Attack "Boeing-777" fighter: true or fake? (investigation)

The search for truth in the information war is absolutely necessary. Otherwise you become just a puppet - a sliver floating in the information flow. Or, on the contrary, with a blunt iceberg, which doesn't care about any information - the assessment will be made on the basis of axiomatic beliefs, which may have been far from reality for a long time ... History with a photo of the attack of the aircraft on the Boeing is a wonderful illustration. Thinking people were horrified by the understanding of how cynical and inhuman Western and Ukrainian politicians can do, trying to discredit Russia ... But then people were stunned to learn that photography was a fake! What really?

But in reality, my friends, when you get information about fake photos not from objective sources, but from people who themselves have repeatedly been soldiers of the information war (yes, yes, I’m talking about Varlamov, Katz, etc. of the so-called liberal community) or live in the paradigm of “all that on Channel One, then a lie ”, then it is also necessary to be critical of their statements. Let us examine the post of Varlamov, in which he allegedly, like two and two, proves that the photo is a rough fake. And I assure you, you will see that not everything is so simple ...

Here is this post. "First in Photoshop" http://zyalt.livejournal.com/1203282.html

So, Varlamov argues in his post that:

"Proof" №1. The picture is not real, but is a screenshot of Google Earth. As proof, he gives 1 (one) fragment on which one very characteristic cloud actually coincides. Here is the argument of Varlamov:

Type, proof?

Well, how to see ... Let's open Google Earth and take a screenshot of the entire area captured in the photo under study. I specifically brought a photo and a screenshot to one scale. The landmark is the Donetsk airport (looks like a white stripe)

Here is a photo:

Here is a screenshot from Google:

What do we see? And we see the following. The photo could not be made on the basis of the screen! The screenshot in Google Earth is a snapshot of various images. The boundaries of the quadrants are clearly visible, it is clear that the pictures were taken at different times and possibly with different equipment (this can be seen from clouds cut off on Google, different color schemes, different degrees of illumination, etc.). The photo, which they give us for fake, certainly looks INTEGRAL and better quality - it looks like a product more primary than the screenshot from Google.

Do not find anything strange? The conclusion is simple. This is not a photo based on Google, this is Google based on a photo! The conclusions from this will be very serious, but we will consider them closer to the end. Just remember this fact, at a minimum, a photograph of the terrain - ORIGINAL.

Conclusion. Varlamov misled the reader, simply put a lie!

The “proof” of the number 2 is presumably SU-27 in the photo, but not the MiG mentioned in the report. Here is a comparison, pay attention to the tail.

Great comparison. Now to business ... About the MiG-29 speaks only the leader of the program Mr. Leontyev! And now we turn to the source newsVarlamov gave it to him by the way, but apparently did not bother to read. So here is the link: http://obkon.ucoz.com/forum/59-1403-1#6869

It reads:

An object appeared in the vicinity of the liner. According to all specifications, it is a Su-25 military fighter. By the way, the locals spoke about him on the day of the tragedy - they saw a flying military plane next to Boeing. Now it is not just words, but documented facts: a military plane appeared near a Malaysian airliner on radars. Su-25 after the "Boeing-777" disappeared from the monitors, did not fly away, but watched the wreck of the liner. After - disappeared. The published photos violate the idea of ​​investigating the official Kiev.

So, not the MiG appears in the original source, but the Su-25. But the silhouette of Su-25 is not similar either. Indeed, this is most likely Su-27. What is the result? Well, yes, Leontiev was either mistaken or incorrectly identified - the planes are actually quite similar. In the original source in general, there appeared a uniquely erroneous version, since Su-25 has a radically different silhouette. This could happen for a million reasons, including just a slip of the pen of the text writer.

Conclusion. Inaccurate identification of the aircraft in stock, but is not at all evidence of FALSE. This is only proof that Leontyev poorly versed in airplanes.

"Proof" №3 - the size of the fighter and the aircraft are in great doubt. Here is an example of how the plane is shown in satellite images. More about dimensions: the length of the northern edge of the forest, which is under Migom to the right ~ 850 meters ... The wingspan of the MiG wings is 11,36 m ... Considering that the listed entities are visually equal in the "photo", this "photo" should have been done with heights are much less than 10 km ...

It's generally beautiful and designed for morons :) Look at the picture of a young geometer who did the calculation and came to the conclusion that the picture was taken from a height of ~ 80 m above the plane, i.e. I'm not from outer space. We study:

Looks like the truth? Seem to be. Only this is a picture for calculating the height of shooting with an unarmed eye !!!

The satellite takes pictures through magnifying optics. And there the ray path is completely different. Here you have a distribution scheme for an ordinary optical sight. Think over it.

I will not give calculations (stupid will not understand anyway, but clever and everything is clear, upheaval is the same as the number on the head), but it is obvious that optical instruments are made to bring the point of view closer to the observed object.

Here is an example of 100% space imagery from the same Google. According to the logic of the young geometer, the picture apparently was also taken not from space ...

How can you believe this? Well, really, none of those who believed this moronic "evidence" never looked through binoculars or a telescope? The ratio of the size of the field and the aircraft can be determined ONLY the height at which the plane flew. But not the height of the shooting, if you do not know what optical devices used! And we do not know. Therefore, at a minimum, we can’t say anything on the issue from which height the survey was taken. With a good telescope, it could easily happen from orbit! Or ... or from a high-altitude spy plane, for example, the American strategic reconnaissance UAV RQ-4 Global Hawk can operate at an altitude of about 18 km.

APDATE: Further analysis shows that the snapshot looks more like a photograph from a high-altitude reconnaissance UAV http://eugenyshultz.livejournal.com/590311.html

*Note ed. IN: link - FORUM: The user Kemet’s estate ”How did four Ukrainian planes shoot down MN17 or go to a fortuneteller? , meticulously and carefully considered the episode with the destruction of the Boeing 777. Including, considered the version of the shooting with an airplane photo camera or UAV. After all, the “slaughter customer” of the Malazin liner needs photo evidence of the action, just in case of a “fire case”.

Conclusion: This item Varlamov - pure lies and manipulation.

"Proof" No. 4. - the picture shows a place in 50 km from the crash site - this, according to Varlamov’s thought, indicates a discrepancy of the scene

AND? The picture shows the time of the launch of the rocket! Do you think a plane capable of flying at a speed of 700 km / h from a height of about 9 km can fall into 50 km from the site of the attack? Of course yes.

So this point Varlamov - pure lies and manipulation.

"Proof" № 5 - The time shown in the picture does not coincide with the time when the plane was shot down (it was shot down near UTC 13: 21). In the picture with such a time should be the night.

Just excellent… Nothing that Americans and British often just record time not in the 24-hour format, but in the 12-hour format? In such a record, 13: 00 will look like 1: 00 pm And very often they omit pm talking about day / night hours, but add am to night / morning am So what happens? If the time is marked by Americans, then UTC 1: 19: 47 is a DAY and phenomenally accurately falls into an approximate time interval when the disaster occurred!

Conclusion? Varlamov, again lying and manipulating!

“Proof” №6 The first image on Google search “Boeing view from above” completely coincides with the aircraft from the image.

Here is a link to his friendship. Mr. Katz ... He has already polint the Internet, claiming that the first link to Google is used

Maxim Katz @max_katz Interestingly, the image of a Boeing, they just google it too? Or a coincidence? The first picture in the issue of "Boeing top view" pic.twitter.com/e5MyH07UWQ

Let's now compare these pictures. I put the picture that Katz found on the photo.

Seem to be? Seem to be. But do you know many airplanes resemble each other ... Especially from such a distance. At the same time, we see that the color does not coincide seriously, plus the plane found by Katz in a slightly different perspective - I had to turn it so that it coincided with the angle in the picture. You are no longer surprised that instead of just taking a picture of the same (including the airplane coloring, someone has googled the first picture that still needs to be displayed at the right angle, repainted, carefully cut out from the surrounding background. .. The length of the fuselage from wings to tail on the Katsev picture is clearly less ... At the same time, on the Internet, there are a huge number of better pictures. And in general, this is not done ...

