8 ms·

This seems plausible, but does anyone have any information on the reliability of this particular news source and/or confirmation from other sources?

captainkrtek 2y ago
Reuters also reporting it via their own sources: https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/azerbaijan-airlines-flight-was-downed-by-russian-air-defence-system-four-sources-2024-12-26/ https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/azerbaijan-airlin...
- BryantD 2y ago
  Thanks! Likely to be the same original sources but it’s separate reporting which increases my confidence — really appreciate this.
pvg 2y ago
The source is really the Azerbaijani government - it's their investigative body and their claim.
- gruez 2y ago
  >it's their investigative body and their claim. Is there a first hand source for this? So far as I can tell, the only thing we know for sure is that "AnewZ.tv" claims the government claims that it was shot down. That's not the same as "The source is really the Azerbaijani government".
  - pvg 2y ago
    I mean, you can look up all the other reporting on this. It's more or less what's interesting about this news - the Azerbaijanis feel confident enough to make this claim semi-officially and the way it's going, will probably make it more formally soon enough. My point was 'how reliable is this particular news source' isn't going to tell you anything, what you can derive from the item is that Azerbaijan feels fairly confident their plane was shot down.
- dragonwriter 2y ago
  No. Reuters, EuroNews, this source, and others are all claiming to have sources close to the investigation that have indicated that is what the investigation has found, no one I have seen claims an official statement from the investigation has been released with this conclusion. There is a difference between leaks from an official investigation and the official outcome of the investigation. Official organs of the Azerbaijan government are not (yet) accusing Russia of shooting the plane with a missile.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - pvg 2y ago
    It's completely Azerbaijan slow-rolling the accusation. All the 'sources close to the investigation' are from Azerbaijan, you see stuff like https://turan.az/en/politics/the-russian-side-must-apologize-rasim-musabeyov-788623 https://turan.az/en/politics/the-russian-side-must-apologize... It's a highly authoritarian state with a complicated relationship with Russia. You're applying generic media literacy 101 to something where it's not readily applicable.
    - dragonwriter 2y ago
      > It’s completely Azerbaijan slow-rolling the accusation Duh. > You’re applying generic media literacy 101 to something where it’s not readily applicable. Yes, it’s readily applicable. The difference between a state making an official accusation and it deliberately keeping the accusation unofficial is just as significant, arguably even moreso, when it is an authoritarian state which controls the message in either case then when it is, say, a bureaucratic liberal democracy which is simply following investigative protocol.
      - pvg 2y ago
        No Duh I'm sorry but this is just aggro dumbassery/pedantry.
EA-3167 2y ago
It was honestly pretty obvious from the first videos that came out. You have: The claim of a bird strike, but not during landing or (shortly after) takeoff, but at cruising altitude. That HAS happened, but is incredibly rare. The of a bird strike taking out both engines, which is another possible, but very rare thing. It is unlikely that a double-engine failure would have allowed the jet to cross the Caspian Sea and make two approaches to the airport they ended up crashing near. The video of the jet on approach showed no movement of any control surfaces, which supports the notion of a total hydraulic failure. The video of the jet on approach showed it engaged in phugoid oscillation, which is consistent along with the above video with the pilots having only minimal control over some surfaces, or more likely, being forced to use thrust vectoring alone to control the craft. Videos taken by passengers showing shrapnel damage, including some very striking video and stills of the pattern before the crash. Videos taken on the ground of the tail-section, which show a pattern of shrapnel that is consistent with the annular shrapnel pattern you'd expect from a continuous-rod warhead, which is what you'd expect from the Pantsir system. So all of that circumstantial evidence is striking, and all points in one direction. Now the people who have access to the black boxes are claiming that it was a shoot-down, and frankly I'd be inclined to believe them.
profstasiak 2y ago
don't understand the downvotes on your post. What do an average hackernews reader know about this particular news site? I had a similar response to the linked source - how am I sure it's real news and not some fake website.
- aaron695 2y ago
  [dead]
- BryantD 2y ago
  People gonna people. I don’t ever recommend taking downvotes or upvotes too seriously. Asking for verification is often seen as criticism of the original source, and in some cases it is. Personally I’m at the point where I doublecheck most things, especially those which confirm my opinions… but nobody here knows me so hey!

captainkrtek 2y ago

Reuters also reporting it via their own sources: https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/azerbaijan-airlines-flight-was-downed-by-russian-air-defence-system-four-sources-2024-12-26/ https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/azerbaijan-airlin...

