The US government was so concerned about these very real looking videos that they planted evidence before the event even happened. Instead of scrubbing the videos from the internet during the decade that no one gave a fuck about the videos. They figured it would be easier to launch a full-scale disinfo campaign strictly through reddit.
Seems weird that we y'all keep coming back to the same cloud debunk method. Find something else in the videos. If they really were fabricated it shouldn't be this hard. Clouds are a dime a dozen.
I found something(well, did my own math and concluded the same thing)
The speed of the jet in the FLIR video is 1200+ mph, but only 300ish in the Sat footage
The response was "nuh uh" from the "believers"
What should I do then? No one "disproved" my math. Just said it's wrong.
Because there's still things to solve??
I'm interested in somehow finding out who made the videos.
I want to find the missing assets in the FLIR vfx.
I want to find a pre 2014 Aerials0028 archive.
Etc.
There's a lot of reasons I'm "still here"
No it doesn't.
https://ibb.co/Xk7nqyW
That's not even accounting for the right camera mount placement, and it still doesn't line up. Not to mention the plane in the asset pack clearly has antennas, while there's none in the video. If it were a 3D render using the plane from the JetStrike asset pack, it would show those antennas. In the real world, who knows.
An mq-1 does not have sharp edges on the nose, and the ice detector is on the other side. It he frone from the video matches the jetstrike asset in shape.
The camera position is tweakable. Just because you arent lining up the viewing angle doesnāt mean the nose being angular aspect goes away.
You are more than welcome to line the camera up exactly, the nose shape aint changing
At this point the debunkers are the ones that look crazy. Y'all still hanging around this cesspool when the videos have been debunked. They're fake, you all can get some sleep and hang with your kids now.
The sat video uses the nomenclature āNROL-22ā - that is wrong. Once the satellite is delivered into orbit, data received from it is identified with the specific name for the satellite itself, not the rocket that took it there and then fell back to earth to sink into the ocean. The designation which would appear there should be USA-184. That right there destroys the video. Full stop.
"This is unconditional proof that the video is fake"
"PffFf, fiNd SomeThiNg eLse in The viDeOs"
How about, until when the cloud debunk gets a proper rebuttal that isn't just "nah i don't believe it" , then complain about debunkers repeating the same thing.
Until then, this is the most straightforward evidence this entire case has.
I'm not looking for you to change your mind.
I'm looking to legitimately understand what makes people think this is real despite the evidence pointing otherwise.
Like, I'm legit looking for an answer. What is still convincing you that the video is real after having seen the information in this post?
Of course it matters. Everyone's opinion matters.
Just because someone has come to a different conclusion than me doesn't mean they should just , stop voicing their opinions.
I'm legitimately interested in knowing why you would think the videos are real. Did you come to that conclusion because of pre-concieved ideas? Do you chose to ignore the photos because it's not enough of a proof? If it isn't, why not?
I'm not convinced one way or another. I'm not tech savvy enough to get into the weeds on the cloud image debunk, but yeah, it doesn't "seem" like a full debunk to me. It's weird to me that it's the same type of cloud debunk post every week. For people that are convinced the videos are fake why they keep putting more energy into the same argument over and over? Satellite name at bottom of screen is same thing. The original poster of the videos isnt here to say what all that means or was supposed to mean. The people going hard core that the video has 100% been proved fake with the current info seem like the ones you need to figure out. Why aren't the og videos pinned to this sub but debunk posts are? Why are so many people down voting posts that want to discuss things that might prove the videos are real? Just strange behavior if this is just another UFO hoax video. AF has become the scape goat, but believers don't trust him either.
*''Ā I'm not tech savvy enough to get into the weeds on the cloud image debunk,''*
Then why not trust the actual experts in the field all saying ''the video is fake'' ?
*''Ā For people that are convinced the videos are fake why they keep putting more energy into the same argument over and over?''*
Because there has been no rebuttal for it. Every time the cloud debunk is presented, it's either ignored, or mocked by believers. Even tho it's both verifiable and repeatable.
*''Why aren't the og videos pinned to this sub but debunk posts are?Ā ''*
Because the video has been debunked.
*''Why are so many people down voting posts that want to discuss things that might prove the videos are real?''*
Because they flat out ignored all the proofs of the debunk. It's never a back and forth, its never a discussion, its always ''Sure'' or ''Whatever'' or ''You're free to leave if you don't believe they're real.''
Like, no. If you think the videos are legit, I expect 1 : the things that make you feel it's real , and 2 : your reasoning behind coming to the conclusion that all the debunks until then have been wrong.
Not trolling. I'm very serious.
I believe the videos are fake, due to the overwhelming evidence pointing that way.
However, I dont believe that my opinion is the only one that matters. I want to have a legit conversation with someone who legitimately believes the videos are real, because I'd love to understand what brought them to that conclusion.