And the most important thing. What Boeing crashed under Donetsk? Boeing – 777.
And the fact that Mr. Katz Boeing – 767 has googled (it is even written on board!) Here is a close-up photo.

Those. Someone who so diligently forges photos, but takes another (albeit outwardly similar) airplane model? Well, do not tell ...

Conclusion. Straight, but VERY brazen lies. Literally everything is ignored - just one plane is fitted to another. Moreover, the Katsev aircraft turned out to be the wrong model :)

That's actually all the “evidence” of the fake photos of the Boeing fighter attack ... Let me remind you that from 6 the “evidence” 1 (one) turned out to be Leontyev’s error, which does not affect doubts about the authenticity of the picture, and 5 (five) turned out to be a pure lie.

Great? ... Do you still consider this 100% fake?

Now, considerations on the style of filing and the circumstances when this photo appeared. Yes, this photo appeared long ago on some forum. Where did she come from then - it is not clear. But it coincided with the first appearances of the versions that the Boeing was shot down by a Ukrainian fighter (let me remind you that before that, the use of the air defense missile system was mainly considered). And also coincided with the time when suddenly! The West and Ukraine have "forgotten" about the catastrophe. Although before that, Putin personally personally accused Putin of killing innocent people almost daily, allegedly stamped outright forgeries on the negotiations of the militia and broadcast a bunch of vileness on the air. And here. SUDDENLY it's over. But is it because it ended that the Russian leadership received evidence that it was the Ukrainian fighter who shot down the plane? But for some global political reasons, she chose not to lay out this card officially, but only hinted that she could lay it out at any moment?

Why is this being done to me is incomprehensible. Rather versions - a million. It looks cynical of course (playing such “cards”), but these are just political realities ... unlike the inhuman crime - the deliberate destruction of a civilian plane over Donetsk with the aim of putting militias by terrorists and Russia as the Evil Empire!

Now for the feed format. Feed format frankly of course drain. Some strange "Union of Engineers of Russia", Leontiev for some reason ... Some strange story with a foreign Mr., who for some reason passed the picture. Strange? Yes. Of course all this is made up. For what? On the one hand, to hide the source of information, and on the other hand, not yet translate it into the plane of Russia's official position. But the publication would have to be loud - for the theme to sound on G20.

Probably in this way our political leadership wants to hint once again that the West and Ukraine should understand and RECOGNIZE that they are already caught at the scene of the crime, but Russia may not pedal the process (for it will be KOLOSSALNY not even damage - it will be just CATASTROPHE for the USA, the West as a whole and b / Ukraine), if the West draws the right conclusions. That is why the publication was at least loud, but with a touch of yellowness in the presentation. And no official confirmation or even a comment ... Why so? Because officially, we always have time to do it. There is a probing of negotiating positions. This is the first version. And most likely it is incorrect. Though probable.

A more plausible version is that it must be borne in mind that Russia may simply not have absolutely irrefutable evidence. Those. on the essential level there is an accurate understanding of the situation. But the data obtained by AGENTURY, secret way. We do not have access to primary sources and there is NO legal legacy of evidence to put an end to this matter - a FOREIGN snapshot. From the American satellite! So you have to bluff ...

Two facts speak in favor of this version:

1. It surprises everyone how it was so successfully filmed the launch of the rocket ... And what's so surprising if we assume that the US is actively helping b / Ukraine? The USA, for the first time, would establish round-the-clock satellite monitoring of the key confrontation point - Donetsk! The picture is from where it is. Do you still see something amazing about it? Me not!

2. Remember the very beginning of the post? So far, it turns out that not a photo is pulled out of Google, but vice versa - the Google map has been adjusted with a fresh image to cast doubt on the authenticity of this image, appealing to the fact that it was taken from Google! Who can do it, no matter how the American intelligence services? Which, let me remind you, now completely supervise all the activities of the so-called. authorities b / Ukraine, and the course of the so-called. ATO, which from the first day turned into a punitive operation.

Summary. Not claiming that the picture is genuine, I argue that the evidence of fakeness, which is now being replicated, is just a lie and far-fetched arguments. At the same time, the frank yellowness of the plum, combined with the publication on the largest TV channel in Russia - Channel One, is a very strange thing. It all overlaps with G20. Obviously a global confrontation between the United States and Russia. Obviously, b / Ukraine is only a changeable card in this process. Draw conclusions. They are much more complicated than you think at first glance. And of course, do not believe the scoundrels who now lie that the photo is a fake. This is not true. There is no evidence of fake pictures!

Therefore, in the aggregate of facts, I fully admit that this picture here perfectly illustrates what really happened.

Why? I received at least untested, but at least past elementary common sense checks that testify that I COULD BE. But the denials of all this were just a lie.

I will finish the post with the words of Varlamov.

This is only one of the episodes of the information war. Keep your brain clean ...

But, add from myself, you can watch TV :) Just think when you see something. Check. Analyze. Try to create a holistic, logically complete picture. And of course do not assume that Channel One is lying, and in blogs is TRUE. No, and they lie on blogs. Especially in those who lead fans Maidan and Square, as well as other svidomity.

Everybody lies (s). This is a war.

Comments

[Fedya]

the West is now responding to everything that Russia says: I do not believe it!

[Oleg NSK]

I do not believe !

... white slaves, black "Stanislavsky" ... and what did you want to hear from them
however he is a puppet himself

[Canep]

By this Fake, Mikhail Leontyev once again destroyed his reputation. Before publishing this, you had to open your eyes, at least check the area where the picture was taken, see if the Boeing could be the size of Panteleymonovka over which it is depicted. Ask yourself, where is the inversion trace? Yes, to hell with her, with the reputation of Leontiev, he made this fraud doubt the international reputation of Russia itself. In general, a vile story.
http://topwar.ru/62562-pervyy-kanal-predstavil-sensacionnyy-sputnikovyy-snimok-m
alayziskogo-boinga-za-mgnovenie-do-krusheniya.html # comment-id-3633152

Quote: Canep

How much more will you discuss this frankly fake snapshot is already the fifth page of comments:
1. B-777 is not 777 at all, but 767 in the sweep angle,
2. The Boeing closes a plot of land about 5 km long on the ground, and the fuselage of the aircraft is wider than the road with a railway road and two forest lanes with a total width of 250 m; in general, the Boeing is larger than the size of the village of Panteleymonovka over which it is shown. in order for the Boeing to turn out in this form it is necessary that the shooting point was at a distance of about 200 m from the aircraft, and this eliminates the version that there is a satellite image, and also makes it impossible to hit the MiG in this image, which is located already beyond Donetsk at a distance about 52 km.
3. The MiG is also impressive in size, its length against the background of the earth is about 1,2 km.
4. According to eyewitnesses, the B-777 emerged from the clouds, and then a small plane appeared. There is no cloud in the image.
5. The time indicated at the bottom of the picture 1:19:47 this corresponds to 5:19:47 local time, and the plane was shot down at 17 hours. There is no PM or AM prefix in the time designation, which means that the 24-hour time format is used.
6. Boeing has no characteristic iversion trail. This is what the satellite image of this aircraft should look like. The same applies to the MiG

[bugaev2005]

Have you read the article at all? And you start to talk about the sizes of objects ... Although it’s about people like you there, it’s probably said that they still won’t understand how optics work ...

[Canep]

Quote: bugaev2005

all the same, they don’t understand how optics work ...

Optics cannot increase the plane and not increase the background, the lens with all the objects caught in the frame makes the same transformations, to make the plane much larger than the background can only bring the lens closer to the object, but then the distant object in the given MiG will not get into the frame. And about me, in my youth I worked as a photographer, and I know enough about optics to understand that this is a fake shot. Search the net for this picture with good resolution, at least 4 megapixels. I did not find, there is only this smeared squalor.

