TEEJ
Senior Member.
That image shows an F-111 dump and burn. Fuel is jettisoned and ignited by the afterburners.
MH17 Documentary from the BBC
- Thread starter tadaaa
- Start date
That image shows an F-111 dump and burn. Fuel is jettisoned and ignited by the afterburners.
doradcaR305
New Member
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.
txt29
Senior Member.
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.
Regardless of it, check out the photo of the BUK below - both the flame and the smoke are much more evident. The wisdom of the woman is simply inconclusive, but frankly told it better matches a BUK than a jet.
Regardless of it, check out the photo of the BUK below - both the flame and the smoke are much more evident. The wisdom of the woman is simply inconclusive, but frankly told it better matches a BUK than a jet.
doradcaR305
New Member
Dark plume behind rocket is not typical one. Anyway the BUK plume on the photograph from Torez is white and Mrs Kovalenko said that she saw black smoke instead of white plume. So she saw diffrent trace. So there was two diffrent rocket or photograph from Torez doesn't show BUK plume or Kovalenko saw fighter jet.
Last edited:
txt29
Senior Member.
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.
TWCobra
Senior Member.
Those are afterburners being used in low light conditions, being photographed by cameras that are correcting for that. You notice they aren't producing smoke.. That is another characteristic of afterburner use.
doradcaR305
New Member
See the colour of the sky in your rocket example .If in my cases is dusk or dawn you have an early night.
That could be the reason that the trace is dark not white one.
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).
doradcaR305
New Member
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.
MikeC
Closed Account
Those are decoy flares - which is exactly what the russian text says:
На частном видео Штурмовик Су-25 наносит ракетный удар по позициям сил ДНР в Донецке, около аэропорта и уходит, отстреливая тепловые ловушки
=
The private video The Su-25 gets a missile attack on the positions of the DNI forces in Donetsk, near the airport and out, firing flares (via googletranslate)
На частном видео Штурмовик Су-25 наносит ракетный удар по позициям сил ДНР в Донецке, около аэропорта и уходит, отстреливая тепловые ловушки
=
The private video The Su-25 gets a missile attack on the positions of the DNI forces in Donetsk, near the airport and out, firing flares (via googletranslate)
txt29
Senior Member.
Of course, the contrails are made of vapor, so in theory white. In fact, thought, as I already wrote, the observed color depends much on the conditions, the angle of view and the position of the Sun. An observer can consider white contrails being black smoke easily. See below another photo of a BUK launch. A layman can easily mistake the contrails for smoke
The wisdom of the woman in the report is simply inconclusive. 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.
BTW, the rockets launched by the fighter jet in your video at 0:12, let behind a black smoke too. At least it appears so on the video. Whether it is really black or not, is hard to tell in this case, but if it was only a visual effect due to the light conditions (looks to be darker too), the "black smoke" behind the jet is likely white too.
The wisdom of the woman in the report is simply inconclusive. 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.
BTW, the rockets launched by the fighter jet in your video at 0:12, let behind a black smoke too. At least it appears so on the video. Whether it is really black or not, is hard to tell in this case, but if it was only a visual effect due to the light conditions (looks to be darker too), the "black smoke" behind the jet is likely white too.
Last edited:
txt29
Senior Member.
As for the SU-25 theory, it is nicely debunked for example in this article:
https://scottlocklin.wordpress.com/2014/07/21/can-the-su-25-intercept-and-shoot-down-a-777/
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:
https://scottlocklin.wordpress.com/2014/07/21/can-the-su-25-intercept-and-shoot-down-a-777/
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:
TWCobra
Senior Member.
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.
Last edited:
Herman Aven
Member
That Wordpress blog is wrong about a few things. The interpretation of "ceiling" seem here completely random and often misunderstood as it relates to specific parameters, not some absolute. It generally just means that the nominal rate of climb would start dropping if the plane would go any higher. Any good text book could explain that for you. Of course it does seriously limit any desire do any "chase" at that altitude. But that's not the claim here.
The mentioned Afghanistan war is actually evidence of Su-25's easily going over that "ceiling" to start attack runs, while carrying munition. Check Sukhoi Su-25 Frogfoot from Alexander Mladenoc where he describes the high altitude bomb runs to outmaneuver the extensive SAM fire. At least 9km was being done there. In another book of his: Su-25 "Frogfoot" Units in Combat there's a whole chapter on "High Altitude Bombing Missions" for the Su-25. It speaks of orders to go to 26600ft (8km) to cruise to a target area. The pilot recalling said "of course it could fly at these heights without any problem". And these were the models from the '80s without any of the later modernizations.
