Difference between revisions of "File talk:MH17 Crash Site.jpg"
(and another thing) |
(Alternative graphic suggestion) |
||
(7 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
Some other points: | Some other points: | ||
: It could not have got as far as Snizhne by 13:15 GMT/UTC (not flying fast enough) | : It could not have got as far as Snizhne by 13:15 GMT/UTC (not flying fast enough) | ||
− | : It could not have lost | + | : It could not have lost contact at 14:15 GMT (it was burnt out in a field 20 km away some time before this) |
: TAMAK waypoint is ON the Russian border (so it can't have been ''approximately 50km from the Russia-Ukraine border'' '''AND''' ''30km from Tamak waypoint'') --[[User:Two Dogs|Two Dogs]] ([[User talk:Two Dogs|talk]]) 20:18, 17 August 2014 (IST) | : TAMAK waypoint is ON the Russian border (so it can't have been ''approximately 50km from the Russia-Ukraine border'' '''AND''' ''30km from Tamak waypoint'') --[[User:Two Dogs|Two Dogs]] ([[User talk:Two Dogs|talk]]) 20:18, 17 August 2014 (IST) | ||
+ | Here's my take on what may have happened: | ||
+ | A Malaysian Press Officer gets the job of putting out the '''FIRST''' statement on MH17 - and he's under pressure. He contacts a Ukrainian ATC press officer (in English/Malaysian/Ukrainian?). The Ukrainian talks to someone in ATC who reckons it was about quarter past, the last time he spoke to MH17, and tells him about TAMAK. Malaysian Airways guy gets back to his contact and asks ''where on earth is TAMAK?'' . . . ''Damned if I know, mate, but it seems it went down 50km from the border''. --[[User:Two Dogs|Two Dogs]] ([[User talk:Two Dogs|talk]]) 20:45, 17 August 2014 (IST) | ||
:: I vaguely recall thinking something along those lines at the time of the reports. It does look like some serious detailed forensics, taking due account of the time-standards, may be time well spent here. --[[User:Peter|Peter P]] ([[User talk:Peter|talk]]) 20:28, 17 August 2014 (IST) | :: I vaguely recall thinking something along those lines at the time of the reports. It does look like some serious detailed forensics, taking due account of the time-standards, may be time well spent here. --[[User:Peter|Peter P]] ([[User talk:Peter|talk]]) 20:28, 17 August 2014 (IST) | ||
+ | :::All this has me thinking that careful further analysis of the [http://www.mid.ru/brp_4.nsf/0/ECD62987D4816CA344257D1D00251C76 Russian MFA briefing] is warranted. That had MH17 making a port side near U-Turn just before the crash as I recall. The problem being that the debris field does (I think) indicate that the plane was indeed moving in an approx ESE direction rather than approx NW. --[[User:Peter|Peter P]] ([[User talk:Peter|talk]]) 20:38, 17 August 2014 (IST) | ||
+ | Apart from the copyvio (BBC and Google at a minimum) this graphic is just plain wrong. I'm not suggesting that there was anything sinister/devious/malicious about how it originated, the BBC interpretation of it or the placement of it into the article. It's just the contintuing spread of an original mistake. I would therefore like to propose that it is deleted from the article and also from the WS available files. --[[User:Two Dogs|Two Dogs]] ([[User talk:Two Dogs|talk]]) 10:26, 18 August 2014 (IST) | ||
+ | :Not bothered about possible BBC-Google copyright violation. On issues of interest to WS, the copyright issue is used by large corporations more for censorship purposes than any valid brand/revenue protection. Fair comment/non-commercial/public interest is a solid defence. Small authors that rely on copyright for income are a different matter entirely. | ||
+ | |||
+ | :I agree delete from article but probably best to include something similar but accurate if can be found. The Russian MFA image would be good --[[User:Peter|Peter P]] ([[User talk:Peter|talk]]) 15:12, 18 August 2014 (IST) | ||
+ | :: I've made a start on one here: https://wikispooks.com/wiki/File:MH17-last-minutes.png and can always modify it as required --[[User:Two Dogs|Two Dogs]] ([[User talk:Two Dogs|talk]]) 15:26, 18 August 2014 (IST) |
Latest revision as of 14:26, 18 August 2014
Where does the 14:15 GMT come from for the last contact? Malaysia Airways via Kiev ATC? --Two Dogs (talk) 19:15, 17 August 2014 (IST)
- Looks to me like they are intended as approximations but that that GMT has also been confused with BST which is 1 hour ahead. It does indicate a certain shoddiness in the map production though. It's to avoid precisely that confusion that I have been careful to specify UTC on the timeline events --Peter P (talk) 19:49, 17 August 2014 (IST)
