can anyone confirm that either buk or the air-to-air alternative homed in on the boeing radar unit, in the nose?

Shrapnel Damage of Cockpit MH-17 Devastating
Oui, Booman Tribune, Jul 23 2014

The missile warhead with fragmentation shrapnel must have exploded right underneath port front of cockpit:


The reason I ask this, obviously, is that I hope to discover that only a Buk has radar homing, the air-to-air- would have had heat homing. But I may well be wrong. Wikipedia doesn’t mention radar homing at all in its article on Buk, nor does it appear to have any links to this topic, though it may have an article on it elsewhere, unlinked to the Buk article… This follows a discussion I had with lobro yesterday, in comments to another post. I shall reproduce the account I gave there, even though, as I said, Wikipedia doesn’t appear to support it:

Both the Buk and the air-to-air missile postulated by the alternative theory, operate on the same proximity fuse principle. But the air-to-air missile is heat-seeking, whereas the Buk is radar-seeking. In other words, the Buk targets not a heat source but a radar source. I believe this type of targeting is known as “semi-active”, presumably because the Buk missile itself has a tiny radar unit that locates and homes in on the radar-emitting target, which in the case of a 777 would be in the nose. So, coming up from beneath, it detonates immediately beneath the nose of the 777, sending shrapnel right through the cockpit and killing the pilot & copilot while shredding the control electronics, hydraulics, pneumatics, or whatever the control systems in the cockpit are. So the plane has no pilot, no electronics, no autopilot, no steering or flap control, but structurally it is intact, just full of tiny holes. And therefore it plummets to earth more or less in one piece, though falling vertically at high speed may break it up before it reaches the ground. Essentially, the fall is fairly compact. The plane is not disintegrated by the blast of the missile. And indeed, the fall was fairly compact. The cockpit section broke off, I think, but it only fell 100 yards or so from the rest. Please correct me on all this, because my memory is often surprisingly wrong (surprisingly to me, that is).

Then I went to Wikipedia & came back:

Wikipedia confirms all that, except that it doesn’t say the target has to be a radar emitter. The target, in practice, almost always will be. But an inert mass in the sky that wasn’t emitting anything at all could still be acquired as a Buk target, first by the ground radar then by the missile’s own radar. That leaves open the question of which part of the target’s bulk it would be aiming for. My idea was that it would aim for the target’s own radar emitter. But this is not necessarily the case: “The missiles require a radar lock to initially steer the missile to the target until the missile’s on-board radar system takes over to provide final course corrections. A proximity fuse aboard the missile determines when it will detonate, creating an expanding fragmentation pattern of missile components and warhead to intercept and destroy the target. Alternatively, the command component may be able to remotely detonate the missile, or the on-board contact fuse will cause the warhead to detonate. Each missile carries a warhead which is triggered by a radar proximity fuse. In the forward compartment of the missile, a semi-active homing radar head, autopilot equipment, power source and warhead are located. The homing method chosen was proportional navigation. Proportional navigation (also known as PN or Pro-Nav) is a guidance law (analogous to proportional control) used in some form or another by most homing air target missiles. It is based on the fact that two vehicles are on a collision course when their direct Line-of-Sight does not change direction.” So there is no suggestion there that the missile is homing specifically on a radar emitter. Rather, it is homing on the surface portion of the target which gives the strongest radar return, ie the largest flat surface facing the seeker – typically, the centre of the plane’s belly.


  1. Posted July 28, 2014 at 5:34 am | Permalink

    The TELAR vehicle is equipped with an on-board Fire Dome radar. It initially acts as a tracking and acquisition radar, following the target and guiding the missile immediately after launch to the target. Fire Domes also have a CW emitting capability to paint or illuminate the target for the missile – CW is kind of like a radar spotlight – it takes a tremendous amount of electrical power to operate. The missile itself doesn’t have enough space or power for a large CW emitter. It’s more practical to put it on the TELAR.

    The SA-11’s radar guidance is semi-active in the sense that there is no on-board illumination radar. It can’t see much when first fired and simply follows directions from the Fire Dome (or Kupol) tracking radars. At some point, the missile gets close enough and ‘sees’ the CW-illuminated target and takes over terminal guidance – maybe a few km or so away.

