Problems of the track-a-trail narrative – a review

In this examination the most important social media evidence constructing a possible answer to the question who downed civilian airliner MH17 will be reviewed to list the (imho) most important problems. As a disclaimer I would like to start with giving my own opinion. This opinion holds the track-a-trail story of a stand-alone Buk missile system brought in from Russia and moving from Donetsk to a site south of Snizhne to shoot down a civilian plane, is fraudulent.

With this I don´t mean all evidence has been faked. I do support, however, the idea this story contains so much irregularities – including some forgeries – it raises almost every red flag possible. These red flags I try to write down here in kind of orderly manner, though from the aforementioned point of view. Of course, the development of this review is an ongoing process, also influenced by discussion and re-examinations.


Last update of the review 23.11.2016, including new material brought in by the JIT after its 28.9.2016 pressconference.


 The media

Because of the huge geopolitical stakes at hand in this case, all witness accounts have to be reviewed very carefully and cannot be trusted at face value. This is also valid for accounts from well respected sources like western newspapers. Also people with an anti-Russian/Putin affiliation can adopt this attitude. They just have to imagine there is no a priory certainty the western media is morally or institutionally a great deal better than the Russian adversaries they despise.

That is to say, standard approach should always be one of distrust, being critical unless the evidence has proven itself to be solid. Not the other way around, that is, trusting these sources from an uncritical, naive and law-abiding perspective, believing the holy authoritative news agency is always trustworthy, especially in our so-called free and democratic societies. The ¨its true because the news said so¨ argument is kind of obsolete after the anti-authoritarian cultural revolution took place in the sixties, though many followers of the MH17 case still seem to hold on to it.

Higgins replies

A typical response to criticism from Eliot Higgins, founder of Bellingcat and most resilient protector of the track-a-trail narrative. In this particular tweet he replies to publication of the Haunt the Buk report by Micha Kobs.

The truth is, unfortunately, often the reverse. While the accusation of being a conspirator or a ¨putinist troll¨ – pretty efficient ways of the argumentum ad hominem attack to neutralize criticism – is never far away, one should be aware of the dark past of western governments in waging wars of propaganda.

Especially the part played by the servile media, utilized to build narratives of great inimical evil upon, is salient in this respect. Let´s not forget its our society – or better: the American cultural hegemony – that provided us with advertising, propaganda, the Public Relations industry and, its governmental offshoot, ¨public diplomacy¨.

These industries were, in fact, invented to spin reality in a way compliant with state and class objectives. Its the core of our cultural heritage, its the essence of capitalism. ¨Bending the truth¨ towards interests is big business and should be acknowledged as a fundamental tenet of our information age. Our media is filled with monied interests plugging their message to the public through one-way mass communication channels organized and owned by commercial or state media corporations serving their customers, funding agencies and shareholders to make profits (see e.g. the Herman/Chomsky propagandamodel).

A fine example is an analogous case, the shooting down of a South Korean airliner by the Soviets in 1983, recently brought back into memory by an article from Robert Parry. The Reagan administration went out of their way to make this tragedy a clear-cut case of evil Soviet aggression by manipulating facts and the news, finding a full-specter docile media to work with.

Though sources should always be assessed on its own merits and there is some, although limited room for dissenting views from journalists who take their job seriously, its imperative never to forget this.

Second, when we are investigating social media accounts we also have to deal with the psychology, ideological affiliations or motives of personal gain of the people interviewing, being interviewed or posting as kind of privatized information sources. For example, many accounts arrive from testimonies done after the actual event took place.

Therefore the danger of fitting evidence or testimony after the fact to an often heard or desired narrative, with or without being aware of this, is all the more present. The law of causality says cause precedes the effects in time. So when knowledge is already present at a certain moment in time, it can and will influence memory or be used to dis-inform, deliberately [1] or not. In each case, after the event reporting is diminishing the value of the social media account.

[1] About assessing the information by alleged witness accounts, interviews or written, one should take into account the following: When people are convinced a story is true anyway – and a year after the events happened that chance is not infinitesimal – they won´t have feelings of remorse when they issue a false testimony. In other words, the more time has passed by, the lower the threshold to adapt your story or to invent one to the standing narrative.


Apart from problems emanating from a biased press corps and unreliable witness accounts its very likely one has to deal with the impression the track-a-trail comprises many signs of forgery. In his excellent work Sergey Mastepanov showed how easy it is for someone skilled to produce fake photos and even videos.

The trail consists of imho at least two pieces of fake evidence, which are the picture issued by French magazine Paris Match of a truck with Buk standing at the side of Makeevka highway and the photos of the alleged Buk launch plume taken by Pavel Aleynikov. Much other evidence, though, seems at least to be mis-dated, so probably this material was collected on an earlier date.

About possible forgery, according to Mastepanov there is a strong indication that the Ukrainian Ministry of the Interior employ expert(s) capable of making fake videos and photos. December 2015 an incident occurred between US darling, former president of Georgia and governor of Odessa Saakashvili and Avakov, chief of the Ministry for the Interior. Both were accusing each other virulently of being involved in corruption.

About this time a video appeared on the internet in which Saakashvili is talking with a Russian oligarch, allegedly proving his corruption involving a company in Odessa. Later Saakashvili was telling people on TV that the video was a fake. Saakashvili reiterated that this video was distributed by the Ukrainian Ministry for the Interior, saying: “Do you realize now what sort of fraudsters we are dealing with?”

In other words, it seems not to be rational to dismiss every piece of evidence the Russians issue because they would have been faked, but turning a blind eye towards the possibility Kiev might be engaged in this kind of forgery themselves.


After reviewing the track-a-trail case, brought to light by social media and cherished, supported and expanded by Bellingcat, a final assessment can be drawn up. Of course, it is my view expressed here, although supported by a list of problems the alleged evidence shows, but nonetheless subjective. This way in several cases I pick the most credible option, though I am not denying other possibilities exist and may even be true.

Click here for the review of the main problems concerning the track-a-trail evidence. Then this is my assessment:

The photos and videos:



  • Paris Match stills
  • Launch plume photos

disinfo Paris Match

Who launched disinformation about the Paris Match stills (top picture) and why? Paris Match itself held on to the original information, conveyed by a “freelance photographer”. That is, origin was Snizhne instead of Donetsk, as later on was geolocated. Photo was taken on 10 AM, said the photographer. Bellingcat first claimed 9 AM (8.9.2014), followed by 11 AM (8.11.2014) and then revised it finally to 10:45 AM (16.7.2014).  Micha Kobs calculated convincingly to 11:05.


