Will Putin Spirit Away the Black Box?

[jonathan]

I think the odds are very good he does.
Fog of war and all that~



s

[Kerryn Offord]

On 18/07/2014 11:55 a.m., jonathan wrote:
> I think the odds are very good he does.
> Fog of war and all that~
>

It has been reported that the black boxes were recovered (by the
separatists)

So how does he justify "losing" them?

And why would "he"?

It would just add fuel to the fire that the Russians were responsible...

[jonathan]

"Kerryn Offord" <ka...@uclive.ac.nz> wrote in message
news:lq9p70$a50$2...@dont-email.me...

He can't take the chance, he doesn't know what's in
the data.





>

[george152]

Of course the Russians were responsible.
That sort of Ground to Air missile system that can engage aircraft at
that altitude are not found in cereal boxes
..
It would be about now when all air traffic to and from Russia was
stopped until the Black Boxes were recovered from 'interested parties'

[David E. Powell]

Agreed. If a missile was responsible, not sure what could be done to play with the data, or why one would do it. It would basically be as is, and any tampering would just draw attention. Being honest is much smarter, as playing it by the book takes that charge away.

What happened with the crash data in the crash investigation of the disaster which killed Poland's President and many others some years ago? I believe the diagnosis was landing under poor weather conditions after being warned off by the control tower.

[jonathan]

"
"David E. Powell" <david_po...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1760062d-ba69-4b7e...@googlegroups.com...

...........................




But then Putin takes the risk that some proof will show up and
it'll be the Cuban Missile Crisis in the UN all over again....


Adlai Stephenson: "Let me ask you one simple question?
Do you Vladimar Putin deny that Russia
has placed or is placing missiles in
Cu...ah...I mean...Ukraine?

Yes or no! Don't wait for the translation

Yes or no?"


Vladimir Putin: "That's stupid'! You will receive your answer
in due time"


Adlai Stephenson: "I'm prepared to wait until hell freezes over
if that's your decision."

"And I'm also prepared to present the
evidence in this room"!


Cuban Missile Crisis UN Debate (1:04)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSV9_J8Csts



s

[Andrew Swallow]

If Putin did not give the order then he will assume it was not him.

[Kerryn Offord]

If he loses them, the world public opinion is that he (actually Russia)
has something to hide..

He is better off letting them surface and putting the blame on out of
control extremists..

[Kerryn Offord]

The Ukrainian's also have the system..

Of course they have no good reason to shoot down a civilian airliner
(other than to put the blame on Russia and or the separatists)

OTOH.. It is known that the separatists have captured a suitable SAM
system..
That gives them the capability..

They are also on record as claiming to have shot down a number of
Ukrainian aircraft..

It has been suggested that the separatists shot at the airliner
believing it to be another Ukrainian transport aircraft..

[Kerryn Offord]

On 18/07/2014 7:02 p.m., Juergen Nieveler wrote:

> Kerryn Offord <ka...@uclive.ac.nz> wrote:
>
>>> That sort of Ground to Air missile system that can engage aircraft at
>>> that altitude are not found in cereal boxes
>>>
>>

>> The Ukrainian's also have the system..
>

> As a matter of fact, Ukraine is short one BUK complex, as the rebels
> have taken over a base with loads of military hardware some weeks ago,
> including... yep, a complete BUK.
>


Which I believe, the separatists have previously shown in their hands...

[Bill]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 20:25:54 -0400, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com>
wrote:

What possible reason would he have?

[Bill]

On Fri, 18 Jul 2014 12:36:16 +1200, george152 <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:

>On 18/07/14 12:19, Kerryn Offord wrote:
>> On 18/07/2014 11:55 a.m., jonathan wrote:
>>> I think the odds are very good he does.
>>> Fog of war and all that~
>>>
>>
>> It has been reported that the black boxes were recovered (by the
>> separatists)
>>
>> So how does he justify "losing" them?
>>
>> And why would "he"?
>>
>> It would just add fuel to the fire that the Russians were responsible...
>>
>Of course the Russians were responsible.

After all, they made the thing that shot them down.

By which standard Smith and Wesson have killed an awful lot of
people...

[Bill]

On Fri, 18 Jul 2014 16:50:54 +1200, Kerryn Offord <ka...@uclive.ac.nz>

But, on the other hand, the Ukrainian army shot down a passing
airliner not too long ago, but nobody noticed...

[Bill]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 22:38:50 -0400, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>"
>"David E. Powell" <david_po...@msn.com> wrote in message
>news:1760062d-ba69-4b7e...@googlegroups.com...
>On Thursday, July 17, 2014 8:19:50 PM UTC-4, Kerryn Offord wrote:
>> On 18/07/2014 11:55 a.m., jonathan wrote:
>> > I think the odds are very good he does.
>> > Fog of war and all that~
>>
>> It has been reported that the black boxes were recovered (by the
>> separatists)
>>
>> So how does he justify "losing" them?
>>
>> And why would "he"?
>>
>> It would just add fuel to the fire that the Russians were responsible...
>
>Agreed. If a missile was responsible, not sure what could be done to play
>with the data, or why one would do it. It would basically be as is, and any
>tampering would just draw attention. Being honest is much smarter, as
>playing it by the book takes that charge away.
>
>What happened with the crash data in the crash investigation of the disaster
>which killed Poland's President and many others some years ago? I believe
>the diagnosis was landing under poor weather conditions after being warned
>off by the control tower.
>
>...........................
>
>
>
>
>But then Putin takes the risk that some proof will show up and
>it'll be the Cuban Missile Crisis in the UN all over again....
>
>

I'll have some of whatever he's smoking, but not nearly as much...

[jack595]

In article <031is91a44csk6036...@4ax.com>, Bill says...

