Beech hit. The Ukrainian Buk that shot down the Malaysian Boeing MH17 drove along Khreshchatyk

They say they have been waiting for the promised three years, but here the fourth is running out. And suddenly a powerful material evidence appears: a part of a rocket with a serial number!

"The missile engine's casing shows the number 9 d 1318869032. The JIT-investigation up to now indicates the following meaning of this number. 9d 131 relates to the number of the missile engine of the 9M38 type and/or 9M38M1 type. The number 8 is the manufacturer's code, namely: the Dolgoprudny Research and Manufacturing Enterprise in Moscow.The number 86 indicates the year of production, namely 1986. And the number 9032 is the unique identification number of this specific missile engine.
The JIT has established that this involves a missile of the 9M38 Buk-series. To what extent both parts belong to the missile that was launched by the BUK TELAR of the 53rd brigade can, as yet, not be said with certainty.

The rocket motor case shows the number 9d 1318869032. The Jit investigation still points to the next value of this number. 9d 131 is one of the rocket engines of the type9M38 and/or 9M38M1. Number 8-Code of the manufacturer, namely: Research and Production Enterprise "Dolgoprudny" in Moscow. Number 86 indicates the year of production, namely 1986. And the number 9032 is the unique identification number of this particular rocket engine.
The JIT determined that this includes the 9m38 Buk-series missile. To what extent do both parts relate to missiles that were launched by BUK TELAR from the 53rd brigade,We can't say for sure yet." (from comment)

This material evidence can also be seen in the photo in the Reuters publication.

Questions that arise:

1. Where, when and who discovered this item? According to the logic of events, it should be within the area of ​​​​the wreckage of the Boeing. The representatives of the DPR were the first to find the wreckage, and they handed them over along with the "black boxes". EMNIP, then foreign search engines came there. Without a history of the discovery of this object, such proof is worthless, no matter what version it "confirms".

2. According to the number, it is theoretically possible to determine who had this missile at the time of separation: Russia or Ukraine.

3. This is already a meme, but highly likely - this is a rocket of Ukraine, because at the time of the separation of the countries it was still fresh, and in 2014 it was already 28 years old! According to this post: The manufacturer-specified shelf life of the Buk missile is 15 years, after which irreversible and dangerous changes in chemical composition fuel." The warranty period of storage is 10 years. And it's been almost 30 years! Russia in the range of 2011-2014 re-equipped Buk systems with new missiles. And Ukraine in 2008 fired old Buk missiles and one of them exploded 1.5 minutes after the launcher left the ramp (link). A little more than 10 years have passed and rockets are already exploding abnormally. And after almost 30 years, who dares to shoot? Therefore, we return to question number 1: where did this artifact come from?

Based on these numbers and marks, Bellingcat researchers identified the SAM as a Buk, number 332, assigned to the 53rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade (military unit 32,406).

The photo with the mechanic was taken at the transport yard of the 53rd brigade, the report notes. This is confirmed by another picture published by an unnamed cadet in August 2014 (the authors of the report do not indicate the name of the publisher, it is only known that he was training in Kursk in the direction of one of the Moscow universities). The picture shows the same pink missile container. The geotag confirms that the photo was taken in the courtyard of the 53rd brigade in the village of Marshal Zhukov near Kursk. The authors of the report managed to confirm the geolocation of the photo thanks to satellite images.

An album of photographs was uploaded in February 2015, but neither the mechanic's name nor the date and location where the photographs were taken could be established from them.

As RBC found out, the man in the picture is engaged in repairs military equipment, in particular, he repaired the Buk-M1. The mechanic (his name is known to the editors) explained to RBC that he was in many cities of Russia due to the specifics of his work. He confirmed that he “was definitely” in Kursk in 2013 and “possibly” in 2014.

