MH17 Documentary from the BBC

[tadaaa]

not sure if you guys in the rest of the world can see this (there are ways!!!)

but the BBC's conspiracy files did a program on MH17 - shown a day or two ago

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0791ns4/the-conspiracy-files-who-shot-down-mh17

 

[Mick West]

Can you add a very rough summary of what the program contains?

 

[tadaaa]

ah sorry Mick yes

"With eyewitness testimonies, satellite photographs, wire taps, clandestine videos and expert evidence, Conspiracy Files investigates who shot down Malaysian Airlines flight MH17." is the official programme notes

it also talks heavily about the role social media played in the investigation

Web site mentioned in the program is here, https://www.bellingcat.com/

 

[386]

It's been a few days since I watched it and I was half asleep (sorry if my memory isn't too good), but the doco was better than I was expecting. Lots of typical documentary style elements though. They follow theories that they'd predetermined well in advance to later reveal as incorrect, then they concluded the analysis somewhat open-ended, and finished up with emotional music and a video of a family member of one of the victims.

The analysis section ends with Steven Pifer stating (at 56 minutes in):

"I don't think that the separatists or whoever is launching that Buk missile intended to shoot down a civilian airliner, they thought they were shooting down a Ukrainian military aircraft, but they didn't check, and they still bear responsibility."

 

[tadaaa]

It's been a few days since I watched it and I was half asleep (sorry if my memory isn't too good), but it was a better than I was expecting. Lots of typical documentary style elements though. They follow theories they knew well in advance that they're going to consider incorrect, then they conclude it somewhat open-ended, and finish up with emotional music and video of a family member of one of the victims.

It ends with Steven Pifer stating:

I don't think that the separatists or whoever is launching that Buk missile intended to shoot down a civilian airliner, they thought they were shooting down a Ukrainian military aircraft, but they didn't check, and they still bear responsibility.

yes they often set the conspiracy view in the first part of the programme

then spend the last half deconstructing it

interesting analysis of the Russian satellite photo - and other photos, from both perspectives, much like is performed here

 

[jonbonsilver]

Yes! I saw this documentary the other day and the evidence it shows is awesome yet i am still undecided. The bit about the rebels supposedly shooting down an Antonov (what they thought it was), posting it to Facebook and then removing the post after MH17 hit the news was pretty shocking, however its still hard to see what the truth is... for those of you who don't have access check out

http://docur.co/documentary/the-conspiracy-files-who-shot-down-mh17

 

[jonbonsilver]

It's been a few days since I watched it and I was half asleep (sorry if my memory isn't too good), but the doco was better than I was expecting. Lots of typical documentary style elements though. They follow theories that they'd predetermined well in advance to later reveal as incorrect, then they concluded the analysis somewhat open-ended, and finished up with emotional music and a video of a family member of one of the victims.

The analysis section ends with Steven Pifer stating (at 56 minutes in):

"I don't think that the separatists or whoever is launching that Buk missile intended to shoot down a civilian airliner, they thought they were shooting down a Ukrainian military aircraft, but they didn't check, and they still bear responsibility."

To be fair BBC docs are pretty consistent in style which is why i enjoy them.

 

[tadaaa]

Well I thought the evidence was pretty compelling

did you notice how the conspiracy theories chopped and changed, first it was

a ground attack aircraft, then
a bomb planted on the plane, then back to high altitude jet, initially
1 jet
then 2 jets
It was shit down by cannon fire, then an air to air missile
then It was a Ukraine BUK (not a rebel one) and finally
Daleks


(Ok not Daleks)


all with dodgy to zero evidence

and then the theory with the majority of evidence - all pointing in the same direction

the one that is explained by all the evidence - the BUK launched from rebel held areas

 

[Herman Aven]

Tadaaa, in fact the Russians asked from the very start (first week) formally questions on what they thought might be Su-25 on their radar and movements of Ukrainian BUKs and active radar that day. That's not the same as conspiracy theory, it's about interpretation of supplied evidence (which might have been wrong but that's not the point).

The Russians also have not changed those questions. It's true the theories floating around on the exact "how" have been changing. But that happened in all media and blogs around the world. It's conjecture to assume all theories in Russian media are state directed and others not.

That in the final official report was shown how it very likely would be a BUK from on rebel held (and obviously disputed) areas with moving front-lines is understood. But it doesn't contradict in itself Su-25 on the radar or people witnessing that or any movement of Ukrainian BUKs. Perhaps when they go into the exact model and possible origination. But apart from social media conjecture, not much yet is there beyond yet another conspiracy: one about the Kremlin secretly plotting to send one old BUK over the border to change the tides of war!