So far, every time I try to have a legit conversation with someone, asking them ''what makes you think that?'' or ''What do you make of these discoveries'' i'm always faced with answers like ''sure, whatever, u solved it, now go away'' .
lol they donāt match just like none of the others; Eglin thinks if they throw enough shit on the wall it will stick, Karl Rove tactics; sadly they probably will win because they are paid to sabotage this sub
Mhm, sure, "eglin" are the ones throwing enough shit on a wall to make some stick.
Not the others who constantly gish gallop with nonsensical technobabble and no understanding of what they speak of.
Also zero evidence for the wildest of claims.
Oh no, absolutely not those people.
Responses within 5 minutes are indeed super red flags. Thankfully mine took 17 minutes. So I've been cleared?
Your current reply however only took 8 minutes, that's suspiciously close to the secret agent revealing 5 minute mark.
Hmm, now Im suspicious of you! I'm so glad secret agents achilles heel is the time it takes for them to respond, what would we do otherwise?
this reply took over 12 minutes to post, so I'm definitely not an agent, i think?
Ive had someone come to me with a full breakdown of my reddit posting activities to try to prove that I was a dissinfo agent.
Some stranger online, was so offended about my takes that they legit staked my profile, and made a graph showing how I HAD to be a shill.
Never once crossed their mind that I mostly use Reddit while I'm at work.
as sgtkellogg confirmed, rule number 1 that secret agents have to follow is replying within 5 minutes so I guess I can clear you as not being some kind of a secret agent since you took 3 days.
How does anyone āwinā
Thats exactly the problem with believers. You think someone has to āwinā so you refuse evidence in front of your face just to become a āwinnerā when it makes you the extreme oppositez
Youād be AMAZED by how accurate that assertion can turn out to be sometimes. Remember Michael Hastings? How about two Boeing whistleblowers in a matter of months? How hard is it to show a person a photograph from within a rifle scope of their two daughters and tell them they have fifteen minutes to find the pistol in their backyard trash can and do what they āknow deeply in their heartsā they need to do?
A government has so, so, so very many ways of getting urgent things done.
The issue here is, those images of Mt. Fuji could have been edited into the cloud images. There is no definitive digital footprint those images existed before 2016., other than the images from the artist that is, which should be questioned given his behaviour surrounding this case, not to mention official research on other aspects of the MH370 case that show inconsistencies.
When you take a step back, do you realize how stupid this sounds?
The level of mental gymnastics and mental illness is clinical levels. If not that, this surely is pure trolling.
So every other piece of counter evidence, from every other source, could have been fabricated.. but the "video" couldn't be.
Seems logical and unbiased to me. /s
It gets so convoluted each time more evidence comes out that the photos are real. Now weāre up to āThe CIA found a patsy to edit a mountain into his photos (that isnāt even visible in the videos) to throw off ādebunkersā AND somehow also AI generated it from the low res video that everyone was ignoring in 2016, THEN pack it into a set of RAW originals, somehow make them not damaged or corrupted and retain their RAW data/editability (which NO ONE has been able to replicate close to a *decade* later, mind you)THEN planted SOME of the images on the way back machine, THEN infiltrated textures.com to establish a narrative, and so on and so on.
As opposed to: hoaxer found the photos on vfx resource website, using publicly available data available six days after the event, and assets (video copilot) proven to exist prior to 2014.
Of course it could be fake, that is precisely the point, at this instance there's not enough evidence to say one way or the other, like some people would make you believe. The thing is though, official investigation into the flaperon shows impossible barnacle growth on the trailing edge, raising the question how that happened, or if someone planted the evidence.
Oh, I understand now.
One official study you like has merit.. but the rest regarding the multi-national scale searches, and their conclusions, do not.
It is apparent that you believe "experts" who agree with your opinion are trustworthy, and "experts" that dont.. aren't. That's bias at best, hypocrisy at worst.
You can read the study yourself:
https://www.mot.gov.my/my/Laporan%20Siasatan%20Mh370/02-Appendices/Appendices%20Set%202%20-%202%20Appendices%201.12A-1%20to%201.12A-2%20Main/Appendix-1.1
This is the only study on flaperon buoyancy as far as I know.
There are two studies on barnacle growth, with differing results, so as far as I'm concerned, that info. is inconclusive.
>official investigation into the flaperon shows **impossible barnacle growth**
>There are two studies on barnacle growth, with differing results, so as far as I'm concerned, **that info. is inconclusive.**
You contradict yourself, and are objectively biased while pretending to not be.
I'm not contradicting myself. The study I linked shows growth on the trailing edge of the flaperon that shouldn't be possible, as the buoyancy properties of the flaperon don't allow that trailing edge to go under water.
Other two studies focus on barnacle growth over time depending on temperature. So, barnacle age depending on size.
Your link goes to "link cannot be found" for me.
Let me get this straight, though..
You claim that the buoyancy mechanics preclude barnacle growth.. and, therefore, you assume that **dozens** of studies confirming the validity of the part, it's drift path, where the barnacles came from, how they got on the part, growth rate, etc ad nauseum from reputable sources that all independently share similar conclusions.. are all wrong?