    Ideally, a SA-11 missile will steer towards the ‘brightest’ part of the target. If you can imagine the target aircraft covered with a mirror-like finish and then shined a spotlight on it from the TELAR, where would the brightest spot be? For a missile rising up at a directly-approaching aircraft, it would be under the nose. If the aircraft was approaching obliquely, then the brightest spot is a few meters underneath the cockpit windows. Your example of the largest flat surface having the most illumination does apply to larger, longer-range radars. Mid-range SAM illumination radars like this just work a little different.

    SA-11s can have optical or radar proximity fuses. They’re designed to fire a few meters out as the aircraft approaches. They don’t assume the missile will ever be that precise to actually strike the aircraft – close is close enough. The exact distance the SA-11’s fuze will fire isn’t anything you can say with precision – everything is moving pretty fast. ‘A few meters’ is best-case but the error might be something like plus ten or minus five meters.

    There was a panel from the nose of the aircraft with blast overpressure damage. The skin was distorted as if blown in around the structural ribs and spars. That would have been from a blast at least a few meters away, but nothing like 8 or ten meters away. That damage was in addition to the obvious shrapnel damage.

  2. niqnaq
    Posted July 28, 2014 at 5:39 am | Permalink

    Fascinating. You are in any case implying that the Buk (SA-11) is indeed responsible. I personally believe that it was a Buk fired in error by the rebels, and that they were lured into doing this by NATO, deliberately and cold-bloodedly diverting the Boeing into their path. But there is a considerable, perhaps a majority, school of thought that says a plane belonging to the Kiev junta fired the fatal missile that downed the Boeing, air-to-air. So what I have to decide is whether an air-to-air missile would have targeted and homed on the nose, in the same way that we seem to agree, a Buk missile would. Can you comment on that?

  3. nobody
    Posted July 28, 2014 at 6:15 am | Permalink

    I was wondering if it were possible for the rebel BUK launcher to piggyback onto the Ukrainian BUK acquisition radar. If that were the case the Ukrainians could feed the rebels targeting information misidentifying the 777 as another AN-26. Bingo! Somebody write a press release.

  4. niqnaq
    Posted July 28, 2014 at 6:28 am | Permalink

    I have considered that. But it would be such a complicated process, you’d have to have a highly skilled, international team operating the Kiev Buk control wagon. The Kievians themselves couldn’t do it in a million years. And there have been no reports of international military radar experts assisting Kiev on the ground. The presence of any such would be a very high-value information target for the rebels, and they do have a lot of sources inside the Kievian military. I think they would have heard about it, in the same way they have just in the last few days, reported the arrival of a small but menacing group of counter-insurgency miilitary personnel from Fort Benning.

  5. nobody
    Posted July 28, 2014 at 6:43 am | Permalink

    I’m no expert – that’s why I’m asking – but the Ukrainians were operating their acquisitiun system on 7/17 acording to the Russians so someone knows how to use the full system. Misidentifying a radar target might be as simple as overriding the automatic identification and assiging an identification manually. I suppose that if that information were being broadcast in a way the rebels could use it it might also be picked up by the Russians. And that would be a smoking gun: divert a commercial airliner into a war zone and then intentionally misidentify it as a military aircraft.

  6. niqnaq
    Posted July 28, 2014 at 6:56 am | Permalink

    Indeed it would, if there were any evidence for it, or any conceivable way of getting any.


  7. Posted July 28, 2014 at 7:04 am | Permalink

    A single BUK TELAR, by itself, is relatively useless for shooting down approaching aircraft unless you know in advance where the aircraft is coming from and it’s approximate flight path. Like within tens of degrees. You have to have the TELAR completely set up, fired up and taken out of standby mode to be looking at that particular slice of sky. Nobody does that – it’s a lot more complex than just ‘expecting transports from somewhere to the west’ and you’re bound to shoot something you don’t want to. There’s nothing remarkable about that particular area (MH-17 downing) aside from the fact that it’s on a commercial flight route. Sounds like a particularly bad place to blindly fire at unidentified targets, no?

    The TELAR also has a powerful optical tracking unit used to confirm targets. It’s there and manned for a reason. An ‘accident’ means the TELAR crew intentionally ignored optical confirmation first and just fired at a signal. They’re trained NOT to do that even in wartime.

    One of the reasons you operate a BUK battery with at least one Kupol (Tube Arm/Snow Drift) search-and-acquisition radar is because it looks out 140 km or so and you can track aircraft long enough to figure out whether you want to blow it away. Even that’s a crap-shoot. The Ukrainian BUK brigade deployed around Donetsk also had a Nemo 3-D radar covering the area (way more powerful/accurate than a Kupol). Russia said Ukraine had nine separate Kupol radars covering the area at the time – their signal is easy to track.

