I have already wasted too much time trying to hold a discussion with you. So I will keep this brief.

Dying man’s statement.

You can state this as often as you like, but that will not make it true. It is your personal belief (supported by no evidence), and nothing more.

They had a satellite in the vicinity at the time. If they could implicate the rebels with what it picked up they would. Instead, this POS is all they’ve come up with:

I started learning about weather satellites in the late 1960s, acquiring practical experience in the field when I was briefly involved in a project to field a low-cost ground station. I fear it your good self who needs educating in this subject area.

For example, the standard data format used by US NOAA satellites transmits at 2 lines/sec, the equivalent of a data rate of only 4,160 baud. So it takes a significant time for a complete image to be transmitted. Some earth-observation satellites (rather than weather satellites) such as the Russian Resurs series provide imagery in near real-time of small areas, but the output takes the form of a series of images, not video. So while some weather satellites do operate in a lower orbit that their geostationary cousins, they carry sensors intended to provide wide-area coverage photographs, rather then detailed imagery or even video imagery.

Another statement without substantiation. A series of high resolution images in real time does the same job as a video. You should also know that Resur-P has an image storing and conversion unit, so the images can be processed into a moving picture off-line. The accuracy is down to 0.7m, so the video shown is perfectly possible even with a weather satellite.

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/resurs_p.html
http://en.ria.ru/science/20110922/167049123.html

….so UK built and configured two carriers for the specific purpose of defending falklands ?
the logic is weak, its cheaper to base a couple of EF there

There are many Typhoons based there but what happens if the Argentinians manage to invade and capture the Island again. Unlikely, but as a strategist you have to consider it. Could we rely on NATO help? Perhaps, perhaps not. We had to go it alone last time. So yes the F-35B is needed.

In most other perceivable scenarios we either won’t be defending sovereign soil, or we’ll have land bases available, and/or we’ll be operating as part of NATO. So the logic isn’t weak at all. We don’t need the extra range but we do need the sortie rate and rough seas capability. The F-35B also offers a short range VTOL hop capability with 50% fuel and a light weapons load. The F-35C is also physically larger, hence larger RCS assuming equal stealth capability. And of course the usual adage of ‘drop tanks can be dropped’. All we’re really missing is internal carriage for 2,000lbers, JSOWs and JSM.

2,000lber – Use twice as many 1,000lbers or Storm Shadow instead.
JSOW – Use Storm Shadow instead.
JSM – Use Storm Shadow (after MLU) instead.

Not really much to be missed apart from shed loads of hassle with training, cats, arresters, fuselage fatigue, landing gear fatigue, folding wings, taxiing etc.

https://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/25jermy.pdf

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/09/falkland-islands-lesson-learned-through-us-navy-eyes/

Interpreted by your neighbour with physics O-level from which observations, exactly?

The information is publically available if you look hard enough. Right now such evidence doesn’t exist for MH17.

All we get is stories about Russians firing across the border and no acknowledgement of fire the other way, as per the 13th July incident where a Russian citizen was killed and 2 injured by shell fire from Ukraine. For an organisation like the IDF that would be justification enough to kill over a thousand people right there.

I
Do you even read the stuff you’re linking to?

You don’t think someone might have edited that bit per chance. “As small as a huge oil tanker.” Hardly reads right does it? Notice that you skipped straight to the bit that reads incorrectly and ignored the bit on resolution and condensation (vapour) trails.

It may not always to possible to offer the sort of evidence that the layman will understand. Unless an imaging spacecraft was in range of the launch area at the time of the firing, and had been tasked with capturing an image of the launcher, there is unlikely to be photographic evidence of the launch. What we are probably dealing with is data from other airborne, spaceborne or ground-based sensors, which could in some cases exist primarily in the form of numerical data. Then there are potential sigint and elint data, plus anything available from assets on the ground.

Oh so this is the new excuse. “You’re not clever enough to understand how our lack of evidence makes a case.” So what about the Ukrainian Buk in the area that moved position.

While you postulate an ‘either/or’ scenario, with both options showing the US in a bad light, I would favour a more graduated range of possibilities involving different levels of available data. Expecting this to be summarisable in terms that a layman will understand is a bit like asking my nearest friendly astronomer to prove to a layman that black holes exist.

Bull****, it’s easily provable that Black Holes exist because we can observe stars moving at millions of mph in the centre of the galaxy. What you’re trying to provide as proof so far is that a Buk driving round rebel territory a long way from Torez means they shot down the jet. Both sides can provide that kind of evidence.

The truth is the US doesn’t have conclusive evidence or that it shows the wrong thing.

It is known to be data from a weather satellite? Do you have any evidence that weather satellites operate in low orbit, and gather high-resolution real-time video of small patches of terrain?

That’s what the video information said originally, and yes they do. Here, educate yourself:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_satellite#Polar_orbiting

Polar orbiting
Polar orbiting weather satellites circle the Earth at a typical altitude of 850 km (530 miles) in a north to south (or vice versa) path, passing over the poles in their continuous flight. Polar satellites are in sun-synchronous orbits, which means they are able to observe any place on Earth and will view every location twice each day with the same general lighting conditions due to the near-constant local solar time. Polar orbiting weather satellites offer a much better resolution than their geostationary counterparts due their closeness to the Earth.

The United States has the NOAA series of polar orbiting meteorological satellites, presently NOAA 17 and NOAA 18 as primary spacecraft, NOAA 15 and NOAA 16 as secondary spacecraft, NOAA 14 in standby, and NOAA 12. Europe has the Metop-A satellite. Russia has the Meteor and RESURS series of satellites. China has FY-1D and FY-3A. India has polar orbiting satellites as well.

