MH17 tragedy- 5 years on

A recent video prepared by independent reporters places serious doubt on the scenario for the MH17 tragedy promoted by pro-western investigators.

Five years on from the MH17 tragedy and attribution of blame is still a huge problem confounded by political agendas.

In July 2014 the Malaysian Airline Flight MH17 was shot down over eastern Ukraine. All 283 passengers and 15 crew died. A Dutch-led international Joint Investigation Team (JIT) has been investigating the tragedy with the aim of determining criminal blame. However, it’s investigation is plagued by geopolitical interests and the current claims of the JIT are unconvincing. Nevertheless, the JIT is planning to start criminal proceeding against four people connected with the separatist movement which rose up in Eastern Ukraine after the February 2014 coup in Kiev.

Geopolitical agendas were, of course, involved right from the moment the tragedy occurred with the USA, other NATO and western countries blaming the tragedy on separatist forces. An evidence-free narrative supported only by the anti-Russian and Russophobia ideologies existing in these countries.

Eventually, these narratives condensed into a story initially promoted by the NATO and Atlantic Council aligned Bellingcat “open source” internet investigation group. The JIT appeared to initially go with this story. Their public appeals for evidence were initially directed simply to confirm the story and no attempt appears to have been made to consider alternative scenarios.

The video above from independent journalist critiques the JIT approach. In particular, there is evidence of fraud in the video evidence collected by Bellingcat and in the telephone taps provided by the Ukrainian security service, the SUB.

I have been particularly concerned about political bias in the JIT. The unwillingness initially to include Malaysia in the team. The unwillingness to carry out investigations at the site – claims that security could not be guaranteed by local authorities are clearly wrong as the Malaysians were able to arrive at the crash site and take delivery of the recovered black boxes from local authorities.

Claims, by a member of the JIT at their most recent press conference (partially covered in the video above), that the Russian Federation refused to cooperate with the JIT were clearly wrong as evidenced by the reply from another member of the JIT to a question from a reporter. The Russian Federation has been providing data (much of it requiring declassification) from the beginning. In particular, they provided information (requested by the JIT) on the manufacture and deployment of the BUK missile used to shoot down the aircraft and also primary radar information related to the destruction of the aircraft (see Flight MH17 tragedy in Ukraine – new evidence).

While receipt of this crucial information by the JIT was acknowledged by one of the JIT spokespeople he seemed to argue that it was not considered because it didn’t fit with their preferred scenario (the missile system had been deployed in Ukraine, not the Russian Federation). The fact that such crucial information is being ignored (even after the JIT had made a public appeal for the information) just shows how political the investigation has become.

I think the politicisation of the JIT is disgusting. It shows a fundamental lack of respect for the 298 lives lost in this tragedy. Those lives and the feelings of surviving relatives should not be used in a blatant geopolitical game.

Unfortunately, the current international political climate probably means that the JIT with its current composition will be unable to bring justice to the victims of this tragedy and their relatives. The involvement of Ukraine (which had possession of the missile system used and political motivation to blame the Russian federation and separatists in Donetsk and Lugansk), the initial exclusion of Malaysia and recent statements by the Malaysian Prime Minister criticising the investigation) and the anti-Russian political alignment of other countries in the JIT (the Netherlands, Australia, and Belgium) simply make this impossible.

Surely a new, politically neutral, investigating team is the only way the victims and their families can get the justice they deserve.

Similar articles

 

 

 

199 responses to “MH17 tragedy- 5 years on

  1. There are lot ways that the JIT investigation looks a fraud.
    1. John Kerry announced he had seen US satellite info that showed the BUK launch and followed it to the explosion. Yet at no point has the US shown this data to the JIT or even told them the launch co-ordinates. Conclusion – they lied. Yet certainly they must have the full info on a rocket launched close to the Russian border in the direction of Europe. And the US did reveal the details when a Ukrainian rocket brought down a Siberian Air craft in 2000.
    2. The inclusion of Ukraine (probable guilty party) in the investigation from the start, with the investigation now purely run on Ukraine staff from Ukraine intelligence with nominal oversight from Holland. While rebels may or may not (still unproven) had access to one BUK in the region at the time, it is not disputed that Ukraine had 2 or 3 working BUKs there.
    3. There has been no advance since the first 3 months towards any court hearing. Indeed the impression is strongly that all courts are to be avoided because they risk defeat. The strategy is to run with the PR based on unchallenged claims for as long as possible.
    4. Certainly the shoot down was a mistake. By someone. Yet the claim has developed from a rebel error to malicious intent by Russian troops. Given the absolute failure by the US, Nato, Ukraine and western media to demonstrate the presence of more than a few dozen Russian troops in Donbas or Crimea (outside the Sevastopol area where up to 20k navy and marines were based), it seems highly unlikely that it happened and much much less likely that the JIT could prove the incursion of a BUK. General Houdges, US Nato general, on multiple occasions claimed 14,000 Russian troops were on duty inside Donbas. They failed to show 20 at any time or place for over a year, so how are they going to prove a specific BUK at a specific place at a specific date without making up the stuff.
    5. JIT opinions have converged on Bellingcat’s. Now if Bellingcat had made a single discovery that did not meet precisely the CIA/MI6. PR requirements in Ukraine or Syria or anyother area Bellingcat specialises in, then perhaps that would be of interest. Or ineed if Bellingcat had made a single discovery that subsequently was supported as accurate by an external independent body following its established practices. But as it is Bellingcat is a pure shill, and the JIT adoption of Bellingcat claims is in essence an admission it has no evidence of its own.

    Like

  2. M Droy – Agree completely. On the question of the separatist forces having access to a BUK system, I have seen reports they had two. One was imperative and the other had been sabotaged by looters before capture so could not be used (according to Dutch intelligence).

    A large fraction of the Ukrainian army defected to separatists (even Poroshenko claimed more than 30% defected) so there was certainly the possibility of a system getting into separatist hands.

    But, considering that the JIT has announced to code number on the missile used and that we now know that had been deployed in Ukraine it should be a simple matter to check where they system ended up. The fact the Ukrainian authorities refuse to release the relevant information suggests to me the system remained in Ukrainian army hands so its use by separatists is hardly likely.

    Like

  3. Some discussion of this film – maker answering questions

    Like

  4. The video is 2:30 long but doesn’t really get started for about 17 mins..

    Like

  5. Here is Lavrov commenting on MH17. Starts about 1:18, some prelim about the recent downing in Iran where 6 f-35s were on the border, maybe causing confusion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbBi6jJ4nsU&feature=push-lsb&attr_tag=wreE-sau_0ZgCoHo%3A6

    Like

  6. “6 f-35s were on the border”

    I apologise, Ken, but I have to ask: which border? In whose airspace were they flying? Afghanistan? Armenia? Azerbaijan? Pakistan? Turkmenistan? Turkey? Iraq? None of them are known for their extensive F-35 fleets.
    Where were such short range aircraft flying from?

    Bear in mind that the USA has not yet deployed the longer range F-35C on its’ carriers, so that’s not a possible answer.

    Iran has previously admitted their defences have not been able to detect F-35s that may, or may not, have directly overflown their airspace (dubious claims from 2018 and 2019. Source: multiple click bait sites and a few reputable ones). So how did Iran know that F-35s were in the airspace of another country, “on the border”, “maybe causing confusion”? Did Donald Trump tweet it?

    I think the claim that “6 f-35s were on the border” is dismissable after a couple of minutes thought.

    Like

  7. Stuart, you seem to be attributing a comment to me that I did not make. Thus article is about the MH17 tragedy and the disgraceful politicisation of the resulting investigation. Nothing to do with your question.

    Like

  8. Sorry, Ken. I was apologising in advance for likely derailing the post. I found Soundhill’s comment poorly thought out – probably accepting of someone’s speculation without questioning it.

    Like

  9. OK, I see what happened. Bruce seemed to be raising a comment by Foreign Minister Lavrov about the accident happening because of the heightened tension in the area after the murder of an Iranian leader and the missile attack on US bases Seems the Iranians had good reason to expect some sort of attack. Another factor seems to have been a short blackout in communication – but I guess we will have to see what the investigation produces.

    Like

  10. Stuartg, It was a link to a news media conference by Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov, that I linked on Jan 18. About 1 hour 18 mins into the vid he talks about the recent loss of the Ukrainian airliner in Iran not very long after US had reportedly killed a high up Iranian military figure in Iraq. Iran had subsequently sent missiles into Iraq but did not kill anyone. Lavrov reported the tension between Iran and Iraq. He said that, though it needed verification, to his knowledge there were the 6 F35 aircraft on the border. The airport near where the Ukranian airliner was lost is about 150 km from the international waters of the Caspian Sea. Six might have been enough to confuse the Iranian defense radar. Also note the Ukranian airliner was suddenly returning back to its take off point, If there were the 6 aircraft 150k away to be watched there may have been a mistake not reprogramming quickly enough what the Iranian defense should be expecting as allowed. Didn’t know of the communication blackout Ken writes of.

    Like

  11. The F-35 could fly 150km in some 6 mins, and can refuel in flight.

    Like

  12. David Fierstien, “Ukraine closed the airspace to civilian traffic below 32,000 feet but despite that, the day Flight 17 entered the airspace, 160 airliners crossed above that flight ceiling in eastern Ukraine.” From the link I posted on Jan 13 that was a very suspicious action of Ukraine to have airliners flying there.

    “The plane was crossing over an area that was in the midst of a war started by Ukrainian rebels and their Russian backers. Russia moved into Crimea, which was part of Ukraine, and annexed it in early 2014. Then separatists in eastern Ukraine, supplied by Moscow, took the area of eastern Ukraine along the Russian border.”

    The way Putin said it at a Valdai news conference, a coup ousted the legal president of Ukraine, whose life then was under threat. He asked for Russian help and was escorted to the Crimea where there are many Russians. The people of Crimea asked Russia for help against the forces of the coup.

    Like

  13. Soundhill,

    The F-35 is a short range low observable aircraft. The further a low observable aircraft is from a radar then the less observable it is. That’s the point of them. Published figures suggest the radar cross section of the F-35 is less than a sparrow but still larger than that of the F-22 and B-2. And you suggest a range of 150km (ie beyond IR, visual, or auditory detection range.)

    Sure, the F-35 can refuel in flight. And it’s a real fuel hog to reach the speed you mention – the full afterburner needed for that speed will massively reduce its’ range (and also increase its’ IR detectability). So in your scenario the F-35s would need to have tankers in close attendance to supply fuel.

    Did you know that the tankers they refuel from are even less stealthy than the airliners they were converted from – ie not at all? (Published figures are about 100m² radar cross section). So the tankers are visible on radar several hundred kilometers away.

    Apply some logical thought. If F-35s were able to be detected on radar (a sparrow at 150km), why no mention of detection of the 100m² tankers with them that would be needed for a high speed, high fuel burn, dash?

    Extending the thinking, since Iran has demonstrated they can easily shoot down defenceless airliners, why didn’t they just shoot down such easily detected and defenceless air tankers? And then claim they were shot down by the hostile country they would have had to be flying over?

    Unless, of course, neither the F-35s nor tankers were “on the border”?

    Don’t just believe whatever you hear, especially if it appears to reinforce your beliefs about the world. Apply some logical thought instead.

    My thoughts? Maybe they were there, but probably not. One person said they were but produced no evidence. No corroborating evidence has been provided by anyone else. Circumstantial evidence (lack of USA friendly bases and airspace surrounding Iran, air tanker movements, neutral country radar tracking, overflight permissions, etc) does not exist. Occams razor says no, but I’m quite prepared to re-evaluate if evidence is provided.

    Again, Ken, I’m sorry if this derails the topic.

    Like

  14. Stuartg. Struna-1.

    Like

  15. Stuartg: “My thoughts? Maybe they were there, but probably not.” Yeah maybe decoys.

    Like

  16. Stuartg: “Extending the thinking, since Iran has demonstrated they can easily shoot down defenceless airliners, why didn’t they just shoot down such easily detected and defenceless air tankers? And then claim they were shot down by the hostile country they would have had to be flying over?”

    Things getting a bit mixed.

    Like

  17. Soundhill,

    Struna-1 supposedly increases effective RCS by a factor of about three. So the F-35 looks about the size of a blackbird to it. But it still follows the inverse fourth power law for range; there’s no way it can defy the laws of physics. It’s not yet been exported by Russia to the best of my knowledge.

    And Russia borders onto Iran… where?

    Things started getting a little mixed when you parroted that “6 f-35s were on the border” without first applying some thought.

    Like

  18. Russia and Iran both border on to the Caspian Sea. Though Dagestan would be over 400km from Iran I guess stretching the range for Struna-1. Note the exporting does not equate to transporting, using your device in another country without selling it to them.

    But there is the Resonance-NE which Iran is said to have bought in 2009 though it mightn’t be very accurate, being the reason for the uncertainty expressed.

    https://defensionem.com/russian-anti-stealth-radars/

    Like

  19. Stuartg, Also “In the fall of 2014, the over-the-horizon radar detected various targets and sent their coordinates to the Grad Sviyazhsk and Uglich corvettes. In January, the Podsolnukh detected four low-flying Su-24 bombers. The data was forwarded to the Dagestan frigate, whose ballistic missile defense system successfully locked onto targets,” the newspaper detailed. Over-the-horizon stations have a major advantage when compared to other radars. They are capable of detecting stealth objects. For the Podsolnukh, the F-22 and the F-35, the best fighter jets in the US arsenal that could fly deep behind enemy lines, are no different from aircraft that do not use stealth technology.

    But there is a trade-off. Over-the-horizon radars are inconsistent with the IFF (Identification Friend or Foe) system. Nevertheless, the Russian military has successfully employed over-the-horizon stations. The Volna system, the Podsolnukh’s big brother, has been in service with Russia’s Pacific Fleet, scanning water areas at a maximum distance of 3,000 kilometers (more than 1,864 miles). The Volna’s length of the antennae is 1.5 kilometers (more than 0,9 miles), its height is five meters (more than 16.4 feet),” the newspaper noted.

    Three over-the-horizon Podsolnukh radars were in service as of mid-2016 with the Russian Armed Forces. They were recently deployed to the Sea of Okhotsk, the Sea of Japan and the Caspian Sea. The latter had been operational since 2013. The export version of the Podsolnukh has been showcased at several international maritime defense shows.”

    https://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/podsolnukh.htm

    They may not have been supplying data to Iran at the time of the downing, but presumably could have done later analysis.

    Like

  20. Stuartg, And Russia can add ships to its surveillance in the Caspian Sea. I think Lavrov would have credibility. http://eng.mil.ru/en/structure/okruga/south/news/more.htm?id=12013685@egNews

    Like

  21. Soundhill,

    So, just to demonstrate that you thought about your statement “6 f-35s were on the border”, you need to tell us which of Iran’s borders they were on, which country’s airspace they were operating over (and whether permitted or not), which bases they were deployed to and operating from, how many tankers were accompanying them, and where those tankers were deployed to and operating from. All need to be considered before merely accepting a statement that “6 f-35s were on the border”.

    You have so far failed to supply any evidence that “6 f-35s were on the border”.

    Since peacetime deployments of USAF squadrons or flights are announced publically, eg https://www.stripes.com/news/air-force-sends-f-35s-f-15s-to-europe-in-combat-readiness-test-1.590507# and those deployments are usually tracked by web sites such as Flightradar24, you will also be able to supply evidence that F-35s and either KC-10s or KC-135s were even in the area. Won’t you?

    As an aside, tell us why Lavrov, or the countries which had to be overflown, made no mention of tracking the non-stealthy tanker aircraft that would have had to accompany any short range US fighters in the region.

    “I think Lavrov would have credibility” is not evidence and merely displays lack of critical thinking.

