Report: MH Flight 17 likely downed by 'high-energy objects'

"A highly placed rebel officer told the AP in an interview in the aftermath of the disaster that the plane was shot down by a mixed team of rebels and Russian military personnel who believed they were targeting a Ukrainian military plane.

Intercepted phone conversations between the rebels released by the Ukrainian government support that version of events.

In those tapes, the first rebels to reach the scene can be heard swearing when they see the number of bodies and the insignia of Malaysia Airlines. "

And Putin still insists this is the fault of the Ukraine government.

High energy greetings of peace from the Russkies.

Serrano Sep. 10, 2014 - 07:43AM JST Intercepted phone conversations between the rebels released by the Ukrainian government support that version of events.

Then tell me who shot down MH17? Guilty or not guilty, rebels or Ukrainian government?

Is the alleged confession by the "highly placed rebel officer" real?

Why did the Ukraine authorities divert the plane to that area?

Why does the article not mention the Russian satellite images and what those images show?

Why doesn't the US provide its own satellite images?

"The damage observed in the forward section of the aircraft appears to indicate that the aircraft was penetrated by a large number of high-energy objects from outside the aircraft"

Isn't this consistent with high caliber machine gun? Hey, what did those Russian satellite images show again?

Wait a second. "Multiple high energy objects"? You know, when you write that I think of bullets or cannon shells first :-D

The "multiple high energy objects" would be large caliber bullets from the two fighter jets(Ukrainian) that were identified as intercepting MH17 strafing the cockpit from both sides.

@Kazuaki: ... I think of bullets or cannon shells first ...

Holes in MH-17, fuselage below cockpit: http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ap_webfeeds/1adc94a3bcfeb61c5a0f6a70670006b9.jpg

Fighter cannon fire into ocean, at t-8:27: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=JQ4RalNSjJk#t=508

The "multiple high energy objects" would be large caliber bullets from the two fighter jets(Ukrainian) that were identified as intercepting MH17 strafing the cockpit from both sides.

Nope, Mr. Galt.

a) There was only one fighter jet, and it wasn't even close to the B777. b) That jet had a service ceiling much lower than the B777's altitude. c) If the B777 had been hit by cannon fire, it would have been from behind not in front (unless you plan on ramming the B777 as well). d) The damage is entirely consistent with an impact from a fragmentation device. See: BUK.

Head 50-70 kg HE fragmentation with radar proximity and contact fuzing system

From the Army Recognition web site.

The multiple does seem a like euphemistic way of saying bullets or cannon shells. Wouldn't a Buk be a single missile?

Looking at the photo turbosat posted it looks like entry and exit damage on the cockpit piece supporting John Gault. But I'll wait for the conclusion for the factual answer.

ANOther, what was the altitude of MH17? It was certainly not above the ceiling of the fighter(19,000 meters/ 62,523 feet).

Whether it was one fighter or two makes little difference. Your other points are also less important.

Seems that some have never heard of proximity fuses, which have only existed since WWII. As Wikipedia notes:

The probability of a direct hit with a relatively small moving target is low; to set a time- or height-triggered fuze one must measure the height of the target (or even predict the height of the target at the time one will be able to get a shell or missile in its neighbourhood). With a proximity fuze, all one has to worry about is getting a shell or missile on a trajectory that, at some time, will pass close by the target. This is still not a trivial task, but it is much easier to execute than previous methods.

The multiple does seem a like euphemistic way of saying bullets or cannon shells. Wouldn't a Buk be a single missile?

A BUK explodes before hitting the target, sending shrapnels on the way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_missile

A proximity fuse aboard the missile determines when it will detonate, creating an expanding fragmentation pattern of missile components and warhead to intercept and destroy the target. A proximity fuse improves the "probability of kill" given the missile and target closure rates, which can be more than 3,000 km/h (1,900 mph) (or more than 900 m/s (3,000 ft/s)).

http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/uploads/phase-docs/701/b3923acad0ceprem-rapport-mh-17-en-interactief.pdf

Preliminary report, Crash involving Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777-200 flight MH17, Hrabove, Ukraine - 17 July 2014, Dutch Safety Board, The Hague, September 2014

http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=10212&sid=be17112d0e100fd0c0fafe95da15cb1b&mode=view

(photo: 20mm rounds' holes in SUV)

http://www.afrc.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/070619-F-3849K-041.JPG

(photo: 30mm A-10 rounds' holes in armored personnel carrier)

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?73055-Malaysian-Plane-MH17-shot-down-with-over-295-on-board.-But-by-who&p=861807&viewfull=1#post861807

(post with photos of Buk fragmentation warhead, two in field, two in cutaway industrial models)

Wow, you have to laugh the way some people are trying very hard to believe it was not a BUK missile that downed Flight 17. Let's just say that is the most likely cause at this point in time.