DMSP
The United States Department of Defense’s Meteorological Satellite (DMSP) can “see” the best of all weather vehicles with its ability to detect objects almost as ‘small’ as a huge oil tanker. In addition, of all the weather satellites in orbit, only DMSP can “see” at night in the visual. Some of the most spectacular photos have been recorded by the night visual sensor; city lights, volcanoes, fires, lightning, meteors, oil field burn-offs, as well as the Aurora Borealis and Aurora Australis have been captured by this 450-mile-high space vehicle’s low moonlight sensor.

At the same time, energy use and city growth can be monitored since both major and even minor cities, as well as highway lights, are conspicuous. This informs astronomers of light pollution. The New York City Blackout of 1977 was captured by one of the night orbiter DMSP space vehicles.

In addition to monitoring city lights, these photos are a life saving asset in the detection and monitoring of fires. Not only do the satellites see the fires visually day and night, but the thermal and infrared scanners on board these weather satellites detect potential fire sources below the surface of the Earth where smoldering occurs. Once the fire is detected, the same weather satellites provide vital information about wind that could fan or spread the fires. These same cloud photos from space tell the firefighter when it will rain.

Some of the most dramatic photos showed the 600 Kuwaiti oil fires that the fleeing Army of Iraq started on February 23, 1991. The night photos showed huge flashes, far outstripping the glow of large populated areas. The fires consumed millions of gallons of oil; the last was doused on November 6, 1991.

Uses
Snowfield monitoring, especially in the Sierra Nevada, can be helpful to the hydrologist keeping track of available snowpack for runoff vital to the watersheds of the western United States. This information is gleaned from existing satellites of all agencies of the U.S. government (in addition to local, on-the-ground measurements). Ice floes, packs and bergs can also be located and tracked from weather space craft.

Even pollution whether it is nature-made or man-made can be pinpointed. The visual and infrared photos show effects of pollution from their respective areas over the entire earth. Aircraft and rocket pollution, as well as condensation trails, can also be spotted. The ocean current and low level wind information gleaned from the space photos can help predict oceanic oil spill coverage and movement. Almost every summer, sand and dust from the Sahara Desert in Africa drifts across the equatorial regions of the Atlantic Ocean. GOES-EAST photos enable meteorologists to observe, track and forecast this sand cloud. In addition to reducing visibilities and causing respiratory problems, sand clouds suppress hurricane formation by modifying the solar radiation balance of the tropics. Other dust storms in Asia and mainland China are common and easy to spot and monitor, with recent examples of dust moving across the Pacific ocean and reaching North America.

In remote areas of the world with few local observers, fires could rage out of control for days or even weeks and consume millions of acres before authorities are alerted. Weather satellites can be a tremendous asset in such situations. Nighttime photos also show the burn-off in gas and oil fields. Atmospheric temperature and moisture profiles have been taken by weather satellites since 1969.[15]

Most of my postings are attempts to introduce engineering reality into threads containing speculation often based on limited or no technical understanding. Not much chance to introduce bias, methinks.

And yet you seem to strongly support a very flimsy case being pedalled by the media.

As an experiment I’ve just watched a 777 go overhead at 33,000 ft and could distinguish the livery and read the underwing registration ( A6-ETG ) using only basic optical assistance ( a pair of stabilized bionoculars ).

It was recognizable as a commercial twinjet at about 20 miles distant and a 777 at about 10 miles.

An MD-11 just went over at 37,000 and was even more distinctive. Reg was PH-MCS.

So the firing parties have no excuse as to mis-recognition, given that Buk is fitted with a powerful EO system.

Maybe it just looks a lot like the Russian President’s IL-96.

To take these points in turn:

Where in my posting did I mention ‘national security’ or in any way allude to it?

The US DoD is under no obligation to share the capability of its reconnaissance systems with you, this forum, or anyone else outside the intel community. But refusal to release overhead, elint, or sigint information in no way disqualifies the US DoD or Government from commenting on the MH17 incident, any more than a lack of evidence has disqualified those who posted some of the crazier ideas seen in this thread and elswhere.

The film clip that you posted shows the launch of an unidentified rocket from an unidentified location on an unknown date. To the best of my knowledge, any relevance it may have to the MH17 incident remains unestablished.

The white smoke trail visible in this video and that in posting 507 is a characteristic of a common type of rocket propellant, and not of any particular missile system. Any SAM that used this type of propellant would produce a similar white trail. I would hate to see ‘white smoke’ joining ‘descending chaff’ in the pseudo-evidence being offered concerning the MH17 incident.

The US DoD keeps saying they have evidence but the truth is one of two things, they either don’t have evidence at all, or the evidence shows something inconvenient. You can’t say, we have evidence of this and then not show it. That’s insane. No one will believe that crap. People have a rough idea of their reconnaissance capabilities, enough to know that they could provide surveillance footage. That’s no secret. There is no legitimate military secrecy issue here, it’s just a truth perversion tool/tactic.

I note you never queried the Buk seen passing through Lugansk on an equally, ‘unconfirmed date’.

It is easy to sneer, but more worthwhile to try to understand the underlying facts. The US briefing in question was apparently given only to the major media outlets. The defence press such as Aviation Week, Defence News, and Jane’s were not present, I am told, so the reports we are seeing are not by defence specialists. That makes it harder to assess the quality of the information that was released. But the published accounts of the briefing are more relevant that the children’s scribbles and rather sickening humour that Paralay is trying to justify having posted.

I’m tired of this national security BS. All I have to say to the US DoD is, “an airliner has gone down with 298 people on it. Show your evidence or STFU”.

We seem to actually have the launch here, now all we need to do is find out where it was: