Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17

From Wikispooks
Revision as of 14:28, 23 July 2021 by Robin (talk | contribs) (Text replacement - "demonisation " to "demonisation ")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Initial article observations

This is a model Deep event and as such deserves deep and thoughtful attention. Thanks to Patrick for starting it but Lockerbie parallels, whilst valid, are a VERY minor part of an extremely complex event and one which clearly has near-unprecedented geo-political ramifications. I have collected a vast amount of data on it and have studied its development to date in more depth than anything else in years. I intend to start collating the data and adding to/editing the article as and when I get the time. In the meantime don't be put off adding to it but please make sure the non-western MSM commentary is given due weight. It is also worth remarking on the near unanimous, absurd rush to judgement and demonisation of Russia by the Western commercially-controlled media and its politicos. Their story was Ready to go and it did so with near unprecedented fury and unanimity - which really ought to tell us something.

Also, the reference I deleted alleged uncertainty about Russia's intentions and that the 'separatists' were accused of impeding site investigation. Those are allegations, fairly typical of the western commercially-controlled media when reporting deep events. Part and parcel of the way in which the developing Official Narrative is moulded. Their point of view and spurious allegations get quite enough attention without Wikispooks giving them more exposure, other than to point out their flagrant bias. --Peter P (talk) 17:45, 24 July 2014 (IST)

Events in Gaza in the past few days seem to have overshadowed MH17. However, some doughty campaigners such as Peter Lavelle of Russia Today are intent on keeping MH17 to the forefront:
On Wednesday 23 July 2014, Russia Today's Peter Lavelle was interviewed by CNN's Chris Cuomo. This is what Peter had to say after the interview: "Some thoughts on the CNN interview: First, I had never heard of Chris Cuomo before. I simply don’t watch CNN. Second, of course I expected this was a setup. CNN despises RT. Why would CNN give a RT host airtime unless they were looking for a slam-dunk interview knocking me out? Third, I also fully expected to encounter a charlatan journalist. Cuomo certainly presented himself as person with emotions (drama queen), but also unable to marshal basic facts. Lastly, it is pity it was so short, I was just getting warmed up."
This is CNN's edited version of the Cuomo/Lavelle interview that was risibly headlined: "Russian TV host blames Ukraine for MH17".--Patrick Haseldine (talk) 21:59, 25 July 2014 (IST)
Thanks Patrick. I believe I have not missed much of significance in this matter from the outset. I'm just very tardy about organsing, authoring and posting what I know - mainly for family/time-constraint reasons. I am very familiar with Peter Lavelle and have all his crosstalk shows + that CNN attempted hatchet-job archived. For info, here are 5 sites which are must-reads to be sure of staying on top of news and events which the Commercially-controlled media suppresses:
  • Vineyard of the Saker - English. Run by a Russian ex-pat living in Florida - a site mirror/backup is hosted in the Wikispooks VPS.
  • No Limit to our anger - English. Run by Glab Bazov, a Russian ex-pa living in Canada
  • Colonel Cassad - Russian with English translations that tend to run 24 hours behind. Run by a Sevastopol-based group.
  • Deep politics Forum - English. Various threads. I provide the tech-support for the site and sometimes chip in. --Peter P (talk) 07:07, 26 July 2014 (IST)
Four fascinating sites Peter. Here's a fifth that I came across today:

Missing MH

Wikipedia's article "Malaysia Airlines Flight 17" notes that "MH is the IATA designator and MAS is the ICAO designator. The flight is also marketed as KLM Flight 4103 (KL4103) through a codeshare agreement." However, the flight is almost universally described in the media as "Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17", also in the text of UNSCR 2166 (2014). When importing from WP, I don't think we should slavishly follow their titling (cf. BRICS Development Bank/New Development Bank).--Patrick Haseldine (talk) 14:57, 25 July 2014 (IST)