Any claim "with full combat load, an Su-25 can only make it to 16,000 feet" has as such no substance, no serious backing at all! It's just being replicated endlessly without anyone really checking anything.
Apart from that, the Su-25 option remains for the MH-17 case of course extremely unlikely, unless a completely premeditated AAM attack was being initiated, since climbing would go too slow, with something in the class of a 4th generation missile like a Python 4+ in terms of warhead lethality and precision.
But it would still be interesting to find out for certain if they were actually in the air, that afternoon.
MikeC
Closed Account
Ceiling isn't that the nominal rate of climb STARTS dropping - it is that it has already dropped to some figure - for service ceiling the generally west uses 100 feet per minute.........feel free do the math to figure out how long it would then take for the Su-25 to get a few more thousand feet at that rate.......except of course the rate KEEPS dropping as the a/c gets higher......
the loaded service ceiling comes from Jane's All The World's Aircraft 2003–2004 - feel free to ring them up and correct them.....
the loaded service ceiling comes from Jane's All The World's Aircraft 2003–2004 - feel free to ring them up and correct them.....
Last edited:
doradcaR305
New Member
Yes I agree it should be done. 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
New Member
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. Perhaps she saw just one of the Fighter jets which fought this day near Saur Mogiła.
I think that BUK involved in downing MH17 was in another place.
I understand that Russia and Ukraine both lie about MH17 but I couldn't understand why DSB do the same.
txt29
Senior Member.
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.
As for the black smoke - why do the missiles fired at 0:12 let black smoke behind them too? You wrote yourself:
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.
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.
Anyway, her description matches a missile much better than a fighter jet:
- 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 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?
deirdre
Senior Member.
@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.
MikeC
Closed Account
It is dirty exhaust which is visible because you are looking along the length of it - it is common with some aircraft.
It looks nothing at all like a rocket launch. The light that is visible is the rear navigation light, which is white.
This screen shot is illustrative of that whole section - not necessarily the best:
Attachments
-
exhaust.jpg
@txt29
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.
The photo shows a NASA Orion rocket. http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/multimedia/pad_abort_050610/orion_pa1_launch.html
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.
The photo shows a NASA Orion rocket. http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/multimedia/pad_abort_050610/orion_pa1_launch.html
doradcaR305
New Member
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.
deirdre
Senior Member.
do not put words in peoples mouths. paraphrasing is against posting guidelines.
Bold text to highlight
txt29
Senior Member.
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.
doradcaR305
New Member
Hello deirdre
I once again saw fragment of the film with Kovalenko.
At 26.58 on the film she is speaking:” aeroplane is flying. It is hit.” Instead of “A plane has been hit”
On 27.10 unfortunately english comments is cover by Russian one but I have understood that:
“ When she returned home she understood that it was not falling aircraft but rocket missile”
All of this confirm my remarks.
My only mistake is that I mistaken smoke with trace. She said “черный след” what ‘s mean black trace not black smoke. След-smoke sounds similar. Sorry for that.
Ofcourse in the end she said: "On that day we saw no aircraft at all". This is clearly the answer to the suggesting question of a journalist.
Thouse days many western journalists walked and asked " who saw the missile?"
Mrs Kovalenko was so polite that even at first she thought that she saw an airplane said about rhe rocket with balck trace behind and couple of minutes for acting.
Let me conclude. Mrs Kovalenko interview proof nothing. She can saw both airplane and missile as well. The witnesses like mrs Kovalenko should be properly interviewed by DSB according to the ICAO rules.
I once again saw fragment of the film with Kovalenko.
At 26.58 on the film she is speaking:” aeroplane is flying. It is hit.” Instead of “A plane has been hit”
On 27.10 unfortunately english comments is cover by Russian one but I have understood that:
“ When she returned home she understood that it was not falling aircraft but rocket missile”
All of this confirm my remarks.
My only mistake is that I mistaken smoke with trace. She said “черный след” what ‘s mean black trace not black smoke. След-smoke sounds similar. Sorry for that.