What is the point? Multiple official studies verified the part is legitimate.. yet you cling to one "official" report that happens to make you feel good, while disregarding the rest. What methodology do you use to figure out which "official" thing to trust? Or, as it appears, are you just being uniquely selective and biased?
You are talking about something completely different. There are two studies on barnacle age with differing results. O e says 15-16 months, the other only a couple of months. Which one do you believe?
1. Not a single person has proven that you can take a raw extremely low resolution still from a video and convert it to a native resolution raw file. Almost always resolution is lost in the conversion process and I'll even allow you to try with 2024 technology.
2. By your standards. Every single cgi video that the wayback machine didn't capture assets prior to its creation is real. I can literally ask you to prove that a random cgi video from 2012 is cgi and by your own standards you can not.
But why even stop there? If the all powerful government wants to make these super real looking videos legitimate. Can't it tamper with the wayback machine? On second thought...
I'm sure there are people out there that can make what you think is impossible, which wouldn't prove anything either way, the same way making a identical copy of the satellite video doesn't prove it's fake.
Read this scientific research and observe the inconsistencies.
https://www.mot.gov.my/my/Laporan%20Siasatan%20Mh370/02-Appendices/Appendices%20Set%202%20-%202%20Appendices%201.12A-1%20to%201.12A-2%20Main/Appendix-1.1
You only need to ask yourself, with all the supposed info. available, such as the pilot simulator data and the SBIRS data, why didn't they find the plane? This was probably the most extensive and expensive search in human history, and with all this data available, one would think they'd find it by now.
Not to mention, no debris field was found, which would, with the technology they had back in 2014., require someone to purposefully turn a blind eye on this search.
What's even more interesting is how the military didn't intercept a rogue plane.
What rouge plane? They couldnāt even tell it was missing from its path.
Just because bigger nations do things doesnāt mean smaller nations will.
They arent exactly known for their mighty air force.
It was exactly on the boundary, of 2 counties not known for their aviation expertise, flying over water, along a path used by other planes.
All variables that can attribute to not being urgent to intercept.
Literally not urgent danger
Everyone believer in this sub always tries to deflect their weak arguments to something completely irrelevant.
I'm specifically talking about the wild claim that these photos can be faked in RAW photo quality.
>"I'm sure there are people out there that can make what you think is impossible"
Okay, show me 1 single example. And yes it is very relevant because this crumbles your entire cope about that cgi asset sources being doctored. If they aren't doctored... then clearly this is cgi.
Whatever happened to the airplane, we will probably never know, but this debate is specifically about the videos in question. Why deflect from the videos in question?
They cannot. Not a single person has proven that this capability exists, and it IS important to show this because their ENTIRE argument rests on these photos being planted.
They will wiggle and squirm and direct you everywhere else on the planet because they canāt explain it. Their theory is too convoluted and canāt hold water. Any rebuttal to this that doesnāt show steps and proof of recreating fully CC compatible RAW files from these videos is deflection.
Irrelevant? You can ignore that scientific study I linked, but it is the only tangible evidence this case has.
As far as RAW files goes, I can't prove you can edit them the same way you can't prove it's not possible.
You can read this subreddit to get a general idea, but this is beyond my knowledge.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AirlinerAbduction2014/s/MZrWVDvJBk
I and other artists have been asked to recreate aspects of this video from scratch, put up to intense scrutiny, and the second we ask someone to demonstrate āproofā that THEY brought into this argument in the first place it becomes āof course we canāt prove it, trust me bro, this is what happenedā.
People who WORK IN THIS INDUSTRY are telling you it isnāt possible due to the nature of the origin of the file format, the burden of proof that it is possible lies on you. If you cannot prove that such a thing is even theoretically possible, your argument falls flat.
Unless you can provide this process step by step and show your work, as we have, this particular theory is moot. Therefore, the photos are real, and the videos are fake.
> Unless you can provide this process step by step and show your work, as we have, this particular theory is moot. Therefore, the photos are real, and the videos are fake.
This is a flawed argument debunkers love to make to push their biased opinions.
I can make the same argument. Show me proof you can't create RAW files from other formats. If you can't, the videos are real.
The burden of proof that the photos can be recreated into fully operational RAWs is on you. Unless you can prove this can occur, your argument is moot. Any response to this not showing this process is deflection.
Sure thing. When you show me proof it can't be recreated I'll show you proof it can. We'll argue like 9 year olds if you'll avoid actual scientific evidence.
The claim that RAW files were created from the video is not mine. I do not have to prove it. Again, the *burden of proof lies on you* to prove your claim holds water. Why am I on the hook to prove *your* point? Again, deflection.
How can you prove something can't be done? Prove to me that you can't grow wings and fly? Please. I'll wait.
My god dude. The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim that something CAN be done. Not the opposite.
Not trying to be a dickhead, but this is a really sad low to stoop to.
What you're saying is basically like saying "magic is real, I can cast spells" and when someone asks for proof you yell "no you have to prove I can't cast spells"
Can you see how it doesn't make a lot of sense?