CNN has intercept of the ground crew and it says "it was a civilian airliner".
Also in the print Internet "A radar system saw a surface-to-air missile system
turn on and track the aircraft right before the plane went down, (a) senior U.S.
official said. A second system saw a heat signature at the time the airliner was
hit, the official said. The United States is analyzing the trajectory of the
missile to try to learn where the attack came from, the official said"

It looks like there is evidence enough to make a case for the rebels firing the
missile, the signatures should also give evidence as to the device used. The
black boxes have apparently been sent to Russia. Reporters on the scene last
night described people with flashlights picking up items and disturbing others,
messing up the evidence as it were.

[Bill]

On 18 Jul 2014 06:18:56 -0700, jack595 <jack595...@newsguy.com>
wrote:

So who is to blame?

Obviously nobody intended to kill all those passing bystanders so it's
criminal negligence rather than deliberate murder...

These things should be able to spot a civilian airliner's transponder
sending 'do not shoot me' messages but equally obviously the SAM
operator either ignored it or didn't know what it meant or it wasn't
working...

I find it almost inconceivable that they would have ignored it if they
knew what it was.

It's possible that they didn't know what the little blinking lamp
meant.

Or the system had been damaged and not repaired...

Who has these things?

Well, the Ukraine has some, and has form for shooting down passing
airliners.

The Russian separatists have some, but the Ukrainian government says
that the ones they captured are unserviceable so a faulty one that is
just on the edge of being serviceable is a possibility here.

Russia has them.

[Bill]

On Fri, 18 Jul 2014 06:40:34 -0700, Fred J. McCall
<fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Cite?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberia_Airlines_Flight_1812

[Andrew Swallow]

There is precedent - British made warships sold to the Confederacy.

[Andrew Swallow]

Or the rebels did not have up to date SIFF codes. Modern IFF is encrypted.

Andrew Swallow

[jack595]

In article <lqb6s...@drn.newsguy.com>, jack595 says...

Anyone with any experience with this sort of equipment must remember that it
requires a great deal of training on that particular piece and familiarity with
the operation for that particular mission. There are security measures and
protocols that preclude the sort of casual misfiring that Fred seems to
postulate. Old soldiers might remember some of this but it would take a fairly
large crew, fully trained on that piece of equipment, with all the ancillary
ties to the radar, etc. to make this intercept. The fact that the ground people
found the black boxes and sent them back to Russia on the dark, described by
outside observers, is another indication of the Russian involvement from A to Z.

[Bill]

On Fri, 18 Jul 2014 07:23:53 -0700, Fred J. McCall

>Thanks. All searches turn up 'Malaysia Air' these days.
>
>A few comments. Your remarks made it sound like it was a deliberate
>shootdown. Even the Russians didn't believe that.
>
Goodness no, it was gross incompetence.

However as the Ukraine has been recruiting loonies as front line
troops, mainly because what they had before wasn't politically
reliable, I have little trust in their abilities.

[Bill]

On Fri, 18 Jul 2014 07:12:30 -0700, Fred J. McCall

<fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>

>>Well, the Ukraine has some, and has form for shooting down passing
>>airliners.
>>
>

>Cite? I know you feel bound to support Russia, what with being their
>Useful Idiot, but it just comes across as slightly stupid, Bill.
>

Whoops...

[jonathan]

"Andrew Swallow" <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:6PqdndCiw6maFlXO...@bt.com...

> On 18/07/2014 01:25, jonathan wrote:
>> "Kerryn Offord" <ka...@uclive.ac.nz> wrote in message
>> news:lq9p70$a50$2...@dont-email.me...

>>> On 18/07/2014 11:55 a.m., jonathan wrote:
>>>> I think the odds are very good he does.
>>>> Fog of war and all that~
>>>>
>>>
>>> It has been reported that the black boxes were recovered (by the
>>> separatists)
>>>
>>> So how does he justify "losing" them?
>>>
>>> And why would "he"?
>>>
>>> It would just add fuel to the fire that the Russians were responsible...
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>

>> He can't take the chance, he doesn't know what's in
>> the data.
>

> If Putin did not give the order then he will assume it was not him.
>



What if it shows the missile was launched from Russian soil?
Or the missile was of a type that couldn't have been stolen
from the Ukrainian military etc etc?

Ukraine just the /day before/ claimed Russia was firing missiles
from Russian soil to shoot down Ukrainian planes, and Russian jets
were shooting down Ukrainian fighters.

It could be just after the US announced the second round of sanctions
two days ago, that Putin or the insurgents decided to escalate
the attacks against Ukrainian planes and this is the result.


From an article posted by the Washington Post just few hours /before/
the Malaysia shoot down.....


Russia Warns of Grave Consequences from new US Sanctions.
July 17 11:20 am


"...a Ukrainian security official charging that a Russian fighter jet had
shot
down a Ukrainian Su-25 close-air-support jet in the east of the country.

Ukraine offered no evidence to back up the assertion, the most serious
charge of direct Russian military intervention that it has leveled so far. A
spokesman for Ukraine's Analytic Center of the National Security and Defense
Council, Andriy Lysenko, said Thursday that the pilot ejected after the
Wednesday evening attack and safely reached friendly soil. A Russian Defense
Ministry official denied the accusation, the Interfax news service reported.

Lysenko also said that Russia has fired Grad rockets into Ukrainian
territory, and he offered a blurry YouTube video as proof. Russia also
denied that allegation."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/russia-warns-of-grave-consequences-from-new-us-sanctions/2014/07/17/86228f6b-0a88-4fda-ab42-ef775be82999_story.html




s

[jonathan]

"Fred J. McCall" <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:548is9ldfrcpco2a2...@4ax.com...