The "multiple high energy objects" would be large caliber bullets from the two fighter jets(Ukrainian) that were identified as intercepting MH17 strafing the cockpit from both sides.

No such jets were identified by anyone either on the Russian side or the Ukrainian side. This is 100% speculation without a shred of actual, concrete evidence, including projectiles and the actual airplane debris itself. This scenario is supported almost exclusively by a single German retired pilot who was asked to offer his opinion on the topic. The only people really asserting that Ukrainian jets were in the immediate vicinity of MH17, not to mention actually attacking it, tend to be, well, New World Order conspiracy kooks.

Wakarimasen,

Wouldn't a Buk be a single missile?

Yes, it's a single missile, but it's also a missile designed to take out cruise missiles and smart bombs, in addition to aircraft. In order to accomplish this, it explodes just before it reaches its target, showering the target with high-speed projectiles made up of the fragments of the missile after being blown apart. This design is intentional, since hitting a high-speed moving target like a cruise missile dead-on is notoriously difficult (See American's failed Star Wars Defense Initiative). To increase success of downing, say, an enemy missile, "spraying" it, if you will, with countless high-velocity metallic shards is a common approach for these types of missile systems. It also bears noting that these countless exploded metallic shards travelling at high speed could easily produce the kind of damage that downed the Malaysian flight, but some seem to insist is conclusive evidence of a fighter jet's machine gun fire. Yes, a fighter jet could produce some of the damage seen. But firing on the cockpit most likely would not result in the airborne disintegration of a plane as large as a Boeing 777. Being riddled with a huge quantity of shrapnel and an explosive concussive blast from 150 lbs of explosives, however, just might.

This is a video demonstration of 150 lbs of thermobaric explosives demolishing a car:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05X5V9Bfs94

It's not hard to imagine the tragic consequences of just such an explosion going off just outside a commercial aircraft in mid-flight.

Also, contrary to popular belief (thanks, largely to James Bond films, I suspect), a bullet hole in the fuselage of an aircraft will not usually cause the plane to spin out of control, much less explode mid-air.

According to a Wiki article on the BUK Missile System (it seems well-sourced):

A proximity fuse aboard the missile determines when it will detonate, creating an expanding fragmentation pattern of missile components and warhead to intercept and destroy the target. A proximity fuse improves the "probability of kill" given the missile and target closure rates, which can be more than 3,000 km/h (1,900 mph) (or more than 900 m/s (3,000 ft/s)).

It also bears noting that the airplane’s cockpit recorder gave no indication the cockpit crew was the victim of a fighter jet strafing run, i.e., no screams, panic, sounds of pain or injury, or even the sound of machine gun bullets entering the cockpit and doing damage of any sort. The onboard mics would have picked up something investigators could key in on. In fact, the cockpit data recorders indicated that there was nothing amiss, and that the aircrew was unaware of anything being amiss, even up to the point that all data transmissions suddenly stopped as a result of the catastrophic disintegration of the plane mid-air.

It's most likely a BUK, since both sides have that weapon. The main question is, who fired it.

autistic apple

Isn't this consistent with high caliber machine gun?

At 33,000 ft of altitude? Are you kidding?

zichi: The airliner was shot down by Russian missiles from within the Ukraine. Was it a mistake, I don't know but Russia gave the rebels missiles so they are responsible?

BBC article yesterday:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29109398

MH17 disaster: Russians 'controlled BUK missile system' - 8 September 2014

... One eyewitness saw the missile-launcher roll off a low-loader at Snezhnoye, around ten miles from the crash site, at around 13:30 local time (10:30 GMT). ...

The eyewitness told the BBC that the crew struck him as Russian soldiers: "Well-disciplined, unlike the rebels, and not wearing the standard Ukrainian camouflage uniform sported by government and rebel troops alike."

"They had pure Russian accents. They say the letter 'g' differently to us," he said.

In eastern Ukraine, most people speak Russian but the BUK crew did not speak Russian with a local accent. ...

