Claim BUK launcher trucked out of Ukraine

Ray Von Geezer said:
I could be wrong, but from comparing to other trucks on Google images it looks like a Volvo FH12, without fairings.

The airline rig on the back of all the FH12's I can find don't resemble what he describes as a handrail/airbrake bracket - they're lower down and seem to be flat against the back of the cab. Here's one for sale on eBay, along with some examples

It could have been modified or a different version, or maybe it's actually a trolley or something which isn't fixed to the cab.
https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/2295e64471f140a37e52a047e2d8be7d.jpg']https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/2295e64471f140a37e52a047e2d8be7d.jpg']
https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/2295e64471f140a37e52a047e2d8be7d.jpg']https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/2295e64471f140a37e52a047e2d8be7d.jpg']As far as the side markings go, a couple of the pictures are too low res to tell either way for my money.
https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/2295e64471f140a37e52a047e2d8be7d.jpg']https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/2295e64471f140a37e52a047e2d8be7d.jpg']
https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/2295e64471f140a37e52a047e2d8be7d.jpg']https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/2295e64471f140a37e52a047e2d8be7d.jpg']Ray Von
Click to expand...

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:
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 ?
 
Rob said:
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 ?
Click to expand...
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
 
Rob said:
DuceT4ep,...
Does a single BUK TELAR have a "friend-or-foe" discriminator ?
Click to expand...
Sorry, but I don`t know how it is in real life.
Let me quote part of the interview
External Quote:

13:04
Shariy «Ну получится», «ну получится», ну там серьезно же, там надо получить информацию о том, что вот он идет на определенной высоте, то есть, координаты там. Это же все не просто там «нажал на кнопочку»?
Sergeant Ну да, да, да, да, да. Там получается есть такая кнопка «запрос-ответ» И на эту кнопку(?), нажимает эту кнопку и должен прийти запрос что то «свой-чужой», грубо говоря, вот так. И просто так оно никак не могло получится.
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.
 
Sorry for my being absent. Here is part of the interview that I promised but in russian:
External Quote:

0-28
Shariy
Алло, добрый день
Sergeant
Добрый день. Так приятно с вами разговаривать
Shariy
Серьезно?
Sergeant
Да не, я просто смотрю время (время на вас видео?) уже все время, последнее время и очень даже вы раскрываете правду, так сказать (неразборчиво?) . Я, мне сейчас 23 года, и я служил в украинской армии на контракте. То есть, у меня летом этим закончился контракт и меня они уволили потому, что вы уже знаете, наверное, почему. Как бы, я свой контракт отслужил. Я служил именно вот в этой СОУ, это самоходная огневая установка комплекса БУК. То, что вы делали видео, то, что недавно я его увидел. Я видел там в интернете фотографии , то что вот эти шли - везли СОУ, это получается именно моя самоходная огневая установка. Там в расчете четыре человека, начальник обслуги, я как сержант -(?) заместитель начальника обслуги, водитель и оператор еще один.

То есть, вот эта самоходная огневая установка, к которой вы готовили видео, ее везли в Краматорск. Она вообще с Луганска. Эта установка есть в Украине, получается, есть полк в Донецке, зенитно ракетный, в котором (неразборчиво?) есть этот комплекс БУК-М1. В этом полку три дивизиона. Получается, я вам сейчас расскажу вот 312 расшифровка. 312, «тройка» первая, это третий дивизион, третий дивизион это луганский дивизион. Есть еще мариупольский дивизион, это второй, и первый дивизион это Авдеевка. Получается «тройка» это значение дивизиона третьего (третья). «Первая» цифра, «единица», это батарея, первая батарея, я был в первой батарее, вот это моя СОУ. А «вторая» — это обслуга. Есть в каждой батарее по две обслуги. Если вы там читали за БУК комплекс там есть самоходная огневая установка, вот эта, то вот у вас фотография 312-я , есть ПЗУ, она заряжает вот эти СВУ, это на украинском СОУ.