> "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Kerryn Offord" <ka...@uclive.ac.nz> wrote in message
>>news:lq9p70$a50$2...@dont-email.me...
>>> On 18/07/2014 11:55 a.m., jonathan wrote:
>>>> I think the odds are very good he does.
>>>> Fog of war and all that~
>>>>
>>>
>>> It has been reported that the black boxes were recovered (by the
>>> separatists)
>>>
>>> So how does he justify "losing" them?
>>>
>>> And why would "he"?
>>>
>>> It would just add fuel to the fire that the Russians were responsible...
>>>
>>
>>He can't take the chance, he doesn't know what's in
>>the data.
>>
>

> In other words, Jonathan ASSUMES Russia is responsible and has
> something to hide and then 'reasons' from there. Phew, what a loony!
>



As usual you take the losing side of the debate. Do you really think
Putin isn't calling the shots with the insurgents, especially when it
comes to using advanced weapons? Most of the insurgent groups
are led by Russian special forces idiot.

Were you born yesterday?

Or are you s o o l d that you can't remember yesterday~



s




> --
> "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
> only stupid."
> -- Heinrich Heine

[jonathan]

"Juergen Nieveler" <juergen.nie...@arcor.de> wrote in message
news:XnsA36E51C52E8E...@nieveler.org...

> "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Agreed. If a missile was responsible, not sure what could be done to
>> play with the data, or why one would do it. It would basically be as
>> is, and any tampering would just draw attention. Being honest is much
>> smarter, as playing it by the book takes that charge away.
>

> Besides, all you'd see is rapid decompression and some systems being
> down - it's not as if the black box could tell you WHAT missile hit the
> plane.
>
> It could have been a Gadfly, but it could just as well have been a
> Ukrainian fighter accidentally firing an Atoll... or Ukraine firing off
> an S-200 by accident like they did in 2001.
>


Well then where is the black box? It's probably already in Moscow.
This was a 777 so I suppose the black box is very modern with all
kinds of data. If anything could become the 'smoking gun' it's this
black box.

What if a Russian jet shot it down and it took two missiles, one
after the other? Like the KAL flight?


> --
> Juergen Nieveler

[jonathan]

"Fred J. McCall" <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:thdis9lle7nmq46lc...@4ax.com...

> I don't feel particularly responsible for what you think I
> 'postulate'. This systems are mobile TELARs, intended to be able to
> go from moving to shooting in a bare handful of minutes. They're
> intended to be easy to use by poorly trained troops, like most
> Soviet-era equipment.

>
>>
>>Old soldiers might remember some of this but it would take a fairly
>>large crew, fully trained on that piece of equipment, with all the
>>ancillary
>>ties to the radar, etc. to make this intercept. The fact that the ground
>>people
>>found the black boxes and sent them back to Russia on the dark, described
>>by
>>outside observers, is another indication of the Russian involvement from A
>>to Z.
>>
>

> For a definition of 'fairly large crew' that is on the order of two
> guys. There are no 'ancillary ties' required. The TELAR has its own
> radar and works as a 'designate, track, and shoot' system. From
> moving down the road at speed to engaging targets takes a whopping 5
> minutes. Moving from one firing location to another takes less than
> half a minute. Engaging a target takes bare seconds.



Right, if the crew has had several weeks of formal training
and practice etc etc. That strongly suggest Russian advisors.



>
> But Jack will believe whatever he wants to believe, regardless of any
> facts. He's flexible that way.
>
> --
> "Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
> truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
> -- Thomas Jefferson

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Il 18/07/2014 17:12, Fred J. McCall ha scritto:

>>
>> Anyone with any experience with this sort of equipment must remember that it
>> requires a great deal of training on that particular piece and familiarity with
>> the operation for that particular mission. There are security measures and
>> protocols that preclude the sort of casual misfiring that Fred seems to
>> postulate.
>>
>

> I don't feel particularly responsible for what you think I
> 'postulate'. This systems are mobile TELARs, intended to be able to
> go from moving to shooting in a bare handful of minutes. They're
> intended to be easy to use by poorly trained troops, like most
> Soviet-era equipment.
>
>>

>> Old soldiers might remember some of this but it would take a fairly
>> large crew, fully trained on that piece of equipment, with all the ancillary
>> ties to the radar, etc. to make this intercept. The fact that the ground people
>> found the black boxes and sent them back to Russia on the dark, described by
>> outside observers, is another indication of the Russian involvement from A to Z.
>>
>

> For a definition of 'fairly large crew' that is on the order of two
> guys. There are no 'ancillary ties' required. The TELAR has its own
> radar and works as a 'designate, track, and shoot' system. From
> moving down the road at speed to engaging targets takes a whopping 5
> minutes. Moving from one firing location to another takes less than
> half a minute. Engaging a target takes bare seconds.
>

> But Jack will believe whatever he wants to believe, regardless of any
> facts. He's flexible that way.

I guess Jack has enough (in)direct knowledge of soviet-era SAM to have a
good idea of their working to seriously assess his opinion; and I
honestly largely concur with Jack; to be more precise, I can't exclude
that it's a case of "rusty training" behind the firing;

and... a soviet/Russian SAM & fire control equipment intended for WWIII
what has avaolable in the 2010s civilian a/c squawking compartment ? and
what a Russian/soviet reservist or former serviceman can known about
civilian air ID ?
Remember, also in the Vincennes case, the Iranian a/c was regularly
squawking....

Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.

[jack595]

In article <thdis9lle7nmq46lc...@4ax.com>, Fred J. McCall says...

