MH17

Информация о пользователе

Привет, Гость! Войдите или зарегистрируйтесь.


Вы здесь » MH17 » Важное! » Обсуждение в контексте процесса в Схипхол


Обсуждение в контексте процесса в Схипхол

Сообщений 481 страница 510 из 663

481

Eric van de Beek написал(а):

You are saying that most data in the table that you created from the 21-07-2014 video was not derived from transponder data sent by MH17 or from primary radar data? Most of the data in the table was computer generated by looking at the planned route?

Авиадиспетчер в Ростове видел метки 13:20:12 - 13:20:42 реал-тайм 17-07-2014.

482

bootblack написал(а):

Eric van de Beek wrote:

        We have many arguments that on July 17, 2014, the Ukrainian military were in the Shaposhnikovo area, the militias were in the Velyka Shishovka area, and anyone could be in Zaroshchenske, but just in case, the militias created trenches for protection from Zaroshchenske.

    What evidence is there that on July 17, 2014, the Ukrainian military was in the Shaposhnikovo area?

1. Most important. The JIT did not go to the area to the south and southeast of Zaroshchenskoye, although the launch zone, according to AA, is located there.
2. SBU radio interception , in which the mayor of Shakhtyorsk says that Ukrainians could enter Zaroshchenske, but could not be there all the time, since the militias were not far away.
3. An eyewitness of Ukrainian vehicles south of Shaposhnikovo on July 17, 2014 (47.929897° 38.425439°). These traces were in the same place, but the time of their appearance has not been clarified.
4. On July 16, 2014, militiamen dug trenches in the south and west of Bolshaya Shishovkato repel attacks from Zaroshchenskoye (47.978694° 38.509091°), Shaposhnikovo (47.967324° 38.490751°), Malaya Shishovka (47.965045° 38.503605°). By the way, at the point 47.965888° 38.504823° on July 16, 2014, there is probably the same tractor that transported beech on July 17th. He brought an excavator to dig trenches.
5. Militia checkpoint (48.032096° 38.541267°) , noon 17-07-2014. In the video, the same tanks and, possibly, a beech trawl behind them. The fighter at the checkpoint looks in the direction of Velyka Shishovka and expects an attack from there.
6. Powerful shelling by Kiev of the Shaposhnikovo region, starting from July 21 after the mention of beeches near Zaroshchenskoye at a briefing by the RF Ministry of Defense. Such shelling of the fields is not caused by military necessity. It can be assumed that the Malaysian specialists were intimidated so that they would not go to this area and not find traces of Buk.

These are all circumstantial arguments, if we consider them one by one. But when assessing the relationship, I have no doubt that the Ukrainian military could well be located south of Zaroshchenskoe and Velyka Shishovka.

Regarding point 3: The satellite photo from the track marks. When was it made? By whom?

483

Eric van de Beek написал(а):

Regarding point 3: The satellite photo from the track marks. When was it made? By whom?

Это снимок с Google Earth от 26-08-2014

https://forumupload.ru/uploads/0014/75/e6/2/t745983.jpg

Отредактировано bootblack (2023-03-26 23:44:59)

484

Eric van de Beek, в суде не поднимали вопрос о второй ракете, отгруженной на Украину одновременно с "той самой"?
Например, для сравнения, в какой цвет окрашена она.

https://forumupload.ru/uploads/0014/75/e6/2/t796989.jpg

485

Наглядное пояснение, почему является фейком заявление RMA и суда о наличии для "зеленой заглушки" препятствия в виде выступающей рамы боинга.
Клоуны использовали в качестве аргумента лазурную указку (прямую линию) и продемонстрировали, что действительно на пути разъема имеется препятствие.

Но!
Такой метод применим только к объектам, перемещающимся с постоянными скоростями, включая фотоны в луче лазера.
В случае МН17 и "зеленой заглушки" всё иначе - "заглушка" тормозилась в воздухе! Поэтому она "обогнула" ( условно) препятствие!

Очевидно, что и рама боинга, и "зеленая заглушка" летели в небе по прямой. Почему же применяется "обогнула" или "летела по дуге"?
Если прикрепить видеокамеру к летящему боингу сверху где-то над носом, то она зафиксирует полет "зеленой заглушки" именно по дуге, огибающей препятствие.

https://forumstatic.ru/files/0014/75/e6/69490.png

486

bootblack написал(а):

Eric van de Beek wrote:

    Regarding point 3: The satellite photo from the track marks. When was it made? By whom?