    Like

  22. Stuartg there are several countries around the Caspian Sea which left the old USSR which US could be dealing with.

    Flightradar24 does not work for aircraft without their transponders turned on.

    Well Lavrov did say it needed checking. It could be propaganda such as TV1 was doing recently with what they called unverified footage of people having to shift in Northern Syria. It was said they had had to shift several times but their suitcases looked new, undamaged. And the rescuers in the rubble had no dust on their overalls.

    Like

  23. Soundhill,

    Hey! “It could be propaganda”! You’ve only just realised?

    It most certainly was propaganda. And all it would have taken to realise it would have been a couple of seconds of logical thinking and questioning…

    P.S. Military aircraft, when deploying in peacetime, have their transponders turned on for safety reasons.
    http://www.planeflighttracker.com/2014/03/military-aircraft-tracker.html

    Like

  24. Quit1e a few times planes have flown over my place and not shown on Flightradar24.
    I don’t know how to operate your link.
    With what US did this may not be thought of strictly as peace time.
    And I said it could be propaganda.
    If they weren’t there then what caused the confusion?

    Like

  25. Soundhill,

    Try to think for yourself for once.

    One intent of propaganda is to replace logical thinking with unquestioned acceptance, i.e. confusion. It seems to be doing well in this case.

    Like

  26. Stuart I think Lavrov to have been helping us to think of areas of possibility, so clarifying for us possibilities.
    Both Putin and Trump claimed it was an error.
    Maybe it would have been sufficient explanation that the Ukranian plane turned back over a sensitive military area.

    Like

  27. Soundhill,

    A final comment:

    “This information has yet to be verified,” and almost two months later that statement still applies.

    Yet at least one person believes it to be 100% accurate and proven, unable to recognise the many contradictions present…

    Paraphrasing:
    * F-35s were on the Iranian border – but there are no bases in the region with the required infrastructure for them to fly from and no record of their deployment to the region.
    * Russian radars were apparently able to detect the F-35s – but then there’s no mention of the non-stealthy tankers that would need to accompany them.
    * The short-range F-35s (and tankers) were over (unspecified) USA-friendly territory – but then the radar units to detect them must have been located in Russia and so well beyond over land radar range.

    There are many requirements to fulfill the phrase “6 F-35s were on the border”, some of them I mentioned earlier and many of them able to be verified from public sources, but I won’t bother to detail them further – I’d be typing for hours.

    A final pointer to why this is propaganda: Iran has repeatedly acknowledged they are unable to detect F-35s and F-22s, even over their own territory, so how could undetected aircraft over another country possibly cause them confusion? Lavrov’s mention of confusion also appears to be propaganda…

    It appears the only confusion here results from lack of logical thinking.

    Like

  28. Stuartg: ” Iran has repeatedly acknowledged they are unable to detect F-35s and F-22s, even over their own territory,”
    where is that published repeatedly?

    Like

  29. Stuartg: “how could undetected aircraft over another country possibly cause them confusion?”
    they had been asking Russia for help but had trouble with the data flow.

    Like

  30. Stuartg: “The short-range F-35s (and tankers) were over (unspecified) USA-friendly territory”
    Maybe they weren’t the short range F-35B.
    Could be the Israeli F-35I testing drop tanks, and also therefore not stealth.

    https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/28515/lockheed-eyes-giving-f-35s-more-gas-with-drop-tanks-and-thats-a-very-good-thing

    Like

  31. Stuartg wrote: “but then the radar units to detect them must have been located in Russia and so well beyond over land radar range.”
    I think you must be forgetting my posts: | February 27, 2020 at 8:05 am | and
    | February 27, 2020 at 9:06 am |

    Like

  32. Sturtg wrote: ““This information has yet to be verified,” and almost two months later that statement still applies.”
    If it doesn’t get verified no trouble just think of other reasons for the confusion, such as the Ukranian plane turned back and flew too close to sensitive areas.

    Like

  33. Stuartg: “But it was late summer 2015 when reports in the Israeli news media surfaced about how Israelis working on F-35 prototypes had managed to double the jet’s flight and stealth capacity. It wasn’t lost on anyone that the extension meant Israeli Air Force pilots could use the F-35 to fly from Israel to Tehran and back without detection — and without having to refuel at U.S. air bases in Saudi Arabia or Iraq.” https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/18/f-35-has-freaked-out-iran-and-changed-everything-in-the-middle-east.html

    Like

  34. Brian/Soundhill,

    “I think you must be forgetting my posts:”

    No, you either didn’t think about them or forgot them yourself. Long range, over-the-horizon radars work over oceans rather than land (as noted in your references), other radars are line of sight. A little thought would reveal that the countries bordering Iran are not oceans and are beyond line of sight.

    You’ve obviously forgotten that the long-range F-35 is not in squadron service. It’s the US navy carrier version, as I commented earlier.

    When Israel bombed the Iraqi nuclear plant, their F-16s required multiple in-flight refueling. The Israeli F-16 has longer range than the F-35 and Iran is much further from Israel than Iraq. Many tankers would need to be involved.
    With a couple of seconds thought, your speculation over Israeli involvement can be dismissed.

    Your faith in and religious devotion to Lavrov is impressive, but there still is no evidence to back his propaganda

    Like

  35. Stuartg wrote: “You’ve obviously forgotten that the long-range F-35 is not in squadron service. It’s the US navy carrier version, as I commented earlier.”

    The Israelis have added 40% range with tanks which show on radar which can be dropped for combat.

    Like

  36. Stuartg wrote: “Iran is much further from Israel than Iraq. Many tankers would need to be involved.”

    Lavrov spoke of the border. Same border same distance. Maybe 600 miles from Israel. Tankers could be over Iraq if needed if they didn’t have their drop tanks attached.

    Like

  37. Stuartg wrote: “When Israel bombed the Iraqi nuclear plant, their F-16s required multiple in-flight refueling.”

    That is over 18 years ago. Things have changed. Heavy bombs for a nuclear plant would require more fuel.

    The current suggested F-35s could be F-35I on special reconnaisance maybe carrying lighter rockets.

    The F-35I could have similar fuel capacity to the Lightning II, greater than the F-16.
    https://militarymachine.com/f-35-vs-f-16/

    Fuel Capacity Lightning II: 18,498 pounds F-16: 7,000 pounds internal (3,175 kilograms); typical capacity, 12,000 pounds with two external tanks (5443 kilograms)

    Like

  38. Stuartg wrote: “Long range, over-the-horizon radars work over oceans rather than land.”
    Scanning water areas means looking for submarine conning towers sort of thing. They are not tall so the distance to when they are below the horizon is not great.

    But for planes happening to be flying rather higher than conning towers they will be seen much further away. Maybe in some cases between mountains.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon

    Like

  39. Soundhill,

    Think, man! You’ve got a brain, use it.

    “The F-35I could have similar fuel capacity to the Lightning II”. The F-35 IS the Lightning II.

    All F-35s can carry external drop tanks, not just the Israeli version. Drop tanks weigh about as much as bombs, which they replace on external hard points, and so reduce the weapon load of an aircraft. Check out “beast mode” on the F-35. An F-35 loaded with drop tanks has only got air-to-air weapons and wouldn’t be a worry to ground targets.

    You compared an early F-16 to the F-35. A better comparison would be the Israeli F-16I, with its’ much greater range and fuel capacity.

    Israeli fuel tankers over Iraq would have been spotted by Iraqi radar. And Jordanian. And Syrian… and commented on. Need I explain further?

    Comparing range by using fuel capacity is useless. You ignored engine differences, weight, and drag, among other things, all of which have effects on range. A Mini and a Rolls-Royce have vastly different fuel capacities but have about the same range.

    OTH radars work over oceans, as your references noted. Over land they are limited to line of sight, which they didn’t note (just expected you to already know). Line of sight is limited by the curvature of the Earth and by mountains. As you noted, the F-35 operates at low altitude,and so would be out of sight of any radars operating in Russia.

    As I noted, your devotion to Lavrov and your religious faith and adherence to his propaganda is impressive, but it should not prevent you from using your own brain to think with.

    Like

  40. Stuartg wrote: ““The F-35I could have similar fuel capacity to the Lightning II”. The F-35 IS the Lightning II.”

    Sorry a bit of confusion. I had read at one point “Lightning II development,”
    thinking, either the Lighting I was also an F-35, or further development of the Lighning II, sorry. . The F-35A, F-35B, F-35C are different.

    If it happens to be correct a diagram in this talks of the differences:
    https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-differences-between-the-F-35A-F-35B-and-F-35C

    Which version were you talking of when you spoke of short range?

    Which version(s) have been adapted by Israel to make the F-35I?

    Like

  41. Stuartg wrote: “OTH radars work over oceans, as your references noted. Over land they are limited to line of sight,”

    False.

    Whether they curve over the horizon depends on the wavelength, which you should have learned from your physics training.

    As Ii reported before: “The Volna’s length of the antennae is 1.5 kilometers ” so it has a very long wavelength and will curve around the earth’s surface.
    It may be more for detecting large objects such as ships. Or there may be confusion that it is for the communcation function.

    Drop tanks of some F-35s may have dimensions a bit like the old TV signals we used to have. Note the size their aerials used to be. Those signals used to bend around some obstacles. With conventional radar it my not help.

    Line of sight is available to the horizon. As I posted the distance to the horizon is about 3.57km multiplied by the square root of the height. So an object at 400 metres height will be over the horizon for 714 km.

    If the F-35s were doing high definition reconnaisance it would not be much use flying low.

    Like

  42. Stuartg wrote: “You ignored engine differences, weight, and drag, among other things, all of which have effects on range.”

    The speed also affects drag and they don’t have to be travelling extremely fast always.

    And you have ignored differing wing spans of the differing versions of the F-35. Bigger wings mean more lift and less need to use fuel for lift.

    Like

  43. Stuartg, This gives the Israeli F-35I wingspan at 10.7metres, whereas the Quora commenter , if correct gave the F-35C wingspan at 43 feet (13.1 metres.) I don’t suppose US would have had their F-35C there with Trump’s policy of getting countries to pay for their own fights. Noting he is not rushing in to help Turkey against Syrian forces.

    Like

  44. I wrote: “So an object at 400 metres height will be over the horizon for 714 km” Sorry of course 71.4 km.

    Military can be a bit silly. I once reported to our local airport control tower how a large USAF plane came over here at a similar altitude to helicopters flying past here doing joy rides, about 14km from the airport. Both would have been too low to show on the airport radar. The control tower told me the military do their own thing. But they aren’t going to want collisions, but it’s a moot point how low they would be flying if not actually in combat.

    Like

  45. Soundhill,

    Sigh… Gish galloping again.

    There’s only been 38 F-35Cs built and delivered. They are the more fuel efficient version with the longer wingspan (but they’re still fuel hogs). First deliveries of them were in 2019. Only the US Navy has purchased them, and none are currently deployed on carriers. https://www.airforce-technology.com/uncategorised/lockheed-milestone-500th-f-35-delivery/ That arrived in my news feed today – I didn’t have to look on Google. The F-35Cs CATOBAR capabilities are only required by one other navy – that of France. And somehow I can’t see the French buying American fighters for the Charles de Gaulle, even though they have bought the E-2.

    The F-35A is land based. The F-35I is the same aircraft but has supplementary Israeli electronics, possibly reducing the fuel load in order to fit them (that’s speculation – the Israelis won’t say).

    The F-35B is STOVL and is a replacement for the Harrier in US Marine service and for other flattops (UK, Italy, Japan, possibly Spain, etc.). It has a shorter range than the land version because of the extra weight and space required for STOVL reducing its fuel capacity. The wing span of the F-35A and F-35B is the same and was dictated by the requirement of being stored in the hangars of US Marine ships.

    The F-35C has the longest wing, has more fuel capacity in the wing, and is more fuel efficient because of the longer wing, so it has the longest range of any F-35 variant. (Bigger hangars on US Navy carriers than Marine ships).
    Longer wings = less drag. That’s why the Boeing 777x unfolds its wingtips for flight – less drag = less fuel burn in level flight. (You obviously don’t understand that increased lift is only important at take-off and landing. Airliners use flaps and slats to increase lift at take-off and landing, retracting them for level flight; military aircraft do the same. Maybe you should Google span, chord, and aspect ratio, as well as flaps and slats?)

    The original (US) Lockheed Lightning was the P-38, a twin-boom, twin engined propeller driven aircraft; one of them shot down Admiral Yamamoto during WWII (of irrelevant interest, it was named Miss Virginia). The P-38 was supplied to the USAAC/USAF and RAF, but mainly used in the Pacific theatre. “Glacier Girl” was recovered from under the ice in Greenland, restored, and still flies.

    The second (English Electric) Lightning was a UK design from the 1950s. A Mach 2+ fighter, it was the first production aircraft to go supersonic without reheat/afterburner. The USA now calls this feat supercruise and its first production aircraft to achieve it was the F-22, about four or five decades after the Lightning did it. My father was an engineer building the Lightning. It was supplied to the RAF and RSAF. Privately owned ones still fly in South Africa.

    The F-35, or Lightning II, is the third military aircraft actually named Lightning. There were others whose name translated as Lightning, but I won’t count those.

    Maybe those brief paragraphs will convey to you that it’s obvious that you know very little about the F-35? Google has only given you a Dunning-Kruger level of understanding.

    Israel doesn’t need to use “6 F-35s on the border” to do reconnaissance over Iran. Or aren’t you aware of their independent satellite capability? Or aware that they can also get satellite reconnaissance information from the USA?

    You still haven’t managed to speculate why all those countries antagonistic to Israel and the USA were unable to see, and shoot down with their air defence networks, those decidedly unstealthy tankers that would necessarily have to accompany short range fighters at that distance from their base (wherever that base was). Look it up yourself. Don’t forget to add fuel for loiter time (your speculated reconnaissance), combat time, return flight and possible diversions. I suspect you’ll find the aircraft would have to carry fuel for 6,000 – 8,000 kilometres of flight. And what was the range you looked up for the F-35 ? Oh, you didn’t. You only looked up the weight of fuel carried.

    Your comments about OTH radar display a Dunning-Kruger level of knowledge, obviously obtained from a few minutes on Google. I learned the physics of radar, and aerodynamics, in what seems like a different life, over 30 years ago. I had a recent update when I started papers in ultrasound – I never would have guessed that the physics and maths of the two were so intertwined. Because of it, I found the physics of ultrasound really easy. The physics of radar hasn’t changed since I did my studies.

    By the way, the horizon at eye level is only about five kilometers. At ground level it’s actually under 100 metres away. If you stand on a 30 metre tower, the horizon is still less than 20 kilometres away. So an aircraft flying at 100 metres above sea level is only visible to ground radar when it’s less than 40 kilometres away. It’s interesting to understand the real reason that the home chain masts were built so tall. And then the inverse fourth power law still applies, becoming much more important for stealthy aircraft.

    I call b******t on your anecdote of a “large USAF plane” (within the last decade it must have been a C-5M or C-17, barely possibly a C-130) below the radar horizon from any airport. At only 14 km from the airport it would have shown up on radar unless it was stationary on the ground. And if it were on the ground, the tail, at least, would have been visually above the horizon to persons in the control tower.

    You may be interested that I haven’t bothered to look anything up on the ‘net for my comments, apart from the references that you supplied. I may no longer be considered an expert in military aircraft design and radar, but I’ve kept a keen interest. I wouldn’t have commented unless I was certain that my knowledge was well in excess of your Dunning-Kruger level.

    I have to admit I’m still impressed by your religious faith and belief in Lavrov and your adherence to his propaganda. As for all that fact-free speculation you’re doing to maintain the fiction in your own imagination… But I think that maybe you should stop speculating about things you don’t understand, activate your brain, question Lavrov’s statements, and stop cherry picking for references that don’t actually say what you believe they do?

    Like

  46. Stuartg wrote: “I call b******t on your anecdote of a “large USAF plane” (within the last decade it must have been a C-5M or C-17, barely possibly a C-130) below the radar horizon from any airport. At only 14 km from the airport it would have shown up on radar unless it was stationary on the ground. And if it were on the ground, the tail, at least, would have been visually above the horizon to persons in the control tower.”

    It would have been in the 1970s. Maybe 1980s. A couple of times I talked to the airport control tower about low flying planes which they said they cannot see.

    The helicopter was taking off nearly a km away, coming this way and still way under the regulation 500 feet by the time it got here. Over the sea across the road from here planes are allowed under 500 feet. But military planes would quite frequently fly low along the dunes until the military stopped getting so much funding. A bit frightening but I got used to it. The control tower told me they were not under its regulations.

    The huge airliner came in from the sea at right angle to the coast. I guess it may have been doing an under-the-radar (of the day) test approach. May have been 200 feet in altitude. But so large a bit hard to judge. The helis were flying each half hour. I wonder if helis always get clearance for flight. (The police heli I think doesn’t show on Flightradar24.) If they were to have just taken off and the big plane came across there would have been a big surprise for each plane. The heli would suddenly show on the big plane’s radar and avoidance would have been required.

    Like

  47. Stuartg wrote: “Longer wings = less drag. That’s why the Boeing 777x unfolds its wingtips for flight – less drag = less fuel burn in level flight. (You obviously don’t understand that increased lift is only important at take-off and landing.”

    Bigger wings equals more lift at slower speed, as for take off and landing. Or I presume where the air is thinner at 40,000 feet.

    The fighter planes have smaller wings for less drag for their high speed, where smaller wings also give enough lift.

    Like

  48. Stuartg wrote: “Israel doesn’t need to use “6 F-35s on the border” to do reconnaissance over Iran. Or aren’t you aware of their independent satellite capability? Or aware that they can also get satellite reconnaissance information from the USA?”

    Satellites don’t work so well through cloud.

    When I say reconnaisance I probably mean just imaging. Satellites may not be so good at imaging heights of objects, and there may not be one in range at any needed time.

    I’m just imagining summed imaging. Six eyes better than one.

    For imaging the planes won’t need to go so fast and burn so much fuel.

    Like

  49. Stuartg wrote: “By the way, the horizon at eye level is only about five kilometers. At ground level it’s actually under 100 metres away.”

    Not if buildlings and/ or trees are in the way.

    Like

  50. Stuartg wrote: “You still haven’t managed to speculate why all those countries antagonistic to Israel and the USA were unable to see, and shoot down with their air defence networks, those decidedly unstealthy tankers that would necessarily have to accompany short range fighters at that distance from their base (wherever that base was). ”

    Maybe they did see tankers which could have been why they suspected the 6 objects to be F-35s.

    Like

  51. Stuartg wrote: “I learned the physics of radar, and aerodynamics, in what seems like a different life, over 30 years ago. I had a recent update when I started papers in ultrasound – I never would have guessed that the physics and maths of the two were so intertwined. Because of it, I found the physics of ultrasound really easy. The physics of radar hasn’t changed since I did my studies.”

    The physics hasn’t changed but the technology has.
    Utlrasound technology moved to computed imaging:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrasound_computer_tomography

    and so has radar, I am presuming.

    Like

  52. Stuartg wrote: “You still haven’t managed to speculate why all those countries antagonistic to Israel and the USA were unable to see, and shoot down with their air defence networks, those decidedly unstealthy tankers that would necessarily have to accompany short range fighters at that distance from their base (wherever that base was). ”

    Shooting down expensive tankers over Iraq would have escalated the conflict in a way public opinion didn’t want.

    Like

  53. Soundhill,

    Pointless Gish gallop again…

    “Shooting down expensive tankers over Iraq would have escalated the conflict in a way public opinion didn’t want.” Are you saying that shooting down expensive airliners filled with passengers was wanted by public opinion???

    “The physics hasn’t changed so the basic technology has not.” FTFY. The advances are in computing. It takes a powerful computer to distinguish between something with the RCS of a bird (an F-35, say) and an actual bird at a couple of hundred kilometres, given all the scatter, reflections, and interference seen by a radar unit. Stealth doesn’t mean an aircraft is invisible to radar, it just means that it has to be distinguished from the hundreds or thousands of objects on screen with a similar tiny radar cross section.

    In order to make the claims you have done, you should be able to answer some simple questions. Without the answers you are unable to substantiate your claim. So let’s have the answers from you:
    1. Why, after all this time, is Lavrov’s propaganda still unverified?
    2. What base would the hypothetical F-35s be flying from?
    3. What base would the hypothetical tankers accompanying them be flying from? They don’t have to be the same.
    4. What are the home bases for these hypothetical fighters and tankers? They’re almost never the same.
    5. How did these hypothetical aircraft get to their operational base(s) without it being noticed they had left their home bases? And why was it not noticed when they returned?
    6. Which borders of Iran were they hypothetically flying over?
    7. Did those countries have overflight agreements with the owners of the hypothetical warplanes?
    8. What route did those hypothetical warplanes take and which hostile countries did they fly over in order to be on Iranian borders?
    9. What range has the F-35A (still air, optimum conditions)?
    10. What range would these hypothetical F-35s have to be able to fly to complete their hypothetical mission? (There and back, mission time, allowance for combat, loiter time so that Lavrov saw them and could count them, diversion allowance).
    11. Compare the two distances. How many times would an F-35 have to refuel in order to fly that distance?
    12. What reconnaissance equipment does an F-35 actually carry?
    13. Since the F-35 is a fighter, not a reconnaissance aircraft, is it even capable of the reconnaissance mission you speculate about?
    14. How well can aircraft perform visual reconnaissance in the cloud conditions that you speculate prevented satellite reconnaissance?
    15. How many hypothetical tankers would have had to accompany the hypothetical F-35s?
    16. Would the hypothetical tankers also need mid-air refueling?
    17. Why, if there were KC-135s or KC-10s in the air over hostile territory, did those countries not escort them away and then make a diplomatic complaint, which is the usual way of dealing with an airspace incursion?
    18. Since the hypothetical F-35s were detected, as claimed by Lavrov, why weren’t they also intercepted, escorted away and a diplomatic complaint made?
    19. Since Lavrov says those hypothetical aircraft had been detected, why were they not intercepted and forced to land on their long way back to their operations base?

    Actually, if we use Occams razor, the simplest answer is that there were no F-35s, KC-135s, or KC-10s any where near Iran. The logistics required would be much too complex for the operation to have been entirely unnoticed by everyone in the world but Lavrov. And yourself, of course.

    So far you have not produced a single scrap of evidence for your contention that there were “6 F-35s on the border”. You have speculated, admitted you are “imagining”, built up some far-fetched conspiracies, shown you have little knowledge about aircraft and radars, yet produced exactly zero evidence in support of your contention. You are certainly aware that the person making a claim is the one who has to provide the evidence. So where is your evidence?

    Show us the evidence you have to support your speculations and conspiracy theories.

    Like

  54. Stuartg, Some of your questions have suggested answers in this:
    https://bulgarianmilitary.com/2020/01/28/russias-s-400-has-detected-f-35s-near-the-irans-border-us-confirmed-jets-visibility/

    Russian S-400 radar systems in Syria.

    Like

  55. Stuartg wrote: “18. Since the hypothetical F-35s were detected, as claimed by Lavrov, why weren’t they also intercepted, escorted away and a diplomatic complaint made?”
    “On the border” between Iraq and Iran doesn’t have to mean in Iran.
    People say Strasbourg is on the border of France and Germany. The border is the Rhine River. Strasbourg is totally on the French side of that.

    US planes are allowed near the border of Iraq-Iran.

    Like

  56. Soundhill,

    So, no answers from you.

    Looks as though Occams razor is appropriate.

    Still gotta admire your religious faith and belief in Lavrov.

    Like

  57. Soundhill,

    “US planes are allowed near the border of Iraq-Iran.”

    But your speculation was about Israeli planes, “imagining” they were doing reconnaissance…

    Like

  58. Soundhill,

    “US planes are allowed near the border of Iraq-Iran.”

    But your speculation was that they were Israeli, “imagining” they were doing reconnaissance.

    Like

  59. Stuartg wrote: “But your speculation was that they were Israeli, “imagining” they were doing reconnaissance”
    Yes I was scanning possibiliities.
    “Israel regularly conducts various training drills with the US military in the country, including air force exercises and missile defense drills.”
    https://www.timesofisrael.com/joint-us-israeli-military-exercise-mothballed-due-to-coronavirus/

    Like

  60. Soundhill,

    “Yes I was scanning possibiliities.”

    How about scanning facts instead? Religious belief in Lavrov and evidence-free adherence to conspiracy theories just doesn’t substitute for them.

    I note that you’re still not providing any answers or evidence to support your speculations.

    Like

  61. Soundhill,

    Exactly how does news that Israel has cancelled/postponed a planned ground military exercise provide evidence for your speculation and imagining that there were “6 F-35s on the border” of Iran?

    Like

  62. Stuartg wrote: “The physics hasn’t changed so the basic technology has not.” FTFY. The advances are in computing. It takes a powerful computer to distinguish between something with the RCS of a bird (an F-35, say)”

    They could have been tracking them across Iraq. Their speed and behaviour would give away a lot.

    An array of radars can have their results added. Not quite is good as a CT scan.

    (You’ve talked about ultrasound scanning. You may no longer be working in the field of medical imaging, but you or others may be interested to obtain their CT Colonograhpy CD and read them in Slicer. Download free and see Youtube vids about it. Quite amazing seeing a high definition 3D images of vertebrae and other body parts. The lung preset sees air so shows up a colon pumped up with air or CO2. Keep you busy.)

    Like

  63. Soundhill,

    “Could have… “may have…” pure speculation. Which of course means nothing if the aircraft were not actually there. There is no evidence that they were there and plenty of circumstantial evidence they weren’t.

    Why don’t you answer any of the questions I asked? I think it’s because, if you provided answers, you would have to acknowledge that your speculations and imaginations are indefensible.

    But I’m still impressed with your religious adherence to and faith in Lavrov’s propaganda.

    P.S. I talked about the physics and math of ultrasound being similar to radar. You must have imagined me talking about ultrasound. I still work with medical imaging; CT colonography is more than a quarter century old as a technique. Obviously Google hasn’t provided enough information to you to be up with current techniques.

    Like

  64. Stuartg: “Exactly how does news that Israel has cancelled/postponed a planned ground military exercise provide evidence for your speculation and imagining that there were “6 F-35s on the border” of Iran?”

    Please read it again to see who they exercise with.

    Like

  65. Stuartg wrote: “Why don’t you answer any of the questions I asked? I think it’s because, if you provided answers, you would have to acknowledge that your speculations and imaginations are indefensible.”

    Do you claim that the Chinese Daily article had no bearing on any of your questions?

    Like

  66. Stuartg: “Exactly how does news that Israel has cancelled/postponed a planned ground military exercise provide evidence for your speculation and imagining that there were “6 F-35s on the border” of Iran?”

    If you have checked again you will have noted that the Times of Israel also proclaimed:

    “The IDF said it still planned to host the US military for the joint biannual Juniper Cobra air defense drill, which is scheduled to take place in Israel in the coming weeks, but that this may change as well.”

    In an air defense drill would they actually train in a co-ordinated fashion in their respective F-35s or not?

    Sorry I can only suppose. It may have only been US F-35s which seemed to show on Russian radar.

    Would drills always be notified? Would part of the drill be the testing of co-ordinated radar?

    Like

  67. Stuartg wrote: “Why don’t you answer any of the questions I asked? I think it’s because, if you provided answers, you would have to acknowledge that your speculations and imaginations are indefensible.”

    From the article I cited: “But there is a high probability that it was the S-400s located in Syria that helped the Russian military find the American stealth fighters near the borders of Iran. This may mean that S-400 radars can detect airborne objects at distances that exceed the declared 400 km.”

    In relation to your 6, “near” not “over”
    2, Since radar in Syria, which is just north of Iraq, it would be likely they took off in an Iraqi base.
    3. same if needed for a short drill.
    4. I don’t know but could be the same as they used to attack an Iraqi island: https://www.businessinsider.com.au/f-35s-and-f-15s-bombed-iraqi-island-isis-2019-9?r=US&IR=T
    5. Could have been noticed frequently having drills in Iraq so not of relevance till near Iran and something goes wrong.
    7. They would have agreements with Saudi Arabia and Iraq, though the return of Shiites to some power in Iraq may want them out.
    8. Russia or Iran may be able to say a lot but why?
    9. I looked for that for a while some time back. 1200 Nm comes to mind plus 40% extra with drop tanks.
    10 Not far if based in Iraq.
    11 Not really still relevant.
    12. That’s classified. ” Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR)
    Drawing on the advantage of stealth, advanced sensors, and data fusion providing enhanced pilot situational awareness, F-35 pilots can fly critical ISR missions with more sophisticated data capture than any previous fighter aircraft. The F-35 has the most powerful and comprehensive integrated sensor package of any fighter aircraft in history, giving pilots 360-degree access to “real-time” battlefield information. The information gathered by F-35 sensors can be securely shared with commanders at sea, in the air or on the ground, providing a comprehensive view of ongoing operations.

    Much of the F-35’s electronic warfare and ISR capabilities are made possible by a core processor that can perform more than 400 billion operations per second. This core processor collects data from the classified electronic warfare suite, developed by BAE Systems, to identify enemy radar and electronic warfare emissions and, as happens with the eight sensor Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS) providing the pilot 360-degree coverage, recommending which target to attack and whether he or she should use either kinetic or electronic means to counter or negate the threat.”
    https://www.f35.com/about/capabilities
    13. Reconnaissance means sharing data as in my answer to 12.
    14. Maybe IR vision rather better than our police helicopters would help. But imaging can be by radar just long enough wavelength to get through cloud, if LIDAR won’t work. Christchurch had a lot of LIDAR after quakes andwhen processed can seem to even ignore some vegetation.
    15. None would have to. A number could.
    16,,,
    17. They were near the border, not in Iranian rerritory.
    18. Smase as 17.
    19. No incursion into Iran.

    Like

  68. Soundhill,

    “6 F-35s on the border” – that was your original statement that I objected to. Because there are too many interlocking and easily verifiable requirements for it to have happened. Now you’re moving the goalposts. Again. And still not providing any evidence to support your original statement.

    “Visual reconnaissance” was your “imagining” of what the hypothetical F-35s were doing, not electronic surveillance. You are moving the goalposts again so that cloud cover preventing “visual reconnaissance” becomes irrelevant. Previously you thought cloud cover was relevant because, in your imagination, reconnaissance satellites (about half of which use radar rather than light) are affected by it.

    Israel cancelled/postponed ground exercises – so that involves F-35s how? And how is it relevant to “6 F-35s on the border”?

    Iraq recently asked all US ground troops to leave the country. The USAF had already left Iraq and returned to their pre-deployment bases. It no longer has the infrastructure in Iraq to deploy any military aircraft there. It would take at least a month to perform the obvious redevelopment of infrastructure. So, again, where was the operational base for the hypothetical F-35s and tankers?

    LIDAR, a non-stealthy external fitting for an F-35, requires the laser carrying aircraft to fly straight and level immediately above the target area – so how does that gel with “They were near the border, not in Iranian rerritory(sic)”?