>I don't feel particularly responsible for what you think I
>'postulate'. This systems are mobile TELARs, intended to be able to
>go from moving to shooting in a bare handful of minutes. They're
>intended to be easy to use by poorly trained troops, like most
>Soviet-era equipment.
>
>>

>>Old soldiers might remember some of this but it would take a fairly
>>large crew, fully trained on that piece of equipment, with all the ancillary
>>ties to the radar, etc. to make this intercept. The fact that the ground people
>>found the black boxes and sent them back to Russia on the dark, described by
>>outside observers, is another indication of the Russian involvement from A to Z.
>>
>

>For a definition of 'fairly large crew' that is on the order of two
>guys. There are no 'ancillary ties' required. The TELAR has its own
>radar and works as a 'designate, track, and shoot' system. From
>moving down the road at speed to engaging targets takes a whopping 5
>minutes. Moving from one firing location to another takes less than
>half a minute. Engaging a target takes bare seconds.
>
>But Jack will believe whatever he wants to believe, regardless of any
>facts. He's flexible that way.
>

Well, the description of the system says a crew of four, which assumes a trained
crew of four. All of the exercises Fred describes as being "five minutes or a
few seconds" also assume a full trained set of operators, not two guys who just
wandered in and thought they would play soldier. The idea that even a trained
crew could set up and fire within a few seconds without outside support in the
form of a radar track on the Boeing seems beyond even Fred's extensive
conjecture. You have to remember this system, perhaps this same equipment, was
proudly showed off to outside observers the same morning. They were in place and
thought they had shot down an AN-26. No AN-26 flies at 33,000 feet at 590 mph.
They either went off half-cocked or did it for kicks. One of the telephone
correspondents ( between a "Major" and someone named "Grek") is quoted as saying
"don't they know there's a war on?" Also added that the plane was carrying
spies. Sounds like old times.

[Bill]

On Fri, 18 Jul 2014 13:10:21 -0400, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>"Andrew Swallow" <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>news:6PqdndCiw6maFlXO...@bt.com...
>> On 18/07/2014 01:25, jonathan wrote:
>>> "Kerryn Offord" <ka...@uclive.ac.nz> wrote in message
>>> news:lq9p70$a50$2...@dont-email.me...
>>>> On 18/07/2014 11:55 a.m., jonathan wrote:
>>>>> I think the odds are very good he does.
>>>>> Fog of war and all that~
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It has been reported that the black boxes were recovered (by the
>>>> separatists)
>>>>
>>>> So how does he justify "losing" them?
>>>>
>>>> And why would "he"?
>>>>
>>>> It would just add fuel to the fire that the Russians were responsible...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> He can't take the chance, he doesn't know what's in
>>> the data.
>>
>> If Putin did not give the order then he will assume it was not him.
>>
>
>
>
>What if it shows the missile was launched from Russian soil?

What if it shows it was a meteor?

[Bill]

On Fri, 18 Jul 2014 13:24:50 -0400, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>

>"Juergen Nieveler" <juergen.nie...@arcor.de> wrote in message
>news:XnsA36E51C52E8E...@nieveler.org...
>> "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Agreed. If a missile was responsible, not sure what could be done to
>>> play with the data, or why one would do it. It would basically be as
>>> is, and any tampering would just draw attention. Being honest is much
>>> smarter, as playing it by the book takes that charge away.
>>
>> Besides, all you'd see is rapid decompression and some systems being
>> down - it's not as if the black box could tell you WHAT missile hit the
>> plane.
>>
>> It could have been a Gadfly, but it could just as well have been a
>> Ukrainian fighter accidentally firing an Atoll... or Ukraine firing off
>> an S-200 by accident like they did in 2001.
>>
>
>
>Well then where is the black box? It's probably already in Moscow.
>This was a 777 so I suppose the black box is very modern with all
>kinds of data. If anything could become the 'smoking gun' it's this
>black box.

You have no idea what's on a Black box flight recorder do you...

[jack595]

In article <lqblt...@drn.newsguy.com>, jack595 says...

If you want the whole conversation it's at:

SBU intercepts phone conversation of separatists admitting downing a civilian
plane.

[jack595]

In article <lqblt...@drn.newsguy.com>, jack595 says...

Add one more
Tucked in the corner of a leafy square, is this the Russian missile launcher
that blasted flight MH17 out of the sky?

From the Mail Online with pics of the BUK launcher driving toward Russia with
two missiles missing.

[jack595]

In article <lqbt7...@drn.newsguy.com>, jack595 says...

From this article a quote from Dr. Igor Sutyagin, Research Fellow in Russian
Studies at the Royal United Services Institute which you can take it or leave
it: A Russian former special forces chief had said that the separatists did not
have the expertise to operate the BUK launchers, that only Russian personnel
could do so.

This is a real doc, he spied for us when he worked in the Soviet Union and got
exchanged after his trial.

[Bill]

On 18 Jul 2014 13:13:16 -0700, jack595 <jack595...@newsguy.com>
wrote:

>
>From this article a quote from Dr. Igor Sutyagin, Research Fellow in Russian
>Studies at the Royal United Services Institute which you can take it or leave
>it: A Russian former special forces chief had said that the separatists did not
>have the expertise to operate the BUK launchers, that only Russian personnel
>could do so.
>
>This is a real doc, he spied for us when he worked in the Soviet Union and got
>exchanged after his trial.

There are plenty of ex Soviet soldiers amongst the separatists.

Nobody's claiming that they knew all the equipment's foibles, they
just knew enough to acquire a target and launch a missile.

They obviously didn't know how to use the IFF equipment...

[jack595]

In article <fn4js95avl07km39i...@4ax.com>, Bill says...

