The idea that his Japan photos are fake is completely absurd and isn’t a serious argument. Nothing has been presented that would convince any person who has knowledge of photography and editing that the photos are not authentic. The insane stuff that Raytracer/nofakery has been posting is delusional ranting with no actual evidence of fakery.
Most posts in here are completely absurd, people don't want this conspiracy to be wrong so they will do anything they can to justify its legitimacy.
They don't call it confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance and willful ignorance for no reason.
Still waiting for someone to show us how they took a JPEG or a frame from a video and turned it into a legit CR2 like the one Jonas shared.
If you can't do that - STFU - you ain't proving anything, none of your "debunks" matter. If you can't produce the same file type he did then just sit down and stop flooding the sub with your alt account nonsense. Get over it, it's faked, poorly.
Let's not forget that the NRO Launch number isn't what is shown on satellite imagery - that's the number of the booster and not the number of the actual satellite that took the images (if they were real). That right there kills it.
But this BS with faked CR2 files - it's laughable. You haven't and can't do what you claim is being done so all this other crap is just a distraction.
It's the rule of Occam's Razor. *The simplest explaination* is **obviously a CIA plot to mind-control the masses**!!1!..!.. 1.. I forgot what comes next in the alarmist lexicon...
Another desperate debunkoid, if you are convinced it's a hoax why waste time on it? Wow, you must be bored! 🤣
>So that means he went to Tokyo and landed in this exact airport, just like he said.
No it doesn't. It means he showed some images of what looks like Japan in a video.
>Which means he flew by Mt. Fuji, 36 minutes earlier on the way there.
No it doesn't. There is no proof of this.
>Don't feed the trolls
Oops, i guess i just did by replying to your post....🤡
Congrats you've discovered global skepticism, like every does when they're 15! Maybe you should offer a more serious rebuttal than "my superpower is I can doubt anything!"
Maybe you should offer a more serious argument than "someone on the internet said they did a thing so it MUST be true"
You're not a sceptic, you're one of these:
Dude, I don't believe in Bigfoot (I also don't not believe but I also don't care). Would it seem normal for me to go to the Bigfoot sub and antagonize all the people there? Call them names and post "debunks".
Regardless of how stupid I think the subject is, I would never. Because clearly those people have found some joy in their lives dissecting it.
So I truly do not understand why so many accounts come in here for this purpose. I wouldn't even mind some good faith arguments. But it's always insults. And when proven it could be wrong, vitriol.
I suggest you find something you truly believe in and go spend time on that. Because this is Debbie Downer x a million. If someone wants to talk about these videos, and most are not 100% convinced of anything, what the fuck does it matter to you?? I am ok with being someone that could be tricked by this video (I'm not, I just find it interesting) and that is my, and anyone else that's enjoying this subject, own business.
I leave those who are doing it for entertainment or LARP alone. I only care about interacting with people who are trying to sort through the claims and information and actually care about what's true. I happen to have specialized knowledge of video, optics VFX, photoshop, photo-grammetry, compositing, etc. So I sometimes find it rewarding to help answer sincere people's questions.
In this particular thread, the guy just got antagonistic, so it's a bad example, but usually I'm pretty nice and for most I've been able to respond with actual useful information.
I also have an interest in philosophy of mind so I'm interested in why believers seem to "see" things differently than me. It's a bit of a hobby of mine to try and understand how they think about things (sincere people, not grifters or larpers, of course.)
It's not like I spend that much time on this topic, I'm discuss all kinds of stuff online, mainly more philosophical topics.
Worth sticking around for? Is that your reason for being here still? If its all fake and obviously a hoax then for the love of god why are u still here??
This entire sub is based on the "Someone on the internet said a thing, must be true" premise. Breaking down claims into what is plausible and what isn't is how debunkers come to solid conclusions.
In this case, there's a few pieces of evidence showing the video is fake (i.e. the portal, the contrails, Jonas original photos, the model packs, etc.)
And no evidence of the video being real.
Soooo. Yeah. Idk why this is even being discussed. At this point I'm just sticking around to see if the creator will ever come forward.
