Malaysia B772 flight MH17 AMS-KUL downed near Donetsk, Ukraine

[Flanker2]

Yes, and I do hope that they figure the truth out.
The families deserve it.

[Passenger]

Press statement Dutch Safety Board, 06 November 2014:

The Dutch Safety Board has commissioned the recovery and transportation to the Netherlands of wreckage from flight MH17. As part of the investigation into the cause and progress of the crash, the Dutch Safety Board intends to reconstruct a section of the aircraft.

Agreements have been made about a plan that should make it possible to recover the wreckage and hand it over to the Dutch Safety Board; its technical implementation is currently being prepared.

The Dutch Safety Board expects that it will be possible to start the recovery operation within a few days, although the start may have to be delayed due to the precarious safety situation in the area and other factors.

Source:
http://onderzoeksraad.nl/en/onderzoek/2 ... kage#fasen

same - in Dutch:
http://onderzoeksraad.nl/nl/onderzoek/2 ... ukken-mh17

[Passenger]

A Hercules from the Dutch Airforce will transport five more coffins from Charkov to Eindhoven today.

So far, only 9 victims haven't been identified yet.

[Passenger]

At 15h45, a Hercules from the Dutch Airforce arrived at Eindhoven with 5 coffins. So far, 9 victims haven't been identified yet so they remain reported as "missing" untill positive identification. 7 of the 9 are Dutch citizens.

Source:
http://nos.nl/artikel/719281-kisten-uit ... logen.html

[thalenoi]

The Ukrainians did it.
Rests to be seen who gave the order: the Ukrainian government, rogue military, private interests or too much Vodka.

You forgot the pro-Russian separatists in your list. And I'm sure that there is a way to determine who exactly committed the mass murder, it's only a question of political will.

This is completely ridiculous, those who shot the plane down know who they are isn't???
They have no decency as human beings not showing courage? to say "we did it".

[Passenger]

(photo Dutch Army - Defensie.nl)

Another Dutch rescue team was at the "burn site" today - the crash area that was on fire just after the crash. And once again, human remains have been recovered. They are transported to Charkov, awaiting further transport to Eindhoven (NL).

During the next days, the OSCE will lead the negociations that must allow the technical experts to start their full onsite investigation.

Source: Dutch Defence Department
http://www.defensie.nl/actueel/nieuws/2 ... pplek-mh17

[Flanker2]

Ivan Andrievsky, the first Vice-President of the Russian Union of Engineers comments:

“Here is a space picture taken from a low orbit. According to the coordinates specified in the picture, we can assume that it was taken by a US or British spy satellite. We conducted a detailed analysis of the image and there was no sign of a fake here.”

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/11/ ... hows_v.jpg


IMO, it looks like a SU-27 Flanker, my favorite aircraft.
The color scheme looks like the Ukrainian camouflage one.



http://img.planespotters.net/photo/4230 ... 423972.jpg

Are we at the dawn of huge revelations?

[luchtzak]

Ivan Andrievsky, the first Vice-President of the Russian Union of Engineers comments:

“Here is a space picture taken from a low orbit. According to the coordinates specified in the picture, we can assume that it was taken by a US or British spy satellite. We conducted a detailed analysis of the image and there was no sign of a fake here.”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news ... ws-4631625


IMO, it looks like a SU-27 Flanker.
The color scheme looks like the Ukrainian camouflage one.



http://img.planespotters.net/photo/4230 ... 423972.jpg

Are we at the dawn of huge revelations?
Surely Ukraine has some explaining to do.

Russian and international bloggers quickly pointed to what they said were a mass of discrepancies with the supposed satellite image, including the fact the markings on the side of the Boeing were in the wrong place for a Malaysia Airlines jet, the clouds in the picture were identical to those in a Google Earth image from 2012, and the image was not consistent with the flight path of the jet.

[sn26567]

Russian and international bloggers quickly pointed to what they said were a mass of discrepancies with the supposed satellite image, including the fact the markings on the side of the Boeing were in the wrong place for a Malaysia Airlines jet, the clouds in the picture were identical to those in a Google Earth image from 2012, and the image was not consistent with the flight path of the jet.

