The satellite video background is made entirely of a few stock photos. The stock photos were taken in Japan and in the original files, Mt Fuji is seen on the horizon.
You don’t see Mt Fuji in the video because that part of the stock photos was cropped out.
Some people who hang on to the videos being real, say the stock photos are fake and created by the CIA, or something. But it’s pretty obvious the stock photos are real. The photographer even did an AMA and let people download the original RAW files. This post is showing a clear example that the photos show real parallax; since the photos were taken from a commercial airplane while the photographer was on their way to Kyoto.
The videos have so many nails in the proverbial coffin with regards to them being fake. This topic keeps me interested in the same way that passing a bad accident on a motorway does - it's disturbing to look at people making huge stretches on the smallest things to try and validate the videos when the mountain (no Fuji reference intended) of evidence points the other way.
Everything could and does point to these being fake but it reached levels of fantasy as soon as people started moving the goalposts all the way to "CIA planted the images". It's sad to watch - I can't even tell which ones are trolling and which ones are the poor misled ones that have got wrapped up in believing these regardless of whatever evidence is contrary to those beliefs. I used to wonder how cults would get a grip on people, but watching this unfold over the last year or so, it turns out you just need to take advantage of someone's beliefs and they're yours to play with.
This whole thing will be a documentary some day - not on what happened to the plane and the souls on board, but all of this around it. The sad thing is, we're now in an age where the barrier to entry for hoaxes and fakery is lower than ever, and this will be just one small scale example that happened along the way to a future full of this. I hope, HOPE that the increase in AI images brings about some increased level of scrutiny but considering that all the evidence put in front of people who have been captured by the idea that this video is somehow real and that those beliefs only deepen and move into smaller, more niche and untestable ideas like CIA plants, I'm not optimistic.
– yours, a former believer of the videos being real
I've seen a few people make claims that undefinable proof of fakery, in this case the video effects of the portal being found, are planted over real footage by the CIA/whoever.
Basically, it's just a way to dismiss any evidence they don't like. I saw it with Skinny Bob recently, people will just cling on to whatever they want and won't change their opinion no matter what.
I'm glad you were able to change your opinion on the video.
Skinny bob is not debunked. There are things that are fake but there is a level of investigation into that has its own website a level of research and detail that’s crazy. And summary is unknown. They were trying To find the location of the video on the truck or train of whatever town it was. I don’t know if they ever found the location.
With respect no it’s not. You dismiss something as complicated as an elaborate video such as
Skinny bob probably on the basis of the film grain overlay. However that’s just one detail of an extremely elaborate complicated story that you won’t even take the time to learn anything about because you’ve dismissed it already. I never said it was real, or the cia planted anything you’ve just labeled me with that assumption when I actually agree with you. Likely a hoax yet still that tickle persists what if…….because literally people have gone over that footage and found out everything possible about it and they can not dismiss it as a hoax while acknowledging it probably is 99.9%. They can not say that it’s real either. What’s wrong with wanting proof either way and seeking it?
Its not just the film grain. There is also a digital timestamp on what is proposed to be analogy footage, plus the footage has been looked at by vfx experts who have pointed out the lack weight in the movement.
Look, if a guy in the pub is selling what he says is a Rolex, but the face says "Rolax", the hands are the same as my Sekio, and a friend who is an expert on watches says that it doesn't look like any actual model of rolex, I'm not going to look into each individual cog, gear, and spring to decide of it's real.
Now if the footage was to come out without those errors, and some evidence it existed before the footage with fakery in it, I would consider that.
Your example doesn't address the false rotation of that particular part of Mt. Fuji, it just shows all elements move from one image to the next, which was never an issue to begin with.
It shows if you use the correct axis, the rotation isn’t “false.” The rotation looks completely natural. What’s “false” is your animation that doesn’t show the full context.
Thank you for allowing my comment to be visible for your reply, I see r/FlighFactsNoFiction is closely followed.
No, your example doesn't show a completely innacurate rotation of the left snow patch on it's own axis. It just shows that it indeed moves from one image to the next.
The false rotation is visible in my example below.
Outside of those three lines, nothing has been edited in or out of the image, so it's indeed dishonest of you to call other people's examples dishonest while your example doesn't even address the core subject of the post.
The mountain doesn’t rotate where you have aligned the photos. Of course it looks weird — it’s essentially a lie.
This doesn’t even get into the fact neither image show any forensic evidence of editing. Just the opposite.
Also, why would anyone fake this image WHEN IT IS NOT USED IN THE VIDEO. Nineteen images were provided by the photographer, only three were used in the video. It makes no sense to fake so many images. What is infinitely more likely is you found an extremely small area of these images that you felt you could use to discredit all of the images.
Omg...man, lol. That was hilarious. Pervy will stare at a tree and then call it a forest. Hes a lost cause with his "rotation" GIF. Pervy, give it up man. You're beating a dead horse that was CGI to begin with.
I’ve worked with Photoshop since before it was called Photoshop. That doesn’t look like an edit. It looks like natural motion with clouds covering different areas in different images.
And if it were edited, there would be forensic evidence. But there is no forensic evidence of editing.
