The effort and commitment to truth are greatly appreciated and commended. Good job man.
I'm far from being knowledgeble but one other avenue for coverup would be Airbus being given the necessary images for the switch by a state actor. There are only so many satalite image providers and I'm 100% positive that they willingly cooperate with western intelligence (plus any company that reaches a large enough size is forced to cooperate with the IC eventually). I think it's very possible they are told which patch they are allowed to show which date of and then given images to replace them with. The NRO alone probably has a dozen sats scanning important patches of Ukraine daily at multiple angles so they have the necessary material for a switch. Commercial providers might even get a daily briefing on which patch to update and which not. Since the factory was already hit maybe they were even told to block any new damage from Oktober on.
I wouldn't even be surprised if all non-Western providers cooperate.
Why risk a headache and loss in profits for something that doesn't really affect business? Like the Americans can make life difficult for any company. What parts of a country at war are damaged and to what extent isn't the core product of the satalite image providers I imagine. That's what intelligence agencies are for.
If I were willing to get much more speculative (I'm done speculating on this issue in these articles because of being so wrong in the last one), this is the exact explanation that I would favor. The problem is that it would be very hard to prove without somehow doing an in-depth comparison of the two images to look for a clear difference which can't be explained by a variation in angle and time of day. The two passes (October and November) do look *very* different, but the difference in angle and time of day potentially explains this. I have metadata files from each but couldn't find anything to indicate that the November pass may have come from a different satellite. Of course, it's trivially easy to modify a file like this, anyone can do it in a text editor.
I do think that a subject matter expert in satellite imagery could do an analysis based on the image files alone. If such an expert happens to be reading this, I'll be happy to send you the original GeoTIFF and metadata files for both passes.
Our humanity, shares, humility. Or some of humanity does, perhaps. The level of expertise required is so extreme… life happens. I sincerely respect your work, and, your humility. The Spiritual Revolution continues, God will guide. May comfort be found in knowing your work is fostering a greater awareness of the dual forces at play, here, now. Your gifts are many, carry on my pal. Old lady with a virtual kat❤️🐈⬛💙🇷🇺❤️
Thank you for the update, and for courageously and virtuously owning up to mistakes made (due to enemy action).
As I noted with Postol's evidence - there are many inconsistencies and outright falsities in the OSINT BDA information that is available.
The evidence you have provided concerning outright falsehood - the editing of satellite images - reinforces my already existing view that a full agitprop campaign in the West is in progress concerning Oreshnik capabilities - and so any attempts to objectively analyze Oreshnik based on OSINT material is going to be suspect beyond the normal highly speculative nature of OSINT.
I also reiterate that a core assumption of Postol's - that an inert warhead even of solid tungsten - cannot possibly penetrate the ground if it strikes at more than Mach 4 - is highly suspect given that Russian hypersonic missiles are not optimally aerodynamic to start with, and therefore it seems certain that there are material and/or other types of breakthroughs associated with hypersonic missile operation that are presently unknown to the West. At a minimum, the types of wear that any form of control surface would experience - and it is 100% clear that Russian hypersonic missiles do use such control surfaces - would certainly induce high uncertainty and irregularity into operations unless some way existed to ensure said control surfaces are not significantly altered by prolonged exposure to 4000C plasma.
I'm sure there are many possible methods. Ablative cooling is having a material that essentially melts at a consistent and predictable pace. Not really sure how useful that is for a hypersonic missile that is taking a relatively long period of time (5, 10 minutes at Mach 10 to 12 is a pretty long duration), but the point is that there are clearly a number of new technologies/materials/methods involved in these new weapons.
There is a problem with your assumption about “[t]he evidence [Amerikanets has] provided concerning outright falsehood – the editing of satellite images”. I do not think Amerikanets has managed to “[c]onclusively prove that Maxar is editing their imagery by hand to conceal damage at Yuzhmash.” If you look at Google Maps from different places in Ukraine, you will see that Google Maps is “concealing” damage by showing old satellite images of civilian, unimportant buildings all over the country, not only in Pivdenmash/Yuzhmash. Furthermore, “sloppy” patching of oddly shaped satellite images is seen everywhere. E.g. unimportant rural roads are offset by many metres at boundaries between satellite images. In other places recent war damage is shown. Year of copyright is always 2024 on Google Maps. I do not know what their policy is. All damage from Oreshnik that I have located is 400 metres and 1000 metres north of Pivdenmash/Yuzhmash. Amerikanets does not respond to my comments. I do not understand why; I’m adding facts to his investigation in good faith.
I am actually pretty familiar with Google maps/Google Earth, at least back 10 years ago or when I was working on a mapping type project.
The problem with your assumption of these changes being just an artifact of process or accident or whatever is the striping inside of an actual block - there is differential striping within a single large building. There is no reason whatsoever why a stripe would be inserted at such a small scale - especially for supposed raw satellite imagery which Amerikanets paid for.
