The Russian newspaper MK has obtained a screenshot of the recording of a civilian Russian radar screen in Rostov – just east of the Russian-Ukrainian border. This is what is shows:
What this image shows is 20 minutes of recording of the airspace before and after the shooting down of MH17. The course of MH17 is shown in purple while the numerous little blue “T” shaped objects in the circle show the radar return of one or, possibly two, aircraft which either do not have a transponder or which have not switched it on. Either way, since we know that the Novorussian Resistance did not have aircraft, and since we know that the Ukrainians have denied that they had any aircraft anywhere near this area at that time, and since we know that had this been a Russian aircraft the US/NATO AWACS and satellites would have picked it up and presented this damning proof a long time ago we can come to the only possible conclusion: the Ukies and their US/EU patrons are lying, the aircraft seen on the radar are Ukrainian, no Buk missile was involved in the shooting (though I personally believe that one was used to cue the Ukrainian aircraft to MH17) and that MH17 was shot down by a combo of gun and missile fire from one or two Ukrainian aircraft.
The Saker
PS: by the way, if a civilian radar needs a return signal from a transponder to get the identity, altitude and speed of an aircraft, military radars do not. Since I am quite sure that the Russians also had plenty of military radars in the region, I am equally sure that, just as the US and NATO, the Russian military also has the ironclad proof that the Ukies did it in the form of radar track recordings. Whether they will ever present such proof or not (and I am sure that they would prefer not to) or whether they will only generate such “leaks” from civilian sources as the one today in MK instead is unclear to me. I guess it depends on what the AngloZionist propaganda says.
I think this will prove to be a fake, the origin is somewhat dubious and questions on good blogs are already being raised.
However there are 2 simple questions that would go a long way to clarifying what really happened.
Has any debris from a buk missile been found at the crash site?
Do post-mortems of the crew and passengers give us any shrapnel consistent with a buk attack?
Both of these questions could be answered quickly, especially evidence from the post-mortems which must have now been carried out.
I have read very little about the results of the post-mortems, have I missed something?
W, I also read an article debunking the Russian Radar Presentation as total bunk.
Yes it is partially bunk, as someone who has worked with radars systems, I was left blaffed by some of the screen shots of the radar images. Definitely DID NOT a true ‘target’ as per civil radar images. BUT it all needs cross checking with secondary radar systems, and yeap coz they are military & in Russia, we will not be privledged to see them.
I was left unconvined by the Russian presentation on MH17
they left some holes in their evidence.
ummmm
MIG 19 , about 45 years ago maybe
DESTRUCTION OF MH17 BY A MiG19 UKRAINIAN
“MH 17 has its wings bursting.”
in mid-air???
Baloney, sorry but just baloney info.
There are literally 100s of photos of the cras sites, with BOTH engines located as they would have been normally. Suffice to say that the main part of that fuselage landed on terra firma pretty much in one pieces.
I’m not saying this just for the sake of it, but hundreds of civilians had their lives cut short.
Z said…
The submarine in swedish archipelago is ” identified”. Sweden now have “proof” and everyone who wants Sweden t
And the proof is totally totally AMATEURISH, in fact so much so, they have taken a leaf out of NATO’s book, on being economical with the truth.
Check out the unsourced, undated, non gelocated sonar & the artist’s impression of the track:
http://lepontduhadu.blogspot.fr/2014/10/blog-mad-stockholm-submarine-story-or.html
I think this will prove to be a fake, the origin is somewhat dubious and questions on good blogs are already being raised.
However there are 2 simple questions that would go a long way to clarifying what really happened.
Has any debris from a buk missile been found at the crash site?
Do post-mortems of the crew and passengers give us any shrapnel consistent with a buk attack?
Both of these questions could be answered quickly, especially evidence from the post-mortems which must have now been carried out.
I have read very little about the results of the post-mortems, have I missed something?