One eyewitness saw the missile-launcher roll off a low-loader at Snezhnoye, around ten miles from the crash site, at around 13:30 local time (10:30 GMT).

What a coincedence! After two months since the crash nobody heard about this precious eyewitness, but he suddenly materialized when BBC was going to write this article. And these bad guys who we working with the launcher and were about to shoot a plane just allowed him to see and enjoy the show?

Well-disciplined, unlike the rebels, and not wearing the standard Ukrainian camouflage uniform sported by government and rebel troops alike

There is no such thing as "standard Ukrainian camouflage". Ukrainian army is in a really bad shape, it soldiers are wearing anything, to begin with modern US or German camo patterns, and down to old Russian fatigues or even half-civilian clothes. The same goes to rebels. There is only one way to distinguish Kiev regime forces and rebels - quick identification bands, yellow (blue-yellow) for regime soldiers, orange-black for rebels. And both sides have well-disciplined units.

They had pure Russian accents. They say the letter 'g' differently to us

Like in most other countries, local accents are a feature of mostly rural areas. Most people in urban areas of Ukraine speak pure Russian. Even present Ukrainian leaders can speak very pure Russian (though they speak it only when meet with Russian leaders and ask for gas discounts).

While there is no credible proof of rebels just having a "Buk" launcher (and to successfully operate it you need several other support vehicles, all manned by highly-trained crews), there is much more simple explanation of the tragedy. Ukrainian forces have several "Buk"-equipped REGIMENTS, at least one of them, 156th missile air defence regiment, was deployed near the battle zone and conducted exercises at the time of the crash. Since Ukrainians have already shoot a civilian plane once (2001, over the Black Sea), they seem to be more credible suspects.

What a coincedence! After two months since the crash nobody heard about this precious eyewitness, but he suddenly materialized when BBC was going to write this article. And these bad guys who we working with the launcher and were about to shoot a plane just allowed him to see and enjoy the show?

Well, if even the inspectors haven't been out there much for fear of getting shot, can't blame the BBC if it took them a while to find somebody willing to testify. Think they put out flyers?

Panorama BBC1 on Monday night... a reporter was comparing footage of the BUK launcher with alleged locations... and it WAS in the area and it DID have a missile missing as it raced for the border. They had their cameras in the same positions as in the footage and you could see the same landmarks, posters, etc...

It may have been a case of mistaken identity... but I'm convinced the rebels did it. There's even a rebel leader quoted above saying rebels and Russians did it.

So much for a non-surprise. However, if the high-energy objects were fired from pro Russian or pro EU rocketeers is something we don´t know.

How the press conveniently overlooks the atrocities commiteed by the Ukranians and concentrates on those by the Russians is another baffling demonstration of media monoculture and bias.

So if The Ukraine shot down the plane then you'd have to believe the Dutch are either in on it or too stupid to figure out what keyboard warriors tell us is obvious.

"No such jets were identified by anyone either on the Russian side or the Ukrainian side. This is 100% speculation without a shred of actual, concrete evidence, including projectiles and the actual airplane debris itself. This scenario is supported almost exclusively by a single German retired pilot who was asked to offer his opinion on the topic. "

True, that was one pilot's qualified opinion. Of course the western media wouldn't report onanything that would contradict their propaganda, and neither would the Ukrainians nor Russians. Regarding the BUK, whether either the Ukrainians (who DO have them) or the rebels(who DO NOT have them) fired a rocket that " hit" MH17, we'll likely never know in fact. However, we CAN be sure that the official story will be as full of holes as the downed jet.

There is no such thing as "standard Ukrainian camouflage". Ukrainian army is in a really bad shape, it soldiers are wearing anything, to begin with modern US or German camo patterns, and down to old Russian fatigues or even half-civilian clothes. The same goes to rebels.

Which would make the well-uniformed, well-trained Russian soldiers stand out even more, I would imagine.

Like in most other countries, local accents are a feature of mostly rural areas.

Apparently, you've never been to Osaka, Hiroshima, Beijing, Shanghai, Delhi, Boston, New York, Houston, or Mexico City. That's just to name a few major cities throughout the world that possess their own distinct accents and/or dialects. Besides, I think the Russian separatists might take issue with you lumping them in with non-Russian Ukrainians as all sounding more or less the same. That sort of undermines their entire “distinct and unique Russian identity” justification for trying to secede.

Ukrainian forces have several "Buk"-equipped REGIMENTS, at least one of them, 156th missile air defense regiment, was deployed near the battle zone and conducted exercises at the time of the crash.

