geometric inconsistency in MH370 videos

Generate New Template

public (1567) , uap (1561) , disclosure (1383) , ufo (1296) , transparency (1220) , government (1066) , information (1011) , disinformation (943) , ufos (919) , campaign (862) , congress (769) , people (678) , phenomena (648) , national (632) , urge (586) , issue (565) , regarding (565) , unidentified (561) , security (538) , truth (506) , american (506) , support (503) , potential (498) , know (477) , trust (469) , uaps (467) , writing (462) , accountability (461) , time (424) , scientific (410) , intelligence (381) , understanding (370) , act (363) , rep (357) , members (354) , defense (331) , action (314) , efforts (311) , research (310) , committee (309) , objects (302) , related (301) , legislation (297) , house (290) , secrecy (288) , oversight (286) , template (283) , ndaa (282) , concern (280) , being (274) ,

Recent News

Garcia on UAPDA: "We have a responsibility to use every single lever that we have in Congress to get information” submitted by MartianMaterial
What Happened at Contact in the Desert?
A Secret Too Terrible To Be Told - Nick Pope
If you read the included definitions of terms used repeatedly in Chuck Schumer's (And now Robert Garcia's) UAP Disclosure Act, you'll realize that Disclosure already happened.
Garcia speaks out about his UAPDA! "We have a responsibility to use every single lever that we have in Congress to get information". “There is movement and there is progress being made". Also says "I have learned an immense amount in the hearings and classified briefings".
Points of Interest: Search for Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 Centers on Pings - AOL
The Real Conspiracy About UFOs: We Can't Admit That We Don't Know - Bloomberg
What do you think this is ?
Tattoo I convinced my client to get.
The Astonishing Story of Dan Burisch, S4 & "J-Rod"

i suggest a geometric analysis that reveals a geometric inconsistency in the purported dual drone/satellite images of the “disappearance of MH370.”

https://i.redd.it/xp55nk5w9ehb1.gif

i’ve superimposed two screenshots from the videos at around 0:32 from the copy posted at https://imgur.com/p7NMOTX . the analysis image is at https://www.handprint.com/UFO/MH370.gif

the analysis is not complex.

in one image, draw a triangle using the three observables as vertices. draw a line through the airliner parallel to and centered on its length. label the points where the line through the airliner intersects two sides of the triangle (A and B) use numbers to identify the three observables. repeat the same procedure for the second image, and number the observables so that the line through the airliner intersects the sides of the triangle between the same numbered points. this will leave one side of the triangle (in my case, the side 2,3) not intersected by the airliner axis. it appears difficult to argue, comparing both views, that A does not lie on the triangle side in front of the plane (1,2), and B on the side behind the plane (1,3).

the governing analysis element here is the triangle. the triangle defines a plane, and the plane will have two sides we can arbitrarily name “above” and “below”. given that one image is purportedly from a satellite (image S), and the second from a drone (image D), we might imagine that one is above and the other is below the plane.

this assumption appears true, because the observed displacement of the observables shows that they appear to move in unison clockwise in image D and counterclockwise in image S.

however, the numbering of the observables is now clockwise in both images: they both must be observed from the same side of the triangular plane, which i have just shown is false.

you can remedy this problem by switching the position of any of the two vertx numbers in only one image. let’s use the satellite image as reference.

if you switch 1 and 2 in S, then the line 1,3 in S is no longer intersected by the airliner axis, as it is in image D. additionally, this makes 1,3 in S approximately parallel to the airliner axis, whereas in D in appears nearly perpendicular.

if you switch 1 and 3 in S, then 1,2 is now the parallel line in D, which again appears wrong, and A is on the side 2,3, rather than the side 1,3 as in D.

if you switch 2 and 3, A now intersects the side 2,3 in S but not in D.

i suggest these geometrical inconsistencies impeach the validity of this video.

submitted by /u/drollere
[link] [comments]  

Read More