The snowy patch between those first two lines would break the first red line were this a correct rotation. The fact it does not, and the right snowy patch breaks the third red line, essentially making both converge on each other, shows this is not natural. They should move in-sync for being so close, alas they don't, caused by the false rotation of the left snowy patch.
What are you talking about? This is the only element rotating counterclockwise, reducing the gap between two parts of a mountain. It's a physical impossibility, not a lie.
You don't need my example, it's visible in the sequence of images put together by another user. It just needed to be pointed out.
Everything rotates except that part, hence why both patches converge on each other. This is no lie, it's obvious when pointed out even on your example, where it is most prominent.
Because you're physically incapable of good faith debate and clog up thread after thread repeating the same thing ad infinitum, no matter how many times people point out the flaws in your logic. You can blame me for that call, if you like.
Why are the three lines vertical? Shouldn’t they be tilted to the left to match the overall slope of the mountain (lined up with the peak/center of rotation)?
They're there to show the rotational difference of the left snowy patch in comparison with the surrounding elements. You don't need the lines to see the unnatural movement, the example just serves as a pointer to the anomaly.
But why are we even talking about 1841 and Mt Fuji? Those don’t even show up in the satellite video. We should be looking at 1842 and 1844.
I’m lost here. What does a mt.Fuji cloud have to do with the videos? The clouds motion was used from a Fuji video?
The satellite video background is made entirely of a few stock photos. The stock photos were taken in Japan and in the original files, Mt Fuji is seen on the horizon.
You don’t see Mt Fuji in the video because that part of the stock photos was cropped out.
Some people who hang on to the videos being real, say the stock photos are fake and created by the CIA, or something. But it’s pretty obvious the stock photos are real. The photographer even did an AMA and let people download the original RAW files. This post is showing a clear example that the photos show real parallax; since the photos were taken from a commercial airplane while the photographer was on their way to Kyoto.
[removed]
It’s always Kyoto
This post is in response to a post on r/FlightsFactsNoFiction. I was banned on that sub for simply asking questions.
https://www.reddit.com/r/FlightsFactsNoFiction/s/kf9vIiacaW
You were banned bc your a paid shill
That is completely untrue. I have never been paid for anything related to MH370, and I never will be.
The CIA planted Mount Fuji there and manually rotated it just to discredit the obviously real orb videos /s
This but actually
Go on
Please don't.
I was genuinely curious about how someone can think the CIA moves a mountain
I get that, but we've already had too many layers of crazy slapped together into some kind of weird conspiracy cake at this point.
Yes, that’s clearly real and not doctored. To claim otherwise comes from ignorance or copium.
The videos have so many nails in the proverbial coffin with regards to them being fake. This topic keeps me interested in the same way that passing a bad accident on a motorway does - it's disturbing to look at people making huge stretches on the smallest things to try and validate the videos when the mountain (no Fuji reference intended) of evidence points the other way.
Everything could and does point to these being fake but it reached levels of fantasy as soon as people started moving the goalposts all the way to "CIA planted the images". It's sad to watch - I can't even tell which ones are trolling and which ones are the poor misled ones that have got wrapped up in believing these regardless of whatever evidence is contrary to those beliefs. I used to wonder how cults would get a grip on people, but watching this unfold over the last year or so, it turns out you just need to take advantage of someone's beliefs and they're yours to play with.
This whole thing will be a documentary some day - not on what happened to the plane and the souls on board, but all of this around it. The sad thing is, we're now in an age where the barrier to entry for hoaxes and fakery is lower than ever, and this will be just one small scale example that happened along the way to a future full of this. I hope, HOPE that the increase in AI images brings about some increased level of scrutiny but considering that all the evidence put in front of people who have been captured by the idea that this video is somehow real and that those beliefs only deepen and move into smaller, more niche and untestable ideas like CIA plants, I'm not optimistic.
– yours, a former believer of the videos being real
I've seen a few people make claims that undefinable proof of fakery, in this case the video effects of the portal being found, are planted over real footage by the CIA/whoever.
Basically, it's just a way to dismiss any evidence they don't like. I saw it with Skinny Bob recently, people will just cling on to whatever they want and won't change their opinion no matter what.
I'm glad you were able to change your opinion on the video.
Skinny bob is not debunked. There are things that are fake but there is a level of investigation into that has its own website a level of research and detail that’s crazy. And summary is unknown. They were trying To find the location of the video on the truck or train of whatever town it was. I don’t know if they ever found the location.
This is exactly what I was talking about.
With respect no it’s not. You dismiss something as complicated as an elaborate video such as Skinny bob probably on the basis of the film grain overlay. However that’s just one detail of an extremely elaborate complicated story that you won’t even take the time to learn anything about because you’ve dismissed it already. I never said it was real, or the cia planted anything you’ve just labeled me with that assumption when I actually agree with you. Likely a hoax yet still that tickle persists what if…….because literally people have gone over that footage and found out everything possible about it and they can not dismiss it as a hoax while acknowledging it probably is 99.9%. They can not say that it’s real either. What’s wrong with wanting proof either way and seeking it?