 

[txt29]

I know too little about it for starting to speculate who exactly shot down the plane, but since the day one I was surprised that nobody blamed those who planned the fights of civilian planes over the area of a war conflict. In wars, there is always some colateral damage, regardless whether intentional or accidental. Personally, I'd tell that those who sent the plane there, bear equal (if not bigger) part of the responsibility.

 

[jonnyH]

I know too little about it for starting to speculate who exactly shot down the plane, but since the day one I was surprised that nobody blamed those who planned the fights of civilian planes over the area of a war conflict. In wars, there is always some colateral damage, regardless whether intentional or accidental. Personally, I'd tell that those who sent the plane there, bear equal (if not bigger) part of the responsibility.

The failure to fully close the airspace was specifically criticised in the final report of the Dutch Safety Board:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...investigators-confirm-what-most-a6692881.html

The report criticises the Ukrainian authorities for failing to close the airspace over the conflict zone between Russian separatists and government forces, and says airlines should not assume that unrestricted airspace over areas where is safe. It says Malaysia Airlines did not conduct any additional risk assessment, nor discuss the possible dangers with its "code-share" partner, KLM:

"This was despite the fact that the conflict was expanding into the air, and that, according to the Ukrainian authorities, weapons systems were being used that could reach civil aeroplanes at cruising altitude.

At the start of its report the board makes clear that it would not apportion blame: "It is the task of the criminal investigation to provide that answer."

 

[doradcaR305]

There is on the film eyewitness Valentina Kovolenko who believes that saw a missile being launched :
"We saw what turned out to be a missile but it went behind the clouds. And a few minutes later we heard what sounded like an explosion,"
In my opinion she saw fighter jet instead of BUK missile becouse she couldn't heard missile explosion a few minutes after launched. Missiles life could not be so long. Have I debunked this or not?

 

[deirdre]

Have I debunked this or not?

no.

 

[doradcaR305]

deirdre!
Would You like to say that the missile like BUK can explode a few minutes after launch?
Whats more lets take into account distance from Sniznoye to the last FDR point its less than 15 km. It means that BUK missile need about 15sec to travel to the boeing from lauinch point and the sound need about 45 sec to travel back. All is about minute not a few minutes,

 

[deirdre]

Would You like to say that the missile like BUK can explode a few minutes after launch?

no but you saying so (or me saying so) doesnt prove it. Debunking is about showing proof.

Im also not sure what you think you debunked. Are you saying that a woman interviewed 2 years after the fact, has absolute perfect memory? Sounds to me like what she heard "minutes"* later might have been the plane hitting the ground. she doesnt mention having seen that happen or heard that noise.

*I dont speak Russian so does she actually SAY "minutes". ?

timestamp 26:40

"my daughter and i were digging potatoes, we turn and look and i say "Good God! A plane has been hit!" But it's going the wrong way, not down but up. with a flame and a black trail coming out the back.
[she points] "it was flying round here, we saw this black trail and it kept going over there. We saw what turned out to be a missile but it went behind the clouds. And a few minutes later we heard what sounded like an explosion.
On that day we saw no aircraft at all. It's the first time we heard something like that. the first and last time, we never heard anything like that since."

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gx4MvXwvjJw


the plane was 33.000 feet up. It takes 12 seconds for a BUK to reach the target. Can you hear an explosion at 33,000 feet? or is it more likely she heard the plane crashing to the ground. Speculation i know, but the point is i dont feel you 'debunked' anything.

add:

The biggest concentration of debris was found near Hrabove, about 20 km from Chervonyi Zhovten.

that 12 1/2 miles from the village.

"It took off, at first we thought that a plane was crashing. But it was a rocket," said Kovalenko, 45, who then saw what she thought was smoke coming from the 'Progress' mine in Torez, a town 9.5 km away to the north-west.

Her daughter Anastasia Kovalenko, 14, said she saw a rocket flying over the village, and then a plane in the distance blowing up.

Olga Krasilnikova, 30, also said she saw a rocket, some time between 4 and 5 p.m. "I saw it was flying, flew right over me. From that side," she said, pointing to the outskirts of the village . "I saw smoke in the sky, then I heard an explosion and I saw a huge blue (cloud of) smoke." http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-crisis-airliner-idUSKBN0M81XF20150312

 

[killjoy]

I would be more inclined to believe that she saw the launch and then remembers a delay, and just said a couple of minutes to denote that delay, perception of time is an odd thing and not easy to remember clearly hours later much less years. Also betting she wasn't standing around with a stopwatch.

