Ukraine General

[negah 26]

This image is clearly fake. The aicraft are way to big when compared to the ground. Either that shot was taken from like 20km hight or that airliner is as large as a shoping mall.

I love how they also put in a visible tracer bullet just to get the message across. One Tracer bullet. Because a fighter is only going to fire one of those and without a muzzleflash.... (and if you look closely you can see that the bullet is aimed roughly 100m behind the airliner wich means that it will miss the plane by a few hundred meters. Even Ukrainian pilots aren´t that bad.)

According to them a fighter who wants to kill an airliner without having the airliner notice him is also going to attack from the side, not from the rear where he could line up for a perfect shot...

Always the same with Russian propaganda, they only put enough effort into it to convince people who can´t think for themselves....

I dont want to argue whether this is fake or not, but your arguments are not really convincing.

1. That picture was definately magnified. Compare it with this picture http://www.thehindu.com/multimedia/dynamic/01795/HY19SATELLITE_IMAG_1795993f.jpg the plane here does look big compared to the ground as well.

2. The fighter is a Su-27 from the looks of it. Its cannon is on the right side of the cockpit so what you see is the exhaust trail of a missile right after its launch and not a cannon firing. That "right after launch" would explain why the missile is flying straightforward (long and middle range missiles usually take some time before they start flying to intercept their target) and not yet on the intercept course with the plane. Besides no one would shoot a cannon at an airplane that far away.

3. It doesnt matter from which side the attacking plane come from if it fires a missile.

[beastcat 14]

I dont want to argue whether this is fake or not, but your arguments are not really convincing.

1. That picture was definately magnified. Compare it with this picture http://www.thehindu.com/multimedia/dynamic/01795/HY19SATELLITE_IMAG_1795993f.jpg the plane here does look big compared to the ground as well.

2. The fighter is a Su-27 from the looks of it. Its cannon is on the right side of the cockpit so what you see is the exhaust trail of a missile right after its launch and not a cannon firing. That "right after launch" would explain why the missile is flying straightforward (long and middle range missiles usually take some time before they start flying to intercept their target) and not yet on the intercept course with the plane. Besides no one would shoot a cannon at an airplane that far away.

3. It doesnt matter from which side the attacking plane come from if it fires a missile.

1. Just keep in mind that on the picture the plane is bigger than a field. An SU-25 is 20m long, a field is about 800-1000m. The plane on the picture you provided looks fine as a passanger plane is much much larger than a tree.

2 + 3 But the russian theory is that the Boing has been destroyed by an autocannon. Also they were always saying that it was an SU-25 that shot the Boing down (Exept at the end of the video I provided, where the dude calls it a MiG 29)

[Xalteva 10]

Oh look, conspiracy again :rolleyes:

Did you see the crash site ? and that so called explosion video ? i mean just an explosion with nothing falling from the sky! There are some serious questions surrounding that event anyway.

Oh look! brand new passports :) from a plane that turned into ashes.

Also, when russians release a SAT image, and you call it fake, isn't that conspiracy too ? :rolleyes: or do i just have to assume that you are a bit biased ? :p

Edited November 15, 2014 by Xalteva

[ProfTournesol 956]

Did you see the crash site ? and that so called explosion video ? i mean just an explosion with nothing falling from the sky! There are some serious questions surrounding that event anyway.

Also, when russians release a SAT image, and you call it fake, isn't that conspiracy too ? :rolleyes: or do just have to assume that you are a bit biased ? :p

You realize how insulting your fairy tale may be for the family of the casualties ?

[surpher 1]

(BBC) Web users debunk Russian TV's MH17 claim

Late on 14 November, Russia's state-controlled Channel One TV broadcast what appeared to be a satellite photo of a passenger plane and a jet fighter in the skies above Donetsk, a separatist stronghold in Ukraine. It was, the report said, the moment the Ukrainian jet fired a missile at MH17.

