4 ms·

There is actually a technical component to the Bucha story, as there seems to be controversy over the satellite imagery. On April 4, the NYT published a satelli

by wrp 4y ago

There is actually a technical component to the Bucha story, as there seems to be controversy over the satellite imagery. On April 4, the NYT published a satellite photo of Bucha dated March 11.[1] However, a Russian OSINT group claims the photo dates April 1.[2] Machine translation: Thanks to the help of our team of OSINT and GEOINT specialists, it was possible to determine the time of the image for certain. - A picture from the NYT allegedly from March 19 shows sand alluviums after a downpour that went from the 31st to the first. - The attached comparison from the NYT is based on two images that have identical shadow positions. They allegedly compared March 19 and February 28. In fact, they compared February 28 and April 1 - the time and position of the shadows coincide. The original dates of the pictures are American time. - The Maxar website provides information on which satellites have been surveying the Bucha region over the past period. A total of three satellites were involved. - By checking the angle of inclination of the Sun above the horizon, the SunCalc program was able to find out by searching the exact time of the image and the direction of the shadows. - The picture was taken on April 1 at 11:57 GMT (14:57 local summer time). [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/04/briefing/russia-ukraine-war-briefing-bucha-warcrimes.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/04/briefing/russia-ukraine-w... [2] https://t.me/rybar/30599 https://t.me/rybar/30599

raphlinus 4y ago
If by "controversy" you mean disinformation techniques designed to cast doubt on credible reports of war crimes, you are correct. See [1] for an analysis of this claim, including tracing it back to WarOnFakes and denials by Peskov. One of the great things about that report (making it I think particularly suitable for a Hacker News audience) is that it invites skeptical or critical readers to check the evidence themselves. Likely there is a reader of this thread who is competent at analyzing satellite imagery metadata and figuring out shadow angles. [1]: https://www.info-res.org/post/disinformation-denial-russia-s-attempts-to-discredit-open-source-evidence-of-bucha https://www.info-res.org/post/disinformation-denial-russia-s...
- wrp 4y ago
  Dispassionate technical analysis is where I'm trying to turn the focus, getting away from the reliance on emotional and ad hominem rhetoric in these threads.
- avodonosov 4y ago
  That's interesting, I hope to study it deeper one day. Do you have similar info about the Kramatorsk train station attack by Tochka-U? I saw explanations that, relatively convincingly imho, attribute the launch to Urkainian forces. Namely, if one draws a line through the the place where the rocket part fallen and where the warhead exploded, that line points to Ukrainan positions (to Dobropillia). In addition, Conflict Intelligence Team (an anti-Putin open source investigation group), analyzed the situation based on the orientation of the rocket part itself, as it layed on the ground. Their report: https://t.me/CITeam/2463 https://t.me/CITeam/2463. According to them, the rocket part can at most change orientation by 45 degrees. So they draw a sector +-45° from the rocket part direction as it lays on the ground, and only on a far side of this sector they find Russian positions (see the map in the report). Given the probabilistic nature of this process, I think the further away from the actual direction of the rocker part (which points almost directly to Dobropillia on the map), the less likely this is the source of the launch. In other words, the Russian positions are in an "unlikely" part of the sector. Anyways, using two points - the rocker part location and the explosion point - seems to be the strongest argument. (I haven't geolocated the photos myself yet, but those reports claim the line points towards Dobropillia). Do you know good counter arguments to this?
  - raphlinus 4y ago
    In fact I do, Bellingcat has published extensive analysis[1] of this attack. [1]: https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2022/04/14/russias-kramatorsk-facts-versus-the-evidence/ https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2022/04/14/russias-kramators...
    - avodonosov 4y ago
      Thanks, I will read it. (This question seems addressed starting with phrase: "Information shared on pro-Russian Telegram channels, meanwhile, compared the area where the missile’s missile body landed with the general impact zone of the cluster munitions.")

by wrp 4y ago

raphlinus 4y ago

If by "controversy" you mean disinformation techniques designed to cast doubt on credible reports of war crimes, you are correct. See [1] for an analysis of this claim, including tracing it back to WarOnFakes and denials by Peskov. One of the great things about that report (making it I think particularly suitable for a Hacker News audience) is that it invites skeptical or critical readers to check the evidence themselves. Likely there is a reader of this thread who is competent at analyzing satellite imagery metadata and figuring out shadow angles. [1]: https://www.info-res.org/post/disinformation-denial-russia-s-attempts-to-discredit-open-source-evidence-of-bucha https://www.info-res.org/post/disinformation-denial-russia-s...

wrp 4y ago
Dispassionate technical analysis is where I'm trying to turn the focus, getting away from the reliance on emotional and ad hominem rhetoric in these threads.
avodonosov 4y ago
That's interesting, I hope to study it deeper one day. Do you have similar info about the Kramatorsk train station attack by Tochka-U? I saw explanations that, relatively convincingly imho, attribute the launch to Urkainian forces. Namely, if one draws a line through the the place where the rocket part fallen and where the warhead exploded, that line points to Ukrainan positions (to Dobropillia). In addition, Conflict Intelligence Team (an anti-Putin open source investigation group), analyzed the situation based on the orientation of the rocket part itself, as it layed on the ground. Their report: https://t.me/CITeam/2463 https://t.me/CITeam/2463. According to them, the rocket part can at most change orientation by 45 degrees. So they draw a sector +-45° from the rocket part direction as it lays on the ground, and only on a far side of this sector they find Russian positions (see the map in the report). Given the probabilistic nature of this process, I think the further away from the actual direction of the rocker part (which points almost directly to Dobropillia on the map), the less likely this is the source of the launch. In other words, the Russian positions are in an "unlikely" part of the sector. Anyways, using two points - the rocker part location and the explosion point - seems to be the strongest argument. (I haven't geolocated the photos myself yet, but those reports claim the line points towards Dobropillia). Do you know good counter arguments to this?
- raphlinus 4y ago
  In fact I do, Bellingcat has published extensive analysis[1] of this attack. [1]: https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2022/04/14/russias-kramatorsk-facts-versus-the-evidence/ https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2022/04/14/russias-kramators...
  - avodonosov 4y ago
    Thanks, I will read it. (This question seems addressed starting with phrase: "Information shared on pro-Russian Telegram channels, meanwhile, compared the area where the missile’s missile body landed with the general impact zone of the cluster munitions.")