In addition to the Buk, the album also contains photographs of the S-300 system's 9А85 loading mount, a special vehicle (Bellingcat suggests that this may be automated system control of combat operations "Polyana-D4 9S52") and another installation "Buk-M1". Bellingcat team members identified the mechanic in the photographs and found his profiles in in social networks. On one of the pages they saw a photo of a Buk with the number 332, on the other — a photo of another Buk air defense system and a special vehicle. The last two images were uploaded on March 31, 2013. The third one shows the 9A83 launcher for the 9K81 S-300V anti-aircraft missile system. It was uploaded on June 20, 2013. As Bellingcat noted, "Other photos uploaded before March 31, 2013 and after June 20, 2013 do not show where he [the person in the photos] worked as a military vehicle mechanic."

Based on the fact that the photos were posted online in 2015 in one photo album, and given the conditional number of the car, the authors of the Bellingcat study conclude that it is “almost certain” that the photo was taken in 2013. However, they admit that the photo could have been taken in the spring of 2014.

The tragedy with the Boeing 777 occurred in the sky over eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014 at 16:20 local time. The aircraft was on Malaysian Airlines flight MH17. On board were 298 people, all of them died. Most of the passengers on board were Dutch citizens. A few hours later, allegations began to appear on the Internet that a passenger plane was shot down by pro-Russian separatists from anti-aircraft missile system"Buk", mistaking a civilian aircraft for a military one. Bellingcat later reported that the air defense missile system was number 332, and also reported that the complex was assigned to the 53rd anti-aircraft missile brigade from Kursk. The car was delivered from Kursk to Millerovo (Rostov region), and from there to the east of Ukraine, investigators say. According to them, the transportation of the Buk was carried out by a retired Russian officer Sergei Dubinsky, who appeared in the media as the commander of the intelligence of the DPR with the call sign Khmuriy. He himself denied any involvement in the death of the liner.

The Dutch Safety Board, in its final report on the circumstances of the Boeing 777 crash, called the crash caused by a ground-to-air missile fired from a Buk launcher. According to the head of the investigation, Tiibbe Jaustra, the missile was launched from an area of ​​320 sq. km (both militia and Ukrainian forces were in the specified zone). As a result, the wreckage of the aircraft was scattered over an area of ​​50 square meters. km.

Russia's position

RBC is awaiting a response from the Russian Ministry of Defense regarding new facts in the case of the destruction of MH17.

After the plane crash in July 2014, Andrey Kartapolov, Deputy Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, voiced the Russian version of the crash. All data from the Russian agency indicates that MH17 was shot down by Ukrainian forces, he said. Official Moscow has always denied the participation of active Russian military personnel in the conflict in Ukraine.​

In October 2015, specialists from the Almaz-Antey military concern conducted their own investigation into the Boeing 777 crash. It follows from it that the airliner was shot down by a missile that was no longer used by the Russian military from the territory that was not then controlled by any of the parties to the conflict in Donbass.

In September 2016, the Russian Ministry of Defense briefing passed on the subject of collapse. The Utes-T radar complex, located in the Rostov region, did not record any foreign objects near the MH17 route before the crash, said Viktor Meshcheryakov, deputy chief designer of the complex. If the missile of the Buk complex had been launched from the area controlled by the rebels of Donbass, then Utes-T would have detected it, Meshcheryakov explained. Major General Andrey Koban, head of the radio engineering troops of the Aerospace Forces, who was present at the same briefing, added that the Buk missile was not a difficult target for Utyos-T. For comparison: the radar complex detected a much more difficult target - the flight of the Orlan-10 drone, which "loitered along the Russian-Ukrainian border on the territory of Russia," the major general noted.

“It is no coincidence that the Ukrainian side is hiding from the investigation, the relatives of the victims and the world community information that would allow us to establish the full picture of the disaster,” Defense Ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov said at a briefing.

Bellingcat is an international journalistic group founded on July 15, 2014 by British journalist Eliot Higgins. The task of the team is to unite citizen journalists in investigating current events. Now the main project of Bellingcat is to investigate the circumstances of the crash of the Malaysian Boeing. The team also monitors the military campaign in Syria, including the actions of Russian military personnel. In its reports, Bellingcat relies on open sources: video and photo materials posted on social networks, satellite images.