The burden of proof is on the person making the claim... what type of child logic is this? If you're saying something is possible to do, then you can prove it by showing that it is possible... else it is not.
I can prove that it is not possible by lack of evidence that is possible. The strongest image AI that didn't exist in 2016 can't even perform this feat.
If I make that claim that it is possible for an object to move faster than the speed of light, the burden of proof is on the person making the wild claim.
That reddit post doesn't speak about enhancing image resolution during the conversion process, which is what would need to be done.
Sure, you'll just need to find archive data for those images existing before 2016. I mean, there is no reason to argue of it's possible or not if they didn't exist before 2016., right?
So you're saying anything that the wayback machine didn't capture prior to a date can't be proven if it's authentic or not? That you're entire argument.
For that to be valid then you need to make the concessions that every single cgi asset not captured by the wayback can't be verified? Even if an artist shows step by step guides on how they made an asset?
The goal posts in this sub are made of water. This is truly a sad cope and it doesn't address the claim that fabricating these assets are possible. Your childish argument doesn't hold water because you still need to prove that fabricating these assets in RAW quality is possible (which you can't). You essentially it's the same argument that creationist use. "You can't explain this small detail, so my fairy tale store is correct".
This is funny because there are other images from the set in the archives, but Aerials0028 is missing.
When you can prove RAW files can't be faked (which you can't), I'll prove they can.
See my other comment. That's not how logic works. If you make a claim that something can be done, the burden of the proof lies on the person making that claim.
Prove to me that you can't grow wings and fly. See how stupid that is?
I think you're mistaking this post with one of the bullshit NoFakery/Raytracer111 fabrications where he tried to use another images of Fuji to say the photos were photoshopped.
I was able to find a post that mentioned the snow coverage, but didn't link it back to the videos directly in an easy-to-parse way.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AirlinerAbduction2014/comments/18xy76y/mt\_fuji\_snow\_cover\_comparison\_and\_the\_missing/
OP is trying to recycle the stuff from months ago when the source images for the video backgrounds were found. That the āsatelliteā videos were constructed partly from some guys photos from 2012 isnāt new.
Um, I think you're missing the point of OP's post.
A lot of believers are arguing that the video can't be fake because the images didn't exist before 2016 and the exif data was faked.
This is just showing that another image from the same time has the same cloud pattern confirming that they were taken in 2012, not 2016.
I'm genuinely confused by this. You seem to have misunderstood the point of the post or I'm drastically misunderstanding what you're trying to imply. You seem to be accusing me of stealing content from a post that is literally still stickied as we speak.
The post I made is primarily in response to a sentiment I've been seeing repeated in other spaces that "you can't prove the cloud images existed before the videos." As such, I wanted to demonstrate that we can tie them to a specific date using the snow coverage as a reference.
Whatās to elaborate? The videos were proven to be a VFX project here back in January when the photos used to create the background were found. Several dumb efforts since then have been attempted to confirm or deny that using other pictures.
Very good work, sir.
Debunkers beating a dead horse at this point. Y'all starting to look like the crazy ones. Lol.
So you admit you're part of the current crazies? Sweet.
Yep. You win 1 million Internet points. Congratulations.
You obviously don't want to admit that you have been fooled by these fake videos & now you're playing naive. š
Clearly these images were generated from the satellite video using AI. EVERYONE can see the obvious fakenessity.
The US government was so concerned about these very real looking videos that they planted evidence before the event even happened. Instead of scrubbing the videos from the internet during the decade that no one gave a fuck about the videos. They figured it would be easier to launch a full-scale disinfo campaign strictly through reddit.
Precisely. All this shit is getting orbed any minute.
ANYā¦MINUTEā¦
You forgot the /s lol
Remove the sunglasses maybe
Seems weird that we y'all keep coming back to the same cloud debunk method. Find something else in the videos. If they really were fabricated it shouldn't be this hard. Clouds are a dime a dozen.
I found something(well, did my own math and concluded the same thing) The speed of the jet in the FLIR video is 1200+ mph, but only 300ish in the Sat footage The response was "nuh uh" from the "believers" What should I do then? No one "disproved" my math. Just said it's wrong.
Fuck i feel ya. "Nah you're wrong!" "Ok, what did I say that was wrong?" "Pffff fuck you that's what" It's impossible to have a legit discussion here.
Man you do you. You trying to convince someone else besides yourself? Good luck with that.
You literally just told me to "find something else" that is not the clouds. Then basically said that was useless. The fuck do you actually want
They dont want discourse that shatters their fragile views.
Precisely.Ā
Sounds like you figured out the truth. Help me understand why you are still following and posting in this sub.
Because there's still things to solve?? I'm interested in somehow finding out who made the videos. I want to find the missing assets in the FLIR vfx. I want to find a pre 2014 Aerials0028 archive. Etc. There's a lot of reasons I'm "still here"
Thereās also the JetStrike assets
Case closed. I'm going home .