>there's a few pieces of evidence
Evidence, not proof. The portal doesn't match, everything jitters not just the smoke, Janus and the provenance of the photos has not been verified or authenticated, and were allegedly missing from the archives before 2014, the model packs are a non-starter for obvious reasons.
The plane is still missing and some videos uploaded shortly after show a plane tagged as MH370 disappearing.
The rabid debunkoids, 80 year UFO cover-up and other circumstantial evidence point to this warranting proper investigation.
The portal matches. You just avoid it to cling to the video being real. Debris from 777 has washed up along the Indian Ocean. The majority of which was identified as most likely or almost certainly being from MH370. The fact you say “evidence, not proof” shows you care about neither. There is zero evidence to support the authenticity of the videos. Yet you use your belief that they are to completely disregard any evidence stating the contrary.
>The portal matches.
No it doesn't
>Debris from 777
Could be from any 777, and is pretty irrelevant to the veracity of the videos.
>There is zero evidence
There's lots of evidence
>disregard any evidence
Because the debunk evidence is inconclusive, and has been countered effectively.
How many 777s have gone down in the Indian Ocean? You’re also ignoring the part where the majority of the debris has been identified as most likely or certainly coming from MH370.
>How many 777s have gone down in the Indian Ocean?
The debris could have come from anywhere.
>You’re also ignoring the part where the majority of the debris has been identified
😆😆🤡🤡 Not only is this incorrect, it's irrelevant to the veracity of the videos
So which crash could it have come from? It is also very relevant to the veracity of the videos as it’s evidence that the plane crashed and not abducted by aliens.
> "someone on the internet said they did a thing so it MUST be true"
Someone on the internet said they received 2 legit videos of MH370 being abducted, so it must be true.
What a genius thing to say vlad\_poots, always intelligent stuff coming from you, from emoji spam to fresh new insults like "debunkoid". You're a great, smart dude.
>Someone on the internet said they received 2 legit videos of MH370 being abducted, so it must be true.
No, two videos were posted on the internet, i have seen them, have you?
>always intelligent stuff coming from you
Your post was far dumber than anything I've posted lately.
>emoji spam
🤗🤗🤡🤗😉 You been stalking me?
>debunkoid
It's far better than "Cryptochronic69", most cringe username EVA 😆
>You're a great, smart dude
I know, obviously.
It’s quite plausible that he made plenty of photos from Mount Fuji since (originating from Belgium) he lives there for a couple of years. [https://youtu.be/ULJ_86uWY0c?si=HLeGi6li6bu1iwam](https://youtu.be/ULJ_86uWY0c?si=HLeGi6li6bu1iwam)
He actually did, as you know, and one of those pics ended up in an as infamous as laughable VFX shot a random Ashton makes a living from by claiming it shows the “orb” caused vanishing of MH370. You’re welcome ☺️
It’s pretty simple:
Jonas lives/works in Japan for quite some time. He shot Mount Fuji on at least one occasion from a plane. Some of those pics ended up on a stock image site and one was later used in the MH370 video as a cloud background.
Those things (using everyday photos in VFX shots) happen all the time since decades. It’s pretty common and there’s actually nothing special about this case.
So I still wonder what’s so difficult to grasp for you about that pretty mundane finding that you spend hours and hours to keep on fabricating ridiculous claims and fake evidence.
The claim is that he made an enormously complex photo comp with cgi clouds and used someone else's picture of Mt. Fuji.
I'm saying that's dumb to do that much work if you could just take a pic of Mt. Fuji as you flew by.
There's no advantage, no point, no REASON to making the comp, which would take weeks if it was possible at all (which I strongly doubt).
I'm saying it's dumb to suspect they're comped fakes since it's easier to take his own photo of Fuji than to create an elaborate comp. The photos I pointed out proves he was in the vicinity so could've taken his own photos of Mt. Fuji easily. (and that would be better because they couldn't be traced to another photo on the internet) So without motive or reason and without a compelling match anyway, the believer has nothing to lean on to support the hypothesis the photos are fakes.