A quick explanation on the radar image, which is known as a secondary surveillance radar, linked in with ADS-B. Aircraft transmit messages containing information such as identity, location, and velocity. This what you see on the screenshot.
continuous purple shows the current historic track,
and the trail of light blue dots shows the last few reported positions, as automatically interrogated by the civil transponder system, Mode C/ ADS-B.
The next line is the projected flight trajectory, as interpreted by the system, since the aircraft are fitted with squawks.
You won’t see all flight movements in area since it will have been ‘filtered’ to only include the relevant Flight Levels, FLs. For instance MH 17 was at FL330
But you can see a lot of traffic in the air corridors “lanes”, North/south is in Rostov area, called KANON.
Dear Saker, have a look at this, please.
https://www.1tv.ru/news/leontiev/271824
The Channel1 photo of a Boeing with a fighter firing a missile at it is a FAKE.
The high res photos have now been deleted but the airline sign on the top of the fuselage was in the wrong place. Not MH17.
JohninMK
cardinal points said…
Z said…
And the proof is totally totally AMATEURISH, in fact so much so, they have taken a leaf out of NATO’s book, on being economical with the truth.
http://lepontduhadu.blogspot.fr/2014/10/blog-mad-stockholm-submarine-story-or.html
My response. This is ridiculous and propagandistic. There was a sub in Swedish waters, not for the first time, and you are in denial. Look at the evidence, you don’t even understand it. Do you think you understand Swedish hitech? How could you? Who taught you? Do you understand the language? Did you study at the military academy? How old are you? NOBODY has said it was Russian, it could have been a NATO sub.
With a mindset like that, you wouldn’t last six month at the university. In fact, I would have kicked you out myself when I was active. I hate idiotic comments.
“Russia’s Channel One show satellite photo evidencing MH17 was downed by fighter jet”
http://en.itar-tass.com/world/759835
to cardinal points:”I also read an article debunking the Russian Radar Presentation as total bunk.”
link please?!
What is your point with the SSR?(secondary surveillance radar), your statement is unclear. If an aircraft doesn’t activate its Transponder the Ground Radar can only show a Primary target. The release from Moscow is very conclusive to me.
What puzzles me with the alleged satellite photo is missing contrails or some blurring of the ground behind the engines, but I’m no expert in photographic Evaluation, only a bloody Air Traffic Controller…
Daniel Rich, given the hours analysing the technical information I find your ‘fact’ that I am swayed by the western MSM both insultng and ludicrous.
Maybe you could read my posts again and perhaps come up with a different view?
To others, the only scenario where an air-to-air R-60 I/R missile homed in on MH17 first is if all radio transmissions were blocked. Any such jamming would surely have been noticed.
I personally believe the most likely scenario is an SU-25/other Ukie fighter attack with cannon that shredded the cockpit area and disabled/killed the pilots followed by the R-60 and/or other air-to-air missiles. A ground to air missile such as the massive BUK is unlikely given the noise/long-lasting smoke trail not heard/seen by eye witnesses and wrong damage patttern.
Hi Saker,
Firstly thanks for all the good work you are doing on publishing the truth about MH17.
Could you please have an English translation done on this article from the Russian media (http://www.1tv.ru/news/leontiev/271824).
Thanks,
Colin
Saker,
Thank you for not letting the details of this event be forgotten.
It is interesting that this subject is again being briefly addressed in the media, both Russian and Western (radio commentary heard Thursday). So, why now? Is one a response to the other? Or are they both responding to or anticipating something else? But this is politics, and I would like to examine more tangible details.
The screenshot in your post falls short of being “proof” of anything. Please, let us be more rigorous. If we accept that it is a genuine representation of Air Traffic Control radar, then it shows that other radar targets appeared near MH-17. These were probably aircraft, but of type(s) undeterminable by “primary” (skin paint) ATC radar. However, some additional information might be inferred from the radar data.