This is a picture from Google Earth dated 26-08-2014

https://forumupload.ru/uploads/0014/75/e6/2/t745983.jpg

Edited by bootblack (Yesterday 22:44:59)

There's no satellite image available of this area around 17 July 2014?

487

bootblack написал(а):

A clear explanation of why the statement of the RMA and the court about the presence of an obstacle in the form of a protruding Boeing frame for the "green plug" is fake.
The clowns used an azure pointer (straight line) as an argument and demonstrated that there is indeed an obstacle in the way of the connector.

But!
This method is applicable only to objects moving at constant speeds, including a laser beam.
In the case of MH17 and the "green plug", everything is different - the "plug" was decelerated in the air! Therefore, she "went around" (conditionally) an obstacle!

It is obvious that both the Boeing frame and the "green plug" were flying in a straight line in the sky. Why is it used "rounded" or "flew in an arc"?
If you attach a video camera to a flying Boeing from above somewhere above the nose, then it will record the flight of the "green plug" precisely along the arc around the obstacle.

https://forumstatic.ru/files/0014/75/e6/69490.png

I'm sure Malyshevsky of Almaz Antey has pointed to this fact. Unfortunately he and the experts of RMA and NLR discussed these matters behind closed doors, and not openly in court.

488

bootblack написал(а):

Eric van de Beek , didn't the court raise the issue of the second missile shipped to Ukraine at the same time as "the one"?
For example, for comparison, what color is it painted.

https://forumupload.ru/uploads/0014/75/e6/2/t796989.jpg

No. This wasn't discussed.

489

Eric van de Beek написал(а):

There's no satellite image available of this area around 17 July 2014?

См. левый нижний угол -

20-07-2104
Интересующий район закрыт облаками.

https://forumupload.ru/uploads/0014/75/e6/2/t69216.jpg

23-07-2104

https://forumupload.ru/uploads/0014/75/e6/2/t628117.jpg

Лучшее разрешение картинки не имею. Прорабатывали вопрос покупки исходного снимка (левого нижнего угла), но пришли к мнению - если эти следы там были, то их уже отретушировали.

490

Bootblack, you wrote:

"In fact in front of Hrabove the wing root descended below 3000 meters and a forest belt in front of Buk weakened radio signal and in result the missile flying up to MH17 has lost the target and in a few seconds self destructed above wastelands behind Hrabove."

When does a Buk missile destruct itself? When the radar of the Buk loses sight of the target? Or when the Buk loses radio contact with the missile? Or maybe in both cases?

491

Eric van de Beek написал(а):

Bootblack, you wrote:
"In fact in front of Hrabove the wing root descended below 3000 meters and a forest belt in front of Buk weakened radio signal and in result the missile flying up to MH17 has lost the target and in a few seconds self destructed above wastelands behind Hrabove."
When does a Buk missile destruct itself? When the radar of the Buk loses sight of the target? Or when the Buk loses radio contact with the missile? Or maybe in both cases?

Команда самоликвидации формируется, если ракета перестала принимать отраженный сигнал от цели. Самоликвидация происходит через 2-4 секунды после этого. Однако, самоликвидация может произойти и позднее 4 секунд, если отраженный сигнал от цели отсутствует, однако сама ракета получает сигнал от Бука. Это возможно в том случае, если цель находится ниже ракеты. Это и есть наша ситуация перед Грабово.

492

Eric van de Beek, по моему мнению, происходит преждевременное распыление времени и сил.
Сперва необходимо определиться, действительно ли пуск запоздалым. А уже затем можно выяснять другие подробности полета ракеты и прочее.
Основные аргументы запоздалого пуска пока прежние
1. уклонение следствия и суда от выяснения времени пуска
2. очевидцы запоздалого пуска, прежде всего М58
3. расчеты запоздалости пуска на основе корреляции разных известных фактов

Пункт "1" - это факт, не требующий особого доказательства
Пункт "2" самый важный, требует дополнительной перепроверки.
Пункт "3" пока можно принять к сведению.

И только после убежденности на 101% в запоздалости пуска заниматься другими темами.

493

Eric van de Beek, можете ли Вы сообщить информацию из зала суда о всех натурных экспериментах JIT
- Взрывали только боевые части. Где?
- Взрывали боевые части вместе с первым электронным отсеком ракеты. Где?
- Взрывали боевые части вместе с ракетой, у которой отсутствовал порохой заряд двигателя. Где?
- Взрывали боевые части вместе с ракетой, у которой присутствовал порохой заряд двигателя. Где?
- При взрывах боевых частей вместе с ракетами извлекались или не извлекались пороховые заряды генераторов?
- Были ли какие-то объяснения по какой-то улетевшей далеко вперед части во время эксперимента 13-07-2016?

https://forumupload.ru/uploads/0014/75/e6/2/t403213.jpg

Хочу перепроверить имеющуюся у нас информацию.

494

Eric van de Beek, в суде зеленый цвет фрагментов ракеты был единственным аргументом, подтверждающие принадлежность к ракете 9М38М1, или были озвучены и другие особенности фрагментов, указывающие на принадлежность именно к 9М38М1?

495

bootblack написал(а):

The self-destruct command is generated if the missile has stopped receiving the reflected signal from the target.

Do you mean the reflected signal from the target that the missile receives from the Buk? Or do you mean the reflected signal from the target that the missile directly receives from the target? As I understand it the missile has a built-in radar / an internal radar.

496

bootblack написал(а):

Eric van de Beek , in my opinion, there is a premature dissipation of time and effort.
First you need to decide whether the launch is really belated. And only then you can find out other details of the rocket flight and so on.
The main arguments of the late launch are still the same
1. evasion of the investigation and the court from clarifying the launch time
2. eyewitnesses of the late launch, primarily M58
3. calculations of the launch delay based on the correlation of various known facts

Point "1" is a fact that does not require special proof.
Point "2" is the most important and requires additional rechecking.
Point "3" can still be taken into account.

And only after being 101% convinced of the belated launch to deal with other topics.

You are quite right. JIT never explained how they established the launch time. They probably just estimated the flight time of a Buk missile from Pervomaiskyi to the location where the Boeing was hit. The lawyers didn't question the JIT launch time, nor did the court. It also seems that the lawyers and the court didn't realize that that the smoke plume photos  couldn't have been made around 16:25 if the missile was launched around 16:19:30 or if the missile was launched from the field in Pervomaiskyi.

The MH17 trial in The Netherlands cleary was a political process. It was not about Girkin, Dubinskyi, Pulatov and Kharchenko. It was about Russia, to smear the Russian government. I must say: the Russian authoriteis have made it quite easy for JIT, the Dutch prosecution and court to convince the world MH17 was shot down by a Russian Buk. The way the Russian authorities handled MH17 is beyond belief.

497

bootblack написал(а):

Eric van de Beek , can you provide information from the courtroom about all JIT field experiments
- Only warheads were blown up. Where?
- Combat units were blown up together with the first electronic compartment of the rocket. Where?
- Combat units were blown up together with a rocket that did not have a powder charge of the engine. Where?
- Combat units were blown up together with a rocket, which had a powder charge of the engine. Where?
- During the explosions of warheads, along with the missiles, were the powder charges of the generators removed or not?
- Were there any explanations for some part that flew far ahead during the experiment on 13-07-2016?

https://forumupload.ru/uploads/0014/75/e6/2/t403213.jpg

I would like to double check the information we have.

There's not much information available about how the field tests were conducted. The Prosecution published a video of one of the tests in Ukraine and talked about the experiments on 8 juni 2020. You can see the video and the Dutch language transcription here:

https://www.om.nl/onderwerpen/mh17-vlie … -onderzoek

In March 2022 lawyer Boudewijn van Ejjck discussed the two field tests in Ukraine. One test was done with missile and warhead, the other test was done only with the warhead.

498

Eric van de Beek написал(а):

Do you mean the reflected signal from the target that the missile receives from the Buk? Or do you mean the reflected signal from the target that the missile directly receives from the target? As I understand it the missile has a built-in radar / an internal radar.