    One scenario: Nikolay Istomin makes a compelling case for an initial air-to-air strike to an engine,
    followed by a SAM strike (port side of cockpit) a minute or two later. The idea was that MH-17 was intentionally downed by the Ukrainian Interior Ministry (their Stazi, not their military) for a number of reasons. The pilots had maintained some control after the air-to-air strike and were maneuvering the aircraft unexpectedly to the North of the intended crash area. Worse yet for the Stazi, MH-17 may have been able to crash land and the survivors tell what happened. The Interior Ministry ordered the subsequent SAM launch to prevent that and erase as much of the evidence as possible. That explains their nearly immediate confiscation of the air traffic control radar logs and communications.

    Another plausible scenario: The Ukrainian Su-25 (or whatever) was shadowing MH-17, but doing so below the 5 km or so floor of long-range en-route air traffic control radar. If the separatists had their TELAR fired up because they somehow knew that fighter was coming, they could have actually been anticipating and aiming for that instead. Unlike enroute ATC radar, the TELAR Fire Dome can see anything from a few meters above the surface. The SA-11 goes up and turns toward the brightest object (MH-17). Problem with that scenario is that it wasn’t hit on the right front side as far as we know. I guess it would explain the Su-25 loitering around the area for a few minutes. I would be wondering WTF just happened if I saw a 777-200 lit up and disintegrate a few km above me.

    The technicals are interesting, but don’t give many clues either way. My personal interest is watching who lies first and most vigorously to steer the public narrative. Based on that alone, I’m more inclined to see a US/Ukrainian false-flag gone South, which saddens me greatly.

  8. Posted July 28, 2014 at 7:16 am | Permalink

    Stealing or otherwise acquiring a BUK doesn’t get you into the Ukrainian Brigade’s consolidated radar network. There’s plenty of codes, encryption, etc. just in case someone makes off with one of your TELARs. You’re communicating to/from a command truck, which isn’t going to talk to you if they don’t know who you are.

    One of the reasons I highly doubt the separatists got a working TELAR from SAM site A1402 is because the Ukrainian commander would have been court-martialed *for leaving* a working TELAR or missiles there. They probably stripped it of all the communication gear before abandoning it, and the comm gear is useless anyways without the codes and permissions from a command truck.

  9. niqnaq
    Posted July 28, 2014 at 7:24 am | Permalink

    You seem to be implying Kiev fired the Buk that downed MH17, then? I think that if you are, you are neglecting the claim by the rebels that they shot down an An-26 with a Buk on Jul 14. I see no reason to disbelieve that claim.

  10. Posted July 28, 2014 at 8:14 am | Permalink

    I wrote a longish response to your first question before posting the second comment, niqnaq. Did that one make it?

  11. niqnaq
    Posted July 28, 2014 at 8:22 am | Permalink

    yes, it did, it just fell into the spam folder for some reason, wordpress is a little unpredictable in that way. So, I’ve recovered it now and I shall ponder it. I hope this doesn’t confuse other readers, if we seem to have been talking past each other, but anyway, it’s back in the thread where it should be.

  12. Posted July 28, 2014 at 8:27 am | Permalink

    In response to your statement about the An-26, I don’t know any of the details of the track of that aircraft, the altitude or anything else. If that’s the one coming down with one engine on fire in the videos, then I guess I would doubt they managed to shoot that down (and not anything else) with a single Fire Dome radar. A SAM typically wouldn’t hit the engine, but who can say.

  13. niqnaq
    Posted July 28, 2014 at 8:35 am | Permalink

    Ah, yes, I know what you’re talking about; I had that, here. I didn’t respond to it much; it’s too complicated for me. Now, the rebels reported they had shot down an An-26 with a Buk on Jul 14 – they really did, but since Jul 17 they have endeavoured to scrub records of this, unsuccessfully. I say that the video of the Antonov coming down is really from Jul 14, not from Jul 17. I’ve actually collected all this stuff here. I start from these two hypotheses:
    (1) On Jul 17, Strelkov reported that the rebels had shot down another Antonov, within an hour of what turned out to be the Boeing shootdown. He reported that it fell more or less where, in fact, the Boeing fell. He scrubbed it, but I have copies of it in the post I just mentioned, here. So, definitely, the rebels shot a Buk at something.
    (2) NATO intended for just that to happen. They intentionally sent the Boeing into a position such that there was a maximum chance of the rebels firing a Buk at it, as in fact they did. So the rebels fell into the trap. Granted, the Boeing flies at 10 km altitude, whereas an Antonov has a ceiling of 7 km; granted, it flies more than twice as fast:
    Boeing 777 cruise speed: 490 knots, 560 mph, 905 km/h
    Antonov An-26 cruise speed: 237 knots, 273 mph, 440 km/h
    So you need a slow flying decoy or decoys below it, to draw the Buk fire; plus if you have triple agents in the rebel ranks, you can pass misinfo, that there is an Antonov coming, maybe. But as we have agreed, a full-blown electronic radar spoof is too difficult to be very easily imagined.

