That image shows an F-111 dump and burn. Fuel is jettisoned and ignited by the afterburners.
Senior TWCobra don’t create a new bunk please."Flames" from modern fighter engines are only visible at night when afterburner is in use.
. Depending on the angle they may appear dark or black. Same for missiles (see below). This claim is completely inconclusive.
Check out the photo of a BUK missile above. To me it looks perfectly black. Whether it is typical or not is unimportant. Contrails of a jet plane are typically white as well. Besides that, who told it is typical? Did you speak to someone who observed hundreds of BUK launches under various conditions? The 'black plumes' claim is clearly no evidence in either direction, but it matches a BUK launch just fine. Sorry, no debunking in your comments at all.Dark plume behind rocket is not typical one.
Senior TWCobra don’t create a new bunk please.
Here you have examples of flame behind fither jets in ”normal” work without dump and burn and during a day not night.
Txt29 was right according to my previous example but it not proof that in Red Octorber couldn’t be fighter jet with flame and black smoke behind. During forsage such effect is not strange.
See the colour of the sky in your rocket example .If in my cases is dusk or dawn you have an early night.Both your photos are clearly taken at dusk or dawn using high sensitivity, and from a close range. See the color of the sky. You won't see much of the flame in full day and from far away.
This is true because contrails are the vapore condensed in the nuclei of turbulence. Black smoke it is unburned hydrocarbons from the engine of the aircraft. Rocket has a different fuel than the aircraft in addition with the precisely measured oxidant ( all is burned).Contrails of a jet plane are typically white as well.
Would you like to say,that it was a different type of fighter than SU-25?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.
Everyone agrees that the Boeing 777-200ER was flying over the separatist region at 33,000 feet. A Boeing 777’s cruising speed is about 560mph or Mach 0.84. Its mass is about 500,000 pounds, and it has a wingspan and length of about 200 feet each. The MH17 was flying from West to East, more or less.
The Su-25 Frogfoot is a ground attack aircraft; a modern Sturmovik or, if you like, a Rooskie version of the A-10 Warthog. The wingspan and length of the Su-25 is about 50 feet each, and the mass is about 38,000lbs with a combat load. The ceiling of an unladen Su-25 is about 23,000 feet. With full combat load, an Su-25 can only make it to 16,000 feet. This low combat ceiling was actually a problem in the Soviet-Afghanistan war; the hot air and the tall mountains made it less useful than it could have been. At altitude, the maximum speed of the unladen Su-25 is Mach 0.82; probably considerably lower with combat loads. For air to air armament, it has a pair of 30mm cannons and carries the R-60 missile. The Su-25 is also capable of carrying the Kh-13, though it is not clear that the Ukrainians deploy this missile on their Su-25s. For the sake of argument, we’ll talk about it anyway.
Since it was a Ukrainian Su-25, we can also assume it was heading West to East; more or less the same trajectory as flight MH17. It could have been traveling in some other trajectory, but we can already see the problem with an Su-25 intercepting a 777; it’s too low, and too slow. If you want to believe the crackpot idea that Ukrainian government were a bunch of sinister schemers who shot down MH17 on purpose, an Su-25 is pretty much the worst armed military aircraft you can imagine for such a task. The Ukrainian air force has a dozen Su-27s and two-dozen Mig-29s perfectly capable of intercepting and shooting down a 777. They also have the Buk missile, and are capable of placing it somewhere near the Donetsk separatists if they wanted to make them look bad. So, the theory that the evil Ukrainians shot down a 777 with a Su-25 on purpose is … extremely unlikely.
Would you like to say,that it was a different type of fighter than SU-25?
Let's look on the video:"Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZLUPzfSdTw
Here from O:40 to 0:52 we have situation similar to the described by MRS. Kovalenko. Flying object ( SU-25) flame behind the object and black smoke.
It should finish our discussion.
As for the SU-25 theory, it is nicely debunked for example in this article:
The most funny is, that it is written by a man, who is in fact supportive of the Russian stand. He considers the Su-25 theory a crackpot idea anyway:
. You would have to interview her, show her diverse videos of rocket launches and of fighter jets, and perhaps you could find out what she really saw.
As MikeC says, they are countermeasure flares, released from a Su25 after firing ground attack rockets from low altitude.
So it hasn't finished the discussion. The SU25 was mentioned because initially it was Russian propaganda outlets attempting to blame a Ukrainian Su25 for the MH17 outrage.
The video you posted is taken again under dark conditions, with the camera operating in high sensitivity mode, and additionally it is zoomed. You can even see the position lights on the wings, that you won't see easily in full day, with naked eye and from some 20+ km. You won't see any flame behind a fighter jet from that distance in full day, and with no optics, either.From 0:40 to0:52 on the presented video there are no flares, There is only visible flame behind the SU25 traveling with the aircraft and black smoke behind just the situation discribed by mrs. Kovalenko.
