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

a reply to: Lazy88

Those figures are for sealevel. Most commercial cabins maintain somewhere below 10,000 feet pressure, not sea level.

This chart covers all pressures of oxygen / nitrogen breathing mixes.

From this site on space suit technology.

projectrho.com...

Edit: While I don't think it is possible to change the mix on a commercial aircraft, someone might be able to reduce the pressure after disabling the alarms and emergency mask systems. It should not take over 20 minutes to eliminate everyone not on an independent oxygen supply. Most would expire in less than 10.

a reply to: BeyondKnowledge3

It was just a quick reference to show it doesn’t take much of a drop of oxygen in atmosphere to mess with a person.

Your post is duly noted.

The real question is can you drop oxygen levels in a pressurised cabin with out dropping pressure.

🤪

originally posted by: BeyondKnowledge3
a reply to: crayzeed

I asked about the video source in the first page of this thread but got no answer on it.

Your explanation of how this was carried out is the most logical and simplest one. I see no other explanation without further evidence of something else happening and these abduction videos are far from evidence.

As to why the pilot did it and if it was the actual pilot or someone else can only be speculated in without further evidence.

As in the history of the actual videos?

originally posted by: Lazy88

MH370 went missing on March 8, 2014. Ten weeks after that, an anonymous YouTuber, RegicideAnon, posted a video that purported to be a stereo satellite image of a plane. The video (since deleted but still available on archive.org) shows some clouds over a blue ocean background. A plane, banking steeply, flies into view from the top left.

About fifteen seconds later, a white orb-like object flies in and begins to loop around the plane. It’s joined a few seconds later by two more. The three orbs orbit the plane as it levels out; then there’s a sudden flash of light, and the plane and orbs vanish without a trace.

It was a simple-looking fake, something any artist could knock out in a few days with common tools such as Blender and After-Effects. Most people recognized this and paid it very little attention. It had little impact but gained a steady trickle of views.

Three weeks later, a second video was released. This showed what looked like the same scene, but now from the perspective of a military drone filming with a thermal camera. Again, the plane flies into view, the orbs follow it, and then it vanishes in a flash. Again, most people assumed—quite correctly—that it was fake, and no one really paid it any attention.

That should have been the end of it. But fast-forward to 2023. People on the Reddit forum r/UFOs suddenly rediscovered the videos. Reddit user Voelkero posted links to the video and commented, “My hope is that some of you will be able to conclusively prove that it is faked.”

skepticalinquirer.org...

originally posted by: b0kal0ka
a reply to: Lazy88


why don't you show me what satellite footage at that distance actually looks like? lets just compare to proven footage then.

It doesn’t have to be from a satellite. Something that is just close to the perspective of the supposed zoomed in view. Being zoomed in is going to make cloud movement more obvious.

Real sky recorded with a wide angle perspective for 7 seconds, then run faster forward and backwards.



Vs the same treatment of your videioo



The sky in your video is unrealistically static for clouds that should be constantly moving by a satellite trying to maintain a zoomed in view for objects constantly moving. Objects constantly changing their perspective in relationship to a satellite.

a reply to: Lazy88

I cannot find any method for adjusting the breathing mix of a 777 but the pressure has manual controls along with the automatic ones. The automatic controll pressure is usually 8000 feet. The engines pressurize the air to the cabin so the mix is what you get from outside.

If the alarms were cut off and the pressure were set to 20,000 feet, it would not take long.

It would take some time to drop that pressure because the pressure is regulated by the outflow valves. No control on the supply pressure. This would make everyone slowly drausy then pass out before nothing.

a reply to: BeyondKnowledge3

It really is amazing how pilots have the lives of their passengers in their hands.

a reply to: BeyondKnowledge3

Sure, it could have been done this way, but he wouldn't have to do anything really. Inside the cabin, at night, most passengers would have no idea where they were or what direction they were flying. He could have just left everything normal and continued the flight. The PAX would have been none the wiser...until they began to crash, and maybe not even then.

By depressurizing the cabin he would have risked one or more of the flight attendants going on bottled O2 (which they have, and are trained to look for the signs of hypoxia). This would have triggered all sorts of mayhem in the cabin (things like hundreds of attempted cell phone calls, etc.) At the low altitude they crossed back over Malaysia on, cell phones would have worked intermittently. Now, granted, he could have waited until they got well out over the Indian Ocean to drop the cabin pressure, but it would still create an unnecessary risk. We can't forget that while the PAX may have been helpless and had limited O2, the same can not be said for the crew in back. So, you can't forget about the crew in back as a result.

Plus, PAX O2 masks are automatic. In-cabin sensors trigger their deployment. I don't think the flight crew can disable this feature. So, if he depressurized the cabin, the O2 masks would have deployed which would have caused alarm, AND it would have caused the FA crew in the back to go on bottled O2 (which lasts much longer than the O2 for PAX); two hours as memory serves. For PAX it's only 10-15 minutes, just enough time to get to a lower altitude in an emergency.

Edit - The cabin pressure is automatic on most newer aircraft. It's either on or off; it's a switch in the instruments. There is a manual override, but the override assumes pressures will be 8000 feet or below, and that there has been some malfunction of the automatic system. The flight crew could conceivably set the pressure for lower than 8k feet though, but I don't think higher. The reason for this automation is because, unlike older aircraft, the pressure needs to be constantly adjusted at lower altitudes. The FMS computer controls these adjustments. And, at landing the pressure inside needs to be equal to the pressure outside

edit 2 - Plus, depressurizing the aircraft would require the automated cabin pressurization system to be turned off. This would trigger automated alarms such as ACARS (pressure out of limits) messages back to the airline's ground stations. They apparently disabled ACARS early on, so this could be one of the reasons why, but there are numerous other reasons why they would want to do this also.

a reply to: Lazy88

I don't even know what that gif is that you shared. it looks like a camera pointing up at the sky.

Pull up and satellite imagery of the earth from outer space and tell me how fast the clouds move. it's barely noticeable because the satellites move with the rotation of the earth.

Do some research on the SBIRS satellite system before you tell me how satellites work. They are space based infrared satellites that monitor the entire globe 24/7. the infrared data is sent to QT Modeler and that's what generates the imagery we see in the satellite video.

originally posted by: b0kal0ka
a reply to: Lazy88

Pull up and satellite imagery of the earth from outer space and tell me how fast the clouds move.

I addressed that.

It doesn’t have to be from a satellite. Something that is just close to the perspective of the supposed zoomed in view. Being zoomed in is going to make cloud movement more obvious.

Real sky recorded with a wide angle perspective for 7 seconds, then run faster forward and backwards.



Vs the same treatment of your videioo



The sky in your video is unrealistically static for clouds that should be constantly moving by a satellite trying to maintain a zoomed in view for objects constantly moving. Objects constantly changing their perspective in relationship to a satellite.

a reply to: b0kal0ka

Where you ignore the contrails are clearly rendered to be contrails.

The contrails moving and jumping independently of the aircraft shows a clear hoax.

There is no evidence the contrails clearly rendered to be contrails are smoke from a cargo fire in a pressurised / contained fuselage. With no evidence of a cargo fire on the thermal imaging.


The backgrounds and effects being from stock footage clearly shows the videos are a hoax.

Keep trolling a hoax b0kal0ka

a reply to: Lazy88

Look up any of the live satellite feeds from NASA and you'll see the clouds there barely move as well.
I've mentioned countless times that we're not seeing contrails, its smoke from the 500 lbs of lithium ion batteries that ignited in the cargo. I've provided sources for every single claim of mine and all you do is rehash the same screenshots as if they disprove the videos - going by that logic, every video on the internet can be debunked.

You can keep trolling me all you want, I'm used to it. You're no different than the normies who can't believe anything beyond what the MSM tells them. Until the real hoaxer comes out or the government says something about them, I won't stop talking. So you can either just block me, or ignore my posts altogether.

Peace my friend.

a reply to: b0kal0ka

You are trolling at this point. And trying to go down rabbit holes that totally ignore the static clouds, the videos are generated from stock footage, the contrails move unrealistically. The videos are clearly and repeatedly shown and proven to be a hoax. Over the years now.