    Drop tanks on an F-35 mean it’s no longer stealthy (I told you to look up “beast mode”). So standard air defence radars, as deployed by every country in the region, can see an F-35 with drop tanks. Long range radars within Russia would be irrelevant. If local air defence radars could not see the hypothetical F-35s then they must have been without drop tanks and their short combat radius of about 1,000 km remains relevant. To be “on the border” of Iran they would have required numerous hypothetical tankers in support, all of which would be seen by local air defence radars and acted on.

    The presence of “6 F-35s on the borders” of Iran requires many interlocking requirements, each of which have to be fulfilled. Many of those requirements can be verified or refuted by an intelligent internet search. Or even logical thought. Demonstrating that a single requirement was not fulfilled means that the entire hypothesis can be be refuted.

    Why don’t you turn on your brain and think of those interlocking requirements instead of just speculating?

    You still haven’t managed to produce any evidence, at all, that “6 F-35s were on the border” and should have been able to produce at least circumstantial evidence by now if it actually happened.

    But, as I’ve said before, your religious faith in Lavrov and your refusal to question his propaganda is impressive.

    Like

  69. Stuartg wrote: ““Visual reconnaissance” was your “imagining” of what the hypothetical F-35s were doing, not electronic surveillance.”

    No, please read again:

    Stuartg wrote: “Israel doesn’t need to use “6 F-35s on the border” to do reconnaissance over Iran. Or aren’t you aware of their independent satellite capability? Or aware that they can also get satellite reconnaissance information from the USA?”

    And I replied: “Satellites don’t work so well through cloud.

    When I say reconnaisance I probably mean just imaging. Satellites may not be so good at imaging heights of objects, and there may not be one in range at any needed time.

    I’m just imagining summed imaging. Six eyes better than one.

    For imaging the planes won’t need to go so fast and burn so much fuel.”

    What I meant by: “When I say reconnaisance I probably mean just imaging.”

    could include “visual,” i.e. human eyes, light photography from under some cloud, but not only visbile light stuff, i.e. plus radar, lidar, receiving other aircraft or land based radar or other signals, and “data fusion” with the other F-35s and land based and satellite-based, current or past, as in my answer to your no. 12.

    In other words, by “just imaging” I mean the whole available many dimensional image. Part of my inference of “just imaging,” would be they don’t have to be traveling fast so more sparing of fuel.

    Like

  70. Stuartg, By “just imaging” I also would have meant that a satellite image can be reconnaissance, or an aerial photo like of old for planning, and these days they are still just “imaging” for planning, but the image is multidimensional fused and dynamic. It would’ve been worrying to Iran who weren’t sure of more reprisal, even though it was said Iran had killed no-one near the US base in Iraq with their retaliation for the US killing of Qasem Soleimani, so Trump didn’t count it.

    Like

  71. Souhdhill,

    So still no evidence to back your assertion that there “6 F-35s were on the border” of Iran?

    That’s all I asked for, back on 18th January, but all you’ve done since is speculate and prevaricate.

    It’s your assertion; you need to produce the evidence.

    Like

  72. Soundhill,

    If you did actually mean “the whole available many dimensional image” when referring to reconnaissance, then why did you limit the dimensions with your comment “Satellites don’t work so well through cloud”? Why the prolonged defence of your “imagining”?

    It appears that you are incapable of admitting to limitations of your knowledge and then refuse to acknowledge the delusions and fallacies that are subsequently produced by that limitation. Especially when they are pointed out to you. Dunning-Kruger strikes again.

    Like

  73. Stuartg obviously I can’t give proof.

    I can only be like the sort of cat which though it can’t prove it will be hit crossing the road may decide not to and even when on the footpath slink along close to the fences.

    Do you accept the verity of the US attack by F-35s on an Iraqi Qanus Island last year? That Island is only about 180km from the Iranian border.

    Like

  74. Soundhill,

    You may not be able to give proof that “6 F-35s were on the border” of Iran, but then neither did Lavrov. What should have happened was for you to question Lavrov’s statement and look for circumstantial evidence to support or refute his claims. Simple things, such as:
    F-35s deploying away from their permanent bases.
    KC-135s or KC-10s deploying away from their bases.
    Pilots and aircrew deploying overseas unexpectedly (and returning).
    Both aircraft types returning to base from deployment.
    Deployment of F-35 support personnel +/- families.
    Deployment of KC-135 or KC-10 support personnel +/- families.
    Return of those personnel +/- families.
    F-35s seen on the ground at air bases in the Middle East.
    KC-135s or KC-10s seen on the ground at bases in the same area.
    Transit records of aircraft from their home bases to forward deployment sites.
    Announcements of the deployments in the press. Or even on Google.
    Countries surrounding Iran noting the presence of several KC-135s or KC-10s on their air defence radars and intercepting them.
    Air defence radars in the region noting F-35s with drop tanks and interceptors being launched to escort them out of defended airspace.

    And a major question: which border? Why didn’t Lavrov say?

    You could have questioned Lavrov’s propaganda when you first learned of it. I certainly did. But instead you believed his statement and then had to produce multiple speculations, often self-contradictory, in an attempt to prevent yourself from realising the statement was fact-free propaganda. If F-35s had actually been detected he could, and would, have given times, courses, speeds, altitude, etc. To do so would have been a massive intelligence coup that would have greatly affected future use of F-35s. He didn’t.

    I repeat, “the presence of “6 F-35s on the border” of Iran requires many interlocking requirements, each of which have to be fulfilled.” And the obvious question again – which border?

    Meanwhile, in the real world, in the past two months very little circumstantial evidence has surfaced to support Lavrov. I can provide answers to some of the questions I asked, but not enough to fulfill the interlocking requirements. I know of air bases in the region that can operate F-35s. I know of air bases there that can and do operate KC-135s and KC-10s. You obviously don’t. Since the distance from Russia to the Iranian border closest to those bases is about the same as Christchurch to Perth, I have to call b******t on any claims that radar could see any aircraft at that distance – and it’s further support for Lavrov’s statement being pure propaganda.

    As I previously said, your religious faith and belief in Lavrov is remarkable.

    Like

  75. If you accept that US F-35s bombed Qanus Island in Iraq where would we find all that supporting data you ask to really substantiate it to others?

    Like

  76. Israel brag in 2015 they are not worried about stealth just doubling range.
    https://en.globes.co.il/en/article-israel-to-double-attack-range-of-f-35-stealth-fighter-1001068513 US could be using their base and doing the same?

    Like

  77. Soundhill,

    Sigh… Haven’t we been here before?

    Read up on the development of the F-35. Or the F-22. Or indeed any stealth aircraft. Any change in shape, such as needed to increase the internal volume of fuel, results in a decrease in stealth qualities. Adding drop tanks for increased range destroys the stealth qualities. Israel cannot increase the F-35s combat radius without reducing its’ stealth. The USAF, and RAAF, would dearly like greater combat radius for the F-35, but it just can’t be done.
    You don’t have the basic knowledge to understand that – it’s known as the Dunning-Kruger effect. This is prevarication on your part, completely unrelated to your assertion that “6 F-35s were on the border” of Iran.

    Qanus Island has film and photography as well as US acknowledgment of the raid. Yes, there are questions to be raised about the raid. The photos mainly show armed F-15Es and an armed B-52, rather than your claimed F-35s. The film shows a smaller number of explosions than would be caused by the stated tonnage dropped. Photos purporting to be of F-35s taking part in the raid show they would have been unable to defend themselves against attack if they were carrying the GBU-31JDAMs used internally – and that’s an unlikely situation for a fighter. So I suspect that any F-35s involved were fighter escorts for the bombers, rather than being bombers themselves. But invoking Qanus Island is just more prevarication on your part, completely unrelated to your assertion that “6 F-35s were on the border” of Iran.

    Again, you’ve produced no evidence to support your assertion that “6 F-35s were on the border” of Iran. Or that they were within radar range of Russia at the time. Where are the films and photography of those 6 aircraft? Where are the Russian reports? Where are the US acknowledgments of their presence there, like at Qanus Island? Why, after two months, are you unable to provide even circumstantial evidence to support the claim?

    Unless, of course, it’s entirely in your, and Lavrov’s, imaginations.

    Like

  78. Soundhill,

    For your edification: an indication of the combat radius problem with the F-35. https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/projecting-power-with-the-f-35-part-1-how-far-can-it-go/

    I’d advise you to read part two as well. It will give an indication of problems associated with air-to-air refueling and how difficult it is to use the technique to place “6 F-35s on the border” of Iran. One aircraft, yes. Six aircraft, no.

    Like

  79. Soundhill,

    Here you are. It took me some time to work through my old news feeds, but reasons why the F-35A doesn’t have the combat radius it was supposed to have: https://www.flightglobal.com/pentagon-agrees-to-f-35a-combat-radius-reduction/104390.article

    Perhaps the F-35s at Qanus Island were there for SEAD rather than to drop JDAMs? It would make more sense than leaving them defenceless in order to drop more bombs?

    Like

  80. Soundhill,

    BTW, if you go back to Israel as the source of the loitering “6 F-35s on the border” of Iran, consider your statement “they are not worried about stealth just doubling range” and contemplate the warload of the F-15I Ra’am and then its ability to cross the Atlantic Ocean without refueling. Then its maximum speed, which exceeds that of the F-35.

    Wouldn’t Israel have rather used the F-15I? After all, it would be just as visible to radar as an F-35 with drop tanks, or the tankers accompanying F-35s without them. As well as being able to get out of trouble much faster?

    As I said in my first comment, you need to use the brain you were supposedly equipped with at birth.

    Like

  81. Stuartg wrote: “Read up on the development of the F-35. Or the F-22. Or indeed any stealth aircraft. Any change in shape, such as needed to increase the internal volume of fuel, results in a decrease in stealth qualities. Adding drop tanks for increased range destroys the stealth qualities. Israel cannot increase the F-35s combat radius without reducing its’ stealth. ”

    The Israelis brag they are more interested in range than stealth. They don’t mind being detected. Please read again my comment: https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2019/07/26/mh17-tragedy-5-years-on/#comment-159479

    Like

  82. Stuartg wrote: ” But invoking Qanus Island is just more prevarication on your part, completely unrelated to your assertion that “6 F-35s were on the border” of Iran.”

    It’s related because you questioned about any base for the F-35s. There must be a base somewhere in the vicinity for them if they were used.

    Like

  83. Stuartg wrote: ” Where are the US acknowledgments of their presence there, like at Qanus Island?”

    The Qanus Island attack may have been filmed for publicity.

    Like

  84. Stuartg wrote: “For your edification: an indication of the combat radius problem with the F-35” Iraq and Iran share a border only 120km from Baghdad and the US base.
    So they won’t need tankers.

    Like

  85. Stuartg wrote: “It took me some time to work through my old news feeds, but reasons why the F-35A doesn’t have the combat radius it was supposed to have.”

    If the US and Israel were doing a joint exercise then the Israelis with their longer range F-35Is may have been using the base near Baghdad.

    Like

  86. Stuartg wrote: “Wouldn’t Israel have rather used the F-15I?”

    “While the F-35I has advantages such as intelligence gathering, the F-15IA’s assets closely match most missions carried out by the IAF,”

    Intelligence mode maybe to help cruise missiles if needed. Not attack mode so the 35I is needed.

    Like

  87. Stuartg wrote: “As I said in my first comment, you need to use the brain you were supposedly equipped with at birth.”
    I always feel I am winning when commenters are resorting to attacking the person.

    Like

  88. Soundhill,

    Sigh… Gish Gallop again…

    Just use your brain, as I said…

    If israel had used increased range F-35s (drop tanks) then they would have been spotted by any of the air defence radars in the region, including Iran. Russia would not have been the only country to see them. Possibility ruled out.

    Israeli aircraft based in Iraq? Generalised peals of laughter…

    Radar visible Israeli aircraft overflying Syria or Jordan to reach Iraq? Without being interpreted as a raid and shot down? ROFLMAO

    Coordinated reconnaissance by Israeli F-35s on the border of Iran? (Your “imagining”, no-one else’s). Ruled out by time on station and fuel requirements (you did read those comments on range and fuel requirements of RAAF F-35s, didn’t you?)

    “The Israelis brag they are more interested in range than stealth.” Yep. That’s why they are buying more F-15Is and F-16Is, with longer combat range than the F-35I, faster, and also fitted with proprietary Israeli electronics (including for reconnaissance). Why wouldn’t they use those for reconnaissance – especially as you’ve decided that stealth properties weren’t needed?

    Qanus Island… The official acknowledgment of the raid also stated the base they flew from. Hint: it’s further from Russia than Perth is from Christchurch. Possibility of Russian radars detecting F-35s (or indeed any aircraft) flying from there is completely ruled out.

    As I said, time for you to start using your brain… one statement by Lavrov, zero evidence to support it, possibility of it being true ruled out by use of logic. All those multiple interlocking requirements I mentioned…

    Like

  89. Stuartg
    Didn’t I say this before, that this indicates the USA admit that the S-400 radar saw the F-35s?

    “At the same time, in the USA, in fact, recognizing the “visibility” of the F-35 for the S-400 air defense system, they declare the following:
    “The ability to detect F-35 fighters does not mean the possibility for the S-400 to bring them down.””
    https://bulgarianmilitary.com/2020/01/28/russias-s-400-has-detected-f-35s-near-the-irans-border-us-confirmed-jets-visibility/

    So they took off from Al Dhafra air base Abu Dhabi to attack Qanus Island. It is only soe 250km from their to the border of Iran on the Persian Gulf. Yes a bit far from Syria for any S-400 Russian radars there which the “Bulgarian” was suggesting.

    But: “At the Army-2019 forum in June, representatives of the Russian Federal Service for Military and Technical Cooperation announced Moscow’s readiness to supply Iran with an undefined number of S-400s. ”
    So they may have been training the Iranians in their use.

    https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2020/02/05/russia-s-400-iran-ukrainian-passenger-plane-a69174

    No need to think of the Israelis any more, thanks.

    Seeing the F-35s on the border of Iran doesn’t have to mean they themselves are going to attack. Just that they could be part of lining up another cruise missile attack.

    Like

  90. Soundhill,

    Your own sources say the S-400 radar has a range of 600 km. It hasn’t been exported. Say one is in Grozny, and aircraft are over Baghdad. Note the radar range is short by about 500 km. If the aircraft are over the southern borders of Iran then they are far, far beyond the range of the radar.

    You see, in order for your claim that “6 F-35s were on the border” of Iran, and able to be detected by Russian radar, they had to be within the range of that radar.

    So far, all you’ve mentioned are borders beyond the range of radars located within Russia.

    As I’ve previously said, and you haven’t appeared to notice, the exact border they were over is somewhat important. It has to be within the range of radars that have never been exported from Russia.

    I wish you’d start using your brain…

    Like

  91. Stuartg if I were a Russian hoping to sell S-400s to Iran I would take them to near the Persian Gulf for a demoonstration, near where US planes/missiles could pass over from take off in Al Dahfra..