This is a computer generated display of a combination of radar and other data, including transponder and other information. Since it has been generated by a computer, its authenticity must be suspect. This is not a direct physical recording of physical data, which might be scrutinized to verify its authenticity. I’m not implying that this is a fake, but it must be acknowledged what this screenshot actually is.
Your differentiation between civilian (in this case ATC, i.e. government) and military radars is somewhat correct. However, more information might be available from this radar than you suggest, depending on what was actually recorded.
This type of radar uses frequencies that limit it to line of sight operation. This means that for this particular radar installation, the Russians have a very good idea what its minimum altitude limitation is in the vicinity of the unidentified targets. My recollection is that in their press briefing several months ago they showed a sequence of the target(s) appearing, then disappearing. An explanation for this is the aircraft(s) climbing above that minimum altitude, then descending below it. So, some altitude information and timing can be inferred.
This type of radar inherently must accurately measure radial velocity in order to function. That is how it excludes very much stronger returns that do not move. It also records a time sequence of positions. (Military radars may also measure target elevation, depending on design.) Together, all these produce a measure of the maneuvering of an uncooperative target. Unless an aircraft cooperates and identifies itself electronically, this is all the information any radar has to identify a target. So, a radar with this data alone will not be able to differentiate between types of aircraft capable of similar maneuvers.
Yet (in my imperfect recollection of their press briefing), the Russians suggested that the unidentified radar target(s) was an Ukrainian Su-25. Did they actually know this, or was their suggestion speculative? Could they have known this? If so, how?
One way the Russians could have used radar to identify the aircraft as being Ukrainian was to have tracked it from its origin by using other radars capable of doing so (able to surveil lower altitudes). These could have been either airborne, or at different ground locations other than this one. Airborne seems to be the most likely.
To identify it as a Su-25, use of other methods would have been necessary. These could include radio traffic, or other intelligence information. Is it plausible that these would have been available? Not only is it plausible, but it is highly likely. The Russians were probably monitoring everything.
But what if their suggestion that this radar target was an Ukrainian Su-25 was just their speculation, or even disinformation? Then the possibility exists that the radar target was not Ukrainian, and/or it was not a Su-25. How does this change the discussion?
cont…
If it was some other, more air to air combat capable type of aircraft, then the interceptor could have accomplished the intercept autonomously using its onboard radar, it could have more reliably engaged the target at the desired location, and it could have used a suite of weapons for the attack that was different from those that a Su-25 was limited to using. This latter point suggests that a heavier, more damaging missile warhead might have been used to produce the observed damage to the forward fuselage of MH-17, instead of Su-25 cannon fire. This seems to be plausible despite the assumption that a Su-25 was used. A detailed forensic examination of the wreckage might better identify the weapon(s). In lieu of that, or other information, we should consider all the possibilities.
Returning to examine the Su-25 hypothesis, much discussion has been made about the published service ceiling of the Su-25, and how that limitation would have made it unsuitable for such an intercept mission. In my opinion, this would have been a minor issue, and somewhat of a “red herring”. A much more serious issue would have been its speed limitation. Aircraft that are not designed to fly supersonically have what is known as a critical mach number. This is the speed at which mach buffet becomes severe and the aircraft cannot controllably fly faster. For the Su-25 this max speed is probably low compared to the desired speed for a reliable intercept, especially of a faster target.
Another limitation of the Su-25, less discussed, is its area surveillance capability. It being primarily a ground attack aircraft, it is not likely to have been outfitted with a long range air target acquisition radar. If this is the case, then target intercept information would have to come from some external source for a reliable engagement at a specific geographical location (assuming that was the objective). This would be particularly critical considering the speed limitation of the Su-25. What could the external source of information have been?
You have suggested that the surveillance radar of a Buk system was used to coordinate the attack. This is a possibility, however, it would require a cognizant missile crew. For such a crime, this would not be as desirable as having a single pilot in a single interceptor aircraft being the only one directly involved. Also, there would have been communications between the Buk system and the aircraft, and these probably would have been monitored.