Possible fake or genuine and misdated:

  • Makeevka video
  • Torez photo
  • Snizhne photo
  • Snizhne video

possible fakes smal


Makeevka video misdated?

Deze slideshow heeft JavaScript nodig.

A convoy on 15 july damaged the street, as seen in front of the Parallel gasstation along the Avtotransporta street. On two stills from the alleged 17.7 Buk convoy – from the same spot and from behind the gasstation – these tracks cannot be seen. Therefore, the video was probably collected on another date as were the Zuhres and the Luhansk videos, both probably originating from the SBU. Credits: Ole.

Micha Kobs refined the time of capture by using shadow casting analysis close to 11:10 EEST (not published).


Genuine but misdated:

misdated small

  • Zuhres video (southern wind doesn’t match wind direcion on 17th),
  • Snizhne video (overcast and cloudy weather doesn’t match sunny weather other pictures, including the Torez Buk photo)
  • Luhansk video (did the Buk drive through frontarea?; a Buk video was available from date before; a lightpole is on although there was a power black-out on that morning).


Snizhne video misdated?

snizhne vid misdated

Of course, its possible the sunny weather on this Tarasenko picture ( is from another day as would be the Torez Buk photo (also taken at about 12:05-30) and showing bright sunny weather. But if the sunny APC picture really is from the 17th – and there is no reason we should doubt that, as it is an infowarrior´s job to give up-to-date info  – it casts doubts about the dating of the Snizhne video that was taken at almost the same time of day from the same site. Both video and photo were taken from Gagarin street Snizhne looking at the south.

For a more elaborate view, see Dating gthe undated evidence: The Snizhne Buk video


Luhansk Video misdated?

luhansk 18 juli

Buk flight via Luhansk. The M04 was not under separatist control at the villages Bile and Yubileine and Luhansk West experienced heavy fighting and bombing, especially near the airport. It cannot be explained the crew, allegedly under command of trained Buk leader “Bibliothekar”, took a strange detour to the Russian border to go through heavily disputed frontarea at the time.


The lightpole that shined during a full power black-out in Luhansk West

Illustratie 13 straatverlichting Luhansk

Lightpole on at one side of the road where the Buk flight was filmed (see yellow circle). According to Kemet from the Russian discussion forum the left light source could be the sun, estimated at about 9 AM. This would raise doubts about the dating of the video on the early  morning of the 18th at 4:50 AM, because at that morning a power shutdown was reported, caused by ATO troops’ bombings .


Genuine (but with severe problems):

  • Satellite image Makeevka showing a truck with white cabin, but no accompanying vehicles.

Makeevka SAT

Possible discrepancies between Makeevka video and the 17.7.2014 Digital Globe satellite image, taken about 45 seconds after the video. Cars standing idle along the road match both video and SAT positions (see red arrows).

1. and 2. The front cars as seen on the video seem to be missing on the SAT;

3. and 4. The two cars following the truck closest seem to drive on the other lane in the opposite position, especially nr 4.;

5. The last car as seen on the video drives about 12 seconds after the truck whereas it drove 5 secs. after the truck on the video. On this busy road this just might be another car;

6. A car standing perpendicular to the road on the video could be rendered differently on the SAT (the site seems to be a parking lot);

7. A grey car parked at the other side of the road cannot be seen on the SAT. Was it entirely covered by trees?



The tweets and postings:

Influenced by spread rumours and speculation (dismissed):

  • Necro Mancer (Donetsk)
  • Occupied_Rook (Donetsk)
  • Spice4russia (Shakhtarsk)


Fed by unknown source:

  • WowihaY (Torez)
  • Donetsk is Ukraine! (Donetsk)
  • Euromaydan (Torez): Buk part and Vostok part arrived separately

euromaydan small

 Why did the admins of Euromaydan Facebook edit their message, adding to the alleged Buk sighting from ¨locals¨ it was accompanied with machines and terrorists? As they re-uploaded a promo video from the Vostok convoy – on the road from Donetsk via Torez/Snizhne to Marinovka that day – it is assumed they supported the (falsified) story of a Buk that went with Vostok, as the Khmuryi intercepted calls would show.



  • ATO in Donetsk-Donbass News (Donetsk): exact copy of ¨Donetsk is Ukraine!¨ posting
  • FaceNews.UA (Donetsk), Konstantin Golubtsov (dir.), content seems copy “Donetsk is Ukraine!” posting
  • Kriminal.TV (Donetsk), Konstantin Golubtsov (dir.): exact copy FaceNews.UA posting

Donetsk sightingsThe Donetsk sightings, all mentioning the same crossroads. The Buk allegedly drove back and forth Donetsk-Makeevka for almost 2 hours, against orders not joining the Vostok convoy but waiting for the Paris Match freelancer to be filmed. 1. Necro Mancer tweets (opaque, dismissed as sighting); 2. “Donetsk is Ukraine!” posting and its copies (unknown source); The Occupied_Rook tweet mentions same crossroads, but no direction; 3. Khmuryi/Motel Intercepted telephone calls (spliced-and-edited and misdated by SBU).


Possibly fed by unknown source:

  • Roman (Torez)
  • HallaHupS (Snizhne)

roman tweetRoman tweeting: “Missile system was driven on a tractor + two cars for cover through Torez towards Snizhne at 12-10.” Did he, as a well known infowarrior disseminating news about separatist movements on a regular basis, see the reported event himself? Or was he fed by an unknown source to relay info matching the Zuhres video (tractor/trailer, two cars, cover) that probably already was in possession of the SBU before the 17th?

spider Wowi

 An infowarrior in a web of informants, Wowihay: Torez Buk sighting; plume tweet; re-uploader Snizhne vid, witness broker to western newsoutlets and Makeevka vid promotor.


The witness accounts from journalists:

newspapers in Torez

Reporters from these four newscorporations probably were on tour together to war-zone Torez where the Buk had been photographed. All their articles were published on 22.7 and three showed the same alleged witness account. Actually, this “witness” never saw the Buk, but “heard something heavy passing by”, probably the Vostok convoy.


NG witness anatoliy

Novaya Gazeta witness Anatoliy, who allegedly saw people falling out of the plane at 10 km height.