Yes, a public access internet Google maps satellite map of an area can have a stripe in it but these occur because of the border of one image beside another image - and there are no attempts to show consistency i.e. pretend the edited image is not actually edited.
Another assumption you make is that if damage is shown anywhere, then it proves editing does not occur.
False, because there are plenty of sites where up to date, accurate imagery does not matter. Said unimportant buildings - why bother with fake imagery whereas Yushmash is a known critical defense asset.
And furthermore: your assertion that Google satellite and "ground pictures" always show an recent identical copyright date is not accurate; Google actually shows the dates of specific images precisely so people know when the images were taken.
All you have demonstrated is that you really don't know what you are talking about.
There are some problems with your response. You wrote: “There is no reason whatsoever why a stripe would be inserted at such a small scale - especially for supposed raw satellite imagery which Amerikanets paid for.” The first problem, and the big problem, is that the ”satellite imagery which Amerikanets paid for” has no stripes. Only the free Google maps images have stripes. When Amerikanets realised there was a problem, he used his bought expensive imagery to show that the free Google Maps/Maxar imagery is composite, and apparently conceals war damage. The imagery he paid for appears to be flawless.
My next objection to your response is that ”striping inside of an actual block” and ”differential striping within a single large building” on Google Maps is not remarkable. You can easily find this kind of striping in agricultural fields, for example here: 46.902015 N, 33.407988 E. Obviously there is nothing to hide in a wheat field. The patches and stripes we find on Google maps often have very funny shapes, and the boundaries are often ”sloppy”.
It is true that Google Maps conceals war damage in some areas, for example Vovchansk. But in those areas, Google Maps conceals ALL damage: damage to garages, to schools, and all other militarily unimportant buildings. In other areas Google Maps shows the devastation wrought by the Russian Federation. I don’t know what their policy is. But no evidence has been presented that Google Maps and Maxar has concealed war damage specifically in Pivdenmash/Yuzhmash. As far as I can see, entire regions of Ukraine are shown using pre-war imagery.
Wrong: the images he paid for are specifically not flawless.
They are, in fact, either out of date or edited, or Oreshnik did zero damage.
The article specifically talks about all 3 cases, and Americanets' analysis that "out of date" and "zero damage" are highly unlikely is valid.
Your belief that Oreshnik missed is problematic also. If Oreshnik was so bad - where are all the Ukrainian and Western MSM articles calling this out?
Equally, you are still attempting to equate non-critical military installation image management with that of critical military installations.
There are legitimate reasons to conceal, modify or otherwise tamper with information sources on critical military installations. Nowhere did Americaknets say this is not legitimate, merely noting the possibility/probability of it occurring.
As for Google dates: you confuse copyright notices with actual dates on streetview and other images. Copyright notices are purely a legal thing.
This article talks about what you see if you actually look in Google Earth:
You have made a mistake. You wrote this: “There is no reason whatsoever why a STRIPE would be inserted at such a small scale – especially for supposed raw SATELLITE IMAGERY WHICH AMERIKANETS PAID FOR” (my capital letters in the quote). In that sentence, you criticized the provider of the “raw satellite imagery” for inserting stripes. But there are no stripes in that satellite imagery. You confused the imagery that Ameikanets bought (stripeless) with Google Maps (has stripes).
You do not want to admit your mistake. But your mistake is unimportant. The two important questions are these: 1) Where did the different part of Oreshnik hit the ground? 2) Was the image from the 22nd of November fraudulent, either by being edited or swapped for an earlier image?
Here is the link to my map that shows the two proven Oreshnik hits, in two civilian areas north of Pivdenmash/Yuzhmash: https://www.lindelof.nu/karta-over-oresjniks-nedslagplatser-i-dnipro/ The third red dot is wrong, because I stupidly trusted Stephen Bryen’s reporting. We currently have no evidence of other Oreshnik hits.
I am not biased against Oreshnik hitting the target, or Oreshnik being a strategic game changer. But I want evidence and facts.
Second question: Is the bought image from the 22nd of November fake? It does, at this stage of the investigation, APPEAR to be ”flawless”. That imagery being ”edited” is, at this stage, a hypothesis, not a fact.
How did Amerikanets arrive at this hypothesis? He looked at the stripy Google Maps images. Google Maps does conceal war damage in many cities, towns and rural areas i Ukraina, for reasons I do not know. They show entire regions it their pre-war state. But in those cases Google Maps performs areal, blanket concealment covering large areas with mosaics of images and indeed ”stripes” in places. There is currently NO evidence that the ”sloppy” Google Maps mosaic in a building in Pivdenmash/Yuzhmash is anything other than a result of a general, blanket decision by Google Maps to show the city of Dnipro in its pre-war condition. All suggestions by Amerikanets (and in the comments section) that war damage is concealed by Google Maps specifically in Pivdenmash/Yuzhmash are not supported by evidence.