Want to know more? Some links:

English: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/ ... EU20141115
Dutch: http://newsmonkey.be/article/24268

[Flanker2]

Actually there are no notable discrepancies (I checked) and I'm checking what this idiot blogger is saying.

https://twitter.com/Brown_Moses/status/ ... 81/photo/1

The markings on the side of the aircraft and the tail (for as far as we can see) are consistent.
Check for yourself:
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Malaysia ... 5d22cb226e

The Malaysia markings start at the root of the leading edge and go forward.
This is the exact same pattern as on the pictures published here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ttack.html

The blogger compared them to an old picture of 9M-MRD, where the logo is more aft.
And it's definitely not a B767 (wing trailing edge shape, horizontal stabilisers), and not a B77L (no raked wingtips, smaller engines) or B773. It's definitely a B772.

The blogger is saying that the pictures are 50km from the crash site, which is possible given that inertia would have carried the aircraft a significant distance before it fell. It just doesn't drop vertical like in their blogger Super Mario video games. (I will check the location though).

In addition, about the clouds, the cloud the blogger has posted is no-where to be seen on the alleged picture.
I would appreciate if someone could pin-point that cloud on the picture.

If it is indeed evidence, it shouldn't be rendered meaningless by some idiots on Twitter.

[Flanker2]

I'll explain why it's not a B767:
1. The real give-away is the distance between the engine and the fuselage. On the B767, the engines are much closer to the fuselage.

2.Less obvious: the wingspan to fuselage length ratio doesn't add up.

The B767's wingspan is much shorter relative to the fuselage.
This is valid for both the B763 as the B764.
As for the B762, the wingspan and the fuselage are equal in length.

However, in this picture, the wingspan is slightly smaller than the fuselage length.
This is more consistent with the B772 than any B767.

3.The smoother narrowing of the fuselage towards the tail points to a B777

[Flanker2]

The approximate distance between the main crash site and the fix on the picture is 45km.
Given a probable distance between the missile and the aircraft of less than 1 kilometer, it would have intercepted the B777 in less than 15 seconds, giving the aircraft the time to fly another 3 kilometers before it was hit.

That leaves a distance of about 42 km or a "glide ratio" of 4:1 as opposed to a normal engine-out glide ratio of 15-20:1.
Given that the aircraft's tail, wing and engines were found in the immediate vicinity of one another, it suggests that the core structure of the aircraft maintained its integrity, while losing fuselage sections on the way down.

This and inertia of the aircraft travelling at 900km/h can easily explain how the aircraft landed at a distance 4 times its height after being hit.

As for navigation not matchung up with recorded track, it depends on what is used as reference for the original track. What are the navigational fixes, and where does it place the aircraft relative to those fixes, etc...

The evidence is thus far plausible IMO.
No evidence yet that it was manufactured.

[Lysexpat]

I think the scale is not correct. The aircraft looks way too big in relation to the earth.

[Flanker2]

I think that the scale is very plausible. Spy satellites fly lower and zoom in significantly as their purpose is to monitor surface movements on the Earth, but also low level airborne activity such as cruise missiles and fighters. The result is a picture that looks as though it had been taken from closer distance.

By using the rectangular shape formed by geographic queues at Krynychna of similar length as the B777, I have made a calculation of the estimated calculation of the altitude at which the picture was taken.
I used the length of the aircraft as 64 meters and the length of the reference surface length at 2600 meters and the height of the aircraft at 11.000 meters with negligible elevation of the local gorund.

Supposing that the size of the lens was 10cm, I calculated the orbit of the satellite to be 167.000 meters, which is consistent with LEO orbits used by spy satellites. Even if my calculation is off by 2 or even 10 factors, this points to the fact that the picture proves that the picture has been taken by a low-Earth orbit satellite, ie a spy satellite.

Even if the picture is zoomed in, the relationship between the reference length and the aircraft size is maintained as this is particular to the distance from which it was taken.


The picture is obviously zoomed in, as a 1:1 picture taken from that altitude is not usable.
I estimate that the zoom was about 10 times, resulting in the raw picture looking as if it was taken from an altitude of 3000-5000 feet above the aircraft.


So far, this picture seems 100% authentic and claims posted here are all amateur bullsh*t, which I will take the time to address in each of their tweets.

[Lysexpat]

Even if the picture is zoomed in, the relationship between the reference length and the aircraft size is maintained as this is particular to the distance from which it was taken..

That was exactly my remark: if you look at the aircraft it is way too big in relation to the fields below. The relationship looks distorted.
If you stand 1m in front of house and I take a picture from 16m away, you suddenly don't look three times as big as the house.