 

[txt29]

In Russian, "minuta" (минута) may mean a minute, but it can also mean a moment. She told "Cherez neskol'ko minut" ("через несколько минут"), and that can be translated "within a few moments". Enter "within a few moments" to Google Translate, and you will get exactly what she told ("Cherez neskol'ko minut").

 

[txt29]

... and BTW, if she was at a distance of 20km and the plane at the altitude of 11km (hence the diagonal sight distance from the plane roughly 23km), the sound would travel the distance more than a minute (speed of sound = 343ms⁻¹ => 23000m/343ms⁻¹ = 67s), hence it would not be surprising even if she truly meant "minutes", and not "moments".

 

[txt29]

... err, the delay before the sound of the explosion would reach the observer at 20km horizontally and 11km vertically would be actually even longer, because the speed of sound at that altitude is lower (due to the lower temperature). At 11km, it would be around 295ms⁻¹, hence the average speed during the entire trajectory would not be 343ms⁻¹, but rather 319ms⁻¹ instead, and hence the delay would be ~72s. So again, it is not surprising that the observer told she heard the explosion "within minutes" after seeing the rocket, regardless whether she meant "moments" (as per Russian translation) or true "minutes".

 

[Trailspotter]

In Russian, "minuta" (минута) may mean a minute, but it can also mean a moment. She told "Cherez neskol'ko minut" ("через несколько минут"), and that can be translated "within a few moments". Enter "within a few moments" to Google Translate, and you will get exactly what she told ("Cherez neskol'ko minut").

Not quite so. Indeed, Russian "[подожди] минуточку" ("wait a minute") means "wait a moment". However, a period of time "через несколько минут" is more specific and means "in a few minutes", not "within a few moments". A "moment" ("мгновение") is closer to a second rather than a minute.

 

[txt29]

The term "Cherez neskol'ko minut" ("через несколько минут") may be translated specifically as "in a few minutes", but it can be also understood "within a few moments". The meaning of a minute in Russian is slightly shifted in comparison to English (everything is bigger in Russia). Not only Google Translate will translate "within a few moments" as "через несколько минут", but you can find these translations also on other places. For example at https://tatoeba.org/eng/sentences/show/3285320

Я буду готова через несколько минут.

I'll be ready in a few moments.

EDIT: even Yandex (Russian search engine with a functionality similar to Google) translates "in a few moments" as "в несколько минут" ("v neskoľko minut")

 

[Trailspotter]

The term "Cherez neskol'ko minut" ("через несколько минут") may be translated specifically as "in a few minutes", but it can be also understood "within a few moments". The meaning of a minute in Russian is slightly shifted in comparison to English (everything is bigger in Russia). Not only Google Translate will translate "within a few moments" as "через несколько минут", but you can find this translations also on other places. For example at https://tatoeba.org/eng/sentences/show/3285320

Я буду готова через несколько минут.

I'll be ready in a few moments.

Russian is my first language. There may be situations where "через несколько минут" means approximately the same as English "in a few moments", but this is not the one. In her perceived time, there was a considerable delay between what she saw and what she heard. However, she did not measure it with a timer, so it actually might well have been shorter than she recalled. But by insisting that she did mean a much shorter delay, based on a non-exact English translation, you merely introduce a new bunk.

 

[txt29]

No, it is no bunk. "Minute" is simply slightly more ambiguous in Russian than in English, and your own comment ("[подожди] минуточку") confirmed it. Where in English (and in many other languages) one would tell "wait a second", a Russian will rather incline to tell "wait a minute". The same it is for the expression "через несколько минут" - as I've shown, you can find plenty of examples even on native Russian websites, where you can clearly see the meaning is more ambiguous than you attempt to claim.

However, it is unimportant, because the time the sound traveled in that specific case (more than 70 seconds), was anyway already in the range, where even an English speaker would easily tell "within minutes", so the speculation that the wisdom of the woman excluded the use of a BUK missile was a clear nonsense.

 

[doradcaR305]

txt29
When you enter to Google "через несколько минут" you will get: " after a few minutes".
But more important in that case is Mrs Kovalenko relation that she saw a plane with flame in the back and black smoke behind. Flame on the back and black smoke indicate on fighter jet forsage.
What's more Mrs Kovalenko change her mind after returned home probably because of TV sugestion of a BUK missile.

 

[txt29]

When you enter to Google "через несколько минут" you will get: " after a few minutes".

Sure, but when you enter reversely "within a few moments", you get "в течение нескольких минут", with several other variants, all of them using "minutes". And that's exactly what I mean by the ambiguity of the expression.

 

[Trailspotter]

No, it is no bunk. "Minute" is simply slightly more ambiguous in Russian than in English, and your own comment ("[подожди] минуточку") confirmed it.