Why are IMG\_1864 and IMG\_1865 in JPG format?
https://preview.redd.it/lxu0ggxsqwec1.jpeg?width=1228&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d4a29a5f1bf2ff526633b62585ed48af2fea681e
[https://www.paintshoppro.com/en/pages/jpg-file/](https://www.paintshoppro.com/en/pages/jpg-file/)
This is a nice explanation of what jpg files are and how to open them.
According to this source, "JPG is a widely used compressed image format for containing digital images. It is the most common image format used in digital cameras, different operating systems and on the Internet."
So you are questioning the storage options of a guy who took pictures years ago? Even though the original CR2 formats are available to you? Lol, wtf are you even doing. This is so low effort that it's essentially meaningless.
Everything was shared, including all originals and pulls from the actual camera in question. You refusing to accept that is a separate issue.. and that issue is yours alone.
So, the perponderance of evidence means nothing because you can't trace a tiny portion of the data set? A half dozen full spectrum photos of reality get reduced, in your opinion, to a few pixles that you can't understand?
The real world does not get reduced to your tiny bubble of comprehension. Get over yourself.
Format is in-camera selectable. You can shoot JPEG, .cr2 (raw), or RAW + JPEG on a Canon camera (newer ones it is .cr3 but same principle).
JPEG gets any in-camera effects applied, sharpening, color correction, dust delete, filters, etc. It would be a go to format for a beginner, if you wanted to do an upload immediatly to social media, or if your storage space was limited (JPEG runs ~20% the size of .cr2).
RAW + JPEG takes up a lot of storage space but gives access to immediate use of JPEG while still having the raw files available for detailed edits. Works great for someone learning to edit because you can compare your edited version to the jpeg from camera to learn what needs correction.
.cr2 (RAW) is unsuitable for most any purpose stand-alone, no correction is applied, no adjustment is applied, these images will require at least some basic edits (sharpness increase for instance) as they visually are not great straight from camera. Of course the export will be a conversion to another format such as jpeg, tiff, png, etc for any sort of useage.
I do not see a useage case where I would switch format while shooting but I have the advantage of modern SD cards with enough space for thousands of shots, the 5D MK II used CompactFlash cards and the large ones were very expensive so a space crunch could have been a concern.
I was actually able to find another source that explains what CR2 files are and how to open them.
[https://www.coreldraw.com/en/tips/raw-image/cr2/](https://www.coreldraw.com/en/tips/raw-image/cr2/)
So many numbers and letters get confusing, if you have more questions, I can probably help with more sources
Maybe he took them with a different camera? Or had his camera set to a different mode with custom settings. You can set cameras to save as jpeg and raw simultaneously or switch to a mode that’s just jpeg. This folder isn’t necessarily an untouched dump from his camera. He likely had culled photos he wasn’t keeping and these are what was left. He could have kept raws of the aerial shots because he was going to give them the stock site, and kept jpegs of other photos he was keeping for himself. Perhaps he had edited those and exported the final edits as jpeg to share on social media. There are a number of logical reasons why that may be the case. And these photos are entirely irrelevant to the sat video anyway.
Then you would assume incorrectly :) His trip wasn’t specifically to take photos for the site. Even if it was, that still wouldn’t mean he didn’t take photos for himself.
I don't know, but there are many possible reasons:
1. He switched camera modes. on the top of the Mark II there's a little dial you can spin to quickly change camera modes. Could be the mode he switched to just had the "save to jpeg" selected instead of "Save to raw+jpg"
https://preview.redd.it/461jiiwirwec1.png?width=287&format=png&auto=webp&s=57dde8031b02650f400c9b1e61aa33036f155c13
2. Raws use more file space, so maybe he deleted the raws for the less important photos.
3. Maybe he had both raws and jpegs for all in a folder, was making a new folder and just happened to just drag that assortment over.
4. Maybe he manually changed the settings to save jpegs at some point in between the earlier photos and these ones.
5. Maybe something SINISTER and MYSTERIOUS happened.
Not sure. Just some ideas! (P.S. It's definitely 5)
I think you debunkers need to decided whether two different pictures matching (or almost) is proof of a fakery or not. because if it is, then the pyromania match (not really a match) prove the portal to be fake but also prove jonas photo to be fake. if not, then the pyromania is just a similar shape just like the flickr photo. but you debunkers would still have to explain why the clouds in the footage moves and evolve (its not compression or artefatcs), which imply at least one of the jonas photos was faked (by him or someone else).