  14. niqnaq
    Posted July 28, 2014 at 8:57 am | Permalink

    By the way, NATO did set up an electronic war room a week or two earlier, so it’s conceivable they could have hijacked the Buk’s own onboard radar, if not the launcher’s radar, without setting physical foot in Ukraine at all: see here.

  15. Posted July 28, 2014 at 9:17 am | Permalink

    I don’t necessarily see NATO or the U.S. as the instigator here, niqnaq. There is a kind of shadow, corrupt, second government in Ukraine that controls the Interior Ministry (or Stazi, as I prefer to call them for simplicity’s sake). Maybe not ‘government’ per se, but the usual suspects: billionaire psychopathic oligarchs gorging themselves on Ukraine. The U.S. government seems to be way too close to these clowns while pretending to support ‘the people’ of Ukraine.

    An odd thing about Ukraine is that the Armed Forces control about half the SAM units, and the Interior Ministry controls the other half. That’s just odd – in that old Soviet organization way. Then you have ‘militias’ that have ties to the Ukrainian Interior Ministry that operate outside the purview of the military and *they* supposedly have BUKs with trained crews as well.

    I don’t see MH-17 as a Ukraine vs. Russia deal at all. I see it as criminally-insane Ukrainian oligarchs fighting other criminally-insane Ukrainian oligarchs. Neither side has anything to do with the people of Ukraine, and the US/NATO/Russia aspect is just noise – the oligarchs will use whoever they can when and while it’s convenient. I think Putin get’s it, but I’m afraid the U.S. is clueless.

  16. Posted July 28, 2014 at 9:34 am | Permalink

    There’s really not much you can hijack on a BUK. You’re talking thirty-five year old bare-bones analog radar technology. They’re easy to jam, but I don’t see how you could spoof a Fire Dome on a TELAR. It shows blips on an analog scope – that’s it. No computer anything, not digital processing. You can trick it into seeing a blip that’s *not* there, but can’t really hide a blip that *is* there.

    The U.S. AWACS spoofing stuff is directed at newer, more sophisticated long-range radars. They would be trying to spoof the Russian AWACS or maybe a Su-34 or Mig 35.. There are counter-measures and jamming for mid-range SAM stuff like BUKs, but that’s right on individual aircraft themselves.

  17. niqnaq
    Posted July 28, 2014 at 10:35 am | Permalink

    Aha, right. I get what you’re saying about the Third Force. That’s the Mossad.

    Granted, the Buk system itself may not be not spoofable: all tubes & wires. But they could have spoofed the radar emissions of the decoy, to make it look like an Antonov. Then the Buk system would have performed in the only way it could, given the spoof radar emissions it was accurately seeing. Suppose the decoy was the Sukhoi jet which the Russians reported seeing. It started out at 7 km attitude, with the radar decoy emitter in an air-to-air missile of its own, then the moment the Buk was fired from the ground, the Sukhoi climbed rapidly, past its normal ceiling, past the Boeing, fired the missile with the radar decoy unit in it towards the Boeing, and scooted out of there.


  18. niqnaq
    Posted July 28, 2014 at 1:23 pm | Permalink

    This is the second complete crock of shit that Wayne Madsen has written in a row. According to this, Mokhtar Belmokhtar, the one-eyed gypsy king of “Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb” (AQIM), can operate a Buk system to knock down high-flying passenger jets, too. Never mind whether the Novorossiyan rebels can do it – this guy can! Now Wayne Madsen will say (though he doesn’t here), Mokhtar is an MI6 asset, they probably fixed him up with some missile guys. Ha ha.