It is less ambiguous than you think. It depends on whether we talk about an expected time interval, or the one that has already passed. Open-ended "hang on [a sec]", "[I'll be ready] soon" etc. can be expressed in Russian as "минуточку" (or even "секундочку"), "через пару минут" etc., but for the duration of a past time interval "минута" means "minute", not a "moment".

PS @Gary Cook will be pleased to see this supporting example to his claim, made in a different thread:

I find both CT's and debunkers can be irrationaly stubborn and not open to new evidence that would mean them accepting they have been mistaken about things.

 

[txt29]

Not sure what you mean by the quote, because I did not take any stand in this case. I did not study the details, but my personal opinion is that in a war conflict any of the involved parties could shoot down a civilian plane both by mistake or deliberately. In my eyes, the biggest mistake was the presence of the civilian plane in this area, that was known to be risky.

All what I claim is that the wisdom of the woman is so uncertain and ambiguous, that the delay she experienced could easily be 20 seconds, as well as 10 minutes, and that what she told is in no way incompatible with her seeing a missile and hearing its explosion (which would occur around a minute and a half after spotting the climbing missile). DoradcaR305 concluded above that if it were minutes, it could not have been a missile. That's nonsense. Whether she truly saw a missile or not, is entirely different question, and I do not think we can conclude anything only based on her vague wisdom. I also see no reason deducing from her reporting that she saw a flame and black smoke, that it was a fighter jet.

 

[Trailspotter]

Not sure what you mean by the quote, because I did not take any stand in this case. I did not study the details, but my personal opinion is that in a war conflict any of the involved parties could shoot down a civilian plane both by mistake or deliberately. In my eyes, the biggest mistake was the presence of the civilian plane in this area, that was known to be risky.

I too do not take any stand in this case and agree that the alleged witness account neither confirms her seeing a missile, nor rules it out. I merely responded to your mistaken, in my opinion, post above (#17), because it was rated as 'informative' by some members, and I just wanted to clarify that, in the context of her account, "несколько минут" could only mean "a few minutes", not "a few moments". You, however, continued insisting on the possibility of the alternative meaning.

 

[txt29]

You persistently misinterpret what I wrote. I did not tell, that "несколько минут" necessarily means "a few moments". I wrote that it is more ambiguous and more uncertain than when expressed in English. My experience with the language, numerous examples in native Russian text, and Russian idioms using "minutes" for expressing moments, support my stand. Perhaps, being Russian, you are just not objective enough to feel the slight difference, because you feel it the same in both languages.

 

[Trailspotter]

You persistently misinterpret what I wrote. I did not tell, that "несколько минут" necessarily means "a few moments". I wrote that it is more ambiguous and more uncertain than when expressed in English. My experience with the language, numerous examples in native Russian text, and Russian idioms using "minutes" for expressing moments, support my stand. Perhaps, being Russian, you are just not objective enough to feel the slight difference, because you feel it the same in both languages.

Did I? I certainly did not interpret your post as telling that "несколько минут" necessarily means "a few moments". What you wrote is "несколько минут" also could mean "a few moments", an attempted debunk of the @doradcaR305's argument:

she couldn't heard missile explosion a few minutes after launched. Missiles life could not be so long.

In your post:

In Russian, "minuta" (минута) may mean a minute, but it can also mean a moment. She told "Cherez neskol'ko minut" ("через несколько минут"), and that can be translated "within a few moments". Enter "within a few moments" to Google Translate, and you will get exactly what she told ("Cherez neskol'ko minut").

you used a reverse translation to support your argument which I think is a fallacy by itself because it implies that the Russian and English phrases are fully equivalent. As I already noted, in Russian, in an elapsed time interval ["через несколько минут"], "минуты" are units of time ("minutes"), not indefinite "moments". If she had meant "within a few moments", she would say it literally "через несколько мгновений", meaning "in several seconds", not "in a few minutes". What did she say is that seemingly a few minutes passed between what she saw and what she heard. But in reality, this interval might well be much shorter.

 

[txt29]

Trailspotter, I have the feeling that you have a suppressed sense for ambiguity. I noticed it already in the thread about Medvedev's quote where he used the term "Война на Земле" which is equally ambiguous - it can mean as well "war on ground" (ground war), as "war on the Earth/war in the World" (global war). In that case you also vehemently claimed there was no ambiguity at all, but strangely even the Russian media was discussing it, arguing what the meaning was.

It is fine that you do not use ambiguity when speaking, but it does not mean others do not use it either. Not everybody attempts to speak scientifically exact.

 

[Trailspotter]

In that case you also vehemently claimed there was no ambiguity at all, but strangely even the Russian media was discussing it, arguing what the meaning was.