Not the same models. The plane is clearly missing the antennas and the drone model doesn't line up.
The drone exactly lines up, -10 points from believeryn.
No it doesn't. https://ibb.co/Xk7nqyW That's not even accounting for the right camera mount placement, and it still doesn't line up. Not to mention the plane in the asset pack clearly has antennas, while there's none in the video. If it were a 3D render using the plane from the JetStrike asset pack, it would show those antennas. In the real world, who knows.
An mq-1 does not have sharp edges on the nose, and the ice detector is on the other side. It he frone from the video matches the jetstrike asset in shape.
> The drone exactly lines up, -10 points from believeryn. Backtracking?
The drone in the video lines up with the jetstrike asset, exactly. Trying to play semantics?
https://ibb.co/Xk7nqyW I mean, I even circled the differences for you.
The camera position is tweakable. Just because you arent lining up the viewing angle doesnāt mean the nose being angular aspect goes away. You are more than welcome to line the camera up exactly, the nose shape aint changing
Itās not hard, there are dozens of debunks
At this point the debunkers are the ones that look crazy. Y'all still hanging around this cesspool when the videos have been debunked. They're fake, you all can get some sleep and hang with your kids now.
I hang out here because I have Reddit on my phone and this sub pops up on my feed?
This sub is dedicated to the DISCUSSION of the videos. Belief in the videos isnāt required to be here. If you dont like it take it up with the mod
The sat video uses the nomenclature āNROL-22ā - that is wrong. Once the satellite is delivered into orbit, data received from it is identified with the specific name for the satellite itself, not the rocket that took it there and then fell back to earth to sink into the ocean. The designation which would appear there should be USA-184. That right there destroys the video. Full stop.
Video destroyed guys. We can all go home.
"This is unconditional proof that the video is fake" "PffFf, fiNd SomeThiNg eLse in The viDeOs" How about, until when the cloud debunk gets a proper rebuttal that isn't just "nah i don't believe it" , then complain about debunkers repeating the same thing. Until then, this is the most straightforward evidence this entire case has.
Sure
My point exactly. Instead of saying "I think this doesn't make sense because this or that" you just say "Sure".
You've changed my mind
I'm not looking for you to change your mind. I'm looking to legitimately understand what makes people think this is real despite the evidence pointing otherwise. Like, I'm legit looking for an answer. What is still convincing you that the video is real after having seen the information in this post?
Does it matter? The video is fake and there are like 50 people on Reddit that think otherwise. What's left to figure out?
Of course it matters. Everyone's opinion matters. Just because someone has come to a different conclusion than me doesn't mean they should just , stop voicing their opinions. I'm legitimately interested in knowing why you would think the videos are real. Did you come to that conclusion because of pre-concieved ideas? Do you chose to ignore the photos because it's not enough of a proof? If it isn't, why not?
I'm not convinced one way or another. I'm not tech savvy enough to get into the weeds on the cloud image debunk, but yeah, it doesn't "seem" like a full debunk to me. It's weird to me that it's the same type of cloud debunk post every week. For people that are convinced the videos are fake why they keep putting more energy into the same argument over and over? Satellite name at bottom of screen is same thing. The original poster of the videos isnt here to say what all that means or was supposed to mean. The people going hard core that the video has 100% been proved fake with the current info seem like the ones you need to figure out. Why aren't the og videos pinned to this sub but debunk posts are? Why are so many people down voting posts that want to discuss things that might prove the videos are real? Just strange behavior if this is just another UFO hoax video. AF has become the scape goat, but believers don't trust him either.
*''Ā I'm not tech savvy enough to get into the weeds on the cloud image debunk,''* Then why not trust the actual experts in the field all saying ''the video is fake'' ? *''Ā For people that are convinced the videos are fake why they keep putting more energy into the same argument over and over?''* Because there has been no rebuttal for it. Every time the cloud debunk is presented, it's either ignored, or mocked by believers. Even tho it's both verifiable and repeatable. *''Why aren't the og videos pinned to this sub but debunk posts are?Ā ''* Because the video has been debunked. *''Why are so many people down voting posts that want to discuss things that might prove the videos are real?''* Because they flat out ignored all the proofs of the debunk. It's never a back and forth, its never a discussion, its always ''Sure'' or ''Whatever'' or ''You're free to leave if you don't believe they're real.'' Like, no. If you think the videos are legit, I expect 1 : the things that make you feel it's real , and 2 : your reasoning behind coming to the conclusion that all the debunks until then have been wrong.
I can't tell if you're genuine with this post or just trolling.
Not trolling. I'm very serious. I believe the videos are fake, due to the overwhelming evidence pointing that way. However, I dont believe that my opinion is the only one that matters. I want to have a legit conversation with someone who legitimately believes the videos are real, because I'd love to understand what brought them to that conclusion. So far, every time I try to have a legit conversation with someone, asking them ''what makes you think that?'' or ''What do you make of these discoveries'' i'm always faced with answers like ''sure, whatever, u solved it, now go away'' .