At this point you have the same blind faith and totally trying to change the subject from the real issues like a flat earther. Blind faith totally deprived of any real evidence, and totally based on emotion. There is no point in arguing with you when theses thoroughly debunked videos proven to be a hoax are a religion to you the same way flat earth is a religion to people with absolutely no discernment, and just use lies or blatant false arguments that make them look stupid.

a reply to: Lazy88

great man, thanks for all your feedback. why don't you go debunk some of the other UFO videos out there then and leave this one alone if it's been debunked so much? you're not going to convince me otherwise based on the evidence you've provided me. I'm just one person on the internet.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: chr0naut

I said I wasn't going to reply on this theme anymore, but I want to point one last thing out.

Yes, maybe I am in denial, but my denial is based on likelihood of events, not emotion.

Once again, we must apply Occam's Razor to this incident and your alleged US plot theme.

These (20) scientists you claim as the motivation for the CIA wanting to bring down the airliner, these people didn't make their reservations 2-3 years in advance. They likely made them within days of getting onboard the flight. The US would have had no advance knowledge of this. What this means is, this elaborate plan to vanish MH370, something which would require almost biblical planning else it become a major international incident, had to come together within days, and then be approved by the highest levels of the US government (including Obama himself likely). This wouldn't have been some low level black op. So, for your plan to work, all of this would have had to fall into place in a matter of a couple days. The US government simply doesn't move that quickly...ever.

I never said they were scientists. They were engineers.

And the issue wasn't the Chinese back-engineering the tech, it was them simply getting the more sensitive chips (which weren't secret, either) and putting the bits together for radar that could 'see' stealth aircraft.

Secondly, these (20) scientists you speak of, you make them seem like the most valuable people to have graced science. Did these people control the fate of the World? I don't think so, and that's how important they would have needed to be in order for such a clandestine operation to make them disappear to be planned, let alone approved. Wouldn't it have just been easier to take them out, one by one, via other means? Why take (273) other innocent people with them?

I'll leave it there.

I actually suggested that it was a fire in the plane that cut most of the electronics and suffocated passengers and crew.

If the US had wanted to take the whole plane out, with no consideration of casualties, a bomb or missile would be cheaper and quicker. So the idea of some country hijacking the plane was not the most likely one. But it is possible.

A lot of people seem to think that someone 'took' the plane. I was just trying to point out that theories like Sci-Fi portals and stuff are way less likely than stuff explainable by fairly mundane processes.

To reiterate, I don't think the plane was 'taken'. Nor do I think it was a stupidly elaborate murder-suicide. I think it was a horrible accident and string of circumstances that, though unusual, were entirely feasible.

a reply to: b0kal0ka

I did some work in this thread…

A Mysterious Orb filmed over NYC by local news
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I let analysing the video speak for itself.

a reply to: chr0naut

It was a 777, fly by wire systems with glass cockpit.

Most of the electronics are to work the engines and flight surfaces. It would almost immediately crash should most of the electronics be damaged in a fire. There would be no engine performance data to track after it went silent. It is not like it has cables or hydraulic control systems. No electronic systems, not flyable.

Please explain how it stayed in the air for some time after the fire.

originally posted by: BeyondKnowledge3
a reply to: chr0naut

It was a 777, fly by wire systems with glass cockpit.

Most of the electronics are to work the engines and flight surfaces. It would almost immediately crash should most of the electronics be damaged in a fire. There would be no engine performance data to track after it went silent. It is not like it has cables or hydraulic control systems. No electronic systems, not flyable.

Please explain how it stayed in the air for some time after the fire.

Most fly-by-wire control and power goes over redundant ARINC (Aeronautical Radio Inc.) 628 buses (of which there are three for redundancy), however substantial portions of radio comms go over a separate ARINC 429 bus and are not directly integrated into the ARINC 628 buses, but rather the AIRNC 428 bus takes the outputs of the dual Actuator Control Electronics (ACE) sub-systems and dual Aircraft Information Management Systems (AIMS) for forwarding data to radio (as well as cockpit audio/comm and ACARS - Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System links).

This means that a burn-out of the AIRNC 429 bus cuts central radio comms, leaving most fly-by-wire systems unaffected. Even if two of the three ARINC 628 buses were taken out, the fly-by-wire would still work.

I think the AIRNC 429 bus is redundant too, but if the fire were near the radios (of which there are five, three VHF and two HF) themselves, the comms still could be cut without loss of flight control.