WILL NOT GO, WILL NOT PASS

Anticipating his, no doubt, curious factual material, the American journalist Patrick Lancaster said that he had been investigating the death of the tragic MH-17 flight for almost four years, and “more than anyone else worked at the crash site of the Boeing.” It really is. Patrick has been living in Donetsk for several years, married a local girl, and recently became a father.

After the "Joint Investigation Group" in Holland made public the probable route of the Buk anti-aircraft missile system, which allegedly arrived in Donbass via Luhansk, directly from the Russian military unit near Kursk, Patrick Lancaster, who knows the state of roads and bridges in the South-East Ukraine doubted this fact. The weight of the trailer on which the BUK was transported, the tractor and the weight of the Buk installation itself with four missiles easily folded, as a result, it turned out neither more nor less - 56.3 tons. It is difficult to transport such cargo on secondary roads. Most bridges in Donbass have a weight limit of 20-25 tons, 30 tons at best.

After the "Joint Investigation Group" in Holland made public the probable route of the Buk anti-aircraft missile system, which allegedly arrived in Donbass via Luhansk, directly from the Russian military unit near Kursk, Patrick Lancaster, who knows the state of roads and bridges in the South-East Ukraine doubted this fact. The weight of the trailer on which the BUK was transported, the tractor and the weight of the Buk installation itself with four missiles easily folded, as a result, it turned out neither more nor less - 56.3 tons. It is difficult to transport such cargo on secondary roads. Most bridges in Donbass have a weight limit of 20-25 tons, 30 tons at best.

KP journalists, during the Debaltsevo operation, near Logvinovo, saw and filmed a Ukrainian T-72AV tank, which was trying to escape from the boiler along some regional highway, and collapsed into the river along with the bridge. Moreover, this bridge looked “reliable” - a covering of sleepers on a powerful channel, concrete supports, but it could not withstand 45 tons of tank weight.

The Ukrainian T-72AV tank tried to escape from the boiler along some regional highway, and collapsed into the river along with the bridge Photo: screenshot from Dmitry Steshin's video

NEITHER WEIGHT, NOR HEIGHT

In order not to be like Western “sofa” investigators, Patrick took with him bridge engineer Sergei, chief specialist of the department of artificial structures of the Ministry of Transport of the DPR (he comments on the video without hiding his face, but does not give his last name for a number of reasons) and went with him to the alleged Buk route.

We are located under the overpass near the city of Khartsizsk, near the traffic control post. The overpass has a weight limit of 30 tons and is in an unsatisfactory condition, because current repairs were carried out for a very long time or were not carried out at all. There are no bridges that could withstand such a load (more than 50 tons - ed.) in the district. In general, there are very, very few such bridges on the territory of the DPR.

The next point in the investigation of Patrick and Sergey: the overpass dam near ZUGRES, his Buk could not have passed either. Sergei reports a weight limit of 25 tons. Such structures are built with some tolerances exceeding their maximum load, but not more than twice, not 30 tons! The next overpass - the same limit - 25 tons, and another one - 24 tons.

Further, in the course of their field research, Patrick and Sergey find out one curious detail - the height of the Buk on the trailer is 4.7 meters, and on most of the bridges under which the trailer was supposed to pass there is a sign with a height limit of 4.5 meters . Theoretically, this difference of twenty centimeters can be tried to be eliminated by depressurizing the 12 tires of the trailer to a minimum. Then pump it back up if the wheels do not disassemble ... And in Perevalsk - the height of the bridge is 3.8 meters and the trailer will not pass under it, well, no way.

The beech that shot down the Boeing could not come from Russia.

ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FRONT

At the end of this journey along the route of the mythical Buk, the engineer sums up - "such a trip would require complex technical solutions and would take two or three weeks." And Patrick Lancaster notes that in the report of the JIT (“Joint Investigation Team”) it is not at all accidental that the probable route of the Buk is shown by an abstract arrow. Most likely, the SOU 9A310 SAM "Buk-M1" arrived at the position from a completely different side of the front line and the state border of Russia.

SININTER GUEST FROM DNIPR

"Buk" No. 312 came to Donbass from Dnepropetrovsk", - says a blogger with the nickname White Mongol, in reality, Pavel Gagalinsky. Declares and puts on the Web as many as 34 pictures of the notorious Buk. The pictures were taken at the so-called Yasinovatsky checkpoint of the AIM a few months before the tragedy - on March 17, 2014.

Pavel Gagalinsky posted pictures of the notorious Buk on the Web. The pictures were taken at the so-called Yasinovatsky DAI checkpoint

A day after the referendum in the Crimea. And a few days later, KP journalists drove through this post, having got out of Crimea by train and rented a car in Lugansk. This is the main entrance post to Donetsk, standing on a brand new highway going to Lugansk. Now, however, the front line passes through the place where the Buk was filmed, very close is the so-called Promka - a place of fierce battles recent years. And even the foundation is no longer left from the post of the AIM. But, in March 2014, it was relatively quiet there. Then we noticed that next to the "daishniks" there was another post - the first Donetsk rebels with St. George's ribbons stood on it. "Daishniks" were not against it. Actually, one of the picketers filmed this Buk, as well as the numbers of the trailer that transported the anti-aircraft missile system.

Pyotr Gagalinsky believes this Buk arrived from Dnepropetrovsk. Geographically, the path is absurd. They do not go to Dnepropetrovsk through the Yasinovatsky post, there is a shorter road, only 250 kilometers. And, most likely, such a long route, through Gorlovka and Bakhmut, was chosen precisely because of the weight of the trailer and the installation of the air defense system itself.

That is, the Boeing was most likely shot from this Ukrainian Buk.

And it so happened that two seemingly different versions - Patrick and Peter, completely unrelated people, suddenly confirmed each other with a difference of a day. This is not an arrow drawn by JIT hacks on a Google map of Donbass.

Pyotr Gagalinsky believes this Buk arrived from Dnepropetrovsk

WHOSE LOGIC OF REINFORCED CONCRETE

It would be better if the Westerners, instead of disgracing themselves, getting out of their last strength, made public the data of the “black boxes” and closed this tragic topic with the MH17 flight. By the way, the flight recorders were handed over to international experts at the end of July 2014, and no one else saw or heard from them. And he doesn’t know what’s inside, although, as world practice shows, 99% of recorders survive in disasters and without special problems give out all the information in a day, a maximum of a week. Almost four years have passed, according to rumors, the contents of the "black boxes" for some reason undertook to decipher the UK, and is still doing this. In the meantime, these recorder data are not made public, journalists and bloggers have to investigate bridges and accidentally taken photos. Moreover, the Dutch “Joint Investigation Team” itself is also building its “evidence” on fragmentary stuffing and photoshopped pictures on social networks. And it does not take into account either the full-scale experiments of the Russian holding company Almaz-Antey, which produces Buks, or the radar data of the sky over the Donbass at the time of the tragedy, provided by the Russian side. Also, for some reason, the Ukrainian side did not request records of the negotiations of the air traffic controllers who turned the Boeing from the original route to the fatal one, nor data from space satellites The United States, which, as the Americans themselves said, saw all the movements in the conflict zone in the Donbass. And most importantly, the “black boxes” of the Boeing are suspiciously silent ...

In this scenario, the investigations of an American journalist in the Donbass and a blogger from Facebook, the White Mongol, turn out to be much more weighty than the entire “evidence base” of the Dutch “Joint Investigation Group”. Because these investigations were at least made on the site of the tragedy, with reinforced concrete facts and logic, and not virtually and with an obvious political goal given to everyone.

