Alleged Satellite Photo Says Ukraine Shootdown of MH17

theshowmecanuck (703852) writes A group calling itself the Russian Union of Engineers has published a photograph, picked up by many news organizations (just picked one, Google it yourself to find more), claiming to show that MH17 was shot down by a Ukrainian fighter plane. The interesting thing is the very quick ad hoc crowd sourced debunking of the photograph using tools from Google maps, online photos/data, to their own domain knowledge backed up with the previous information. It would be interesting to understand who the "Russian Union of Engineers" are and why they in particular were chosen to release this information.

Comments

uh, no?

[X0563511]

If this is real, that has got to be the worst pilot I've ever seen.

You don't fire at such a square angle. You want to be behind or in front. You also don't fire missiles when you're so damn close.

Re:uh, no?

[Luckyo]

I've watched the Russian original, and it's very weird. Their claim is that pilot first strafed the cockpit with guns which resulted in cockpit detaching from the aircraft, which they claim Dutch investigators have confirmed. The goal was apparently to silence the crew and prevent calls for help. Then the aircraft fired a heat seeker into the engines causing aircraft to spin out of control and crash.

Their other point on the other hand sounded much more reasonable. They note that BUK missile makes a very brightly visible plume and persistent smoke trail as it goes through its trajectory, and there were apparently no confirmed instances of footage of this in relation to the plane. Considering just how obviously exceptional it would look in the sky and how many photos there are of pretty much anything weird happening in the warring region, it does sound odd that no one got any footage of the missile. It should be visible for tens of kilometers in all directions.

Overall, the case is getting stranger with every relevation.

Re:uh, no?

[erikkemperman]

He clearly suggested "Both sides are dishonest" and yet you somehow read that as pro-Russian. That says more about your bias than his, it seems to me.

I abhor Putin and have done for about as long as I've known about the bastard. Doesn't mean I'm blind to Nato's meddling in Ukraine, which cablegate (among other tidbits) proved was going on for years and cost billions.

I'm curious how US woul respond if Russia spent billions undermining a pro-US government in, say, Mexico and after they'd accomplish regime change in favour of hand picked anti-US government presumed to level harsh economic sanctions against the US for troop movements on their own soil, say Texas.

Because, until very recently, that is about the size of it from the Russian perspective.

Now of course, to the surprise of absolutely no one at all, Putin's domestic strongman persona leaves him little choice but to retroactively prove the accusers right.

Re:uh, no?

[NicBenjamin]

What else can we do?

Putin has apparently just accidentally killed several hundred civilians, most of whom are part of a nuclear-armed alliance. And he won't even say "oops."

The reason those countries are in that alliance is that they expect us to have their backs when somebody does that kind of shit to them.

Now if we respond militarily, which has the advantage that a) it would target the people who actually blew the plane up, and b) if it worked would work really well; we face the disadvantage that c) our military aim isn't perfect so we'd probably nail a bomb shelter full of civilians, d) much of the Russian military is conscripted, e) invading Russia is historically speaking a really ineffective policy, and f) if we did so Putin might nuke Seattle.

Which leaves sanctions. Sanctions are slow, and they tend to hit a lot of innocents, but military action is worse (ie: Bush's invasion of Iraq ended the sanctions that killed thousands, but only by starting a war that killed hundreds of thousands and refuses to end).

If I was running counter-intelligence for the CIA

[Anonanonaon]

I'd put together a fake image which looks good enough to pass the sniff test for a day or two, but which is designed to "go off" shortly after when the public gets a chance to deconstruct it.

The results: "Ha! We, the West, have caught you red-handed, and we solved this problem ourselves, so we OWN the discovery! Now the belief that you are a sneaky and tricky enemy is connected to our feelings of self-worth, because we shall remind you, WE the public caught you red-handed because we are clever and discerning! Ha and Fie, I say, you blackguards!" (etc.)"

Seriously. Are the Russian secret services really SO bad at their job, that they didn't know exactly what the fallout would be upon releasing such a poor fake?

I'll answer that rhetorical for you: No. No, they're not. Their job is subversion and craftiness and they're really damned good at it, and they bloody well would not be so stupid as to not realize how such a photo would backfire.

But somebody did. In fact, somebody knew exactly what the fallout would be and they planned for it.

If anything is "obvious" here, it is that this is the propaganda equivalent of a False Flag attack.

My guess is CIA/Mossad.

Russia is only the enemy if you happen to be a Western/European Elitist 1%er trying to hold on to your pile of ill-gotten gains and legions of serfs.

Make sure the people are looking outward for an external enemy rather than at the psychopaths in power right here at home.

Re:Russian propaganda for the home audience

[quenda]

I think the only target audience is the Russian public, most of whom believe everything that Putin's propaganda machine feeds them.

They don't even have to believe it. Disinformation works even it it only serves to create confusion and cast doubt on the facts.