You must define "ex", does that mean "left the Soviet PVO command, in say 1993"
or "left the PVO last week". They didn't want to use the IFF, that would alert
the target, especially if, in your view, they were just as alert as the
shooters. Try AN-24/26 against a Boeing 777, even at altitudes far above the
capability of the ANs and at twice the speed. PVO=antiaircraft part

[Kerryn Offord]

On 19/07/2014 5:10 a.m., jonathan wrote:
> "Andrew Swallow" <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:6PqdndCiw6maFlXO...@bt.com...
>> On 18/07/2014 01:25, jonathan wrote:
>>> "Kerryn Offord" <ka...@uclive.ac.nz> wrote in message
>>> news:lq9p70$a50$2...@dont-email.me...
>>>> On 18/07/2014 11:55 a.m., jonathan wrote:
>>>>> I think the odds are very good he does.
>>>>> Fog of war and all that~
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It has been reported that the black boxes were recovered (by the
>>>> separatists)
>>>>
>>>> So how does he justify "losing" them?
>>>>
>>>> And why would "he"?
>>>>
>>>> It would just add fuel to the fire that the Russians were responsible...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> He can't take the chance, he doesn't know what's in
>>> the data.
>>
>> If Putin did not give the order then he will assume it was not him.
>>
>
>
>
> What if it shows the missile was launched from Russian soil?
> Or the missile was of a type that couldn't have been stolen
> from the Ukrainian military etc etc?

<SNIP>

There is no way the black box(s) can provide that kind of information..
It senses what is happening aboard the aircraft.. not what has happened
outside.

[Kerryn Offord]

On 19/07/2014 5:28 a.m., jonathan wrote:
>
> "Fred J. McCall" <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote in message

<SNIP>

>> For a definition of 'fairly large crew' that is on the order of two
>> guys. There are no 'ancillary ties' required. The TELAR has its own
>> radar and works as a 'designate, track, and shoot' system. From
>> moving down the road at speed to engaging targets takes a whopping 5
>> minutes. Moving from one firing location to another takes less than
>> half a minute. Engaging a target takes bare seconds.
>
>
>
> Right, if the crew has had several weeks of formal training
> and practice etc etc. That strongly suggest Russian advisors.
>
>

Or.. Ex Ukrainian service personnel with some experience on the equipment..

It is reasonable to assume that with the unit based in/ near the city,
that some of the personnel who served with the unit are "available"

[Bill]

On 18 Jul 2014 14:58:32 -0700, jack595 <jack595...@newsguy.com>
wrote:

>In article <fn4js95avl07km39i...@4ax.com>, Bill says...
>>
>>On 18 Jul 2014 13:13:16 -0700, jack595 <jack595...@newsguy.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>From this article a quote from Dr. Igor Sutyagin, Research Fellow in Russian
>>>Studies at the Royal United Services Institute which you can take it or leave
>>>it: A Russian former special forces chief had said that the separatists did not
>>>have the expertise to operate the BUK launchers, that only Russian personnel
>>>could do so.
>>>
>>>This is a real doc, he spied for us when he worked in the Soviet Union and got
>>>exchanged after his trial.
>>
>>There are plenty of ex Soviet soldiers amongst the separatists.
>>
>>Nobody's claiming that they knew all the equipment's foibles, they
>>just knew enough to acquire a target and launch a missile.
>>
>>They obviously didn't know how to use the IFF equipment...
>
>You must define "ex", does that mean "left the Soviet PVO command, in say 1993"
>or "left the PVO last week".

Fairly obviously we just don't know.

Most of the people we're seeing on TV look to be in their middle
thirties so they'll have been out for five to ten years.

>They didn't want to use the IFF, that would alert
>the target, especially if, in your view, they were just as alert as the
>shooters. Try AN-24/26 against a Boeing 777, even at altitudes far above the
>capability of the ANs and at twice the speed. PVO=antiaircraft part

I don't think they cared, they just saw an aircraft, knew it wasn't
their's, and shot it down.

[Bill]

On Fri, 18 Jul 2014 17:05:46 -0700, Fred J. McCall

>Was it? The Russians seem to believe it was an equipment malfunction.
>Was a NOTAM issued?

>
>>
>>However as the Ukraine has been recruiting loonies as front line
>>troops, mainly because what they had before wasn't politically
>>reliable, I have little trust in their abilities.
>>
>

>Bill, I know how your biases run, so I have little trust in your
>evaluation of what they're doing. However, 'abilities' make no
>difference if you have no reason to shoot at airplanes, and the
>Ukraine has no reason to. The only groups who has a motive to be
>shooting at airplanes are the pro-Russian separatists.

True.

[jack595]

In article <2oejs9dsv2krbgo28...@4ax.com>, Fred J. McCall says...

>The concept of 'already set up' appears to have escaped Jack. So
>what's required in that case? See the plane on the radar. Move the
>'bug' to the plane. Hit the 'track' button. Wait a few seconds. Flip
>up the cover and hit the 'fire' button. Watch the pretty lights.
>
>So simple that even Jack could probably do it...
>

Fred seems to think the Russians make copies of the stuff we turn out. He
probably saw a demo of some of the stuff Raytheon turns out and assumes it works
the same with the Russians. We have people who work the stuff we get from the
people whom the Russians sell their old stuff. I will bet there is a translation
of the BUK system manual turned out by the Army sitting on a shelf in Rosslyn,
Virginia right now. And it won't show the simple steps Fred seems to think are
how you crank a BUK into play.

[jack595]

In article <2oejs9dsv2krbgo28...@4ax.com>, Fred J. McCall says...

>The concept of 'already set up' appears to have escaped Jack. So
>what's required in that case? See the plane on the radar. Move the
>'bug' to the plane. Hit the 'track' button. Wait a few seconds. Flip
>up the cover and hit the 'fire' button. Watch the pretty lights.
>
>So simple that even Jack could probably do it...
>

Well, I found a bit of evidence besides the Russian who didn't think the rebels
could handle a BUK. The quote is from John Pike, the director of
GlobalSecurity.org. "this isn't an AK-47, the thing is a traveling road show."
He said the pro-Russian separatists could operate such a system on their own.
"This thing is way too complicated to be operated by anyone other than somebody
who does this for a living. We continue to have a discussion as though the
pro-Russian separatists were somehow independently owned and operated--they're
not" Another voice, Anthony Cordesman. a security expert at the Center for
Strategic and International Studies, told CBS News that the Buk systems are
"technically sophisticated" but he added that the expertise required to operate
them might not be out of the separatists reach. He pointed out that the rebels
could have received training, that is assistance from Russia as the system is so
complicated it would need such.

