1. David Coulter

    David Coulter Active Member

    The key evidence is that the object has no lateral motion in relation to the fixed blue lines of the Russia border. Airplanes can't hover! I think people are confused by the motion of the two other planes, the supposed SU25 is not moving.
     
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2014
    • Agree Agree x 5
  2. TEEJ

    TEEJ Senior Member

    The Russian Military Brief video has been posted in the above post. Obviously things can be lost in translation. The following is from the Russian Embassy in the UK.

    http://www.rusemb.org.uk/press/1865
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 24, 2014
    • Useful Useful x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  3. I wonder if SIA pilots could actually see the moment of explosion since they were only some 20-30 miles behind and probably had MH17 in sight?
     
  4. David Coulter

    David Coulter Active Member

    Of course! We would like to see what you can collect with your latest systems. For some reason I don't see that happening....
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  5. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    Nice presentation!
     
  6. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    20 miles is way too far to have seen anything....sorry. (Unless you were straining to look....even then, it's pretty damned far).
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. Tomaira

    Tomaira New Member

    Details here, looks solid to me.

    http://whoisstrelkov.wordpress.com/2014/07/23/russian-atc-lesson-101-the-phantom-su25/
     
    • Informative Informative x 4
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. thanks, I wondered how far pilots could actually see in a clear weather
     
  9. David Coulter

    David Coulter Active Member

    Yes, the blog has useful information, particularly the explanation of the meaning of the round and square identifiers. I do wonder why MH17 had a box around its details, whereas the other flights did not.
     
  10. Master Yoda

    Master Yoda New Member

    Any guys here with some radar knowledge? I find it quite strange that the Russians said their radar couldn't detect planes below 5000 meters at that distance. AFAIK Radar minimal detection height is getting increased by mountains etc. or by the curvature of the earth, which is 196m on 50km distance resp. 785m on 100km distance. Rostov is almost sea Level (70m above), Torez is on 262m. The Region generally looks quite flat.

    That claim sounds a bit strange to me.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Did they say where their radar is?
     
  12. Master Yoda

    Master Yoda New Member

    @Mick

    "The aircraft was steadily monitored by radar stations of Ust-Donetsk and Butirinskoe during 4 minutes period."

    Ust-Donetsk is about 170km from Tores. I can't find a place called Butirinskoe on Google-Earth.
     
  13. they don't want to reveal real capabilities
     
  14. Libertarian

    Libertarian Active Member Banned

    Here is a video report done by the BBC which was deleted shortly after it was put out. In it multiple eye witnesses claim seeing military aircraft next to/under the civilian plane.

    One of the theories floated here for Russia's radar data was that it is the exploding plane that their equipment falsely detected as a military plane. But these women witnessed the explosion and are saying that there was a military plane.

     
  15. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    A fighter jet would be invisible at 33,000 feet. It's too small.

    Seems far more likely they saw one of the other two large planes that were in the region. And judging relative position is very hard for anyone to do. A plane at 37,000 feet, but several more miles away can look like it is "below" another plane that it is actually above.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  16. David Coulter

    David Coulter Active Member

    Eyewitnesses to air crashes often see things that are not there. Witnesses often report that an aircraft was on fire before a crash when it was not - the fire of the crash seems to leak backward into their memory. The "airplane" that the one woman saw may well have been the center section of MH17 which does appear to have curved around to the NE before crashing. The center section was not on fire and might well look like another aircraft (see video below and note that there is no smoke or fire trail prior to impact).

    The BBC video was apparently taken down because the reporter referred to the rebels as "freedom fighters" rather than the BBC approved term "separatists".

     
    • Agree Agree x 5
  17. Juha

    Juha Member

    And if you look that video's background, you see the overcast.
    I don't know about witnesses, but I can't see trough clouds.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  18. Miss VocalCord

    Miss VocalCord Active Member

    Maybe slightly side track to this topic; but I came across this youtube video:

    Claiming the Singapore Airlines flew right behind Flight MH17.

    However when you look at the places where he claims the MH17 crash happened (e.g. Novoshakhtinsk and Shakhty) you will see these are all places in Russia not the Ukraine.
    It seems to me he has been using some flightradar site which does some kind of prediction of the flight path.
     
