Salvatore Pais confirms science in MH370 videos are real during live stream

a reply to: Arbitrageur

First, Mick West said he didn't want to waste any more time on those silly videos, so he didn't tell anybody what to believe, all he did was mention some debunks other people had already done.

Okay we can stop talking about him then.

Second, where is your evidence the images posted by Donald Trump are from SBIRS?

Thanks for catching this - I'll need to make a correction. The satellite used in Trump's leak was NOT part of the SBIRS constellation BUT it is part of the NRO's collection of satellite assets.

The satellite used in the MH370 video was part of USA-184 (NROL-22) and the Trump image is from USA-224 (NROL-49). Ultimately, my point with this argument still stands as I was showing how the satellite tech used in the MH370 leaks was real.

Third, speaking of SBIRS, that's something Ashton forbes mentioned in the Danny Jones podcast I recently posted. When Nico the VFX guy said satellite images should show some parallax, he showed an example of how that looked from a satellite, I think it may have been the ISS-international space station.

This could just be refuted by looking at the drone video. When the drone video zooms in, we can see the clouds change size and clear parallax. It's pretty obvious.

If we go by what we see in the SBIRS demonstration below, it seems as though these satellites are kept a great distance from Earth so I could see why there's no clear parallax at that distance.

originally posted by: Lazy88
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Bottom line. How Mick West conducts his business compared to Ashton Forbes is very different and telling.

I could not care less about either person. These videos should have nothing to do with either of them so I will defer from talking about them any longer.

originally posted by: b0kal0ka

originally posted by: Lazy88
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Bottom line. How Mick West conducts his business compared to Ashton Forbes is very different and telling.

I could not care less about either person. These videos should have nothing to do with either of them so I will defer from talking about them any longer.

I’m not the one trolling proven hoax videos as real, especially after the stock footage used to generate the videos has been found and sourced. b0kal0ka, you are no better than a flat earther at this point. You can only change the subject and turn to straw man arguments.

a reply to: b0kal0ka

What you going to do. Make a fifth thread about 370 in less than a week?

😂😂😂😂😁😁

a reply to: Lazy88

You are sourcing people who have "found" a couple of screenshots online that kinda match a couple frames in the videos. Since you can't do it yourself, ask your pals to find the complete source files to the hoax videos. Then, I can admit it has been PROVEN fake.

Also, I'm curious who you think made these videos. What's the story you've come up with to fit your hoaxer scenario?

The OP is clearly enjoying (i.e. stroking his ego) by engaging with actual aviation and aerospace professionals, something he’s never had access to. This validates him (in his mind). It make him feel good. Even though he is not on the same level, it makes him feel good, like his opinion is important and relevant among his perceived “peers”.

Where his argument breaks down is where many of his type’s arguments break down…facts. Facts are the enemy of conspiracy theorists, but there are some who refuse to see facts, those who are blinded by their beliefs. The OP seems to be one of these people. Blinded by two simple, and fake, videos

On a site like ATS, it’s okay to hold and project those beliefs, but when one starts getting nasty about defending them, well, then it’s time to call for a “time-out”. When one starts accusing others of being physically and psychologically challenged for merely defending obvious truths in nature, well, then it’s time to object.

I’m sorry, but with all due respect, the OP seems young (like very). I appreciate his enthusiasm, but I’m not so confident about his critical thinking ability. Thus, my conclusion is that he is just young and has much to learn.

The OP has many questions he should already know the answers to, but he implores others here on ATS to answer them for him. This is a clear indication he is on the edge (or beyond) of his own mental capacity.

OP…If you wish to know all these answers, then please do research the answers…YOUR SELF!

PROVE to us, here on ATS, your allegations! Don’t just ask all of us to help you prove a negative (which is impossible)

That is all.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I've yet to see responses to any of the facts I've presented and I've answered all your questions thus far. What am I doing wrong? I'm asking for your help.

And I'm curious who you think made these videos. What's the story you've come up with to fit your hoaxer scenario?

a reply to: b0kal0ka

If we go by what we see in the SBIRS demonstration below, it seems as though these satellites are kept a great distance from Earth so I could see why there's no clear parallax at that distance.