I agree. We should avoid slavishly following ANY and ALL WP (and MSM) titling and other phraseology conventions. The purpose of the Glossary is partly to explain Wikispooks departures from MSM conventions. The watch-word should be clarity, that's all; with links to WP pages where appropriate - especially to highlight their bias. So, can't see a compelling reason to have re-titled the page either. However, now its done, it would be make-work to move it and related talk page back again. It's important to keep the redirects though because they are likely to be used in Google searches. Robin's opinion? --Peter P (talk) 07:06, 26 July 2014 (IST)
Agreed - no slavish following of commercially-controlled media (and I say, not even in their self-styling as "mainstream" - I consider extreme a more fitting soubriquet[1]:). I changed this title for consistency - to match the other flights. What will be important is that there is a redirect at least that matches WP (important pending a reorganisation of how WP+ works). I don't see that it matters much whether the title has "MH" in it or not. Robin (talk) 13:25, 26 July 2014 (IST)


Can't figure out why sub-pages template is not working on this page. It was added over 24 hours ago so I doubt it is a Jobs queue issue.

I'm also putting a link to the timeline sub page on the Main page temporarily because it does not show in any of the current Main Page boxes and I expect to have some new contributors keen to find it. --Peter P (talk) 12:14, 28 July 2014 (IST)

I clarified the description of Template:SubPages - in order to show up, subPages have to use an object template. This is not a bug, since all pages should have an object template. We may wish to have a dedicated 'timeline' object. It would also not be hard to make it appear, e.g. at the top of the event box - somewhere standardised would be good, so people know where to look. What would be good behaviour for linking in timelines into main pages, I wonder? Robin (talk) 01:50, 8 August 2014 (IST)
A dedicated timeline object is probably the way to go. The problem is that, as currently implemented, each timeline has its own template (ie not a single template for all timelines), with event selection done by category. Also, the necessarily strange names for timeline event pages mean that they would be better in a dedicated namespace - along with their timeline pages. The problem with that is that the current implementation of the simile timeline includes the namespace in the event name (ie page name) on the actual timeline and there are only about 30 characters available to construct a sensible name that uniquely identifies the event. All of this has greatly inhibited my wish to put up new timelines because I'm forever bogged down in these sorts of techie work-arounds. There seems to be no current development of this or the Chap Timeline at present either. --Peter P (talk) 07:42, 8 August 2014 (IST)

Final minutes in the air

This may seem a bit pedantic, but there appear to be some errors in the article. No need to give anybody reason to dismiss the article on those grounds:

The map that shows previous MH17 tracks "avoiding" east Ukraine ( 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. 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 below).

The last position transmitted by MH17 (directly from Flightradar24 database) shows that the signal was lost at 13:21:28 UTC, Airspeed: 490 kts, Alt: 33,000 ft, Location: 48.0403 38.7728 (overhead Snizhne), heading: 118.

This location is about 15-20km from the debris area. MH17 had flown past the crash site - and was heading even further from it - when transmission was lost (overhead Snizhne). It was only about 2mi/3km off the L980 air-route following the GANRA-TAMAK waypoints - no big deal in air-travel terms.,38.190673831093406&chart=304&zoom=3&plan=F.UK.GANRA:F.UK.TAMAK

Last minutes of MH17

I have no idea what the significance or relevance of this actually is. The MSM obviously don't think it was important because they didn't pick up on it. In the absence of any other info (FDR/CVR from the investigators or ATC data from Kiev) this seems to be the only data available right now. Strange how the "bad" guys handed over the flight-data and voice recorders that would prove their guilt whereas the "good" guys held back the ATC data that would prove their innocence.

Anyway, the lead says: "This altitude was maintained until last contact by ADS-B receivers of flight tracking websites, about 13:21 UTC."As only ONE flight tracking website actually had the coverage to verify this, the sentence should be changed to "website" (singular) - at least. Personally, I think some of the above info should also be included.

Moving on, we have "Malaysia Airlines reported that MH17 filed a flight plan requesting FL350 throughout Ukrainian airspace. However, the flight was instructed by Ukrainian air traffic control to fly at FL330". Perhaps a better source for this would be Malaysia Airlines themselves:

Friday, July 18, 08:20 PM GMT +0800 Media Statement 4 : MH17 Incident...
2. Altitude
MH17 filed a flight plan requesting to fly at 35,000ft throughout Ukrainian airspace. This is close to the ‘optimum’ altitude.
However, an aircraft’s altitude in flight is determined by air traffic control on the ground. Upon entering Ukrainian airspace, MH17 was instructed by Ukrainian air traffic control to fly at 33,000ft.