Several commentators pointed out that the "Malaysia" logo on the plane from the photograph was in the wrong place. Maksim Kats, a Russian blogger, said the plane in the picture looked like a slightly altered version of the one that tops the search results if you Google "Boeing view from above" in Russian. It also happens to be a publicity photo of a Boeing 767, not a 777, which was shot down over Ukraine in July.

(Bellingcat) Russian State Television Shares Fake Images of MH17 Being Attacked

On Friday November 14th, Russian state television ran a story of supposed foreign satellite images showing the last moments of flight MH17, with a fighter jet appearing to fire at the plane. Suspicions arose immediately on Twitter, and inconsistencies were pointed out, quickly leading to the conclusion the image is a crude fabrication.

Edited November 15, 2014 by surpher

[negah 26]

1. Just keep in mind that on the picture the plane is bigger than a field. An SU-25 is 20m long, a field is about 800-1000m. The plane on the picture you provided looks fine as a passanger plane is much much larger than a tree.

2 + 3 But the russian theory is that the Boing has been destroyed by an autocannon. Also they were always saying that it was an SU-25 that shot the Boing down (Exept at the end of the video I provided, where the dude calls it a MiG 29)

As I said I dont want to argue about the fakeness of that particular image.

Yet again that particular fighter plane looks more like a Su-27 than a MiG-29 and definately nothing like a Su-25

MiG-29: http://www.the-blueprints.com/blueprints-depot/modernplanes/mikoyan-gurevich-mig/mikoyan-gurevich-mig-29-3.png

Su-27: http://www.the-blueprints.com/blueprints-depot/modernplanes/sukhoi/sukhojj-su-27-2.png

Look at the at the area around the cockpit, especially where the wings start.

Yet again its nothing new that the journalists have no idea when it comes to military hardware (for example regularly saying tanks to IFVs and APCs).

About the lack of bluriness because of movement, the typical cruise speed of a Boeing 777 is 905 km/h, the Su-27 wouldnt need to fly at 2000 km/h, especially if it was coming from the side all along. Anyway from a big distance of a satellite it wouldnt make much difference. Look at how fast Formula 1 cars appear to be up close and how slow from a distance of half a kilometer although in both cases they move with a speed of 300 km/h. Its all a matter of perspective.

And here we come to those fields. At an altitude of 11000 meters those fields would look smaller compared to the plane.

http://www.hdwallpapersinn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/boeing-747-wallpaper-8792-hd-wallpapers.jpg

Look at how small the mountain looks in comparison to the plane, and its definaly bigger than 1km.

Of course if the planes were flying at an altitude of 100 meters those fields would be bigger.

So what I mean, its all a matter of perspective.

Here is another picture with a plane above some fields:

http://www.blogsouthwest.com/wp-content/uploads/files/blusk/AirplanesLG0003.JPG

here the fields do look smaller as the plane as well.

Yet again it seems to be all too convenient that a Satellite would make a Photo of those two planes right at the moment of the missile firing.

And why publish it now and not right after the plane was shot down.

Edited November 15, 2014 by negah

[beastcat 14]

And here we come to those fields. At an altitude of 11000 meters those fields would look smaller compared to the plane.

http://www.hdwallpapersinn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/boeing-747-wallpaper-8792-hd-wallpapers.jpg

Look at how small the mountain looks in comparison to the plane, and its definaly bigger than 1km.

Of course if the planes were flying at an altitude of 100 meters those fields would be bigger.

So what I mean, its all a matter of perspective.

Here is another picture with a plane above some fields:

http://www.blogsouthwest.com/wp-content/uploads/files/blusk/AirplanesLG0003.JPG

here the fields do look smaller as the plane as well.

Thats exactly what I'm saying. Those are close up pictures that you provided and if you look at the faked satellite image you will see that the satellite would be only a few hundred meters above the planes and it is absolutely impossible for a satellite to orbit at 12km as the lowest theoretical possible orbit is 160km.

Take a look at this picture. It has been taken from a high distance and thats why the plane looks as big as it does, even though it is far away from the building in reality.