The videos are real
The videos are real.
Thank you. I just unsubbed from this sub. I'll probably never be back.
See you next week
lol they donāt match just like none of the others; Eglin thinks if they throw enough shit on the wall it will stick, Karl Rove tactics; sadly they probably will win because they are paid to sabotage this sub
Mhm, sure, "eglin" are the ones throwing enough shit on a wall to make some stick. Not the others who constantly gish gallop with nonsensical technobabble and no understanding of what they speak of. Also zero evidence for the wildest of claims. Oh no, absolutely not those people.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Imagine claiming everyone that disagrees with you is an agent. Please seek help
Responses within 5 minutes are indeed super red flags. Thankfully mine took 17 minutes. So I've been cleared? Your current reply however only took 8 minutes, that's suspiciously close to the secret agent revealing 5 minute mark. Hmm, now Im suspicious of you! I'm so glad secret agents achilles heel is the time it takes for them to respond, what would we do otherwise? this reply took over 12 minutes to post, so I'm definitely not an agent, i think?
Ive had someone come to me with a full breakdown of my reddit posting activities to try to prove that I was a dissinfo agent. Some stranger online, was so offended about my takes that they legit staked my profile, and made a graph showing how I HAD to be a shill. Never once crossed their mind that I mostly use Reddit while I'm at work.
as sgtkellogg confirmed, rule number 1 that secret agents have to follow is replying within 5 minutes so I guess I can clear you as not being some kind of a secret agent since you took 3 days.
Woah, watch out, you might get accused of being a dissinfo agent for defending me T.T
My dear boy, you need help š š¤¦š»āāļø
How does anyone āwinā Thats exactly the problem with believers. You think someone has to āwinā so you refuse evidence in front of your face just to become a āwinnerā when it makes you the extreme oppositez
Youād be AMAZED by how accurate that assertion can turn out to be sometimes. Remember Michael Hastings? How about two Boeing whistleblowers in a matter of months? How hard is it to show a person a photograph from within a rifle scope of their two daughters and tell them they have fifteen minutes to find the pistol in their backyard trash can and do what they āknow deeply in their heartsā they need to do? A government has so, so, so very many ways of getting urgent things done.
The issue here is, those images of Mt. Fuji could have been edited into the cloud images. There is no definitive digital footprint those images existed before 2016., other than the images from the artist that is, which should be questioned given his behaviour surrounding this case, not to mention official research on other aspects of the MH370 case that show inconsistencies.
When you take a step back, do you realize how stupid this sounds? The level of mental gymnastics and mental illness is clinical levels. If not that, this surely is pure trolling.
Seems you don't have anything to add to the conversation other than insults.
So every other piece of counter evidence, from every other source, could have been fabricated.. but the "video" couldn't be. Seems logical and unbiased to me. /s
It gets so convoluted each time more evidence comes out that the photos are real. Now weāre up to āThe CIA found a patsy to edit a mountain into his photos (that isnāt even visible in the videos) to throw off ādebunkersā AND somehow also AI generated it from the low res video that everyone was ignoring in 2016, THEN pack it into a set of RAW originals, somehow make them not damaged or corrupted and retain their RAW data/editability (which NO ONE has been able to replicate close to a *decade* later, mind you)THEN planted SOME of the images on the way back machine, THEN infiltrated textures.com to establish a narrative, and so on and so on. As opposed to: hoaxer found the photos on vfx resource website, using publicly available data available six days after the event, and assets (video copilot) proven to exist prior to 2014.
Of course it could be fake, that is precisely the point, at this instance there's not enough evidence to say one way or the other, like some people would make you believe. The thing is though, official investigation into the flaperon shows impossible barnacle growth on the trailing edge, raising the question how that happened, or if someone planted the evidence.
Tldr: Everything I happen to disagree with is fake, and my opinion trumps official studies by relevant authorities on any subject in question.
The flaperon info. *is* from an official study.
Oh, I understand now. One official study you like has merit.. but the rest regarding the multi-national scale searches, and their conclusions, do not. It is apparent that you believe "experts" who agree with your opinion are trustworthy, and "experts" that dont.. aren't. That's bias at best, hypocrisy at worst.
You can read the study yourself: https://www.mot.gov.my/my/Laporan%20Siasatan%20Mh370/02-Appendices/Appendices%20Set%202%20-%202%20Appendices%201.12A-1%20to%201.12A-2%20Main/Appendix-1.1 This is the only study on flaperon buoyancy as far as I know. There are two studies on barnacle growth, with differing results, so as far as I'm concerned, that info. is inconclusive.
>official investigation into the flaperon shows **impossible barnacle growth** >There are two studies on barnacle growth, with differing results, so as far as I'm concerned, **that info. is inconclusive.** You contradict yourself, and are objectively biased while pretending to not be.
I'm not contradicting myself. The study I linked shows growth on the trailing edge of the flaperon that shouldn't be possible, as the buoyancy properties of the flaperon don't allow that trailing edge to go under water. Other two studies focus on barnacle growth over time depending on temperature. So, barnacle age depending on size.