The next step in Amerikanets’ reasoning was to jump from the incorrect assertion about Google Maps to the conclusion that the provider of the recent “raw satellite imagery” has either given Amerikanets an old image or (more likely, Amerikanets thinks) has edited the image to conceal only the recent Oreshnik damage, but no other damage. This hypothesis is interesting to discuss. But currently it has no support in facts. Recently Ukraine complained that Google Maps was showing important military sites (see https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine-google-reveal-location-military-site/), so I wouldn’t be surprised if some Western image providers are working to hide certain things in Ukraina. I repeat that currently we have no evidence of this in relation to the Oreshnik strike, and Amerikanets’ argument why such editing likely has happened is not supported by facts.
Important update: I looked at the red, blue, green and yellow parts of the composite Google Maps image. I am referring to the colouring performed by Amerikanets. I have looked at this part of Dnipro using Google Earth Pro. I get these dates: red 6/2/2018; blue 10/8/2020; green 6/5/2021; yellow 6/5/2021. When I hover over Pivdenmash/Yuzhmash i Google Maps Pro, I get dates form 2018 to 2021. Conclusion: the entire area is a composite of prewar images. The following assertion by Amerikanets is wrong: ”These patches are old archival images which have been superimposed over imagery from 2024 to conceal the damage caused since the beginning of the war.” In fact, the whole city is covered by images from 2018–2021 in Google maps. No covering up with patches “superimposed over imagery from 2024” has taken place. c1ue was right that I should not look at copyright dates, so I looked at specific buildings in Google Earth. But I am an amateur! Have I made a mistake somewhere?
I want to clarify one thing. I wrote that ”Google Maps does conceal war damage in many cities, towns and rural areas i Ukraina, for reasons I do not know.” The reason could be that Google Maps hasn’t had time or resources to update the images of a region, rather than a decision to show parts of Ukraine in its pre-war state.
Amerikanets, I have found that Google Maps (images supplied by Maxar, copyright 2024) chooses not to show all kinds of war damage in Ukraine. For example, a school in Zmiivka, destroyed on the 13th of April 2023 (coordinates 46.866434, 33.579484), is shown on Google Maps as undamaged. So damage to civilian and military targets are both hidden. What is your comment?
It is enough to check satellite photos of Mariupol. Photos are over two years old, even if dates state it is 2024 imagery.
City, in the sat imagery, looks like fighting stopped yesterday. Even if we know that massive rebuilding is under way and there are hundreds of videos on YouTube that prove that.
Good job and thank you for sharing the results! I would suggest to wait for news in various social media. It will appear, itțs just a question of time. The simple fact that the area is still sealed tell a story... They are still searching where Yuzmash is hiding after the hit :-)
There is another explanation for the lack of visible evidence of this strike. We know that submunitions are small, heavy, fast and hot. Also, they don't explode on contact. If they were made of something like tungsten and weighed 100 kg, they would have a volume of 5 lt. Assuming they are stretched out and pointed, their diameter would be much less than that of other missiles, as little as 20-50cm. Given the speed and momentum of these submunitions, they are likely to punch through the relatively thin industrial roofing, leaving a small, neat hole, which could be all but invisible to satellite photography.
In the video, each specific submunition leaves a distinct (albeit small) afterglow which lasts for ~1-2 sec. Ejecta of sorts? I am not an expert of course, but it is hard for me to imagine how that afterglow can result from a neat ~20-50 cm hole in the roofing that is not seen on the imagery.
The 20-50 cm dimension is the probable diameter of the submunition. This submunition will be preceded by a shock wave and surrounded by a corona of very hot plasma. The shockwave will almost certainly pierce the roofing, and the plasma at up to 4000ºC will vaporise any material it comes into contact with, leading to the conical flash seen in the videos.
These weapons are not designed to produce the type of superficial structural damage seen in the satellite photos but to hit deep underground and produce something akin to an earthquake.
Has anyone looked at seismic data for the night of the raid?
I fully agree with all you just said. In light of this (shock wave, observable ejecta), I doubt that the results of such a hit would not been seen on the hi-res imagery amerikanets acquired. Thus I would think that either photos are of earlier times, they are edited, or Oreshnik hit elsewhere. Seismic data would be an interesting angle, it would indeed be interesting to look at. Also, if I remember correctly, there were two (or more?) videos showing the Oreshnik "arrival" from somewhat different angles. Have any body tried to use that to triangulate the hit location?