Edited November 15, 2014 by beastcat

[negah 26]

Thats exactly what I'm saying. Those are close up pictures that you provided and if you look at the faked satellite image you will see that the satellite would be only a few hundred meters above the planes and it is absolutely impossible for a satellite to orbit at 12km as the lowest theoretical possible orbit is 160km.

And thats what magnifying cameras are for.

[beastcat 14]

And thats what magnifying cameras are for.

But they do not distort perspective. Just take a look at the picture I updated in my previous post. If it was a real satellite photo the SU-27 would be as big as if it was standing on the field. The size difference would not be distinguishable by the eye.

[spooky lynx 73]

I'll just leave it here.

https://pp.vk.me/c620520/v620520257/15661/F8SNsi55OUc.jpg (155 kB)

[Tonci87 163]

I'll just leave it here.

https://pp.vk.me/c620520/v620520257/15661/F8SNsi55OUc.jpg (155 kB)

What exactly does that picture show us?

[spooky lynx 73]

WZT-3 repair vehicle of Polish origin. I hadn't seen any info about Ukraine buying armored vehicles from Poland though. At the same time I've read rumors about arriving of group of Polish SPGs and support vehicles with crews to Odessa seaport some months ago. But I may be wrong and just hadn't seen some news about Poland providing Ukraine with military help.

P.S. And one more thing - no usual white stripes painted on UA vehicles.

Edited November 15, 2014 by Spooky Lynx

[Tonci87 163]

How do you know it is a WZT? Because as far as I can tell it isn´t one... Look up some pictures of that thing, it should have the crane on the left side. The one in your picture doesn´t have that....

Anybody here with knowledge of polish vehicles?

[spooky lynx 73]

How do you know it is a WZT? Because as far as I can tell it isn´t one... Look up some pictures of that thing, it should have the crane on the left side. The one in your picture doesn´t have that....

Anybody here with knowledge of polish vehicles?

Here's another pic from similar position:

Maybe it's not WZT-3 but WZT-4 (it has crane on right side of the hull) or MID vehicle, based on PT-91.

[Tonci87 163]

What do the russians use as recovery vehicle?

[ProfTournesol 956]

Wahoo, Poland supplying Ukraine with secret repair vehicles, that's frightening. Did they send cranes too ?

[spooky lynx 73]

What do the russians use as recovery vehicle?

BREM-1

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e9/BREM-1_armoured_recovery_vehicle_%282%29.jpg/1280px-BREM-1_armoured_recovery_vehicle_%282%29.jpg (164 kB)

And IMR-2

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/78/RIAN_archive_734015_Wildfires_in_Moscow_Region%27s_Lukhovitsky_district.jpg (406 kB)

[Tonci87 163]

This is certainly interesting although I don´t know why Poland should supply recovery vehicles. Don´t the Ukrainians have their own?

[surpher 1]

WZT-3 repair vehicle of Polish origin. I hadn't seen any info about Ukraine buying armored vehicles from Poland though. At the same time I've read rumors about arriving of group of Polish SPGs and support vehicles with crews to Odessa seaport some months ago. But I may be wrong and just hadn't seen some news about Poland providing Ukraine with military help.

P.S. And one more thing - no usual white stripes painted on UA vehicles.

[mistyronin 1181]

About the Russian TV "satellite" photo, it is obviously a fake, as the field of view is completely distorted.

With a tele lens you can indeed make things appear closer ( that's the typical Hollywood resource for scenes with big explosions ).

But you must have the lens relatively close to the first object to get that effect. And satellites are situated in a long distance from Earth. Just to give you an idea the ones that are closer are situated in Low Earth Orbit, which is from 160 to 2000 km.

[spooky lynx 73]

This is certainly interesting although I don´t know why Poland should supply recovery vehicles. Don´t the Ukrainians have their own?

Maybe they do, but vehicles may be at storage bases and in horrible condition, so making them operational may cost as much as buying some similar from abroad. And buying may save much time (sometimes restoring takes much more time than bringing from other country). Note that both BREM and IMR are made on T-72 chassis so Ukrs have difficulty in getting spares. Ukrs already ordered some T-72s from Hungary, I suppose because of that reasons. They also broke the deal with Congo and brought modernised T-64s that were already paid by Congolese to their own forces.