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

Quote: Canep

at least 4 megapixels

most likely there are no pictures with good resolution, and if so, it’s just with an enlarged image in hardware

[bugaev2005]

You had some other lenses. When I first bought a professional Sony with a telephoto lens, I immediately encountered a similar effect as in the proposed photo ... At first I was even surprised, then I got used to it ... Apparently the front lens is not quite oval, but I confirm that this effect is observed when the object is located in a couple of kilometers from the subject, it looks commensurate with it and, surprisingly, the sharpness of the distant object is quite decent!

[Canep]

Quote: bugaev2005

a couple of kilometers from the subject, it looks commensurate with it

Commensurate !, and not 100 times smaller.

[Rus2012]

Quote: Canep

the plane is much larger than the background can only approach the lens in a dense object

Read here - http://eugenyshultz.livejournal.com/590311.html
and here - http://mh17.webtalk.ru/viewtopic.php?id=119
In order not to carry nonsense!
All versions and all answers to your and other doubts are considered there!

Already wrote:

there is an information war ...

Actually, in connection with this bombing stuffing the photo reveals very revealing and grave things. And regardless - a genuine photo or reconstruction.

At least for me, it becomes obvious that the United States (and Europe, by the way, no less) actually and practically control the Ukrainians on a tactical level (from planning to current routine clashes).

Why do I think so -
1. In Ukraine, operational communication groups sit on many channels: control, communications, supplies, intelligence
2. Providing current air and space exploration.
3. Our "whistleblowers" of the photo are also operatively connected with foreign countries. Otherwise, how can you imagine these katsvs sitting with magnifiers sitting and examining these photos and simultaneously "passing" hundreds of Google space images through their eyes - for comparing clouds?

There is a war, comrades, and we are also participants in this. Everyone chooses his side of the barricades!

Oleg Lurie is even more categorical about the unified comments of the scum of the 5 column:
- they are led by specialists from overseas and put their data in their speeches, posts and other pearls!

[crambol]

Optics cannot increase the plane and not increase the background, the lens with all objects caught in the frame makes the same transformations,

- Sergei! I am an engineer, a physicist, and I know these things professionally. You are absolutely right. A snapshot of bullshit and nothing to break spears!

PS Unfortunately, many flew out of school for their inability to comprehend science long before they began to learn the basics of geometry.

[igordok]

Quote: bugaev2005

they don’t understand how optics work ...

Photos with the same distance between the camera and the subject, but with different focal lengths of the lens.

[Canep]

Your photos do not indicate at what distance from the subject the photographer is.
I know very well about this zoom effect, and about distortion of scale by a wide-angle lens with a short focal length. But the shooting could not be conducted with such a lens from the satellite, the satellite cannot fly below 70 km, and the plane flew at an altitude of 10 km. But even if the picture was taken from 200 meters and created such an increase effect, the MiG, located 52 km from the shooting point, would not have got into the frame at all.

[igordok]

minus is not mine.

[Canep]

Quote: igordok

minus is not mine.

Yes, I don’t care, I haven’t been collecting pluses here for a long time, they do not matter. For me, only truth matters. But it is not comforting: someone slipped Leontiev a fake picture, and he pecked, published it. Now his words are an empty phrase for me, and his reputation in Russia has been tarnished. The most correct version that the Boeing was shot down by an airplane is discredited, that's the situation.

[Rus2012]

Quote: Canep

The most correct version that the Boeing was shot down by an airplane is discredited, that's the situation.

... and if we admit a simple thought - in some offices there are entire documentary videos from devices such as a film-photo-machine gun, specially filmed and documented "just in case of fire" - the act of the MH17 massacre. Including, in order to bring the unfinished end of the diligent in the right direction ?! Or "smear it up to the neck with blood" and divert the blame from yourself ?!

Recent versions - everyone is inclined that there are such video docs (shot not only by one side - a participant in the events).
UAVs, high-altitude reconnaissance, satellite imagery ... radio interception of interceptor recordings, erased areas of "black boxes", transfer of the "ZHPS" grid, replacement of terrain with Google ... A lot is at stake, a lot !!!

[Ramzaj99]

Quote: Canep

The most correct version that the Boeing was shot down by an airplane is discredited, that's the situation.

Yes, I beg you ... it’s discredited))) Russia every day in all Western news attacks the unfortunate nezalEzhnaya with all armored forces ..... and nothing)) ... all reasonable people already understand that this is nonsense and pay less attention.

[svd-xnumx]

But even if the picture was taken from 200 meters and created such an increase effect, the MiG, located 52 km from the shooting point, would not have got into the frame at all.

If we accept as a rule that the Boeing and SU are at the same height or so, then the distance between them is not less than 52 km, but about 800 meters (measured in the ancient way, the unit is 1 Boeing)

[Alex_34]

YES SIR. BUT READY Slightly BELOW. THEN 2 KM MAY BE MUCH MORE. PERFECT DISTANCE FOR SHOOTING AT SUCH A GREAT GOAL Flying DIRECT AND NOT MANEUVERING.

[kadmy]

I completely agree, a telephoto lens increases the background, and not vice versa. The effect of just a short-focus lens is visible. If the picture is real, then it should be shot at a relatively short distance - 200 meters.
Besides, where did you see the launch of a rocket with solid propellant rocket engines without a smoke trail? In reality, smoke would hide the floor of the fighter.

[Alex_34]

WHERE FROM 52 KM. THE ROCKET AIR THE AIR DOESN'T FLY SO FAR. THE FAST DISTANCE FROM HUNDREDS OF METERS 700 800. WELL AND TO COUPLES KM.

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

Quote: Canep

Ask yourself, where is the inversion trace?

The trace does not always form: for its formation, the plane must fly into an area with a very low temperature and high humidity, close to the state of saturation
if you take as a basis your assertion that the photo is fake, then the trace would have been, dazzling it is not a problem

[Canep]

Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir

The trace is not always formed: for its formation, the plane must fly into an area with a very low

Have you ever seen that a plane at an altitude of 10 km where the temperature is always below -40 Celsius does not leave a trace? I think if they saw then they witnessed his fall, this is only possible when the engines are turned off. When fuel is burned in the engine, carbon dioxide and water vapor are formed, the latter instantly crystallizes at a height of 10 km and forms a characteristic trail.

Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir

Your statement that the photo is fake, then the trace would have been just, dazzling it is not a problem

But for some reason they did not blind, and the planes stuck on gigantic proportions.

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

Have you ever seen a plane at an altitude of 10 km where the temperature is always below -40 Celsius so that it doesn’t leave a trace?

I won’t even argue, read the reference books on this very phenomenon

Quote: Canep

But for some reason they did not blind, and the planes stuck on gigantic proportions.

and what do you mean by that ?!

[Canep]

Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir

and what do you mean by that ?!

The fact that the Boeing is 5 km long against the background of the earth, and the MiG is 1.2 km long. and all this in one shot. The scale of the terrain does not match the size of the aircraft.

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

I won’t argue on this topic because I don’t understand it and can only operate on what I’ve read, but I read that it’s possible

[Canep]

Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir

but I read that it is possible

Take any small object, place it at a distance of 1 m from the wall (let it correspond to 10 km), then at a distance of 1 m from the wall, and mark another small object at a distance of 5 m from the first object, then try to photograph the first object so that it covers a piece the wall is 100 times larger than himself, but so that the second object (5 meters) falls into the frame and the wall itself is under the object. Do not forget that you should not get closer to the wall closer than 7 meters (corresponds to 70 km of the minimum satellite altitude)

I was trying to put a small drawing on it; for some reason it is not downloaded from my computer.

