How difficult would it be for the SBU to paint a Ukrainian BUK launcher to look exactly like a Russian one and drive it round Ukraine for a while stopping long enough every now and then for members of the public to take photos of it and post them on social media. Unless the MH17 investigation can produce photos of the alleged BUK launcher crossing into Russia, the authenticity of the photos can and should be questioned.

The really important question is still why were commercial airliners allowed to fly over Ukrainian airspace in the east when it was clearly known that heavy SAM launchers were active and at least one high-flying aircraft had already been shot down?

There was also a rumor going around that MH17's original route was over the Black Sea, but that Kiev ATC had them alter their path in mid-flight to go over Donbass, supposedly because of inclement weather. If so, very suspicious.

The previous tracks of this daily flight were changed on flight aware. I noticed the change at the time but did not have sufficient wit to make a screen capture. But this guy did https://off-guardian.org/20...
Strong evidence of a coverup. And I very much doubt that anybody in Kiev would have been able to retroactively change the previous route tracks.

Qantas ceased flying those routes months before MH17 solely on the basis that medium range SAMs were in the ORBAT of at least one of the combatants.

The airspace is owned by Ukraine who collects air navigation charges from overflying aircraft, hence there would have been a financial incentive to keep accepting flight plans for those routes.

Tech equipment like this usually has two types of logbook. One is the daily serviceability log signed off after each functional test and inspection, and kept with the equipment, and the other is a set of maintenance logs for each system within the (eg.) missile. The latter would be held at the higher echelon maintenance facility waiting for the thing to come home and get fixed or overhauled.

If the Russians gave the munition to the Ukrainians as a permanent allocation, they would have kept basic details but would have given the maintenance books en masse to the Ukrainians due to the weight and volume of these in paper format. They would still have enough to ID what they actually sold or gave away.

The article by Pepe Escobar in Asia Times quotes the Russian MOD, which links the manufacturing serial number of two engine components back to the site of manufacturing and then tracks that forward into the final assembly - the missle. Then the Russians track the missle to the unit it was assigned to in Ukraine.

"So now we know, via declassified files, that the engine of the missile 9D131 allegedly had the serial number 8869032. And a “passport” for the nozzle cluster 9D13105000 carried the number 8-30-113. The actual missile number was 886847349, they said."

http://www.atimes.com/artic...

I guess I should add it wasn't exactly exactly excitement that made me comment twice. But ... technical ...

I did correct one of those two comments. ... Once the first showed up. Incidentally after the second. I regret this now. Somewhat.

Had no sound initially. Interestingly the Russian version works even without it. Somehow.

my initial question circled around this statement.

2. The videos are fake. The sightline evidence is, to my mind,
apodictic. I’ve seen other arguments that they are fake but these are
the most convincing. (I do like the backwards driving TEL).

.... That I surely didn't understand without sound. Or maybe not to the extend I would have liked.

Check Patrick's linked video: "Russian MoD briefing". About 26 min in.
But I like the video's slowness. Did the JIT seriously use that type of open source "evidence" too? Hard to believe. As hard to believe as the enormous success of its founder? Who even made it into our news for a short time as British expert.

Concerning Pepe, I was pleased about this:

Meanwhile, Russian Investigative Committee spokeswoman Svetlana Petrenko also challenged video footage used by Bellingcat, a UK-based citizen journalist group, allegedly proving that a self-propelled firing system of the Russian 53rd anti-aircraft missile brigade was involved in the downing of MH17.

Meanwhile, Russian Investigative Committee spokeswoman Svetlana Petrenko also challenged video footage used by Bellingcat, a UK-based citizen journalist group, allegedly proving that a self-propelled firing system of the Russian 53rd anti-aircraft missile brigade was involved in the downing of MH17.

I thought that's exactly what they do in Patrick's Russian visual evidence video link above starting around 26 minutes into. Made me look up his site: its English, French, Russian by now. ;)

thanks for the link.

Yes, that's the original manufacturer's data, and given the manufacture date's proximity to the transfer date it looks like the munitions were made specifically for a Ukraine order, which may indicate sequential serial numbers across the batch.

The actual maintenance document bundle would disclose if any internal serial numbered systems were swapped out for newer Russian hardware after 1986 during the days of Rus-Ukraine brotherly love. This would have a higher chance of occurring if the entire SAM system was on a Russian maintenance contract, however .. I think not because the Ukr's had plenty of rocket expertise and I suggest they kept the lot, maintenance document and all.