[x3kj 1247]

WZT-3 repair vehicle of Polish origin. I hadn't seen any info about Ukraine buying armored vehicles from Poland though.

I remember an older news where Ukraine gov claimed it didnt have enough equipment and the news mentioned the possibility of poland sending equipment. That was some weeks ago iirc.

Just because the USA did something wrong this doesn´t mean that it shouldn´t be condemned. It also must not be used by other nations to justify their own shady tactics.

Then tell me, where are the significant consequences for US/NATO for intervention in iraq, afghanistan, forced regimechanges in many countries (recently lybia, and many before that) and an attempted one in syria? Other then you voicing that you condemn this action and a lot of physically/ psychologically impaired war veterans. US, NATO or Russia could care less what you/ i are talking about. If there are no consequences to all of the sides, it won't stop.

Edited November 15, 2014 by Fennek

[mistyronin 1181]

Then tell me, where are the significant consequences for US/NATO for intervention in iraq, afghanistan, forced regimechanges in many countries (recently lybia, and many before that) and an attempted one in syria?

Are you seriously comparing a single side action done for their own single benefit like the Russian military invasion of part of Ukraine, with a large group of countries that decided to took actions in different countries ( more than 30 in each of the different countries you mentioned )? That BTW didn't annex them for their own benefit.

Besides the consequences for the intervention in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, are numerous for all the countries that took part in those actions In Spain: 11M in Madrid, In UK: 7J inLondon, fall of a group number of Governments. Massive demonstrations, and a long etc.

And remember that Russia didn't oppose to those actions ( Iraq, A-Stan and Libya ), instead supported them. Check who voted against these resolutions ( no one! ):

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1386 ( A-Stan )

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 ( Iraq )

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 ( Libya )

In the first two Russia even voted in favor. So Russia is also direct responsible for the war in Iraq and A-Stan.

And Russian's actions in Ukraine were only supported by a few countries in the whole UN assembly.

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 68/262

In fact not even Russia's traditional allies like Serbia supported Putin's invasion. Check which countries supported Russia:

Armenia, Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua, North Korea, Sudan, Syria, Venezuela, Zimbabwe

The less democratic countries of the World are there, the ones where you would never send your children...

Edited November 15, 2014 by MistyRonin
orthography

[aleksadragutin 9]

Are you seriously comparing a single side action done for their own single benefit like the Russian military invasion of part of Ukraine, with a large group of countries that decided to took actions in different countries ( more than 30 in each of the different countries you mentioned )? That BTW didn't annex them for their own benefit.

Besides the consequences for the intervention in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, are numerous for all the countries that took part in those actions In Spain: 11M in Madrid, In UK: 7J inLondon, fall of a group number of Governments. Massive demonstrations, and a long etc.

And remember that Russia didn't oppose to that actions ( Iraq, A-Stan and Libya ), instead supported them.

The fact that more countries did it doesn't make it legal, just or right.

[Tonci87 163]

I remember an older news where Ukraine gov claimed it didnt have enough equipment and the news mentioned the possibility of poland sending equipment. That was some weeks ago iirc.

Then tell me, where are the significant consequences for US/NATO for intervention in iraq, afghanistan, forced regimechanges in many countries (recently lybia, and many before that) and an attempted one in syria? Other then you voicing that you condemn this action and a lot of physically/ psychologically impaired war veterans.

So you didn´t answer my question, thought so.

There is absolutelly no excuse for the attack on Iraq. It only served to make a few of Bushs friends very very rich, and for him to show his daddy that he can do better (stupid chump). Afghanistan was justified to take out Al Quaeda, but poorly planned and executed. Lybia I don´t know much about but I think that France really wanted to show off their military. It is a disgrace that this country is now beeing left alone by the world. Syria is a mess for all sides involved.