  • Anonymous, unaccountable journalism: Novaya Gazeta/Torez, AP/Daily Mail
  • Unclear sourcing/possible biased or non-impartial witnesses: Leonard/AP, BBC, NG/Torez, Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, Buzzfeed
  • Absence of corroborating evidence/visual back-up: AP/Daily Mail, NG/Torez, Leonard/AP, BBC
  • Spreading irrational explanations for this absence: Leonard/AP, NG/Red October
  • Unreliable witness accounts: WSJ, Zverev/Reuters, NG/Red October, NG/video
  • Contradicting information: note Leonard/AP (see image below), The Guardian
  • Witness accounts contaminated with foreknowledge: WSJ, The Guardian, Buzzfeed, Leonard/AP, BBC, Zverev/Reuters, NG/Torez
  • Suggestively connecting pieces of information to witness accounts: Leonard/AP
  • Confirmation biased approach: WSJ, The Guardian, Buzzfeed, Leonard/AP, NG/Red October
  • Interpreting answers to desired narrative: Buzzfeed, The Guardian, Leonard/AP
  • Copying without checking: Bochkala, Leonard/AP


Journalist Roman Bochkala shows his colours. Probably he was copying the content of the Roman tweet without checking, some 1.5 hrs after the crash .


leonard note

Note by Leonard with information allegedly received from AP’s Buk witnesses in Snizhne on the 17th. It shows contradicting information. Buk was seen at 11 AM, though in his 25.7 article 13:05 – a very exact time, matching the known images of the trail – was mentioned. Furthermore, the note says the Buk was “coming from south”. In the Bellingcat/SBU trail narrative it was coming from the west.


The intercepted telephonecalls:

Fake, spliced-and-edited, misdated:

  • Bezler confession taps,
  • Khmuryi/Motel taps,
  • Getaway taps

Fake, misdated:

  • Birdie comes to you taps



The Bezler confession taps, glueing parts of conversations together from events from the 16th – a downing of a SU-25 near Enakievo – and from separatists finding debris of the plane on the 17th, suggesting both events had something to do with eachother.


2 planes today the second

Khmuryi telling, allegedly at 9:08 AM in the morning of the 17th, his group downed two planes the day before and that very day another two – or “the second”. Its is impossible to match these assertions with facts known from 16 and 17 july reports. In fact, on the 17th before 9 AM there were no planes downed. Ukrainian Airforce didn’t even have sorties that morning. Apparently this conversation is at least misdated.


were is the car

The Get-away taps, intercepted calls that should testify Buk flight to Russia. The separatists even lost track of “the car”. By the way, the intercepts cannot verify in anyway this so-called “car” is a Buk transport.


Deze slideshow heeft JavaScript nodig.

The Get-away intercepts suggest a story of Buk flight to Russia, led by Bibliothekar transporting ¨it¨. ¨It¨, until this moment referred to as ¨the car¨, the Buk as we are made to believe, is in the next frame called the ¨vehicle¨. Bibliothekar will even bring a new ¨vehicle¨ back from Russia. Interesting news. Right after they put a Buk over the border, according to the SBU at least four units that night, Russia had decided to bring in a new one immediately, as it seems. It is almost inconceivable the JIT is taking this kind of information seriously.

According to a PR glossy JIT issued june 2016 the SBU led investigation has shown its information deserves indisputable credibility, especially the taps: “By now, the investigators are certain about the reliability of the material. ‘After intensive investigation, the material seems to be very sound’, says Van Doorn, ‘that also contributed to the mutual trust.’

Taking a first glance at the contents of the intercepts, as shown above, this statement seems almost to have arrived from a different universe, that is: one as designed by George Orwell in “1984” in full compliance with Kafka’s “Der Prozess”.


The fatal mistake narrative and Vostok linkage:

  • The retracted Strelkov_info message: Misinterpretation, manipulation
  • The Bezler confession taps: Fake, spliced-and-edited, misdated
  • The Vostok linkage: Misinterpretation and/or fed by unknown source.



SBU invention of the “terrorist convoy” transporting the Buk by showing a still from the Zuhres video and two pictures of the Vostok movement at the same site.


Tarasenko smoke video 2

The retracted Strelkov_info message, used to claim the commander-in-chief himself wrote about his downing and deleted the message to conceal evidence of his guilt. In fact the message appeared on a website dedicated in name to the commander, merely posting quotes and press releases about the fightings. This message used info from social media, i.e. a video also picked up by WowihaY group member Andrey Tarasenko, who was the first one posting it on Youtube even before Strelkov_info posted their copy. False conclusions about a downed AN-26 ran in pro- and antiMaidan fora alike. See also this document and “” on this blog.


Some concluding remarks

Now the official investigation led by the JIT, which supports the track-a-trail evidence from the moment they issued their “call for witnesses” video, suffers from severe tunnelvision, a common sense approach is expedient to review the evidence they seem to rely on. Therefore, in this article most of the publically available accounts have been listed to show the most salient problems this alleged Buk-trail has.

Only 9 months after the crash the JIT decided to look for witnesses, but only for those who could confirm the track-a-trail narrative. Of course, we don’t know what the investigators collected. Maybe they even have found some, but, nonetheless, hardly any reliable witness showed up in open media the first days, who heard, saw or reported something resembling a Buk or a launch next to their door. Not even a witness from Pervomaiskoye, featured by Novaya Gazeta, could decide if a sound he heard came from the air or from the ground – and he lived almost right on the alleged Bellingcat endorsed launchsite.

Besides, not even one pro-separatist accounts of a Buk sighting was reported in realtime on that fateful day. Only two handfulls of obviously very brave nationalist Kievites posted information on Twitter, Vkontakte and Facebook (eleven in total), probably relaying information – or, in this case, maybe disinformation – from an unknown source. Many of these “infowarriors” were in contact with eachother, especially those from the Torez/Snizhne area, the “WowihaY group”, consisting of Buk sighting tweeters @WowihaY and Roman, launch plume photographer @rescuero and second plume witness Andrey Tarasenko (@andrushka74/ @parabellum_ua). Last person probably also knew alleged Snizhne video maker Vita Volobueva, as they lived in the same appartment building.

no sep buk vids

Though it was their “job” to collect and disseminate information and all showed a strong nationalist point of view, this doesn’t mean they were involved in foul play. What can be said, though, is that they, being trustworthy “patriots”, they were reliable information conduits, and so could have been used to disseminate disinformation. Second, the fact that WowihaY also was in contact with the SBU and Ukrainian official Anton Gerashchenko shows contacts with authorities and secret service could be established whenever needed, for example to plug propaganda and disinformation in Kiev friendly western newspapers.

Tarasenko as plume witness

Was Andrey Tarasenko, aka infowarrior @andrushka74 / @parabellum_ua and acquaintance of @WowihaY, introduced as a false witness to western media?

