MH17: Russia Claims Ukranian military plane flying nearby before incident

David Coulter

Senior Member
We can say that the Russians gave us a nice peace of information here, something the Ukrainians or Americans have not given.
But it is not without a reason that Russia gives this information....
The key evidence is that the object has no lateral motion in relation to the fixed blue lines of the Russia border. Airplanes can't hover! I think people are confused by the motion of the two other planes, the supposed SU25 is not moving.
 
Last edited:

TEEJ

Senior Member
The Russian Military Brief video has been posted in the above post. Obviously things can be lost in translation. The following is from the Russian Embassy in the UK.

http://www.rusemb.org.uk/press/1865
 
Last edited by a moderator:

David Coulter

Senior Member
Of course! We would like to see what you can collect with your latest systems. For some reason I don't see that happening....
 

Tomaira

New Member
Details here, looks solid to me.

http://whoisstrelkov.wordpress.com/2014/07/23/russian-atc-lesson-101-the-phantom-su25/
 

David Coulter

Senior Member
Details here, looks solid to me.

http://whoisstrelkov.wordpress.com/2014/07/23/russian-atc-lesson-101-the-phantom-su25/
Yes, the blog has useful information, particularly the explanation of the meaning of the round and square identifiers. I do wonder why MH17 had a box around its details, whereas the other flights did not.
 

Master Yoda

New Member
Any guys here with some radar knowledge? I find it quite strange that the Russians said their radar couldn't detect planes below 5000 meters at that distance. AFAIK Radar minimal detection height is getting increased by mountains etc. or by the curvature of the earth, which is 196m on 50km distance resp. 785m on 100km distance. Rostov is almost sea Level (70m above), Torez is on 262m. The Region generally looks quite flat.

That claim sounds a bit strange to me.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Any guys here with some radar knowledge? I find it quite strange that the Russians said their radar couldn't detect planes below 5000 meters at that distance. AFAIK Radar minimal detection height is getting increased by mountains etc. or by the curvature of the earth, which is 196m on 50km distance resp. 785m on 100km distance. Rostov is almost sea Level (70m above), Torez is on 262m. The Region generally looks quite flat.

That claim sounds a bit strange to me.
Did they say where their radar is?
 

Master Yoda

New Member
@Mick

"The aircraft was steadily monitored by radar stations of Ust-Donetsk and Butirinskoe during 4 minutes period."

Ust-Donetsk is about 170km from Tores. I can't find a place called Butirinskoe on Google-Earth.
 

Libertarian

Active Member
Banned
Here is a video report done by the BBC which was deleted shortly after it was put out. In it multiple eye witnesses claim seeing military aircraft next to/under the civilian plane.

One of the theories floated here for Russia's radar data was that it is the exploding plane that their equipment falsely detected as a military plane. But these women witnessed the explosion and are saying that there was a military plane.

 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Here is a video report done by the BBC which was deleted shortly after it was put out. In it multiple eye witnesses claim seeing military aircraft next to/under the civilian plane.

One of the theories floated here for Russia's radar data was that it is the exploding plane that their equipment falsely detected as a military plane. But these women witnessed the explosion and are saying that there was a military plane.

A fighter jet would be invisible at 33,000 feet. It's too small.

Seems far more likely they saw one of the other two large planes that were in the region. And judging relative position is very hard for anyone to do. A plane at 37,000 feet, but several more miles away can look like it is "below" another plane that it is actually above.
 

David Coulter

Senior Member
Eyewitnesses to air crashes often see things that are not there. Witnesses often report that an aircraft was on fire before a crash when it was not - the fire of the crash seems to leak backward into their memory. The "airplane" that the one woman saw may well have been the center section of MH17 which does appear to have curved around to the NE before crashing. The center section was not on fire and might well look like another aircraft (see video below and note that there is no smoke or fire trail prior to impact).

The BBC video was apparently taken down because the reporter referred to the rebels as "freedom fighters" rather than the BBC approved term "separatists".

 

Juha

Member
Eyewitnesses to air crashes often see things that are not there. Witnesses often report that an aircraft was on fire before a crash when it was not - the fire of the crash seems to leak backward into their memory. The "airplane" that the one woman saw may well have been the center section of MH17 which does appear to have curved around to the NE before crashing. The center section was not on fire and might well look like another aircraft (see video below and note that there is no smoke or fire trail prior to impact).

The BBC video was apparently taken down because the reporter referred to the rebels as "freedom fighters" rather than the BBC approved term "separatists".
And if you look that video's background, you see the overcast.
I don't know about witnesses, but I can't see trough clouds.
 

Miss VocalCord

Active Member
Maybe slightly side track to this topic; but I came across this youtube video:
Claiming the Singapore Airlines flew right behind Flight MH17.