    Like

  92. Soudhill,

    If you would engage your brain for a few minutes…

    For your assertion that “6 F-35s were on the border” of Iran, several things needed to actually happen:
    1. The border had to be within F-35 combat radius of its base …or explain why refueling tankers were unable to be seen and then escorted away.
    2. The F-35s had to have enough loiter time to perform their tasks and be counted, so reducing their combat radius. (You “imagined” a cooperative reconnaissance, but didn’t say of what so I guess that’s for later speculation)
    3. Drop tanks could indeed have been used on Israeli F-35s… so explain why Syria, or Jordan, or Iraq, or Turkey, or even Saudi Arabia, did not respond by shooting down a flight of now radar visible warplanes apparently invading their country en route to the borders of Iran.
    4. Drop tanks weren’t used on Israeli aircraft… so explain why Syria, or Jordan, etc, did not shoot down, or escort away, a flight of radar visible military tanker aircraft apparently invading their country, etc.
    5. There had to be a Russian radar capable of detecting F-35s present in the area… so demonstration that the radar can actually detect the F-35 is required… as well as the range at which the radar can detect the F-35… that the radar was close enough to the F-35s to theoretically detect them… and that the radar was also able to see the relevant Iranian border…
    6. You speculate that Iraq allowed the USA to re-activate previously closed air base(s) despite them asking the US military to leave… show that the USA has actually committed the resources and reactivated a closed Iraqi air base…
    7. The F-35s were close enough to Russia to be seen by a radar sited within Russia… see point 1.
    8. The russian radar was sited inside Iran… so show that it had been exported from Russia… if not, then show there was a demonstration version set up within Iran…. show where the radar was located within Iran… that it was within radar range of the relevant border… and then show how a radar within Iran is “maybe causing confusion” in Iran…
    9. F-35s had to actually be in the area to be seen on radar… so demonstrate that they had actually been deployed from their home base into the area, just as they did from April to October 2019 (this is probably the easiest point to provide the evidence).

    Isn’t this fun? It means thinking like an intelligence analyst instead of like a conspiracy theorist. (Addendum: my spellchecker keeps wanting to put “cesspit” instead of conspiracy!)

    You say “if” the Russians were wanting to export their most advanced radar… thats prevarication; if you’re considering that, you’ll need to show that the Russians are actually wanting to export it. If you can’t show that precondition, then just drop the speculation. I can’t be bothered to look it up myself, I consider its just going to be a waste of my time. Russia doesn’t usually export their current top-of-the-range military equipment.

    As I’ve said before, there are many interlocking elements and preconditions required to fulfill your assertion that “6 F-35s were on the border” of Iran. It appears that you have religious faith in the truth of Lavrov’s propaganda but have never thought to actually question it. You just produce more and more prevarications and wild speculations in order to support your conspiracy theories. You haven’t shown any evidence at all. Its evident that your speculations and prevarications derive from rapid Google searches without prior knowledge. Because of it you’ve managed to demonstrate a Dunning-Kruger level of ignorance on several occasions, eg LIDAR.

    I can’t help it if I question everything I read or hear. It’s what I was taught to do by my teachers even before I was a teenager. Questioning, limiting the assumptions I make, recognising them as assumptions, and then using Occams razor mean that conspiracy theories have never managed to take root in my consciousness.

    Were F-35s on the border of Iran? My answer is “highly unlikely”. I can’t definitively say no, but I will re-assess if any evidence surfaces. It hasn’t so far. Hence my original questions: “which border? In whose airspace were they flying? Afghanistan? Armenia? Azerbaijan? Pakistan? Turkmenistan? Turkey? Iraq? None of them are known for their extensive F-35 fleets. Where were such short range aircraft flying from?” I wanted to know what evidence I’d missed. I still do.

    Were F-35s on the border of Iran? Your answer is “definitely”. You then go on to “imagining” the reasons F-35s were there and construct an entire conspiracy theory based on a single phrase that was originally translated by an interpreter (assumption: that you didn’t translate it yourself). And two months later you still have not got a single shred of evidence to support your obviously religious level of belief.

    Bit of a difference in approach between the pair of us, isn’t it? Who do you think’s understanding is closest to what actually happened?

    Like

  93. Soundhill,

    My original questions still stand: “which border? In whose airspace were they flying? Afghanistan? Armenia? Azerbaijan? Pakistan? Turkmenistan? Turkey? Iraq? None of them are known for their extensive F-35 fleets.
    Where were such short range aircraft flying from?”

    I know from your speculations and prevarications that you don’t have the knowledge or ability to answer those questions. But most people would expect anyone who asserts that “6 F-35s were on the border” of Iran to be able to answer them.

    Like

  94. Stuartg, Since US already had a surveillance drone shot down over what they said was international waters beside Iran in the Persian Gulf on 20 Jun 2019 that might have been the reason for F-35 surveillance instead. Well within their range from Al Dahfra. And note that that date was rather coincidental with what I posted before: ” “At the Army-2019 forum in June, representatives of the Russian Federal Service for Military and Technical Cooperation announced Moscow’s readiness to supply Iran with an undefined number of S-400s. ” US seemed to be quite surprised and claimed they were not over Iran. I presume it wasn’t the sort of radar they had been used to.

    Like

  95. David Fierstien

    Soundhill1. As a deflection away from my original question you said, “The way Putin said it at a Valdai news conference, a coup ousted the legal president of Ukraine, whose life then was under threat. He asked for Russian help and was escorted to the Crimea where there are many Russians. The people of Crimea asked Russia for help against the forces of the coup.”

    That is interesting. You are saying that the people of Crimea asked for help, against a coup, to . . . . presumably . . . help them restore their government? Is that the help they were asking for?

    How does illegally annexing territory help the people of Crimea restore their own government?

    Like

  96. Soundhill,

    “6 F-35s were over the border” of Iran. You made a simple statement. It either happened, or it didn’t. It should be really easy you to present evidence if it actually happened and wasn’t pure imagination.

    In two months, instead of supplying evidence, all you’ve managed is a fact-free mish-mash of speculations and prevarications in order to manufacture a complexity of conspiracy theory that Occams razor immediately disposes of.

    And now you introduce the shooting down of a Global Hawk as another speculation unrelated to your original contention. It’s yet another obvious prevarication.

    You stated “6 F-35s were on the border” of Iran. Do you have any actual evidence to support your contention? Or is all you have speculative conspiracy theory and your own religious belief in Lavrov’s propaganda?

    Like

  97. Soundhill,

    Separate from my questions, calling the Global Hawk a “drone” is a further display of your Dunning-Kruger lack of knowledge.

    The wingspan of the Global Hawk is greater than that of a Boeing 737 capable of carrying 220 passengers. It’s a significant piece of hardware.

    “Remote-piloted surveillance aircraft” is the more appropriate term used by its manufacturer.

    Like

  98. Soundhill,

    Is it possible for you to stop the “if…”, “may…”, “maybe…”, “might have been…”, “could have…”, etc, and deal with the real world instead of imagination? Just for a while?

    You provided relevant evidence, for once, that Russia was prepared to supply Iran with S-400s. Thankyou. Now we ask were they actually delivered? Were they operational? Where did Iran locate them? Were they actually in use by Iran? (The question of why Iran still couldn’t see those pesky F-35s, and why only Russian propaganda could, we’ll leave until later).

    Otherwise you’re still speculating and prevaricating without evidence.

    Like

  99. David Fierstien wrote: “How does illegally annexing territory help the people of Crimea restore their own government?”

    As I transcribed https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2016/07/22/the-putin-diversion/
    “The people of Crimea feared for their and their children’s future following a coup d’etat carried out with the support of our Western partners and decided to make use of the right to self-determination enshrined in international law. However, this does not in any way mean that we do not respect Ukraine’s sovereignty. We do respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and will continue to do so in the future. I hope very much for normalisation and development of Russian-Ukrainian relations and I think this is an inevitable process.”

    Like

  100. Stuartg wrote: “And now you introduce the shooting down of a Global Hawk as another speculation unrelated to your original contention. It’s yet another obvious prevarication.”

    “Prevarication” is a fancy way to say, “lie.”
    (There’s a lot about it here. Are you going to seek to modify the Wiki to correct “drone” to “Global Hawk,” every time it happens to occur?)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Iranian_shoot-down_of_American_drone

    You have asked many times which border of Iran the supposed F-35s were on (near.) Now you call it a prevarication when i give an example of where US operates.

    Like

  101. David, your characterisation is logically false – a little thought should show you that.

    You asked “You are saying that the people of Crimea asked for help, against a coup, to . . . . presumably . . . help them restore their government? Is that the help they were asking for?

    The neo-fascist/nationalist coup occurred in Kiev, not in Crimea. The neo-fascist/nationalist groups then set about spreading their power through local takeovers of administrations (this was actually occurring in the west before the coup). This lead to conflicts in the east with opponents also using these tactics and, inevitably, when the coup leaders sent the army in to fight the Ukrainians in the east (illegal according to the constitution so they had to define their fellow-citizens as terrorists to do so).

    There were attempts to take over the administration in Crimea (which was, and had been since the break-up of the USSR) largely independent from Kiev) which failed. Eventually, the local parliament declared independence and then held a referendum, on the constitution and return to Russia.

    Given the current developments (beginning of the MH17 “trial”) I should probably do a new post on this. There are a lot of issues related to the MH17 evidence and the portrayal of nay evidence contradicting the “official” narrative as misinformation. The later point is very relevant on lots of issues today.

    Like

  102. Soundhill,

    You are correct about one meaning of the word prevarication. It has others.

    Do I want wikipedia to correct “drone” to “Global Hawk” wherever it uses the term? Don’t be silly. You used one meaning of the word “drone”. It has others.

    The aircraft shot down by Iran was a Northrop Grumman RQ-4 Global Hawk.

    You used the term “drone” to signify an aircraft about the size of an airliner, whereas most persons now would associate the word “drone” with something bought from the Warehouse for a birthday present. Was that deliberate obfuscation on your part? Or were you actually unaware of what was shot down by Iran and so were truly ignorant of the subject you diverted to?

    Yes, I do call it prevarication when you “give an example of where US operates”. The word means to speak or act in an evasive way, to be vague about the truth, or even delay giving someone an answer, especially to avoid telling them the whole truth.

    The US operates worldwide, but that has nothing to do with “6 F-35s were on the border” of Iran at a certain time. The shooting down of a Global Hawk has exactly nothing to do with the location of any other aircraft in the world at any other time. I think prevarication is the appropriate term here, don’t you? I’m willing to use obfuscation, diversion, deflection, elusion, fallacy, evasion, dodging, shirking, or similar terms if you would prefer?

    I note that you ignored or evaded my invitation to demonstrate that the S-400 was actually delivered to Iran. If it hadn’t been delivered to Iran, then how could it have seen “6 F-35s on the border?”

    You still haven’t given any evidence as to which border the F-35s were actually on. Or even that any had deployed to an air base in the region (and I considered that task soooo simple). As a matter of fact, in the two months since you stated that “6 F-35s were on the border” of Iran, you haven’t produced a single iota of evidence to support your statement.

    So, were “6 F-35s on the border” of Iran? Or not? Evidence to support your religious belief, please.

    Like

  103. Stuartg, should I have said where US had operated on the Iranian border before?
    As regards whether Russia had had S-400 near where the “Gobal Hawk” was downed I don’t think Russia or USA give away all their military dealings. Especially Trump proclaims surprise to be important. But several times Russia has proclaimed solidarity with Iran.

    What do you consider to be the nature of “Obama’s drones,” which killed so many people?

    Like

  104. Stuartg, Trump, as you may have read in my cite, decided 10 minutes before action to pull out of an attack on Iranian radar in retribution for the downing of the “Global Hawk.” From the Wiki I cited: “Trump later confirmed that he aborted an attack, tweeting that he was in “no hurry” to attack Iran and halted his order “10 minutes before the strike” because it was only then that he learned that Iranian casualties were estimated to be 150 killed, which he said was “not proportionate to shooting down an unmanned drone””

    In the USA the Vaccine Adverse Reaction court will pay $250K maximum for a death. That would be only $37.5 million for 150, way short of the value you quoted for the “Global Hawk,” “unmanned drone,” as Trump calls it. He seems to value life more than military equipment, unlike yourself.

    Like

  105. David Fierstien

    Ken, your comment:
    “David, your characterisation is logically false – a little thought should show you that.

    You asked “You are saying that the people of Crimea asked for help, against a coup, to . . . . presumably . . . help them restore their government? Is that the help they were asking for?

    The neo-fascist/nationalist coup occurred in Kiev, not in Crimea. The neo-fascist/nationalist groups then set about spreading their power through local takeovers of administrations (this was actually occurring in the west before the coup). This lead to conflicts in the east with opponents also using these tactics and, inevitably, when the coup leaders sent the army in to fight the Ukrainians in the east (illegal according to the constitution so they had to define their fellow-citizens as terrorists to do so). . . . ”

    Response: Your knee-jerk reaction to my question lacks logic – a little thought should show you that.

    1.) “The neo-fascist/nationalist coup occurred in Kiev, not in Crimea.”
    Response: I never said a coup occurred in Crimea. Thank you for a great example of a straw-man argument.

    2.) The rest of your comment is irrelevant propaganda which has nothing to do with my question.

    3.) Did you have anything useful to say regarding my question to soundhill?

    Like

  106. David Fierstien

    Soundhill I asked, “How does illegally annexing territory help the people of Crimea restore their own government?”

    You responded with an irrelevant quote attributed to no one. I am assuming this is a quote by Putin regarding his illegal annexation of Crimea?

    “The people of Crimea feared for their and their children’s future following a coup d’etat carried out with the support of our Western partners and decided to make use of the right to self-determination enshrined in international law. However, this does not in any way mean that we do not respect Ukraine’s sovereignty. We do respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and will continue to do so in the future. I hope very much for normalisation and development of Russian-Ukrainian relations and I think this is an inevitable process.”

    This is irrelevant to the question. Crimea is not now independent from the nation whose president, I assume, this quote is to be attributed. If this quote is from Putin, your sense of irony, in attempting to answer the question, is excellent. Very Good!

    Like

  107. Soundhill,

    Exactly what has your comment got to do with providing evidence to confirm your assertion that “6 F-35s were on the border” of Iran?

    It’s just more prevarication on your part.

    Like

  108. David – you implied there had been a coup in Crimea because you referred to the Crimeans wanting help to “restore their government.” Yet their government (in Crimea) had not been overthrown (no question of restoration) – although there had been attempts by ultranationalist/neofascist groups to take over the parliament. Unlike in many other areas the attempts in Crimea were unsuccessful – but the situation of the Crimean parliament not accepting the illegal coup in Kiev obviously meant changes had to be made. The declaration of independence and decision to hold a referendum on the constitution and return to Russia were inevitable results of the illegal coup in Kiev.

    My description of the facts – the illegal coup in Kiev, the use of nationalist/neofascist groups to extend the power of the junta and the resistance of the people in Dombass and Crimea are hardly “irrelevant” – and your attempt to describe them as “propaganda” is simply avoidance (unfortunately extremely common in today’s geoplpoptical dominated mainstream media.

    Like

  109. Soundhill,

    “Should I have said where US had operated on the Iranian border before?”(sic) You can say what you like, but I’d prefer that you produce some evidence to support your 18 January statement that “6 f-35s were on the border, maybe causing confusion.” After all, in case you hadn’t noticed, that’s what I’ve been asking you to do.

    Ever since 18 January all that you have produced is obfuscation, prevarication, and speculation based on a Dunning-Kruger level of knowledge in multiple subjects. In the process you have managed to demonstrate that you have a deep, religious level of belief in conspiracy theory. Facts, evidence, and even knowledge of individual subjects apparently mean nothing to you; cherry picking of Google trumps all.

    (BTW, speaking of Trump, you’re not related, are you? The style is markedly reminiscent).

    What you have not managed to do, since 18 January, is to produce a single iota of evidence in support of your assertion.

    Hitchens’ razor: What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

    Like

  110. David Fierstien

    Ken, your quote: “David – you implied there had been a coup in Crimea because you referred to the Crimeans wanting help to “restore their government.”

    Ken, this is sad. This is my entire comment in its context:

    QUOTE: “Soundhill1. As a deflection away from my original question you said, “The way Putin said it at a Valdai news conference, a coup ousted the legal president of Ukraine, whose life then was under threat. He asked for Russian help and was escorted to the Crimea where there are many Russians. The people of Crimea asked Russia for help angst the forces of the coupe.” ENDQUOTE FOR SOUNDHILL

    BEGIN MY COMMENT: “That is interesting. You are saying that the people of Crimea asked for help, against a coup, to . . . . presumably . . . help them restore their government? Isa that the help they were asking for?” ENDQUOTE

    https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2019/07/26/mh17-tragedy-5-years-on/#comment-157284

    As any dolt can plainly see, I was paraphrasing what Soundhill had already said.