I say this because doesn't obviously say where they got this info from, even though they quote that does. Why make it hard for readers to find the actual source? I'm also a little sceptical about this - partly because it comes from a Malaysian Airlines press officer. It's normal to climb up during a flight as fuel is used up and so the FL350 may have been the 'aim-for' height as the flight progressed. Without seeing the actual IFR flight plan that was filed it's not possible to say. MH17 approached UKR airspace at FL310.

Having said that, I would just like to point out that an extra 2,000 feet of altitude would not have stopped it being hit by either a BUK or an air-to-air missile. So I'm not really sure what this sentence adds to the article. The Ukrainian authorities have plenty to answer for anyway. I know this is repeating myself but: strange how the "bad" guys handed over the flight-data and voice recorders that would prove their guilt whereas the "good" guys held back the ATC data that would prove their innocence. --Two Dogs (talk) 14:19, 17 August 2014 (IST)

Comparison with Russian ATC data: Picking the bits out of that deal with MH17 positioning ONLY:

The first map assumes that MH17 was following the L69 air-corridor to TAMAK whereas it was actually on the L980

and so the Russians appear to have jumped to the conclusion that it got onto the L980 by diverting around Donetsk.
On the scheme you can see the international airway. The Boeing-777 was supposed to fly on this airway. Draw your attention to the fact that the aircraft followed inside the specified air-corridor to Donetsk, then it deviated from the route to north. Meanwhile the maximum distance from the left border of the air-corridor was 14 kilometers.
Then we can see that the Boeing-777 turned back to the borders of the specified air-corridor. Nevertheless Malaysian aircrew didn’t succeed the maneuver. At 17.20 we entered the event of the aircraft rate reduction, at 17.23 the aircraft’s point blinked off on the radar. Why did the aircraft cross the border of the air-corridor? Was it the navigation mistake, or the aircrew followed the Dnepropetrovsk ground control orders?

So, from that, only this is worth keeping: at 17.20 we entered the event of the aircraft rate reduction, at 17.23 the aircraft’s point blinked off on the radar. Though it's a lot more than we get from Ukraine

At 17.20 P.M. at the distance of 51 kilometers from the Russian Federation state boundary and the azimuth of 300 degrees the aircraft started to lose its speed obstructively which is quite distinctively to be seen on the table of the aircraft characteristics. At 17.21 35 seconds P.M. with the aircraft speed of 200 km/h at the point of the Boeing crash there is a new mark of the aircraft to be seen. The aircraft was steadily monitored by radar stations of Ust-Donetsk and Butirinskoe during 4 minutes period. Air control officer having enquired the characteristics of newly appeared aircraft couldn’t possibly get them because it is in all likelihood that the aircraft had no secondary deduction system amounted on it, which is put typically for military aircraft. The early detection of this aircraft appeared to be quite impossible because the air situation control is usually performed by radars working in a standby mode which detection possibilities at the given distance are over 5000 m altitude.

Note: the 51km from the border at 17.20 local (from TAMAK) is consistent with FlighRadar24's recording (but the azimuth of 300 degrees only makes sense as a bearing from TAMAK). 17.21 35 seconds onwards seems to refer to the mystery military aircraft that showed up on radar.

edit: having looked at the video for this press-briefing it is clear that the azimuth of 300 degrees does actually refer to a bearing from TAMAK

In summary: the Russian ATC data doesn't seem to contradict the graphic in this section

Deleted BBC report

Is this worth a mention? covers it pretty well. The YouTube video has been deleted now (explanation here ) though someone did save a copy: - someone even did a translation: - though of course these have all now been removed because of copyright violations of the BBC--Two Dogs (talk) 17:08, 17 August 2014 (IST)

The video was included on the WS main page for a couple of days in July - archived here. It would be good to include it on the main page - but there's lots of other stuff that could and should be included too. The BBC has a department called "Brand Protection" (what else?), devoted to removing embarrassing stuff under that catch-all. --Peter P (talk) 16:16, 17 August 2014 (IST)
Must be great to be in a business where you not only get to see history being made but also get to re-write it afterwards. --Two Dogs (talk) 17:08, 17 August 2014 (IST)

Revert to previous image

I've reverted to File:MH17-last-minutes.png because it is clearly superior in content than the original, the timings of which are unambiguously wrong. Had the original been part of a Document rather then an editable original WS article, it would be OK to leave it; but original articles really should contain the best info available --Peter P (talk) 10:05, 19 August 2014 (IST)


Just adding some notes about the Sukhoi Su-25 ground attack aircraft type - in case the subject becomes relevant in the future. Wikipedia got in a bit of a fuss because someone from a Russian gov IP amended the russian-language Wikipedia page - regarding how high an Su-25 can fly. I think it even got a mention in the Telegraph.