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

firstly, you can’t lay out a drawing, neither large nor small, because you don’t know at what height the satellite was located, what optics it stands on, which means that all your calculations are forgiven

[Canep]

Be that as it may, the light travels in a straight line. if you shoot a Boeing from a distance of 200m, it will cover a piece of land (at a distance of 10 km) with a length of about 5 km, but at the same time you will not be able to squeeze into the frame another plane located 50 km from the first.
If you shoot from a height of 70 km (you can’t fly below a satellite), then an aircraft at a height of 10 km with a length of 63 (B-777) meters will cover a plot of land with a length of 73,5 m, and not 5 km as in the picture (70 / (70- 10) * 63) = 73,5 MiG 17 meters long will cover a 19,8 m long section, not 1,2 km as in the picture, and if the distance between the planes in the picture is 52 km at an altitude of 10 km, the actual distance between them will be 44,5 km.
You will notice that here the proportions of the aircraft are violated not by percent, but by two orders of magnitude, that is, about 100 times.

I do not intend to write more comments for this article.

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

I repeat once again I will not argue on the topic of optics, there is no time to go into directories and build skulls

[alexbg2]

But it would be worth it.

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

if I had a debate on a specific topic, yes, and that your wish is not clear

[alexbg2]

This generalized wish, and not a claim to a specific person, should not be accepted at your own expense.

[Sma11]

The GLONASS global satellite system is a second-generation navigation system with satellites located in circular orbits about 19100 km high. http://www.genon.ru/

Canep If you shoot from an altitude of 70 km (below the satellite you can’t fly

Maybe I don’t understand something? Looks like noodles on the ears

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

and we know which satellite took the photo, well, if you consider the photo is not a fake?

[Rus2012]

Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir

what satellite did the photo take

... there is a plausible version - that the attached frame is a drain from the video of Global Navk from a height from 10.100.
And they say there he circled not alone ...
Several Ukrainian aircraft (including those with a film camera). Several Avax (sky of Poland). In short, there were NATO EW exercises, including ...

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

Quote: Rus2012

Lobk Navk from a height of 10.100

Quote: Rus2012

And they say there he was not alone.

do not find contradictions?

[Alex_34]

YES WHY TAKE THESE 50 KM.

[igordok]

Quote: Canep

Have you ever seen a plane at an altitude of 10 km where the temperature is always below -40 Celsius so that it doesn’t leave a trace?

He witnessed many times when the inverse trace was interrupted, then reappeared. The plane flew through areas with different indicators of humidity.
Altitude - I don't know, passenger flights.

[andranick]

Quote: Canep

Have you ever seen that a plane at an altitude of 10 km where the temperature is always below -40 Celsius does not leave a trace? I think if they saw then they witnessed his fall, this is only possible when the engines are turned off

I saw, and more than once, when the inversion trace from a passenger plane at cruising altitude ceased, and then, after a rather large space gap, reappeared. Did the plane fly with the engines turned off?

[Rus2012]

Quote: Canep

I think if they saw then they witnessed his fall, this is only possible when the engines are turned off.

Comrade Minesweeper, if qualification allows, I highly recommend looking and understanding here - http://mh17.webtalk.ru/viewtopic.php?id=119
Everything is chewed there, what-how-who ...

[Ezhaak]

Quote: Canep

Have you ever seen a plane at an altitude of 10 km where the temperature is always below -40 Celsius so that it doesn’t leave a trace?

You, dear, are wrong. I saw what you described. Above us is the path to one of the Moscow airfields. Not always there is an inversion trace. Especially in the spring and summer. Time of day also plays a role. In winter, he is constantly present.

[Alex_34]

IT IF FROM THE EARTH TO LOOK AT TOP. AND IF ON THE BACKGROUND OF THE EARTH THEN NOT ALWAYS.

[Andrea]

Canep SU Today, 07: 29 ↑

In an interview with Russia24 channel, it was saidby experts- no traces of a fake were found, is this also a fake, or our experts, well, really stupid.

[Canep]

Quote: Andrea

In an interview with Rossiya24 channel, it was said by experts, there were no traces of a fake, it’s also a fake, or our experts are really stupid.

I don’t know what experts were saying, but the fact that this fake was not replicated through all Russian channels should lead to certain thoughts.

[saber]

soap and bast, start over ... comrade sapper dog, go check in the office!

[Canep]

Quote: Saber

Comrade sapper-psaki, go check in the office!

I have no office, I have brains. Just open this area in Yandex maps and put about Boeing on the area of ​​this map and you will see that Boeing has become 5km long. From the fact that you are giving away what you wish for real benefit, there is little, but there is a lot of harm. Now everyone will say that on Russian television they show a frank fake. By the way, on other Russian channels this garbage was not noticed, look for example on RT.

[Alex_Popovson]

I also "do not believe". I really don't believe the picture. If this picture were really true, ours would have opened it long ago. And then the spyvonsky merrymaking is straight forward - already The first anal suddenly suddenly gives out to the general public on the mountain.
That fact is not a pure fact. But if it is still unknown WHAT they shot down, then such photos are just nonsense in sweat oil.

[Finches]

"I believe", "I do not believe" is a game of chamomile and it's not serious! There is a snapshot! It needs to be studied and proven, either its authenticity or its fake! Channel One, by the way, immediately made a reservation, presenting this photo - not the fact that the picture is genuine!
But what always surprises me is that any blogger, especially from the camp of librarians, is well versed in everything: from gynecology to astrophysics! Just wake up some Shenderovich at night and he will immediately spread Newton’s binom on you or play Bach’s cantata N 82 on a flute ...

[atalef]

Quote: Finches

I believe "," I do not believe "is a game of chamomile and it's not serious! There is a picture!

Are you serious about - PICTURE IS?
It seems that neither Photoshop nor other technologies to fabricate it - no

Quote: Finches

It needs to be studied and proved, either its authenticity, or its fake! The first channel, by the way, immediately made a slip in presenting this photo - not the fact that the picture is genuine!

Yes ? And if in doubt, then why withdraw? Do not you think that after they prove fake, it will be difficult for Leontyev (which is what is happening now) to wash off his excuses - like we warned that it could be bullshit - will not convince anyone
Although Leontiev is not accustomed to swimming in shit, it’s another matter to whom it was necessary to throw this news. mk Leontiev on an independent journalist - well, just does not pull
And do not mention Channel One, he distanced himself very beautifully from this (like I and neither I nor my horse)
Well, judge for yourself, Leontiev gives such a sensation to the mountain (on the first), and the news (of the first channel) is not a word about it, it’s not even funny how stupid it looks

Quote: Finches

But what always surprises me is that any blogger, especially from the camp of librarians, is well versed in everything: from gynecology to astrophysics! Just wake up some Shenderovich at night and he will immediately spread Newton’s binom on you or play Bach’s cantata N 82

Well, yes, by the way, including you, stating - BUT THE PICTURE EXISTS !!!
Apparently news agencies from ITAR TASS. NTV, RTR, etc., your optimism is not very shared, because for some reason they are silent about this sensation for the third day.

[saber]

Quote: atalef

Apparently news agencies from ITAR TASS. NTV, RTR, etc., your optimism is not very shared, because for some reason they are silent about this sensation for the 3rd day

And on the First, they said so well that dudes from the house understood everything perfectly and did not have to repeat

[activator]

Quote: atalef

Yes ? And if in doubt, then why withdraw? Do not you think that after they prove fake, it will be difficult for Leontyev (which is what is happening now) to wash off his excuses - like we warned that it could be bullshit - will not convince anyone

But the Americans in the same situation that the water was blinded from a goose and didn’t care that the fake was no refutation of the disproportionate scale, even I already began to realize that this could be the more so since no one knows what kind of optics there was, but at the level of cameras, although on a satellite, optics are much more advanced.

[Rus2012]

Quote: atalef

because for some reason the 3 day is silent about this sensation

... on many channels, not only the stories showed, there were even discussions ...