    Ken, if you would like to join in, please try to keep up. This is very sad. I am sincerely sorry for you and your sorry pro-Russian apologia,.

    Like

  111. The Crimeans were handling their own situation – I do not recall them asking for help to overthrow the ultranationalist/neofascist junta that took power in Kiev in late February (although Crimeans were conspicuous in the Maidan demonstration before the coup protesting against these elements and supporting the legal government).

    Unless you can provide evidence to the contrary, my understanding is that the Crimeans asked for help from existing troops in Crimea to stabilise the situation, thus preventing the neofascist/ultranationalist bands from taking over the Crimean parliament building. The “silent men” did provide very effective help – no bloodshed. The parliament continued its activity and declared independence. The referendum was held safely.

    There was absolutely no question of “restoration” of government in Crimea (it had not been overthrown) and I think the Crimean attitude was to see the backs of the corrupt regimes in Kiev (there had been numerous attempts at independence or autonomy since the collapse of the USSR – the Crimean people did not want to be part of Ukraine) – I do not recall them asking the Russian Federation to restore the legal government in Kiev.

    Even as Brian presents it (and he is not quoting) the legal president in Kiev asked for help from the Russian Federation to save his life. And, as Brian puts it “The people of Crimea asked Russia for help against the forces of the coup.” Again they asked for help against the marauding neo-fascist/nationalist bands who were attempting to seize government buildings in Crimea. Nothing to do with Kiev.

    Your paraphrasing of Brian’s comment was faulty. And your personal abuse does not change that.

    Like

  112. Stuartg I am not related to Trump but I note his first wife came from Czecholslovakia where two of my music teachers came from teaching me for 7 years and keeping up friendship after that. And Trump’s 3rd wife came from not too far from there. I believe some people are not so bought by your cold war stuff.

    One special music concert I went to was by a string quartet from Czechoslovakia called the Smetana Quartet. They played their concert from memory and it was wonderful.

    Note Trump is trying to pull out of the Middle East and make his home country “great again.” His definition of “great,” will probably be different from yours, not a conquering nation.

    Like

  113. Stuartg I think you and many people try to feed a perception about Trump to “crucify,” since he challenges the established order.

    To be fair you ought to listen to his foreign policy speech on his election campaign. Sorry I don’t have time to transcribe it. Maybe you can listen to it while doing something else.

    He asks for peace, unlike Hillary I think, Could be a reason why people voted for him.

    Like

  114. Soundhill,

    So, I take it you’re not going to provide any evidence for your 18 January statement that “6 f-35s were on the border” of Iran.

    Hitchens’ razor: What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

    Like

  115. Soundhill,

    That’s an interesting set of conclusions that you appear to have reached about me and my perceptions of Trump, all based on exactly zero information. Is this the way you normally approach subjects? Conclusions from zero information?

    All I said was that your style is reminiscent of his…

    Like

  116. Stuartg I don’t think US will verify what sort of surveillance or shows of strength they would have had in the air at that tense time when Iran was shooting near their base in Iraq.

    Like

  117. Stuartg, then please explain your actual intention/import in asking whether Trump had tweeted it.

    Like

  118. David Fierstien

    Ken,

    ‘Even as Brian presents it (and he is not quoting) the legal president in Kiev asked for help from the Russian Federation to save his life. And, as Brian puts it “The people of Crimea asked Russia for help against the forces of the coup.” Again they asked for help against the marauding neo-fascist/nationalist bands who were attempting to seize government buildings in Crimea. Nothing to do with Kiev.”

    “Your paraphrasing of Brian’s comment was faulty. And your personal abuse does not change that.”

    Response: 1.) I apologize if you felt abused.

    2.) Whether my paraphrasing of Brian’s comment was faulty or not is irrelevant. I began the statement with, “That is interrresting. You are saying . . . ” Clearly I was paraphrasing him. I wasn’t necessarily agreeing with him. I never said there wasn’t a coup in Kiev. Your inability to admit when you are wrong is a problem.

    3.) Maybe lighten up on your steady diet of pro-Russian state propaganda.

    Like

  119. Soundhill,

    The USAF releases where their squadrons deploy to, and when. It’s easy to verify that no F-35 squadrons were on deployment to the Middle East, and you’d need a squadron deployment to get 6 aircraft to Iranian borders. I told you that I considered that one of the easiest pieces of evidence to find out; just look at each squadron individually. I also consider it evidence against your religious belief/assertion that “6 F-35s were on the border”.

    I think it’s obvious that they couldn’t have been Israeli aircraft (routes to be taken, crossing hostile and well defended airspace, combat range, drop tanks versus tanker aircraft affecting radar visibility, etc, etc).

    So what other country has F-35s in service and would have the capability, and reason, to put “6 F-35s on the border” of Iran? Australia? Belgium? Denmark? Italy? Japan? The Netherlands? Norway? South Korea? Or the United Kingdom? Your choice – but give evidence.

    How can you identify stealth aircraft on radar? Answer: you can’t. It’s just a fuzzy blob. Radar controllers can’t verify that any returns seen were even F-35s. If stealth aircraft were actually “on the border” of Iran, they could just as easily have been SU-57s. We know that Russia has previously deployed them to Syria, which, as you know, is on the Iranian border. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/russias-new-su-57-stealth-fighter-back-action-syria-106541 So how do we know those radar returns weren’t SU-57s? We don’t.

    “please explain your actual intention/import in asking whether Trump had tweeted it.” Read it again. I asked nothing. All I said was that I consider your style reminiscent of Trump. Anything else is pure imagination, speculation, or conspiracy theory on your part.

    Like

  120. David – this is really silly you saying “I never said there wasn’t a coup in Kiev.” Because none, least of all me, has made that claim.

    I was simply pointing out that there had not been a successful coup in Crimea. The neofascist/ultranationalist thugs were not successful in their attempt to take over the Crimean parliament buildings. So it was never a question of the Crimeans wanting Russian help to restore their government.

    As for your abuse – it gets you nowhere and certainly doesn’t hurt me. I am aware that these days it is a technique used to avoid reality. Such as describing the emergence of dissent scientists within the OPCW pointing out the gerrymandering of their reports on Syria and the release of internal prosecution documents from the MH17 “trial” as Russian misinformation.

    The real world exists no matter how much you close your eyes and deny reality by label.ling everything that upsets you as “pro-Russian state propaganda.”

    Like

  121. David Fierstien

    Ken, you are an interesting case. Somehow you have found the ability to argue against a comment which did two things. I paraphrased Soundhill, whether correctly or incorrectly. And I asked him a question. I never made a statement of declaration. There was never anything, from me, against which you could argue. And yet, somehow you managed to find a way to do it . . if only in your own mind.

    Stay well.

    Like

  122. David – I was simply responding to your assertion “I never said there wasn’t a coup in Kiev” – pointing out that no one, least of all me, claimed you had said that.

    May I suggest that the problem was something in your mind – after all, you were the one making the assertion.

    However, I do acknowledge this may be progress for you because in the past in your comments on Crimea and Ukraine you have worked very hard to avoid discussing that coup and the relevance it may have had for the changes in Crimea.

    Like

  123. Stuartg: “. All I said was that I consider your style reminiscent of Trump. Anything else is pure imagination, speculation, or conspiracy theory on your part.”
    And: “That’s an interesting set of conclusions that you appear to have reached about me and my perceptions of Trump, all based on exactly zero information. Is this the way you normally approach subjects? Conclusions from zero information?”

    For a person who can see patterns, they will twig that by the way you relate to me, then likening me to Trump, you criticise him by proxy.

    Like

  124. Soundhill,

    “Would this radar see the exhaust trail of an F-35?” (Presumably on the border of Iran – the particular circumstance you assert)

    Erm, no. Given that the radar is not pointed towards Iran, is not steerable, ceased operation in 1989, and that radar in general tracks aircraft (or rockets in this case) rather than their exhausts… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duga_radar

    Try thinking things through for once.

    Like

  125. Soundhill,

    Read your second reference thoroughly. “the radar can only detect aircraft over most of the border between Iraq and Syria, but not over the border between Iraq and Iran.”

    Any F-35s detected by this radar would necessarily have had to be over Syria and so within range of Syrian air defences. Any hostile aircraft overflying Syrian airspace would simply have been shot down.

    If they were there.

    I’m not disputing that air defence radars in the area can see the F-35. Stealthy aircraft have a reduced RCS; they are not invisible to radar. I’ve said that before, in case you don’t remember.

    I’m asking you for the evidence to back your assertion that “6 F-35s were on the border” of Iran. Radar can see them, but not if they aren’t there.

    Like

  126. Stuartg, the reference in my second URL is: “Just recently, Lavrov said that we are using the new ZGRLS “Container” for 2000 km. saw six f-35s near the border of Iran
    Подробнее на: http://avia-pro.net/news/smi-rossiya-dostavila-s-400-na-sever-sirii-i-otsledila-amerikanskie-f-35

    Then following the URL “The most appropriate explanation is that the Russian Air Force sent the 96L6E radar, located at the Khmeimim air base, to the Kamyshli air base in the border region in northeastern Syria, which is only 100 kilometers from the Iraqi border.

    The new ZGRLS “Container” is probably pointing the wrong way, too. But it’s interesting it follows the old radar you refer to. That old radar could see the ionisation trails of rockets. Maybe not enough ionisation volume in the trails of F-35s, but I was interested in the concept. The trails may be seen with infrared detection equipment, some of which could be on satellites. The speed of trail formation could help indicate which aircraft. I’m not sure about the spectrum of the radiation being and identifying factor.

    It’s a bit unclear but why would military secrecy let it out?

    If Lavrov had been making it up or been mislead by military officials, then what would that mean? That Iran would not have that reason for their mistake. Can you suggest another?

    Like

  127. Soudhill,

    FYI, infrared detection uses infrared light. It’s line-of-sight and limited in range. IRST, FLIR, and DAS are limited by weather conditions, like cloud. Radar sees much further than IR sensors, including through cloud. Hence IR AAMs are usually short range, with medium and long range AAMs using radar. SAMs similarly.

    Again, FYI, military engines (of all types) attempt to reduce exhaust temperatures at cruise speeds in order to make it harder for IR sensors to detect them.

    Further FYI, it requires much higher temperatures than those produced by the F135 to ionise air – temperatures like those found in rocket exhausts, or lightning bolts, for example. Watch the Apollo XII launch for an example of air ionisation.

    “The speed of trail formation could help indicate which aircraft.” Not if they were flying slowly to conserve fuel, as you earlier suggested. And a satellite (does Iran have any?) would not see low temperature exhausts through the cloud that you surmised was there. If you remember, you “imagined” the hypothetical F-35s to be performing reconnaissance because satellites can’t see through cloud.

    As I said previously, it is possible for radar to detect an F-35, but not to distinguish it from any other airborne object with a similar RCS – such as an SU-35. But no radar is able to detect an aircraft that isn’t actually there.

    (Thinks:- why am I having to teach basics to this person so they can even begin to comprehend their lack of knowledge and see how self-contradictory their speculations are?)

    “If Lavrov had been making it up or been mislead by military officials, then what would that mean?” Do you mean to say that it took you two months to ask this question? You’ve even given the answer already – propaganda! Good grief! One of my first thoughts was – if no F-35s were actually there, then why make the statement? Another was – if only detected by radar, how can they know the type of aircraft at all? Then – if these hypothetical aircraft were close enough to identify, ie WVR in a war situation, then why weren’t they shot down?

    I cannot find any evidence that there were any F-35s in the area, and have plenty of evidence suggesting that they weren’t. So I asked you what your evidence was to back your assertion that “6 F-35s were on the border” of Iran. Since you are so certain of their presence, it should be simple for you to produce the evidence that has convinced you. So, what are your reasons for the prolonged prevarication?

    Hitchens ’ razor: What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

    Like

  128. Stuartg, If Lavrov had been making it up or been misled by military officials, then what would that mean? That Iran would not have that reason for their mistake. Can you suggest another?

    Like

  129. Soundhill,

    What is your evidence to show that “6 F-35s were on the border” of Iran?

    Why ask me for answers when you’re still not providing them yourself?

    Like

  130. Stuartg, better “performance IQ” helps to be able to see parts of a pattern and look for several bits to complete it.

    Or to complete several patterns out of a box of mixed bits Maybe some will be left over.

    Like

  131. Stuartg, I shall edit my original post here with CAPITALS.
    “Here is Lavrov commenting on MH17. Starts about 1:18, some prelim about the recent downing in Iran where HE SAID, BUT NEEDED VERIFICATION,THAT 6 f-35s were on the border, maybe causing confusion”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbBi6jJ4nsU&feature=push-lsb&attr_tag=wreE-sau_0ZgCoHo%3A6

    I didn’t need to have indicated the earlier incidental content for the purposes of commenting on this article of Ken’s. Do you think Lavrov’s MH17 comments would fall because of his uncertainty about those F-35s?

    Like

  132. Soundhill,

    Will you ever answer a direct question?

    Are you like Sir Humphrey Appleby, forever doomed to prevarications and unable to provide a straight answer to a question? Quote: “Well Minister, if you ask me for a straight answer, then I shall say that, as far as we can see, looking at it by and large, taking one thing with another in terms of the average of departments, then in the final analysis it is probably true to say, that at the end of the day, in general terms, you would probably find that, not to put too fine a point on it, there probably wasn’t very much in it one way or the other. As far as one can see, at this stage.” “Facts complicate things.”

    Let’s give you an easy question to answer: what proof or evidence do you have for your assertion that “6 F-35s were on the border” of Iran?

    In view of the “edit” in your last post, the answer should be “none at all.” If that’s the case, why didn’t you say that two months ago? Or even “edit” your original post two months ago?

    It appears that Hitchens’ razor definitely applies: What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

    Like

  133. Stuartg: wrote: “In view of the “edit” in your last post, the answer should be “none at all.” If that’s the case, why didn’t you say that two months ago? Or even “edit” your original post two months ago?”

    In other words you think the confrontation wasn’t as bad as Lavrov thought evidence could show. Trump being very good.

    Like

  134. Soundhill,

    Your edit revealed that you, and Lavrov since you quoted him, have no evidence to show that “6 F-35s were on the border” of Iran.

    That “edit” implies that you’ve been obfuscating and prevaricating for two months in order to avoid admitting that you have zero evidence for the presence of those aircraft. It also confirms your stated opinion of Lavrov’s speech – that it’s propaganda.

    I’m inclined to agree with you that it was purely propaganda, maybe an attempt to sow confusion, but I’d prefer to reserve my judgment until I have further evidence.

    My opinion on what confrontation? The only “confrontation” here is me asking about your assertion that “6 F-35s were on the border” of Iran and your avoidance of answering. I have evidence they weren’t there. We now know you have no evidence for them being there. Confrontation over, evidence prevails.

    Like

  135. Stuartg wrote: “Your edit revealed that you, and Lavrov since you quoted him, have no evidence to show that “6 F-35s were on the border” of Iran.

    That “edit” implies that you’ve been obfuscating and prevaricating for two months in order to avoid admitting that you have zero evidence.”

    When people put a link to something they can’t quote everything from it. I put it as some indication to what was in the video.

    I’ll edit a bit differently: “some prelim about the recent downing in Iran where 6 f-35s were on the border, maybe, causing confusion.”

    We have made such a lot from a missing comma.

    Like

  136. Stuartg. it’s not as if Lavrov tried to make out the F-35s were near the border. He put it as a possibility.

    So what do you think about any expressions of uncertainty by him as he talks about the MH17 dowing?