- Oops - even more shoddiness. The Take-off time number IS correct - in UTC - but the 'Last-contact' number is not --Peter P (talk) 20:10, 17 August 2014 (IST)
- If you trace it back far enough, I think you'll find that the 14:15 comes from:
- Friday, July 18, 12:30 AM GMT +0800 Media Statement 1: MH17 Incident...Malaysia Airlines confirms it received notification from Ukrainian ATC that it had lost contact with flight MH17 at 1415 (GMT) at 30km from Tamak waypoint, approximately 50km from the Russia-Ukraine border. --Two Dogs (talk) 20:12, 17 August 2014 (IST)
- There are two sources of potential confusion here. 1. UTC-BST-GMT and the distinction between actual contact-loss/crash times and 2. the publication of reports about them. I've tried to recognise that on the timeline but there could be mistakes there too - Checking, correcting and adding to the timeline is needed. --Peter P (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2014 (IST)
- Friday, July 18, 12:30 AM GMT +0800 Media Statement 1: MH17 Incident...Malaysia Airlines confirms it received notification from Ukrainian ATC that it had lost contact with flight MH17 at 1415 (GMT) at 30km from Tamak waypoint, approximately 50km from the Russia-Ukraine border. --Two Dogs (talk) 20:12, 17 August 2014 (IST)
- If you trace it back far enough, I think you'll find that the 14:15 comes from:
- Oops - even more shoddiness. The Take-off time number IS correct - in UTC - but the 'Last-contact' number is not --Peter P (talk) 20:10, 17 August 2014 (IST)
Some other points:
- It could not have got as far as Snizhne by 13:15 GMT/UTC (not flying fast enough)
- It could not have lost contact at 14:15 GMT (it was burnt out in a field 20 km away some time before this)
- TAMAK waypoint is ON the Russian border (so it can't have been approximately 50km from the Russia-Ukraine border AND 30km from Tamak waypoint) --Two Dogs (talk) 20:18, 17 August 2014 (IST)
Here's my take on what may have happened: A Malaysian Press Officer gets the job of putting out the FIRST statement on MH17 - and he's under pressure. He contacts a Ukrainian ATC press officer (in English/Malaysian/Ukrainian?). The Ukrainian talks to someone in ATC who reckons it was about quarter past, the last time he spoke to MH17, and tells him about TAMAK. Malaysian Airways guy gets back to his contact and asks where on earth is TAMAK? . . . Damned if I know, mate, but it seems it went down 50km from the border. --Two Dogs (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2014 (IST)
- I vaguely recall thinking something along those lines at the time of the reports. It does look like some serious detailed forensics, taking due account of the time-standards, may be time well spent here. --Peter P (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2014 (IST)
- All this has me thinking that careful further analysis of the Russian MFA briefing is warranted. That had MH17 making a port side near U-Turn just before the crash as I recall. The problem being that the debris field does (I think) indicate that the plane was indeed moving in an approx ESE direction rather than approx NW. --Peter P (talk) 20:38, 17 August 2014 (IST)
- I vaguely recall thinking something along those lines at the time of the reports. It does look like some serious detailed forensics, taking due account of the time-standards, may be time well spent here. --Peter P (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2014 (IST)
Apart from the copyvio (BBC and Google at a minimum) this graphic is just plain wrong. I'm not suggesting that there was anything sinister/devious/malicious about how it originated, the BBC interpretation of it or the placement of it into the article. It's just the contintuing spread of an original mistake. I would therefore like to propose that it is deleted from the article and also from the WS available files. --Two Dogs (talk) 10:26, 18 August 2014 (IST)
- Not bothered about possible BBC-Google copyright violation. On issues of interest to WS, the copyright issue is used by large corporations more for censorship purposes than any valid brand/revenue protection. Fair comment/non-commercial/public interest is a solid defence. Small authors that rely on copyright for income are a different matter entirely.
- I agree delete from article but probably best to include something similar but accurate if can be found. The Russian MFA image would be good --Peter P (talk) 15:12, 18 August 2014 (IST)
- I've made a start on one here: https://wikispooks.com/wiki/File:MH17-last-minutes.png and can always modify it as required --Two Dogs (talk) 15:26, 18 August 2014 (IST)