И вот эта вот 312-я, она именно стреляет по, ну то что вот, как предполагаемо, Боинг сбили .
Ну за Боинг не знаю, потому что нас, когда это вот началось, мы сами базировались в Луганске. Когда начался в Крыму захват воинских частей нас кинули в поле . Но сначала кинули в Краматорск . Мы вот, эта вот фотография, которая я не знаю как , там где на тралах, это вторая перебазировка получается.
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 :
External Quote:

Вот эта фотография именно с Луганска, там шахта сзади, "Юбилейная". Получается, воинская часть находится в поселке Металлист и видно шахту "Юбилейная" с вот этой, вот там возвышенность. Очень смешно было, все кто в воинской части этой моей были, в луганском дивизионе, то есть, все знают этот бук , ну, а СБУ говорит, я слышал, что СБУ говорит что это бук ополченцев или русский бук, ну там, по-разному.
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 .
 
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.
 
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.
 
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 ?
 
Regarding WHEN that picture of Ukrainian BUK 312 was taken at army base A 0194, the interview actually gives a clue :

External Quote:
when it all began in the Crimea, this capture of military units, we've been ordered to leave our permanent disposition in Lugansk.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/shooti...-story-false-says-ukraine-crew-member/5420405
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.
 
External Quote:
THE Russian maker of the Buk air defence missile system has concluded that Malaysian Airlines flight 17 was downed by an older version of the missile, which isn't in service with the Russian military but is in Ukrainian arsenals.
http://tinyurl.com/nluxeas
 
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.
 
Thanks Pete ! Appreciate your intervention.

Will you retire the moved posts from this thread, or will they stay around ?
 
SR1419 said:
External Quote:
THE Russian maker of the Buk air defence missile system has concluded that Malaysian Airlines flight 17 was downed by an older version of the missile, which isn't in service with the Russian military but is in Ukrainian arsenals.
http://tinyurl.com/nluxeas
Click to expand...
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/
 
william wiley said:
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/
Click to expand...

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.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Rob
David Coulter said:
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:
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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".
 
Herman Aven said:
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.
Click to expand...
I guess this was the source: http://www.mid.ru/brp_4.nsf/0/ECD62987D4816CA344257D1D00251C76

External Quote:
Flight from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur. Besides it, Russian system of air control detected the Ukrainian Air Force aircraft, purposed Su-25, moving upwards toward to the Malaysian Boeing-777. The distance between aircrafts was 3-5 kilometers.

Su-25 can gain an altitude of 10000 meters for a short time. It is armed with air-to-air missile R-60 able to lock-on and destroy target at a distance of 12 kilometers, and destroy it definitely at a distance of 5 kilometers. What was the mission of the combat aircraft on the airway of civilian aircrafts almost at the same time and same altitude with the civilian craft? We want to have this question answered.
 
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?
 
Rob said:
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
Click to expand...
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:
william wiley said:
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
Click to expand...

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:
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°
 
Rob said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Rob said:
You mean this tweet ? :
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2uSu_5YEZwU/VEPh6cXcJNI/AAAAAAAAWgM/cib3rlsPlVM/s1600/BUK+1.JPG
That tweet which has since been deleted ?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
Spectrar Ghost said:
As shown here or in another thread, SAMs do not travel in a straight line to their targets.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Spectrar Ghost said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
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!

TEEJ said:
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/
Click to expand...
 
ArnoldG said:
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!
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Giddierone
Intelligence Estimates of Putin's Health
Replies
20
Views
2K
Mendel
Mendel
T
Claim: Booby traps in Ukraine
Replies
4
Views
2K
Mendel
Mendel
A
Kramatorsk Railway Station Attack - Russian Denials of Responsibility
Replies
29
Views
6K
TheNZThrower
T
Mick West
Russia and Ukraine Current Events
23 24 25
Replies
997
Views
144K
LilWabbit
LilWabbit
W
TASS Claim: There are no threats whatsoever to the (Ukrainian) civilian population
Replies
17
Views
5K
Mendel
Mendel

Latest posts

Back
Top