It's up to the Ukr's to produce evidence of what they say the do not have.

The "cui bono" is the first thing to investigate.
Russia had none.
Ukrainian had plenty of obvious one at that.

In fact shortly after the tragedy I was contacted by The saker francophone to developp some argument about this. Note that it was before this francophone site was re-structured.

My research focused on the Buck and their presence in Ukraine vast left-over of the URSS echelon strategy storage... with scarcely any maintenance.
Then I focuced on the proximity fuse system (a US invention from WWII, which in fact started the first electronic industry), short wawes sent and received,complicated set-up and involving springs to actually trigger the explosion.
Optimal distance was 15 to 50 meters , explosion from little above and missile coming from front (not to be on pursuit mode).

My hypothesis still is that the Buck was pre-1991 era and not very well maintained, that the explosion did occur a little prematurely, killing the crew, causing extensive damages,but not actually destroying the planning capacity.

There enter the phantom Ukrainian hunter jet giving the "coup de grace".
and this could explain the round entry holes, with on the same picture (left door of the cockpit) exit holes.

Russian defense Ministry was not fully affirmative of the presence of this fighter jet, but was fully positive on 3 buck systems with active radar (acquisition range 140 kilometers, that's 9 minutes to get ready).

The story of the pilot, there are some testimony at his landing, about a rather livid and upset fellow, he did divorce and commit suicide. What this is worse, I don't know.

note: for other reasons I did stop very fast collaborating wit the Saker Francophone.

Well the Brits keep such detailed notes of their weaponry. About 30 years ago I had the inner cocking lever of a Bofors 40/60 break, and within a few days we had all the documentation of its manufacture in Britain during WWII - names of the factory, the machinist, heat treating and quality inspection. All that for one small part of the breech block. You can guarantee that the Soviets would be just as methodical about a significant item like a missile.

The photo is too tiny, but if you click on it it opens to a better size.

"Personally, I remain to be convinced that a Buk brought it down: not enough “bowtie” fragments."

You still ignore the fact that even now the Russian admit that a BUG brought down the airplane. It was the Russian side which produced a lot of rediculous statements (ground attack plane with limited servivce hight was launching platform), faked internet sites (SU25) and then quite silently, when the official inverstigation of the debris of the PLANE could not longer be ignored, admitted that it was a BUG.

BTW: Experts were already a few days after the incident able to conclude that a ground based system must very likely be the culprit, simply by analysing the many hundred photos of the plan fragments. It was clear that a very high density of fragments were in the front section, while missliles launched by airplanes would have caused damage in other sections (esp. wings around engines).

Google is your friend https://www.youtube.com/wat...

The Buck system is composed of 3 vehicles
one is for the long range acquisition radar.
The missile does have an in-build acquisition radar but with a 35 miles range.

The idea, and Bellingcat pictures supporting it, of a lonely lorry with a missing missile, was ridiculous.

While typing i get confused and have edited: it was a picture of the left side cockpit, and it did show round entrance holes and rugged exit. An ex German pilot was positive it was gun amo marks.

Yes I did read your piece in Russia Insider the day it was published. Thanks for your work.

" An ex German pilot was positive it was gun amo marks."

Look the funny thing is that quite a lot of German officers were sure it was not gun amo marks and NOT marks of an air-to-air missile.

BTW: Not even the Russians sell this version any longer. You see your problem?

You confuse two different aspects:

1) From the pictures of the debris it could be concluded that very likely a BUG destroyed the airplane.

2) The first Russian versions were quite different. The Russians were lying for years (SU 25 brought the plane down) , only when it could not longer be avoided they changed the story.

And now you wnat to sell their nonsense agian? That is a sad joke.

Telar driving backwards is incorrect. Russian MoD mistakenly took route presented by JIT as correct. https://uploads.disquscdn.c... Another issue is if the Telar was ever in Karapatyan street in the first place. Evidence presented by JIT unconvincing: http://kremlintroll.nl/?p=1312https://uploads.disquscdn.c...

ELINT, and what we have not been told about, it is the key here.

The individual emitter characteristics of the surveillance and tracking radars associated with every BUK is in a US EORBAT database.
The chances that a BUK radar going into its CW terminal guidance mode was not intercepted and recorded are pretty slim. This was a hot war on NATO's borders, and it is likely US special forces were there, if only as observers.

So, the US will know which BUK system was used, and its deployment history (at least every location in which its radars transmitted). Their silence about this suggests that the system was Ukrainian.