Another external source of intercept information could have been Ukrainian ATC. They knew where MH-17 was at all times, and could have actively coordinated the attack by directly communicating the required information to the interceptor. Or, they could have indirectly passed similar information by discussing navigation points and times with MH-17 using the usual ATC communication radio frequencies, which an interceptor could monitor. ATC involvement could be one reason why recordings of those communications have disappeared.
Yet another external source of intercept information could have been ADS-B data, if it was being used. This system would have been broadcasting very accurate position, speed, heading, and altitude reports for MH-17, and these could have been monitored by anyone with a receiver and within range, including an interceptor at low altitude.
Regardless of how the intercept was initiated, once the interceptor got above the clouds the attack could have been continued visually. It is quite easy to see a large transport aircraft from twenty miles or more, and military pilots are proficient at visual intercept maneuvers.
Finally, returning to the Russian press briefing, we must consider that the interceptor, if that was the radar target, was not Ukrainian, or did not originate from within Ukraine. After all, this is a possibility, although it is a big can of worms, and one no one has suggested untangling, yet.
How convenient for Z to forget to add this part of my comment before he went on his rant about my lack of competencies.
“Check out the unsourced, undated, non gelocated sonar & the artist’s impression of the track:”
It appears noondays perfectly & professionally acceptable not to put dates, times, scales, coordinates on images, just to try and “prove” a point. I know that today’s MSN are pathetic but still for other people, it was a yardstick of professional integrity.
I am not the only one to make this kind of comment, even a former German general doubted sat images produced by NATO, on TV.
http://lepontduhadu.blogspot.fr/2014/11/video-former-nato-general-kujat-i-dont.html
If z had seen the blog posting cited, he would have seen the links to both the Swedish operating & the supposedly Dutch sub in the area.
Yours aye
Le Dahu
The Channel1 photo of a Boeing with a fighter firing a missile at it, seems to me a fake. The town under MH17 is Donetsk (Googlearth docet) so, the distance of the crash site (Hrabove) from the shooting point must be about 62 Km., too much for a severely damaged plane.
Hi Saker,
Don’t worry about my earlier request. I was able to translate it and I found the video on youtube and was able to use keepsubs.com on it.
Thanks.
The images debunked by these debunking experts
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-this-photo-shows-a-ukraine-mig-29-shot-down-mh17.5107/
Main feature: cloud shapes in the supposed July 17 2014 picture being identical with clouds in Google earth in 2012….which kind of indicates where one part of the composite came from.
The image looks wrong to start with, as the supposed MH17 is in a clear sky, when all witnesses said it was IN CLOUDS when shot.
Satellites take single static shots, not video, so there cannot be a “path” showing for a missile, either.
The whole thing is nonsense. What we SHOULD be looking for is, what is happening that they want us to NOT see? what is this a diversion from?
Johann Schickeneder said…
to cardinal points:”I also read an article debunking the Russian Radar Presentation as total bunk.”
Thanks Johann for responding. I found another website with better quality images so I’ve discarded the debunking article.
so here is the another link
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22759&st=20
What is your point with the SSR?(secondary surveillance radar), your statement is unclear. If an aircraft doesn’t activate its Transponder the Ground Radar can only show a Primary target.
Yes sorry that’s what I meant, but it didn’t seem to seen to happen on the Moscow video, with respect to the new “target”.
Moscow didn’t even mention the possibility of seeing the plane disintegrating, and shown up via the PSR display. Why miss out this at briefing?
@anonymous..
Your reading comprehension is beyound retarded as is your inane rambling about “military” this and that “university” thing makes me chuckle “son”..
Do you even know what ellipses imply? Nowhere do I say that the sub is identified. I do create a a worst case scenario based on the official media narrative in Sweden. Other than that my little friend we have allegdly confirmed (notice the lack of ellipses) transgression by russian jets into swedish airspace. I simply posit a worst case scenario based on the official media narrative in Sweden. I even say that both Russia and US/NATO indeed have contingency plans for invasion implying that the sub might come from either block. The message [to Sweden] is clear if the sub originates from Russia Now go look at my post again instead of blurting out nonsense. That is all.