Furthermore, next to existence of infowarriors we have to deal with another remarkable phenomenon, that is: anonymous journalism. Paris Match, AP and Novaya Gazeta featured first-hand witness accounts from journalists, or actually “freelancers”, with unknown identity. They also were almost the only first-hand accounts of the entire Buk-trail known publically, because apparently even the spotters who took care of their job to report separatist military manuevers that day seem to have conveyed only second-hand information.

Some other, though only a few, first-hand witnesses were put on stage, e.g. in the articles written by (pro)western newspapers and newsagencies. But they seemed to be unreliable, were misinterpreted or originated from unknown sourcing. Western journalism seemed to have been eager to corroborate the fast spreading anti-Russian narrative, with bias trickling down through most of their articles and witness testimonies.

Reading the articles featuring witnesses, the piece Peter Leonard wrote for AP meets the eye at once. It shows a witness account, allegedly an AP journalist who saw the Buk in Snizhne in realtime but was not allowed to take photos. Initially it was posted very short after the crash in a Daily Mail article, claiming it already was aired before MH17 was downed.

Though juridically presence of a weapon near the (alleged) crime scene doesn’t mean it has also been used in the crime reviewed, its a key pillar under the track-a-trail narrative. Nevertheless, the supporting story is filled with suggestion, absence of visual back-up and a authentic note from the reporter with unexplainable contradicting information. And why all this secrecy? Russian GRU officers could also beat up Leonard himself to retaliate – as he still works in het former Soviet Union – or get the info about the real witnesses out of him. It doesn’t make a lot of sense.

The irrational explanations that were given for the absence of clear first hand witness accounts or realtime pro-separatist accounts, is salient too. It was not dangerous to film convoys, not even for Kievites belonging to a group watching along the road, as videos of several known convoys testify. One could assume presence of a Buk would even be cheered for by many people. The alleged Buk convoy drove via densely populated area in broad daylight, so one could expect several “realtime” pro-separatist witness accounts of the Buk en route. They didn’t show up like the Kievite accounts did. The fear-for-reprisal and demand-for-secrecy arguments don’t hold to explain this, in each case, not before the plane was downed and the rumours about separatist guilt spread on the net.

absence Buk cheer

Speaking about that, Ukrainian secret service and some politicians were very well prepared to launch an infowar. The accusations about Buk use and separatist/Russian guilt were disseminated really quickly, as were the first traces of the trail too. The first intercepted telephonecalls featuring Bezler supporting the fatal mistake narrative showed up at only 5 ½ hours after the plane fell on separatist soil. At that moment the news about the retracted Strelkov_info posting was already huge, accusations from Ukrainian officials about Buk use were disseminated on social media, the plume was twittered, the Torez picture had appeared and the Snizhne video was uploaded.

The pillars under the narrative of a trail of a Buk leading to a south-of-Snizhne launchsite stood from the very start, within a few hours. Of course the most interesting question one could ask in this situation might be whether the SBU was working really fast or if they had prepared themselves beforehand, a question explored hopefully in another, upcoming blog.

In each case, overlooking the trail, we have a lot of SBU stuff. We have people working with SBU. We have proKiev ultranationalist information conduits. We have rumours, hearsay and unknown original sources; We have biased anti-Russian journalism working from unclear sourcing, anonimity and biased interpretation and confirmation; We have clear indications for disinformation (e.g. about Buk 312 and Vostok). And we have two pieces of almost certainly faked evidence: the launch plume photos and the Paris Match stills.

SBU with fake Buk

Counter intelligence chief of the SBU Nayda showing on a 19.7.2014 presser “evidence” of the separatist Buk that shot down MH17. Buk 312, on the bottom picture, appeared to be Ukrainian. This was an early detected attempt of the Ukrainians to disseminate disinformation to construct a story of separatist guilt.


Bellingcat will re-instate the importance of both plume and Paris Match images in upcoming summer reports, by inviting experts to verify the images are genuine. However, those will not be dissident experts, nor Russian experts. Bellingcat refused time and time again to hand this apparent “closed source” evidence over to Kiev critical parties.


wowi en moeder

Plume tweeter @WowihaY after reading a debunk of the launchplume by Ole and Micha Kobs on my blog. Translation; “Where is my money, Geraschenko? A bitch, written so much! Another one paid by the Kremlin, work by putinoids (stupid followers of Putin; HR) on MH17. To my collection, ****** ( a swear word that means a prostitute; HR)”.


They don’t seem to care, as long as the western news corps is copying their soundbites about having found “new evidence” for Russian involvement. And these outlets never cease to deliver, as it seems, with most remarkable example the Dutch state news organization NOS, always on the first row whenever Bellingcat shuffles their chains.

But let’s take all this social media trail stuff away and look at what remains. Then only the sloppy DSB report stands, in which some calculations done with secret parameters and a limited review of the damage pattern of the wreckage are promoted as evidence (see my blogpost). Apparently the line of operation lies in the assumption that much weak evidence will anyhow make a strong case. In fact, secretary of the US Foreign Office John Kerry claimed a few days after the disaster he, as a prosecutor, did a lot of cases solely based on circumstantial evidence.

With war mongerers on the side and the prosecutor advertising the fraudulent trail, actually no one knows what will happen.

perfect crime

Look here for the entire review of the main problems concerning the track-a-trail evidence.


44 gedachtes over “Problems of the track-a-trail narrative – a review

      • Thanks. You are free to explore yourself and write on that hypothesis.

        They totally banned me from commenting. Bizarre. There was one user that accused me of being from Langley ;))). Before the ban. Maybe he was a moderator. But I would never imagine such things from consortium news. Particularly as the hypothesis is not far from their group think of accusing USA. it just adds that Russians are also criminally liable in that event, although to a lesser extent because there was no intent.


      • @Antidyatel,

        Why do you use such wild theories then? Keep it simple, ask yourself the question where the Kiew tapes, and the Ukraine primary radar are. The first implicates MH17 didn’t fly his original course, the second confirm the Ukranian lie they had no jetfighters in the air.