[Finches]

I apologize for not being able to oppose you before! He worked, but now I will express myself about the fact that in any case, solid statements from the first persons of the state are needed, and this is not. optimism! I also really want to know the truth! Suppose, as an example, you write in Russian, so watch including your 9th channel, how does it cover your not-so-legitimate bombing of the Gaza Strip?

[Andrew]

on whose flute? Husseinich?

[97110]

Quote: Finches

So wake up at night some Shenderovich and he immediately to you

What do you want. When it comes to money, you become a "specialist" ... Being an economist of river transport by education and work experience, I argued with an insurance company (OMS). The essence of the dispute is whether a woman has the right to visit a gynecologist twice a month with different diagnoses. Another diagnosis - initial visit - twice the price. And here are completely different grandmas ...

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

Quote: Alex_Popovson

I also "do not believe". I really don't believe the picture. If this picture were really true, ours would have opened it long ago.

the issue is controversial and difficult, we don’t even see and do not know two percent, there are such backroom games that mom don’t cry

[atalef]

Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir

Quote: Alex_Popovson

I also "do not believe". I really don't believe the picture. If this picture were really true, ours would have opened it long ago.

the issue is controversial and difficult, we don’t even see and do not know two percent, there are such backroom games that mom don’t cry

Yes, but the news is given to a simple people who hawala it and make up an opinion.
It's like in an old Jewish joke - Spoons were found, but the sediment remained

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

Quote: atalef

Spoons were found, but the sediment remained

aljager kom aljagero

[Wheel]

Quote: atalef

Yes, but the news is given to a simple people who hawala it and make up an opinion.
It's like in an old Jewish joke - Spoons were found, but the sediment remained

You're wrong.
The news was not issued to a simple people and for a reason.
And it doesn’t matter at all whether this is a genuine photograph or (highly) artistic fake.
Here, quite by chance, a couple of events coincided. Forum Ж20 and the Dutch export of the remains of the aircraft.
This stuffing is a completely clear hint to the relevant services of the USERIA that the Russian interested structures know exactly what caused the Boeing to fall.
And judging by erect (sorry! ) reactions, the hint was taken into account.

Now we are waiting for the results of the "investigation" in the form of, like, a banal terrorist attack on board, of course, by Islamic extremists, because this option will suit everyone.

Everyone is happy, everyone is laughing (s).

[Alexss]

Well, if you do not believe me, then bring (look for) evidence of fake photos. In the meantime, neither Psaki nor the Pentagon with their resources and specialists could do this.

[rotmistr60]

The article is good, thorough, with specific reasons. Thanks to the author for the hard work done.

No, and the blogs are lying. Especially in those who are lovers of Independence Square and Independence, as well as other Svidomo.


And here I agree with the author 100%.

[Letun]

Quote: rotmistr60

The article is good, thorough, with specific reasons.

Yesterday after the program "Time" on "First" there was a program in which some peasant from the very "Union of Engineers" took part. He was directly asked if he was sure that the photograph was genuine. And that's what unpleasantly surprised me, he did not answer yes or no, said that the photo was sent along with the letter, and that American (forgot his name) offered his own version of events and stuff like that. The photo type is a possible version of the development of events.

[rich]

On the echo there is an interview with this American specialist. When asked where he took the photo, he will answer that on the forum, someone posted from the participants. This forum, as he said, is Russian Wikileaks. He also said that he is not a specialist in the field of disaster investigation.

[Andrew]

links will be?

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

Quote: Andrew

links will be?

in my ear I read something like that

[rich]

Here is a reference
http://echo.msk.ru/blog/varlamov_i/1437910-echo/

[smershxnumx]

Great article! Plus earned honestly!

[Sergey-8848]

The situation that the author describes is quite likely - Google corrected retroactively, so that the resulting image seemed like a photo collage. Now, the already shamelessly protracted investigation of the causes of the disaster may add a new series - on establishing the authenticity of the photograph.

[bugaev2005]

Now there is no doubt that it was so! And I would also like to add that genuine programs or photoshop are easily determined by special programs, even an amateur can easily do this by analyzing nearby pixels!

Anyone who writes that in 15 minutes they concoct such a picture, they simply do not understand that it is revealed in a minute! The snapshot is naturally genuine, since all the media in the world would have declared Russia a lie! And now the American special services are looking for a mole, can you imagine what source of information the Russian special services had to sacrifice in order to give an appropriate signal to our "partners" ...

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

genuine programs or photoshop are easily detected by special programs, even an amateur can easily do this by analyzing nearby pixels!
---------
Apparently, you have never worked with Photoshop professionally, how do you think why courts rarely accept digital photos as evidence, but analog vice versa?

[bugaev2005]

Because in courts like you work

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

Quote: bugaev2005

Because in courts like you work

dear, let's not cross the line, I’m working with Photoshop from version 3.5 if it’s for you, says something and has done so many collages in my life that you never dreamed of, and at one time I gave advice to KNB officers on the use of such tools

[Vita_vko]

A satellite lens is a needle that needs to be aimed during its flight at a very high speed above the Earth at the right point, at the right time, and with the required resolution. So the picture was not taken accidentally. This is the standard form of the American satellite’s photo report on the work of the CIA, the main international terrorist organization. Consequently, the disaster with Mn-17 was a planned terrorist action and it was planned by those who knew exactly the place and time of its conduct in order to aim their satellite there in advance.

[Andrea]

Do not go to a fortuneteller!

[domokl]

the author plus unambiguously. With this picture, there is enough mngo speculation now. And for some reason, not experts but journalists and bloggers say about him ...
It seems to me that the task is to sow doubt in any evidence, in any facts related to this case.

[Strezhevsky]

Schulz denied Katz. But it’s all the same interesting, because the first thing I compared was the cards.

[bugaev2005]

The author is right !!!
True, I would add one more option, maybe the picture was taken from a Russian satellite! And then we can say - Glory to the Russian foreign intelligence, they knew about the place of the operation, but this is just another version.

[Sergey7311]

The fact that this is a fake is indirectly indicated by the fact that not a single major media outlet in Sunday's programs mentioned this fact about the results of the week. Neither NTV nor Russia-24 ... For the first time, information about this appeared a month ago on the network. But only on the eve of the G-20 summit they decided to talk about it on ORT. Help the president, so to speak. It turned out somehow very awkward ...

[bugaev2005]

Sergey7311 with such analytical abilities as you have and with such ideas about how this cynical world works, you need not read such articles, but Murzilka magazine ... I apologize to readers for rudeness ....

[adept666]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxajWGAd_lg#t=433

[ILYA M]

Very interesting article. Very similar to the truth. And even our grandchildren are unlikely to know the truth. I consider the main evidence of the correctness of the author’s conclusions to be that this bastard ... indeed, it somehow bypasses this topic now, the types were nothing.

[Baloo]

Not an aviator or a computer man, which is probably why I can’t get rid of the feeling that the pictures of planes are from some kind of computer game. The very name of the well-wisher confuses: either Build (photo, picture), or Bilt (gird, belt, hit). We are waiting for comments from the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation.

[UralMan]

Here's how to PERFORM AMERICOS 'henchmen like Varlamov more often.

[witch]

it’s a pity that just proving all this to the world will be oh how difficult.

[biron]

Even in the early days of the Vignet tragedy, there were reports that the Boeing was shot down by a Ukrainian. so it’s worth considering.

[Tatar 174]

The snapshot is more likely genuine:
1. If there are pictures, then the operation was planned by those who took these pictures, there are no accidents of such accuracy in time and place.
2. The airspace of the territory of Ukraine and there can only be Ukrainian military aircraft and not Russian at all, it is 100%.
3. This confirms the concealment of negotiations between Ukrainian air traffic controllers and the refusal to provide all the data on the crash by the Americans.
4. Locals residents saw a military plane and the Russian radar also saw a military plane.
5. The Malaysian passenger Boeing777-Ukrainian Air Force was shot down.

