True, I had no access to the wreckage but Russia and the separatists did. If there was any sign that MH17 was downed by a missile with a continuous-rod warhead you can be sure the news would be all over it.
Lots of assumptions. And I'm not aware the Russians or the separatists sent any experts to examine the wreckage. And it's another wild conjecture to assume the "news" would be all over did if they had find something. Any expert in the field would know any finding would be declared contaminated and gathered against all common procedure! So no, your reasoning does not follow.
If you claim that MH17 was destroyed by a missile with continuous-rod warhead you'd have to prove the existance of such a rod or corresponding damage. You can't ask somebody to prove that something doesn't exist
You still don't get it, do you? The only thing I'm doing is challenging your
claim. Now you try to make me have some straw theory.
Sorry but this is just not true. You are mixing up the guidance system with the proximity fuze. The proximity fuze makes sure a missile does not only detonate on impact but at a certain distance. It doesn't in any way have any effect on the target finding process.
So if you agree there might have been a proximity fuze of some kind then why do you claim the R-60 "would go for the engine and not the cockpit" while now also saying the R-60 shrapnel warhead "detonates at a certain distance". If you check the actual flight speed and penetration ability of the R-60, many scenario's might be possible how and where it exactly will detonate (since we established there's a fuze).
But we talk about massive shrapnell damage to the cockpit of MH17 and other parts which caused the plane to break apart in the air so quickly that there was no sound recorded on the voicerecorders. That's just not possible for such a small missile.
Another claim of yours which is easy to debunk by reading up on recovered voicerecorders in general. There are many circumstance where nothing could be recorded because of certain damage, cut wiring and so on. Depends where it hits and what it taken with the initial impact (of shrapnel faster than sound).
And since you brought up Flight 902: wouldn't you not agree that this wreck here looks nothing like MH17?
My point was that hitting the engine or wing clearly wouldn't stop it from damaging or penetrating the fuselage. Here are some other pictures.
The first two are a bit more fair to show and this is from something hitting the wing (missed even the hot engine but exploded still on some distance from the fuselage?!). But I'm not trying to prove any theory here. You appeared to make a claim of zero possibility and that the known impact damage would be impossible to mistake for an shrapnel warhead
. This ignoring that the R-60 not only has a (small) shrapnel warhead but you're also not able to falsify it completely ("highly unlikely" yes, I agree with that, it's not why I responded!).
PS: Do you actually claim that MH17 was shoot down with an R-60 or are you just arguing for the sake of it?
You make claims and I provide reasons why there's as of yet no 100% falsification of any
use of other weapon systems including R-60 available but now you try to make me
claim or belief something. But I deal with single, separate claims, one at the time, I'm sorry if this confuses you. As for any "sake", well, nobody is here to make money I presume but because they like puzzles, investigations, the topic or finding faults to elevate the overall body of evidence?
But if you insist, the theory for R-60 appears extremely weak, that's why I think initially the story went that some Su-25's GSh-30-2 was needed in that case to explain the clear scale of the damage, hard to imagine from one or two smaller warheads from an air-to-air missile. However I suspect that the original statement "Almaz-Antey’s experts had not “theoretically” excluded the possibility that the Boeing was hit by another type of weapon
" was including many other theoretically valid possibilities. This is normal with expert judgments. But let me assure you again that I don't contest that the BUK theory fits all the evidence way better.