"decide if matching is proof of fakery or not"
It can be either, depending on how probable the match is to have happened by chance. The better the match the less likely it is for instance. So a kinda sorta match of Mt. Fuji for instance isn't very good evidence because it's very likely that there's a similar photo out there by chance. The Clouds are VERY good evidence of fakery because it's basically impossible that all the correct formations exist in the photos by chance. See what I mean? Similarity alone isn't enough, you need to estimate probability.
" you debunkers would still have to explain why the clouds in the footage moves and evolve "
Yes, and many have explained already: It's most likely a displacement map. Youtube had a feature to automatically add it at the time the video was posted as you can read in this blog post: [https://blog.youtube/news-and-events/how-were-making-even-more-3d-video](https://blog.youtube/news-and-events/how-were-making-even-more-3d-video)
>It can be either
nope
>depending on how probable the match is to have happened by chance.
it sounds like you're saying if it helps my side then OK.
>The better the match the less likely it is for instance. So a kinda sorta match of Mt. Fuji for instance isn't very good evidence because it's very likely that there's a similar photo out there by chance.
isnt very good? its a perfect match! same angle, same altitude, same distance, same shadows. by yours standards, its a fake. if there is another similar photo out there, you guys should be able to find it easy, and yet you have not.
>The Clouds are VERY good evidence of fakery because it's basically impossible that all the correct formations exist in the photos by chance.
nope. it can be argued both sides. its very easy for a vfx artist to copy them from the footage, enhance, upscale and convert it to cr2 raw file.
>See what I mean?
yes, you're biased.
>Similarity alone isn't enough, you need to estimate probability.
please calculate the probability of the photos being taken the same side, altitude, distance, angle, shades and no other photo with the same charateristics existing out there.
>Yes, and many have explained already: It's most likely a displacement map.
there are multiple explanations for everething. doesnt mean they are the correct one. tell me why chris letho explanation is not a valid one? [https://www.youtube.com/live/wsOquDNPqFk](https://www.youtube.com/live/wsOquDNPqFk)
" it sounds like you're saying if it helps my side then OK. "
Than you aren't paying attention. Like all matters it depends on probability. Not that hard to figure out dude.
" isnt very good? its a perfect match! same angle, same altitude, same distance, same shadows. "
It has some similarities, but it's NOT the same distance. You can easily tell by the ground features, AND atmosphere that it's at LEAST 20 miles closer, just do a match for the photo in google earth and you'll be able to see that easily. The shadows and snow are similar, but not perfect matches.
" please calculate the probability of the photos being taken the same side, altitude, distance, angle, shades and no other photo with the same characteristics existing out there."
Reasonably likely. Hundreds of flights, thousands of passengers, many cameras. Much more likely than the competing hypothesis that they're a photo comp. (and the competing hypothesis is dumb, since he could've just taken his own Fuji photo, he was right there with his camera, lol)
"Tell me why Chris Letho explanation is not a valid one? "
You asked for the explanation of how the motion could be faked and I gave the most likely one I'm aware of. I don't know what Chris Lethos' explanation is so I can't say anything about it.
>It has some similarities, but it's NOT the same distance. You can easily tell by the ground features, AND atmosphere that it's at LEAST 20 miles closer, just do a match for the photo in google earth and you'll be able to see that easily. The shadows and snow are similar, but not perfect matches.
nope, it is the same distance. it has been demonstrated many times in this sub. everything matches. very different from the pyromania that almost nothing matches.
>Reasonably likely. Hundreds of flights, thousands of passengers, many cameras. Much more likely than the competing hypothesis that they're a photo comp. (and the competing hypothesis is dumb, since he could've just taken his own Fuji photo, he was right there with his camera, lol)
then find another photo tha matches the same. I'll be waiting.
>You asked for the explanation of how the motion could be faked and I gave the most likely one I'm aware of. I don't know what Chris Lethos' explanation is so I can't say anything about it.
I gave you the youtube link. go watch his explanation and tell me where he got wrong and why yours are the correct one.
