You can see from the photo that the images of the saints on the wall are the same. Even there is no damage or dust on them after the alleged rocket attack.
You can see from the photo that the images of the saints on the wall are the same. Even even the large chandelier remained as it was.
You can see from the photo that the images of the saints on the wall are the same. Even the rear stained glass window is in the same place.
After the alleged missile attack, the images of the saints on the wall are the same, even 3 chandeliers (a chandelier close to the epicenter of the alleged missile above the door). Numerous seats, props in the main part of the temple, candles.
You can see that everything is very different from the day before after the alleged missile attack. The chandelier, especially, the painting of Mother Mary, which had not been damaged the day before, are in disarray. The abundance of debris is noticeable.
2 days later of the destruction of the church – All that is left is the frame of Mother Mary painting. The painting on the back is dusted and hung in a crooked shape. There is no other painting. The church is very different from the previous photos. Both the alter and the general ruins are increased.
Published: October 10, 2020
You can see that all the props and candles are the same and the painting around the door is in place after the alleged missile attack.
You can see that all props and candles are the same after the alleged missile attack and the special wooden chair on which the monk was sitting was not damaged.
You can see that everything is different from the previous day. All the props and candles in the altar of the temple disappeared and were destroyed.
Reservist Colonel Shair Ramaldanov, a military expert who analyzed the footage of the church’s destruction, said that although the initial video showed black smoke coming out of the church building, there were no signs of fire inside the church.
The photo taken from a distance was published by the Armenian media. You can see a huge black fire and black smoke.
As can be seen from the photo, unlike the previous photo from fire, there is no large fire or debris above the church. If the fire really happened, it is likely that the wood on the top of the church would also burn. In addition, there are no traces of fire in the interior of the church.
Retired Colonel Shair Ramaldanov, a military expert who analyzed the footage of the church’s destruction by the Armenian media, said that an analysis of the alleged damage on the building and a Google Maps survey showed that the “damage” was not to the Azerbaijani side of the church, but to Armenia. “It follows from the logic of the Armenian side that our missile had to pass over the church, then turn back and hit the part of the building facing the Armenian side,” he said. This is a statement that does not fit into any common sense. It is once again clear that the Armenian side wants to accuse Azerbaijan of vandalism with such allegations, to form an international condemnation of our country.
As Colonel Shair Ramaldanov noted, the angle of incidence of the missile was thrown by Armenia towards Azerbaijan, and we can see that the hole was split a little on the Armenian side and a lot on the Azerbaijani side. If we confirm that it was hit by a missile.
As seen above, the size of the hole is about 2 meters in diameter and 20-30 cm thickness. If we accept that the missile was hit from Armenia to Azerbaijan, then there should be no cross element left. If it was hit to Armenia from the other side, then other domes would be damaged. This is most likely an imitation cave.
We see the growth of the hollow, the erosion of the cross element and the damage to the walls with the difference one day.
You can see 3 photos.
In photo 1 there is debris in photo 1, but the element on the cross remains.
In photo 2, we observe the splitting of the element on the cross.
In photo 3 photo we see the erosion and destruction of the cross element.
The first photo was taken from Armenian social media.
Photo 2 published: October 8, 2020
Photo 3 published: October 9, 2020
We can not see the remains of the alleged missile inside the church in photo 2. There is also no hole in the place that could result from the probable damage. This is the main epicenter, the hole is above the door, but on the sidewall, we see a stained glass window.
Let’s look at the size and material of the hole in the ceiling in photo 1.
The sediment and stones which we can see from the third photo do not suggest that they fell from approximetely 2 meter and 20-30 cm hole above. There is also a change in the picture next to the door.
The sediment and stones seen in photo 3 do not suggest that they came out from a hole about 2 m in diameter and 20-30 cm thick above. Because if we look closely, we can see that the above hole was previously built of red brick. Also, the stones on the ground do not match the size or material of the open parts of the upper hole.
In photo 4, the number of stones and sediments has already increased. This photo was released 1 day later the previous photos, but unlike the previous one, we see more soil accumulation. There is also no painting next to the door.
Published: 9 Oct 2020 : 3:05 PM
The Armenian side claims that the church was twice hit by a missile from the same place. So, if we believe their claim, the rocket entered the church twice from the same hole. Also, as shown above, there is a time difference between the photos.
“Yesterday afternoon, Azerbaijan attacked the church twice at the Holy Savior of Shushi (Ghazanchetsots). That is the result.”
Published: 3:05 PM, 9 Oct 2020
Azerbaijani has officially stated that the information about the damage to the church in Shusha has nothing to do with the military operations of Azerbaijani Army. The statement came from Ministry of Defence of Azerbaijan.