Apparently the original Diego Garcia specification for the old optical space tracking facility has been declassified.
Not much from the 1961-1968 Mcnamara era escaped censure though and original NDA's carried very harsh penalties.

So they were able to track out further than Geo synchronous orbit.
And there is a submarine data cable running from Australia.
Interesting history.

a reply to: b0kal0ka

What are you doing wong??? ...

1.) you haven't presented ANY facts of your own. NONE...ZERO! All you've presented is conjecture and rumors from others, and then implored people to watch lengthy podcasts and videos which you think support your allegations. You have presented NO facts yourself.

2.) You have answered NO questions thus far. All you have done is pointed people to other sources which you believe support your case and then said you provided proof. You have provided ZERO proof of your own.

3. You are not asking for my, or anyone else's help. What you are asking for is other people to validate you, to believe you based on ZERO proof of your own, based solely on repeating the same claims over and over, and over, again.

What are you doing wrong??? What you are doing wrong is not presenting your case with original research and facts to support your allegations (which are clearly false). THAT is what you are doing wrong.

I don't know how to make it any more plain than that.

originally posted by: b0kal0ka
a reply to: Lazy88


Also, I'm curious who you think made these videos. What's the story you've come up with to fit your hoaxer scenario?

If you think it was a satellite that recorded the video, then use the satellite catalogue to show what satellite captured the video and how.

n2yo.com SEARCH SATELLITE DATABASE


Tracking 30061 objects as of 9-Dec-2024
HD Live streaming from Space Station

SEARCH SATELLITE DATABASE

www.n2yo.com...

And don’t use the excuse it was done by unknown spy satellites.

THE AMATEUR ASTRONOMERS WHO HUNT SPY SATELLITES

Today, amateur spy satellite hunters are tracking more than 360 satellites, rocket bodies, and other launch debris in their secret orbits. In the future, satellite hunters will have their work cut out for them as low Earth orbit becomes increasingly crowded with new spy satellites launched on a new generation of commercial rockets. The US military manifest already has dozens of launches on its schedule through 2023, DARPA is planning to launch a fleet of cheap spy satellites called Blackjack starting in 2021, and now the private sector is even starting to get in on the spy satellite business.


www.supercluster.com...

b0kal0ka. You can’t even produce what and how if the hoax videos were real what captured the imaging.

You have the date and rough time. Yet you can’t produce how the images were supposedly captured other than magic.

originally posted by: b0kal0ka
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk


And I'm curious who you think made these videos. What's the story you've come up with to fit your hoaxer scenario?

Reminder this..

Ashton Forbes swindled for 3k

The rar file that Ashton got that was so obviously fake, turned out being more of a scam after he revealed the e-mails of him talking back and forth with the 'leaker'. He ended up giving the leaker $3,000 USD to get the file and began calling out everyone in the chat calling them idiots telling them that it was not a scam when it obviously was.

Eventually the password got figured out and yep, sure enough it was a scam.

Can you say who swindled Forbes for 3k, and who has that money now. b0kal0ka, a con is a con even if you don’t know the person by name. Most cons like to stay anonymous. So your reasoning is pretty ignorant.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

All I'm doing is sharing topics related to the videos. If you don't believe the videos to be real, that's your own problem.

If you have any issues with that, take it up with the mods. Otherwise, let me know what questions I haven't answer and I'll be more than happy to answer again.

a reply to: Lazy88

I'm not answering any more questions from you until you answer mine.

What's the story you've come up with to fit your hoaxer scenario?

originally posted by: b0kal0ka
a reply to: Lazy88

I'm not answering any more questions from you until you answer mine.

What's the story you've come up with to fit your hoaxer scenario?

What are, like five.

You posted this.

originally posted by: b0kal0ka
a reply to: Lazy88

You are sourcing people who have "found" a couple of screenshots online that kinda match a couple frames in the videos. Since you can't do it yourself, ask your pals to find the complete source files to the hoax videos. Then, I can admit it has been PROVEN fake.

Also, I'm curious who you think made these videos. What's the story you've come up with to fit your hoaxer scenario?

You. The only thing you have done is regurgitate Ashton Forbes confirmation biased delusions.