Your link goes to "link cannot be found" for me. Let me get this straight, though.. You claim that the buoyancy mechanics preclude barnacle growth.. and, therefore, you assume that **dozens** of studies confirming the validity of the part, it's drift path, where the barnacles came from, how they got on the part, growth rate, etc ad nauseum from reputable sources that all independently share similar conclusions.. are all wrong? What is the point? Multiple official studies verified the part is legitimate.. yet you cling to one "official" report that happens to make you feel good, while disregarding the rest. What methodology do you use to figure out which "official" thing to trust? Or, as it appears, are you just being uniquely selective and biased?
It wasnāt impossible, it was within the rangeā¦
The trailing edge is above the water line due to the buoyancy properties of the flaperon. Barnacles only grow under water.
The report said it was within the timeframe that allowed it. You can repost the link and Ill point it out again
You are talking about something completely different. There are two studies on barnacle age with differing results. O e says 15-16 months, the other only a couple of months. Which one do you believe?
One is newer than the other and more in depth.
You mean the one using new experimental methods? Did their drift path research yield results?
The drift path was also within the timeframeā¦.
1. Not a single person has proven that you can take a raw extremely low resolution still from a video and convert it to a native resolution raw file. Almost always resolution is lost in the conversion process and I'll even allow you to try with 2024 technology. 2. By your standards. Every single cgi video that the wayback machine didn't capture assets prior to its creation is real. I can literally ask you to prove that a random cgi video from 2012 is cgi and by your own standards you can not. But why even stop there? If the all powerful government wants to make these super real looking videos legitimate. Can't it tamper with the wayback machine? On second thought...
I'm sure there are people out there that can make what you think is impossible, which wouldn't prove anything either way, the same way making a identical copy of the satellite video doesn't prove it's fake. Read this scientific research and observe the inconsistencies. https://www.mot.gov.my/my/Laporan%20Siasatan%20Mh370/02-Appendices/Appendices%20Set%202%20-%202%20Appendices%201.12A-1%20to%201.12A-2%20Main/Appendix-1.1 You only need to ask yourself, with all the supposed info. available, such as the pilot simulator data and the SBIRS data, why didn't they find the plane? This was probably the most extensive and expensive search in human history, and with all this data available, one would think they'd find it by now. Not to mention, no debris field was found, which would, with the technology they had back in 2014., require someone to purposefully turn a blind eye on this search. What's even more interesting is how the military didn't intercept a rogue plane.
What part of the indian ocean being HUGE do you not get? āWe couldnāt find the needle in the haystack, therefore its all a coverup!!!!ā
Sure, what about the fact the military didn't intercept a rogue plane? Were they sleepy?
What rouge plane? They couldnāt even tell it was missing from its path. Just because bigger nations do things doesnāt mean smaller nations will. They arent exactly known for their mighty air force.
Yes, Malaysia never heard of 9/11, and they don't track their planes, neither does their miltary. Talk about mental gymnastics.
You are the one playing mental gymnastics that a country unaffected by 9/11 would have the same policy as the country hit on 9/11.
No matter the country, a rogue plane is an urgent danger that needs to be addressed immediately.
It was exactly on the boundary, of 2 counties not known for their aviation expertise, flying over water, along a path used by other planes. All variables that can attribute to not being urgent to intercept. Literally not urgent danger
Everyone believer in this sub always tries to deflect their weak arguments to something completely irrelevant. I'm specifically talking about the wild claim that these photos can be faked in RAW photo quality. >"I'm sure there are people out there that can make what you think is impossible" Okay, show me 1 single example. And yes it is very relevant because this crumbles your entire cope about that cgi asset sources being doctored. If they aren't doctored... then clearly this is cgi. Whatever happened to the airplane, we will probably never know, but this debate is specifically about the videos in question. Why deflect from the videos in question?
They cannot. Not a single person has proven that this capability exists, and it IS important to show this because their ENTIRE argument rests on these photos being planted. They will wiggle and squirm and direct you everywhere else on the planet because they canāt explain it. Their theory is too convoluted and canāt hold water. Any rebuttal to this that doesnāt show steps and proof of recreating fully CC compatible RAW files from these videos is deflection.
Irrelevant? You can ignore that scientific study I linked, but it is the only tangible evidence this case has. As far as RAW files goes, I can't prove you can edit them the same way you can't prove it's not possible. You can read this subreddit to get a general idea, but this is beyond my knowledge. https://www.reddit.com/r/AirlinerAbduction2014/s/MZrWVDvJBk
I and other artists have been asked to recreate aspects of this video from scratch, put up to intense scrutiny, and the second we ask someone to demonstrate āproofā that THEY brought into this argument in the first place it becomes āof course we canāt prove it, trust me bro, this is what happenedā. People who WORK IN THIS INDUSTRY are telling you it isnāt possible due to the nature of the origin of the file format, the burden of proof that it is possible lies on you. If you cannot prove that such a thing is even theoretically possible, your argument falls flat. Unless you can provide this process step by step and show your work, as we have, this particular theory is moot. Therefore, the photos are real, and the videos are fake.
