SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - Malaysian Airlines MH317

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)

- - Malaysian Airlines MH317 (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=214617)

His mouth earned him his first billion USD. Maybe it would earn him a second, who knows.

Quote:

Originally Posted by XabbaRus (Post 2350921)

All investigations that get quoted in the western press all seem to rely for a greater or lesser extent on bellingcat. He seems to be the go to boy now.

well, apparently Bellingcat is using suspect and amateurish methods.

Quote:

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Bellingcat made headlines around the world this week when it claimed on Sunday night it had proven that Russia's Defense Ministry conducted forensic manipulations. The allegation is focused on images of the shooting down of Malaysia Airlines Flt. MH17 in eastern Ukraine last spring.

Kriese: The term "forensic analysis" is not a protected one. From the perspective of forensics, the Bellingcat approach is not very robust. The core of what they are doing is based on so-called Error Level Analysis (ELA). The method is subjective and not based entirely on science. This is why there is not a single scientific paper that addresses it.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: What's the hitch?

Kriese: Forensic scientists use computer procedures that allow for the clearest possible conclusions: Has it been manipulated -- yes or no? Contrary to what Bellingcat claims, Error Level Analysis does not provide clear results. The conclusion is always based on the perspective of humans, on their interpretation.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: What does the method entail?

Kriese: It attempts to determine compression artifacts. Those are the small deviations created when a photo is saved in JPG format -- differences from the original. It is possible to depict them in color. But: The final decision on whether a manipulation has occured or not is then still a personal decision made by the viewer. One has to decide whether variations should be attributed to manipulations or are they normal and could be attributed to clouds, for example?

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Do you consider the Russian satellite images to have been manipulation?

Kriese: That's not the right question. We are not talking about satellite images here. We only know the version published by Moscow. That is a satellite image that has been prepared for use in a presentation.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Bellingcat has come to the conclusion that they were edited using Photoshop.

Kriese: That's an erroneous interpretation. They claim that the metadata shows that the images were processed using Photoshop. Based on that they are concluding it was the clouds that were likely added in order to conceal something. The truth is that the indication of Photoshop in the metadata doesn't prove anything. Of course the Russians had to use some sort of program in order to process the satellite image for the presentation. They added frames and text blocks in order to explain it to the public. The artifacts which have been identified could be a product of that -- or also a product of saving multiple times in JPG format.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Bellingcat says its findings are based on the use of the analysis tool FotoForensic.com, a website.

Kriese: And its founder Neal Krawetz also distanced himself from Bellingcat's conclusions on Twitter. He described it as a good example of "how to not do image analysis." What Bellingcat is doing is nothing more than reading tea leaves. Error Level Analysis is a method used by hobbyists.

Quote:

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Satellite images are often used as proof of events in the Ukraine crisis, even by NATO. Are they even meaningful?

Kriese: It is easy to claim to amateurs that one can see this or that. But just think about the US images of the alleged poison gas facilities in the Middle East. There's a similar point at Bellingcat: In one of the photos, a growing spot can be seen. It's allegedly an oil puddle next to a vehicle. But does one consider that to be plausible? I think it depends on whether a person wants to believe it or not.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...a-1037125.html

That article came out in june and Bellingcat is still using the same method and making the same claims. The media likes them because they appear to offer solid "proof".

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikalugin (Post 2350994)

This "fact" is actually, again, false, because the so called rebel reports came from a facebook fanpage, ie not actual rebels but pro rebel groups on the internet.

What actual interference did we conduct? We have provided all the required materials, regarding the possible BUK rounds used, as well their warheads.

I seem to recall a scene where an some officer is sitting behind a desk and some other are sitting infront of the desk and I seem to recall how they talked about having shot down a transporter plan. This was shown on Danish, Swedish and on German TV days after the MH317 was shot down.

So this Facebook thing must be something that came after.

Markus

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikalugin (Post 2350994)

Nice try, but not "just a Facebook post". http://mobile.news.com.au/world/euro...-1226992928465

Of course this will be the Ukrainians making up an interception to point the finger at the rebels for their own dastardly deed. Where did the fanboys get their information?

Russian veto in UN Security Council = No interference? Stories about Ukrainian aircraft shooting down the plane = No interference? Etc. Etc.

Quack quack...

Lets make a recap(or what you say in English) and write what we know for sure=100 %.

So what do we really know ?

Markus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frömmler Vogel (Post 2351013)

Same as most of social media, rumourint.

Russian veto on what, the investigation, or attempts to press trial before investigation is finished?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikalugin (Post 2351045)

Same as most of social media, rumourint.

Russian veto on what, the investigation, or attempts to press trial before investigation is finished?

Didn't read the full article did you?

So Igor the "defence minister" creates "rumors" on social media then tries to delete them?

Quote:

The VK social networking page of Igor Strelkov - “defence minister” of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic - first announced: “We just downed an An-26 near (the town of) Torez.”

On the veto : http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33710088

Your use of "we" in this thread shows a strong identification with the Russian Government. :hmmm:

What's wrong with Igor's identification? ;-) Since we live in Russia should we identificate ourselves with some other country?

I hardly have a right to comment this question 'cause I didn't go vote during either Presidential or Duma elections :oops: Which I must admit now was absolutely wrong on my side. 'Cause if I did go , it would have given me a full right to say "WE" speaking of RF government decisions.
Nevertheless I say "WE" too - consider this as an emotional movement ;-)

On the veto - can't see any difference in your article with what Igor have said - we vetoed a tribunal that was to have place B e f o r e an investigation results.

The social media account allegedly used by Strelkov was actually a fan group account, not used by the Strelkov (aka Girkin) himself. The only official and confirmed internet presense Strelkov (aka Girkin) ever had was on a certain internet forum.

Regarding veto - as I have said, we have vetoed the attempt to pass tribunal and thus prosecution before the investigation results were in. If anything western attempts to pass such prosecution before the results of investigation were in, bypassing the normal and due procedure and going straight to trial are undermining the rule of law in Europe.

As to "we" I have never hidden my affiliation to the existing Russian elites.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frömmler Vogel (Post 2351073)

Quack quack...

Feel free to debate and disagree should you feel the need but please refrain from posting veiled comments that could be perceived as insults and or name calling.

At this time it suits the current Ukrainian government to find anything it can fire back at Russia. I'm not saying they (Ukrainians) shot MH17 down.

What I am saying though is that the Ukrainian defense minister has repeatedly said there are thousands of Russian troops in eastern Ukraine, but apart from some "geolocated" pictures on bellingcat we have yet to see definitive proof.

Again I'm not denying the presence of Russian forces of some kind in the Donbass region just not the numbers claimed by Western and Ukrainian sources.

According to RT the missile came from the backyard of the presidential palace in Kiev and according to Fox news the missiles was shoulder fired from the roof of the Kremlin by Putin himself.

Interestingly, from what I have heard, Ukrainian media has altered the translation of the Dutch conference. The altered translation explicitely allocated the responsibility for the incident onto the separatists.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBdBYsXIGV0