Difference between revisions of "File talk:MH17 Flight Paths.png"

From Wikispooks
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Request for deletion)
m (reply)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 
This map appears to have been derived from FlightAware data. FlightAware doesn't have any coverage in this area and so these lines are just drawn between where they lost coverage and when they picked it up again. If the MSM (and ZeroHedge) had checked with FlightAware first, then this map - and all its variants - would not be in existence. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-17/was-flight-mh-17-diverted-over-restricted-airspace appears to be the source for for this particular map. In answer to their question "Was Flight MH-17 Diverted Over Restricted Airspace?" the answer, really, is No, actually it wasn't (see https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Talk:Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17#Final_minutes_in_the_air). --[[User:Two Dogs|Two Dogs]] ([[User talk:Two Dogs|talk]]) 15:12, 17 August 2014 (IST)
 
This map appears to have been derived from FlightAware data. FlightAware doesn't have any coverage in this area and so these lines are just drawn between where they lost coverage and when they picked it up again. If the MSM (and ZeroHedge) had checked with FlightAware first, then this map - and all its variants - would not be in existence. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-17/was-flight-mh-17-diverted-over-restricted-airspace appears to be the source for for this particular map. In answer to their question "Was Flight MH-17 Diverted Over Restricted Airspace?" the answer, really, is No, actually it wasn't (see https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Talk:Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17#Final_minutes_in_the_air). --[[User:Two Dogs|Two Dogs]] ([[User talk:Two Dogs|talk]]) 15:12, 17 August 2014 (IST)
 
: As with https://wikispooks.com/wiki/File:MH17_Crash_Site.jpg - this graphic is just plain wrong. I'm not suggesting that there was anything sinister/devious/malicious about how it originated, the ZeroHedge interpretation of the data or the placement of it into the article. It's just the continuing 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]]) 11:13, 18 August 2014 (IST)
 
: As with https://wikispooks.com/wiki/File:MH17_Crash_Site.jpg - this graphic is just plain wrong. I'm not suggesting that there was anything sinister/devious/malicious about how it originated, the ZeroHedge interpretation of the data or the placement of it into the article. It's just the continuing 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]]) 11:13, 18 August 2014 (IST)
 +
:: I have no problem with removing it from the article but probably better to leave it on the system for possible inclusion in timeline as an illustration of how narratives become distorted. A note on the issues needs to be included on the file page --[[User:Peter|Peter P]] ([[User talk:Peter|talk]]) 15:00, 18 August 2014 (IST)

Latest revision as of 14:00, 18 August 2014

This map appears to have been derived from FlightAware data. FlightAware doesn't have any coverage in this area and so these lines are just drawn between where they lost coverage and when they picked it up again. If the MSM (and ZeroHedge) had checked with FlightAware first, then this map - and all its variants - would not be in existence. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-17/was-flight-mh-17-diverted-over-restricted-airspace appears to be the source for for this particular map. In answer to their question "Was Flight MH-17 Diverted Over Restricted Airspace?" the answer, really, is No, actually it wasn't (see https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Talk:Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17#Final_minutes_in_the_air). --Two Dogs (talk) 15:12, 17 August 2014 (IST)

As with https://wikispooks.com/wiki/File:MH17_Crash_Site.jpg - this graphic is just plain wrong. I'm not suggesting that there was anything sinister/devious/malicious about how it originated, the ZeroHedge interpretation of the data or the placement of it into the article. It's just the continuing 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) 11:13, 18 August 2014 (IST)
I have no problem with removing it from the article but probably better to leave it on the system for possible inclusion in timeline as an illustration of how narratives become distorted. A note on the issues needs to be included on the file page --Peter P (talk) 15:00, 18 August 2014 (IST)