So either what we see is condensate water that should be white, but due to the light conditions we see it black, or missiles release black smoke too.... contrails are the vapore condensed in the nuclei of turbulence. Black smoke it is unburned hydrocarbons from the engine of the aircraft. Rocket has a different fuel than the aircraft in addition with the precisely measured oxidant ( all is burned).
Perhaps she saw a BUK, perhaps she saw a jet, and perhaps she saw an UFO or Hell's Angels. You cannot start creating theories based on one sentence heard in a TV report, not knowing any details. And who knows who the woman is. When investigating, you have to cross-check everything and not starting to create wild theories and spread bunk base on every rumor you hear.Perhaps she saw just one of the Fighter jets which fought this day near Saur Mogiła.
Do you know they did not interview her? How do you know how many witnesses they interviewed? What ICAO rules did they break? Why do you think they are unreliable?Just show to mrs. Kovalenko and others eyewitnesses diverse videos of rocket launches and of fighter jets, and find out what they really saw. But it is not me who should do it but DSB. Tell me why DSB do nothing according to eyewitnesses. DSB breaks ICAO rules. They are unreliable.
@doradcaR305 @txt29 unless that 'theory'/opinion is brought up in the documentary, we're not discussing her opinion about that here. If it IS in the documentary @doradcaR305 please timestamp it for me.What ICAO rules did they break? Why do you think they are unreliable?
From 0:40 to0:52 on the presented video there are no flares, There is only visible flame behind the SU25 traveling with the aircraft and black smoke behind just the situation discribed by mrs. Kovalenko.
You have forgotten to write that she at the beginning thought that she saw a plane with flame in the back and black smoke behind. Smoke not trace.she told it flew upwards (unlike at Su-25, that's what BUK does)
- she described the flames behind (she actually tells "fire") (at a Su-25 you won't see the engine flame easily, at BUK the the flames are quite obvious, dominant, highly visible)
- she tells it it let a black trace - the steam trail behind the BUK is also very prominent, and can easily appear quite black when not lit by the sun directly from the side of the observer. A fighter may let some black smoke (unburned fuel) if not working in optimal mode, but normally the contrails are water based too.
do not put words in peoples mouths. paraphrasing is against posting guidelines.You have forgotten to write that she at the beginning thought that she saw a plane with flame in the back and black smoke behind. Smoke not trace.
Mrs Kovalenko change her mind onl;y after returned home probably because of TV sugestion of a BUK missile.
"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."
Yes, that's right, this one was not a BUK, though the principle is the same - the contrail of the rocket composed of water vapor appears to be black due to the light conditions. These two photos of a BUK show exactly the same effect. The contrails of rockets are much thicker than at jets, hence less transparent, and on the light background of the sky, they appear dark when not lit by the Sun from the side of the observer.You wrote that the photo shows a BUK launch. You didn't even use the image search feature in Google to verify your own words! I did.
agreed. that's what we all have been saying.Let me conclude. Mrs Kovalenko interview proof nothing. She can saw both airplane and missile as well
MetaBunk does not discuss entire theory in threads. Threads must stay "on topic". This thread has been pushing it already, as technically individual claims of evidence belong in seperate threads.deirdre
My answer to your comment from deirdre, Tuesday at 11:11 PM disappear quietly.
Can You say a word about it?
I wonder if I did not break any rules of this forum?
I think the criticism of the DSB report and demonstrating errors of this report here is not prohibited?
These are not the contrails "composed of water vapor", these are smoke trails resulted from burning solid propellant. The hydrogen content of rocket solid fuel (as used in the Buk missile) is quite low, compared, for example, to the jet fuel. Neither it is likely this content will generate a sufficient amount of water for making trails of such optical density, nor the heated gaseous water vapour in the rocket engine exhaust is likely to condense right behind the flames without leaving a gap.Yes, that's right, this one was not a BUK, though the principle is the same - the contrail of the rocket composed of water vapor appears to be black due to the light conditions. These two photos of a BUK show exactly the same effect. The contrails of rockets are much thicker than at jets, hence less transparent, and on the light background of the sky, they appear dark when not lit by the Sun from the side of the observer.
But this thread is ONLY about the documentary. about what is in the documentary. I am not going to watch an hour long documentary
OK I start new thread about this.
That's possible, though I think that the truth is in between. I did not find the exact composition of the propellant used in BUK, but typically solid fuel for missiles is based on nitrocellulose, nitroglycerin, ammonium perchlorate, or other similar compounds, all of them with high content of hydrogen in their formulas. And considering the fast burn of huge amount of propellant, the volume of the created water vapor won't be negligible. Aluminium, often used in the mixture of solid rocket fuels, can indeed add some smoke.These are not the contrails "composed of water vapor", these are smoke trails resulted from burning solid propellant. The hydrogen content of rocket solid fuel (as used in the Buk missile) is quite low, compared, for example, to the jet fuel. Neither it is likely this content will generate a sufficient amount of water for making trails of such optical density, nor the heated gaseous water vapour in the rocket engine exhaust is likely to condense right behind the flames without leaving a gap.