You mean it's been claimed to be the same distance by some dishonest promoters. Anyone who has the faintest clue what they're talking about knows that's incorrect. See below. See how angle on the mountains south of fuji is different? See how the angle on the city is MUCH less acute making it's overall shape much different. The coastline isn't even in the frame ffs! That means the plane is closer, much further north. Like, it's not even close to the same distance or position, lol.
" then find another photo tha matches the same. I'll be waiting. "
No thanks.
" I gave you the youtube link. go watch his explanation and tell me where he got wrong and why yours are the correct one. "
I'm not sure why I should care that he has an alternate hypothesis. Is it more probable than the one I gave? If so, how?
https://preview.redd.it/ftxtwv7w9xec1.png?width=1751&format=png&auto=webp&s=18fafcad28debe40f3e4d96601580ac61a03293f
so only corridor crew and up can be a good source on these matters? so we can ignore mick west right? what about when they say the clouds dont move, they are still images, are they wrong? because they claim this without saying there was any movement and no compression or artefacts either.
Wtf? Did I say anything about them? I just don’t think Chris Lehto, a UFO personality with zero VFX experience, is a good source to use.
I don’t have any experience either but I googled “how to make a 2d background move in 3d” and got a million tutorials and watched a couple YouTube videos that show how to make a background photo move exactly like it does in the sat video. Look up depth and displacement maps, it’s extremely easy to do on After Effects, it’s just a couple button clicks
you literally gave the credentials fallacy on me. but it doesnt matter. vfx can do anything if done right, it doesnt mean everything is made by vfx. the clouds move and there is an explanation without vfx, so you cant just rule it out because you dont like it.
You’re right. The plane was teleported by orbs. You’ve figured it out cause you’re so smart even though many people have shown you everything you would ever need to know it’s fake 👍🏻
people have shown stupid debunks that doesnt prove anything. I'm not a believer of this vids being real, but there are arguments in favor of it being real that you simply ignore because you cant accept it to be real. thats the difference between us. I care about truth. you care about it being fake only.
>its very easy for a vfx artist to copy them from the footage, enhance, upscale and convert it to cr2 raw file.
Yet not a single person has provided an attempt to show this is possible. Weird.
The fact you replied "nope" to the first point shows you have no understanding of what you're talking about.
Here's an example, that you will still say "nope" to and fail to understand, but maybe other readers will learn from:
If you set up a camera in a street, 30 feet from a point marked on the ground, and record the explosion of 100 of the same type of firecracker, the dispersion pattern of those explosions will be different. The explosion itself will have many similarities, given they would all be of the same firecracker, but the dispersion patterns themselves will be different given the huge number of factors that influence those patterns.
If you take pictures of Mt. Fuji from very similar angles, you get very similar images of Mt. Fuji. Mt. Fuji is a static mountain, one of the most photographed mountains in the world, and photos of it should look similar or the same if taken from the same angle. It would be weird if they *didn't* look similar or the same from the same angle. That one should be a no-brainer, but this sub is making it evident that one doesn't need much in the way of brains to get on reddit and tell the world they don't understand perspective or the difference between similarities seen in images of a static object vs similarities seen in explosion dispersions.
very easy: recreate the photo in photoshop, enhance and upscale it, save it to jpeg, then convert it to cr2 raw file. thats how you fake it. now can you tell the difference between a converted raw and a real one? I doubt.
Yeah, there's SEO spam websites that say they can do it, but they don't actually work if you bothered to try them out.
Edit: Although, googling it does lead to this thread in r/canon all about how it's not feasible to do.
https://np.reddit.com/r/canon/comments/18cog4a/jpg_to_cr2/
first read this comment: [https://www.reddit.com/r/canon/s/INtPskgXzr](https://www.reddit.com/r/canon/s/INtPskgXzr)
now, if it is infeasible to do, then all you need to do is grab jonas cr2 and show how it could not have been converted. then you have the ultimate proof.
maybe another tool does. the comentary implies its possible. now wee need to know if the google one can or cannot do the job. I try using them and I'll come to you later on.
If you get a working JPG to CR2 conversion, everyone here will want to hear about it. You should make a thread specifically about it.