Can we agree that the real experts seem to agree that the Russians either fired
the thing them selves or trained up Fred's old soldiers.

[jack595]

In article <2miks91ngkcphvavu...@4ax.com>, Fred J. McCall says...

>We can agree that you're a buffoon listening to buffoons. There are
>folks who operated these systems back in the day numbered among the
>separatists. Jack, I haven't operated the sophisticated equipment I
>used when I was on active duty in 30 years. I could walk in today and
>run it just fine, particularly in a relatively non-challenging
>environment (like sitting parked and shooting at an airliner).
>
>Folks looking for another 15 minutes in the press don't impress me.
>

Try the Pentagon Press Secretary, an Admiral, he says "It is a sophisticated
system". USA Today.

Fred, the United States is building a case against the Russians. Anyone who
understands the way the Russians work their systems know that they have built in
requirements that keep the low-level non-coms from playing with the equipment.
As I have said before there is more than likely a translation of the BUK system
operations manual in the current US Army tech library, which will be part of the
evidence when this case is presented. You don't know that much?

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Il 19/07/2014 02:28, Fred J. McCall ha scritto:

>
> The concept of 'already set up' appears to have escaped Jack. So
> what's required in that case? See the plane on the radar. Move the
> 'bug' to the plane. Hit the 'track' button. Wait a few seconds. Flip
> up the cover and hit the 'fire' button. Watch the pretty lights.
>
> So simple that even Jack could probably do it...

Fred, you design *AMERICAN* systems, not soviet/Russian ones...

Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Il 19/07/2014 03:12, jack595 ha scritto:

> Fred seems to think the Russians make copies of the stuff we turn out. He
> probably saw a demo of some of the stuff Raytheon turns out and assumes it works
> the same with the Russians. We have people who work the stuff we get from the
> people whom the Russians sell their old stuff. I will bet there is a translation
> of the BUK system manual turned out by the Army sitting on a shelf in Rosslyn,
> Virginia right now. And it won't show the simple steps Fred seems to think are
> how you crank a BUK into play.

on the sitting on the shelf, I remain mystified on how often from CARL
or similiar repository I DL and read declass document/report whose gives
or suggest a workable solution to more or less US Army and USMC woes
around the globe...

of course I agree with you with Fred's methodological mistake, but I
feel that you're perhaps both overlooking various aspects.

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Il 19/07/2014 12:42, Fred J. McCall ha scritto:

>> Can we agree that the real experts seem to agree that the Russians either fired
>> the thing them selves or trained up Fred's old soldiers.
>>
>

> We can agree that you're a buffoon listening to buffoons. There are
> folks who operated these systems back in the day numbered among the
> separatists. Jack, I haven't operated the sophisticated equipment I
> used when I was on active duty in 30 years. I could walk in today and
> run it just fine, particularly in a relatively non-challenging
> environment (like sitting parked and shooting at an airliner).

I have watched elder folks here whose are capable of doing a bullseye at
Dallas ranges with iron sights and I can agree that a Buk/Gadfly isn't a
'91 but I will never underestimate the capabilities of keeping more or
less rusty training (BTW, I'm wrong or now you agree with me ? ;) )

and personally, I was surprised of finding myself capable of
well-handling a major riot after a 10-year hiatus (and my handling of
riot isn't swinging a pickhandle's handle, but is command and staff work..)

[Bill]

On 19 Jul 2014 04:01:30 -0700, jack595 <jack595...@newsguy.com>
wrote:

>Fred, the United States is building a case against the Russians. Anyone who
>understands the way the Russians work their systems know that they have built in
>requirements that keep the low-level non-coms from playing with the equipment.
>As I have said before there is more than likely a translation of the BUK system
>operations manual in the current US Army tech library, which will be part of the
>evidence when this case is presented. You don't know that much?

There isn't going to be any 'case' anymore than anyone will be
interested in highly technical evidence.

The best you can hope for is a book that'll only be read in the USA
because everyone else doesn't really care who did the shooting because
nobody actually intended to kill almost 300 innocents.

It isn't about apportioning blame amongst the selection of ghastly
political vampires that are busy fighting over the corpse of the old
Soviet empire, it's about the dead...

[jack595]

In article <1qoks9pilk7vlava8...@4ax.com>, Bill says...

The "book" will be read, at the UN Security Council. Remember Adlai Stevenson?
"I am prepared to wait until Hell freezes over"? It isn't a high school debate,
it is about embarrassing Putin, until the oligarchs punt him out with his Swiss
bank accounts and French Riviera properties. Russia has oil, those without oil
don't care how many died in an airplane. The idea is to get Putin and his "New
Russian Empire" out.

[Bill]

On 19 Jul 2014 06:14:24 -0700, jack595 <jack595...@newsguy.com>
wrote:

>In article <1qoks9pilk7vlava8...@4ax.com>, Bill says...
>>
>>On 19 Jul 2014 04:01:30 -0700, jack595 <jack595...@newsguy.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Fred, the United States is building a case against the Russians. Anyone who
>>>understands the way the Russians work their systems know that they have built in
>>>requirements that keep the low-level non-coms from playing with the equipment.
>>>As I have said before there is more than likely a translation of the BUK system
>>>operations manual in the current US Army tech library, which will be part of the
>>>evidence when this case is presented. You don't know that much?
>>
>>There isn't going to be any 'case' anymore than anyone will be
>>interested in highly technical evidence.
>>
>>The best you can hope for is a book that'll only be read in the USA
>>because everyone else doesn't really care who did the shooting because
>>nobody actually intended to kill almost 300 innocents.
>>
>>It isn't about apportioning blame amongst the selection of ghastly
>>political vampires that are busy fighting over the corpse of the old
>>Soviet empire, it's about the dead...
>
>The "book" will be read, at the UN Security Council. Remember Adlai Stevenson?