Только радиовзрыватель ракеты типа 9М38 имеет активный радар (передатчик + приемник).
У ракеты типа 9М38 отсутствует активный радар для наведения на цель, имеется только приемник. Для наведения на цель используется сигнал Бука, отраженный от цели. Ракета принимает прямой сигнал Бука также. Если ракета перестала принимать отраженный от цели, но всё ещё принимает прямой сигнал от Бука, то задержка самоликвидации будет более 4 секунд.

499

Eric van de Beek написал(а):

There's not much information available about how the field tests were conducted. The Prosecution published a video of one of the tests in Ukraine and talked about the experiments on 8 juni 2020. You can see the video and the Dutch language transcription here:

https://www.om.nl/onderwerpen/mh17-vlie … -onderzoek

In March 2022 lawyer Boudewijn van Ejjck discussed the two field tests in Ukraine. One test was done with missile and warhead, the other test was done only with the warhead.
---
There's not much information available about how the field tests were conducted. The Prosecution published a video of one of the tests in Ukraine and talked about the experiments on 8 juni 2020. You can see the video and the Dutch language transcription here:

https://www.om.nl/onderwerpen/mh17-vlie … -onderzoek

In March 2022 lawyer Boudewijn van Ejjck discussed the two field tests in Ukraine. One test was done with missile and warhead, the other test was done only with the warhead.

Спасибо!

500

Eric van de Beek написал(а):

You are quite right. JIT never explained how they established the launch time. They probably just estimated the flight time of a Buk missile from Pervomaiskyi to the location where the Boeing was hit. The lawyers didn't question the JIT launch time, nor did the court. It also seems that the lawyers and the court didn't realize that that the smoke plume photos  couldn't have been made around 16:25 if the missile was launched around 16:19:30 or if the missile was launched from the field in Pervomaiskyi.

The MH17 trial in The Netherlands cleary was a political process. It was not about Girkin, Dubinskyi, Pulatov and Kharchenko. It was about Russia, to smear the Russian government. I must say: the Russian authoriteis have made it quite easy for JIT, the Dutch prosecution and court to convince the world MH17 was shot down by a Russian Buk. The way the Russian authorities handled MH17 is beyond belief.

---

Вы совершенно правы. JIT так и не объяснила, как они установили время запуска. Вероятно, они просто подсчитали время полета ракеты "Бук" из Первомайского до места, где был сбит "Боинг". Адвокаты не ставили под сомнение время запуска JIT, как и суд. Также кажется, что адвокаты и суд не понимали, что фотографии столба дыма не могли быть сделаны около 16:25, если ракета была запущена около 16:19:30 или если ракета была запущена с поля в Первомайском.

Судебный процесс по делу MH17 в Нидерландах был политическим процессом. Речь шла не о Гиркине, Дубинском, Пулатове и Харченко. Речь шла о России, о том, чтобы очернить российское правительство. Я должен сказать: российские власти довольно легко убедили JIT, голландскую прокуратуру и суд в том, что MH17 был сбит российским "Буком". В то, как российские власти обошлись с MH17, невозможно поверить.

Спасибо за важное мнение!

501

bootblack написал(а):

Eric van de Beek , in court, the green color of the rocket fragments was the only argument confirming that they belonged to the 9M38M1 rocket, or were other features of the fragments voiced, indicating that they belonged to the 9M38M1?

The prosecution never claimed MH17 was downed by a 9M38M1 missile. The simply claimed it was a missile from the "9M38 series". So accoring to them it was either a 9M38 or a 9M38M1.

Отредактировано Eric van de Beek (2023-04-08 00:16:39)

502

Eric van de Beek написал(а):

The prosecution never claimed MH17 was downed with an 9M38M1 missile. The simply claimed it was a missile from the "9M38 series". So accoring to them it was either a 9M38 or a 9M38M1.
---
Обвинение никогда не утверждало, что MH17 был сбит ракетой 9М38М1. Полиция утверждала, что это была ракета из "серии 9М38". Так что, по их словам, это был либо 9М38, либо 9М38М1.

Зеленые ракеты 9М38 с боевой частью 9Н314М (бабочки) производились только в конце 1986. А-А заявил об этом следствию. Именно тогда была произведена "та самая" ракета. А-А заявил об этом следствию также. Очевидно, что "та самая" ракета представляет большой интерес. Киев ответил, что такой ракеты у него не было. Суд настаивал на поиске следов этой ракеты в других местах, например, в России?
В декабре 1986 года на Украину была отгружена еще одна ракета. Это видно из документов А-А. В суде упоминали эту ракету с какой-либо целью?