Also, there are two transponders, but only one at a time is usually active. If one fails, it is a manual job of the pilot to switch the redundant one on (which sounds like a design flaw to me).

Several accidents of 777's have been from fire, or fire was involved. Additionally, there has been a report that MH 370 was carrying a load of lithium batteries as cargo (so a sudden burn of very hot local fire is possible), but I can't confirm that anywhere.

a reply to: b0kal0ka

lets say your gif has convinced people what you claim is true

what would be the rough timeline of events in that situation?

was MH370 being monitored from take off by the satilietts? or did they make a radio commmunication once the UAPs appeared and then the satillietes locked on to the plane to record said footage?

im not doubting your belief just trying to establish what the timeline is for said beliefs

a reply to: chr0naut

That sounds like a cable routing design flaw to me. Also indicates the need for a portable radio with its own power in the cockpit for backup.

Then again Starlink will solve many of these communications issues shortly. Once they start putting a copy of the black boxes on the cloud in real-time.

I have ofter wondered why they haven't made a solid state drive within each black box that has a copy of the data on both black boxes on each of them. That way they have two backups of the data and only need to find one black box to get it all.

a reply to: UpIsNowDown2

Happy to answer your questions. It's totally fair to be skeptical when you first see the videos because they are absolutely insane. I initially thought they were fake when I first came across them a couple years ago but the more I've dug into it since, the more confident I am in them being real.

If we go by the theory that this was a military operation performed by the CIA, then it's safe to assume that the flight was being monitored before it even took off and the evidence points towards that being the case.

1) First off, as you may already know, this flight had 20 Freescale Semiconductor scientists & engineers on it. 20 people flying on the same plane from the same company would break any company travel policy. VERY ODD. Look into the history of this company too and it's a whole other rabbit hole related to superconductive microchips that power AI systems.

2) Right before the plane took off, it was secretly loaded up with 2.2 tonnes of cargo which, for some reason, was omitted from the flight's manifest. This cargo included 500 lbs of lithium ion batteries which is bad news for airplanes (look up UPS Flight 6 that crashed due to lithium ion batteries). VERY suspicious as the plane was already doomed before it took off.
MH370 families demand answers over ‘mystery’ cargo

3) The plane took off at 00:41am local time and at 01:25am, it deviated from the planned route and turned back towards Malaysia. My guess here is that's when the pilot noticed something was wrong and tried to head back towards Malaysia. The issue here is that since it's a massive Boeing 777, there's not many airports that can safely land a plane that size. The pilot ended up flying past Malaysia altogether and towards the Indian Ocean where it ended up losing contact with radars at 2:22am. That's almost an ENTIRE HOUR in which the plane had flown off course. Regardless if this was a military operation or not, it's impossible to believe this plane was not being monitored by ATC somewhere at the very least.



4) One day after the plane disappeared, Chinese hackers conveniently hacked into Malaysia's systems and stole crisis meeting minutes and classified information on MH370. About 5 days after the disappearance, China released satellite images of what they thought was MH370. I think its safe to assume China was monitoring this flight.

Chinese hackers reportedly took classified data on MH370 a day after
China Releases Images of What Could Be Parts of Missing Plane



5) Now if you believe the leaked videos are real, then it shows the US was also watching this plane as it was all planned to perfection. The coordinates we see in the satellite video leads us to the vicinity of the Nicobar Islands which, if you just follow the flight path above, would make sense for the plane to be in that region of the world. And do you know what just so happened to be going on in that region of the world at that exact time?

The Cope Tiger military exercises. If you don't know what that is, it's a yearly, joint military exercise performed with Thailand and Singapore. Some of the US's most advanced surveillance systems were already stationed in that region of the world for the purpose of this training exercise. So I'll just leave it at that.

Cop e Tiger - March 18, 2014


6) And finally, I made a separate thread about this one so I'll just copy it here. A couple months after the disappearance, 21 May 2014, the Malaysian Minister of Defense did an interview in which he was incredibly hostile towards the interviewer and refused to answer the most basic of questions. At one point in the video (9:25), he gets asked why the gov't considered shooting the plane down if they knew it was not hostile, and he actually says "well the Americans would" as he looks off to the side as if he's checking for approval. The entire thing is absolutely bizarre and makes it seem as if he's getting talking points from the US.