  19. Posted July 28, 2014 at 2:21 pm | Permalink

    You can’t determine the type of aircraft by any means that I know of on a stand-alone TELAR and its Fire Dome radar. Radar returns are all just blips to it – brightness and size mean nothing. You can guess based on track and altitude, but that’s not terribly precise.

    If the TELAR is NOT communicating with its fire battery’s command vehicle and that vehicle is not communicating with the battalion’s command center, then the TELAR’s radar screen doesn’t show anything besides a bunch of blips. A Fire Dome can’t read an aircraft’s transponder codes by itself. There is no mark on the radar screen in a stand-alone TELAR that says MH17 or B777 or anything else. They have no idea which blips are civilian or military or even if it’s ‘one of theirs’. All they see is a few potential target blips to shoot at.

  20. niqnaq
    Posted July 28, 2014 at 2:24 pm | Permalink

    yeah, but my idea of using a radar decoy is still valid. First of all, the Sukhoi (the decoy) trundles along at 7 km altitude and a stately 440 km/h. Then the moment the Buk is launched at it, it goes into a steep climb towards the Boeing, which is above it at 10 km altitude. Once up there, it launches some kind of radar flare towards the Boeing, then takes off as fast as it can. So it lights up the Boeing for the Buk. Is that possible?

  21. Posted July 28, 2014 at 3:24 pm | Permalink

    It’s unnecessary. The CW illumination radar of the TELAR is like a spotlight – everything in front of it is lit up. All the Sukhoi would have to do is maneuver away so the brightest thing in the area to the SA-11 is MH-17. The BUK operator would have seen both targets though and *wouldn’t* have fired if they were that close.

    That’s actually the logic for the Sukhoi to accelerate up to and shadow the 777 to begin with. Not to trick the BUK into firing, but the exact opposite – to prevent it from firing because the two aircraft were too close to each other. The BUK wouldn’t be able to positively identify the Sukhoi and get a clean shot without risking the other aircraft. Israel was a big fan of that tactic.

  22. niqnaq
    Posted July 28, 2014 at 4:12 pm | Permalink

    Elena, the beautiful bride of Motorola, the rebel captain and otherwise general clown, complained six weeks ago about the junta doing just that (at about 1:15 on this):

    If this particular Sukhoi was trying to use the Boeing to prevent firing by rebels, then it was directly interfering with and counter-indicating the entire operation, as I understand it. And remember, someone powerful, ie NATO, diverted the Boeing northwards in the first place, thereby deliberately putting it in harm’s way, or so it seems, since any sane person would have routed it further south, across the Sea of Azov. So powerful people wanted the Boeing attacked by the rebels. I hope we still agree on that hypothesis, at least.

  23. Andrew
    Posted July 28, 2014 at 6:05 pm | Permalink


    “Now, the rebels reported they had shot down an An-26 with a Buk on Jul 14 – they really did, but since Jul 17 they have endeavoured to scrub records of this, unsuccessfully. I say that the video of the Antonov coming down is really from Jul 14, not from Jul 17.”

    I believe it is more accurate to say some Russian press reported it as downed by a BUK, especially after the Kiev claim (without providing evidence) of flying at 21000 ft. (6500 m). The rebels reported shooting down a plane, and the film of it falling intact with an engine on fire strongly suggest it was done by a MANPAD and at a lower elevation. I think the fall on video takes less than 90 seconds, which would suggest a flight elevation under 15000 ft.

    “On Jul 17, Strelkov reported that the rebels had shot down another Antonov, within an hour of what turned out to be the Boeing shootdown.”

    Its more correct to say that VKontakte account “Strelkov-Info” reported it, which could have been any of the fanboys who post there. Strelkov has said repeatedly before the MH17 incident that he does not post to VKontakte, and the account itself explicitly explains it is run by fans. Here is the disclaimer on the account.

    Сводки от Стрелкова Игоря Ивановича
    с его форума (в ВК его нет), а также от ополченцев, очевидцев и журналистов
    Description:Ежедневные сводки по боевой ситуации от (репосты сообщений в рубрике “Стрелков сообщает”) лидера народного ополчения Донбасса Игоря Ивановича Стрелкова, его соратников, ополченцев и очевидцев событий оперативно и в одном месте.
    Никакого рекламного спама, никаких посторонних картинок или новостей.
    Группа создана для того, чтобы систематизировать все достоверные сообщения, поступающие с мест событий.
    Группа некоммерческая, здесь никогда не будет рекламы безделушек и попрошайничества. Мы работаем на чистом энтузиазме и желании доносить до читателей правдивую и корректную информацию.

