I am sorry but that just straw man(and rather desparate) you compering low resolution video with high resolution picture (close up). Some small details will not be visible in low resolution footage(and note this lamp post is partially obscured by foliage in the video.

What do you try to show by marking ramp of the trailer?Is that your “wall” ?;)
“As I say, I can distinguish more shades of green than any other colour.”You are the man!You made my day!
We already Know your excellent observation skills
Posted by MadRat:Lukos, don’t be dense. Support beams are not on the outside of the aircraft.The piece has literally been turned inside out.
Go Huskers!
And this “wall” ! Man don’t give up please continue!:highly_amused:

I’ve changed my mind, it may be the same place, however we know that another plane was shot down, so this may have been the Buk that got the An-26. Do we even have a time stamp?

We also know the incident, if it was the rebels, was down to the Ukrainian government failing to comply with International Law wrt Air Warfare:

It’s not absolutely necessary that it was an Su-25. This is a radar image after all and not visual. The Su-25 has no radar, so identification based on radar type is not possible. As you say, chaff and ECM can do all sorts of things to an old SARH missile or maybe they thought it was an An-26 with an escort. Either way, it is the Ukrainian’s fault for a) Letting civilian aircraft over that area, and b) flying military aircraft on war sorties in the vicinity.

In doing so it turned a civilian airliner into an effective contribution to a military effort by using it as a decoy.

http://ihlresearch.org/amw/HPCR%20Manual.pdf

Section J, I, 63(f)

Section E, I, 22(d)

Section G, 41 – Did anyone inform the rebels, which aircraft were civilian?

Section H, 42 – Ukrainian military jet shouldn’t have been next to airliner

Section H, 43-46 – Ukrainian military should have diverted air traffic.

Section I, IV, 54 – Airliner shouldn’t have been there.

Section I, IV, 55 – Was a NOTAM issued to rebel forces?

Oh no. don’t give up just yet .If you know ” Lots of other stuff ” pointing them out will be easy .Please continue. What two pictures are you taking about ?What do you try to show by marking ramp of the trailer?
And by the way let me translate for you направление съемки direction of shooting(movie) .

I’m showing stuff in the shots claimed to be from Lugansk that don’t match the video.

If you look at the lamppost – below the plaque, there is a vertical black line. Look carefully at the very bottom of that line in the video and in the photo claimed to be from Lugansk. Notice something in the Lugansk shot not in the video at 0:06. Little white square object whatever it is. Funny how the close up of that plaque (bottom picture in collage) cuts off just above that little square bit huh?:highly_amused: Someone sure did go to a lot of effort just to stuff butts.

Lamppost other side of road in video is missing it’s twin to the left and the grey box attached to it (in Lugansk shot).

There’s tons of differences in the shrubbery to. As I say, I can distinguish more shades of green than any other colour.

The Algerian airliner thread is more interesting anyway.

£200 to anyone who stops this guy making videos.

http://news.yahoo.com/ukraine-prime-minister-resigns-over-coalition-break-145902072.html;_ylt=A9mSs3ACVdFT62wAj99LBQx.;_ylu=X3oDMTE0bmduMWgxBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMgRjb2xvA2lyMgR2dGlkA01TWVVLMDRfMQ–

Ukraine’s PM resigns amid deadly rebellion complicating MH17 probe

Donetsk (Ukraine) (AFP) – Ukraine’s prime minister resigned Thursday after his governing coalition collapsed, plunging the former Soviet state into political limbo as it struggles to quell a deadly rebellion in the east.

Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk said he was stepping down over “dissolution of the parliamentary coalition and the blocking of government initiatives” after several parties walked out on the ruling group.

The collapse of the ruling coalition paves the way for early elections to be called by President Petro Poroshenko within 30 days.

Although a truce has been declared by both rebels and government forces in the immediate vicinity of the vast crash site, heavy shelling was ongoing nearby including around Donetsk, just 60 kilometres (40 miles) from the scene.

IIRC, it was reported in the news that it was at 6500 m which is much below 10000, although I don’t know how accurate that information was.

If the fighter is nearer than the airliner and using ECM, it could appear on the radar as a sequence of false blips along the range axis. Tracing that back, one of the blips could correspond with the position of the airliner which the SAM operator does not know about. Because a real aircraft is there making a large return, this is taken to be the jamming military aircraft, an An-26 say, and fired upon.

I had a second thought about that.

Maybe the Russians are trying to tell the press that it was all BUT a Su25 ?

The echo that was seen *hovering* cld have been the result of sophisticated Jamming.

I think we have to get back to node1 – Hypo:
– something was shadowing MH17
– The 777 was shot down
– the *something* broke-off with ECM switched ON
– Echo then disapeared showing that it was the result of a modern system

Then the why Malaysia again get a place back in the reflexion.

It’s not absolutely necessary that it was an Su-25. This is a radar image after all and not visual. The Su-25 has no radar, so identification based on radar type is not possible. As you say, chaff and ECM can do all sorts of things to an old SARH missile or maybe they thought it was an An-26 with an escort. Either way, it is the Ukrainian’s fault for a) Letting civilian aircraft over that area, and b) flying military aircraft on war sorties in the vicinity.

In doing so it turned a civilian airliner into an effective contribution to a military effort by using it as a decoy.

http://ihlresearch.org/amw/HPCR%20Manual.pdf

Section J, I, 63(f)

Section E, I, 22(d)

Section G, 41 – Did anyone inform the rebels, which aircraft were civilian?

Section H, 42 – Ukrainian military jet shouldn’t have been next to airliner

Section H, 43-46 – Ukrainian military should have diverted air traffic.

Section I, IV, 54 – Airliner shouldn’t have been there.

Section I, IV, 55 – Was a NOTAM issued to rebel forces?

The location in the footage has been tracked down to Luhansk just like the Ukrainians claimed it to be. Ouch! Looks like the Russians simply took the above claim off social media and ran with it without checking. Maybe Russian Intelligence should start employing some of the internet sleuths to double check their work? 🙂

Putin won’t be happy! Looks like there is going to be some Generals on Putin’s carpet with hats on after this blunder! How many DVD copies of the brief was the Russian Ambassador to Malaysia dishing out along with claiming that the separatists did not have Buk?

Whole lot of repeated pictures with nothing but sarcastic commentary and zero real evidence.

£200 to anyone who stops this guy making videos.

It isn’t a logical conclusion in the case of the die-hard conspiracy theorists in these cases though. They know exactly what they are doing and they go looking for it from the outset. It is a mindset and all the conspiracy websites do it and get very rich out of doing it too. They don’t care as long as they suck in the gullible and naive. I think we have exhausted the time stamp discussion and I won’t comment on it further. Thanks.

What they’re doing is reading a time stamp and expecting it to be accurate, except it isn’t because of Google retardism.

General in press briefing say the plane is probably Su-25, not that it is Su-25.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YGJe8Go9j4

On the video is seen, that Ukraine also use MiG-29 jets for attacks and MiG-29 and Su-25 are quite of similar size on radar, so there is also a good chance, that Ukrainian military jet around airliner, is MiG-29 instead of Su-25 and MiG could use both R-73 and R-27T missiles.

Which again implicates Ukraine. Directing airliners over a conflict zone and flying military sorties close to them in the presence of a SAM threat. How is that any different to Hamas “allegedly” putting rockets on top of a hospital? Human shield, hello.