Russian arms manufacturer Almaz-Antey is presenting the results of its probe into the alleged missile launch that may have downed the MH17 Malaysian Airlines plane over eastern Ukraine, July 17, 2014.
These tests clearly refuted the 'Russian supplied BUK missile' hypothesis for the shoot-down, showing that if that type of missile (BUK-M1) hit at the angles observed in the wreckage of MH17, the damage should have been greater (1:03) and many distinctive 'butterfly' holes would have been present. Such holes were not observed. The presenters believed that only an older type of BUK missile, not used by Russia, may have been used.
It is more likely, considering the lack of penetrative power from the fragments in the MH17 debris, that another type of smaller missile was the candidate for the incident - perhaps an air-to-air weapon since military jets were seen by witnesses at the time of the attack:
The Dutch Safety Board presentation regarding this same incident (the 30 min video below) was extremely light on forensics (although they concur with the Russians on the location of the missile at the time of detonation). They did say that butterfly fragments had been taken out of some victims, but the question is, where are the butterfly patterns on the skin of the aircraft? The distinctive patterning seen in the Russian test was nowhere to be found.
Also, this Dutch presentation says there were no other aircraft on radar at the time of the incident, to rule out an air-to-air missile, whereas the Russians showed there were fighter sized targets on their scopes - backing up the witness reports that appeared in the BBC Russia news story (see the above video). And the Russians requested the US release their satellite images of the crime scene and Washington refused. The US satellite was right overhead at the time and would have easily seen the launch vehicle and the distinctive smoke trail from the missile. This smoke trail should have also been seen by witnesses for many miles around and would have appeared on cell phone videos and photographs - but wasn't.
We must remember that the Ukrainians, suspects in this crime, were party to the investigation. And regardless of whether or not you think Governments could lie about such things, we do have the problem of the forensic evidence. It doesn't matter what you assume - we have a fundamental issue with the raw data not matching the western account of what happened.
Related Info:
1. 'MH17 crash' test simulation video: Il-86 plane cockpit hit with BUK missile [where you can see the extent of the damage that would have occurred if MH17 was hit by a BUK at close range]
2. Ukrainian Government using doctored footage to show a BUK launcher in a 'rebel held' area [all such Ukrainian Government material, laundered on the internet, has been fraudulent in nature]:
3. UPDATE:
Russian MoD Criticizes MH17 Investigation for Using Social Media, Not Witnesses (no missiles crossed the border and no missile launch took place on the Eastern side - MoD)
[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, May 26th, 2018.]
These tests clearly refuted the 'Russian supplied BUK missile' hypothesis for the shoot-down, showing that if that type of missile (BUK-M1) hit at the angles observed in the wreckage of MH17, the damage should have been greater (1:03) and many distinctive 'butterfly' holes would have been present. Such holes were not observed. The presenters believed that only an older type of BUK missile, not used by Russia, may have been used.
It is more likely, considering the lack of penetrative power from the fragments in the MH17 debris, that another type of smaller missile was the candidate for the incident - perhaps an air-to-air weapon since military jets were seen by witnesses at the time of the attack:
The Dutch Safety Board presentation regarding this same incident (the 30 min video below) was extremely light on forensics (although they concur with the Russians on the location of the missile at the time of detonation). They did say that butterfly fragments had been taken out of some victims, but the question is, where are the butterfly patterns on the skin of the aircraft? The distinctive patterning seen in the Russian test was nowhere to be found.
Also, this Dutch presentation says there were no other aircraft on radar at the time of the incident, to rule out an air-to-air missile, whereas the Russians showed there were fighter sized targets on their scopes - backing up the witness reports that appeared in the BBC Russia news story (see the above video). And the Russians requested the US release their satellite images of the crime scene and Washington refused. The US satellite was right overhead at the time and would have easily seen the launch vehicle and the distinctive smoke trail from the missile. This smoke trail should have also been seen by witnesses for many miles around and would have appeared on cell phone videos and photographs - but wasn't.
We must remember that the Ukrainians, suspects in this crime, were party to the investigation. And regardless of whether or not you think Governments could lie about such things, we do have the problem of the forensic evidence. It doesn't matter what you assume - we have a fundamental issue with the raw data not matching the western account of what happened.
Related Info:
1. 'MH17 crash' test simulation video: Il-86 plane cockpit hit with BUK missile [where you can see the extent of the damage that would have occurred if MH17 was hit by a BUK at close range]
2. Ukrainian Government using doctored footage to show a BUK launcher in a 'rebel held' area [all such Ukrainian Government material, laundered on the internet, has been fraudulent in nature]:
3. UPDATE:
Russian MoD Criticizes MH17 Investigation for Using Social Media, Not Witnesses (no missiles crossed the border and no missile launch took place on the Eastern side - MoD)
[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, May 26th, 2018.]
