The Untold Story of Malaysian Flight MH370

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: Lazy88

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: Lazy88

Both videos? I only saw that regarding the one that appears to be from a thermal camera.

This post…

originally posted by: Lazy88
a reply to: ArMaP


The color video is claimed to be from satellite because it’s highly unlikely with no evidence there was anything in the area to film it. If it was civilian or in most cases military it would have a transponder. Unless stealth, it wound be on radar. A ballon over the ocean that happen to be in the flight path of 370? With video ability to film the jet? Why would a military assets film 370? And not through the heads up display? Civilians aircraft would have a transponder broadcasting. And most likely would film through a window.

Any record of aircraft in the area would be included in the flight 370 investigation.

But it’s worse than that. From the way pixels stack, the crappy resolution, the use of static backgrounds, and stock footage. The videos are a hoax.

Anyway. The “explosion” for this video is also found to be from stock footage.

Time stamp at 1:18 of the Mick West video, Debunks of the Aliens Abducting a Plane


I guess the original was found by redditor Happygrammy.

That looks nothing like it, he only ever compares a single frame, and Mick West is a known shill. "Fact checkers" are part of the censorship industrial complex.

Shame you don’t understand simply using software to overexpose stock footage.

Other than name calling can you argue against the numerous evidence provided by several different sources the videos are fake. You have everything from debunkers, special effects crews, and people on Reddit finding the stock footage.

Again. My 10 years kid without prompting very clearly stated the videos are fake. These video are obviously fake, and not even a good hoax.

a reply to: Lazy88

I know how it is done, I have been working with digital images for almost 40 years.

This is how that image looks when overexposed and having some gaussian blur added, to look as close as the image in the video as possible.



As you can see, there are differences in some areas, starting by the general shape, that appears slightly closer to a sphere on the right side of the image from the video.

Could other frames from the plane video and from the stock footage give better results? Maybe, but I don't have access to that stock footage to try it myself.

PS: it took me one minute to create the image above in Gimp on my computer, and I only used one hand, as I was eating an apple.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0
That looks nothing like it, he only ever compares a single frame, and Mick West is a known shill.

There's not much to compare with, as the plane video only has one frame (repeated four times) with the "portal".

a reply to: ArMaP

Like there are some offences in this example.

originally posted by: Lazy88

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: Lazy88

Thanks for that.

But that doesn't look as similar as the one on the other video, as there are some parts that do not match.

It was ran through a filter and driven into over exposer something like this.

Took a whole minute on my phone.

Still just over exposed.

a reply to: ArMaP

There are key futures at specific locations that match beyond random coincidence. Like a smudged finger print with key features and locations still comparable

a reply to: ArMaP

Open to a hoax being real isn’t open mindedness, it’s enabling a con.

Other thought on the color satellite video.

With the explosion.

One. A camera with automatic exposure should have changed exposure for the explosion resulting in the clouds becoming under exposed.

Or two, for manual exposure, a frame or two should look almost completely washed out.

The effect looks exactly like what is seen. An explosion from stock cut and pasted on a static background of clouds.

originally posted by: Lazy88
There are key futures at specific locations that match beyond random coincidence. Like a smudged finger print with key features and locations still comparable

I disagree, I see some differences in the marked areas.



- Feature 3 on the image above doesn't appear to have as much blur than the others. If the image was the same all features should have the same blur level;
- Feature 5 on the stock footage has the outward point larger than the base, that doesn't happen in the video;
- Feature 2 is slightly bent upwards on the stock footage but not on the video;
- Looking at the stock footage, the video should have, below feature 1, a noticeable "bump". We can see something, but it's much smaller.
- In the same way, looking at the stock footage, the video should have, above feature 5, a noticeable "bump". We see a "bump" higher up, I don't know if that was part of the cloud or not.
- The edge of the "portal" on the stock video is jagged, on the video is not. Overexposure and blur cannot account for that.