To get some sense of what an impactor striking at 3m/sec looks like visually, so far as signatures from visible light, spray of glowing atomized/gaseous/burning target materials? There are plenty of high speed videos and still images available of explosively formed penetrator impacts and lined shaped charge impacts. The EFP will be less obscured by effects related to the explosives driving the impactor, though these are also generally somewhat lower in impact velocity.
For that matter, I recall having seen radiography images and even high speed videos of such penetrator strikes (similar to slow motion video X rays). Several years ago, I would need to dig for those sources.
Along with seismic data (which numerous universities and NGOs will have records of, so much harder to corrupt), such seismic is detectable at VERY long ranges in comparison with visual & sound effects?
Who is doing atmospheric analysis for particulates, radioisotopes, pollutants? Might a suspicious plume of tungsten, hafnium or other uncommon (and relatively dense) elements have showed up down wind? Once again, any university earth sciences department and several NGOs are likely gathering such data all around Eastern Europe/Western Asia, though possibly not interrogating their collected data for this signal.
Eh. Weighting one's self protection and shelter in place choices VERY differently.
Ground wave effects can be MUCH more damaging than assumed previously when one expected optimized height thermonuclear air bursts primarily inflicting thermal damages at range in line of sight via IR/visible light or by air blast/mechanical effects from shock and blast. Going down in even a reenforced bunker is now more likely to get you killed if it collapses.
Mostly discounting risks from neutrons/prompt ionizing radiation close in, though it was always the case for anything of 2Kt or larger that if one was close enough to be severely/lethally injured by prompt radiation the thermal and shock effects would probably kill you first.
A lot less worry about fallout, though possible use of DU penetrators doesn't rule it out.
Returning the favor? Chemistry and fabrication WITHOUT needing to procure and handle fissionable materials, always a huge stumbling block if you can't steal them-
Houthi see, monkey do. I know of "amateurs" who have put HOME MADE rockets into space and got their payloads back.
I'd rather do more productive things with my remaining time.
Since Russia has indicated that it can be slapped around indefinitely and never will respond against anything in the West, I can think of more productive things you could do with your remaining time.
Not sure for others, but I would totally be willing to support buying imagery via buymeacoffe or others services like that, if at any point in time you are willing to spend your time on analyzing it. As a scientist, I truly appreciate the two posts, it shows a tremendous degree of willingness to research and scientific integrity. Especially the last post - there is not enough of that in the world, people just become silent, covering things up, when they realize they drew wrong conclusions for whatever reasons, good or bad. Так держать!
You wrote: “It would be very hard to cover up the damage if 36 projectiles travelling at Mach 11 (according to Ukrainian sources!) slammed into random buildings in Dnipro.” But I have made a map showing two random buildings that were hit: https://www.lindelof.nu/karta-over-oresjniks-nedslagplatser-i-dnipro/ The southernmost of my three red dots is wrong; it is an old hit from 2022.
Amerikanets, I made relevant comments, but you did not respond. 1) Google maps is indeed a patchwork of images from different years, and the patches are often “sloppy” and have funny shapes, sometimes they are narrow strips, but this happens in agricultural areas as well, where there are no important buildings. 2) This practice is obscuring some of the war damage in places that are militarily unimportant; Pivdenmash/Yuzhmash is shown as undamaged on Google maps, but this is also true of rural villages. 3) Using news reports one can geolocate Oreshnik hits to two places 400 metres and 1000 metres north of Pivdenmash/Yuzhmash; https://www.lindelof.nu/karta-over-oresjniks-nedslagplatser-i-dnipro/ (one of the three red dots is wrong because that crater is from 2022).
Thanks for the link to additional thoughts about damage analysis.
(Quote)
"But that could be due to a few warheads going astray, while others reached the target."
----------
If the information we have seen about final delivery system configuration is correct, there may be several impacts in the general target area of "busses"/some components of busses or final stage not consumed by heat of friction in the atmosphere after impactors were released. "Collateral damage" from bits of a delivery system, still hot and fast moving?
The effort and commitment to truth are greatly appreciated and commended. Good job man.
I'm far from being knowledgeble but one other avenue for coverup would be Airbus being given the necessary images for the switch by a state actor. There are only so many satalite image providers and I'm 100% positive that they willingly cooperate with western intelligence (plus any company that reaches a large enough size is forced to cooperate with the IC eventually). I think it's very possible they are told which patch they are allowed to show which date of and then given images to replace them with. The NRO alone probably has a dozen sats scanning important patches of Ukraine daily at multiple angles so they have the necessary material for a switch. Commercial providers might even get a daily briefing on which patch to update and which not. Since the factory was already hit maybe they were even told to block any new damage from Oktober on.
I wouldn't even be surprised if all non-Western providers cooperate.
Why risk a headache and loss in profits for something that doesn't really affect business? Like the Americans can make life difficult for any company. What parts of a country at war are damaged and to what extent isn't the core product of the satalite image providers I imagine. That's what intelligence agencies are for.