    Like

  137. Stuartg you accused me of claiming that 6 f-35s were over the border of Iran where they should have been shot down like the Global Hawk. Taking advantage of my missing comma, perhaps. I have to assume you to be bright enough to understand what I was saying but have been trying to divert from the discussion of MH17, the new material I brought to Ken’s article.

    Like

  138. Soundhill,

    “Here is Lavrov commenting on MH17. Starts about 1:18, some prelim about the recent downing in Iran where 6 f-35s were on the border, maybe causing confusion.” – your words.

    I asked you to clarify – which border, where did they fly from, evidence, etc.

    You’ve taken two months, lots of obfuscation, prevarication, speculation, defence of Lavrov, and demonstration of your cherry picking ability with Google, before admitting you have no evidence at all to back your statement.

    Don’t you think it would have been more appropriate to have just said so right at the start?

    Like

  139. Stuartg whereas it should have been obvious from the ongoing that I had left out a comma and had meant “Here is Lavrov commenting on MH17. Starts about 1:18, some prelim about the recent downing in Iran where 6 f-35s were on the border, maybe, causing confusion.”

    But you seemed keen to debate the possibility and now say you know they weren’t there. Why didn’t you come out with that from the start?

    Like

  140. Soundhill,

    I did. I had evidence that said they weren’t there. But I was open to evidence contradicting my own knowledge/evidence. So I asked you for your evidence.

    You obfuscated, prevaricated, and speculated, but didn’t say that you had no evidence to substantiate your statement.

    Why not?

    Like

  141. David Fierstien

    Ken’s quote: “David – I was simply responding to your assertion “I never said there wasn’t a coup in Kiev” – pointing out that no one, least of all me, claimed you had said that.”

    Ken’s quote: “David – you implied there had been a coup in Crimea . . . ”

    Response: Ken, Putin called. He asked you not to help him anymore

    Like

  142. David, boy you are confused. I suppose that is inevitable for someone who seems to be so paranoid about President Putin and raises that boogyman every time they make a mistake.

    Like

  143. David Fierstien

    Stay in good health, Ken

    Like

  144. Stuartg wrote: “I did. I had evidence that said they weren’t there. But I was open to evidence contradicting my own knowledge/evidence. So I asked you for your evidence.”

    That’s interesting. You must be quite in demand in the military intelligence sphere.

    Like

  145. Soundhill,

    I pointed out the evidence to you: limited combat radius (requiring non-stealthy tankers and/or loss of stealth characteristics), and no USAF F-35 squadron deployments to the area at the time. Israeli aircraft would have the same range problems and in addition would have needed to fly over enemy airspace.

    Since non-transponder aircraft cannot be identified by radar, to identify them as F-35s would have required visual verification, ie someone had to actually see them as well as detecting a radar blip.

    “6 F-35s on the border” of Iran would need multiple complex and interlocking requirements in place, most of which would not be hidden from journalists. For them to have been on the Syrian border would have simply resulted in their destruction.

    All it takes is activating the brain, looking at a map, and doing a little logical thinking.

    If you had any evidence that F-35s were actually there, I would have been extremely interested, mainly in the logistics required but also in how they had been identified as F-35s.

    Like

  146. Stuartg, so you didn’t “know,” you “deduced.”
    Based on stuff we are in the midst of discussing.

    Like

  147. Soundhill,

    Read again. If you can’t be bothered, I’ve tried to go through the logical steps for you (again).

    1. Because of it’s short range, there are no bases the F-35A could fly from to be “on the border” of Iran without air refueling or other measures that eliminate its stealth capabilities – easily ascertained.
    2. If no longer stealthy (“beast mode”) the F-35 can be seen by any air defence radar, not just specialised low frequency radars. So can its tankers.
    3. The F-35B is even shorter range and would require a MEF in the area – easily ascertained.
    4. The longer ranged, but still short range, F-35C is not yet deployed to USN carriers – easily ascertained.
    5. We know which USAF squadrons are operational with the F-35A – easily ascertained.
    6. We know which operational F-35A squadrons were on deployment – easily ascertained.
    7. We know that none of those deployments were to the relevant area – easily ascertained.
    8. So we know that there were no USAF F-55As actually in the area and able to be observed.
    9. We can do the same process for tanker aircraft…
    10. No journalists noted any unannounced deployments of F-35s or tankers to the area (free press/fake news sources)
    11. We know that if they were Israeli F-35s then they would have to be non-stealthy and also have to fly over enemy airspace (look at a map). A large force of aircraft apparently invading that enemy airspace without warning would have been shot down, also without warning.
    12. No other air forces with F-35s deployed to the area, or had the capabilities to do so – easily ascertained.
    13. We are unable to identify any aircraft type from a radar return apart from by transponder – easily ascertained. So, to identify that “6 F-35s were on the border” of Iran would require visual verification that they were actually F-35s. That would necessarily have been by hostile aircraft, placing the F-35s in a position to be shot down.
    14. Therefore your statement that “6 F-35s were on the border” of Iran is demonstrably false – unless you have any evidence to the contrary (which you’ve stated you haven’t).

    All it takes is activating your brain and applying logic. And an ability, if needed, to use Google.

    I’ve been trying to teach about logical thought as it applies to Western military aircraft movements. Do I really have to start teaching you how to use Google? How to identify useful information from most of the crap out there? It certainly looks like it. I can’t be bothered. Try this instead: https://www.amazon.com/Google-Dummies-Brad-Hill/dp/0764544209

    Like

  148. Stuartg, sorry about leaving out the comma.
    You wrote: “1. Because of it’s short range, there are no bases the F-35A could fly from to be “on the border” of Iran without air refueling or other measures that eliminate its stealth capabilities – easily ascertained.”

    What about UAR?

    Like

  149. Sorry another slip, United Arab Emirates.
    Stuartg wrote: “5. We know which USAF squadrons are operational with the F-35A – easily ascertained.”
    Who is that, “We”?

    Like

  150. Soundhill,

    Activate your brain: UAR – ceased to exist in 1971, well before the F-35 was even dreamt of (that is unless you’ve had a brain fart and are talking about rugby in Argentina). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Arab_Republic

    “We” – well, obviously not you. Maybe just anybody who can use Google intelligently?

    You’ve already said you have no evidence that “6 F-35s were on the border” of Iran, in spite of your religious belief that they were there. I’m not going to change your religion based faith, but I can demonstrate how to find evidence.

    I’ve outlined, as briefly as I can, the way to determine whether any F-35s could even have been in the area. I’ll admit that, for brevity, I did skip a few steps that I thought were self-obvious. I didn’t want to type for hours and use many tens of references.

    If you can’t understand the basics and feed them into a search engine, then my book recommendation still stands.

    Like

  151. Soundhill,

    Emirates: you’re repeating yourself and using speculation again that I’ve already deconstructed. See point 1.
    https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/projecting-power-with-the-f-35-part-1-how-far-can-it-go/

    And, as I’ve said before, that air base is well beyond the operational range of any radar based in Russia.

    So, even if Russia had deployed appropriate radars to Iran [citation required], you then need to explain how blips on a radar scope could be identified as F-35s without visual verification. See point 13.

    You’ve already said you have no evidence that “6 F-35s were on the border” of Iran. So why are you still arguing for their presence? There’s nothing preventing you from verifying their absence yourself by using my pointers. It can only be your conspiracy fantasies or religious faith in Lavrov’s propaganda.

    Like

  152. Sorry UAE not UAR. Note e next to r on the keyboard.

    Stuartg wrote: “You’ve already said you have no evidence that “6 F-35s were on the border” of Iran. So why are you still arguing for their presence?”

    I’m not. I’m just discussing our discussion points.

    You said it could be worked out where the F-35s came from that attacked Qanus Island in Iraq. So I found Al Dahfra air base in UAE.
    As I wrote they “took off from Al Dhafra air base Abu Dhabi to attack Qanus Island. It is only some 250km from their to the border of Iran on the Persian Gulf.”

    That sorted the range question.

    As for the radar it might have been the same sort of position that the radar which caught the Global Hawk had been.

    Like

  153. Soundhill,

    In spite of what you say, you are still arguing that “6 F-35s were on the border” of Iran. Notwithstanding your previous admission that you have absolutely no evidence. Isn’t that a good example of religious faith?

    You’ve previously speculated the hypothetical F-35s were on the border of Iran, then over Iraq, then over Syria. Now you are speculating that they were over the Gulf of Oman – the reported position of the RQ-4. Changing the goalposts.

    You’ve speculated they were USAF F-35s, then Israeli, now you’re back to USAF. Changing the goalposts again.

    You speculated the F-35s had air refueling tankers, then had drop tanks, without realising that both options negate any stealth properties of the aircraft. Moving goalposts.

    You’ve speculated that it was a specialised OTH Russia based radar that saw and identified the F-35s. When pointed out Iranian borders were out of range of such a radar you speculated, without evidence, that maybe the radar was exported to Iran. Now you’re speculating that the hypothetical F-35s were identified by an old technology air defence radar – because the RQ-4 was reportedly shot down by the S-125 which was first deployed in 1961 to defend Moscow. You’re changing the goalposts again.

    You’ve speculated the hypothetical F-35s were identified first by the Russians, and then by the Iranians. So who was it? Someone else? Is this just more mobile goalposts?

    One thing you haven’t speculated on (yet) is how blips on a radar screen were identified as F-35s – my point 13.

    So: how were blips on a 1960s air defence radar identified as being F-35s? This appears to be your current level of fantasy.

    As I’ve said, for 6 F-35s to have been identified on the border of Iran requires that multiple interlocking and interrelated elements be in place.

    I would be very interested in any evidence you have that would contradict my understanding of the use of the F-35. Unfortunately, you don’t have any. We’re in agreement on that point.

    All you’ve done is speculate, obfuscate, prevaricate, and frequently change the goalposts. Many of your speculations have directly contradicted others. And it’s all in support of the specious fantasy which is your religious faith in Lavrov’s propaganda.

    Like

  154. Soundhill,

    Your memory fails you again. “You said it could be worked out where the F-35s came from that attacked Qanus Island in Iraq. So I found Al Dahfra air base in UAE.”

    Contrast that to what I actually said: “Qanus Island… The official acknowledgment of the raid also stated the base they flew from.”

    Why did you have to work it out? It was public knowledge from immediately after the raid.

    Like

  155. Stuartg wrote: “Why did you have to work it out? It was public knowledge from immediately after the raid.”

    You didn’t say it. So I had to work out a way to find it out. How to search for it.

    Like

  156. Stuartg wrote: “So: how were blips on a 1960s air defence radar identified as being F-35s? This appears to be your current level of fantasy.”

    No, I wrote: “As for the radar it might have been the same sort of position that the radar which caught the Global Hawk had been.”

    Possibly some sort of portable creature.

    Like

  157. Soundhill,

    The US government told everybody where the Qanus Island raid originated, with the apparent exception of yourself. It’s called a press release. Maybe you just don’t believe official sources, instead favouring your conspiracy fantasies?

    The RQ-4 was reportedly shot down by an S-125. Summarising; it uses 1960s radar and guidance technology. The guidance radar can’t see LO aircraft. The RQ-4 is not a LO design and is an easy target for it, because it lacks evasive capability. Evidence is required for any contrary speculations that you make.

    You’re still arguing that “6 F-35s were on the border” of Iran, in spite of claiming that you aren’t.

    You don’t appear to believe me when I say stealthy aircraft are detectable by standard air defence radars, so let’s quote from wikipedia: “Stealthy aircraft can also be detected, but only at short ranges around the radars; for a stealthy aircraft there are substantial gaps in the radar coverage.”

    You now appear to be fantasising that “6 F-35s” were over the Gulf of Oman – a long range from an unspecified land based mobile radar – and that the blips were recognised, by some means unknown to radar technology, to actually be F-35s.

    What was the technology that performed the identification?

    You still need to demonstrate any evidence backing your continuing argument that “6 F-35s were on the border” of Iran. And then you need to demonstrate evidence of how they were able to be identified. It should be simple for you to substantiate your beliefs since they are so unshakable. No speculation, prevarication, or obfuscation, please, just the evidence.

    Like

  158. Soundhill,

    BTW, you’re the one who brought up the RQ-4 in the first place, when you called it shooting down of a drone. Read back if your fantasies say otherwise. But it’s irrelevant. So is Qanus Island.

    More accurately, both have precisely nothing to do with your ongoing speculation/argument that “6 F-35s were on the border” of Iran. They are recognisably obfuscation on your part.

    Remember: you are now giving your evidence that “6 F-35s were on the border” of Iran. And evidence of how they were recognised as F-35s. Without obfuscation, prevarication, or speculation.

    Like

  159. Stuartg wrote: “The US government told everybody where the Qanus Island raid originated, with the apparent exception of yourself. It’s called a press release. Maybe you just don’t believe official sources, instead favouring your conspiracy fantasies?”
    And annoyingly you didn’t say where for some reason. So I expressed that annoyance by my comment about having to search for it, for you could have written 2 or 3 extra words. Were you hoping people would not come upon the proximity to the Iranian border?

    Like

  160. Stuartg wrote: “The RQ-4 was reportedly shot down by an S-125. Summarising; it uses 1960s radar and guidance technology. The guidance radar can’t see LO aircraft. The RQ-4 is not a LO design and is an easy target for it, because it lacks evasive capability.”

    Which is why I was suggesting there may have been another radar near that. If a radar is there then the territory is accessible and a mobile radar could have been there in the circumstances.

    Like

  161. Stuartg wrote: “You don’t appear to believe me when I say stealthy aircraft are detectable by standard air defence radars, so let’s quote from wikipedia: “Stealthy aircraft can also be detected, but only at short ranges around the radars; for a stealthy aircraft there are substantial gaps in the radar coverage.”” How close to the coast was the S-125 system? So any mobile radar near that position woudl also be close to the coast.

    Like

  162. Stuartg wrote: “BTW, you’re the one who brought up the RQ-4 in the first place, when you called it shooting down of a drone. Read back if your fantasies say otherwise. But it’s irrelevant. So is Qanus Island.”

    Even Trump called it drone. Both those matters indicated that operations could be happening near the Iranian coast. Qanus Island for an F-35 base to be 250 km from the coast so within F-35 range, and RQ-4 for the precedent loss of of US equipment operating with the Iranian territorial coastline limit, so giving that US operations and land for Iranian or Russian radars is there.

    Like

  163. Stuart wrote: “Remember: you are now giving your evidence that “6 F-35s were on the border” of Iran. ” No I’m not, just that I couldn’t rule it out, unlike you.

    Like

  164. Stuartg: “You now appear to be fantasising that “6 F-35s” were over the Gulf of Oman – a long range from an unspecified land based mobile radar – and that the blips were recognised, by some means unknown to radar technology, to actually be F-35s.”

    Maybe you know where the radar/missile that got the RQ-4 was when it was lost?
    Iran had done a naughty response to the killing of their General when they had been told by Trump not to retaliate. In the past US had claimed Iran had attacked oil tankers in that Oman region. Whether or not it happened to be a false flag by US that doesn’t mean they weren’t going to have used it as an excuse for a surprise retaliatory attack. So a trigger was released accidentally on the Ukranian plane when it changed course un-notified.

    Like

  165. Stuartg wrote: “It should be simple for you to substantiate your beliefs since they are so unshakable.”

    I just try to demonstrate a possibility that the Russian Foreign Minister may have been correct even though he had stated uncertainty which didn’t get through to my note because of my missed comma. Note that Russia have sent help to Italy over Covid-19. Whereas US have offered to help China’s Covid-19 battle when it has already pretty much defeated and when they can’t even deal with it in their own country. Strange, as the Chinese pointed out.