Subscribe to us

28.05.2018 - 22:31

About the report of the Joint Investigation Team, or what the international investigators did not pay attention to.

“If stars light up in the sky, then someone needs it”

(A. Exupery. "The Little Prince")

Instead of a preface

The Joint Investigation Team (JIT) once again held a press conference on May 24, at which its representatives once again said that the Malaysian Boeing, it seems, was shot down from a Buk brought from Russia.

The development of this story is extremely characteristic of modern Western politics. No one bothers to make good arguments, and everyone is sure that the layman will believe any story if it is told enough times.

This time, during a press conference, the head of the SSG F. Westerbeke, as an allegedly proven fact, stated that the Buk air defense system, which shot down the Boeing, arrived from Russia. At the same time, according to him, the SSG managed to prove the identity of the Buk anti-aircraft missile system of the 53rd anti-aircraft missile brigade, recorded on video in June 2014 in Belgorodskaya and Rostov regions and installation "Buk", filmed on a video recorder in Makiivka on July 17, 2014.

A comparative analysis of the tactical number of the vehicles (the notorious number 332) and the transport markings applied on the left side, according to the "investigators", indisputably confirms the location of the SOU No. 332 of the 53rd brigade in the Donbass in July 2014.

Vaguely stating that in addition to the materials presented at the press conference, there is still a lot of various “evidence”, F. Westerbeke lets slip about the significant contribution to the investigation of the Bellingcat blogging community, headed by an employee of the think tank of the US State Department, the American NGO Atlantic Council, (Atlantic Council) Eliot Higgens.

In this investigation, based on the materials submitted by the JIT, we will prove that F. Westerbeke's statement about the involvement of the Russian self-propelled firing system (SDA) in the death of the Boeing on July 17, 2014 is false.

According to F. Westerbeke, the JIT investigators carried out a detailed analysis distinctive features self-propelled firing system (SDA) of the Buk air defense system, depicted in photographs taken in the Belgorod region and in the Donbass. This allowed them to unambiguously draw a conclusion about the involvement Russian Federation to the crash of the Boeing. However, it would be difficult to expect a different result from them. Even if we do not take into account the obvious anti-Russian context of the ongoing “objective” international investigation and its custom nature, it is obvious that the investigation is going along the wrong path, outlined by the Bellingcat falsifiers.

This is confirmed by the materials presented at the press conference, taken from the dubious reports of the "sofa" investigators E. Higgens about the involvement of the "Buk" of the 53rd anti-aircraft missile brigade in the tragedy of July 17, 2014.

At the same time, it is bewildering that, while continuing to compare implicit signs in the photographs of the SOU - images of markings, dents and scratches, the JIT persistently ignores the obvious facts that completely refute their version of the presence of the Russian Buk in Ukraine.

And the truth is, the Buk from the 53rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade has never crossed the Ukrainian border and has nothing to do with the Buk on the white trailer photographed in Ukraine in Makiivka. We are talking about the fact that the cars shown in the photographs belong to to various modifications and for some inexplicable reason, the SSG specialists did not pay attention to this fact.

The fact is that, despite the external similarity, the SDA of various modifications has certain features. These include the presence of a folding platform on the left side of the machine.

Cars produced after 1984 began to be equipped with similar platforms. The site was added for ease of access of the calculation to the hull of the JMA during its operation.

This Bellingcat theorists, who prepared their falsification so carefully, apparently did not know. The JIT investigators did not know this either.

Consider an example of a 9A310 M1-2 modification SDA, which provides for a folding platform on the body of the caterpillar chassis (Buk-M1 air defense system). As you can see in the photo, the platform stands out noticeably on the body of the machine.

Photo SOU SAM "Buk" modification 9A310 M1-2 with a folding platform

Now let's compare it with the Buk anti-aircraft missile system of an earlier modification, released before 1984. The presented photo shows the 9A310 SOU (not 9A310 M1, namely 9A310!) SAM 9K37 "Buk" without a folding platform on the chassis body.