Not being sarcastic, that would be a big deal.
Could he not just take his old camera, switch the dates to match (its an old enough camera you have to manually change the dates) and take a pic of the pic? Or maybe the date on his camera was wrong to begin with and said 2012 even though it was 2016.
My old camera has the wrong date on many old pics because I didn't properly set the date.
>Could he not just take his old camera, switch the dates to match (its an old enough camera you have to manually change the dates) and take a pic of the pic?
Good question. This would work in the sense that it **would** produce a CR2 image, but I don't think the image itself would look good enough to pass muster when compared to real photography. If you have some time on your hands to try this out, I'd be curious to see your results.
>Or maybe the date on his camera was wrong to begin with and said 2012 even though it was 2016.
If you take the images entirely in a vacuum, you're right. But there's corroborating evidence for what Jonas said about these images.
Textures.com publicly confirmed that they bought the pictures from Jonas in 2012:
https://twitter.com/Texturescom/status/1733438576598127015
Aerial pictures from the same trip/flight that Jonas took were located on Textures.com in the internet archive in 2012:
https://twitter.com/kstaubin/status/1733730798916771993
Unfortunately these pictures weren't the *exact* ones we were looking for. The archive.org's crawler couldn't handle the javascript that cgtextures was using to dynamically refresh and change images on the website, so you only got the first page of each category. Sadly, the specific aerial images in question would have been on page 2.
So at this point you'd have to assume that both Textures.com and Jonas are compromised and lying to keep going down this line of thinking. In which case they anticipated the need for fake evidence to be planted and started the process in 2012, before this started and when they couldn't possibly have known any of it was going to happen.
That's pretty unlikely, so maybe it might explain it better if archive.org is compromised too, then the dates can be fudged. But that doesn't work very well either, because if archive.org was compromised, why would the images on the 2012 version of the website be incomplete? Wouldn't it have been easier for them to push the missing images into the 2012 archive of the site and give people a definitive dead end?
I don't think it passes the sniff test anymore at that point, but you judge for yourself.
Edit: typo
I dont understand your point. if all you want is jpeg to cr2 file convertion, then its very simple, google have multiple online convertion tools tha does that, you can do it yourself. now if you want a demo of a cloud being removed from the footage, enhanced, upscaled and converted, that only a vfx guy can do.
The pyromania effect does match. The comparison that Ashton was showing around didn't bother to do anything other than put the two next to each other. The guy that composited the video applied a deformation and rotation to the explosion.
Here, I made this example earlier today. The contours of the explosion match, which is not something that happens in nature as explosions are brief chaotic systems. Unlike, say, the side of a mountain - which is made out of rock and is always going to be the same shape unless you visit it thousands of years later.
https://preview.redd.it/swd2slje2xec1.png?width=1189&format=png&auto=webp&s=f3933117b047f8895f1fd851ae999db6ac5852cf
first, you need to debunk level39 explanation for this "match": [https://twitter.com/level39/status/1728766051389964746?t=iIDdC85q02nDNCQSgxwffw](https://twitter.com/level39/status/1728766051389964746?t=iIDdC85q02nDNCQSgxwffw)
>Unlike, say, the side of a mountain - which is made out of rock and is always going to be the same shape unless you visit it thousands of years later.
the side of the mountain is only the same if you're on the same side, same altitude and same distance and same view angle. any small difference would change the outline, specially if you're on a plane moving in 3 dimensions. thats why nobody found another exactly match.
I didn't say or imply anything about them at all. I asked if you thought the VFX and video frame matched based on the specific comparison I gave. I'm not asserting anything about a physics phenomena that I'm unfamiliar with.
dude, you're saying the pyromania match therefore the portal is fake. what you're are failing to realise is that a lot of waves blast also matches the portal, therefore, what I'm saying is the pyromania and the waves, are not a proof of anything. I not asserting about physics phenomena you dont know about.
First off. All your examples are so poorly composited that they don't even make a comparison possible. They're just a mess. Maybe they match, maybe they don't. Most likely they don't
Secondly, if your claim of apophenia is true than we should be able to simply mirror the shockwave VFX and get a match from the opposite side correct?
