[Solved] MH-17 was 9M-MRD, so Why are there photos of 9M-MRC? ['D' partially obscured]

[Andy Jackson]

Photos are at a very different angle, and the deterioration of the D is explained by the proximity to the hinge screws.

There's no glare in the top photo, so I'm not sure what the angle has to do with anything. I actually believe they are the same plane in both photos, but given the absurd disappearance of 9M-MRO, you'd think they'd make more of an attempt to keep their designations legible.

I'm assuming the flap had hinge screws between '08 and '13 when the letters didn't deteriorate, so I'm not sure how that fits in, [...]

 

[Mick West]

There's no glare in the top photo, so I'm not sure what the angle has to do with anything. I actually believe they are the same plane in both photos, but given the absurd disappearance of 9M-MRO, you'd think they'd make more of an attempt to keep their designations legible.

I'm assuming the flap had hinge screws between '08 and '13 when the letters didn't deteriorate, so I'm not sure how that fits in, [...]

The most likely explanation is maintenence, with the screws having to be removed.

 

[WeedWhacker]

...you'd think they'd make more of an attempt to keep their designations legible.
I'm assuming the flap had hinge screws between '08 and '13 when the letters didn't deteriorate, so I'm not sure how that fits in...

Since I've been in the airline industry i can suggest a few common explanations.

The airplane registration (or "tail number") is usually painted on the fuselage, near the tail. (In Japan, their aeronautics regulations also require the registration be painted on the bottom of the left wing, as well).

The markings placed on the nose gear doors are there for in-airline identification...for convenience of ramp personnel and pilots. Commonly the last two or three digits of the full registration number are used. Other airlines (like United, for instance) might use a different method. Again, this is just for in-house identification.

As to the damage to the paint, where the screws are located? At some point in the airplane's history some maintenance procedure likely needed to be performed that required the door to be removed and replaced. Could have been a landing gear problem...and the airplane put on jacks, doors removed, and the gear "swung" (retracted) so that the gear operation could be observed without the doors blocking the view....or some other reason, that is only one that comes to mind.

Any such maintenance activity will be a part of the airplane's permanent maintenance history records.

 

[Mick West]

As to the damage to the paint, where the screws are located?

A rough overlay suggests the three forward screws are coincident with the forward edge of the D.

 

[Andy Jackson]

The most likely explanation is maintenence, with the screws having to be removed.

That actually makes a lot of sense Mick, but I don't feel too bad for not giving Malaysia Airlines and the "One World Alliance" the benefit of the doubt.
If Kiev was responsible... they certainly didn't act in isolation.

 

[gellofish]

If you follow the lines on the paintwork under the cockpit, and compare the location of the protuding bits (pitots?) you will see that they are higher on RC than RD. You can check this on many pics on web. To me this proves this is RC ... no idea why though. Unable to upload example of this as on my phone but it is pretty easy to see

 

[Mick West]

If you follow the lines on the paintwork under the cockpit, and compare the location of the protuding bits (pitots?) you will see that they are higher on RC than RD. You can check this on many pics on web. To me this proves this is RC ... no idea why though. Unable to upload example of this as on my phone but it is pretty easy to see

You are going to have to provide annotated 2014 photos if you want to make that claim.

 

[WeedWhacker]

If you follow the lines on the paintwork under the cockpit, and compare the location of the protuding bits (pitots?) you will see that they are higher on RC than RD.

If you are referring to "protruding bits", then yes pitot tubes, AOA vanes and Rosemount temperature probes are candidates.

However, as noted, the date provenance of photos being discussed (for comparison) should be provided.

If you've been following the threads, you'll note that 9M-MRD had been painted several times in its lifetime...therefore, dates of photos are relevant. When an airplane is stripped, then re-painted, the exact layout of the paint scheme relative to physical items that "protrude" is never exact.

Also if you refer to many photos, the wreckage from the aft fuselage is clearly seen, with the last three digits of the registration markings very plain: "MRD".

AND here's a second addendum for your consideration:
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/9MMRC

That is 27 July FlightAware tracking information for Malaysia Airlines flight 005, operated by the airplane with registration 9M-MRC.