Photo of SOU SAM "Buk" modification 9A310 without a folding platform

So, in the presentation presented during a press conference on May 24, 2018, the SSG on all frames fixing the movement of the column of the 53rd anti-aircraft missile brigade across the territory of Russia on the back of the left side of the SOU, "suspected" of being involved in the tragedy with the Boeing ”, the loose folding platform, which was mentioned above, is clearly visible.

Freeze frame for 1 min. 9 seconds of presentation (site visible)

Freeze frame for 2 min. 36 seconds of presentation (site visible)

Freeze frame for 3 min. 23 seconds of presentation (site visible)

Freeze frame for 5 min. 26 seconds of presentation (site visible)

Freeze frame for 5 min. 34 seconds of presentation (site visible)

At the same time, in the pictures taken in Ukraine in the Makiivka region, there is no folding platform.

Freeze frame for 5 min. 35 second presentation (no platform available)

The site is also missing from the photo taken by journalists of the French tabloid Paris Match in Donetsk.

Photo of the Buk missile defense system from the Paris Match magazine (the site is missing)

Comparative pictures of the Buk missile launcher taken in the Belgorod region(right) and in Ukraine: screenshot from a DVR (left)

This means only one thing - in the photographs taken in Russia and Ukraine, the self-propelled guns of the Buk air defense system of various modifications were recorded, that is, we are talking about two different machines, which means the Russian Buk of the 53rd brigade (at least "3 × 2" , although "332") did not cross the border with Ukraine.

Was there a white trailer in Makiivka on July 17, 2014?

As evidence of the involvement of the 53rd brigade in the crash of the Boeing, the SSG cites data from a car video recorder that recorded a white Volvo trailer passing through Makiivka, transporting the Buk air defense system.

The footage from the DVR shows that the route of the trailer passed by the Parallel gas station. According to Google Maps, there is only one Parallel filling station in Makiivka, located at 52 Avtotransportnaya Street.

Parallel gas station located at 52 Avtotransportnaya Street (Google Maps image)

Gas station "Parallel", located at Avtotransportnaya street, 52. (frame from the video recorder)

The landscape features in the Google Maps image and the footage from the DVR match, which allows you to accurately determine the place.

However, not all so simple. The key question that needs to be answered is whether this video was filmed exactly on July 17, 2014, as the JIT (read Bellingcat) claims, or at another time?

The “sofa” investigation conducted according to the Bellingcat method showed a result opposite to that which was made public by the JIT - there was no trailer on the day of the Boeing crash in Makiivka.

This is confirmed by a video filmed by eyewitnesses of the movement of a column of militia military equipment against the background of the same gas station along Avtotransportnaya Street, which was also captured by the video recorder. The authors of the video uploaded it to YouTube on July 15, 2014. This allows us to state that it was filmed at least two days before, according to the JIT, the video was filmed.

Screenshot of a video filmed in front of the Parallel gas station on July 15, 2014

In case someone has doubts about the reliability of the date of placement of the video, a link to it was posted on July 16, 2014 by RIA Novosti Ukraine. This video has now been removed for some reason. However, according to the text of the message that accompanied him, it can be confidently stated that we are talking about the same frames.

Screenshot of the RIA Novosti Ukraine page with a link to a video about the movement of a convoy of militia equipment in Makiivka dated July 15, 2014

The study of both videos showed that they were filmed in the same place, only from different angles.

The angle from which the column of equipment was filmed on July 15, 2014 (a picture from a video recorder, allegedly taken on July 17, 2014).

On the video, dated July 15, it can be seen that before the column of vehicles passed, the asphalt surface of the road was not damaged. After the passage of the column, characteristic dents from the tracks remained on the roadway.

After the passage of the column on July 15, 2014, there were clearly visible characteristic traces left by caterpillar vehicles

Dashcam footage allegedly taken on July 17, 2014 shows no visible signs of damage on the road left on July 15

At the same time, on the frames from the DVR, allegedly made two days later, there are no visible signs of damage caused by heavy equipment on the road. If we discard the version that in the period from July 15 to July 17, 2014, the asphalt surface was replaced on this section of the road, then the conclusion becomes obvious - DVR footage taken before July 15, 2014.

This way you can make disappointing for Bellingcat conclusions:

The dashcam footage was taken prior to July 15, 2014. They do not prove the location of the Buk trailer on the day of the Boeing crash in Makiivka.

Thus, all the allegations that the Boeing was shot down from the Buk launcher, transported on a white trailer on July 17, 2014 through Makiivka, are groundless.

Instead of a conclusion

Unfortunately, the interim report on the results of the investigation into the crash of the Malaysian Boeing, presented on May 24 by the JIT, once again demonstrated its bias. The international investigation, making extensive use of the materials provided by the Bellingcat group, does not seek to establish the true causes of the tragedy, but only fulfills the anti-Russian order of Washington.

At the same time, it remained behind the scenes that Eliot Higgins, representing the American NGO Atlantic Council, the day after the JIT press conference, presented another Bellingcat report accusing Russia of the Boeing crash. Is this a coincidence? Unlikely.

Page from the official site of the "Atlantic Council" indicating the position of an employee of the organization - Eliot Higgins

Cooperation with the Atlantic Council largely explains the anti-Russian focus of Bellingcat’s “investigations”. It is noteworthy that none of the war crimes of the United States and its allies in the anti-ISIS* coalition that resulted in the death of civilians in Iraq and Syria interested them.

However, why be surprised? As the famous character of the film "Mimino" said, "Whoever dines a girl, he dances her." In this case, the truth about the crash of the Boeing 777 in the sky over Ukraine is not provided for by the menu.

Image copyright AFP Image caption Using the Bellingcat methodology, we can say with a high degree of certainty that this Buk, which participated in the parade on Red Square in 2013, did not shoot down the Malaysian Boeing in July 2014

The Bellingcat International Investigation Team has identified the exact number of the Buk self-propelled missile launcher that Bellingcat believes shot down Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 over Ukraine on July 17, 2014, flying from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur.

The group's new report is titled "Buk 3x2: The Secret of the Lost Number" and is devoted to a detailed analysis of the evidence that can be used to determine which installation was fired from.

"On July 17 and 18, 2014, in eastern Ukraine, a Buk self-propelled firing system, number 332, of the Russian 53rd anti-aircraft missile brigade, based near the city of Kursk, was photographed and videotaped. In one of the videos, this Buk, which we previously referred to as Buk 3x2, moving towards the center of the area, from where, according to the Dutch Safety Board, the missile that downed MH17 was launched," the authors of the report conclude.

Thus, Bellingcat experts claim that with the help of open sources, mainly publications on social networks, they determined not only the circle of persons involved in the Boeing crash, but also named the specific weapon that was in service at that moment Russian army from which the shot was fired.

Russia has consistently denied any involvement in the MH17 tragedy, which killed 298 people.

Car number 332

Bellingcat considers it an established fact that the missile that downed the Boeing was launched by one of the self-propelled units from the Russian 53rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade based near Kursk - this was the subject of previous Bellingcat investigations.

However, in the photographs of the Buk, which allegedly shot down the Malaysian liner, the number is partially erased, or rather, the central digit of the three-digit number, so this Buk is conventionally called "3x2".

"During the analysis of open sources, we found that the numbers are applied to the installations in accordance with the structure of the unit. We can say that this is the code number of the unit. The first digit indicates the division, the second - the battery in the division, and the third - the conditional number of the vehicle in the battery, " - the authors of the Bellingcat report explain, concluding that the desired Buk does not have a number indicating the battery number of the 3rd division.

Image copyright AP Image caption The first digit in the Buk number indicates the division, the second - the battery in the division, the third - the number of the vehicle in the battery

In the picture of the Buk, paint residues from the central number are visible, but it is impossible to say exactly which of the three possible ones - "1", "2" or "3".