[atalef]

I think that the previous comment is absolutely correct - not a single Russian news agency mentioned this fact - although it seems like the evidence is not just ironic but murderous, so you should not even break the spears (we, such home photoshop connoisseurs and whistleblower whistleblowers and conspiracies)
Not a single serious news agency, neither Itar Tass, nor NTV, Russia -24, RTR - brought this news to their news - WHY?
Yes, because then no couch experts like us would do this, but real experts in this matter and, as it seems to me, they would simply tear these news agencies into 1000 small pieces.
I don’t understand much about this (in the art of Photoshop, etc., whether it exists or not), but in order to understand the picture one needs to look at indirect signs and the fact that the leading Russian news agencies have missed this news - it looks not just strange, but very strange - / and of course leads to one simple thought
Photos of crap were thrown out by Leontyev before a specific meeting - for an understandable purpose.
Unfortunately, it looked monstrously awkward and the damage will ultimately exceed the result that we would like to achieve

[Andrea]

Russia24 showed both the plot and the interview.

[Rus2012]

and not only - Star, 1 channel, NTV, 3 channel ...

[traper]

Euronews also talked about these photos, and added that according to the RUSSIAN BLOGERS - maybe this is fake.

[stas52]

This image is supported by at least the fact that people who have seen the satellite only on TV say about its fake, and never people who work with data from satellites. And yes, why is NASA silent, why doesn't it expose this "fake"?

[theadenter]

There are two more points offered by dill as a refutation of this picture:
1) the inscription is on the wrong side.
2) the rocket entered from the opposite side.

[Strezhevsky]

Quote: theadenter

There are two more points offered by dill as a refutation of this picture:
1) the inscription is on the wrong side.
2) the rocket entered from the opposite side.

As far as I remember, the flight of fragments was precisely on the left side of the cockpit, or has something changed?
I mean censors?

[theadenter]

Yes, censors from a blog just did repost. From there I took it. They gave a photo in which there was an inscription on one side, and in a satellite image it was on the other.

I am not inclined to believe ukromi, just checking the information.

[Landwarrior]

Quote: theadenter

2) the rocket entered from the opposite side.

The rocket did not enter anywhere and could not enter by definition. Do you know what a "core warhead" is?

[Alexey K.]

Thanks to the author for clarification. Often in disputes with opponents there is not enough special knowledge on the issue under discussion. I saw many answers that this is a fake and could not write anything in return. Now you can even give a link to this article. Although if a person has a bunch of cockroaches in his head, then no links will convince him.

[97110]

Quote: Alexey K.

Although if a person has a bunch of cockroaches in his head, then no links will convince him.

Even in the absence of cockroaches, a person may not be convinced that he already considers the truth, but does not have the right or desire to admit it.

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

remove the finger from the caps

[pexotinec]

I have to fly the pilot. If I’m still alive, he knows the truth. And on spit it.

[Raven1972]

Quote: pexotinec

I have to fly the pilot. If I’m still alive, he knows the truth. And on spit it

Most likely they are no longer in this world, such witnesses are not left .......

[innoker-1563]

You feel like a pawn in someone’s game. It’s scary, and what next move will the player come up with in whose power human lives are?

[Andrea]

Do not bother: a fake is not a fake, Channel One or a blog (for me, a blog is not a source of information at all, it's just a warm-up for brains). As long as there is no Western reaction (and I doubt it will), the authenticity of the picture does not really matter .
If, however, the West recognizes the existence of both the satellite and the image, then there is no need to prove anything.
Most likely the culprit has long been known, the causes of the crime, too. The West’s task now is to hide the ends in the water. The course of the investigation shows that no one wants to investigate anything.

[Andrea]

PS If you make an effort, then by means of space reconnaissance, you can probably calculate which and whose satellite was at that time above the place of attack.

[terrible]

)) Leonov is a pipe into which you yourself know who))) Channel 1 is the most central and not only it showed Russia24 and LifeNews !!!! you think fools are sitting at the top))) you are the only ones smart)))) posted the picture on time)) over there as the Australian prime minister wagged his tail))))))))

[97110]

Quote: formidable

think fools are sitting on top

fly at night!

[Wolka]

the author is right: it would be an official mistake to put a picture, therefore they filed with oil in a yellow wrapper, but the goal was to bring the Yankees and dill to the fact of responsibility for the deliberate commission of the crime, you can’t shut up everyone’s mouths, they will slurp around ...

[sv68]

I completely agree with the conclusions as well as with the author’s proofs and thanks the person for the work done, but only we Russian people know the truth, but to all the others it is unnecessary.

[rich]

This photoulika is more likely intended for the internal consumer.

[70BSN]

Objectively provided information, Not like DROPS!
And I have one question, if they allegedly say that the Dutch died there, then why PARENTS are silent !!! ????

And one more assumption that this is the plane that disappeared SPRING !!! <<< Purely my opinion!

[bmv04636]

Not a single person did not say that the picture was real. We confidently say, and the Ministry of Defense said that, according to objective means of control, there was another unidentified aircraft there (it was not identified because its equipment was turned off, which gives us reason to think that it was a combat aircraft) The Ministry of Defense also hinted that it knew which satellites dangled at that time at that time so draw conclusions gentlemen.

[Mountain shooter]

It looks like this is a photo of striped eared and taken on their satellite. I had to "surrender" our access to SUCH information channel that Russia had.
I can imagine how now Amer’s counterintelligence is digging the earth in search of a mole.

[mgfly]

yesterday came across this article - after several "proofs" of fake photos, closed the article as useless nonsense! and the author also made my guesses / assumptions into a full article

[Grim Reaper]

A little more popular language about sizes. Imagine that against the background of the moon, an airplane flies 5 km away from you. With the naked eye, this will be a small silhouette, into a tube with a 20x magnification, it is already quite distinguishable in details, while the observed size of the moon will not significantly increase. In this version, no one will say that the plane is the size of a crater :)

[alexbg2]

With a 20-fold increase, the plane visually increases by 20 times .... the moon is also visually 20 times larger. Or are you trying to prove that with increasing range of the subject in question, the rays of light begin to move along the curve and change the laws of optics? For the rectilinear movement of light, the increase in the spyglass is equal to the ratio of the focal lengths of the lens and eyepiece.

[alexbg2]

Ha, it’s interesting. Who put the minus believes that the increase in the plane when viewed in 20 times the tube will be 20 times, and the increase in the moon is less, say 5 times? Or how?

[Canep]

Quote: alexbg2

Ha, it’s interesting. Who put the minus believes that the increase in the plane when viewed in 20 times the tube will be 20 times, and the increase in the moon is less, say 5 times? Or how?

At least someone turned on their brains on Monday.

[svd-xnumx]

Well, a man was a little mistaken, but not in the main thing, and most importantly here

In this version, no one will say that the plane is the size of a crater :)

But some people in the comments equaled the planes and runways of the airport

[Gunia]

Around is a complete FALSE !!!!! Perhaps our grandchildren will find out the truth! Forgot about the fallen IL-76 in Lugansk, but the story is also quite interesting. For me personally, one thing is for sure, if they had IRON evidence of our involvement, they would have made them public! And hypocrisy certainly shakes!

[deadj]

Don't you think it's strange that after a short interval after the downing of the Boeing, the punitive aviation're coming out to completely stop combat missions? I think ours had solid evidence right after the crime, but they just agreed "you do not use military aircraft, we do not drown you evidence of your crime." It is beneficial to all parties: ours is that "putinvseslvschikam" have less reason to pull out the last hair from the sirloin parts of the body, hide the side a little more time to grab a straw in front of the epic zugunger of their great ukroevropeyskoy scam. There is a big war in the spirit of 007 and couch Experts here are only "useful idiots".

[mamont5]

Quote: dEADj

Doesn’t it seem strange to you that after a short interval after the downing of a Boeing, punitive ukro aviation completely stopped combat sorties?