      • TheyKnew, the theory to be valid has tp explain all the phenomena at once, if something doesn’t match but it happened than theory is incorrect. While I wish myself to say Ukraine did it all, it just doesn’t match. Simplest way to see it is lack of Russian true radar data. Boeing was shot at 10 km altitude. Radar would see the heavy missile approaching the plane. There is only one reason for Russians to withhold such data. Many other statements and actions by Russian MOD indicate that they are hiding the truth. The presence of rebel BUK is practically undeniable. Sbu and bellingcat are misdating the videos and photos but BUK was there. The narrative for media attack was prepared in advance and it would make no sense to do it, if BUK was not there. But something went wrong, that is why the SBU story collapsed quite quickly. Rebels were ambiguous about BUK. And their stories also don’t add up. But one thing is for sure, there was no possible reason for them to shoot the airliner. The video recorded by rebels appearing at the crash site clearly shows how confused they were and more importantly they were sure that Ukrainian jet was also shot down. That jet was never found. And finally USA was all ready for propaganda war and even announced satellite data with launch, trajectory and hit. But something went wrong and they have to shut up and just squeak that rebels shot mh17 accidently. The likely explanation is that BUK was not where they expected it to be or there was anothee TELAR that engaged phantom. Timing of event was on seconds and in the beginning they didn’t realise it. But on close observation it is very likely that satellite imagery shows a noticeable turn in missile trajectory that will reveal re targeting event. Just see Raetheon promotional video to see how it happened.

        The advantage of his hypothesis is that it explains all inconsistencies ( there are more than i mentioned above) in stories of all parties. And it explains why none of them want to put forward actual evidence. All are guilty. Although I would think that Russians are less guilty. But this is drom general point of view. Individually those Russians that ordered the use of BUK TELAR are war criminals and they are obviously high in he ranks and don’t want the whole truth to come out.


  1. Cassad has part of the video and transcript.
    He also gives a link on Australian source wheee it is claimed that full video is 17 min ( never fully disclosed).

    From transcript you see the confusion of rebels and sureness that SU was hit by them and that it should be somewhere there. They have no doubts about it, probably because Russian command post across the border directed them to shoot at SU detected by TAR.


    • They were sure that they shot at SU. That SU was never found. These two made me think of scenario where it is possible. Plus I long time tried to understand why all parties are lying through their teeth, including Russians.

      My first idea was that ukrs used another TELAR or KUPOL to redirect a missile shot by rebels. The target jet would make an evasive maneuver up, as vividly described by one of the witnesses. The observed habit of ukrs to fly in the shadow of airliners starting from June would make such scenario plausible. TELAR or KUPOL placed closer to the hit point would be able to provide higher intensity density reflected from airliner than the BUK that launched the missile. Additionally KUPOL has narrower beam for illumination. So if SU just allowed missile receiver to get mh17 into the field of view, the retatgeting could be accomplished. I had strong, name calling, arguments with Eugene on Marcel’s blog. The issue is frequency of the illumination signal and doppler signatures. I still don’t see that with modern technology it is unfeasible, particularly if we get even more advanced illumination radar paired with signal sihnature (frequency, modulation, etc) detecting unit. But there might stull be a technical difficulty due to time. Paired with TAR for target acquisition, TELAR has to switch on CW illumination only for the final part of trajectory, last 6-15 seconds, when proportional navigation kicks in. Challenging and high probability of failure in retatgeting.
      Next idea are systems directly attached to jets that can redirect semi-active missiles. Apart from USA, Israel and Belarus are actively selling those. Still that scenario would require SU to get close to MH17 before retatgeting and Russians would have a clearer radar data about it. Although it is still possible that this was the case. In the video rebels think that SU attacked mh17. So maybe they have seen it ascending.

      Then I found Raetheon video, from feb 2014. It was so matching the situation that it just have to be true. 😉

      But not sure where else to look for confirmation. Satellite images could have revealed any of this scenario just though sharp change in missile trajectory. True ukr or Russian primary radar data would help as well.


      • After looking at the video I think they are just reconnaissance troops dispathed to find out what plane is crashed. Initially it was used to lay blame upon them for ransacking private stuff of passengers.

        I can’t corroborate your interpretayion. They say “Is there another plane?” Maybe not because they thought THEY downed a SU-25 – which isn’t mentioned at all by the way – but because right after the crash many reports said next to an AN-26 over Snizhne also a SU-25 was downed.


    • One important thing here. It was discussed heavily on many forums and there is a consensus, rebels operating TELAR in no circumstances could mistake SU and airliner if TELAR aas used for target and acquisitions. But from the video we know that they were shooting at SU. Phantom from Raetheon or other retargeting technique has to come into the picture, in order to explain this inconsistency. At least I can’t imagine anything else


  2. Unless you mean that Cassad gave a wrong transcript of the full 17 min video ( not the 4 minutes that is available for free).

    Because the claimed full transcript is quite direct
    FOR 17 minutes, they ransacked the luggage of innocent people who had just been shot out of the sky. The full transcript of the never-before-seen footage reveals what they were looking for.

    (Video Starts)
    This is another plane, I think. It’s the fighter.
    Commander: There, part of engine.
    Other: Yes, I think.
    Cmdr: Yes, it’s the Sukhoi.
    (Phone): Call the headquarters, the town, he will take you there.
    Background: There’s coins here.
    Cmdr: There’s five people who jumped.
    Background: This is the Sukhoi lying around.
    Background: You know how many bodies out there?
    Cmdr: They say the Sukhoi (Fighter) brought down the civilian plane and ours brought down the fighter.
    Background: But where is the Sukhoi?
    There it is … it’s the passenger plane.


    • Cmdr: They say the Sukhoi (Fighter) brought down the civilian plane and ours brought down the fighter.

      This is what the reconnaissance people was told. It fits the strange information running around in the first hrs. in the media two planes were downed.

      So they thought they took an SU-25 who allegedly had downed MH17. I can see how that also fits your theory.


      • More interesting now, is the leaked email. That confirms that the BUK was not near Snejne (or there was another BUK) but much closer to the hit point. Two consequences: 1) the event proceeded at much faster pace and nobody could react to stop it; 2) it confirms tge scenario that missile came from a different location that Americans expected. From Snejne the attack on phantom and airliner will look the same straight line. From location closer and to the side of the plane path, the missile shot at phantom would have to make a serious turn in order to be redirected at mh17. And satellite imagery is too clear about it. That is why it had to be hushed down under any plausible excuse


  3. Technical details are really becoming secondary in this story. It was a BUK and rebels shot the rocket. In this case behaviour by USA is extremely strange. Something went very wrong in the original false flag if they have to rely on circumstantial evidence to charge the case. And we know tgat this is there strategy, as imbecile Kerry could not keep his mouth shut.


  4. Mr Higgins could be in a state of apoplexy.

    Before his Google Earth scandal we saw the release of the dubiously provenanced and “discovered” Makiivka “video”. I use the quotes judiciously as it is by no means certain that the alleged “video” is indeed an authentic video made on the 17th July and not a synthetic video composite or at least a video made on another date. One thing in common with Ukraine’s secret services evidence, or that of their ‘citizen’ agent accomplices, is the exceptionally poor or deliberately degraded quality. Mr Higgins distanced himself from this “possible” discovery by, on this occasion a few of his minions, stating it required further investigation as others in the MH17 research community pondered over many issues including the missing tank tracks apparent in the video of a convoy on the same road a few days earlier.