Bellingcat enthusiasts found photos of all three Buks of this division taken from 2009 to 2013 on the VKontakte social network and compared all the features of each of the machines that can be seen in the pictures: damage to the hull, location of external electrical wires, the shape of paint stains, oil and soot , as well as the font and spacing between the digits of the number.

"None of these features, taken in isolation, allows a sufficiently convincing match. However, the combination of all these distinctive features represents a unique set of characteristics and can be considered sufficient for unambiguous identification," the authors of the report conclude.

Bellingcat recalls that the movement of the Buk through eastern Ukraine on July 17 and 18 (that is, the day MH17 went down and the next day) was captured in four photos and three videos.

"When comparing seven distinguishing features SOU "Buk" of the 53rd anti-aircraft missile brigade under the numbers 312, 322 and 332 shows that only the "Buk 332" has more than one line match with the "Buk 3x2". Four of the observed features can persist for a long time, one is partially visible in old images, and the other two are missing from them," the authors of the report say.

Dutch investigation

On October 13, 2015, the Dutch Safety Board, investigating the causes and consequences of accidents and disasters, submitted its final report on the crash of Malaysia Airlines MH17.

It said that the cause of the disaster was a Buk missile that exploded to the left of the cockpit. However, no conclusions were made about who could have fired this rocket.

Experts only outlined an area of ​​320 square kilometers from which a rocket could be launched. The village of Snezhnoye is located in this area, from the area of ​​which, according to Bellingcat, the rocket that shot down the Boeing was fired.

Shortly after the Dutch report, the Russian defense concern Almaz-Antey (manufacturer of the Buk systems) held a press conference to present the results of its own investigation into the crash.

According to the concern, the rocket was launched from the area south of the village of Zaroshchenskoe, which at the time of the disaster was under the control of Ukrainian security forces. On this basis, Antey's specialists claimed that the missile was launched by the Ukrainian military.

Version war

In February 2016, Bellingcat released what is probably its most sensational publication on the sinking of the liner - "MH17: Potential Suspects and Witnesses from the 53rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade."

This report names all those who, according to Bellingcat, are responsible for making the decision and launching a missile into a passenger aircraft: the brigade commander, the commander of the 2nd division, which may have included the launcher. The commanders of batteries and crews are named by their first names and the first letters of their surnames.

The list of suspects, presented as a hierarchical chart with photos, names and positions, is not limited to the ranks of the brigade at Bellingcat.

The top row is occupied by four photos, which depict the Supreme Commander of the Russian Armed Forces, the Minister of Defense and his two first deputies.

Image copyright Reuters Image caption Dutch investigators have concluded that the Malaysian Boeing was shot down by a missile anti-aircraft complex Buk, however, have not yet announced who, in their opinion, controlled the installation

In response to this publication, the Russian side - represented by Antey experts - prepared a new, more detailed description of its version, adding the village of Velikaya Shishovka, neighboring Zaroshchensky, to the list of potential missile launch points.

The blame for the launch of the rocket was still assigned, according to this version, to the Ukrainian military.

However, Bellingcat considers the version of "Antey" in any of its modifications to be untenable.

Bellingcat asserts with a high degree of certainty that, even if we agree with Almaz-Antey's version of the missile's launch site, the Ukrainian military still could not launch it.

Based on information from open sources - mostly geotagged photos on social networks - enthusiastic investigators concluded that on July 17, the day of the Boeing crash, there were no Ukrainian Buk installations in the Zaroshchensky area.

In the same way, the version about the launch point near Velyka Shishovka was checked: as a result of the check, it was recognized that there were no Ukrainian Buk missiles there either.

Bellingcat acknowledges that the data collected does not allow any conclusions to be drawn as to which side of the armed conflict controlled the zone.

However, a comparison of the available more recent data from the area allows Bellingcat experts to assume that on July 17, 2014, the Russian military was already there, as the report says.