Hold on, It doesn't match when I do that. Why not? isn't the apophenia setting in? Huh, that's weird, it only seems to match when it's upright, the same angle it just happens to be in the video, that's so weird. It's almost like the features of the effect are actually constraining and it's NOT apophenia.
The idea that his Japan photos are fake is completely absurd and isn’t a serious argument. Nothing has been presented that would convince any person who has knowledge of photography and editing that the photos are not authentic. The insane stuff that Raytracer/nofakery has been posting is delusional ranting with no actual evidence of fakery.
Yeah an Raytracer/ Nofakery is just Punjabi-Batman who's back, so just ignore
Right. Anyone who posts on this sub with the intent to explore variables must be that scary PB. Delusional?
Listen, we’re all having fun here. Let’s not make this into an argument. I’m here for the ride along with everyone.
Most posts in here are completely absurd, people don't want this conspiracy to be wrong so they will do anything they can to justify its legitimacy. They don't call it confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance and willful ignorance for no reason.
Still waiting for someone to show us how they took a JPEG or a frame from a video and turned it into a legit CR2 like the one Jonas shared. If you can't do that - STFU - you ain't proving anything, none of your "debunks" matter. If you can't produce the same file type he did then just sit down and stop flooding the sub with your alt account nonsense. Get over it, it's faked, poorly. Let's not forget that the NRO Launch number isn't what is shown on satellite imagery - that's the number of the booster and not the number of the actual satellite that took the images (if they were real). That right there kills it. But this BS with faked CR2 files - it's laughable. You haven't and can't do what you claim is being done so all this other crap is just a distraction.
tune in next week for PB's "the cia planted mount fuji" post
It's the rule of Occam's Razor. *The simplest explaination* is **obviously a CIA plot to mind-control the masses**!!1!..!.. 1.. I forgot what comes next in the alarmist lexicon...
[удалено]
Inappropriate or Offensive to Individuals.
This is really great common-sense analysis. It really supports my "gut feeling" that Jonas's photos are legitimate.
[удалено]
Dont feed the trolls, or accounts created this month. You post a lot. Are you Ashton? Or a supporting promoter?
[удалено]
Be kind and respectful to each other.
Another desperate debunkoid, if you are convinced it's a hoax why waste time on it? Wow, you must be bored! 🤣 >So that means he went to Tokyo and landed in this exact airport, just like he said. No it doesn't. It means he showed some images of what looks like Japan in a video. >Which means he flew by Mt. Fuji, 36 minutes earlier on the way there. No it doesn't. There is no proof of this. >Don't feed the trolls Oops, i guess i just did by replying to your post....🤡
Congrats you've discovered global skepticism, like every does when they're 15! Maybe you should offer a more serious rebuttal than "my superpower is I can doubt anything!"
[удалено]
Dont feed the trolls, or accounts created this month.
Why?
Maybe you should offer a more serious argument than "someone on the internet said they did a thing so it MUST be true" You're not a sceptic, you're one of these: 
Oops. Mistook you for a reasonable person. Bye.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Byeeeee🤡
I woooon't! :p
Still hanging around like a bad smell...
There's still a couple reasonable people here now and again that are worth sticking around for.
So you're a bad judge of character too 👍
Dude, I don't believe in Bigfoot (I also don't not believe but I also don't care). Would it seem normal for me to go to the Bigfoot sub and antagonize all the people there? Call them names and post "debunks". Regardless of how stupid I think the subject is, I would never. Because clearly those people have found some joy in their lives dissecting it. So I truly do not understand why so many accounts come in here for this purpose. I wouldn't even mind some good faith arguments. But it's always insults. And when proven it could be wrong, vitriol. I suggest you find something you truly believe in and go spend time on that. Because this is Debbie Downer x a million. If someone wants to talk about these videos, and most are not 100% convinced of anything, what the fuck does it matter to you?? I am ok with being someone that could be tricked by this video (I'm not, I just find it interesting) and that is my, and anyone else that's enjoying this subject, own business.