    However, the Makiivka Buk never appeared on Mr Higgins’ crowdfunded purchase of the satellite image of the area even though it was triple checked. It appeared the image shrunk to a mere sliver of the preview image area that the crowd may have believed they funded, the anticipated truck and Buk must have sped off the image it would be explained and due to trees and the possibility of clouds obscuring the Buk the purchase of no further sliver would be appealed for, or so the story goes.

    Then came the Strafor image. A big gun in the intelligence game stepping in to save the day where Higgins failed. Another fuzzy image, below the resolution of images commonly available of US operations in its war on the Syrian people or state or terrorists. The image itself not dated or timed, from an undisclosed satellite, of a truck that might not be white, hauling something not clearly a Buk but minus several of the vehicles that accompanied the truck in the Makiivka video. Stratfor add that the image was indeed shot on the 17th “just hours before” its Buk cargo allegedly shot down MH17, but was it?

    Unhelpful to Higgins’ cause Stratfor suggests there is evidence of the Buk moving from the border towards Donetsk on July 15th not the morning of the 17th, but of course no evidence exists of any transit. The Buk may as well have been teleported into Donetsk from Russia as no open source social media mentions any sighting before Donetsk or after Luhansk where a dubious video was made by Ukraine’s secret services of a Buk shown for 6 seconds, curiously without camouflage netting and revealing a missing missile, hauled by the infamous white Volvo, supposedly fleeing towards the Russian border and supposedly filmed before dawn but with the sun in the tree tops.

    In the long interlude while Mr Higgins uses on this occasion perhaps his Google funding – his crowd might feel a little burned from the last purchase – to obtain another sliver of satellite imagery to confirm the Stratfor image (because nothing would be published if it refuted the Stratfor image of course) the July 16th Google Earth imagery vanishes! Excuses are made. Apart from capturing a Ukrainian military jet in flight (possibly before being shot down) the imagery reveals an object at the checkpoint adjacent to the infamous field from which Mr Higgins believes a missile was launched at MH17. On the 29th of May I suggested to my colleagues that it looks like a failed attempt to place a Buk near the alleged launch area. Again the fuzzy image is indeterminate, stuck amongst bushes during a day of action, the vehicle a little short for a Buk, few shadows but one perhaps more suggestive of a truck cabin. What could be a very light coloured radar dome is bisected by a darker something and possibly white missile tips are seen but a bit on the fat side and only one or possibly two. Is it a truck or could it be a Buk?

    How odd I thought, no fanfare by Mr Higgins or his minions usually quick to claim the vaguest of blobs as a Buk or a feature on a Buk. The image was taken on the 16th, which, if the object is a Buk, scrambles Mr Higgins’ timeline, a timeline set in concrete, immutable it would seem as according to his brother he doesn’t like to be shown to be wrong; perhaps an Asbergarian personality trait or sheer dogmatism at play? Not a squeak from Mr Higgins while we wait for the restoration of the “lost” Google Earth image and the expensive sliver of an image from Digital Globe.

    So is Mr Higgins writhing in the agony of having to actually admit his beloved track-trail theory was wrong, the already dubious timeline hopelessly screwed up? If the Makiivka video is genuine where was the Buk heading – did it take a turn and head off to Luhansk and then across the border? Was the Makiivka Buk “video” a wreak that the militia confiscated and “donated” to Russia; one of several confiscated Ukrainian Buks that the mysterious “Andrew” believes crossed the border on the morning of the 18th? Were there two Buks at Snizhne at the same time or at different times or is the blob a truck or did the intelligence agencies plant an edited satellite image but got the date wrong? Or did a Buk have to be in the image of the 16th as the image of the 17th will be seen to clouded over? Better in the image of the 16th rather than none at all? Or were there no Buks at Snizhne and MH17 was shot from a Buk battery located at Kuybyshevo? Or was no separatist or Russian Buk involved in the actual shooting but a radical Ukrainian group used the separatists capture of broken Buks as a cover for a false flag operation to provoke Russia and draw the US and NATO deeper into the support of Ukraine in a rehearsal of an all out assault on Russia, a.k.a WWIII?

    Given Mr Higgins’ cosy affair with Google (if not intelligence agencies) and stacks of Google’s cash one could reasonably expect he has advanced knowledge of imagery and is trying to figure out a credible contortion of the narrative. One could imagine his face similarly contorted as if sucking on a lemon, as indeed his track-trail narrative has become a lemon. Or perhaps the delays are a marketing exercise as Mr Higgins formulates his pre-packaged media bundles for slack journalists too lazy to question or to do their own research for the anniversary of the downing of MH17?


  5. Paris Match photos are widely considered fake because of “proven” geometry errors, as cited in this blog.

    I would like to know whether “vanishing point” analysis of Ko2 is still considered useful. I repeated the analysis myself and came to doubt the picture at middle of Ko2 p. 74 for several reasons:
    1. Topmost line. On a Buk M1, missiles are tilted up at ~2 deg angle, which is parallel to no other feature, yet this line lands on common vanishing point. This should not happen.
    2. Second line. This appears to be traced on the shadow edge of camouflage netting. Very difficult to make a reliable estimate of this line.
    3. This line looks pretty good, upper edge of engine compartment
    4. Fourth line. What is this line tracing? A line traced through the nearby upper edge of rubber skirt converges with #3 much to the left of this one
    5. Bottom line. What is this line tracing? It aligns with bottom of Buk’s front road wheel but is far below the rear ones. Thus it seems to be drawn in wrong direction.

    Other factors I have not seen mentioned on this type of analysis.
    1. The Buk has a spring suspension, body may lean relative to ground.
    2. Buk upper assembly pivots relative to body, it may not be exactly aligned
    3. Most likely this was captured with “rolling shutter” CMOS camera, this can distort image

    Because image quality is so poor with severe compression artifacts etc it is easy to draw lines supporting a preconceived notion (“confirmation bias”). I found it not difficult to draw perspective lines corresponding to
    1. Volvo tractor tilting up slightly at front
    2. lowboy trailer tilting considerably down at front
    3. Buk body tilting slightly down on suspension
    4. Buk upper assembly rotated slightly clockwise on pivot
    However I repeat that drawing “unbiased” lines on the Paris Match images is almost impossible.

    Excellent reference images for Buk geometry on , especially the Finnish one.


    • Thank you for your input. I will ask Micha to respond to your points.