While the pro-Russia rebels claim to not possess any of the hardware capable of knocking a Boeing 777 out of the sky, it is pretty firmly established that the rebel do not possess the kind of heavy hardware the BUK missile system is designed to counter; No jet fighters, no cruise missiles, no attack helicopters. So, it stands to reason that the Ukrainian military would have little if any tactical need to forward deploy BUK missile systems to counter a threat the rebels consistently claimed to not possess.

Unless . . . . The Ukrainian military knew perfectly well that rebel claims of being hardware impoverished rang false and that the Russians were beefing up their offensive capabilities. Oh, wait... That's what the international community and Kiev have been saying from the start, isn't it?

...whether either the Ukrainians ... or the rebels ... fired a rocket that " hit" MH17, we'll likely never know in fact.

Oh, I wouldn't be so sure about that either. Computing impact trajectories based on analysis of blast patterns on the fuselage of the downed plane can tell a lot about where the missle was fired from, especially since the data flight recorders will provide a very accurate picture of the exact position and heading the plane was taking before it was hit. Modern forensic analysis used in conjunction with old-school mathematics can reveal many things. What needs to happen first though is for the rebels to allow the Dutch to remove the plane debris safely. That they won't is quite damning in any case.

can't blame the BBC if it took them a while to find somebody willing to testify

With a little more imagination and spare cash they could find somebody who would say he saw Putin personally pushed the "Fire" button.

Dutch are either in on it or too stupid to figure out what keyboard warriors tell us is obvious

It is impossible to determine by the black box transcript who fired the missile. "The conversation in the cockpit suddenly stopped", that's all. Then propaganda begins.

SuperLib:

" So if The Ukraine shot down the plane then you'd have to believe the Dutch are either in on it or too stupid to figure out what keyboard warriors tell us is obvious. "

I wonder how you arrive at that claim. The Dutch have proven that the plane was shot down. (Gee, what surprise.) The Dutch have no way of knowing who pushed the red button, unless you attribute superhuman abilities to them. Do you?

<<

Which would make the well-uniformed, well-trained Russian soldiers stand out even more, I would imagine

Good imagination, poor logic. 80 percent of Ukrainian regular soldiers, if in clean uniform and properly shaved, could perfectly pass as "Russian soldiers", because for them Russian is native language. Even in combat 34 of commands and radiotraffic of the Kiev regime forces are in Russian.

Apparently, you've never been to Osaka, Hiroshima, Beijing, Shanghai

I've been to Osaka and Hiroshima. Many people speak in local ben, many speak pretty clear Hyojungo. Reason for strong local dialects is history, some regions are historically and culturally different from other parts od their countries. Peculiarity of the Donetsk / Lugansk region is that it almost undistinguishabale from the nearest Russian regions, for centuries they were one big region. That is the reason why they language is basically the same as in Moscow, with some liitle distinctions.

The Ukrainian military knew perfectly well

The situation on the battlefield demonstrated clearly that the Ukrainian military is bunch of hapless clowns, who can nothing but kill civilians with artillery and airstrikes. Read what they did in 2001

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberia_Airlines_Flight_1812>>

Want to say they couldn't do it again?>>

Modern missiles and anti-aircraft shells use thousands prefabricated tungsten cubes each about the size of a child's fist fitted into the warhead. Exploding at thousands of feet per second it's a thousand times more effective than just shrapnel from missile parts.

The situation on the battlefield demonstrated clearly that the Ukrainian military is bunch of hapless clowns, who can nothing but kill civilians with artillery and airstrikes. Read what they did in 2001

I remember that. Some "clown" claimed that "the weapons used in those exercises had such characteristics that make it impossible for them to reach the air corridor through which the plane was moving."

Oh, wait - that "clown" was Vladimir Putin.

At least he is consistent in his mendacity.

Quite frankly, throughout all this, I cannot really see why the Russians are the bad guys. Consider the variants being thrown up:

1) It is a fighter plane, attacking with either cannon or missiles. In which case since it is bloody obvious to even the West the Rebels don't have fighters, it is the Kievans' fault. Extra damnation for trying to push it onto the Rebels and extra shame on the West for supporting them.

2) It is a SAM fired by Kievan forces. More or less the same.

