranian military forces could have easily pulled an artillery piece or a mortar over the border, fired into Ukraine, and blamed it on Russia.

Something which isn`t shown when it goes about MH17 in Western media is that the Ukrainians were right at the border of Russia already back then, becoming encircled later on (they walked over the Russian border when ammo run out (which was actually told by Western media)).

Yes that was artillery fired from Russian territory but the operators were the NAF rebels trying to take advantage of the international borders so that they are not attacked in return.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: the2ofusr1

One would think that after the US ran off to the UN to produce bogus satellite pics of the invasion into kwaite

Um, you do know that really did happen, so there was no reason to make bogus satellite pics of it?

And I am pretty sure Kuwait knew when Iraq invaded them so again it was real.

The Kuwait invasion was every bit as much a lie as the Ukraine one. I agree with him on that point.

originally posted by: victor7
Yes that was artillery fired from Russian territory but the operators were the NAF rebels trying to take advantage of the international borders so that they are not attacked in return.

So your tactic is claiming it never happened, until it's proven, then it's yes it happened but not by Russia!

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The Kuwait invasion was every bit as much a lie as the Ukraine one. I agree with him on that point.

So your saying Iraq didn't invade Kuwait?

As much as some want to believe it was a lie it did happen.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Satellite pictures far less sophisticated than these, were used before the UN to prove that Russians were in fact placing nuclear missiles in Cuba. And yes, Russia denied it then too, what else can do they do after being caught in a lie? The world knows the Russians are in Ukraine, but some just turn a blind eye because it makes it easier to ignore what's really happening....especially those who have got their hand caught in the cookie jar.

The Kuwait invasion was every bit as much a lie as the Ukraine one. I agree with him on that point.

And people never really landed on the moon. If people are going to make outragious claims against common knowledge, the least that they can do is provide some type of evidence. Lacking this, it's nothing more than propaganda. Believe the satellite photos, or don't, but those photos offer far more evidence than what I have seen to the contrary.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The Kuwait invasion was every bit as much a lie as the Ukraine one. I agree with him on that point.

So your saying Iraq didn't invade Kuwait?

As much as some want to believe it was a lie it did happen.

That is one way to interpret my post, there is one other way as well. Either neither happened or ...