    Like

  166. Soundhill,

    Your comments are entirely speculation, obfuscation, or prevarication. And by using them you are obviously still arguing that “6 F-35s were on the border” of Iran, but you are still not supplying any evidence.

    Hitchens’ razor: What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

    Evidence, please.

    Like

  167. Stuartg wrote: “Your comments are entirely speculation, obfuscation, or prevarication. And by using them you are obviously still arguing that “6 F-35s were on the border” of Iran, but you are still not supplying any evidence.”

    No not they were, that they could have been. You have been arguing that they couldn’t have been.

    Like

  168. Soundhill,

    I merely asked for the evidence supporting your statement that “6 F-35s were on the border” of Iran. For you to make so bold a statement without any evidence suggests either a religious faith in Lavrov’s propaganda or reliance on conspiracist fantasies.

    All you’ve done is speculate, obfuscate, and prevaricate, to which we can now add perseverate as you repeat speculations without evidence to support them. It just gives more support for assuming a religious/conspiracist outlook on your part.

    Repeating speculations, no matter how many times you do it, does not make them evidence. It just suggests lack of insight and/or knowledge on your part – and is reminiscent of the behaviour of another.

    So, evidence to support your claims, please. Any evidence would be of interest, you just have to supply some.

    Hitchens’ razor: What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

    Like

  169. Stuartg wrote: “I merely asked for the evidence supporting your statement that “6 F-35s were on the border” of Iran. For you to make so bold a statement without any evidence suggests either a religious faith in Lavrov’s propaganda or reliance on conspiracist fantasies.”

    You are misrepresenting me. I missed out a comma whose absence was obvious to people who went to the link I gave.

    Like

  170. I mistakenly wrote: ” Whereas US have offered to help China’s Covid-19 battle when it has already pretty much defeated and when they can’t even deal with it in their own country. Strange, as the Chinese pointed out.”

    I thought there was something amiss with what I was saying. It was Iran.
    Sometimes a person gets something wrong. Some people will take that as an excuse to shut out everything they say.

    Everything is not right about Cuba, as this article admits, therefore should Italy be rejecting its help against Covid-19?

    https://jacobinmag.com/2020/03/cuba-coronavirus-braemar-doctors-health-care

    Like

  171. Soundhill,

    If you were misrepresented, it was by yourself. If you were misrepresented, why did you take two months to make the claim? Why not do it immediately?

    You’re still speculating, obfuscating, perseverating, and prevaricating, still refusing to supply any evidence for your statement that “6 F-35s were on the border” of Iran.

    How about supplying the evidence that convinced you instead?

    Hitchens’ razor: What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

    Like

  172. Stuartg at https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2019/07/26/mh17-tragedy-5-years-on/#comment-152062
    I had written: “Here is Lavrov commenting on MH17. Starts about 1:18, some prelim about the recent downing in Iran where 6 f-35s were on the border, maybe causing confusion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbBi6jJ4nsU&feature=push-lsb&attr_tag=wreE-sau_0ZgCoHo%3A6
    missing out the comma. So any serious contributor would have watched for a few minutes, and realised it wasn’t certain.

    Certain or not you wanted to discuss it, and put up your heading: “6 f-35s were on the border, ”
    Great I thought, given Lavrov’s uncertainty, the possibility of it was worth discussing.

    Like

  173. Soundhill,

    You’re discussing it…

    So where’s the evidence, asked for on multiple occasions, to support your argument that “6 F-35s were on the border” of Iran?

    Like

  174. Soundhill,

    Let’s rephrase that. We’ve spent over two months discussing the evidence and logical reasoning showing that there couldn’t have been any F-35s on the border of Iran.

    You’ve obfuscated, speculated, prevaricated, and perseverated, but never produced any evidence in support of your stance.

    You were the person who stated “6 F-35s were on the border” of Iran. What evidence do you have to support your statement? Discuss away…

    Like

  175. Stuartg wrote: “You were the person who stated “6 F-35s were on the border” of Iran. What evidence do you have to support your statement? Discuss away…”
    I have never been, and won’t in the future, be setting out to provide evidence.
    Have you actual evidence they weren’t there? Evidence, thanks.

    Like

  176. Sorry misplaced comma again. Should’ve said, “I have never been, and won’t in the future be, setting out to provide evidence.”

    Gradually, with your help too, I have discovered how what the Russian Foreign Minister had suspected, though he said it needed verification, could have been possible. Whereas you have been arguing that it couldn’t have been possible. You haven’t given actual evidence that they were not there.

    And you keep on giving radar and range considerations which I patiently repeat I have covered.

    Like

  177. Soundhill,

    Let me give you a hint. Read all of your comments before posting. Things you post are assumed to be what you meant to post unless immediately corrected. Deciding that you intended something completely different two months later – because of punctuation/spelling/context/definition – is inappropriate. Your comments are interpreted as is.

    Example:
    1. “recent downing in Iran where 6 f-35s were on the border, maybe causing confusion”
    Or, two months later:
    2. “recent downing in Iran where 6 f-35s were on the border, maybe, causing confusion”

    The first states that 6 F-35s were on the border and speculates that there was confusion. The second speculates that 6 F-35s were on the border but states there was confusion.

    Each has a statement that implies evidence to support it, and each has a speculation which is open for discussion.

    So with statement 1, you have evidence that 6 F-35s were on the border of Iran. With statement 2, you have evidence that there was confusion within Iran (because they were speculating that 6 F-35s were on the border?)

    You posted statement 1, produced no evidence to support it, and two months later decided that you meant statement 2. If that is true, then feel free to produce the evidence you have that there was confusion in Iran.

    Like

  178. Soundhill,

    “Have you actual evidence they weren’t there? Evidence, thanks.”

    Of course I have. But to post would end up in moderation for ever. I’ve mentioned all of these easily verifiable and public pieces of evidence before:
    Specifications of the F-35 (all three types)
    Combat range of the three types with/without external tankage.
    Delivery dates for the F-35
    Squadron allocation and squadron deliveries of the F-35
    Dates squadrons were declared active (different from squadron activation – a squadron can be activated but not have any aircraft)
    Deployment of the F-35 squadrons ie where, when, how many aircraft, whether fitted with radar augmentation, etc

    That last one is rather important. If F-35s were not deployed from CONUS to within combat radius of Iran then they could not have been detected. They had to physically be there to be detected. I have been able to find records of the emergency deployment of F-22s to Iranian proximity, but not F-35s. (An aside: if you had claimed the more effective and longer range F-22 as being there, I wouldn’t have asked for evidence of their presence – press releases had told the world that they were present, but I’d still have asked how they were identified).

    As for your obsession with radar, I’ve maintained that F-35s are detectable by radar, just very difficult to locate. It still remains that a radar cannot identify the type of aircraft it has spotted – even today it needs a pair of eyes to visually perform the identification. Transponders merely report what they are programmed to report. So how could anyone, be it Lavrov or anyone else, know that 6 blips on a radar screen were F-35s?

    So my evidence on radar:
    Merely the physics of radar – it determines range, effectiveness, antenna size, mobility, steerability, size of object able to be detected, precision of location of objects, etc, etc.
    Maybe this will help as a very basic introduction:
    https://www.radartutorial.eu/07.waves/Waves%20and%20Frequency%20Ranges.en.html

    All of these are easily able to be determined with quick internet searches. Of course, it requires that you have some basic knowledge and are able to eliminate “fake news”, quackery, baseless speculation, etc.

    I have to ask: do you have that basic knowledge, or are you continuing to demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect?

    You were the one who made a statement requiring evidence, and you are now refusing to supply that evidence.

    Hitchens’ razor: What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

    Like

  179. Stuartg wrote: “Or, two months later:
    2. “recent downing in Iran where 6 f-35s were on the border, maybe, causing confusion”

    You know how we have abbreviated the possessive Johns Hopkins’s faculty to “Johns Hopkins’ faculty”

    Or more simply if your sons share a room do you call it the boys’s room or the boys’ room?

    Sorry I left out the extra comma and maybe: Or, two months later:
    2. “recent downing in Iran where 6 f-35s were on the border, maybe, maybe causing confusion”

    Like

  180. Stuartg wrote: “I have to ask: do you have that basic knowledge, or are you continuing to demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect?”

    I don’t want this to get like the “trust my qualifications,” scenario where x number of “scientists” write a petition that climate change does not have a human input. What sort of scientists?

    One of my teenage projects was building a time base for an oscilloscope whose tube/s had come from a WWII radar set. That doesn’t mean I know about radar waves.

    I have spent a lot of time swimming at the beach, so know a lot about waves, but any connection to radar mightn’t be obvious.

    Maybe if I had studied some chemistry would that mean I would understand epidemiological statistical concepts?

    There are bits of transfer of knowledge or approach, but I am a bit suspicious that NZ has Shaun Hendy, a physicist, advising on Covid-19 spread. Physics is a lot more simple, generally, than biology Variables can be held constant with more ease in physics. Things may be unpredictable but the unpredictability can be quantified more easily in physics.

    Lavrov might or mightn’t have had info about F-35s. Maybe there could have been F-22s there. Would that mean there would have been no worry or confusion?

    Here is some NZ government department confusion which we may not know whether it may have been intended.
    A university toxicologist is talking. Should he be trusted?

    .

    Like

  181. Soundhill,

    Obfuscation again? Prevarication? Certainly very little to do with my original request for further information and evidence that “6 F-35s were on the border” of Iran.

    I recommend re-reading your comment about grammar, then repeating it once you’ve corrected the grammar so that it is clearly understandable. The written word can be fine-tuned so that accurate meanings are clearly conveyed. Please do so before posting comments, so that later you don’t need to again say “I didn’t mean what I wrote, I meant something completely different”.

    I’m not claiming qualifications in radar, or aircraft engineering, just knowledge gained through several decades of relevant hobbies.

    That knowledge is why I recognised many of your speculations as lacking in the basic understanding of military aircraft, tactics, radar, identification, etc. The way you put forward your comments was as though you believed that you had deep understanding of the subjects. Or maybe you were just posting comments without ensuring they conveyed your speculations accurately and distinguished them from assertions?

    F-22s were in the vicinity of Iran, sure. But Lavrov never mentioned them. Instead he mentioned F-35s. And a specific number. Its likely that it was propaganda for public consumption – you identified that yourself – and not intended directly for other governments. I’m speculating here, and stating so to avoid confusion, but mention of detection of F-22s already known to be in the area could have been seen by the USA as increasing military tension. Mentioning F-35s that weren’t there could be interpreted along the lines of supporting Iran but not being threatening about it.

    And I would still be interested in any evidence you have to support the original claim that “6 F-35s were on the border” of Iran, or even to support the suspicion that they were there “maybe, causing confusion.”

    Like

  182. Stuartg wrote: “I’m speculating here, and stating so to avoid confusion, but mention of detection of F-22s already known to be in the area could have been seen by the USA as increasing military tension. Mentioning F-35s that weren’t there could be interpreted along the lines of supporting Iran but not being threatening about it.”
    Genius

    Like

  183. Soundhill,

    You’re welcome. Precise grammar and letting people know when you are speculating rather than dealing with facts is a really good idea, isn’t it?

    Like

  184. Stuartg, yes you have in the past asked for more care in writing. One thing that bothers me is getting the case correct, subjunctive &c. I can’t remember examples but I think you may not have always got case correct.

    As for radars here is an interesting list of “military” radars, “military” ones not picking up the transponder signals which work Flightradar24.

    Imagine the “fusion” between systems of the resulting images.
    https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/systems/radar-types.htm

    Like

  185. Soundhill,

    Yes, I said grammar, in the broader sense.

    You appear to have a history / delight in writing things that you later claim not to have meant.

    Maybe you should take more care in writing? Or at least read what you’ve written before you post?

    You seem to be learning bits about radars at last, or at least have read more of what you’ve found on Google. As for transponders: by now you should have figured out they tell ground radars what they are programmed to. I wonder, do you realise they can be turned off? And that they’re completely unrelated to military IFF systems?

    BTW, any evidence yet?

    Like

  186. Stuartg wrote: “As for transponders: by now you should have figured out they tell ground radars what they are programmed to. I wonder, do you realise they can be turned off? And that they’re completely unrelated to military IFF systems?”

    Yes. The military would not only use “military radars, also known as primary radars. They would have teh secondary ones which could read transponder replies that Flightradar24 relies on.

    But the commercial aircraft industry is moving to systems that do not have to send a pulse out to interrogate a transponder. Aircraft are constantly transmitting their position as determined from GPS. Maybe military planes could leave those on by mistake.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_dependent_surveillance_%E2%80%93_broadcast

    Like

  187. Soudhill,

    Let’s summarise:
    You made a claim – “6 F-35s were on the border, maybe causing confusion.”
    You then speculated, obfuscated, and prevaricated, eg by introducing aerial tanking, drop tanks, RQ-4 shootdown, different Iranian borders, different F-35 types, different F-35 owners, different radar types, different radar owners, different radar locations.
    You didn’t produce any actual evidence.
    After a couple of months you decided that you meant something else – “6 F-35s were on the border, maybe, causing confusion.” – which introduced a second claim.
    You continued the practice of speculation, obfuscation, and prevarication,
    You didn’t produce any evidence supporting that second claim of confusion, never even mentioning who was supposed to be confused.
    You’ve announced you have no evidence and will not provide any to support the first claim you made, and appearances are that the second claim will also go unsupported.

    I think that’s a brief but valid summary.

    Hitchens’ razor: What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

    OK. Let’s dismiss your claims.

    Like

  188. Stuartg, want to start on discussing the parts related to Ken’s article?

    Like

  189. Soundhill,

    I asked you to enlarge on and provide evidence for your claim that “6 F-35s were on the border” of Iran simply because it ran counter to my knowledge. You now admit that the claim was pie-in-the-sky with absolutely no evidence; in fact it was pure speculation.

    I’m aware of the limits of my knowledge. Unlike yourself, I’m not going to speculate on subjects that I have to resort to Google in order to pretend to “understand”.

    I’ll wait until there is sufficient reliable evidence before forming an opinion. I’d rather leave fantasy and speculation where they belong – in works of fiction.

    Like

  190. A coming-up Aljazeera TV program promo “Truth in a Post-Truth World,” says it will include discussion of MH-17,

    Like

  191. In Paul Mason’s currently screening program on Aljazeera TV, “Studio B,” talking to Molly Crabapple, he said the modern way of censorship is to fill the whole field with crap. Need to distinguish between when input is intended to be crap and when it is serious.

    Liked by 1 person

  192. Isn’t this the Bellingcat film?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellingcat:_Truth_in_a_Post-Truth_World

    If so it will be full of NATO disinformation. It is interesting how Belingcat is linked to the usual NATO suspects and is being used to channel this sort of disinformation into the media.

    I guess the MH17 show trial will go on for years and be used to push the usual disinformation. Although I have heard that one of the MH17 judges has ruled that the claimed evidence of US satellite information Kerry referred to and a Dutch parliamentarian claims to have see must be produced. If it isn’t this could underline how shonky the trial is – if it goes ahead (some commentators suggest it won’t go ahead when the evidence is not produced).

    Like

  193. Many thanks, Ken. I have found Postol from MIT pulled Bellingcat’s Higgins apart over the “sarin attacks” in Syria.

    Like

  194. Quite apart from the chemical weapons issue – for which Belligncat and Higgens have been thoroughly discredited – if only via the whistle-blowing within the OPCW, Belligncat is linked in with NATO and the Atlantic Council is a well-oiled avenue for inserting disinformation into the media.

    Like

  195. Ken I’ve added a small comment here: https://twitter.com/bellingcat/status/1243922003712753664

    Like

Leave a Reply: please be polite to other commenters & no ad hominems.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s