503

bootblack написал(а):

Eric van de Beek wrote:

    Do you mean the reflected signal from the target that the missile receives from the Buk? Or do you mean the reflected signal from the target that the missile directly receives from the target? As I understand it the missile has a built-in radar / an internal radar.

Only the radio fuse of the 9M38 rocket has an active radar (transmitter + receiver).
The 9M38 type missile does not have an active radar for targeting, there is only a receiver. For aiming at the target, the Buk signal reflected from the target is used. The missile receives a direct Beech signal as well. If the missile stopped receiving reflected from the target, but still receives a direct signal from the Buk, then the self-destruction delay will be more than 4 seconds.

So according to you the missile self-destructed because it stopped receiving a direct signal from the Buk or because the Buk stopped receiving a reflecion from the target? Or both?

504

bootblack написал(а):

Eric van de Beek wrote:

    The prosecution never claimed MH17 was downed with an 9M38M1 missile. The simply claimed it was a missile from the "9M38 series". So according to them it was either a 9M38 or a 9M38M1.
    ---
    The prosecution has never claimed that MH17 was shot down by a 9M38M1 missile. It simply claimed that it was a missile from the "9M38 series". So, according to them, it was either 9M38 or 9M38M1.

Green rockets 9M38 with a warhead 9N314M ( butterflies ) were produced only at the end of 1986. A-A announced this to the investigation. It was then that the "same" rocket was produced. A-A also stated this to the investigation. It is obvious that the "same" rocket is of great interest. Kyiv replied that he did not have such a missile. Did the court insist on looking for traces of this missile in other places, for example, in Russia?
In December 1986, another missile was shipped to Ukraine. This can be seen from documents A-A. Was this rocket mentioned in court for any purpose?

I do not remember other missiles were mentioned in court that were shipped to Ukraine.

The court made a complete fool of itself by mistaken the 9M38 for the 9M38M1. On 9 June 2021 judge Heleen Kersten-Fockens said that the Joint Investigation Team had found that the Russian army still had 9M38M1 missiles in its inventory. She then showed two photos of 9M38M1 missiles among which one photo from 2013 that was made in Armenia with Putin in the foreground. This one: https://yandex.com/images/search?cbir_id=4486782/NKWtRt8Mv6nQYEhF7fgmYw2747&cbir_page=similar&img_url=http://pbs.twimg.com/media/E3bmXfXWEAEEyM5.jpg&pos=0&rpt=imageview&url=https://avatars.mds.yandex.net/get-images-cbir/4486782/NKWtRt8Mv6nQYEhF7fgmYw2747/orig

Why do you mention the colour green? Both 9M38 and 9M38M1 were green, weren't they? Only in the winter season were they painted white.

Отредактировано Eric van de Beek (2023-04-01 23:20:47)

505

Eric van de Beek написал(а):

So according to you the missile self-destructed because it stopped receiving a direct signal from the Buk or because the Buk stopped receiving a reflecion from the target? Or both?

В точке "1" ракета получает отраженный от цели сигнал и прямой сигнал с Бука.
В точке "2" цель опустилась ниже радиогоризонта Бука. Поэтому ракета перестала принимать отраженный сигнал от цели. Таймер самоликвидации включился.
Но при этом ракета принимала прямой сигнал от Бука. Поэтому таймер самоликвидации сработал позднее, чем через 4 секунды.
Время более 4 секунд между включением таймера самоликвидации перед Грабово и срабатыванием таймера (взрывом боевой части) позволило ракете улететь за Грабово.

https://forumupload.ru/uploads/0014/75/e6/2/251361.jpg

Отредактировано bootblack (2023-04-01 23:26:32)

506

Eric van de Beek написал(а):

Why do you mention the colour green? Both 9M38 and 9M38M1 were green, weren't they? Only in the winter season were they painted white.