 

[gellofish]

I agree and I admit I have no dates for the photos so it is loose to say the least! I realise there is no question of which plane was downed (MRD) but I am skeptical of the validity of the image posted on facebook and also Reuters. I have attached quick comparison just to show what I was looking at.

I believe that swapping planes theories and all the other stories circulating would seem to be a very over complicated means to an end, but I can't help wondering why the images just don't seem right. It is probably a very straight forward answer but in high profile

cases like these your mind does tend to go on overdrive.

 

[Pete Tar]

The protruding bit would overhang the line depending on the angle which it is viewed.

 

[gellofish]

Not the base of them.

 

[WeedWhacker]

I agree and I admit I have no dates for the photos so it is loose to say the least! I realise there is no question of which plane was downed (MRD) but I am skeptical of the validity of the image posted on facebook and also Reuters. I have attached quick comparison just to show what I was looking at.

I believe that swapping planes theories and all the other stories circulating would seem to be a very over complicated means to an end, but I can't help wondering why the images just don't seem right. It is probably a very straight forward answer but in high profile View attachment 8253 cases like these your mind does tend to go on overdrive.

In your photo montage....Looking at the one upper, far right (9M-MRD) the AOA vane circular base (grey, unpainted) does show the blue paint boundary in a different location (relative to the base) than in the photo at bottom, far left....which is normal, since the bottom left photo is a different airplane. (9M-MRC).

 

[Mick West]

Here's RD in 2012:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F..._9M-MRD@HKG;05.08.2012_671fd_(8008537448).jpg
https://www.flickr.com/photos/46423105@N03/8008537448/

And 2014
https://www.flickr.com/photos/quixoticguide/14681116221/

Seems like it had a bit of work done sometime between these two photos. Notice the different color cockpit section in the 2012 photo

 

[gellofish]

And that's why it is so important to have recent photos.... so I can be proved extremely wrong!!

 

[TEEJ]

It is probably a very straight forward answer but in high profile cases like these your mind does tend to go on overdrive.

In addition to WeedWhacker's post there is also the flight history of 9M-MRC. The following highlights where 9M-MRC was in the period before and after the loss of 9M-MRD. How on earth did 9M-MRC get to Europe? The die-hard conspiracy theorists will just hand wave the flight history away, but think about all the people that would have been involved with 9M-MRC during that period?

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/9MMRC/history

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/9MMRC/history/20140718/0140Z/WMKK/VGHS/tracklog

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/9MMRC/history/20140715/1215Z/NZAA/WMKK/tracklog

The claims of 9M-MRC being at Schiphol is ludicrous. Think about the aviation enthusiasts and the aircraft registration loggers? In Europe it is a huge hobby. If it was at Schiphol then it would have been logged. For some people it is an obsession.

http://schiphol.dutchplanespotters.nl/?date=2014-07-17

http://www.dutchplanespotters.nl/main/

http://www.dutchplanespotters.nl/main/modules.php?name=Forums

http://www.plane-mad.com/airport-spotting-guides/netherlands/amsterdam-schiphol-ams-eham.html

http://www.scramble.nl/airfield-guide/schiphol

http://www.schiphol.com/Travellers/Shop/ShoppingSchipholPlaza/PlaneSpottingAtSchipholWhere.htm

http://www.schiphol.com/index_en.html

https://twitter.com/SchipholSpot

 

[Mick West]

OPOB has been banned for spam. See:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/de...y-did-have-a-covered-window.4004/#post-119112

 

[Edward]

People, the plane that Cor Schilder photographed on Schiphol airport was definitely the 9M-MRC, not the 9M-MRD. I can understand the confusion about the shape of the letters C and D with pieces missing (the right side of the "C" on the plane is rounded by the way, not straight as in "D"), but if you're still in doubt notice the Malaysian flag on the (rh) side of the aircraft on Schiphol. It is vertical. The flag on the same side of the 9M-RMD is horizontal, as you can see on other pics. The flag on the pieces of fuselage at the crash centre (same side) is horizontal as well. Check it out!

 

[WeedWhacker]

People, the plane that Cor Schilder photographed on Schiphol airport was definitely the 9M-MRC, not the 9M-MRD.

Nope. This has been refuted in multiple ways.