As I said above, maybe the guy that made that video debunking the "portal" (I don't remember his name) should have used another frame from the stock footage, as the images do look relatively similar.

It's also possible that who made the plane video used the same software used to create the stock footage, with the results being very close but not the same.

originally posted by: Lazy88
a reply to: ArMaP

Open to a hoax being real isn’t open mindedness, it’s enabling a con.

That's the difference between you and me: you appear to start by assuming this is a hoax, so to you I am being "open to a hoax being real".
I (try to) always start from a neutral point of view and look for facts in favour or against each possibility, so to me, I am being "open to any possibility, as long as it has clear evidence supporting it".
That also means that I may (and do) consider that it can be either real or fake, as I don't have predisposition for either.

As I said before (more than once), I think the satellite video is most likely fake, but I haven't seen any evidence that shows that it can only be a fake.

originally posted by: ArMaP


- Feature 3 on the image above doesn't appear to have as much blur than the others.

When you play with exposure you play with how things blur..





Same picture. Filtering and exposure changes how they blur.

Example of exposure and light changes, notice how exposure for things outside the explosion changes.






And still two many coincidences between the stock and the hoax

a reply to: Lazy88

It's hard to know.

The area affected is not that big, so the change in brightness of the whole frame may have not been enough to activate an automatic change in exposure or to change the look of the frame with a manual setting.

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: Lazy88

It's hard to know.

The area affected is not that big, so the change in brightness of the whole frame may have not been enough to activate an automatic change in exposure or to change the look of the frame with a manual setting.

There are key features in key location that is beyond reasonable coincidence between the stock footage and the hoax video. And that is just one problem . Again. What’s the source of the video? Along with all the listed problems proving the video is a hoax.

a reply to: Lazy88

I am not going to repeat myself.

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: Lazy88

I am not going to repeat myself.

The reason the go to claim of the video being from a satellite is due to the fact of the video not being from anything else possible.

So you have, no known camera platform.

The clouds show no sign of changes in exposure as in the explosion is an element added to a static background.

The clouds are a static background.

The explosion is from stock footage.

If the jet is stabilized in the video, the contrail jumps around relative to the jet.

The video is an obvious hoax with lots more reasons that can be listed.

a reply to: ArMaP

That. And pieces of flight 370 have been found.

Missing flight MH370 – a visual guide to the parts and debris found so far

www.theguardian.com...

a reply to: Lazy88

Why do you keep making posts as if think the video is not a fake?

Which part of "Do I think the videos are CGI? Yes." didn't you understand?

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: Lazy88

Why do you keep making posts as if think the video is not a fake?

Which part of "Do I think the videos are CGI? Yes." didn't you understand?

Then why would you bother posting this?

originally posted by: ArMaP



That also means that I may (and do) consider that it can be either real or fake, as I don't have predisposition for either.

As I said before (more than once), I think the satellite video is most likely fake, but I haven't seen any evidence that shows that it can only be a fake.

When it is obvious both videos are fake? And takes about 10 minutes of questioning and researching to prove it?

originally posted by: Lazy88
Then why would you bother posting this?

Because, unlike some people, I'm not full of certainties.

Yes, I think the videos are most likely fake.

Do I have evidence that proves 100% that they are fake? No.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Lazy88
Then why would you bother posting this?

Because, unlike some people, I'm not full of certainties.

Yes, I think the videos are most likely fake.

Do I have evidence that proves 100% that they are fake? No.

The problem isn’t about being neutral to be open.

The reality is to be open for dealing with the evidence, and quality of evidence provided to follow where it leads. If your only goal is to be neutral, you already tainted the process.

a reply to: Lazy88

My goal is get as closest to the truth as possible.

I always start from a neutral point and, according to the evidence, "lean" more to one side or another, but I never completely dismiss a possibility unless there are real evidences of it being impossible, as sometimes what appears to be most unlikely is what really happened.