If I were willing to get much more speculative (I'm done speculating on this issue in these articles because of being so wrong in the last one), this is the exact explanation that I would favor. The problem is that it would be very hard to prove without somehow doing an in-depth comparison of the two images to look for a clear difference which can't be explained by a variation in angle and time of day. The two passes (October and November) do look *very* different, but the difference in angle and time of day potentially explains this. I have metadata files from each but couldn't find anything to indicate that the November pass may have come from a different satellite. Of course, it's trivially easy to modify a file like this, anyone can do it in a text editor.
I do think that a subject matter expert in satellite imagery could do an analysis based on the image files alone. If such an expert happens to be reading this, I'll be happy to send you the original GeoTIFF and metadata files for both passes.
Our humanity, shares, humility. Or some of humanity does, perhaps. The level of expertise required is so extreme… life happens. I sincerely respect your work, and, your humility. The Spiritual Revolution continues, God will guide. May comfort be found in knowing your work is fostering a greater awareness of the dual forces at play, here, now. Your gifts are many, carry on my pal. Old lady with a virtual kat❤️🐈⬛💙🇷🇺❤️
Thank you for the update, and for courageously and virtuously owning up to mistakes made (due to enemy action).
As I noted with Postol's evidence - there are many inconsistencies and outright falsities in the OSINT BDA information that is available.
The evidence you have provided concerning outright falsehood - the editing of satellite images - reinforces my already existing view that a full agitprop campaign in the West is in progress concerning Oreshnik capabilities - and so any attempts to objectively analyze Oreshnik based on OSINT material is going to be suspect beyond the normal highly speculative nature of OSINT.
I also reiterate that a core assumption of Postol's - that an inert warhead even of solid tungsten - cannot possibly penetrate the ground if it strikes at more than Mach 4 - is highly suspect given that Russian hypersonic missiles are not optimally aerodynamic to start with, and therefore it seems certain that there are material and/or other types of breakthroughs associated with hypersonic missile operation that are presently unknown to the West. At a minimum, the types of wear that any form of control surface would experience - and it is 100% clear that Russian hypersonic missiles do use such control surfaces - would certainly induce high uncertainty and irregularity into operations unless some way existed to ensure said control surfaces are not significantly altered by prolonged exposure to 4000C plasma.
I heard somewhere that one of the way to cool surfaces at such conditions is via the so called ablative cooling.
I'm sure there are many possible methods. Ablative cooling is having a material that essentially melts at a consistent and predictable pace. Not really sure how useful that is for a hypersonic missile that is taking a relatively long period of time (5, 10 minutes at Mach 10 to 12 is a pretty long duration), but the point is that there are clearly a number of new technologies/materials/methods involved in these new weapons.
There is a problem with your assumption about “[t]he evidence [Amerikanets has] provided concerning outright falsehood – the editing of satellite images”. I do not think Amerikanets has managed to “[c]onclusively prove that Maxar is editing their imagery by hand to conceal damage at Yuzhmash.” If you look at Google Maps from different places in Ukraine, you will see that Google Maps is “concealing” damage by showing old satellite images of civilian, unimportant buildings all over the country, not only in Pivdenmash/Yuzhmash. Furthermore, “sloppy” patching of oddly shaped satellite images is seen everywhere. E.g. unimportant rural roads are offset by many metres at boundaries between satellite images. In other places recent war damage is shown. Year of copyright is always 2024 on Google Maps. I do not know what their policy is. All damage from Oreshnik that I have located is 400 metres and 1000 metres north of Pivdenmash/Yuzhmash. Amerikanets does not respond to my comments. I do not understand why; I’m adding facts to his investigation in good faith.
I am actually pretty familiar with Google maps/Google Earth, at least back 10 years ago or when I was working on a mapping type project.
The problem with your assumption of these changes being just an artifact of process or accident or whatever is the striping inside of an actual block - there is differential striping within a single large building. There is no reason whatsoever why a stripe would be inserted at such a small scale - especially for supposed raw satellite imagery which Amerikanets paid for.
Yes, a public access internet Google maps satellite map of an area can have a stripe in it but these occur because of the border of one image beside another image - and there are no attempts to show consistency i.e. pretend the edited image is not actually edited.
Another assumption you make is that if damage is shown anywhere, then it proves editing does not occur.
False, because there are plenty of sites where up to date, accurate imagery does not matter. Said unimportant buildings - why bother with fake imagery whereas Yushmash is a known critical defense asset.
And furthermore: your assertion that Google satellite and "ground pictures" always show an recent identical copyright date is not accurate; Google actually shows the dates of specific images precisely so people know when the images were taken.
All you have demonstrated is that you really don't know what you are talking about.