You can see how different the trails of a BUK may appear on diverse BUK launch videos listed on this page: http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/overview-of-buk-launch-video/Measurement
As early as the 15th century Leonardo da Vinci commented at length on the difficulty of assessing smoke, and distinguished between black smoke (carbonized particles) and white 'smoke' which is not a smoke at all but merely a suspension of harmless water particulates.
Smoke from heating appliances is commonly measured in one of the following ways:
Ringelmann scale. A measure of smoke color. Invented by Professor Maximilian Ringelmann in Paris in 1888, it is essentially a card with squares of black, white and shades of gray which is held up and the comparative grayness of the smoke judged. Highly dependent on light conditions and the skill of the observer it allocates a grayness number from 0 (white) to 5 (black) which has only a passing relationship to the actual quantity of smoke. Nonetheless, the simplicity of the Ringelmann scale means that it has been adopted as a standard in many countries.
Well, I did not see the other thread, but if you used the same argumentation as here, then I am not surprised it was removed. Try reposting it while respecting the guidelines, and supporting your claims with verifiable argumentation. Claiming that DSB must be hiding something because it did not interview Mrs. Kovalenko, based on your unjustified belief she saw an Su-25 instead of a BUK, is a bit weak. First of all you do not know how many witnesses they interviewed, whether they interviewed Mrs. Kovalenko or not, and whether they needed it at all for making their conclusions.The thread exist couple of hours and disappear It was saw by a hundred of visitors and even "MikeC" was able to send a nervous reply. I'v got standard answer from main administrator : "Does not meet Metabunk's posting guidelines."
For me the situatione is clear. I'v found strong evidence for DSB unrealibity but someone very strongly wants to hide it.
Don't lie. @Mike C presented you with actual LINKS to the ACTUAL final report. Your post, [[edit:mistook european date format, apologies] exactly as you wrote it here can be found on your blog.]and even "MikeC" was able to send a nervous reply.
So I did it. I put a new thread titled :What really burst the boeing MH17?"
I try to debunk DSB claim that the BUK finished MH17 boeing.
The thread exist couple of hours and disappear It was saw by a hundred of visitors and even "MikeC" was able to send a nervous reply. I'v got standard answer from main administrator : "Does not meet Metabunk's posting guidelines."
For me the situatione is clear. I'v found strong evidence for DSB unrealibity but someone very strongly wants to hide it.
Probably administrators should add to the guidelines that dubunking DSB claims is forbidden on this forum.
BTW, I fail to understand the argumentation of doradcaR305 and others denying the official MH-17 report. The people often claim there is a conspiracy or a political agenda behind the report. If there was an agenda, wouldn't the report result in something blaming one of the parties?
please quote exactly what Ray Mcgovern (CIA analyst 1963-1990) says in regards to the DSB report in this BBC documentary. I cannot hear his english over the russian in my link and cannot find an english version of the documentary.Hello txt on the documentary BBC film there is a man analitic from CIA (about 31:00 of the film) who suggested the same
i dont care what the title of the documentary is. this THREAD is discussing things IN the documentary.Let me discusse with txt please. Everything was on topic because the title of the discusse film is who shot down MH17 and I just politlly answer txt questions explaining what shot down MH17. Is it a forum for free people or a fun with the censorship of uncomfortable theory. Do you feel threatened by what I wrote ??
cia analyst 1963-1990
times tamp 31:00
Narrator: "agrees MH17 was shot down by a missile but this one argues that missile was fired by the ukrainian army"
McGovern:"I dont believe it was an independent investigation. Why did the black boxes end up in Britain? I mean, nobody else can analyze black boxes? You know, i have an Irish heritage and my grandfather told me one time, 'Raymond, do you know why the sun never sets on the British empire? and i said 'i know' and he said 'you dont know! sit down and i'll tell ya, the sun never sets on the British empire because the good Lord would never trust the British in the dark'."
"Well i don't trust the British with the black boxes".
new scene: (regarding alleged photographs of a BUK)
"Don't tell anyone that we have intelligence that shows that the Russians gave them the BUK, cause we don't ok? and these things are 16 feet long, right? and we would have.
new scene: (time stamp 32:13)
"SOme of the intelligence analysts thought that it was fired from a Ukrainian site. And that it could have been, you know, a rogue kinda thing, there was said to be some [phtographs?] of bottles of beer around one of the sites."
"Ukrainians have Russian missiles for Pete's sake, so the propaganda effort here was pretty effusive and pretty noxious and um, it clearly was seized upon by those who wish to paint Putin in the blackest of colours and those who wanted to impose sanctions."