 

[WeedWhacker]

PLEASE note these facts.....the B-777 with registration (9M-MRC) is STILL flying, and active!

http://www.airfleets.net/ficheapp/plane-b777-28410.htm

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/9MMRC

(THE ABOVE shows registration # '9M-MRC' operating flights as recently as 9 August, 2014. SO...STOP with this nonsense, please!)

 

[Edward]

Sorry, mistake. The flags are all in the same direction.

 

[WeedWhacker]

Sorry, mistake. The flags are all in the same direction.

Could you explain, please? I might have lost the trend of the conversation that discussed "flags".

IF we are talking about "flags" that are painted on airplanes, then I can contribute some info.

ALL airliners that are operated internationally will have a "flag" symbol either painted on or as a decal to denote the country of origin and registration.

THIS is per ICAO rules ( http://www.icao.int/Pages/default.aspx )

These are International Standards. Much can be learned by proper "googling" if one wishes.

OFTEN a nation's flag emblem, as re-created on an airplane fuselage for display will be oriented SO THAT the "normal forward" of that flag is displayed AS IF it is "blowing in the wind".

SO (as example) the U.S. flag on the LEFT side of an airplane will display one way, but on the OTHER side it will be reversed. A "mirror" image, if you can picture it. This is PERFECTLY acceptable, and consistent with the way that 'MOST' countries choose to display their flags.

 

[WeedWhacker]

Sorry, mistake. The flags are all in the same direction.

Again....please see my post, just above. NOT always.

I've been a pilot for a LONG time....I've seen many, many airplanes painted with national flags.

Possible that "some" countries have a problem with a "reversed" flag....I know that the U.S. does not have this "problem" (please just look at some soldier uniforms...here, for example:

This is the RIGHT shoulder of a serviceman in the U.S. military.

YES the U.S. flag "SHOULD" be displayed (if protocol is adhered) with the blue on the left. BUT, when attached to a uniform, the "rules" change. I know....it's pedantic in the extreme, BUT these ARE the protocols.

SAME on an airplane (usually)....every nations' flag emblem is meant to be "blowing in the wind" which means....depending on which side of the airplane it is displayed....the FRONT is the FRONT!!!!

 

[Edward]

Looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck. What the hell is it? If the government says it's a monkey, then that's what it is, right?
This looks like a C, is shaped like a C, sounds like a C. But the Government and media (and you) say it's a D. Fine with me. I am just making the observation. Don't ask me about why and how.
I don't care how many times it has been refuted, I still see a C.
This is the best resolution picture I could find, but if you want to make it a Y, be my guest.

 

[Pete Tar]

This looks like a C, is shaped like a C, sounds like a C. But the Government and media (and you) say it's a D. Fine with me. I am just making the observation.

Yes, it looks like a C. But it's not. You can use information other than it's appearance to verify that for yourself.

 

[Soulfly]

Looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck. What the hell is it? If the government says it's a monkey, then that's what it is, right?

Which government has come out to say this is a D? As far as I'm aware the only ones saying it's either a C or a D are the people claiming conspiracy for the C and the debunkers pointing out it's really a D that needs a new paint job.

 

[TEEJ]

I still see a C.
This is the best resolution picture I could find, but if you want to make it a Y, be my guest.

So please explain why none of the aviation enthusiasts noticed 9M-MRC at Schiphol? Why did they only note 9M-MRD?
How did 9M-MRC get into Europe without anybody noticing? Think about it this was in broad daylight at a busy airport with its own dedicated enthusiast fan base? Now look again at the 'C' and ask yourself why it has a straight back?

In the Reuter's blow up the R is partially obscured along with the D. If you were taking it to extremes the R could also be interpreted as a P due to it appearing partially formed. So why are people not asking about the partially formed R? You can see it appears not to be fully formed in the image just like the D.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/so...-d-partially-obscured.4006/page-3#post-118796

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/so...-d-partially-obscured.4006/page-2#post-118558

 

[WeedWhacker]

I don't care how many times it has been refuted, I still see a C.

AND here's a conundrum for you....why is it that ship 9M-MRC is STILL flying?

See here: http://flightaware.com/live/flight/9MMRC

 

[Mick West]

I've added another animation of the Facebook photo, showing how when only the gap is filled, the letter looks like a D.