[Flanker2]

Please check my attached analysis. I correct my previous calculation with a detailed, but simple calculation.
The perceived size of the aircraft is only one of the many factors.

If you have a satellite at a 1100km orbit that zooms in 100 times, an aircraft at 11km will appear at its live size.



http://oi58.tinypic.com/ab5sab.jpg

[Passenger]

On 16th November, the Dutch Safety Board tweeted this:

(1/3) Recovery wreckage #MH17 started. Dutch Safety Board commissioned recovery and transportation.

2/3) Recovery operation will take several days depending on the safetyconditions.

(3/3) Wreckage will be brought to a location near the crashsite, from where it will be transported to Kharkov an finally the Netherlands.

- - -

The above tweets were also put in a press release (16 Nov 2014), so far in Dutch only, adding that the wreckage parts will transported to the Netherlands via Charkov:

"Vandaag is in opdracht van de Onderzoeksraad voor Veiligheid gestart met de berging van wrakstukken van vlucht MH17. De wrakstukken zullen naar Nederland worden gebracht voor verder onderzoek en voor de reconstructie van een deel van het vliegtuig. Naar verwachting zal de berging meerdere dagen in beslag nemen, afhankelijk van onder meer de veiligheidssituatie en bijvoorbeeld het weer. Per dag wordt beoordeeld of het mogelijk is om in het gebied te werken. De geborgen wrakstukken zullen eerst op een locatie nabij de crashsite worden verzameld en gaan van daaruit naar Charkov. Vanuit Charkov worden de onderdelen naar Nederland gebracht. De Onderzoeksraad kan nog geen mededelingen doen over de wijze van transport en wanneer dat zal plaatsvinden..."

[teach]

Actually there are no notable discrepancies (I checked) and I'm checking what this idiot blogger is saying.

You're joking, right? That picture is one of the most obvious fakes I've seen in a very long time.

The markings on the side of the aircraft and the tail (for as far as we can see) are consistent.
Check for yourself:
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Malaysia ... 5d22cb226e

The Malaysia markings start at the root of the leading edge and go forward.

No they don't. Half the Malaysia name is over the wing. That is very clearly not the case in this supposed satellite picture.

The blogger compared them to an old picture of 9M-MRD, where the logo is more aft.

The picture he used in his comparison was taken in January this year, and the plane hadn't been repainted since then. Also, comparing it to actual older photos, the logo never moved.

And it's definitely not a B767 (wing trailing edge shape, horizontal stabilisers), and not a B77L (no raked wingtips, smaller engines) or B773. It's definitely a B772.

BS. It's a 767. I'll tell you even more: it's the 767 prototype, in Boeing colours. Type 'боинг вид сверху' into Google, it's Russian for 'Boeing top view' and take a look at what the very first picture is that comes up. Look familiar?

In addition, about the clouds, the cloud the blogger has posted is no-where to be seen on the alleged picture.
I would appreciate if someone could pin-point that cloud on the picture.

Yes it is, and very clearly so. It's the first cloud you see if you go southeast from the airport. Here's the image is higher resolution: http://slon.ru/images2/2014/11-14/boeing_1tv_hr.jpg

If it is indeed evidence, it shouldn't be rendered meaningless by some idiots on Twitter.

Those 'idiots' are simply right, on every count. The picture is a very obvious fake, you have to be extremely gullible not to see that. I mean, the Russians themselves aren't officially commenting on this picture. If this was real, they'd be waving it in our faces at every chance. They're not. Why? Because this is meant purely for domestic consumption. To keep the uncritical masses calm. They know it doesn't stand up to scrutiny, but it doesn't have to as the majority of Russians seeing this won't dig deeper, and will just believe it 'because it was on TV'.

[jan_olieslagers]

the majority of Russians seeing this won't dig deeper

For as little as I know about Russian society, I think this might be the crux. And even if all the world knows it is a fake, putting the Bear only to (more) ridicule, the Bear will only withdraw deeper in his old hole, never entirely abandoned.

[DIBO]

It's a 767. I'll tell you even more: it's the 767 prototype, in Boeing colours.

this animated photo proves that point very clear I think:
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5437 ... ost8743115

And this seems a good argument to dismiss the photoshopped SU27 missile firing scene:
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5437 ... ost8743949
and found this clip that pretty much substantiates this (go to 1:07)