3) It is a SAM fired by Rebel forces. Even then, it is mostly the Kievans fault. They knew it was a warzone. They are the one bleating about Russian weapons. Yet they don't close the airspace. Meanwhile, they fly their own aircraft (which is the real reason for any SAMs in Rebel hands in the first place), thus creating a need to use SAMs (or allowing themselves to be bombed). When an unfortunate accident happens, they pretend to weep and smile behind the curtains, since they know the average person in the West has a low intelligence and would only see the Rebel shootdown without thinking half an inch deeper.

@John Galt... you claim that the rebels don't have BUK launchers... so how do you explain the vehicle seen rushing for the border with a missile missing? It was filmed and the location confirmed by the BBC... oh wait, you don't accept anything the western media says do you? You and the other conspiracy theorists on here think the Ukrainians would be STUPID enough to shoot down an airliner when they want support from the free world.

Oh, but wait again, you think the Ukrainian military framed the rebels... so did they also bribe the rebel leader who claimed the missiles WERE launched by rebels?

A highly placed rebel officer told the AP in an interview in the aftermath of the disaster that the plane was shot down by a mixed team of rebels and Russian military personnel who believed they were targeting a Ukrainian military plane.

Is he lying? Or are AP lying about the interview?

So where are the internal investigations from the Kremlin? Who's responsible guys! They haven't said a word...

Deplorable.

It is a SAM fired by Rebel forces. Even then, it is mostly the Kievans fault. They knew it was a warzone. They are the one bleating about Russian weapons. Yet they don't close the airspace. Meanwhile, they fly their own aircraft (which is the real reason for any SAMs in Rebel hands in the first place), thus creating a need to use SAMs (or allowing themselves to be bombed). When an unfortunate accident happens, they pretend to weep and smile behind the curtains, since they know the average person in the West has a low intelligence and would only see the Rebel shootdown without thinking half an inch deeper.

Are you Putin's speech writer? Blimey. And thank you for insulting my intelligence... much appreciate komrad.

Umm, I really don't see what "news" is in this article, if anything the article is saying less than what we knew right of the offset. A rebel posted online right after the plane fell that they shot down the plane (and that they had been warned not to fly over their airspace), this was documented fact (not rumour), and then they quickly took down the post once they realized that the plane that had been shot was actually just a commercial airliner.

Similar phonecalls have been recorded as well. What's with all this extra investigation? Voice recordings and internet time-stamped witness accounts are way more than circumstantial evidence, it's basically proof. And then this article has the audacity to inform us that it might be a missile, something that all sides obviously knew 2 months ago. Give me a break.

@jumpultimatestars... some people here are so anti-West that they will post any conspiracy theory that fits their personal worldview..

Laguna

At least for now you don't defend the Kiev regime and do not deny the fact that Ukrainians shot down that plane. Considerable improvement!

sighclops

So where are the internal investigations from the Kremlin? Who's responsible guys! They haven't said a word... Press briefing in Russian ministry of defence, in Russian with English translation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tQlRBC0MEI

'high-energy objects'

Sounds like something you find written on Japanese T Shirt.

'high-kenetic energy objects'...

You can barely see jetliners at 30,000 feet from ground, let alone much-smaller fighters. If a dogfight was going on up there who would know?

Scroll to section "You can’t tell how high a plane is" at this link. Author posts photos of what jetliners look like from ground (first photo in the section is zoomed, second and third photos are supposed to be representation of what jetliners would look like at +30,000 feet as viewed from ground with naked eye).

http://contrailscience.com/why-do-some-planes-leave-long-trails-but-others-dont/

OK, we just have to make our own assumption about what high-energy objects are, right? Can someone clarify the following doubtful points for me:

How come the report did not identify what it means by “high-energy objects?” The report does not even state that the aircraft was shot down.

Missiles and machinegun rounds fired by an SU-25 are also “high-energy objects,” are they not? Radar and satellite data presented by the Russian military indicated that a Ukrainian SU-25 fighter jet was in the immediate vicinity and ascending towards MH17 as it was shot down. On August 9, the Malaysian New Straits Times published an article effectively charging the Kiev regime with shooting down MH17. It stated that evidence from the crash site indicated that the plane was shot down by a Ukrainian fighter with a missile followed by heavy machine gun fire. Why are there so many conflicting reports?

Was there a non-disclosure agreement signed by the four nations involved in the MH17 investigation—Ukraine, the Netherlands, Australia and Belgium? Under its terms, all intermediate results of the ongoing investigation will be classified. The document includes a stipulation that publication of the investigation’s final results would only take place if the four nations arrived at a consensus. Why all the secrecy?