There are some problems with your response. You wrote: “There is no reason whatsoever why a stripe would be inserted at such a small scale - especially for supposed raw satellite imagery which Amerikanets paid for.” The first problem, and the big problem, is that the ”satellite imagery which Amerikanets paid for” has no stripes. Only the free Google maps images have stripes. When Amerikanets realised there was a problem, he used his bought expensive imagery to show that the free Google Maps/Maxar imagery is composite, and apparently conceals war damage. The imagery he paid for appears to be flawless.
My next objection to your response is that ”striping inside of an actual block” and ”differential striping within a single large building” on Google Maps is not remarkable. You can easily find this kind of striping in agricultural fields, for example here: 46.902015 N, 33.407988 E. Obviously there is nothing to hide in a wheat field. The patches and stripes we find on Google maps often have very funny shapes, and the boundaries are often ”sloppy”.
It is true that Google Maps conceals war damage in some areas, for example Vovchansk. But in those areas, Google Maps conceals ALL damage: damage to garages, to schools, and all other militarily unimportant buildings. In other areas Google Maps shows the devastation wrought by the Russian Federation. I don’t know what their policy is. But no evidence has been presented that Google Maps and Maxar has concealed war damage specifically in Pivdenmash/Yuzhmash. As far as I can see, entire regions of Ukraine are shown using pre-war imagery.
You last assertion was that ”Google actually shows the dates of specific images precisely so people know when the images were taken.” Are we looking at different things? When I move around in Google Maps and hover over the ground, I only get the year “2024” in the copyright message. An example: “Imagery ©2024 Maxar Technologies, Airbus, CNES / Airbus, Imagery ©2024 Airbus, CNES / Airbus, Landsat / Copernicus, Maxar Technologies, Map data ©2024 Google”. Are you referring to Street view? I might be wrong about this date thing; maybe I have missed something, because I am no expert.
Wrong: the images he paid for are specifically not flawless.
They are, in fact, either out of date or edited, or Oreshnik did zero damage.
The article specifically talks about all 3 cases, and Americanets' analysis that "out of date" and "zero damage" are highly unlikely is valid.
Your belief that Oreshnik missed is problematic also. If Oreshnik was so bad - where are all the Ukrainian and Western MSM articles calling this out?
Equally, you are still attempting to equate non-critical military installation image management with that of critical military installations.
There are legitimate reasons to conceal, modify or otherwise tamper with information sources on critical military installations. Nowhere did Americaknets say this is not legitimate, merely noting the possibility/probability of it occurring.
As for Google dates: you confuse copyright notices with actual dates on streetview and other images. Copyright notices are purely a legal thing.
This article talks about what you see if you actually look in Google Earth:
https://www.geowgs84.com/post/how-old-are-the-google-satellite-images
You have made a mistake. You wrote this: “There is no reason whatsoever why a STRIPE would be inserted at such a small scale – especially for supposed raw SATELLITE IMAGERY WHICH AMERIKANETS PAID FOR” (my capital letters in the quote). In that sentence, you criticized the provider of the “raw satellite imagery” for inserting stripes. But there are no stripes in that satellite imagery. You confused the imagery that Ameikanets bought (stripeless) with Google Maps (has stripes).
You do not want to admit your mistake. But your mistake is unimportant. The two important questions are these: 1) Where did the different part of Oreshnik hit the ground? 2) Was the image from the 22nd of November fraudulent, either by being edited or swapped for an earlier image?
Here is the link to my map that shows the two proven Oreshnik hits, in two civilian areas north of Pivdenmash/Yuzhmash: https://www.lindelof.nu/karta-over-oresjniks-nedslagplatser-i-dnipro/ The third red dot is wrong, because I stupidly trusted Stephen Bryen’s reporting. We currently have no evidence of other Oreshnik hits.
I am not biased against Oreshnik hitting the target, or Oreshnik being a strategic game changer. But I want evidence and facts.
Second question: Is the bought image from the 22nd of November fake? It does, at this stage of the investigation, APPEAR to be ”flawless”. That imagery being ”edited” is, at this stage, a hypothesis, not a fact.
How did Amerikanets arrive at this hypothesis? He looked at the stripy Google Maps images. Google Maps does conceal war damage in many cities, towns and rural areas i Ukraina, for reasons I do not know. They show entire regions it their pre-war state. But in those cases Google Maps performs areal, blanket concealment covering large areas with mosaics of images and indeed ”stripes” in places. There is currently NO evidence that the ”sloppy” Google Maps mosaic in a building in Pivdenmash/Yuzhmash is anything other than a result of a general, blanket decision by Google Maps to show the city of Dnipro in its pre-war condition. All suggestions by Amerikanets (and in the comments section) that war damage is concealed by Google Maps specifically in Pivdenmash/Yuzhmash are not supported by evidence.