 

[Pierre]

I find it incredible that whenever you reveal anything bordering on the truth that the intelligence shills come out of the woodwork to ridicule your comments or analysis and yet they themselves never have to prove anything.

So to all the Intel Shills please read carefully and note:

The outbound passenger who took the shot of the aircraft he was about to board at G3 Schipol Amsterdam did so with sincerity and just so happened to add humour to the departure based on the conspiracies that were floating around re previous MH 37o.

So lets assume the passenger concerned did just that like many of us have done at the departure gate with the innocence of a normal traveling public.

The aircraft is indeed RC and not RD that the shills are trying to change and maybe they should take some handnotes from someone who served in Military Intel and whom also served as a Senior Operations Executive with a major airline and note that their photograph showing a distorted RDr that they have produced is indeed not the same aircraft.

My training in Intel and also in airline operations was far better than some of the brain dead (non experts) who passed comment in this thread.....where in the world did you find these shots in order to convince the sheeples that exist out there that we got it wrong......."Absolute and utter Bullshit" (as was the story relating to the loss of MH370)......do you non aviation experts also agree with the current analysis of that flight that it actually ended up in the southern extremity of the Indian Ocean.

We are looking here at two classic "New World Order" "False Flags" designed to divert attention away for other geo political activities whilst at the same time trying to create a conflict or war between the West and Russia/China.

Those same shills obviously also believe the beheading of the American Journalist to be true when in actual fact that certainly was a very unprofessional attempt to brainwash us into believing ISIS/ISIL are responsible for this bood curdling video of an alleged beheading (also another non even false flag).

Now they are still reminding us of MH370 (the impossible search continues) and the Loss of MH17 etc all in the interest of starting yet another conflict or stand off.

Well folks your game is up and I can assure you that a new private investigation will be raised and I certainly will expose those involved for what they are.......just a few simple basic aviation questions in the right quarter will have them falling like dominos and wanting to spill the beans to cover their own arses.

Congratulations to those that were observant enough to see this huge cover-up and shame on you shills that try and blind us with science in areas for which you are certainly not qualified......leave it to aviation experts to carry out their own inquiry and you go watch your X Factor to which you are better qualified to comment on.

 

[Mick West]

The aircraft is indeed RC and not RD that the shills are trying to change and maybe they should take some handnotes from someone who served in Military Intel and whom also served as a Senior Operations Executive with a major airline and note that their photograph showing a distorted RDr that they have produced is indeed not the same aircraft.

Perhaps you could be more specific, and address the points made in the first post that show the "C" is actually a D, as shown of several other photos of the same plane.

 

[Trailblazer]

I find it incredible that whenever you reveal anything bordering on the truth that the intelligence shills come out of the woodwork to ridicule your comments or analysis and yet they themselves never have to prove anything.

<snip>

Well folks your game is up and I can assure you that a new private investigation will be raised and I certainly will expose those involved for what they are.......just a few simple basic aviation questions in the right quarter will have them falling like dominos and wanting to spill the beans to cover their own arses.

Congratulations to those that were observant enough to see this huge cover-up and shame on you shills that try and blind us with science in areas for which you are certainly not qualified......leave it to aviation experts to carry out their own inquiry and you go watch your X Factor to which you are better qualified to comment on.

Perhaps you haven't read this thread which explains quite plainly and simply how this aircraft cannot possibly be 9M-MRC. Not least the fact that it was observed to be halfway round the world from Schiphol at the time flight MH17 took off, and the rather obvious fact that the letter D looks nothing like the letter C, even when it has a piece missing.

 

[David]

My training in Intel and also in airline operations was far better than some of the brain dead (non experts) who passed comment in this thread.....

How do you know that?

 

[solrey]

Well folks your game is up and I can assure you that a new private investigation will be raised and I certainly will expose those involved for what they are.......just a few simple basic aviation questions in the right quarter will have them falling like dominos and wanting to spill the beans to cover their own arses.

Congratulations to those that were observant enough to see this huge cover-up and shame on you shills that try and blind us with science in areas for which you are certainly not qualified......leave it to aviation experts to carry out their own inquiry and you go watch your X Factor to which you are better qualified to comment on.

Aviation experts... like the numerous pilots and aircraft mechanics on this forum?

