Let’s Be Clear: Making the MH370 video would NOT require a mastery of satellites, aircraft, and so on. It has many errors that, taken together, render it implausible.

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) , regarding (565) , issue (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) ,

 Read More 

Note: I submitted a version of this post earlier, which the mods removed for being uncivil. If you’re seeing it a second time, it’s just a slightly modified version to tone down anything that might be considered uncivil. Apologies for anyone offended and for any confusion.

Someone wrote this earlier, which has been a fairly common thing to see over the last day or so:

If it’s fake, the guy at a minimum has intimate knowledge of satellite photography, flight dynamics and complete mastery of then modern VFX techniques…at minimum. The likelihood of someone with such a specific skillset even existing is fucking bonkers slim

There are some people who have been making this assumption over the last several days, and I’d like to take the opportunity to push back a bit.

I don’t think that has at all been shown to be the case. In fact, I think the opposite has been shown. The creator of this video does not actually have “intimate knowledge” of all these things. They’ve simply made many arbitrary decisions that, individually, might be plausible, but together, show the picture of someone who has made many errors.

The military uses black and white thermals. (I mean, look at the tic tac). This video doesn’t.

Some have said that well, just because the military doesn’t use false color doesn’t mean it can’t be done. That’s fair, but it’s the first implausible thing about the video.

The satellite selected by the video’s author either wasn’t launched when the plane went missing (NROL-33) or was in the wrong place in orbit to see the plane (NROL-22).

Some have argued that this doesn’t matter, but those arguments still haven’t solidified around a single plausible alternative — whether it’s a relay satellite or it has special secret classified cameras.

The thermal image incorrectly shows no engine plume.

The counterargument goes that, well, maybe the UAPs shut down the engine? Or maybe it’s just colder up at altitude?

But that’s yet another irregular thing to layer on top of the video.

But then wouldn’t the fins on the airplane’s fuselage also show up? No, the counter argument goes, their design keeps them cool, or we just can’t see them?

But once again, that’s yet another anomaly with the video that needs to be explained away for it to be real.

The video shows a specific coordinate location that is not where the final satellite ping from MH370 was. One argument said that maybe there’s a minus sign on the coordinates (even though that still wouldn’t prove the coordinates are real). Others are still offering suggestions for how the last known ping might actually be wrong.

But again, that’s yet another unusual thing to add to our video.

The camera panned too quickly, revealing the plane was simply hidden behind the inkblot effect layer to hide the transition to a shot without the plane. The counterargument to that is a claim that the portal sucked the plane backwards.

I cannot speak to the physics of an interdimensional portal, but it is yet another unusual thing about the video to add to the list.

Most recently, the drone was shown to be a CGI poly model, and there are efforts underway now to explore arguments as to how that might not be the case.

What we are seeing here is not actually a perfectly made video by an expert in aircraft, satellite imagery, and physics. Many things are wrong with this video. It looks nothing like other military footage we’ve seen. And yet, rather than taking that as a red flag against its authenticity, we see many arguments that the video could still be plausible due to some explanations for these irregularities.

But the issue is that all of these assumptions, taken together, strain credulity. The military would have to be using color when they usually don’t, the satellite would have to be able to capture video in a place it can’t, the engines would have to be shut down, the plane would have to be rotated in such a specific way, the publicly known coordinates of the final ping would have to be wrong, and so on.

Sure, it’s possible any one of those things might be true. But all of them? Really?

And none of that has anything to do with the actual UAP’s abducting the plane. This could be a video of a plane flying through the sky normally, and those issues would still remain – so don’t take this as skepticism that the depicted event is implausible. Because that actually doesn’t matter for evaluating the video.

The person who made this video also made a number of fairly arbitrary decisions, likely because they wanted to make it quickly and were limited by the information known at the time. They made a very cool video, but it’s far from bulletproof as the claim goes.

None of this is to say that the video isn’t cool, or that UAPs are fake, or that Grusch is lying, or anything like that. The only point is that while any one implausible thing about this video might be OK, the total number is the problem. Every time someone finds something new wrong with the video, there’s another counterargument as to how that particular anomaly is plausible. And that’s fine, that’s just discussion. But if you take a step back, you see that there actually are quite a lot of things wrong with the video, they just take many assumptions to explain away.

If you see all this and still think the video is real, that’s fine. You’re entitled to that opinion. But it’s far from some one-in-a-million fake that has no issues, because it has many. Any one of those issues might still make it real, but all of them makes it very, very implausible.

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