Give me an example of such a discussion (in the corresponding thread).

Russian can be ambiguous, like any other language, but, unless intended, the ambiguity can be resolved by the context. In both your examples, alternative meanings were "acquired in translation".

Just to recap the present case: the alleged witness said about a period of time that already elapsed, in this context "минута" means the unit of time ("minute"), not some indefinite but brief "moment".

 

[deirdre]

sorry i brought it up. Either way, minute or moment, i had forgotten about the speed of sound so even if what she heard was the missle hitting the plane, it could not have been 15 seconds (well more like 10 once she saw the missle) after seeing the missle she would have heard the sound. It would have been over a minute.

And a recollection at the very least a year after the fact, and as dora has pointed out, after talking to other villagers etc.. there is no proof one way or the other her memory of that day would be exact. In fact, it wouldnt be strange at all if her time memory was off even if she was interviewed the following day. "Shock" causes time to move in slow motion, imo.

Tachypsychia is a neurological condition that alters the perception of time, usually induced by physical exertion, drug use, or a traumatic event. It is sometimes referred to by martial arts instructors and self-defense experts as the Tachy Psyche effect. For someone affected by tachypsychia, time perceived by the individual either lengthens, making events appear to slow down, or contracts, objects appearing as moving in a speeding blur. It is believed that tachypsychia is induced by a combination of high levels of dopamine and norepinephrine, usually during periods of great physical stress and/or in violent confrontation.[citation needed]

 

[doradcaR305]

Flame behind

and black smoke indicate fighter jet forsage. As I told before.

The rocket plume is white :

What is more another eyewitness Olga Krasinkowa from Red October saw that, supposed rocket flight just over her.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-crisis-airliner-idUSKBN0M81XF20150312
It is inconsistent with known BUK plume photograph

So one have to be right picture from Torez is not BUK plume or eyewitnesses from RED October saw a fighter jet forsage instead of BUK.

 

[txt29]

What the observer sees, largely depends on the angle of view, on the position of the Sun, on atmospheric and other conditions. You can as well find plenty of photos of white contrails of jet fighters too. Depending on the angle they may appear dark or black. Same for missiles (see below). This claim is completely inconclusive.

 

[txt29]

And there is even a better photo of a BUK missile with flames and black fumes here:

It comes from http://politikus.ru/articles/66963-...akety-prevoshodyat-amerikanskiy-kompleks.html and it should be the BUK-M3 missile, according to the description on that website.

 

[txt29]

BTW, I am no avionics expert, but your photo of the fighter jet with flames does not seem to be a standard condition to me. I may be wrong though, so others will perhaps comment better.

 

[txt29]

... I found the description to your photo of a fighter jet in flames. It is an F-111 in a Dump & Burn operation. Indeed not a standard condition of a jet. According to WikiPedia:

A dump-and-burn is a fuel dump in which the fuel is ignited, intentionally, using the plane's afterburner. A spectacular flame combined with high speed makes this a popular display for air shows or as a finale to fireworks. Dump-and-burns are also referred to as "torching" or "zippos".

General Dynamics F-111 aircraft have been used for this purpose in Australia during the closing ceremony of the 2000

It would make a very little sense for a fighter jet to perform Dump & Burn when attacking a civilian plane. Perhaps except if they really wanted to be seen and remembered.

 

[TWCobra]

BTW, I am no avionics expert, but your photo of the fighter jet with flames does not seem to be a standard condition to me. I may be wrong though, so others will perhaps comment better.

"Flames" from modern fighter engines are only visible at night when afterburner is in use.
In the case of the SU-25, it has no afterburner, no offensive air-to air armament, no air-to-air fire control system and no capability to reach the altitude that MH17 was flying at.

http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=195

 

[MikeC]

I am reminded of piston engine exhaust systems.

Many, many, (many!!) years ago I was front seat passenger in an army landrover for a long night time drive along main roads....and there as this small red spot in the floor - I could over it with my foot but couldn't figure out what it was.

after some chat with the driver and a closer look it turned out to be the exhaust pipe showing through a bolt hole - at night time it was hot enough so the the red glow was visible, whereas at the same temperature the pipe did not glow in daylight at all.

Years later I observed the same thing with light aircraft exhaust systems - again as a passenger flying to and from a small town on a regular basis - if I caught a late flight and it was dark I could see the exhaust glowing red through the cooling gills in the engine cowl - it was a small twin engined aircraft and I was sitting almost level with the wing mounted engine only 5-6 feet away.

Same aircraft, same flight, same altitude but in daylight I could clearly see the same exhaust pipes and they weer the usual dull brown.