The Untold Story of Malaysian Flight MH370

originally posted by: Lazy88
a reply to: Arbitrageur

The two videos are obvious CGI. Makes you wonder how and why certain people are so invested in the proven hoax they can’t let it go. My 10 year old kid looked at the videos and without hesitation was like they’re fake. People fall for that?

They aren't cgi.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0
They aren't cgi.

The problem is nobody can prove the videos are or aren't CGI, so we are left with our opinions, preferably those based on real facts.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0
They aren't cgi.

The problem is nobody can prove the videos are or aren't CGI, so we are left with our opinions, preferably those based on real facts.

Hello. It’s been proven beyond a reasonable doubt they are a hoax and CGI. From finding they use stock footage, to the way certain effects stack pixels, to the way the flash doesn’t illuminate the clouds, to how the clouds show no movement.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: Lazy88
a reply to: Arbitrageur

The two videos are obvious CGI. Makes you wonder how and why certain people are so invested in the proven hoax they can’t let it go. My 10 year old kid looked at the videos and without hesitation was like they’re fake. People fall for that?

They aren't cgi.

Funny you can’t use facts and evidence to argue otherwise. You just post some link or links and run from the facts.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: Lazy88
a reply to: Arbitrageur

The two videos are obvious CGI. Makes you wonder how and why certain people are so invested in the proven hoax they can’t let it go. My 10 year old kid looked at the videos and without hesitation was like they’re fake. People fall for that?

They aren't cgi.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, wait a minute, Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

you do understand about how satellites work, parallax as oppossed to static clouds, or hell even using stock assets

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha



start at 3.14 to learn about hw they are complete fake videos and yes CGI

originally posted by: UpIsNowDown2
start at 3.14 to learn about hw they are complete fake videos and yes CGI

We're past that. Now Ashton Forbes denies the stock footage match because his butthole isn't identical to your butthole even if they are similar, watch the reaction to the reaction to the reaction video. It's only about a minute long. Apparently some people believe Ashton Forbes even when he's speaking complete nonsense, but not the podcast host Danny, he could tell the stock footage matched.

a reply to: Lazy88

I do not think "it’s been proven beyond a reasonable doubt they are a hoax and CGI", I think that there's evidence that the most likely is that they are CGI and not enough evidence to prove they are real, but we cannot really know.

And, in case you didn't notice, I am one of the people that presented their opinions about this being CGI.

Lots of new join dates telling me I'm wrong and it's cgi.

This hasn't even begun to be fully analyzed yet.

twitter.com...

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

You want to Understand what is Real and what is Not , Listen to this guy...........







..............

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: Lazy88

I do not think "it’s been proven beyond a reasonable doubt they are a hoax and CGI", I think that there's evidence that the most likely is that they are CGI and not enough evidence to prove they are real, but we cannot really know.

And, in case you didn't notice, I am one of the people that presented their opinions about this being CGI.

It’s been proven beyond a doubt with specific reasons. Care to address the actual evidence that they are fake.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0
Lots of new join dates telling me I'm wrong and it's cgi.

This hasn't even begun to be fully analyzed yet.

twitter.com...

Dude. The videos are fake. Everything from caught using stock footage to the jet is cast against a static and unchanging cloud still.

It’s ridiculous as this point.

a reply to: jrod

Yankee White, is the security check for the nuclear "football", primarily. If some one can't pass a YW background, they have no business being in natsec position, let alone President...

Keep that in mind, for reference.

originally posted by: Lazy88
Care to address the actual evidence that they are fake.

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean.

a reply to: ArMaP

?????

This video?



Supposedly for the jet in the clouds from satellite. The clouds should show movement and change position.

Supposedly either satellite NROL-33 or NROL-23 captured the video?

One. There is no evidence the satellites have the capability to capture such video.

Two. NROL-33 Was not active at the time of flight 370.

Three. The most important and damaging evidence. The satellites orbit around the earth. With this orbit and “systems” locked on the jet, the clouds should move a great deal from second to second from the relative motion of the satellite between video frames. The clouds are fixed throughout the video in the video frames. They are static. The CGI was created against a still frame of clouds.

a reply to: Lazy88

I mentioned that the images show the wrong perspective for them to be from a satellite here.

I mentioned the effect of the speed of a satellite in the change of perspective here.

Do I think the videos are CGI? Yes.
Do I think the evidence presented shows beyond any doubt that the videos are fake? No.
Do I think that the video, even if real, was taken from a satellite? No.

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: Lazy88

I mentioned that the images show the wrong perspective for them to be from a satellite here.

I mentioned the effect of the speed of a satellite in the change of perspective here.

Do I think the videos are CGI? Yes.
Do I think the evidence presented shows beyond any doubt that the videos are fake? No.
Do I think that the video, even if real, was taken from a satellite? No.

Then where did this supposedly come from if it’s not a fake beyond a reasonable doubt?

originally posted by: Lazy88
Then where did this supposedly come from if it’s not a fake beyond a reasonable doubt?

I don't know, I don't have the slightest idea of what kind of imaging hardware may be used aboard planes or drones, for example.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Lazy88
Then where did this supposedly come from if it’s not a fake beyond a reasonable doubt?

I don't know, I don't have the slightest idea of what kind of imaging hardware may be used aboard planes or drones, for example.

Ok. So there is no valid source for the video. And UFO’s would abduct the jet out of existence / time / demotion with no cause or warning? But not have the technology to cloak the activity. And would let aircraft in the area record the event? Without being jammed? Or taken too?


Added. But somehow a passenger that looks to be taking “evasive” maneuvers that are not backed by radar data or transponder signal did not call in the incident before the jet was abducted?

a reply to: Lazy88
I think it's best to stick to factual observations, like
-the clouds are static (despite false claims to the contrary)
-the shock wave edge matches stock footage (despite false claims to the contrary)
-The alleged satellite view is not a satellite perspective

Those are damning enough for the claims made.
I wouldn't try to start speculating on alien motives; sometimes it's hard enough to understand the motives of other humans, and they are from the same planet. Besides, while the footage may have originally been some random plane where your questions would be more applicable, they are less applicable in this thread where the plane is claimed to be MH370 which was non-responsive to air traffic control and had no transponder signal after it turned around at the border with Vietnamese air space. The map here shows the last secondary radar contact after which there was no transponder signal or communication:

upload.wikimedia.org...


Ashton Forbes claims the videos show the plane past the western part of this flight path, west of the last primary radar contact. The plane was not responsive by then, so they wouldn't call in anything, they were not responding to air traffic control at all by that time, despite repeated attempts to contact the plane. We don't know why the plane wasn't communicating at all, that's part of the mystery.

Other problems with Ashton Forbes claims:
Two methods of tracking the plane have been claimed after Forbes claims the plane was abducted.
1. Inmarsat hourly handshakes
2. WSPRnet analysis

Both methods show the plane headed south, off the west coast of Australia. Here's the WSPRnet map of the plane showing where it was after its alleged abduction:

www.mh370search.com...


So the plane wasn't sucked into a wormhole if they kept tracking it for hours after that using two different methods.
They also found debris with matching serial numbers, eventually.
The amount of reality one has to deny to subscribe to this wormhole abduction goes way beyond the videos, and extends to many other facts of the case, like the inmarsat handshakes and the serial number matched debris.

a reply to: Lazy88

Is there something that makes any of that impossible?