Because of the way this suggestion (that an Su-25 may have shot down MH17) was so deterninedly edited out of the english Wikipedia article - I can't help feeling that it touched a nerve:

The page quotes the Service ceiling ( as 7,000m. Above that, it will struggle to climb at more than 500 feet per minute

At the moment, according to STATE COMPANY "UKROBORONSERVICE" (3a, Rossoshanska str., Kyiv, Ukraine, 02093[4]), the "Practical ceiling,m" is "7000-10000". Though maybe this is subject to change without notice. So I've saved a copy at

See also: (10 shot down out of 46 so far, I think). --Two Dogs (talk) 15:22, 19 August 2014 (IST)

Accident investigation

Don't expect this Dutch Safety Board enquiry to shed much light on what happened, in the near-future at least.

7. Will the Dutch Safety Board be publicly releasing the content from the Cockpit Voice Recorder and the Flight Data Recorder? Investigative materials and sources of information used by the Dutch Safety Board in its investigations are protected by law. Only information relevant to determining the cause of the MH17 crash will be included in the final report. The available investigative information will not be released publicly in their entirety, except for what is published in the final report. This is in accordance with the Dutch Safety Board Act (Rijkswet Onderzoeksraad voor Veiligheid) and the ICAO agreement.

8. When will the final report be released? An aviation accident investigation requires a lot of time. Not only is the investigation a complex, delicate and therefore time-consuming process involving various different parties, the Dutch Safety Board is also bound to international regulations that are set out in the ICAO agreement. One of these regulations prescribes that a draft of the final report must be presented for feedback to all parties which are formally involved. These parties then have sixty days to respond to the draft, after which the Dutch Safety Board must incorporate their feedback. The definitive report is expected to be published within one year. --Two Dogs (talk) 12:07, 21 August 2014 (IST)

Does anybody - even in their wildest imaginings - suppose that, were there definitive proof - even damning evidence - in those recorders of rebel and/or Russian responsibility for downing MH17, that it would not already have been leaked and splashed across the western Commercially-controlled media in similar fashion to the days immediately following the event? The plain fact is that the mass of the western public has already been very effectively stampeded to the conclusion that Russia/Putin did it, so western interests are best served by delaying any evidence to the contrary for as long as possible - and obfuscating any such evidence from other sources; which is precisely what is happening. Anyone like to have a go at including these sort of considerations in the article proper? --Peter P (talk) 12:31, 21 August 2014 (IST)
Maybe - just maybe - someone from the Criminal Investigation (The Dutch National Prosecutor’s Office) has had a word with the Dutch Safety Board and read them their horoscope - ie: bad things could happen if you in any way compromise the outcome of a war-crimes investigation. So maybe the Dutch Safety Board is going to make sure it's squeaky clean in its processes and paperwork. --Two Dogs (talk) 13:49, 21 August 2014 (IST)


I noticed that there is the possibility of putting Google maps into a page - though by using a template rather than JavaScript directly. The map I produced was created in JavaScript. So it raises the question of whether the two could be combined. I could supply you the JavaScript and graphics or maybe it can just be edited in?. --Two Dogs (talk) 21:42, 4 September 2014 (IST)

The Semantic Maps extension can use many different mapping services. It is currently configured to use Google Maps by default. It works by linking to Google Maps servers and overlays the coordinates specified as flags on the map. There are a vast array of options and usage possibilities, one of which may well be displaying points specified by coordinates and joined with a line as you have done, but I haven't gone into it that deeply yet. I intend to produce a general template for it today to make usage simpler. I think there is still a place for map images hosted locally though. Have a look at this link for more info. --Peter P (talk) 06:32, 5 September 2014 (IST)