No, and neither does anyone else outside the USA.

>"I am prepared to wait until Hell freezes over"? It isn't a high school debate,
>it is about embarrassing Putin, until the oligarchs punt him out with his Swiss
>bank accounts and French Riviera properties. Russia has oil, those without oil
>don't care how many died in an airplane. The idea is to get Putin and his "New
>Russian Empire" out.

It won't work.

Putin is popular at home.

That's because things are, compared to what it was like before,
pretty good.

As long as he and his party keep winning elections he remains in
power.

He doesn't care what Obama says, Obama is history in a year or so and
his energy markets are expanding every time he looks.

We've already had European politicians talking about people having to
pay raised gas prices in order to punish Russia. People aren't
stupid, they know it's all about the price of energy really and they
also know that, if push comes to shove, the US will abandon them as
they always have in the past...

[jack595]

In article <xgsyv.5515$A66....@tornado.fastwebnet.it>, dott.Piergiorgio says...

I'm going to let you all in on a little secret: The Russians know that those
pieces of the missile will convict them. Each and every shred has what are
called "factory markings" on them. They tell who made the device, where it was
made and when. It is the DNA or fingerprint that will almost certainly show the
thing came from Russia recently. They wouldn't ship some out-of-date piece of
junk for their own people to use. Technical stuff is not esoteric if it
identifies the owner.

[jack595]

In article <3hpls95g1ka76u6s7...@4ax.com>, Fred J. McCall says...

>You have to know what you're up against. This is why the system has
>TELARs in it in addition to the 'classic' Russian system that Jack
>seem to think it is, with a central radar and a bunch of TELs that you
>have to set up. A TELAR is a 'stand-alone' vehicle. It dispenses
>with all that internconnection and central control precisely because
>Jack's image of the system is far too slow to respond and leads to
>aircraft chopping you up into bloody little bits.
>
>This is all public knowledge and I find it appalling that people like
>Jack seemingly can't be bothered to read up on the system before
>starting to bloviate.
>
>Initial setup of the system from road mode to launching a weapon takes
>5 minutes (because you have to erect all the crap and power it up).
>Relocating to a new firing position once you've been in fire mode
>takes around 20 seconds from arrival at the new location to firing a
>weapon. From detection to fire of an already placed system is a few
>seconds. These are FACTS.
>
>Now, just how complicated do you think the system can be to operate
>and still hit those KNOWN PUBLIC timelines?
>

Try this item on Internet: BUK missile system

Scroll down to "Description" and look at the two photos of the interior of the
BUK launch system. Tell me you could sit down and be checked out on a real
launch on that thing in a very short time. Say three weeks?

[jack595]

In article <d34ms95v6hebnpc6q...@4ax.com>, Fred J. McCall says...

>I've seen the interior. Why "three weeks"? Three weeks is 120 hours.
>How many switches do you see in that interior? How many minutes could
>you spend on each individual switch given 120 hours?
>
>You realize that specialist operator courses typically run closer to 2
>months than 3 weeks, right? Those are courses that teach a lot more
>about general tactical employment than the Russians probably teach
>(since they use officers for slots requiring that sort of knowledge).
>But just learning to shoot at an easy target? Yeah, 3 weeks might be
>plenty.
>
Now that you mention it, where is the officer in this operation?

[David E. Powell]

On Saturday, July 19, 2014 9:13:57 PM UTC-4, jack595 wrote:

Snip

> Now that you mention it, where is the officer in this operation?

Given the rants of the "Separatist Spokesperson" seen recently, they have convinced me they are incapable of doing this sort of thing without help.

[jack595]

In article <dv6ms917fs54p08ie...@4ax.com>, Fred J. McCall says...

>How do you know one of the folks there wasn't an ex-officer? Besides
>which, one isn't required unless you're making tactical employment
>decisions, so one wasn't necessary. Just a trigger-puller...
>


Seriously, Fred, do the Russians have a history of just putting an operation in
the field without some Senior officer to take the blame or credit? The telephone
intercept has a "Major" on one end but no sign of anyone with rank above that.

[Bill]

On 20 Jul 2014 02:31:12 -0700, jack595 <jack595...@newsguy.com>
wrote:

>
>Seriously, Fred, do the Russians have a history of just putting an operation in
>the field without some Senior officer to take the blame or credit? The telephone
>intercept has a "Major" on one end but no sign of anyone with rank above that.

The Russians in WWII and in their Civil War ran all sorts of
improvised operations without there being any officers in the accepted
sense.

[jack595]

In article <XnsA3709B5CB53B...@nieveler.org>, Juergen Nieveler
says...

>
>jack595 <jack595...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>> Try this item on Internet: BUK missile system
>>
>> Scroll down to "Description" and look at the two photos of the
>> interior of the BUK launch system. Tell me you could sit down and be
>> checked out on a real launch on that thing in a very short time. Say
>> three weeks?
>

>Try this item on the Internet: Ukraine Conscription
>
>Plenty of conscripts will have been trained on Buk systems in the 25
>years or so they've been in service.
>
>

Those pieces will have date codes as well as factory markings. It would be a
miracle if they were dates previous to the last delivery of a BUK to the
Ukraine. 23-year old missiles would be questionable, even for the Russians and
their stooges. The device parked in the village square and the one on a trailer
leaving for Russia seem to indicate something more than a captured Ukrainian
BUK. Especially, missing two missiles. Circumstantial, perhaps, but with the
dated missile parts, which the Ukrainians seem to have, more than necessary to
convict.

