The Untold Story of Malaysian Flight MH370

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: Lazy88


but I never completely dismiss a possibility unless there are real evidences of it being impossible,

By all means. Quote where I said “it” was impossible. Whatever that means. Which has nothing to do with the video being a hoax, which is even separate from not being able to identify a camera platform that would be aloft to record the jet.

originally posted by: Lazy88
Quote where I said “it” was impossible.

Why do you say that?

I'm not saying you said it was impossible, you took that sentence completely out of context.

Which has nothing to do with the video being a hoax, which is even separate from not being able to identify a camera platform that would be aloft to record the jet.

You said "If your only goal is to be neutral, you already tainted the process", I answered, then you reply as if I was talking about something else.

This is getting ridiculous.

Another way to think of the uncertainty principle.

Belief and disbelief are non-attainable ideals.
If you could commit to either one, you would be shutting yourself out of any other possibilities.

The farthest that you can ever go is to "strongly agree" or "strongly disagree".
When you hear that from someone, just let it go, otherwise, your are arguing for the sake of argument itself.

Proof, is just the most accepted version of reality that we collectively have at the time.

originally posted by: ArMaP

I'm not saying you said it was impossible, you took that sentence completely out of context.

So. The only thing I have done is follow the evidence and its logical conclusion. So why do you keep posting about “impossible” when it has nothing to do with the actual evidence provided in the two video.

a reply to: Lazy88
I thought that was obvious.

Because "impossible" means that it could not happen, so only impossible things can be ruled out. That applies to the videos and to any problem we need to solve.
In this specific case, if we can know for sure that its impossible to take a video like that from a satellite then it cannot have been taken from a satellite.

In the same way, if we cannot prove that its impossible for the video to have been taken from an aeroplane then we should consider that one possibility.

After we gather all the possibilities, if we classify them according to their likelihood of happening we end up with most and least likely possibilities, but they are all possibilities.

In this specific case, the more likely, in my point of view, is that both videos are fake, with the second probably made to give more credibility to the first.

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: Lazy88
I thought that was obvious.

Because "impossible" means that it could not happen, so only impossible things can be ruled out.

Again. Quote where I posted it was “impossible”

The evidence only shows if the video is real or fake. Has nothing to do with an event is possible.

Example. There could be a real artificial moon planet destroying Death Star in the universe. Has nothing to do with the Lucas Death Star on film only leads to evidence of a model for a movie.

Lots of possible things are faked. From budget reasons, to safety, or pushing a hoax. Isn’t there whole shows dedicated to exposing people to a live hoax for entertainment?

a reply to: ArMaP

I would say Ufology has a long history of cons and hoaxes that drive profit and fame from entertainment. Or at its worst, making a bit of fortune and fame from people suffering conformation bias. Oddly the same people that suffer from confirmation bias that complain how “closed minded” actual rational people are from following the evidence whereever it may lead. Which in Ufology is a long history of hoaxes and cons.

originally posted by: Lazy88
Again. Quote where I posted it was “impossible”

I already answered that.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Lazy88
Again. Quote where I posted it was “impossible”

I already answered that.

So why do you keep bringing up “Because "impossible" means that it could not happen”

a reply to: Lazy88

Because you ask!

Stop asking why I talk about things being impossible and I will stop telling you why, it's that simple.

a reply to: ArMaP

originally posted by: Lazy88
Quote where I said “it” was impossible.

originally posted by: ArMaP

I'm not saying you said it was impossible, you took that sentence completely out of context.

?

originally posted by: ArMaP
In this specific case, the more likely, in my point of view, is that both videos are fake, with the second probably made to give more credibility to the first.

Kim Dotcom offered $100,000 for the source video. Even though there is no source video because it was faked from a static photo as pointed out repeatedly in this thread, Dotcom agreed to pay the $100,000 for proof it's fake from the source photo from 2012 which predates the MH370 incident by over 2 years:

twitter.com...

The MH370 videos are officially debunked.
-Kim Dotcom

So ArMaP, are you still saying it's likely they are faked, or does that revelation do any more to convince you they actually are faked? I watched the video made by the guy who is receiving the $100,000, it sounds like he actually took the photo near Mt Fuji in 2012, that was used in the hoax video, but he had nothing to do with the hoax (except innocently posting some photos online in 2012), in fact he's appalled that someone would hoax something like MH370, where the families are still grieving.

Are threads still moved to the HOAX forum when proven to be hoaxes? Now that the $100,000 is being paid for proof of hoax, I think this thread should be moved accordingly if that's still done these days.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
So ArMaP, are you still saying it's likely they are faked, or does that revelation do any more to convince you they actually are faked?

Now, with that evidence, it makes it clear that the video used a fixed image (changed and with some things added, apparently, se below for more) as the background, which obviously means that video is fake.

The fact that this video is fake doesn't automatically mean the other video is also fake, but the probability of that video being also fake (and probably made to make the first video look more credible) increased.

Are threads still moved to the HOAX forum when proven to be hoaxes? Now that the $100,000 is being paid for proof of hoax, I think this thread should be moved accordingly if that's still done these days.

Either that or the LOL (Ludicrous Online Lies) forum.




On December 1 I joined all images from the video to get a general idea of the clouds, so now, using that image and photo IMG_1842 from Jonas de Ro, it's easy to see that it's the same photo with some additions at the bottom and left (right in the video, as the clouds photo was flipped for the video).



I could have aligned the images better, but I suppose this is enough.

Jonas de Ro really deserves the $100,000.

originally posted by: ArMaP

I could have aligned the images better, but I suppose this is enough.

Jonas de Ro really deserves the $100,000.

Nice work. Also note he had two photos of that area, not just one, explaining how the stereoscopic claim could be made using those two images, even though they are just two non-stereo images taken from a moving plane.