Its not just the film grain. There is also a digital timestamp on what is proposed to be analogy footage, plus the footage has been looked at by vfx experts who have pointed out the lack weight in the movement.
Look, if a guy in the pub is selling what he says is a Rolex, but the face says "Rolax", the hands are the same as my Sekio, and a friend who is an expert on watches says that it doesn't look like any actual model of rolex, I'm not going to look into each individual cog, gear, and spring to decide of it's real.
Now if the footage was to come out without those errors, and some evidence it existed before the footage with fakery in it, I would consider that.
Anyone with common sense can see skinny bob is obviously fake and the alien move like a shit cg alien video would look like from a decade ago.
The aliens movement is so unnatural, in a physics type of way that it obviously looks fake.
You know…a little context goes a long way. This post makes you seem like you microwave cats, nomsayin?
No, I don’t know what you are saying. But here’s the context
https://www.reddit.com/r/FlightsFactsNoFiction/comments/1naopw9/the_1841_anomaly/
J Roc? ira ira
Your example doesn't address the false rotation of that particular part of Mt. Fuji, it just shows all elements move from one image to the next, which was never an issue to begin with.
It shows if you use the correct axis, the rotation isn’t “false.” The rotation looks completely natural. What’s “false” is your animation that doesn’t show the full context.
Thank you for allowing my comment to be visible for your reply, I see r/FlighFactsNoFiction is closely followed.
No, your example doesn't show a completely innacurate rotation of the left snow patch on it's own axis. It just shows that it indeed moves from one image to the next.
The false rotation is visible in my example below.
https://i.redd.it/97vjz3zgmsnf1.gif
Outside of those three lines, nothing has been edited in or out of the image, so it's indeed dishonest of you to call other people's examples dishonest while your example doesn't even address the core subject of the post.
The mountain doesn’t rotate where you have aligned the photos. Of course it looks weird — it’s essentially a lie.
This doesn’t even get into the fact neither image show any forensic evidence of editing. Just the opposite.
Also, why would anyone fake this image WHEN IT IS NOT USED IN THE VIDEO. Nineteen images were provided by the photographer, only three were used in the video. It makes no sense to fake so many images. What is infinitely more likely is you found an extremely small area of these images that you felt you could use to discredit all of the images.
https://preview.redd.it/jre17n9sqsnf1.jpeg?width=4096&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c689a5fba5f0e829fe2f6196e1f25dc7ff58d4d0
Omg...man, lol. That was hilarious. Pervy will stare at a tree and then call it a forest. Hes a lost cause with his "rotation" GIF. Pervy, give it up man. You're beating a dead horse that was CGI to begin with.
No lie, just and editing mistake clearly visible when pointed out.
https://i.redd.it/mmy91orhvsnf1.gif
I’ve worked with Photoshop since before it was called Photoshop. That doesn’t look like an edit. It looks like natural motion with clouds covering different areas in different images.
And if it were edited, there would be forensic evidence. But there is no forensic evidence of editing.
https://i.redd.it/ez8wj0a71tnf1.gif
The snowy patch between those first two lines would break the first red line were this a correct rotation. The fact it does not, and the right snowy patch breaks the third red line, essentially making both converge on each other, shows this is not natural. They should move in-sync for being so close, alas they don't, caused by the false rotation of the left snowy patch.
AGAIN, that animation is using the wrong axis. It’s essentially a lie.
Still, it shows clouds covering different areas of the region in question in the two images.
What are you talking about? This is the only element rotating counterclockwise, reducing the gap between two parts of a mountain. It's a physical impossibility, not a lie.
You don't need my example, it's visible in the sequence of images put together by another user. It just needed to be pointed out.
There is no counterclockwise rotation.
Is this another “sensor spot” issue for you where you see (or don’t see) what virtually everyone else sees?
Everything rotates except that part, hence why both patches converge on each other. This is no lie, it's obvious when pointed out even on your example, where it is most prominent.
https://i.redd.it/3n9abpfbvsnf1.gif
It's likely someone made the mistake and didn't count for the rotation between images.
Even this animation looks natural despite your poor alignment.
Why do you show only my comments you're replying too, why not every comment?
I’ve approved every comment you’ve made. I have a life, so I may not do it immediately.
We could do this over on r/FlightsFactsNoFiction if you could have them unban me.
Why do they need to be approved in the first place?
Because you're physically incapable of good faith debate and clog up thread after thread repeating the same thing ad infinitum, no matter how many times people point out the flaws in your logic. You can blame me for that call, if you like.
Still claiming there's no atmospheric in this area despite all the clouds everywhere?
Bro just can’t let it go. He lives on that mountain at this point
Why are the three lines vertical? Shouldn’t they be tilted to the left to match the overall slope of the mountain (lined up with the peak/center of rotation)?
They're there to show the rotational difference of the left snowy patch in comparison with the surrounding elements. You don't need the lines to see the unnatural movement, the example just serves as a pointer to the anomaly.
https://i.redd.it/nh2df8l15tnf1.gif
What I see is misaligned images
Align them better, post it here, I'll do the same three line analysis.
No. And the “three line analysis” makes no sense in this instance.
Looks way doctored.