  19. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    This video I made shows the tracks as recorded by Flightradar24:
     
    • Like Like x 3
  20. Miss VocalCord

    Miss VocalCord Active Member

    Ah, great video. I tried to do it myself, however fligthrader24 seems restricted to only a week playback since a little while now.
     
  21. Trailspotter

    Trailspotter Senior Member

    Indeed, the Flightradar24 playback has been changed this morning spotting a new window but grossly restricted back time.
     
  22. SR1419

    SR1419 Senior Member


    Is it possible to go farther back on the flight path? This video claims ( at ~1:10) the plane took a divergent path from the normal route....and that was directed by Ukraine ATC. Do we know that to be true? ( the whole movie is a gish gallop based on incredulity)

     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  23. Juha

    Juha Member

    Very slight correction of course, maybe due weather. It's still in route L980 limits.

     
    • Informative Informative x 3
  24. mennie

    mennie New Member

    For the people who want to play with this some more, I've attached the Google Earth kml file downloaded from FlightAware on the morning of the 18th.
     

    Attached Files:

    • Useful Useful x 2
  25. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Premium version lets you go back two months.
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
  26. Jason

    Jason Senior Member

    I can't even open this attachment, is that because I don't have flightradar 24 installed on my computer?
     
  27. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Here I've attached the JSON for the FR24 data for the flight, it could probably be munged into a KML.
     

    Attached Files:

  28. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    • Agree Agree x 1
  29. Jason

    Jason Senior Member

    You're right, downloading it now, thanks. Love the green tab on the top left corner of our avatar so we know who's online, great addition
     
  30. Elfenlied

    Elfenlied Member

    Is this a reference to the spokeswoman of the State Department, Marie Harf? If so, you might want to check her bio before stating she "would definitely not have a security clearance".

    http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/biog/bureau/220636.htm
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  31. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Senior Member

    That only proves she may have had clearance in the past, not her current clearance status, as she left her previous position.
     
  32. Jason

    Jason Senior Member

    If you had top level clearance in the past, and you've been promoted to another job by the President of the US, do you think she would still have a security clearance or does the gency pull them from her. How does that work?
     
  33. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    I realize that this post is a bit off the topic, but since FR24 is referenced so often, I though I'd mention that "FlightAware" has modified their website, to "compete" (I guess) with FR:

    http://flightaware.com/squawks/view...All_Planes_Nearby_Airports_Premium_Map_Layers

    I mention this because "FA" is adding more ADS-B coverage as well. And, as a pilot, I tend to prefer the FA content as being a bit more comprehensive.

    (Side-bar)...Using 'FA' when someone you know is flying, whether en-route to or away from your location? It is SO easy to "track" them, and part of the "fun". PLUS, you can tie-in to ATC (if you want...but, that's another website: liveatc.net).
     
  34. Jason

    Jason Senior Member

    Which is better for a novice or just better all around?
     
  35. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Senior Member

    I doubt she is out of the loop completely or anything like that, but I imagine clearance is based on your current job status, not a life-time membership thing.

    Edit...
    But it's likely it was transferred if her job requires it still -
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  36. Jason

    Jason Senior Member

    So it's not like the "Godfather". :D
     
  37. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    I guess.....FR24 is more "novice-oriented". BUT....I'd suggest immersing ("immersion"?) into FlightAware, just as a learning experience.
     
  38. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    A spokesperson's security clearance or otherwise isn't really important - it isn't going to be high - even if it is with the CIA - it's going to be enough to "know" just a little more than is released to the public in order to make that release sound "good".

    This aspect of the discussion is a red herring - a favourite way for CT's to steer discussion away from specifics and into speculation, so let's try to avoid it here please!
     
  39. Elfenlied

    Elfenlied Member

    If you're going to resort to that kind of insinuations, then I'm out of here.
     
  40. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Senior Member

    Don't take it personally - you replied to a point, I replied to your point, someone else replied to my point, etc. Yes it's now kind of off-topic.
    Your point was valid in context, too much attention and it gets off-topic. It's a minor aside.