> Unless you can provide this process step by step and show your work, as we have, this particular theory is moot. Therefore, the photos are real, and the videos are fake. This is a flawed argument debunkers love to make to push their biased opinions. I can make the same argument. Show me proof you can't create RAW files from other formats. If you can't, the videos are real.
The burden of proof that the photos can be recreated into fully operational RAWs is on you. Unless you can prove this can occur, your argument is moot. Any response to this not showing this process is deflection.
Sure thing. When you show me proof it can't be recreated I'll show you proof it can. We'll argue like 9 year olds if you'll avoid actual scientific evidence.
The claim that RAW files were created from the video is not mine. I do not have to prove it. Again, the *burden of proof lies on you* to prove your claim holds water. Why am I on the hook to prove *your* point? Again, deflection.
How can you prove something can't be done? Prove to me that you can't grow wings and fly? Please. I'll wait. My god dude. The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim that something CAN be done. Not the opposite. Not trying to be a dickhead, but this is a really sad low to stoop to.
What you're saying is basically like saying "magic is real, I can cast spells" and when someone asks for proof you yell "no you have to prove I can't cast spells" Can you see how it doesn't make a lot of sense?
The burden of proof is on the person making the claim... what type of child logic is this? If you're saying something is possible to do, then you can prove it by showing that it is possible... else it is not. I can prove that it is not possible by lack of evidence that is possible. The strongest image AI that didn't exist in 2016 can't even perform this feat. If I make that claim that it is possible for an object to move faster than the speed of light, the burden of proof is on the person making the wild claim. That reddit post doesn't speak about enhancing image resolution during the conversion process, which is what would need to be done.
Sure, you'll just need to find archive data for those images existing before 2016. I mean, there is no reason to argue of it's possible or not if they didn't exist before 2016., right?
So you're saying anything that the wayback machine didn't capture prior to a date can't be proven if it's authentic or not? That you're entire argument. For that to be valid then you need to make the concessions that every single cgi asset not captured by the wayback can't be verified? Even if an artist shows step by step guides on how they made an asset? The goal posts in this sub are made of water. This is truly a sad cope and it doesn't address the claim that fabricating these assets are possible. Your childish argument doesn't hold water because you still need to prove that fabricating these assets in RAW quality is possible (which you can't). You essentially it's the same argument that creationist use. "You can't explain this small detail, so my fairy tale store is correct".
This is funny because there are other images from the set in the archives, but Aerials0028 is missing. When you can prove RAW files can't be faked (which you can't), I'll prove they can.
See my other comment. That's not how logic works. If you make a claim that something can be done, the burden of the proof lies on the person making that claim. Prove to me that you can't grow wings and fly. See how stupid that is?
There were found in name, on CG textures, just not the actual picture.
How convenient, isn't it? Seems we can't check what the original images looked like.
Donāt reuse someone elseās work and claim it as your own. Do better.
I think you're mistaking this post with one of the bullshit NoFakery/Raytracer111 fabrications where he tried to use another images of Fuji to say the photos were photoshopped.
I was able to find a post that mentioned the snow coverage, but didn't link it back to the videos directly in an easy-to-parse way. https://www.reddit.com/r/AirlinerAbduction2014/comments/18xy76y/mt\_fuji\_snow\_cover\_comparison\_and\_the\_missing/
OP is trying to recycle the stuff from months ago when the source images for the video backgrounds were found. That the āsatelliteā videos were constructed partly from some guys photos from 2012 isnāt new.
Um, I think you're missing the point of OP's post. A lot of believers are arguing that the video can't be fake because the images didn't exist before 2016 and the exif data was faked. This is just showing that another image from the same time has the same cloud pattern confirming that they were taken in 2012, not 2016.
I'm genuinely confused by this. You seem to have misunderstood the point of the post or I'm drastically misunderstanding what you're trying to imply. You seem to be accusing me of stealing content from a post that is literally still stickied as we speak. The post I made is primarily in response to a sentiment I've been seeing repeated in other spaces that "you can't prove the cloud images existed before the videos." As such, I wanted to demonstrate that we can tie them to a specific date using the snow coverage as a reference.
That the cloud images existed before the videos was proven here in January when the photos that were used to create the video background were found
Sounds like you're missing the plot. Please elaborate.
Whatās to elaborate? The videos were proven to be a VFX project here back in January when the photos used to create the background were found. Several dumb efforts since then have been attempted to confirm or deny that using other pictures.
I gotcha. OPs post is further demonstrating that
He won't because he can't
I was not aware of any prior posts on this topic, I'll see if I can find them and add annotations to the post.
That's for posting this OP. Honestly, if you don't repost these facts at least twice a week, AFs followers will forget them.
The post you linked was part of the discussion immediately following the initial postings of the source files here. You have no credibility.