X-Factor? I don't own a TV but a quick search indicates it's like some kind of stupid karaoke contest or something?

 

[TEEJ]

My training in Intel and also in airline operations was far better than some of the brain dead (non experts) who passed comment in this thread.....

I served 22 years in military intelligence. How do you explain 9M-MRC getting to Europe unnoticed? Think of all the people involved with 9M-MRD in both an amateur and a professional capacity? Explain how 9M-MRC can operate at Schiphol in broad daylight and nobody noticed?

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/so...-d-partially-obscured.4006/page-3#post-118796

 

[WeedWhacker]

My training in Intel and also in airline operations was far better than some of the brain dead (non experts) who passed comment in this thread.....

Oh? Just exactly what is your "airline operations" experience? Because based on the body of your post, it seems that you might be exaggerating somewhat.

We are looking here at two classic "New World Order" "False Flags"........

Utterly ridiculous, sorry. Just....wrong.

 

[Pete Tar]

I find it incredible... [etc.]

If you have information that disputes our conclusions please present them, but leave your 'bah sheep, shills, x-factor watching,' etc commentary for infowars comment threads.
They add nothing of substance to the topic and despite what you may think are not actually refutations of the evidence.

 

[Pierre]

I again repeat that the aircraft photographed (that was allegedly taken at the departure lounge G3 by a passenger about to board the flight) is most definitely RC.....so one has to ask more questions as to if this photograph was taken on the day of the shoot down by that passenger or on some other day when RC did transit Schipol?.......once that has been determined then the truth will be revealed.

However in passing we now see another aircraft photograph (allegedly the same aircraft and allegedly departing on that dreadful day) that was not taken by that same passenger and most certainly is not the same aircraft with some very clever manipulation of the nose wheel two letter ID etc.

Conclusion: Either the passenger in question allegedly took his photograph on some other day whilst in transit AMS - KUl and consequently used old footage prior to his departure on the 17th or the corrected photograph (not the same aircraft) was used by an intel shill (who I believe is an Israeli photographer) to add further drama to this "False Flag" event.

We must always be mindful that the enemy sometimes is within our own governments in creating a false flag event in order to blame someone else ahead of a potential conflict or war.

It is obvious that those that know how to carry out an aircraft investigation should be looking at the Ukraine military aircraft that was observed on radar tracking MH17.

Perhaps some of those experts who add comment to this incident would care to share their thoughts on that other false flag event MH370 which certainly did not fly down into the southern climes of the Indian Ocean off Western Australia.....come on I dare you!.....Pierre

 

[WeedWhacker]

I again repeat that the aircraft photographed <snip> is most definitely RC.....

No, it is not. The photos are clear.

Here is further proof that 9M-MRC is STILL flying:
http://www.flightradar24.com/data/airplanes/9m-mrc/

And:
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/9MMRC

So. What now?

Furthermore....ANY person who is familiar with airline operations knows that there are voluminous records kept of which airplane (identified by either its registration number, or in-house ID of some sort...along with ALL its maintenance history) is assigned to which flights.

It is obvious that those that know how to carry out an aircraft investigation should be looking at the Ukraine military aircraft that was observed on radar tracking MH17.

This is a bogus report. This has been debunked already.

... would care to share their thoughts on that other false flag event MH370...

NOT a so-called "false flag" situation either. Not relevant here at all, in any case.

 

[Jason]

is most definitely RC

How can you say something is most definitely when the evidence to the contrary is right in front of you. Anyone looking at this objectively can clearly see it's a "D" and not a "C". The "D" has lost some of its color in the middle which at "first glance" makes it appear as a "C", but after looking at it closely and in conjunction with all the evidence provided it's honestly really easy to see that it is the letter "D", as in "RD". @Mick West provided this photo early on, and you can see the curve that exist with the letter "C" as opposed to the straight back of the letter "D".

It's pretty obvious it's a letter "D";

 

[KAT]

I again repeat that the aircraft photographed (that was allegedly taken at the departure lounge G3 by a passenger about to board the flight) is most definitely RC.

It has been proven to you numerous times that this is not so.

Basing any more arguments on this being RC makes as much sense as basing them on Atlantis being found. You cannot base anything on this plane being RC until you PROVE THAT IT IS RC. Just repeating it won't do, sorry.