[jonathan]

> Seriously, Jack, is there any evidence that the Russians have put an
> operation in the field here? Circular logic, anyone?
>
> Uh, that Major is in the separatist forces, isn't he?
>



Kerry just said those missile batteries came across the
border last week in a convoy of 150 trucks full of weapons.
Or maybe it was baby-milk~ And we've seen the pictures
of those missile batteries quickly being driven back
into Russia right after the shoot down.

In warfare, that's all the proof you need.
It's self evident what happened and who
is to ultimately blame.

You want courtroom proof while the world witnesses
the shooters CLEANING the crime scene?



s

[dottor Piergiorgio M. d' Errico]

and honestly, both Fred and Jack are a huge disappointment. A system
engineer of a a major AS&D corporation and a former ESM/ELINT spook on
paper both should figure indipendently and in a rational manner what
should be actually happened, but both now bent the facts and data in
support of their quarrel.

I can pretend that is a sort of "mirror trick" because both understand
too much, so to speak, but my impression as a political scientist is
that the grim realities is that both are poisoned by the same politics
whose poison the American way of life (that is, partisan stance)

in the old and Great America of yore, after the election is settled US
people, both Republican and Democrat cease the electoral partisanship
and support and help their gov't and congress. This is the America
america, and the world, needs.

[Bill]

On Sun, 20 Jul 2014 10:28:27 -0400, jonathan <Wr...@Instead.com>
wrote:

>
>Kerry just said those missile batteries came across the
>border last week in a convoy of 150 trucks full of weapons.

Kerry's a joke and nobody has believed a word any US politician said
since Colin Powell stood before the UN and told us all that Saddam had
nukes.

[Kerryn Offord]

And the mobile chemical weapon "factories"

[jack595]

In article <aivns9pl3tn10e3c9...@4ax.com>, Bill says...

And yet, I have it from a very reliable source that everything pointed that way.
They just got bad intel and believed it. Dick Kerr.

[Bill]

On 20 Jul 2014 13:58:49 -0700, jack595 <jack595...@newsguy.com>
wrote:

I got the same information at the time, or thought I did.

In reality I was lied to by some very clever men...

[Kerryn Offord]

IIRC.. weren't the UN teams on the ground saying "We aren't finding
anything..."

The Americans were saying something like "They are getting away before
the inspection teams arrive..." (Although how they were able to
constantly avoid US surveillance...)

Seems like the American's had it set in their minds that there were WMD
and they weren't willing to believe (allow the public to believe) any
evidence otherwise...

Then we have the Nigerian yellowcake story...

[Bill]

On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 09:55:51 +1200, Kerryn Offord <ka...@uclive.ac.nz>
wrote:

The whole thing turned out to be a travesty where the politicians
lied to everyone.

The sight of Colin Powell destroying any chance he had of high office
by lying to the UN remains with me as proof of just how corrupt the US
political system is.

Right now Kerry has less to lose than Powell ever had, he'll never
achieve any higher office than the one he has now...

[jack595]

In article <v9fos9p6ehuklujdb...@4ax.com>, Bill says...

I tend to believe Kerr when he says "it's important to figure out, from an
intelligence point of view, if we didn't do it well, how could we have done
better". The concern is that CIA analysts discounted or overlooked those
reports (of weapons dismantling) because of an overriding assumption that Saddam
was secretly hoarding an arsenal of banned weapons.

[peter skelton]

"jack595" wrote in message
news:lqhfm...@drn.newsguy.com...

Bull. The concern is that they cherry-picked the data they
thought would please their masters.

[jack595]

In article <lqhlkl$cem$1...@dont-email.me>, peter skelton says...

I worked with Dick for about 6 years, I talked with him at a speech he gave and
in it he expressed the regret that the force of events had made them offer a
judgement possibly based on information presented to Saddam that was gilded. The
press of time made for what turned out to be bad intelligence. Happens all the
time.

[peter skelton]

"jack595" wrote in message
news:lqhmg...@drn.newsguy.com...

You're describing a mistake, they happen, they're a bad
thing, but the organization can recover and go on. What I
described is disaster. If you're going to be concerned,
worry about disaster.

[David E. Powell]

At the time, most major intelligence agencies believed there were WMD programs and production facilities in Iraq, if not outright weaponized stockpiles.

This included the Russians and several European and Mideast intelligence services.

As for the kerfluffle over who convinced the British it was worth taking military action over, that was President Bill Clinton, who convinced UK Prime Minister Tony Blair to join Operation Desert Fox in 1998 or so.

[David E. Powell]

On Sunday, July 20, 2014 5:55:51 PM UTC-4, Kerryn Offord wrote:
> On 21/07/2014 9:09 a.m., Bill wrote:

Snip

>
> IIRC.. weren't the UN teams on the ground saying "We aren't finding
> anything..."

Saddam was also slow footing and playing his usual stall tactics.

The problem was that his opening all the doors overnight would have shown the accusations were false, if there were none. However Saddam was playing like it was still the 1990s, ignoring that a massive buildup of force cannot be sustained indefinitely, and that the political calculus regarding the US had seriously changed. He was playing a play book that no longer applied.

[Bill]

On 20 Jul 2014 15:26:33 -0700, jack595 <jack595...@newsguy.com>

It doesn't matter.

All that matters now is that a US Secretary of State lied to the UN
for base political purposes.

So now people demand proper evidence.

It isn't as if there's any secrets left, Snowden blew the lot last
year...