Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[RedKing]

Not to mention China would just take pictures of everything and produce their own rip-off version two years later.
And the fact that NASA is forbidden by law (as of 2011) from cooperating with China on space matters, especially with the ISS.

[Il Palazzo]

China is infamously isolationist, though not hostile, with their space missions.

And the fact that NASA is forbidden by law (as of 2011) from cooperating with China on space matters, especially with the ISS.

Looks to me more like China is being isolated, rather than isolationist.

[Sheb]

Also, I am totally fine with China getting their hands on whatever tech is in the ISS. The more space programs the better.

Anyway, couldn't the astronaut just request visas from Kiev?

[RedKing]

I think the Russians are just trying to emulate the French from Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

"Go away, you silly American wipers of other peoples bottoms!"

[smjjames]

Anyway, couldn't the astronaut just request visas from Kiev?

What if Kiev refuses the visas? That's kind of the problem. Not to mention the whole diplomatic issues surrounding Crimea.

[Sheb]

Kiev is not going to refuse, because a) It lets them continue pretending they rule over Crimea and b) They don't want to piss off the West futilely.

On another note, this might be huge. BBC  said they interviewed witnesses that saw the Buk on the day MH17 was shot down was crewed by Russians "with a Moscow accent".

[Sergarr]

Kiev is not going to refuse, because a) It lets them continue pretending they rule over Crimea and b) They don't want to piss off the West futilely.

On another note, this might be huge. BBC  said they interviewed witnesses that saw the Buk on the day MH17 was shot down was crewed by Russians "with a Moscow accent".

So, no actual physical evidence, then? I'm pretty suspicious of people claiming to be eyewitnesses, especially since it has been like two months already, where they were all this time before?

[Mictlantecuhtli]

So the Russian terrorists who killed civilians with a Russian military Buk were Russians, as most of us figured.

[Sergarr]

So the Russian terrorists who killed civilians with a Russian military Buk were Russians, as most of us figured.

I'm pretty sure it was a Ukrainian Buk, looted from the Ukrainian army stash over there.... there were a lot of military equipment in that area, because, you know, Russian border?

[LordSlowpoke]

So the Russian terrorists who killed civilians with a Russian military Buk were Russians, as most of us figured.

I'm pretty sure it was a Ukrainian Buk, looted from the Ukrainian army stash over there.... there were a lot of military equipment in that area, because, you know, Russian border?

it was obviously russian equipment, because as we all know, ukrainians are not allowed to own anything post-soviet

who gives a shit whose it was in the first place if the separatists got their hands on them though

unless y'know being supplied from outside the warzone but that's a different tangent

thing being don't bother

[Guardian G.I.]

Kiev is not going to refuse, because a) It lets them continue pretending they rule over Crimea and b) They don't want to piss off the West futilely.

On another note, this might be huge. BBC  said they interviewed witnesses that saw the Buk on the day MH17 was shot down was crewed by Russians "with a Moscow accent".

So, no actual physical evidence, then? I'm pretty suspicious of people claiming to be eyewitnesses, especially since it has been like two months already, where they were all this time before?

Their only proof was a reference to accounts of unseen eyewitnesses. Are the journalists from BBC copying the reporting style of their Russian colleagues?

[Erkki]

The rebels/separatists OTOH had been boasting about owning a BUK system less than a week ago. It was also photographed twice by the Guardian reporters IIRC.


Any way:

-rebel/separatist social media behavior after the incident(we told you to not enter our airspace or whatever it was)
-crash site: rebel held territory
-Dutch report: particles/fragments that caused the destruction of the aircraft approached from ahead and from above the floor level: ie. from the East(rebel area and Russia)
-Su-25 not having a radar, not being able to carry radar missiles, at least some models not being able to reach that altitude at all, not being able to achieve that speed, carrying only short range contact-exploding heat-seeking missiles with a small warhead, and apparently the ones Ukraine has arent even all-aspect guiding and cant be shot head-on(shoots down the Russian theories propaganda)
-Dutch report again: immediate mid-air disintegration/explosion of the aircraft and no mayday call
-There has been an argument that the missile fired by a BUK system would have left a very long and visible smoke trail. This is IMHO only partially valid: the missile accelerates only 15 s(or less than the first 4000 m of the flight) and with its very long effective range even to such altitudes, the firing platform could have been very far away

I believe that these points more or less rule out direct Ukrainian involvement and make it very probable that MH17 was indeed shot down by a BUK or similar missile air defense system. Theres still the chance of an air-to-air missile, but Russia has not claimed Ukrainian fighters in the area(other than the Su-25 which actually isnt a fighter) and would have required the attackers to fly in an airspace where multiple aircraft had been lost at high altitude to surface-air missiles during the previous week. Also I'm not sure if R-27 has enough explosive content to do such damage. BUK's 9M38 missile has 20 times the explosive content.

Then theres of course the various radio discussions and such provided by Ukrainian military intelligence but I'm not sure how valid evidence they are or if any of them are even real. Russians and Ukrainians are both pretty good in "media warfare".

[timferius]

Just read this article, copied on a local news site.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11086119/The-only-word-left-to-describe-this-Scottish-referendum-campaign-is-bizarre.html
You are all delightfully insane. Thank you.

[Sheb]

Indeed, which is why I said might be huge. We don't know for sure yet.

[RedKing]

Now you have Alex Salmond saying that Scotland won't take a portion of the UK's national debt when it leaves, and comparing the referendum to the end of apartheid in South Africa.

Och, 'ats a wee bit o' hyperbole, dinna ye think?