Petri Krohn is unconvinced by the vanishing point argument pointing out that the Buk TEL does not sit flat on the trailer.

Yes, there seems to be something beneath the Buk-Tel, whatever it is. There are other trailer images that don't have this thing underneath. One can see it better in the video. Who is Petri Krohn?

What puzzles me me more are the "the truck's (blue)" lines. Why would you take the back of the cabin? Vs the sides as with the Buk-Tel on the trailer to make your point? For special effect? Heighten the difference to earlier neatly converging vanishing points?

Last but not least in that specific shot there is a slightly complicating camera angle. The shot is a bit sideways from the driving car. Which does not quite fit into the earlier continual straight ahead pattern.

But yes, the JIP did its best in impressive visualization too. See video below.
*******
Update in criminal investigation MH17 disaster/Narrative conference 24 May 2018. The precise numbers are given here for the first time? Publicly? Pressure on the Russian. After all one has a lot more evidence one does not show we are told. From that perspective the response is not bad. See first video linked below.

So now we have new offer for the so far main suspect, the Russian 53rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade, we are offered to look into the Ukrainian 223 Tereboylya Anti-Aircraft Brigade, now stationed in Stryi. The earlier Russian military unit 20152.

https://www.om.nl/onderwerp...

Here comes the more entertaining earlier version of the Public Prosecutors Service collection. There is more. Anyway, I vaguely remember this one. A visually coherent narrative for easy public consumption. It feels this was centrally challenged.

https://www.youtube.com/wat...

Part of the complete collection of: Presentation preliminary results criminal investigation MH17 28-09-2016"
https://www.om.nl/onderwerp...

Patrick,

Re my earlier comment, the JIT info request seemed a bit odd. You'd think they would have access to Russians who could give them chapter and verse on what these numbers mean. Any thoughts?

I haven't changed my position from this https://patrickarmstrong.ca...
Leaving the port engine intake out is all I need to convince me that it's just part of the anti-Russia war

Yes, I read your article at the time and again just now. It still makes sense to me.

Presumably the warhead on this missile identified by the MoD was of the older "non bow-tie" type (as per AA)? If so, it's all starting to look a bit like a QED, is it not?

Right from the beginning I wondered if Russia would have captured enough data to know what happened. Is that how you see it and if so, how do you rate the odds that Russia has been playing an incredibly long game on this one?

We'd all like to wish they were but my thinking is that only when the numbers appeared were they able to have an actual FACT on which they could work. All the accusations against Moscow are simple assertions with no facts you can get your teeth into. Finally the Ukes were stupid enough to present a fact.

Yes.

So are you also suggesting that whatever evidence the Russians collected at the time of the incident wasn't incontrovertible enough to overcome what would be the automatic Western presumption that it must be faked?

In other words, while the Russians may know what happened they were previously unable to prove it to the satisfaction of a sceptical audience?

2 days after https://www.google.com/imgr...

Indeed, although not quite what I meant by "sceptical audience"!

You're not suggesting that I think that the JIT is anything other than a coverup, are you?

No, not at all.

It's almost amusing. At the JIT May 24 update briefing, Politie.nl reported that the following request for information was made:

"Jennifer Hurst, Commander of the Australian Federal Police, explained, on the basis of an animation that the JIT urges the public to think about answering three specific questions about both rocket components found on the crash site.

Do you recognize the handwriting of the number on the venturi?
Do you have information about the numbers on the venturi and the casing? Or do you know anyone who knows about the meaning of those numbers?
Are you or do you know someone with information about the missile in which these parts have been placed and to which unit this missile was delivered?

Hurst: “If you have an answer to one or more of these questions, then we urgently ask you to contact the JIT.'"

So it's just the Russian MoD being a good citizen . . .

P.S. At the same briefing the JIT noted they couldn't be certain these missile fragments belonged to the one that brought down MH 17. That caveat aside, however, this does seem a rather comprehensive response from Russia.

Ingolf, they even offer witness protections programs.

Wonderful. No takers I assume?

Will we ever see the chain-of-custody record of these items ?

It would also be interesting to hear from (ex) tech intel exploitation people who have been out and about scavenging up bits of expended rocket case in the past, if in their experience the case displayed here should have been more deformed by it's terminal velocity (80 meters/second ?) impact with the ground.

PRC90,

Sorry I didn't reply earlier. I didn't, and still don't, have a useful response to either of those questions.