Ukraine denied responsibility for sabotaging the Kerch bridge following Russia’s accusations, and the mystery of who is to blame for the explosion has fueled much speculation and misleading content.

On Wednesday, October 12, some social media users spotted apparent inconsistencies in the CCTV footage compared to the x-ray scan of the truck. But did the FSB make a mistake?

The Claim

Several pro-Ukraine accounts have shared photos recently published by the FSB, which purportedly show the truck that, it claims, was used to carry and then detonate the explosives on the Kerch bridge.

The users made the argument that the trucks in the two images do not appear to match, with one having an extra wheel, while missing a spare tire in the back.

“FSB published a video of an ’examination of the truck’ and its ‘X-ray’, which allegedly shows explosives. Where on the ‘x-ray’ another axle with wheels and a frame disappeared, the FSB does not specify,” the Ukrainian Pravda wrote on Twitter, adding the clown emoji.

“The FSB released the X-ray scans of the truck that, according to them, caused the explosion on the Crimean bridge. Totally legit, especially seeing how the second rear axle of the truck is nowhere to be seen on the X-ray. Mad Photoshop skills,” another user wrote.

The Facts

While there is no conclusive evidence or any results from an independent investigation available to assign blame for the explosion, which seriously damaged the crucial bridge to the peninsula, the claim about the FSB “faking” or “photoshopping” the images of the truck appears to be based on a false premise.

The security agency has released what it claims to be images of two trucks that it says were used in the operation, for which it blames Ukraine, as well as images of rolls of acrylonitrile styrene banding that, according to the FSB, were used to disguise the explosives. It also released photos of the cargo manifest and the x-ray image of the truck.

As the images spread online, several OSINT investigators spotted an apparent discrepancy between the truck in the CCTV screenshot and one featured in the x-ray image.

“The truck and trailer visible in the x-ray images is not the same truck as is visible in the CCTV camera footage released showing the truck being inspected though,” Oliver Alexander wrote.

The two apparently different vehicles also featured in some of the articles published by Russian state outlets, including RIA Novosti.

However, as other experts point out, the original FSB press release does not claim that the photos show the same truck.

In fact, the statement clarifies that two vehicles were used in the supposed “sabotage” operation.

The first was a DAF truck, which transported the load from Georgia or Armenia to Armavir in Southern Russia. That is the truck that had undergone the x-ray inspection at the border, according to the FSB.

The load was then allegedly placed on a second truck, an International ProStar (which also had a red cabin, adding to the confusion), which was not scanned, although it was searched by the security guards when coming onto the bridge.

So while the two images have been used in juxtaposition to suggest that the Russian authorities had “messed up,” the claim is misleading.

All of the above comes with a significant caveat that, as no independent investigators have been allowed to take part, there is no way to verify the FSB’s claims that either of the trucks did actually carry any explosives, or otherwise were linked to the explosion.

And even if they were, it is not clear who was behind it, or how the truck loaded with explosives would have gotten past the security in what Russia claims to be one of the most strongly protected structures in the country.

The Ruling

Misleading Material.

The two photos have been shared together misleadingly to suggest the same truck was pictured.

In fact, the original statement from the FSB clarifies that the first truck (x-rayed by Russian border guards) crossed the border into Russia, where, it claims, the “explosives” were loaded onto the second truck (captured by CCTV arriving at the bridge).

While this does not necessarily support the Russian security agency’s version of events, the specific claim that the FSB used a different—or fake—x-ray scan is not supported by the evidence.

FACT CHECK BY NEWSWEEK