No, ukroaviatsia stopped combat missions even earlier, because it was actually knocked out, and the remnants were forced to rise higher, from where ground attacks are ineffective. But the "agreement" may have been.

The last picture in the article is creepy, especially when you know what happened next.

[alexbg2]

Quote: Canep

Quote: igordok

minus is not mine.

.... The most correct version that the Boeing was shot down by an airplane is discredited, that's the situation.

By the way, this version seems plausible to me, too, this fake stuffing was deliberate in order to discredit in advance the possible appearance of real evidence of a Boeing being shot down by another plane.

[ed65b]

Often in the summer I watch planes coming from Ukraine through Belgorod, there is not always a trace more often, just a handsome silver man flies in proud solitude, flashing its sides.

[Gray 43]

This picture is very similar to the fact that ours "stole" compromising evidence on the junta, maybe someone kept it in case the "reverse" was turned on.

[Max]

Tired of these fortune-telling on coffee grounds. They are trying to stick some pictures. If you would like, you would have already reported the result of the investigation. It is enough to take samples from the downed Boeing and determine the chemical composition of the rocket which the plane was shot down. In our time, an additive of a certain concentration is introduced into the composition of each ammunition, according to which it is possible to determine at which plant and in which batch this or that product was produced. In FSTEC this result has probably been around for a long time. Make it all easy.

[alexbg2]

It’s even simpler, it’s enough to provide the world with damaging elements and they will immediately determine the type of missile. The fact that no damaging elements were found, I do not believe in it, the conclusion is unequivocal, they hide it.

[kote119]

Quote: dEADj

Doesn’t it seem strange to you that after a short interval after the downing of a Boeing, punitive ukro aviation completely stopped combat sorties?

At ukroVVS just everything ended on what you can fly.

[srha]

"I will not give the calculations (the stupid ones will not understand anyway, but the smart ones are already clear, the stoned ones have at least a stake on their heads), but it is obvious that the optical instruments are made for this purpose, in order to bring the point of view closer to the observed object." Hee ... but the fact that this is "how to bring the point of view closer", or rather, the formation of an enlarged image is based on the similarity of triangles (otherwise, an image is not obtained, but only a dull spot, since the points of the image will scatter anywhere without observing the similarity rule), the author does not suspect. This means that it cannot carry out the calculation!

The concept of the angular dimensions of the objects in question seems to not know either. About Photogrammetry - a scientific discipline that studies the methods for determining the shape, size and spatial position of objects in a given coordinate system from their photographic and other images, I probably have not even heard!

But demagogic methods - "I will not give calculations", and his cultural level of attitude towards people - "stupid", he showed.

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

Quote: srha

I won’t give calculations (stupid people still don’t understand, but smart and so everything is clear

The ratio of the scales of the foreground and background varies depending on the focal length of the lens

http://rud.exdat.com/docs/index-669974.html?page=2
I'm not a professional in photography, but not dumb as you write, therefore I just take special literature and read

[srha]

And where is your calculation here? And I’ll ask other people’s quotes not to be attributed to me! Do you not see the quotes or do not know their meaning?

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

and you do not understand the meaning of links? !!!!!!!

[srha]

I understand the meaning of links. But where did you find the calculation formulas there? But I don’t understand why you present well-known things as a revelation. I don’t understand how it is possible not to ask how long these images were taken with visual photos taken with long and short focal lenses, because this is proof of fake. Do not ask how this distance is calculated, and then calculate for a picture, supposedly space, and get 82m, which is neither cosmic distance!

[maxxdesign]

so many smart people! here there are physicists ... and connoisseurs of photogrammetry ... and connoisseurs of aerial photography ... and screaming that you can work wonders in Photoshop! .... I've been working with Photoshop for 13 years! and I assure you! even if you sit for several days and cut out planes from other photos, and then bring contrast, saturation, shadows on objects, a trace from a rocket and aircraft engines ... in any case, with sufficient magnification, you can always find the mismatch of pixels at the borders of the inserted object with the background , a forgotten shadow in the other direction, or vice versa an extra shadow ... etc. a person, even a professional, is inclined to make mistakes ... or just forget something ... so do not yell here that this is all a photo montage! Photoshop is not Harry Potter with a magic wand! the jambs would have been anyway! they are not here! especially clever comparison of the shadow from the tail of a Boeing and the shadow on the Sushka .. the direction is the same! ... find a photo of two planes and match the angle, light and shadow ... this is 1/1000000 in probability theory.
you can minus - I do not care! ...

[Lionsio]

In the pictures created in this quality, this is all very simple.
One stroke with an electronic brush and please - the angle and shadow match.
At the expense of pixels - once drive through the "correct" converter, with the conversion of the image resolution - the mosquito will not undermine the nose.
The size of the aircraft does not really match.

Quote: maxxdesign

Here is an example of 100% space photography from the same Google. According to the logic of the young geometer, the picture was probably not taken from space either ... Well, how can you believe this? Well, has none of those who believed this moronic "proof" ever looked through binoculars or a telescope? By the ratio of the size of the field and the plane, you can ONLY determine the height at which the plane FLY. But not the height of the shooting, if you do not know what optical devices you used! We don't know. Therefore, at least, we cannot say anything about the question from what height the shooting was carried out. With a good telescope, this could easily have happened from orbit! Or ... or from a high-altitude spy plane, for example, the American strategic reconnaissance UAV RQ-4 Global Hawk can operate at an altitude of about 18 km.

Just in the article, aerial photography is given, of which the mass in Google - all interesting places, cities with high resolution, where people are visible, etc. - these are pictures not from space. Who will argue - will be wrong. http://gis-lab.info/qa/google-gen.html

[bugaev2005]

Maxxdesing bravo to you, exactly what you wrote I wanted to say, or one Photoshop expert here tells how he advised FSB officers ... Nobody will deal with such a crude fake at the state level, just do not exclude the possibility that the picture was taken from a drone flying a little higher, are there specialists here who know the performance characteristics of existing unmanned aerial vehicles? Can they fly at altitudes of 15-20 km?

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

images

Quote: bugaev2005

bravo to you, I just wanted to say exactly what you wrote, otherwise one Photoshop expert here tells how he advised FSB officers ... Nobody

"Dear" judging by your attentiveness, your opinion still, if in the KNB you cannot distinguish from the FSB, then sit quietly and do not be clever, your sarcasm is as stupid as your knowledge of editors for processing pixel.
you said stupidity about the processing of pixel images, I answered you what does the state do not understand here

[Alex_34]

SOMEWHERE WHERE I READ ABOUT PSU WITH A CEILING OF 18 KM.

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

if you play it here with a change in resolution, and even more so with a decrease, it is unlikely that someone will see anything besides, if we are talking about a specific case with an airplane inserted there are no shadows or anything, let's really look at things, we don’t say about complex modeling with perspective shadows, etc ..

find a photo of two planes and so that they have the same angle, light and shadow ... this is 1/1000000 in probability theory.

like two fingers, in addition, with the sharpness that you can play manually with the illumination in the photo, in addition, with this quality, you can stupidly retouch a 3D model with exactly the same illumination

[srha]

And you did not notice there are two clouds in front of the 777th, which give three shadows?

[qQQQ]

I think that if we would like to create a fake, we would have shown the launch of Buk from Ukrainian positions. Indeed, in theory, in the wake of the defeat, the specialists should already have clearly understood what they shot down. Prior to that, Buk was almost always discussed, and here the photo, which, if not genuine, is easily refuted by the wreckage of the aircraft, is not logical. If we are to make a fake, then so that it would be supported by material evidence. In general, this inconsistency makes me think that the picture is vile.