The Dutch Safety Board does not address the absence of any satellite imagery or radar data, or any other evidence supplied by US intelligence agencies, which operate the most powerful global surveillance network. It is implausible, to say the least, to imagine that Washington’s vast apparatus was paying no attention to the war zone of eastern Ukraine, which is also a regular flight path for many commercial airline flights. Moreover, the US was heading a 10-day NATO exercise in the adjacent Black Sea, which concluded the day MH17 was downed. This operation specifically involved commercial traffic monitoring with sophisticated electronic intelligence and “reaction to asymmetric threat warnings, anti-submarine warfare and artillery firing.” In sharp contrast, following the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988, photographs of the area taken by a French satellite were delivered to the investigators within hours. The US Department of Defence and NASA also provided the investigation with high-resolution photographs from spy satellites. Despite Russia continually requesting that the US administration supply the investigation with the images and data it obviously possesses relating to the MH17 crash, it has refused to do so. Note that it was not credible that the US did not possess detailed knowledge of the circumstances of the crash. Are the data too sensitive to share, or do they just want to put the blame on Russia?

Flowers,

All of your questions can be answered by the simple fact that no investigators have been allowed to comprehensively examine the actual plane wreckage itself, and neither the separatists who control the territory where the plane crashed nor Russia seem inclined to make it possible for the Dutch or Malaysians to reach the plane safely and conduct a proper investigation. Being able to properly examine the wreckage and debris field would do a lot to answer most questions about this disaster. But that's not likely to happen, and the longer we wait, the more degraded the evidence becomes of who and what actually brought the plane down.

Love seeing all the Sovie.....opps sorry, what I meant to say was......I love seeing all the Russian paid posters making their hard-days wage. Yes, these days those wages don't carry the same as they use to, but they keep chugging along promoting the Pro Putin talking points of the day.

In the end for these guys, and gals (keeping as PC as I can for our Liberal friends here) even if there were audio recordings of those pro-Russian crews in Ukraine admitting that they downed MH17 they would still try and claim that it was the Ukraine's that did it.

Speaking of audio recordings http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/malaysia-airlines-crash-prorussian-separatists-discuss-downing-of-flight-mh17-in-leaked-audio-released-by-ukraine-security-service-9613893.html

There is reams of evidence that points to a Russian supplied BUK missile. I'm amazed at the contortions people are going to in order to obfuscate Russian responsibility for the crime. Honestly, get your heads out of your extremities and look at the facts rather than the web based Russian planted conspiracy theories.

Flowers,

I forgot to mention as well that there are a host of issues involved in the U.S. simply "handing over" spy satellite images for the Russians to pore over. This same issue came up when Malaysian Flight 370 went missing back in March of this year. Many were demanding to know why countries with advanced surveillance capabilities like the U.S., Japan, and the U.K. weren't rushing to share surveillance satellite data to aid in the search. The answer came down to national security concerns. No one wanted rival nations to know how good their satellite resolution was.

In this case, there's absolutely no way on earth the U.S. would be willing to hand over evidence of how good its intelligence gathering capabilities are to Russia in the midst of the worst crisis between these two countries since the Cold War ended. You can be certain that if roles were reversed, Russia would most certainly decline to share its satellite data as well.

You might be thinking something along the lines of, "Well, the U.S. could simply send Putin a poorer resolution copy." There are two problems with that:

1) A purposely degraded-resolution version of the data would not likely provide the information necessary to establish culpability. Used as-is, Kiev or the separatists and their supporters would most certainly declare this data as inconclusive, therefore useless.

2) Putin is ex-KGB. He would know and immediately call out the U.S. for not providing data that was indicative of the U.S.'s true surveillance capabiltiies. This would then of course lead the Russians to accuse the U.S. of "hiding something." The resulting downward spiral of cooperation woud ultimately cripple what absolutely needs to be a fair and impartial investigation.

Even if RUSSIAN spies are here on JT, I am quite sure your AVERAGE RUSSIAN does not LIKE nor believe ANYTHING coming out of PUTIN's mouth! That said, nice try Russian SPIES, but NOBODY in the world will every TRUST or BELIEVE anything MOSCOW says. Putin wants to go down in history as a Ronald Reagan hero type but of RUSSIA, my guess he will go down in history but not exactly as a hero and more like an IDIOT!