My apologies for not first reading your link before my curt response. Both the article and website are interesting in their own way.

First a primer on websites reporting military/intelligence affairs: two sites that occupy the ends of the credibility spectrum, http://smallwarsjournal.com and http://www.debka.com.

The first is a forum for junior military officers and professional analysts for discussing tactics and strategy. The articles all have by-lines, mostly by Captains and Majors (i.e. recently promoted Captains). The editorial board is made up of professionals. You will never read any classified information here. You may read some good war stories, but mostly you will read professional treatments of modern tactics by professionals for professionals.

On the other extreme many consider debka a conduit for the Mossad. Good luck separating the information from the disinformation on this site, but the articles can be a good read, if you can deal with the wilderness of mirrors.

In between these extremes keep in mind that intelligence analysis is about connecting the dots. Even the professionals seldom know anything for sure, and sources and means of gathering information are usually more important than any individual datum. If it makes it to print (or html), there’s probably a reason.

So where does this leave http://www.strategypage.com ? Let’s look at the staff bios on the about us page. Of the four "staff" exactly one has any military/intelligence background at all. "...author (over 20 books), wargame designer (over 100 designed and publisher of over 500), defense advisor (since the 1970s), pundit (since the 1970s) and general troublemaker. Served in the US Army artillery (1961-64) as a Spec/4." His website, http://www.jimdunnigan.com , lists some of his books, and more bio info including "Various Department of Defense and State Department agencies called on me to give lectures or just have a chat." I guess that was his "defense advisor" gig. He’s certainly a dedicated amateur. If luck had broken his way a little better, perhaps he could have been Tom Clancy. There’s also a handy "write for us" page. If you write well enough and don’t make any flaming technical errors, you can make some coin.

In short, I don’t think this site would even attract placing any real disinformation. So how about the article itself?

First, no by-line.

Secondly the protagonist’s name, "Zoltan". Sure sounds made up to me, but that’s just my opinion.

The way the piece is put together has the feel of a composite, somebody who did some research and threw this story together. If a real reporter got the real story from a real Colonel (and covered up his identity with a pseudonym) he could have written for a more prestigious publication or wire service and made better money. Still...not entirely implausible.

For now I’m sticking to my theory of the shoot-down only because accounts I read right after the incident described the wreckage of the aircraft landing largely intact (a little hard to believe since the fuselage is composite) with bullet holes and, if I recall correctly, the pilot ejected and survived (a little less likely after a missile strike). Hence my belief in heavy machine gun fire from a pursuit aircraft. Also the Russians really wanted to get their hands on one of these babies, even a crashed specimen. So it’s easy to imagine their risking an agent inside NATO to pull this off.

Reading this stuff on the web is not like reading hacking tips. The background is more important than the foreground, and you can never be sure.