However when you look at the places where he claims the MH17 crash happened (e.g. Novoshakhtinsk and Shakhty) you will see these are all places in Russia not the Ukraine.
It seems to me he has been using some flightradar site which does some kind of prediction of the flight path.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Maybe slightly side track to this topic; but I came across this youtube video:
Claiming the Singapore Airlines flew right behind Flight MH17.

However when you look at the places where he claims the MH17 crash happened (e.g. Novoshakhtinsk and Shakhty) you will see these are all places in Russia not the Ukraine.
It seems to me he has been using some flightradar site which does some kind of prediction of the flight path.
This video I made shows the tracks as recorded by Flightradar24:
 

SR1419

Senior Member
This video I made shows the tracks as recorded by Flightradar24:

Is it possible to go farther back on the flight path? This video claims ( at ~1:10) the plane took a divergent path from the normal route....and that was directed by Ukraine ATC. Do we know that to be true? ( the whole movie is a gish gallop based on incredulity)

 

Juha

Member
Is it possible to go farther back on the flight path? This video claims ( at ~1:10) the plane took a divergent path from the normal route....and that was directed by Ukraine ATC. Do we know that to be true? ( the whole movie is a gish gallop based on incredulity)
Very slight correction of course, maybe due weather. It's still in route L980 limits.

 

Jason

Senior Member
For the people who want to play with this some more, I've attached the Google Earth kml file downloaded from FlightAware on the morning of the 18th.
I can't even open this attachment, is that because I don't have flightradar 24 installed on my computer?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
For the people who want to play with this some more, I've attached the Google Earth kml file downloaded from FlightAware on the morning of the 18th.
Here I've attached the JSON for the FR24 data for the flight, it could probably be munged into a KML.
 

Attachments

Elfenlied

Member
As others pointed out the spokesperson was very careful with what she said, and she she clearly alluded to other sources. You obviously would like the US to disclose everything but there is no way that will happen in order to protect "sources and methods". The woman in the video would definitely not have a security clearance and so could not possibly explain all of the assets that were used.
Is this a reference to the spokeswoman of the State Department, Marie Harf? If so, you might want to check her bio before stating she "would definitely not have a security clearance".

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/biog/bureau/220636.htm
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member
That only proves she may have had clearance in the past, not her current clearance status, as she left her previous position.
 

Jason

Senior Member
That only proves she may have had clearance in the past, not her current clearance status, as she left her previous position.
If you had top level clearance in the past, and you've been promoted to another job by the President of the US, do you think she would still have a security clearance or does the gency pull them from her. How does that work?
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
I can't even open this attachment, is that because I don't have flightradar 24 installed on my computer?
I realize that this post is a bit off the topic, but since FR24 is referenced so often, I though I'd mention that "FlightAware" has modified their website, to "compete" (I guess) with FR:

http://flightaware.com/squawks/view...All_Planes_Nearby_Airports_Premium_Map_Layers

I mention this because "FA" is adding more ADS-B coverage as well. And, as a pilot, I tend to prefer the FA content as being a bit more comprehensive.

(Side-bar)...Using 'FA' when someone you know is flying, whether en-route to or away from your location? It is SO easy to "track" them, and part of the "fun". PLUS, you can tie-in to ATC (if you want...but, that's another website: liveatc.net).
 

Jason

Senior Member
I realize that this post is a bit off the topic, but since FR24 is referenced so often, I though I'd mention that "FlightAware" has modified their website, to "compete" (I guess) with FR:

http://flightaware.com/squawks/view...All_Planes_Nearby_Airports_Premium_Map_Layers

I mention this because "FA" is adding more ADS-B coverage as well. And, as a pilot, I tend to prefer the FA content as being a bit more comprehensive.
Which is better for a novice or just better all around?
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member
If you had top level clearance in the past, and you've been promoted to another job by the President of the US, do you think she would still have a security clearance or does the gency pull them from her. How does that work?
I doubt she is out of the loop completely or anything like that, but I imagine clearance is based on your current job status, not a life-time membership thing.

Edit...
But it's likely it was transferred if her job requires it still -
 

MikeC

Closed Account
A spokesperson's security clearance or otherwise isn't really important - it isn't going to be high - even if it is with the CIA - it's going to be enough to "know" just a little more than is released to the public in order to make that release sound "good".

This aspect of the discussion is a red herring - a favourite way for CT's to steer discussion away from specifics and into speculation, so let's try to avoid it here please!
 

Elfenlied

Member
A spokesperson's security clearance or otherwise isn't really important - it isn't going to be high - even if it is with the CIA - it's going to be enough to "know" just a little more than is released to the public in order to make that release sound "good".

This aspect of the discussion is a red herring - a favourite way for CT's to steer discussion away from specifics and into speculation, so let's try to avoid it here please!
If you're going to resort to that kind of insinuations, then I'm out of here.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member
Don't take it personally - you replied to a point, I replied to your point, someone else replied to my point, etc. Yes it's now kind of off-topic.
Your point was valid in context, too much attention and it gets off-topic. It's a minor aside.
 
Top