      By the way, Micha is not the only one calculating the Buk was positioned rather strangely on the low-loader in the Paris Match stills, see e.e.g:


      In the meantime you could post the image showing the results your own (unbiased) analysis for better comparison.


      • There is another indication that the “Paris Match” pictures are photoshopped:

        The silhouette and even single branches of the trees standing behind the BUK at the rights side of the picture can be clearly seen through the BUK’s massive radar cabin!


      • It could also be true that there really a blurred BUK exists which is also transparent so you can see things behind it.

        Just put all suspicious BUKs in a row – the guilty one will be easy to find! 😉

        The “Paris Match” photos are the weakest part in the chain of evidence behind the “track-a-trail narrative”.

        That’s obviously the reason why a huge effort and time has been put in the production of the Makiivka video.


      • The Makeevka video, supported by the satellite imagery, is in the short run needed to support the Paris Match images, thats true. In the long run this cluster of well…. evidence is not the word because of its lousy forensic value … leads… has to be established to give credit to the alleged start of the trail, the early morning of the 17th in Donetsk after it just arrived from Russia.

        The importance of this part of the trail is huge when seen from the perspective of the Ukrainians. Only if the trail started and ended on the same day – and all efforts were done to secure the alleged secrecy of the Buk along the way (the American Press testimony!) – then the Ukrainians can be absolved of any culpability for letting an ADMS within their borders.

        That why the very slim Luhansk video + Get away taps cluster serves to give credibility to an exit in the early morning of the 18th too. They never knew what hit them. They are innocent for letting the airspace open and letting a Buk pass.


      • HR: “In the meantime you could post the image showing the results your own analysis…”

        These are some vanishing-point lines drawn on the Paris Match images. I am *not* saying these are “unbiased”! However they are as plausible as anything else I have seen.

        I don’t know whether anyone else has noticed that the horizontal features on the back of the cab and on the back of the Buk are almost exactly parallel. This means that the optical axis of the camera was almost perpendicular to these planes, i.e. it was facing straight ahead down the highway. This implies that the images we see are cropped from the right-hand side of a wide camera view. I suspect that the 720-pixel-wide PM1 image is at native resolution, because its compression macroblocks are well defined. That would fit well with it being cropped from a 1920×1080 original capture.

        MK: ” To clear that up a lot of parties tried to figure out, if the strange appearance might be real or just unexplainable. ”

        This might be a good time, 2 years on, to do a review of all this analysis work on the PM images. It would be good to have links to the work, the images, the 3D models, etc., and to summarize the best understanding of the pictures at this time. Perhaps HR could host such a review here on his blog.


      • I have not the skills to actually say something solid about this, but isn’t it true you also find different vanishing points?

        Moreover, its not that strange to find at least some parts that match up, like your parallel areas do (great finding!). The photoshopper must have used *some* reference point to squeeze his Buk into this picture. Maybe thats also why it seems tilted towards the low-loader surface.

        For any lay person, not that familiar with digital manipulation, it seems clear there is something wrong with this composition. And then for most of us, the skewed position of the Buk on the trailer is not even the main reason for that. Apparently Bellingcat is trying to draw up a report to verify this images and the launch plume ones by “third party experts”. Maybe they will issue this on the 17th so stay tuned.

        For now I will ask Micha to give a more sophisticated response.


    • You are right, the geometry in the PM photos is pretty diffucult. To clear that up a lot of parties tryed to figure out, if the strange appearance might be real or just unexplainable. This huge effort led to some insight:
      – the image is heavily distorted due to lens distortion
      – the low loader is turned towards the street
      – the BUK is tilted forward (cleared up as a feature to lower the overall height for about 20cm)

      So the geometry seems to be in a possible range but the only way to find out was a collective effort of line drawing etc. pp.
      We also find issues about the obvious bad resolution of these images.
      – JPEG blocking artifacts, visible blocks of the size larger than the features Bellingcat used to “identify” the BUK e.g. the damage to the rubber was interpreted into a “black hole” of heavy blocking in the PM image
      – the difficult geometry becomes a bigger problem when we start to heavily distort the already distorted image to layer it onto an image of a complete different perspective
      – the same you wrote about the drawing of perspective lines can be said about Bellingcats “fingerprint method” especially after heavily distorting an already distorted image.
      – several areas/edges in the PM images are completely altered. So either some very bad compression algorithm swallowed a part of the white line and left a seemingly sunny area where the shadow of the Volvo tank should be and left a seemingly shadow where at least a sun beam of the width of 1m should hit the street or we need some different explanation
      But fake or not fake isn’t the crucial question. The crucial question is, how conclusive are the evidence for mass murder? In the case of the PM images the “fingerprint”, the “rubber damage”, the “white dot” are not valid.
      The images themself gained some validity since another video popped up and was immediately backed by US intelligence providing a corresponding DG satellite image. In the 1.5 years prior to that surprising “interplay” the PM images were just an easy to fake bad pixel salat from an unknown source allegedly shot in Snizhne and blown up as a major evidence that it is not. But that’s the way it was sold to the public. And with every new finding (e.g. not finding the truck in the allegedly purchase DG satellite images) Bellingcat changed their timeline to adjust the PM images to their story.
      Was all that line drawing of any use? Yes, because the line drawers knew that the PM images were taken at about 11:00 even when Bellingcat stated it must be closer to 10:00 because the truck already drove out of the DG image.


      • I have some speculations about how the first Paris Match image (PM1) might have been captured. The image is not the full frame, because the perspective of the cab rear is too “flat” for a camera centered on the frame. First, I suggest that the 720×479 published photo is actually the upper right-hand corner of an original 1920×1080 frame. Second, I suggest that the original lens had moderate barrel distortion, which should be corrected. While I cannot determine the exact distortion amount, this image shows the general idea: . Third, it is almost certain that this picture was taken with a rolling-shutter CMOS camera (likely a smartphone capturing at 30fps). In this case the top line of the 1920×1080 frame is captured 1/30 sec before the bottom line, which causes moving objects to appear “skewed” and their vertical edges to be tilted. The amount of tilt could be computed from the objects’ 3D positions and the observer’s driving speed; I have estimated tilts in the range of 1/8 to 1 degree for various portions of the image.

        I believe the lens distortion and rolling-shutter distortion effects are significant and must be corrected before accurate geometric image analysis is possible. This concern applies not only to the Jon Kriet model image shown above but also the shadow-casting time analysis.