Ofcourse in the end she said: "On that day we saw no aircraft at all". This is clearly the answer to the suggesting question of a journalist.
Thouse days many western journalists walked and asked " who saw the missile?"
Mrs Kovalenko was so polite that even at first she thought that she saw an airplane said about rhe rocket with balck trace behind and couple of minutes for acting.
Let me conclude. Mrs Kovalenko interview proof nothing. She can saw both airplane and missile as well. The witnesses like mrs Kovalenko should be properly interviewed by DSB according to the ICAO rules.
doradcaR305
New Member
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?
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?
deirdre
Senior Member.
agreed. that's what we all have been saying.
deirdre
Senior Member.
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.
But this thread is ONLY about the documentary. about what is in the documentary. I am not going to watch an hour long documentary in order to determine if points brought up are in the documentary, so i asked for a timestamp within the documentary of where the topic of the DSB report is mentioned. You did not provide it, so I am assuming it is not in the documentary.
If you would like to start a new thread on the topic, you may IF it follows the posting guidelines.
https://www.metabunk.org/posting-guidelines.t2064/
https://www.metabunk.org/metabunks-no-click-policy.t5158/
Be sure to add a links to documents what you want people to look at. And describe in full the claim with supporting data. Dont use the "do your own research" type of phrase. I will send you your prior removed post so can examine it again.
Trailspotter
Senior Member.
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.
doradcaR305
New Member
Thank you for your explanations. It was my misunderstanding of word "documentary". You mean BBC documentary film . I understood ICAO documentary. Sorry english is not my first languege. You just repriminding us "back to topic" and I thought that you want me to show evidence for DSB unrealibity. OK I start new thread about this.
doradcaR305
New Member
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.
txt29
Senior Member.
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.
But the point was that depending on the conditions, the trail can appear white or black (regardless whether it is a smoke or steam, or both of them). You can see it on the second photo of my previous post - at the bottom of the trail (dark background) it appears white, while at the top (against the sky), it looks black. Whether it is a smoke or water vapor is actually unimportant.
This is confirmed, among others, also on WikiPedia in the article about smoke:
... there are more of them
txt29
Senior Member.
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.
deirdre
Senior Member.
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.]
Ask the admin why your post was removed. Although i had previously told you how to write a post that would meet MB criteria and you ignored my advice.
Any further discussion on this thread of the topic of your other thread will be removed as off topic.
Last edited:
deirdre
Senior Member.
@doradcaR305 off topic discussion of anothr thread he posted moved to https://www.metabunk.org/deirdre-and-dora-ramble-chat.t7707/
MikeC
Closed Account
You found no evidence at all - the posting guidelines are that you should make 1 claim per thread and back it up - there was no evidence at all in your post - just you saying stuff, and nothing nervous about my reply.
txt29
Senior Member.
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. But as far as I know, the only conclusions the Dutch officials made, were that the MH-17 flight was terminated by a missile. AFAIK their report does not tell who launched the missile. They blame neither Russians, nor the rebels, nor the Ukrainians for the launch. They do blame the Ukrainians for not closing the airspace, though. So why exactly the critics think the vague testimony of Mrs. Kovalenko denies the official report (while in reality actually supporting it), escapes my understanding. Even if I ignore all the evidence already discussed, what political agenda could ever play a role in a politically completely neutral report? If there was an agenda, wouldn't the report result in something blaming one of the parties?
doradcaR305
New Member
Hello txt on the documentary BBC film there is a man analitic from CIA (about 31:00 of the film) who suggested the same That behind MH17 there is agenda. But I did,n tell anything about politic. [ ..off topic discussion and off topic unsubstantiated claims removed..]
Last edited by a moderator:
deirdre
Senior Member.
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.
doradcaR305
New Member
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 ??
deirdre
Senior Member.
i dont care what the title of the documentary is. this THREAD is discussing things IN the documentary.
And you will stop claiming false words to people in the documentary. I DID find an english version and Ray McGovern says NOTHING about the DSB report which i what txt asked. From now on if you want to claim something from the documentary please quote it exactly. with timestamps of course.
Similar threads
Election 2020
-
Explained: 9:33 AM ET Time on NPR Story about Storming the Capitol- Started by Mick West
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
"Deleted Votes" Claim, 2020 Election, Erie County, New York
- Started by pizzadelivery
- Replies: 16
