MH17 Documentary from the BBC

tadaaa

Senior Member
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

Member
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):
 
Last edited:

tadaaa

Senior Member
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:

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

New Member
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

New Member
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):

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

tadaaa

Senior Member
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
 
Last edited:

Herman Aven

Member
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

Senior Member.
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

Senior Member.
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
 

doradcaR305

New Member
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?
 

doradcaR305

New Member
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

Senior Member.
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:
that 12 1/2 miles from the village.
 
Last edited:

killjoy

New Member
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

Senior Member.
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").
 
Last edited:

txt29

Senior Member.
... 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".
 
Last edited:

txt29

Senior Member.
... 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".
 
Last edited:

Trailspotter

Senior Member.
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

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

Trailspotter

Senior Member.
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
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

Senior Member.
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.
 
Last edited:

doradcaR305

New Member
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

Senior Member.
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

Senior Member.
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.
 
Last edited:

txt29

Senior Member.
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.
 
Last edited:

Trailspotter

Senior Member.
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

Senior Member.
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

Senior Member.
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.
 
Last edited:

txt29

Senior Member.
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

Senior Member.
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

Senior Member.
:) 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.
 

doradcaR305

New Member
metabunk1.jpg
Flame behind
metabunk2.jpg
and black smoke indicate fighter jet forsage. As I told before.

The rocket plume is white :
metabunk3.jpg

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
metabunk4.jpg



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.
 
Last edited:

txt29

Senior Member.
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

Senior Member.
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.
 
Last edited:

txt29

Senior Member.
... 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:
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.
 
Last edited:

TWCobra

Senior Member.
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.

 

MikeC

Closed Account
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.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
S Claim: Russian radar would have picked up MH17 missile Flight MH17 15
U MH17 Missile/Plane Intersection Simulation Flight MH17 23
Mick West Almaz-Antey's Live BUK explosion tests Flight MH17 141
Bruce Lansberg Dutch Safety Board publish reports on MH17 crash, Tuesday Oct 13 Flight MH17 14
MikeC Dutch release draft report to involved parties Flight MH17 0
Herman Aven Confirmed Claim: disputed satelite imagery showing "changes in vegetation" Flight MH17 14
william wiley Does Damage to MH17 indicate or exclude a Particular Buk Launch Location? Flight MH17 662
M Claim: Robert Parry: Australian 60 Minutes fudged evidence to pin blame on Russia Flight MH17 21
Bruce Lansberg Claim: Jeroen Akkermans: Framents prove MH17 was shot down by a Russian made BUK Flight MH17 34
Bruce Lansberg Dutch Government discloses 245 official documents Flight MH17 0
M Debunked: this photo shows a Ukraine Mig-29 shot down MH17 Flight MH17 66
M Possible Shrapnel in MH17 Wreckage? Flight MH17 26
Bruce Lansberg Main prosecuter Westerbeke says metal particles have been found in the victims bodies and luggage Flight MH17 10
M Claim: Malaysian experts were shot at by Ukraine SU-25 and by GRAD Flight MH17 10
M Claim: MH17 was shot down by separatists using BUK stolen from Ukraine army Flight MH17 32
M What part of forward fuselage is this ? Flight MH17 1
R MH 370 Leroy Alexander? Flight MH17 1
M Solved: MH17: is this part of a missile? [Concrete Grinding Pads] Flight MH17 13
Ezswo Debunked: MH17 - 10 Previous Flightpaths Different From 17-7 Flight MH17 27
KAT MH17 - developments after a month - Aug 17 Flight MH17 4
Franckly Debunked: MH17 Air to air missile Assumption ? [Unrelated 35° angle] Flight MH17 25
Juha MH17 Hypotheses Flight MH17 159
WeeBee MH17: Pinpointing the precise location of the missile impact point Flight MH17 53
Jason Debunked: MH17: Supposed satellite video of missile launch [Fake] Flight MH17 14
Mick West Debunked: "Official Photoshopping" of MH17 photo [Window cover physically removed] Flight MH17 7
Brian Griffin Explained: MH17: Why Are There Expired "Pristine" Passports in the Wreckage? [Visa in Old Passport] Flight MH17 12
Mick West MH17: Video of flight activity before and after the crash Flight MH17 32
Josh Heuer MH17: Russia Claims Ukranian military plane flying nearby before incident Flight MH17 121
Mick West Debunked: MH17 Video Timestamped before the crash, and other timeline issues Flight MH17 8
TEEJ MH17: Evidence a Missile was Used. Shrapnel, etc. Flight MH17 448
Libertarian MH17 Evidence Video Time Stamped Before Crash Flight MH17 12
Mick West Flight MH17 News Flight MH17 79
Gridlock Why was MH17 Flying Over The Conflict Region? Flight MH17 102
Leifer MH17.....claiming responsibility ? Flight MH17 19
C MH17 Malaysian 777 Carrying 295 People Shot Down Over Ukraine Flight MH17 410
P Needs Debunking: "Alien interview" from the documentary Area 51: Alien interview UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 2
Nandude Light Fall Off in Apollo Missions - American Moon Documentary Conspiracy Theories 16
Mick West Debunking Guidelines for: "Convex Earth - The Documentary" Flat Earth 0
TEEJ Debunked: Image of Money Pallet shown in Iranian Documentary, 2016 General Discussion 1
Mick West Mick West Interview for "Overcast" documentary by Dedal Films Contrails and Chemtrails 97
Jay Reynolds Debunked: 8,000 dead from "chemtrails" in Birmingham, UK (Look Up Documentary) Contrails and Chemtrails 4
jvnk08 "Look Up" - chemtrails documentary on Kickstarter Contrails and Chemtrails 2
scombrid Skyderalert mobile app and "LOOK UP" - New Documentary Contrails and Chemtrails 94
Trigger Hippie Another TV Documentary Worth Viewing Contrails and Chemtrails 3
JFDee TV Documentary Worth Viewing Conspiracy Theories 15
Related Articles













































Related Articles

Top