The next step in Amerikanets’ reasoning was to jump from the incorrect assertion about Google Maps to the conclusion that the provider of the recent “raw satellite imagery” has either given Amerikanets an old image or (more likely, Amerikanets thinks) has edited the image to conceal only the recent Oreshnik damage, but no other damage. This hypothesis is interesting to discuss. But currently it has no support in facts. Recently Ukraine complained that Google Maps was showing important military sites (see https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine-google-reveal-location-military-site/), so I wouldn’t be surprised if some Western image providers are working to hide certain things in Ukraina. I repeat that currently we have no evidence of this in relation to the Oreshnik strike, and Amerikanets’ argument why such editing likely has happened is not supported by facts.
Important update: I looked at the red, blue, green and yellow parts of the composite Google Maps image. I am referring to the colouring performed by Amerikanets. I have looked at this part of Dnipro using Google Earth Pro. I get these dates: red 6/2/2018; blue 10/8/2020; green 6/5/2021; yellow 6/5/2021. When I hover over Pivdenmash/Yuzhmash i Google Maps Pro, I get dates form 2018 to 2021. Conclusion: the entire area is a composite of prewar images. The following assertion by Amerikanets is wrong: ”These patches are old archival images which have been superimposed over imagery from 2024 to conceal the damage caused since the beginning of the war.” In fact, the whole city is covered by images from 2018–2021 in Google maps. No covering up with patches “superimposed over imagery from 2024” has taken place. c1ue was right that I should not look at copyright dates, so I looked at specific buildings in Google Earth. But I am an amateur! Have I made a mistake somewhere?
I want to clarify one thing. I wrote that ”Google Maps does conceal war damage in many cities, towns and rural areas i Ukraina, for reasons I do not know.” The reason could be that Google Maps hasn’t had time or resources to update the images of a region, rather than a decision to show parts of Ukraine in its pre-war state.
Отличная работа, ошибки бывают у всех. Ждём снимков из Китая
Amerikanets, I have found that Google Maps (images supplied by Maxar, copyright 2024) chooses not to show all kinds of war damage in Ukraine. For example, a school in Zmiivka, destroyed on the 13th of April 2023 (coordinates 46.866434, 33.579484), is shown on Google Maps as undamaged. So damage to civilian and military targets are both hidden. What is your comment?
It is enough to check satellite photos of Mariupol. Photos are over two years old, even if dates state it is 2024 imagery.
City, in the sat imagery, looks like fighting stopped yesterday. Even if we know that massive rebuilding is under way and there are hundreds of videos on YouTube that prove that.
Good job and thank you for sharing the results! I would suggest to wait for news in various social media. It will appear, itțs just a question of time. The simple fact that the area is still sealed tell a story... They are still searching where Yuzmash is hiding after the hit :-)
@Adrian
Pay no attention to the craters behind the curtain. Move along folks, nothing to see here- You'll be arrested for mopery with intent to gawk!
There is another explanation for the lack of visible evidence of this strike. We know that submunitions are small, heavy, fast and hot. Also, they don't explode on contact. If they were made of something like tungsten and weighed 100 kg, they would have a volume of 5 lt. Assuming they are stretched out and pointed, their diameter would be much less than that of other missiles, as little as 20-50cm. Given the speed and momentum of these submunitions, they are likely to punch through the relatively thin industrial roofing, leaving a small, neat hole, which could be all but invisible to satellite photography.
In the video, each specific submunition leaves a distinct (albeit small) afterglow which lasts for ~1-2 sec. Ejecta of sorts? I am not an expert of course, but it is hard for me to imagine how that afterglow can result from a neat ~20-50 cm hole in the roofing that is not seen on the imagery.
The 20-50 cm dimension is the probable diameter of the submunition. This submunition will be preceded by a shock wave and surrounded by a corona of very hot plasma. The shockwave will almost certainly pierce the roofing, and the plasma at up to 4000ºC will vaporise any material it comes into contact with, leading to the conical flash seen in the videos.
These weapons are not designed to produce the type of superficial structural damage seen in the satellite photos but to hit deep underground and produce something akin to an earthquake.
Has anyone looked at seismic data for the night of the raid?
I fully agree with all you just said. In light of this (shock wave, observable ejecta), I doubt that the results of such a hit would not been seen on the hi-res imagery amerikanets acquired. Thus I would think that either photos are of earlier times, they are edited, or Oreshnik hit elsewhere. Seismic data would be an interesting angle, it would indeed be interesting to look at. Also, if I remember correctly, there were two (or more?) videos showing the Oreshnik "arrival" from somewhat different angles. Have any body tried to use that to triangulate the hit location?