I asked you a question. Something you have to investigate. Or don’t give the mental capacity to answer. Or there is no answer because there is no satellite with the capacities required.

For this image.



Since there is a known date and time frame. And you can use a satellite catalog to back track satellite orbits and determine what satellites could be in the right area at the right time. What satellite could capture this image. What satellite with the capabilities.

Now. Look at this next image.



The hoax airplane gains an altitude / perspective higher than the satellite view. This isn’t a normal overhead shot of the ground. This is from a satellite equipped to take an image to the side out into space for aircraft in flight above the ground? How far away at what orbit altitude would the satellite have to be to even get a shot like this?


b0kal0ka. Look below. If the shot was supposedly from a satellite. See the elephant in the room?



I didn’t draw them in. With what increase of how much atmosphere and clouds the satellite would have to shoot through?

If you ignore the poorly rendered CGI

If you ignore the videos used stock footage.

If you ignore the contrails move and jump independently of the actual jet.

If you ignore the stupid argument the contrails clearly rendered to be contrails is some sort of cargo fire in a pressurised / enclosed fuselage with the fire not showing up on thermal imaging. Which has what to do with the aircraft supposedly captured with exotic technology?

If you ignore the clouds stay static and unchanging supposedly for in flight aircraft changing perspective to a satellite having to maintain zoomed in focus.

a reply to: Lazy88

I've already answered the satellite question in my last replies.

The satellite video says NROL-22 (also known as USA-184) which is the first launch of the Space-Based Infrared System (SBIRS) in 2006. The system was fully operational in 2013 and it's flight path is exactly as indicated in the videos.

Look for yourself:

USA-184 Orbit
Live Satellite Tracking - USA-184 (NROL22)

If you ignore the poorly rendered CGI

That's just your opinion

If you ignore the videos used stock footage.

I'm ignoring it until you provide more than a couple screenshots. If it's fake, the entire source files should be out there.

If you ignore the contrails move and jump independently of the actual jet.

I already addressed this. The video was stabilized looking at the plane itself - not the smoke. Stuff is going to jump around when you stabilize a single point on a video.

If you ignore the stupid argument the contrails clearly rendered to be contrails is some sort of cargo fire

You seem to have a lot of trouble following along. The plane's altitude was too low for contrails to form. Since we see smoke in the videos, what else must it be? You would assume smoke, right? So if we look into why smoke would appear in the first place, we must look at what was in the plane's cargo. It just so happened to be 500 lbs of LiOn batteries.

Do you think that's just a coincidence? You think all the investigation already done into the batteries is wrong?

MH370 families demand answers over ‘mystery’ cargo - News AU
Flight 370 Was Carrying 440 Pounds of Dangerous Batteries -Daily Beast
U.S. pilots believe that the reason for the missing of Malaysia Airlines MH370 was that the lithium battery on the plane caught fire and caused the plane to crash. -CTechi
Flight MH370 Cargo included Lithium-Ion Batteries -EE Power

I'll ask once again:
What's the story you've come up with to fit your hoaxer scenario?

originally posted by: b0kal0ka
a reply to: Lazy88

I've already answered the satellite question in my last replies.

The satellite video says NROL-22 (also known as USA-184) which is the first launch of the Space-Based Infrared System (SBIRS) in 2006.

This satellite from your own link?



How did aircraft get straight out from this side of the satellite for the satellite to get a side shot of the action?

originally posted by: b0kal0ka
a reply to: Lazy88


I already addressed this. The video was stabilized looking at the plane itself - not the smoke. Stuff is going to jump around when you stabilize a single point on a video.

No. You make an opinion out of ignorance. If the jet is making the contrails. Then if the source of the contrails and the contrails would all be stabilized together. If the contrails are jumping around independently of the exhaust of the engine nozzles, it indicates the contrails were rendered poorly and in a separate effects layer than the jet. Proven poor CGI

originally posted by: b0kal0ka

The plane's altitude was too low for contrails to form.

The claim was the contrails would not be picked up in the thermal cameras. How do you know the jet was too low for contrails. Show that in the radar data.

This.



Is obviously rendered to look light contrails from the engines.

This is actual thermal imaging of a jet.