        The variation in compression quality and visible sharpness across the PM1 image is perhaps the most obvious “odd” aspect at first glance. I have not seen anyone take a good shot at explaining this, so I add this comment. An important factor in video compression is whether motion-compensation (i.e. copying regions of picture information from nearby locations in the previous frame) is possible.(See .) Where motion-compensation is possible, high resolution can be obtained even within the limited bit-rate of compressed video. Where motion-compensation fails for a region of the image, that region will be less accurately represented, with blockiness and poor resolution. The contrast between regions with and without effective motion-compensation could explain the “sharp truck, blurry Buk” situation.

        Perhaps the best demonstration that the image might be genuine would be to construct a detailed 3D graphic model, provide accurate shadow-casting, simulate the lens distortion, motion blur, and rolling-shutter effects, and run the simulated image through a video compression algorithm. If the result is close to the original PM1, it would provide support for its authenticity. This level of effort is beyond most amateurs, but may be available to JIT or other institutions.

        Of course, such a demonstration might also prove that nefarious actors could have faked the image in exactly that way!


      • @chuckalog, you realize that the “sharp cabin, fuzzy Buk” pattern is also in the second Paris Match photo? Why does the second PM photo look as if a “skin of a Buk” was taken from one photo, warped and put on another Buk? These two PM photos or “stills from a video” look completely ridiculous to the naked eye. But if you think they look real, that is fine. I would just like to share some ideas on how to make it: Buy a good model of a Buk launcher on the internet, as well as of a truck with a loader (modify it as needed). Put the Buk on a loader in a 3D program. There (at least in Cinema 4D) you can enter the geolocation of the road, the time, and date, and you will get the correct sun shadow for the objects. Apply light effects as needed. Then (not necessary in this order) extract the what you got in the 3D renderer, apply a lens effect, take parts like serial number and side skirt from a publicly available photo of a Russian Buk, put them on the 3D rendered Buk model with Photoshop, change the background and insert all kinds of noise. The hard part is knowing what effects, others raw photos/videos and software (or addons) were used and having the necessary skills.


  6. Chuckalog,

    The distortion you portay isn’t “barrel” distortion it is the opposite called “pincushion” distortion if I’ve got it right.


    There are bizillions of examples of dashcam videos and phones being used as dashcams on the internet e.g.,

    *Note: after YouTube crappy recompression.

    Cropping out a corner makes little sense.

    1/8 – 1° skewing due to scanned cmos sensor is insignificant vs barrel distortion.

    In simpler terms objects that are closer have a higher velocity and mpeg compression will create more blocks. So you are right. Relatively speaking the cabin isn’t moving as fast as the nearby back of the Buk. That hasn’t been an issue for me.

    The Buk should be lifted as well as the flat bed of the trailer but what we see is a gap between the tracks of the Buk and the surface of the flat bed. Don’t we?

    Recreation in a 3D program – even if you could model the lens, which is questionable – is highly time consuming vs grabbing an iPhone/dascam and doing a real world test.

    Note also the Makiivka video. Take some time and look in the shadows of the Buk frame by frame in Photoshop or changing the gamma in VLC. I suggest there’s more going on than mpeg compression?

    Whoever is producing these paltry numbers of stills and “videos” is deliberately stuffing up the quality in my opinion. I’m not at all certain they aren’t video composites and the quality has been degraded to obscure detection.

    I like the handle “chuckalog”. Reminds me of the song with the line “chuck another log on the fire, cook me up some bacon and some beans”. Throwing another idea into the MH17 arena is welcome, right now the bacon and beans are on my mind 😊


  7. If the image was a crop of the top right corner they wouldn’t have been aiming the phone/dashcam very well. All of the analysis I’ve seen puts the camera on the same side of the road perhaps in the left lane. The pin cushion distortion doesn’t account for the apparent gap between the top of the flatbed and the Buk tracks if it is really observable, is it? Michael Kobs’ analysis in Haunt the Buk took lens distortion into account but argued the error in perspective was independent of lens distortion. I don’t know what lenses his 3D software has.


  8. There are a many good ideas to explain the PM images.
    1) it appears like video mostly because of the very low resolution and because both “photos” were taken in a very short timeframe (depending on the speed of the camera car)
    2) it appears like cropped mostly because the edges of the back of the BUK appear parallel
    3) barrel distortion is the better choise because the top of the pole behind the Volvo bows towards the left side (the example shows pillow distortion)
    BUT pillow distortion would be the choise because the vertical edge of the of the back of the BUK is tilted the other way.
    That effect is not caused by a rolling shutter because otherwise we should see the top of the edge a little further away and the lower end of the edge a little closer. Hence, a rolling cmos shutter would tilt that edge in the opposite direction.
    In other words, we have to conflicting distortions in one image:
    ->> barrel on the left side and pillow on the right side
    …or it is pillow and the image isn’t cropped but then the parallel edges along the bach side of the BUK are hardly to explain.
    The motion compensation appears not to be accountable for the bad resolution of the BUK because
    1) the front of the BUK in the first image is about at the same distance to the camera like the Volvo cabin in the second image
    ->> same motion
    2) the motion compensation records every x frames an “I-frame” with all available image information and then a sequence of changes as “P-frames”. These changes are like layers of pixels and do not block as far as I know.
    The blocking happens during the DCT compression of the I-frame or Jpeg. High compression ratios will cause that small changes (low contrast, soft edges) result in heavy blocking e.g. if you divide two areas of values (5,4,5,8 and 81, 20,30, 90) by the same divisor (4) then you get the compressed values (1,1,1,2 and 20,5,8,23) and after decompression by the same factor (4,4,4,8 and 80,20,32,92). This is virtually how comp/decomp works.
    However, none of this can explain the papercut edge between BUK and Volvo in image one (first taken) but I know: Someone might have clipped the netting there. We can find explanations for all and everything like wrong clocks, blurred tracks, wind shearing without shearing, radar maintenance one day prior to the big invasion and so on and so on and so on. The only thing we do not find since about 2 years is a simple evidence that must not be interpreted in a way that squares a circle.
    In short: The PM images must have a source – uncropped, with metadata. No source no evidence. The provided anonymous pixel trash might be fine for the use of PR and propaganda. Anything else about these images appear as conclusive as the “clone” analysis of ArmsControlWonk or in other words: a waste of time.


Geef een reactie

Vul je gegevens in of klik op een icoon om in te loggen. logo

Je reageert onder je account. Log uit /  Bijwerken )

Google+ photo

Je reageert onder je Google+ account. Log uit /  Bijwerken )


Je reageert onder je Twitter account. Log uit /  Bijwerken )

Facebook foto

Je reageert onder je Facebook account. Log uit /  Bijwerken )

Verbinden met %s