@billb
To get some sense of what an impactor striking at 3m/sec looks like visually, so far as signatures from visible light, spray of glowing atomized/gaseous/burning target materials? There are plenty of high speed videos and still images available of explosively formed penetrator impacts and lined shaped charge impacts. The EFP will be less obscured by effects related to the explosives driving the impactor, though these are also generally somewhat lower in impact velocity.
For that matter, I recall having seen radiography images and even high speed videos of such penetrator strikes (similar to slow motion video X rays). Several years ago, I would need to dig for those sources.
Along with seismic data (which numerous universities and NGOs will have records of, so much harder to corrupt), such seismic is detectable at VERY long ranges in comparison with visual & sound effects?
Who is doing atmospheric analysis for particulates, radioisotopes, pollutants? Might a suspicious plume of tungsten, hafnium or other uncommon (and relatively dense) elements have showed up down wind? Once again, any university earth sciences department and several NGOs are likely gathering such data all around Eastern Europe/Western Asia, though possibly not interrogating their collected data for this signal.
Unless and until Russia strikes NATO targets, Oreshnik andnits impact are irrelevant.
Nobody in, nobody in Brussels, nobody in Kiev cares what happens to Ukraine or Ukrainians.
@Feral Finster
Personally, I desire a basic understanding of munitions I may be shot at with.
And a desire know enough to maybe return the favor some day? Petty of me, I know.
The West is confident that those weapons never will be used on them, which is why they continue to ignore red line after Russian red line.
Russian actions have confirmed that Ukrainian-Ukraine will continue to be the poorest and most corrupt country in Europe for some considerable time.
So? Nobody in Washington or Brussels cares.
I'm not "The West"(©).
I meant PERSONALLY, both being shot at and "returning the favor".
How will this knowledge affect your personal calculations?
Eh. Weighting one's self protection and shelter in place choices VERY differently.
Ground wave effects can be MUCH more damaging than assumed previously when one expected optimized height thermonuclear air bursts primarily inflicting thermal damages at range in line of sight via IR/visible light or by air blast/mechanical effects from shock and blast. Going down in even a reenforced bunker is now more likely to get you killed if it collapses.
Mostly discounting risks from neutrons/prompt ionizing radiation close in, though it was always the case for anything of 2Kt or larger that if one was close enough to be severely/lethally injured by prompt radiation the thermal and shock effects would probably kill you first.
A lot less worry about fallout, though possible use of DU penetrators doesn't rule it out.
Returning the favor? Chemistry and fabrication WITHOUT needing to procure and handle fissionable materials, always a huge stumbling block if you can't steal them-
Houthi see, monkey do. I know of "amateurs" who have put HOME MADE rockets into space and got their payloads back.
I'd rather do more productive things with my remaining time.
Since Russia has indicated that it can be slapped around indefinitely and never will respond against anything in the West, I can think of more productive things you could do with your remaining time.
Not sure for others, but I would totally be willing to support buying imagery via buymeacoffe or others services like that, if at any point in time you are willing to spend your time on analyzing it. As a scientist, I truly appreciate the two posts, it shows a tremendous degree of willingness to research and scientific integrity. Especially the last post - there is not enough of that in the world, people just become silent, covering things up, when they realize they drew wrong conclusions for whatever reasons, good or bad. Так держать!
You wrote: “It would be very hard to cover up the damage if 36 projectiles travelling at Mach 11 (according to Ukrainian sources!) slammed into random buildings in Dnipro.” But I have made a map showing two random buildings that were hit: https://www.lindelof.nu/karta-over-oresjniks-nedslagplatser-i-dnipro/ The southernmost of my three red dots is wrong; it is an old hit from 2022.
Yep. If someone can get the Chinese images that should settle it.
G
is
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1qkCCg89eE
Amerikanets, I made relevant comments, but you did not respond. 1) Google maps is indeed a patchwork of images from different years, and the patches are often “sloppy” and have funny shapes, sometimes they are narrow strips, but this happens in agricultural areas as well, where there are no important buildings. 2) This practice is obscuring some of the war damage in places that are militarily unimportant; Pivdenmash/Yuzhmash is shown as undamaged on Google maps, but this is also true of rural villages. 3) Using news reports one can geolocate Oreshnik hits to two places 400 metres and 1000 metres north of Pivdenmash/Yuzhmash; https://www.lindelof.nu/karta-over-oresjniks-nedslagplatser-i-dnipro/ (one of the three red dots is wrong because that crater is from 2022).
@Jan Arvid Goetesson
Thanks for the link to additional thoughts about damage analysis.
(Quote)
"But that could be due to a few warheads going astray, while others reached the target."
----------
If the information we have seen about final delivery system configuration is correct, there may be several impacts in the general target area of "busses"/some components of busses or final stage not consumed by heat of friction in the atmosphere after impactors were released. "Collateral damage" from bits of a delivery system, still hot and fast moving?