@Cardinal You do realise that you are answering the wrong post. The post you’re refering is by some random anonymous.
Anonymous said .., 13 November, 2014 22:52
Focus can be a form of blindness ergo a lack of perception.
Anatoly Sobchak was important but not exclusive, which may illuminate some precipitations even in this blog.
Perhaps the best source of material re MH17 is http://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/wiki/MH17
There is some discussion on the radar screenshot here: http://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/wiki/File_talk:MH17_Rostov_radar_MK.jpg
I am still wondering about the obviously fake photo. Was it leaked to distract from the radar info? Anything released by Russia now is going to meet with a great deal of understandable suspicion.
Z
I owe you an apology for NOT looking at the start of the message.
very sorry for that. I suppose we need rants such as his, to put it into perspective, evidently touched a raw nerve there.
thanks
Someone is still actively tying to prevent MH17 wreckage being picked up. Story from Russian photographer allowed to the scene
with the Dutch.
Passing by a large piece of one of the compartments “Boeing”, we saw near him a huge blast crater, which was not yesterday. Apparently, Ukrainians, frightened by the news of a possible export remains liner, decided the night some powerful projectile to destroy this piece, but missed the mark by 50 meters….
http://msk.kp.ru/daily/26306/3184995/
No accident as there is no actual fighting around there.
Also they found a part of engine cowling, holed. At Petropavlivka, which is where other such parts and a broken fan blade were found originally.
I for myself am quite certain that MH-17 was indeed shot down with a Buk SA-11, by the Ukrainian Army.
Who? Poroshenko surely was not resposible, and may not even have been fully briefed about the operation. All he knew was there would be a “nasty surprise” for the “Separatists”. That still leaves us with Kolomoyski & his Israeli friends, Yats, various rightwing militias, or somebody we do not even have on our radar.
How? According to Wikipedia, the Ukraine has 60 Buk systems operationnal. For Buk, it is a bit unclear what counts as a system, as normally a unit consists of several launching platforms together with long-range radars and mobile command posts , but a single launch platform can also be used autonomously in a pinch. This compares with parts of one system captured by the rebels, w/o C3I equipment, and according to Kiev in a state of disrepair.
Training Buk operators in a matter of days is out o9f the question.
Why? Soon after the crash of MH-17, the “terrorists” and their master Putin were blamed, first by Kiev’s regime, and then by a sycophant Western press. Poroshenko’s summer offensive would surely have offensed people in the west because of civilian casualties etc., but in view of the destruction, it was seen all right as a punishing action.
Where? The russian engineers stated that a Buk launch should have been witnessed, as it is impossible to be oversen or overheard. The problem is that investigations have concentrated only on rebel-held buks, as if the ukrainian army were out of the question from the start. At least 3 ukrainian Buk sites were operational and in range of MH-17 on July 17th. The Buk missile could have been mistaken by eyewitnesses for a military plane: what they saw, was something smaller and faster than the airliner, wich could have been the missile.
How exactly? We know Ukrainians are no monsters, so how could a ukrainian SAM-operator have pushed a button to send 300 people to their death? That’s where Putin’s plane comes into play. True, it did never fly above ukrainian airspace, but would every SAM-opreator know that? If he was told: look, there comes Putin, come on, shoot down the “Huylo”, a professionally trained but politically misguided SAM operator could have pulled the trigger.
@Thomas
I doubt the Ukrainians fired a BUK missile, as the firing of missile can be heard several Km away…and the thick vapor trail would have been seen from both territories…..because at a minimum it would travel 15km. The vapor takes at least 10 mins to fully dissipate on a non-windy summer’s day.
I still it was shot down deliberately by a Jet fighter..most likely Ukrainian.
The only option is an on-board bomb placed in Amsterdam….but I highly doubt that.