There is no indication from your hoax video there is smoke coming from a sealed / pressurised fuselage. No indication of a fire from a jet you keep reference sources was abducted by exotic technology.

All evidence points to the videos are a hoax.

There is no evidence the contrails were rendered as anything but contrails.

The imaging is impossible for the orbit of your satellite.

There is no evidence in your hoax videos of a cargo fire.

originally posted by: b0kal0ka
a reply to: Lazy88

I've already answered the satellite question in my last replies.

The satellite video says NROL-22 (also known as USA-184) which is the first launch of the Space-Based Infrared System (SBIRS) in 2006.

More on USA-184..

It is in a Molniya orbit with a perigee of 1,138 kilometres (707 mi), an apogee of 39,210 kilometres (24,360 mi), and 63.2° of inclination.[1] In addition to its SIGINT payload, USA-184 also carries two secondary instruments; the SBIRS-HEO-1 missile detection payload as part of the Space-Based Infrared System programme, and NASA's TWINS-1 or TWINS-A magnetospheric science instrument as part of the TWINS programme.[2]

USA-184 - Wikipedia

First. SIGINT payload

These satellites at geostationary orbits collect radio emissions (SIGINT) and act as replacements for the older constellation of Magnum satellites.

Orion (satellite) - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org...(satellite)

Next..

SBIRS-HEO-1 missile detection payload

Original SBIRS Low

edit
The SBIRS Low program was originally expected to consist of about 24 satellites in low Earth orbit. The primary purpose of SBIRS Low was the tracking of ballistic missiles; with discrimination between warheads and other objects, such as decoys, that separate from the missile bodies throughout the middle portion of their flights. The system was to have two major sensors, coordinated by an on-board computer:
* a scanning infrared sensor, designed to acquire ballistic missiles in the early stages of flight, and
* a tracking infrared sensor, designed to follow missiles, warheads, and other objects such as debris and decoys during the middle and later stages of flight. The tracking sensor would be cooled to very low temperatures.
SBIRS Low's original deployment schedule was 2010, the date when its capabilities were said to be needed by the National Missile Defense System.

Space-Based Infrared System - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org...

Finally NASA's TWINS-1 or TWINS-A magnetospheric science instrument

A mission to study the connections between different areas of Earth's magnetosphere, this used matching instruments, TWINS 1 and 2, launched on separate U.S. military reconnaissance satellites. Once aloft, they captured stereoscopic images of the Earth's magnetosphere for the first time by observing from two widely spaced positions, recording 3D visualizations of the large-scale structures and dynamics within the magnetosphere.

TWINS - NASA Science
science.nasa.gov...

What sensor on USA 184 concerned with thermal signatures of rocket launches is going to be in the range to detect and image a jet in clouds?

a reply to: Lazy88

What's the story you've come up with to fit your hoaxer scenario?

originally posted by: b0kal0ka
a reply to: Lazy88

What's the story you've come up with to fit your hoaxer scenario?

A video was created as a hoax. That is a hoax video.

Like this example again.

Ashton Forbes swindled for 3k

The rar file that Ashton got that was so obviously fake, turned out being more of a scam after he revealed the e-mails of him talking back and forth with the 'leaker'. He ended up giving the leaker $3,000 USD to get the file and began calling out everyone in the chat calling them idiots telling them that it was not a scam when it obviously was.

Eventually the password got figured out and yep, sure enough it was a scam.

You don’t need a name and don’t even have to know where the money ultimately ended up to know Ashton Forbes got conned for 3 thousand dollars.

How many hoax videos are loaded onto YouTube everyday because hoaxers know idiots will fall for them.

Like you b0kal0ka trying to use the below con.

originally posted by: b0kal0ka
Since we see smoke in the videos, what else must it be? You would assume smoke, right?

It’s a blatant falsehood by you to try to change the subject.



The contrails are clearly rendered to try and look like contrails from the engines in a poorly done CGI hoax. You trying to act like it’s smoke from cargo in an inclosed / pressurised fuselage just shows how deceptive your arguments are.

a reply to: Lazy88

What's the story you've come up with to fit your hoaxer scenario? How did the hoaxer make these videos in such short time with so much detail and accurate science?