@Skybird: Those photos were clearly taken on land. Where? No one saw? No radar tracked it? Sorry, but sounds like woo to me.

Dowly, as already in August was said (and earlier in this thread), there are claims that radar tracking data exist(ed). And a Spanish air control guy mysteriously disappeared, it seems he has not shown up again, ever. If this man existed, one must wonder if he even is still alive.

That the plane was shot down over land, seems to be no worry regarding witnesses when it is claimed that a BUK downed it. But when the same plane was shot down not by a BUK but an interceptor you think it is a concern regarding witnesses on the ground? What is the difference?

Who is the radar operator? Is he really missing? His/her co-workers/boss/family would have reported him/her missing, but they did not, why? All extremely relevant questions.

Witnesses' saw the plane in 5-6 different places. Eyewitnesseses, while important are not reliable in most cases.

I have no idea what happened to the plane, but I think's it's highly unlikely it went everywhere but south. (personal opinion)

Although it ain't morning in Moscow anymore, I would still post the story I owe to the certain German member of this forum. The points presented here by me originate from various other forum users (as I am no PS master), thus they are not hundred percent authorative by them selves, so make your own conclusions.

This appears to be the original high resolution image:

The following issues with it were claimed:
- The aircraft and the airfield are of the same size, even though on an satellite image the ground objects and the airborne objects would be on similar scale (thus either airfield should be larger or this is not a satellite shot).
- most of the background appears to be taken from the satellite, judging from specific compression artefacts.
- Boing and Flanker have different resolution when compared to the background.
- cloud formations appear to be created by a photoshop tool

Why so cryptic? :) :haha:

The Google-Cloud claim in Oberon's link is the most convincing claim to me so far that the photo is a fake. The other claims more or less leave open backdoors.

I wonder when and if any factual materials will surface regarding this incident.

The problem is defining what are facts.
Both sides have released what they claim to be facts, but the other sides refuse to believe the facts or discredit them.

To be honest, I doubt we'll ever fully know, or when the official report is released I doubt everyone will believe it, just like with TWA-800 or even 9/11.

Yes. Thanks to this photo, I expect to hearing for years from breathless conspiracy theorists that they saw the picture taken from the Zapruder satellite showing the Ukrainian Mig shooting down the holographic 777 over the grassy knolls with a chemtrail missile. :doh:

At least in this photo they stopped blaming the SU-25. Saves the trouble of editing Wikipedia everyday to give the aircraft near spaceflight capabilities.

The edits on the SU25's abilities were about downgrading them, not upgrading them. ;) The idea was to discredit the idea that a SU-25 could reach an airliner flying much above the SU's maximum ceiling. However, the often quoted 7 km maximum means a plane in full combat configuration (full tactical weapon load, maybe tanks). The SU-25 however has demonstrated in flight tests a maximum flight altitude of over 12 km.

(The newer SU-39 that bases on the SU25 even demonstrated a maximum altitude in excess of 14 km. )

That a lightly-loaded SU-25 makes it up to 10 km and on same altitude like an airliner, absolutely is within the reach of possible scenarios. Maybe not in full tactical configuration, but in that theoretic scenario it never was claimed that the plane was fully armed, and why should it have been anyway when its mission should have been to use its cannon only?).

So all this illustrates the basic problem about the whole incident: claims are made, and then get met by the other side with only claims again. No evidences shown by anyone so far: not by Moscow, not by Kiev, not by Washington or London, not by anyone else. They all only claim to have evidence. But that is not the same like presenting the evidence.

I assume that evidence exists for sure. But it may not become known before decades have passed, maybe.

I think, personally, that it was a screw-up by the Donbass Peoples Militia, I mean if the United States of America can accidentally shoot down an airliner, and the Soviet Union can also do the same, then a militia can certainly make the same mistake. These things happen in war and it's the risk you run if you continue to fly civilian aircraft over a warzone.

That is the scenario with the highest probability, yes. But some other alternative scenarios still need to be proven wrong in evidence. As I argued weeks earlier, the SU-25 story explains some details that the BUK story as it is known today does not, and some details are mentioned in that altermative that also are left untouched by the BUK scenario.

The Dutch report is anything but helpful. Ordinary citizens could maybe even be charged with claims of obstructing justice if being questioned and answering like that. The intention just not to touch anybody is too obvious in that report. It doe snoit matter whether that is in compliance with the dutch examination board's duty or not. It still is a failure, officially wanted failure or not.

However.

There was also a case when Ukranians shot an air liner in 2001.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siber...es_Flight_1812
I also think that most crews after these events never have fired a live SAM round though I could be wrong.

Indeed, it's entirely possible, no matter how well trained you make a SAM operator, especially in a warzone and under pressure.