    Translation by

    Summary from Strelkov Igor Ivanovich
    with its forum (VK not his own, and from militias, witnesses and journalists)
    Description:Daily reports on combat situation from (reposts messages in category “Shooters reports”), leader of the people’s militia of Donbass Igor I. Strelkova, his associates, militias and eyewitnesses of the events promptly and in one place.
    No advertising spam, no extraneous pictures or news.
    The group was created in order to systematize all credible reports coming from places of events.
    Group profit, there will never be advertising trinkets and begging. We are working on pure enthusiasm and the desire to convey to the readers of true and correct information.


    In other words, a number of people post reports to this account purporting to be eyewitnesses none of whom are Strelkov. Some things are accurate, others are misrepresentations, others are misunderstandings. There is a phrase called “The Fog of War”. This account is part of it and the information provided in it should be taken as such.

    “He reported that it fell more or less where, in fact, the Boeing fell. He scrubbed it, but I have copies of it in the post I just mentioned, here. So, definitely, the rebels shot a Buk at something.”

    The report does not mention firing a BUK, and it does mention hitting an AN-26 which flew over Torez from the south and then falling beyond the mine north of Torez. Such a report has no correlation at all with any reported track of MH17, which put it always to the north of Torez. MH17 could not both fly north of Torez on an WNW-ESE track and also fly N-S over the city of Torez to its crash site. Its also difficult to understand how a crash site 13.5 km north of Torez could be plainly visible when it is behind a wooded hill with a 300+ ft. elevation rise located centrally between Torez and the crash site – this hill is in fact higher and more extensive than the famous Saur Mogila.

    Lastly concerning the report on the AN-26 on 7/17, it doesn’t need to be anything more sinister than someone seeing a plane crash and assuming it must have been downed by someone in the NAF (why else would a plane be coming down?) and that it was an AN-26 and therefore reporting it as such. We don’t need to read more into the report than that, as the report does not state where the AA fire came from to down the plane, only that it fell north of Torez.

  24. niqnaq
    Posted July 28, 2014 at 6:42 pm | Permalink

    I’ve already drawn a logical straight line right through your fog of war. You say Strelkov did not make the post of which I have a screenshot. I say he did. It was headed “Сводки от Стрелкова Игоря Ивановича”, which means “Summary from Strelkov Igor Ivanovich.” To my eyes, that constitutes a personal statement by Strelkov, not a piece of hearsay by some unknown “fan.” I think you are dishonest. I think you are a paid propagandist. People like you give me the creeps. In any case, someone reported a plane shot down at that time, on that day, by the rebels, and reported that it fell north of the Progress mine. Since you prevaricate so much in your final paragraph, I would like to reassert that the post of Jul 17th, whoever wrote it, says with considerable pride that an Antonov was shot down. Here is the exact text:

    In the area of Torez, we have just shot down an An-26 airplane, it is scattered about somewhere by the “Progress” coal mine. We warned them – don’t fly in “our sky.” Here is a video confirmation of the latest “bird drop.” The bird fell beyond the pit refuse heap, it did not damage the residential sector. Civilians were not hurt. There is also information about a second downed airplane, apparently a Su.

    It says nothing about flying over Torez from the south. You or someone in your chain of misinformation fabricated that detail. That report was preceded by a militia report. The militia report said, in autotrans which is all I have of it:

    Message from the militia.// In the area of Torez, just downed an aircraft, like An-26.

    Now listen: there are no other plane wrecks there but the Boeing. There is nothing else they could have hit. The video of the Antonov coming down (because that is what it is, an Antonov with one engine on fire), could not therefore have been recorded on the 17th. It must be a film of the Antonov shootdown that they reported on the 14th. You may of course say that that report of Jul 14th was also unauthorised by Strelkov. But it was made, and repeated by other media. The post of Jul 14th specified, with some pride, that they had shot down an Antonov flying at over 6 km altitude, using their captured Buk, which they described as “refurbished”. That report was on Voice of Sevastopol, and still is. It hasn’t been removed. Perhaps there are people who respect the truth more than you do. i can’t be bothered to itemise all the confirmations of what I’m saying, but they are all here. I shall not waste further time arguing with you about them, because if you are paid to obfuscate, then that is all you will do. If I allowed you to keep obfuscating, you would eventually exhaust or infuriate me, to no good purpose. I’m not that stupid.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: