Claim BUK launcher trucked out of Ukraine

Viking

New Member
It looks like it's a handrail attached to the trailer - probably on both sides. If you look at the pic there is a small shadow on trailer side, not from cabin. Also when looking the lukansk video the handrail changes it's position in relation to cabin -> must be part of the trailer.
volvobuk.jpg

And what comes to loading - it's perfectly normal to reverse the load against "goose neck". Weight of the Telar is 34 tonnes which is quite a full load even for a triple axle trailer.
 
Last edited:

Rob

Member
DuceT4ep,
In that interview, allegedly a member of the Ukraine armed forces, claims (forgive me if I did not translate this right) that :

"There’s a friend or foe comms exchange between the complex units, so you are right, it couldn’t have happened accidentally."

Is that alleged member of the Ukraine armed forces correct in that statement ?
Does a single BUK TELAR have a "friend-or-foe" discriminator ?
 

Ray Von Geezer

Senior Member.
DuceT4ep,
In that interview, allegedly a member of the Ukraine armed forces, claims (forgive me if I did not translate this right) that :

"There’s a friend or foe comms exchange between the complex units, so you are right, it couldn’t have happened accidentally."

Is that alleged member of the Ukraine armed forces correct in that statement ?
Does a single BUK TELAR have a "friend-or-foe" discriminator ?
I think he's correct in that it does have IFF, but I don't think that necessarily excludes the chance of an accident.

I posted a link in one of the threads to TELAR specs which showed it does have IFF, but it's a fairly limited version which requires "friendlies" to transmit a specific ID code, and any craft not transmitting the code is assumed to be "foe".

That would mean the IFF system couldn't be relied upon in an area where neutral aircraft were flying.

Ray Von
 

DucneT4ep

New Member
DuceT4ep,...
Does a single BUK TELAR have a "friend-or-foe" discriminator ?
Sorry, but I don`t know how it is in real life.
Let me quote part of the interview
So, sergeant claims if there was launch to hit the plane it cannot be ocassional.

There is interesting moment about redislocation of 312 vehicle. I working on stenogram. My fault i must did it much earlier. Unfortunately, sergeant often uses junk words.
 

DucneT4ep

New Member
Sorry for my being absent. Here is part of the interview that I promised but in russian:
I need to make elaboration. In this part sergeant and Shariy are talking about photo at 05:50 of the interview. Why it is important in my opinion. The case is that this photo was illustration of SBU statement about the BUK trucking out on its website http://www.sbu.gov.ua/sbu/control/uk/publish/article?art_id=129099&cat_id=128580 . But this page was edited few times and this photo dissapeared. Let`s see CNN interview with Naida http://outfront.blogs.cnn.com/2014/07/22/ukraine-russian-officer-fired-missile-that-downed-mh17/ . I can`t find it at Youtube, so if you can tell me link and I will add it to my post. At
00:33 we see laptop with that night photo of BUK312 on flat-bed truck and screenshot of video of trucking out through Krasnodon. But in real the night photo was made much earlier, in March 2014. And the BUK was being trucking to Kramatorsk as sergeant said there was fire accident at wire system because someone tried to start moving the vehicle and forgot to release parking brake.

In this interview sergeant made actual error when description of photo at 03:49. He said at 03:43 :
Sergeant pointed wrong place. He said it is Lugansk and there is coalmine "Yubileinaya" on the backround. I think he got lost in details because the place on background is coalmine Luganskaya in town Yubileinoye https://www.google.ru/maps/@48.5530047,39.1758054,464m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=eng . And the BUK possible somewere here https://www.google.ru/maps/@48.6092233,39.2319846,511m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=eng .
 

Rob

Member
DucneT4ep, here is a jpg for the picture of Ukrainian BUK 312 from the Anatoly Shariy interview you are talking about :
http://www.shoutwiki.com/w/images/acloserlookonsyria/a/af/Buk_312_in_Lugansk.png

Your geo-location for this picture makes sense.
For example, the background of the picture matches quite closely with this picture of the Yubileinoye mine :
http://www.panoramio.com/photo/74269647

Which suggests that indeed the background is the Yubileinoye mine, and the picture has been taken from north-eastern direction, and because the horizon in the picture cuts right through the chimney, it has been taken from a higher elevation (probably some 200 feet higher) than the mine itself.
All that matches with the position 48.6092233 , 39.2319846 which you suggest as the plausible location of where the picture is taken from. There are some launch-hills visible at that location, and it is the highest spot in the neighborhood, which would be a perfect location to position an anti-aircraft missile system.

Since this location is some 7 km away from the Yubileinoye mine, the photographer used as 200 mm lens at the least. That also means that the phone was taken at least 300 meters behind the BUK.
However, 300 meters behind (towards the north-east) your location, the land elevation is lower than at the BUK location itself.

Which raises the question of where exactly the photographer was located when this picture was taken.
 

Rob

Member
Specifically, with a BUK being some 3 meters high, and the launch hill maybe 5 meters high, and the fact that (according to GoogleEarth) the elevation of the land 300 meter behind the launch hill is some 30 ft (some 10 meters) lower, the photographer who took this picture would have to be hovering in the air some 18 meters above the ground for the top of the BUK to line up with the horizon (as it does in the image).

It seems that we need to consider the possibility that this picture released by Anatoly Shariy consists of two images. The background which clearly is the Yubileinoye mine, and the foreground which may originate from something or somewhere else.
 

Rob

Member
Regarding this picture from Ukraine BUK 312, with the Luganskaya mine in the town of Yubileinoye in the background:

Buk_312_in_Lugansk.jpg

contrary to what I stated before, it may be a genuine picture taken from army base A 0194 (48.6092233 , 39.2319846).

I came to that conclusion by accurately calculating how far behind the BUK the photographer must have been standing :

We know that a BUK TELAR is 3.25 meter wide and 9.3 meter long.
Counting the pixels for the side (74 pixels) and the length of the BUK (313 pixels), suggests that this picture has been taken under about a 56 degree angle w.r.t. the BUK itself. Thus, the length of the BUK 'appears' on the picture as being cos(56) * 9.3 = 0.56 * 9.3 = 5.2 meter long, still covering 313 pixels on the image.

The chimney in the background (from the mine) is about 125 meter tall (based on the shadow it casts in GoogleEarth's satellite images, and NOAA's solar calculator) and it spans some 97 pixels in the image.

We also know that the distance between this army base A 0194 and the Chimney at the mine in Yubileinoye is some 7.5 km.

That means that the photographer must have been standing 5.2/313 * 125/97 * 7500m = 160 m behind the BUK.

That is considerably less than the 300 meters I assessed before, and it allows the following configuration :


BUK312-Luhansk_1.jpg


The separation between the camera and the BUK is 145 meter in GoogleEarth, which is close enough to to the 160 m we calculated from analyzing the picture.

This new analysis no longer suffers from the "floating photographer" issue I mentioned before, because the picture is taken at from another launch hill, at the same level as the BUK itself. The electrical wires may visible in the picture may very well be electrical wires that connect the lighting poles that surround the building in the center of the base, and the horizon may appear higher than normal because the land in the background slopes upward (some 300 meters over the next 45 km).

This suggests that the picture of the Ukrainian BUK 312 may have been genuinely taken from army base A 0194.

The question remaining is...when ?
 

Rob

Member
Regarding WHEN that picture of Ukrainian BUK 312 was taken at army base A 0194, the interview actually gives a clue :

If that statement is true, and BUK 312 left Luhansk in march 2014, then this picture has been taken before march 2014, and thus is irrelevant to the question which BUK is responsible for MH17's demise. Which raises the question of why this guy was interviewed in the first place.
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
http://tinyurl.com/nluxeas
 

Rob

Member
It seems that there is a fair amount of interest on the subject of Bellingcat's open source investigation of the Russian Defense Ministry's satellite images of airbase A-1428.
Clearly this discussion is off-topic on this thread about the Luhansk BUK video.

So, I have a request for Pete Tar, or other MetaBunk moderator :
Can we start a separate thread on this subject ?

I'd suggest to move all comments starting from #254 to that new MH17 thread.
As for a title of that new thread, I'd suggest something that covers the discussed issue of the ongoing investigation :

"Open Source investigation of Russian Defense Ministry airbase A-1428 images"

or limit to the specific claims already made by Bellingcat team :

"Claim: Russian Defense Ministry images have been photographed before 17 July 2014".

and, open the floor for other suggestions to bring some structure to this discussion that is decidedly in the wrong thread.
 

Rob

Member
Thanks Pete ! Appreciate your intervention.

Will you retire the moved posts from this thread, or will they stay around ?
 
http://tinyurl.com/nluxeas
Is there any more discussion of Almaz-Antey's claims? Particularly the claim that the missile cannot have been fired from Snizhne?
(apologies if this is the wrong place to ask..I came here to see if that claim was debunked)
I read about it here http://7mei.nl/2015/06/03/mh17-bad-day-for-the-putin-did-it-crowd/
 

David Coulter

Senior Member.
Is there any more discussion of Almaz-Antey's claims? Particularly the claim that the missile cannot have been fired from Snizhne?
(apologies if this is the wrong place to ask..I came here to see if that claim was debunked)
I read about it here http://7mei.nl/2015/06/03/mh17-bad-day-for-the-putin-did-it-crowd/
Anti-aircraft missiles do a lot of maneuvering as they home in on a target - it is not a straight line trajectory as shown in the mei.nl report. Here is a video of an Iranian system that illustrates this - note that it did a 180 to hit the target drone:
The weights of evidence, which are documented in detail at bellingcat and here, indicate that Russia provided the buks and then rapidly recalled them (with a missing missile) after the MH17 disaster. The defenders of the Russian position tend to only "ask questions" rather than present solid evidence. The arguments don't even make sense - there are simultaneous claims that the Ukrainians shot down the aircraft with a buk and an air-to-air missile from a fighter hiding behind MH17.
 

Herman Aven

Member
Anti-aircraft missiles do a lot of maneuvering as they home in on a target - it is not a straight line trajectory as shown in the mei.nl report. Here is a video of an Iranian system that illustrates this - note that it did a 180 to hit the target drone:
All these type of missiles go for the shortest route which is obviously not a straight line because of the moving target and also engine irregularities will need some correction. But I think that second video on that page (Vimeo) explains the stuff about possible trajectories. Where do you see a specific "straight line" suggested? The impact line has been established because of the perforation of the shrapnel at a speed faster than sound, at that stage there is no rocket, only the warhead exploding and propelling the shrapnel with the rocket inertia.

The arguments don't even make sense - there are simultaneous claims that the Ukrainians shot down the aircraft with a buk and an air-to-air missile from a fighter hiding behind MH17.
AFAIK, there were simultaneous questions from the Russian MoD about the deployed BUKs and possible radar signatures of a fighters already asked publicly since July 2014, obviously as PR statement. It's unclear to me why that "doesn't make sense". The interpretation of their radar data of the jet doesn't appear right so far, but that's something different. It's not really like they changed their line of inquiry. And I'd welcome a precise source of the original Su-25 air-to-air missile theory. I know the Russians claimed originally they tracked one but that's not the same as putting forward a theory or claim on the downing of Mh-17.
 

David Coulter

Senior Member.
OK, it is sliding OT in this thread again. Herman, I suggest you start a new thread to continue this: "Claim: MH17 BUK could not have come from separatist controlled territory".
 

Hannibal

Member
And I'd welcome a precise source of the original Su-25 air-to-air missile theory. I know the Russians claimed originally they tracked one but that's not the same as putting forward a theory or claim on the downing of Mh-17.
I guess this was the source: http://www.mid.ru/brp_4.nsf/0/ECD62987D4816CA344257D1D00251C76

 
AS we know that the separatists captured a buk on June 29 (one which the Ukrainians said was broken). How do we know that the photos which supposedly show a buk leaving Ukraine aren't that buk?
 
william said "AS we know that the separatists captured a buk on June 29"

No william, we don't "know" that.
In fact, there is some pretty good evidence that the "separatists" tried to fool us all.
After all, if they would really have captured a buk on June 29, 2014, why were they posting pictures of a BUK from 2010 from an army base they never controlled ?
http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/10/google-earth-shows-russia-used-photos.html
I thought I had seen plenty of evidence from both sides that they did.I'll have another look over it and maybe start a new thread if it seems worthwhile. :) I had thought that the Ukrainian Dmitrashkovsky admitted that one inoperative buk had been left at the place captured by the separatists
 
Last edited:

Rob

Member
I thought I had seen plenty of evidence from both sides that they did.I'll have another look over it and maybe start a new thread if it seems worthwhile. :) I had thought that the Ukrainian Dmitrashkovsky admitted that one inoperative buk had been left at the place captured by the separatists
As far as I can see, the original source of the alleged Dmitrashkovsky "admission" of a captured BUK from army base A1402 is a newswire from a RUSSIAN news agency (interfax.ru).

But go ahead, and file a new thread on this if you want.

I see that you joined MetaBunk last Saturday, and you have already spread 3 myths since then, including one new thread.

I guess you are here for a reason.
 
Last edited:

triumph61

Member
There are TWO Depots nearby the Donesk Airport. The A1402 Depot is about 500m South of Airport and was captured at 29.June. There were no BUK System at that time. UA get them off before.
The other Deport A1428, known from Russian SAT Pics and Bellincat, is about 5-10km North of Airport. It is not captured, "only" Radarsystems are destroyed. There is the damaged Buk placed. This BUK is shown at the SAT Pics of RUssian MoD.
http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.de/2014/10/ukraine-destroyed-buks-that-were-at.html

BTW. If you take Google Earth,Change History Date to 16.July2014 and go to 48.544896°, 39.215812°. You have to zoom in! It shows a white Truck with "something" loaded and going to South.
Another "Thing" is seen a few km to East 48.558102° 39.231696°
 
I see that you joined MetaBunk last Saturday, and you have already spread 3 myths since then, including one new thread.I guess you are here for a reason.
I joined months ago. I came to post to see whether people here were interested in the evidence and wanted to discuss the evidence. If you want to get personal and question my motives then lets do it on another forum, and not mess this one up.
In the mean time if you think I'm posting "myths" you might like to debunk this "myth". ;)
https://www.metabunk.org/was-mh17-downed-by-a-buk-fired-from-zaroshens’kye.t6345/#post-155758
 
Last edited:
I've seen a lot of references to the "Torez" photo in this thread, which appears to be taken on a bright sunny day.
Has anyone verified that the weather was in fact sunny that day in Torez?
Secondly, is the truck pointed in the right direction?
 
It seems like most of the "evidence" about the downing of the plane gets deleted or the youtube video vanishes or something like that. The truth of what happened is there, but it's there in the hard evidence yet to be released. In the plane, in the bodies of the victims, on the audio tapes we may never hear.
Diiferent rockets from diferent positions make different marks in the plane. This evidence is still there.
 

Spectrar Ghost

Senior Member.
As shown here or in another thread, SAMs do not travel in a straight line to their targets. The only solid evidence of culpability would be serial numbers that could be backtracked. Given how long separatists controlled the site before investigators arrived, a Ukrainian serial would have been shown and a Russian serial removed. More than circumstantial evidence will be hard to come by.
 

Herman Aven

Member
As shown here or in another thread, SAMs do not travel in a straight line to their targets.
Any more substance to that claim? The missile has proportional navigation and indeed constantly corrects but the target was flying almost a straight-line, constant-velocity course and the horizontal perspective of the missile will therefore be close to a straight line.

As I wrote before, there will be some corrections because of fuel irregularities but it won't be that much that not some error margin couldn't be calculated and still limit the size of possible launch zones.

Some of the video which people have shown do not tell you the nature of the target and are worthless as evidence of the general purpose of a SAM to reach as fast as possible his target without spending fuel on needless acrobatics.
 
As shown here or in another thread, SAMs do not travel in a straight line to their targets. The only solid evidence of culpability would be serial numbers that could be backtracked. Given how long separatists controlled the site before investigators arrived, a Ukrainian serial would have been shown and a Russian serial removed. More than circumstantial evidence will be hard to come by.
If you have a trajectory for how a buk missile that was allegedly fired almost head on to an oncoming plane could possibly intersect the plane at almost 90 degrees then can you please post it in the appropriate thread?
If there is no possible trajectory for this scenario it can't have happened even if SAMs dont go in a perfect straight line.
I think you will find there is no possibly trajectory for this specific scenario.
Thanks
 

ArnoldG

New Member
In what timezone did you make the screenshot of the tweet (that you posted in the attachment)? I am trying to establish the exact time it was sent. Thnx, in advance!

I've not seen this one posted. Apologies if I have missed it? Video footage of a Buk movement claimed to be on 17/7/14 at 11:40.

Filmed in Zuhres travelling on H21 towards Torez. Zuhres is between Donetsk and Snizhne.

48.016970 38.301823]

Attachment was posted at: https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/upload_2014-7-23_16-33-7-png.8126/
 

TEEJ

Senior Member.
In what timezone did you make the screenshot of the tweet (that you posted in the attachment)? I am trying to establish the exact time it was sent. Thnx, in advance!
I made the screen shot on 23rd July 2014 at 16:33PM. That would be 16:33PM British Summer Time. Offset: UTC/GMT + 1 hour.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
M Claim: UFO performs sharp maneuver after laser pointer directly hits craft UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 20
Critical Thinker Claim: Correlations Between Media Preference and Coronavirus Infection Rates Coronavirus COVID-19 11
L Claim: NASA is doctoring an image [Scanner Dirt] UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 7
Z.W. Wolf Claim: Martin Gugino Was Using a "Police Tracker." Conspiracy Theories 42
Rory Claim: A dog in Manchester could sense its owner's return by unknown means UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 21
jarlrmai Claim: UFO following jet into landing at JFK on 11/11/19 UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 15
Dingo Claim: U.S. Covid-19 Deaths are being Artificially Inflated Coronavirus COVID-19 38
W Claim: The Heart Is Not A Pump Health and Quackery 6
J Another sun path claim Flat Earth 4
J Claim sun paths prove flat earth Flat Earth 41
R Claim: Apollo 15-17 Live TV Feed - Antenna signal would be interrupted from all the violent shaking when Astronauts touch the buggy General Discussion 26
Rory Claim: Spanish flu caused by radio waves Coronavirus COVID-19 3
J [False] Claim that Scale Model of 2017 Eclipse Disproves the Heliocentric Model Flat Earth 29
Rory Claim: UK Coronavirus Bill (HC Bill 122) means "bad things" Coronavirus COVID-19 9
Mick West Claim: China Mobile loses 8.116 Million subscribers because of Coronavirus Coronavirus COVID-19 2
Agent K Claim: Harvey Weinstein has coronavirus Coronavirus COVID-19 9
Mick West Claim: Julian Assange offered pardon to "Lie" for Trump Current Events 20
Jesse3959 FE Claim Debunked: JTolan Epic Gravity Experiment - Flat earther disproves Perspective! (or his instruments.) Flat Earth 0
Wiggles Claim: Distant Objects Being Obscured Is Due To the "Mirror Blocking" Effect of Inferior Mirages Flat Earth 7
Mick West Claim: Section 13.1 on Vaccine Inserts Removed to Hide that Vaccines not Tested to Cause Cancer Conspiracy Theories 7
Rory Claim: footage of Great South Bay Bridge supports flat earth Flat Earth 11
mudr0 Claim: Australia was not visible from the moon for Apollo 11 Broadcasts Conspiracy Theories 7
Z.W. Wolf Claim: Moon Passing The Meridian Disproves Globe Earth Flat Earth 0
Z.W. Wolf Claim: Seeing The Same Stars All Year Disproves Globe Earth Flat Earth 20
Mick West Claim: Fertility Clinics are a new thing (David Icke) Conspiracy Theories 12
Rory Claim: Nasa' in Hebrew means "to deceive" Flat Earth 11
Leifer Claim: magnetic dust on cars proves chemtrail fallout Contrails and Chemtrails 11
Neil Obstat Claim: zooming in on setting sun proves flat earth Flat Earth 23
Marin B Claim: Passenger luggage limited to make room for chemical tanks Contrails and Chemtrails 15
MikeG Claim: DC officials are "flocking" to "Doomsday Camps" Conspiracy Theories 4
StarGazer Convex Earth Claim: Ships Disappear Below The Horizon Due To A Optical Phenomena Flat Earth 3
Nth Claim: 146 Mile Microwave Transmission Proves Flat Earth Flat Earth 26
FlightMuj Apollo 12 photo analysis shows Sun as bulb [claim] Conspiracy Theories 19
inkwell American Airlines Flight 77 Missing from Bureau of Transportation Departure Report 9/11 12
ConfusedHominid Need Debunking (Claim): Metabunk Curve Calculator Does Not Calculate for Angular Size Flat Earth 13
derwoodii Claim Melania Trump has a double, will the real 1st lady please stand up Conspiracy Theories 11
StarGazer Claim: First Image of Space Taken from V-2 Rocket Proves the Earth is Flat Flat Earth 17
Z.W. Wolf Claim: The Moon's Shadow During The Solar Eclipse Disproves Sphere Earth Flat Earth 97
B Claim: Flu vaccine from multi-dose vials Use Too Much Mercury Health and Quackery 19
SR1419 Claim: 757s cant dump fuel. (True) Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 7
ki_cz Claim: Satellite imagery showing 'sheet' of contrails Contrails and Chemtrails 7
Mick West AE911 Truth Forced to Claim Plasco Collapse is an Inside Job 9/11 336
vaccine papers Claim: flu vaccine increases risk of non-influenza infection Health and Quackery 8
Rory Claim: Japanese man puts animals to sleep with chi UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 23
MikeC Claim: FAA conspiring with Police to limit news access to Black Rock General Discussion 3
derwoodii Claim The seabed around Kaikoura, New Zealand has risen by up to 1.8 m earthquake General Discussion 20
Abishua Claim: water in moonlight cools faster than water not in moonlight [False] Science and Pseudoscience 160
MikeC Claim: New Zealand quakes man made...... Conspiracy Theories 4
TEEJ Claim of "UFO" interacting with "Chemtrail", Paris, France, 28th September 2016 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 2
Provemewrong Explained: Why flying isn't impossible on a globe Flat Earth 106
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top