[lukoshko]

Regarding the direction of attack.
This is a top view (in which a fighter flies much lower than a Boeing) and it is therefore quite realistic that a plane firing on one side damages the Boeing on the other. That is, the rocket flies from bottom to top but when it reaches the Boeing’s altitude it is on the opposite side and it explodes in the air (that is, the missile is thermal and explodes in the air, and not directly from the contact.) Well, for completeness of correspondence to the already known photographs of the fuselage damage, we can say that the rocket explodes in the air just above the Boeing and behind its wing, and there the already striking elements fly at a speed greater than that of the Boeing and fall into the wing and cockpit. Well, something like this.

[Lionsio]

Quote: Canep

In general, a vile story.

+100500
The ugliest from all sides. Like the shooting down of a civilian plane, how everything that contributed to this, as well as the fact that the performers are likely to "burn in hell", ie not in this world. But the customers, judging by the gestures of the investigation, we will never know.
And the photo is definitely a fake.

[SPACE]

Disputes about the photo are reminiscent of battles from the epic series "Were Americans on the Moon"))).
The debate about the authenticity of the photo itself is actually not so important, the fact of this incomprehensible stuffing and the dispute arising from this, which can say a lot, are most important. Recall that immediately after the downing of the Boeing, two versions appeared, 1. western that shot beech and xnumx. The Russian, slippery voiced version of the military about finding a combat aircraft near a Boeing. The first version objectively looks a little truthful, but the second, at the time of dubbing, though unfounded, had at least indirect confirmation of the data from tracking radars, i.e. the very fact of having another, at least an airplane, next to the Boeing, directly from the lips of the military. And here you have this photo confirming the second version ... In general, all this, and the first statement about the plane and the photo, reminds that the Russian services all knew from the very beginning who, what and how, and the gradual metered drain of information this is nothing more than a warning to opponents who have done a great job. Of course, opening all the cards at once would be very effective, but no more than that, but international law most likely would not have endured such frankness. Therefore, the wise will act differently, gradually opening cards they will bargain and raise rates, they will simply try to bargain for themselves more tangible values, such as the Crimea, New Russia, the lifting of sanctions or the Mistral, oil, the ruble or all together ... So you need to look not at the photo, and on subsequent developments ...

[Demon0n]

I didn’t want to, but I will express myself ... Further, only the simplest logical conclusions.
1) The picture is synthesized, i.e. this (background) is not a general picture, but a gluing, moreover, from fragments belonging to different times. It may mean: the survey was carried out 2 different (spatially separated), previously known objects with high resolution (the principles of the operation of optical reconnaissance satellites have not been canceled) without a general plan with a lower resolution, followed by filling in the missing fragments, or ... (version already voiced).
2) The image stores traces of post-processing (the inverse trace of a rocket is an unjustified dimming of pixels, as an example, some artifacts of the image of a fighter and the corresponding background). Those. the image is not original in any way.
Further discussion on this topic makes absolutely no sense. The original will appear (if it exists), always please, but there is no trial.

[Idel]

By the nature of the damage, experts make a clear conclusion that the passenger plane was shot down by an air-to-air missile. This is confirmed by eyewitnesses of the tragedy. The version with the defeat of the aircraft by air defense means disappears.
In this regard, the question is: whose plane could be over the territory of Ukraine? Why was a passenger plane deviated from the track?
Means of objective control of Russia convincingly show that there was a military aircraft. Yes, you can have fun with exposing fakes, etc. And what else do loafers do?
I suggest you be patient and wait for the conclusions of the commission. But after that, conduct a debriefing. To all those who poured dirt on Russia, anoint their foreheads with brilliant green and put it on public display. The people should know their "heroes". Now it is fashionable to blurt out something irresponsibly, but for some reason no one is giving a fundamental assessment of their actions. We just forget, but these guys, taking advantage of impunity, continue to fool around.
It is necessary to form bloggers. He told the truth - honor and praise to you. He began to lie, and even more so to shit at home - worthy of contempt and ridicule. There is no need to be shy. They were not shy when they tried to fool us. Why should everyone else forgive them? Why did we forgive those who in the 90s tried to convince us that no one was threatening Russia and that it was imperative to disarm. From whose voice did these guys sing? But they are alive and healthy and continue to live among us and are still crap. Do we have a short memory?

[basmach]

E-mine. Well, why doesn’t anyone want to turn on the brains. Let's say that it’s MiG or SU, it doesn’t play a role, both are armed with the P-27 with a launch range of oncoming courses of up to 70 km (r-27 with increased energy up to 90 km, I don’t remember the exact numbers, almost 25 years have already passed after the school, but they weren’t in the regiment) Start is carried out from a range of 15-20 km maximum (taking into account the low Boeing speed, but firing at an angle, the launch range still does not reach 52 km). The main method of detonation is non-contact, within a radius of 5 m from the target (this is due to the rod type of warhead, which, when detonated, forms a ring with a diameter of about 11 m) .In this case, the core elements of the warhead literally cut the skin, and do not leave round and heap holes (by the way and when firing from a cannon, such accuracy as shown on the photo from the photo cannot be achieved.) In addition, the likelihood of defeat and depressurization of the cockpit is close to zero, and even more so, its separation. For this, you need something more than the P-27 (about P-73 even not to mention du), and undermining (or direct hit) should be in the area of ​​the pilot's cabin. So all the same is more like an air defense system.

[Wheel]

Quote: basmach

Oh my

Well, with slight inaccuracies in the numbers (unprincipled), the reasoning is more than true, for which there is a definite plus.

Quote: basmach

So all the same is more like an air defense system.

The conclusion is wrong!
When an air defense missile is detonated, a cloud of damaging elements forms, which makes a sieve of the target.
Think about the banal explosion of an explosive device (possibly directed action) in the cockpit, and then there will be accuracy and the cockpit will be torn off easily ...

[ddv62]

I propose to discuss the not yet discussed version of the origin of the image. What is he done special satellite fixing rocket launches. Incidentally, the Americans themselves spoke of this right after the incident. That they supposedly have a rocket launch fixation. But the pictures themselves did not show. And what features of shooting exactly such a satellite can have? For example, it must somehow level or greatly reduce optical interference from clouds. How it's done? I think that shooting can be carried out in those wavelength ranges that can reduce cloud cover at times. Therefore, the picture itself is made in black and white. Therefore, there are no inversion traces from both aircraft. The shooting is made immediately after the launch of the rocket. This moment is also fixed. The starting point is automatically allocated and increased. All this does the on-board computer. And in this form it is transmitted to the earth. We just see what a special satellite took off and processed on a special program. Because there are so many suspicions of authenticity.

[Bondik05]

There was a video of the first minutes after the fall of the Boeing (news on the first of 17.11.14/XNUMX/XNUMX.). They clearly show that the sky on the horizon is overcast with dense clouds. I'm not special, but the rare clouds in the right corner of the picture are not very similar to heavy clouds.

[grandfather_Kostya]

Quote: igordok

Photos with the same distance between the camera and the subject, but with different focal lengths of the lens.

No need to joke around literate people like that. To make the foreground look the same size with 50mm and 200mm lenses, by definition you need to move four times further. War is war, but one cannot fall below the school course for grade 8.

[NEXUS]

Gentlemen and comrades ... I've read the comments and so I thought: what does the picture have to do with it? It's no secret that this Boeing itself did not fall for some reason. It's fake or not fake, it's clear as daylight that this is the work of the Ukrainian Air Force. Any expert will tell you that if it were a BUK, there would be little left of the plane ... Residents saw a second military plane flying in the same place. Searching for photographs is nonsense, if only because a photo is not a doc thing, but only a picture that can be disputed by saying that it is a fake (as we did, exposing Ukrainian and amerovskie photos, "exposing" Russia). We need other evidence that is clear and would reliably indicate the indisputable fault of Kiev in the death of this plane.

[dimasialyt]

Most likely, this Boeing will “lie” on the same shelf as the South Korean one. There will be tons of fiction and speculation, but officially everything will be put on hold.