BryantD 2y ago
Thanks! Likely to be the same original sources but it’s separate reporting which increases my confidence — really appreciate this.

pvg 2y ago

The source is really the Azerbaijani government - it's their investigative body and their claim.

gruez 2y ago
>it's their investigative body and their claim. Is there a first hand source for this? So far as I can tell, the only thing we know for sure is that "AnewZ.tv" claims the government claims that it was shot down. That's not the same as "The source is really the Azerbaijani government".
- pvg 2y ago
  I mean, you can look up all the other reporting on this. It's more or less what's interesting about this news - the Azerbaijanis feel confident enough to make this claim semi-officially and the way it's going, will probably make it more formally soon enough. My point was 'how reliable is this particular news source' isn't going to tell you anything, what you can derive from the item is that Azerbaijan feels fairly confident their plane was shot down.
dragonwriter 2y ago
No. Reuters, EuroNews, this source, and others are all claiming to have sources close to the investigation that have indicated that is what the investigation has found, no one I have seen claims an official statement from the investigation has been released with this conclusion. There is a difference between leaks from an official investigation and the official outcome of the investigation. Official organs of the Azerbaijan government are not (yet) accusing Russia of shooting the plane with a missile.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- pvg 2y ago
  It's completely Azerbaijan slow-rolling the accusation. All the 'sources close to the investigation' are from Azerbaijan, you see stuff like https://turan.az/en/politics/the-russian-side-must-apologize-rasim-musabeyov-788623 https://turan.az/en/politics/the-russian-side-must-apologize... It's a highly authoritarian state with a complicated relationship with Russia. You're applying generic media literacy 101 to something where it's not readily applicable.
  - dragonwriter 2y ago
    > It’s completely Azerbaijan slow-rolling the accusation Duh. > You’re applying generic media literacy 101 to something where it’s not readily applicable. Yes, it’s readily applicable. The difference between a state making an official accusation and it deliberately keeping the accusation unofficial is just as significant, arguably even moreso, when it is an authoritarian state which controls the message in either case then when it is, say, a bureaucratic liberal democracy which is simply following investigative protocol.
    - pvg 2y ago
      No Duh I'm sorry but this is just aggro dumbassery/pedantry.

EA-3167 2y ago

It was honestly pretty obvious from the first videos that came out. You have: The claim of a bird strike, but not during landing or (shortly after) takeoff, but at cruising altitude. That HAS happened, but is incredibly rare. The of a bird strike taking out both engines, which is another possible, but very rare thing. It is unlikely that a double-engine failure would have allowed the jet to cross the Caspian Sea and make two approaches to the airport they ended up crashing near. The video of the jet on approach showed no movement of any control surfaces, which supports the notion of a total hydraulic failure. The video of the jet on approach showed it engaged in phugoid oscillation, which is consistent along with the above video with the pilots having only minimal control over some surfaces, or more likely, being forced to use thrust vectoring alone to control the craft. Videos taken by passengers showing shrapnel damage, including some very striking video and stills of the pattern before the crash. Videos taken on the ground of the tail-section, which show a pattern of shrapnel that is consistent with the annular shrapnel pattern you'd expect from a continuous-rod warhead, which is what you'd expect from the Pantsir system. So all of that circumstantial evidence is striking, and all points in one direction. Now the people who have access to the black boxes are claiming that it was a shoot-down, and frankly I'd be inclined to believe them.

profstasiak 2y ago

don't understand the downvotes on your post. What do an average hackernews reader know about this particular news site? I had a similar response to the linked source - how am I sure it's real news and not some fake website.

aaron695 2y ago
[dead]
BryantD 2y ago
People gonna people. I don’t ever recommend taking downvotes or upvotes too seriously. Asking for verification is often seen as criticism of the original source, and in some cases it is. Personally I’m at the point where I doublecheck most things, especially those which confirm my opinions… but nobody here knows me so hey!