Ракеты 9М38 были только белого цвета. Но в конце 1986 началось производство ракет 9М38М1 одновременно с производством ракет 9М38. Все ракеты в конце 1986 года окрашивались в зеленый цвет. На некоторые ракеты 9М38 при этом устанавливались боевые части 9Н314М (бабочки). Например, "та самая" ракета 9М38 была именно такой - зеленой с бабочками.
Позднее ракеты 9М38М1 окрашивались в белый цвет для жарких стран (чтобы исключить перегрев) и для Заполярья (для маскировки).
Главное в этой истории - "та самая" отгруженная на Украину ракета была зеленая и с бабочками, как и хотело следствие.

507

bootblack написал(а):

Eric van de Beek wrote:

    So according to you the missile self-destructed because it stopped receiving a direct signal from the Buk or because the Buk stopped receiving a reflecion from the target? Or both?

At point "1" the missile receives a signal reflected from the target and a direct signal from the Buk.
At point "2" the target dropped below the Buk radio horizon. Therefore, the missile stopped receiving the reflected signal from the target. The self-destruct timer has started.
But at the same time, the rocket received a direct signal from Buk. Therefore, the self-destruct timer went off later than 4 seconds later.
The time of more than 4 seconds between the activation of the self-destruction timer in front of Grabovo and the activation of the timer (explosion of the warhead) allowed the rocket to fly beyond Grabovo.

https://forumupload.ru/uploads/0014/75/e6/2/646349.png

bootblack написал(а):

Eric van de Beek wrote:

    So according to you the missile self-destructed because it stopped receiving a direct signal from the Buk or because the Buk stopped receiving a reflecion from the target? Or both?

At point "1" the missile receives a signal reflected from the target and a direct signal from the Buk.
At point "2" the target dropped below the Buk radio horizon. Therefore, the missile stopped receiving the reflected signal from the target. The self-destruct timer has started.
But at the same time, the rocket received a direct signal from Buk. Therefore, the self-destruct timer went off later than 4 seconds later.
The time of more than 4 seconds between the activation of the self-destruction timer in front of Grabovo and the activation of the timer (explosion of the warhead) allowed the rocket to fly beyond Grabovo.

https://forumupload.ru/uploads/0014/75/e6/2/646349.png

I understand now. Thank you!

508

bootblack написал(а):

2. очевидцы запоздалого пуска, прежде всего М58

Eric van de Beek, Вы согласны с моими аргументами, что М58 видел полет ракеты уже во время падения боинга?

509

bootblack написал(а):

Eric van de Beek wrote:

    The administrator of whathappenedtoflightmh17.com put this table of the Ust-Donetsk radar data on his website. Do you know where he got this table and if the data are correct? I can't ask him. He acts very hostile to anybody questioning the official narrative.

    http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com … rettyPhoto

The data of this table correspond to the data of the table from our forum, which I made with my own hands based on the video from the briefing of the RF Ministry of Defense on 21-07-2014 .

https://forumupload.ru/uploads/0014/75/e6/2/t223798.gif

This video shows non-primary data from the Ust-Donetsk radar. This video shows the result of processing data from Ust-Donetsk and other radars by the INDRA system in the Rostov ATC.
The table data looked like this on the map -

https://forumupload.ru/uploads/0014/75/e6/2/t15059.jpg

Are you absolutely sure that the data in the table are synthesized (predictions) by the INDRA system? Couldn't this data be a mixture of primary radar data, secondary radar data and predicted data?

Also, would it technically have been possible for the transponder to keep on transmitting data for some time after the plane was hit and after the cockpit had broken of?

The data in the table that you published from Rostov ATC to a large degree correspond with the secondary radar data that was published by Flightradar24:

https://twitter.com/flightradar24/statu … 5725348864

Flightradar24 said that its data were real data and not extrapolations.

This is what Marcel van den Berg of Whathapennedtoflightmh17 wrote about it:

https://web.archive.org/web/20210227073 … rettyPhoto

510

What do you make of the observations by the Aviation Herald?

http://avherald.com/h?article=47770f9d

"Transponder data became unreliable at 13:18Z (position N48.28 E38.08) and was lost at FL330 at 13:20Z."

Быстрый ответ

Напишите ваше сообщение и нажмите «Отправить»


Пост гостя публикуется только после модерации. Это можно рассматривать как возможность отправки личного сообщения админу.
The guest's post will be published only after moderation. This can be considered as an opportunity to send a personal message to the admin.


Вы здесь » MH17 » Важное! » Обсуждение в контексте процесса в Схипхол