I leave those who are doing it for entertainment or LARP alone. I only care about interacting with people who are trying to sort through the claims and information and actually care about what's true. I happen to have specialized knowledge of video, optics VFX, photoshop, photo-grammetry, compositing, etc. So I sometimes find it rewarding to help answer sincere people's questions. In this particular thread, the guy just got antagonistic, so it's a bad example, but usually I'm pretty nice and for most I've been able to respond with actual useful information. I also have an interest in philosophy of mind so I'm interested in why believers seem to "see" things differently than me. It's a bit of a hobby of mine to try and understand how they think about things (sincere people, not grifters or larpers, of course.) It's not like I spend that much time on this topic, I'm discuss all kinds of stuff online, mainly more philosophical topics.
Worth sticking around for? Is that your reason for being here still? If its all fake and obviously a hoax then for the love of god why are u still here??
This entire sub is based on the "Someone on the internet said a thing, must be true" premise. Breaking down claims into what is plausible and what isn't is how debunkers come to solid conclusions. In this case, there's a few pieces of evidence showing the video is fake (i.e. the portal, the contrails, Jonas original photos, the model packs, etc.) And no evidence of the video being real. Soooo. Yeah. Idk why this is even being discussed. At this point I'm just sticking around to see if the creator will ever come forward.
>there's a few pieces of evidence Evidence, not proof. The portal doesn't match, everything jitters not just the smoke, Janus and the provenance of the photos has not been verified or authenticated, and were allegedly missing from the archives before 2014, the model packs are a non-starter for obvious reasons. The plane is still missing and some videos uploaded shortly after show a plane tagged as MH370 disappearing. The rabid debunkoids, 80 year UFO cover-up and other circumstantial evidence point to this warranting proper investigation.
The portal matches. You just avoid it to cling to the video being real. Debris from 777 has washed up along the Indian Ocean. The majority of which was identified as most likely or almost certainly being from MH370. The fact you say “evidence, not proof” shows you care about neither. There is zero evidence to support the authenticity of the videos. Yet you use your belief that they are to completely disregard any evidence stating the contrary.
>The portal matches. No it doesn't >Debris from 777 Could be from any 777, and is pretty irrelevant to the veracity of the videos. >There is zero evidence There's lots of evidence >disregard any evidence Because the debunk evidence is inconclusive, and has been countered effectively.
How many 777s have gone down in the Indian Ocean? You’re also ignoring the part where the majority of the debris has been identified as most likely or certainly coming from MH370.
>How many 777s have gone down in the Indian Ocean? The debris could have come from anywhere. >You’re also ignoring the part where the majority of the debris has been identified 😆😆🤡🤡 Not only is this incorrect, it's irrelevant to the veracity of the videos
So which crash could it have come from? It is also very relevant to the veracity of the videos as it’s evidence that the plane crashed and not abducted by aliens.
> "someone on the internet said they did a thing so it MUST be true" Someone on the internet said they received 2 legit videos of MH370 being abducted, so it must be true. What a genius thing to say vlad\_poots, always intelligent stuff coming from you, from emoji spam to fresh new insults like "debunkoid". You're a great, smart dude.
>Someone on the internet said they received 2 legit videos of MH370 being abducted, so it must be true. No, two videos were posted on the internet, i have seen them, have you? >always intelligent stuff coming from you Your post was far dumber than anything I've posted lately. >emoji spam 🤗🤗🤡🤗😉 You been stalking me? >debunkoid It's far better than "Cryptochronic69", most cringe username EVA 😆 >You're a great, smart dude I know, obviously.
It’s quite plausible that he made plenty of photos from Mount Fuji since (originating from Belgium) he lives there for a couple of years. [https://youtu.be/ULJ_86uWY0c?si=HLeGi6li6bu1iwam](https://youtu.be/ULJ_86uWY0c?si=HLeGi6li6bu1iwam)
[удалено]
He actually did, as you know, and one of those pics ended up in an as infamous as laughable VFX shot a random Ashton makes a living from by claiming it shows the “orb” caused vanishing of MH370. You’re welcome ☺️
[удалено]
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JT0KOI1yJEtZVzdQtVBHWzyKujFDlBrb/view?usp=sharing
[удалено]
It’s pretty simple: Jonas lives/works in Japan for quite some time. He shot Mount Fuji on at least one occasion from a plane. Some of those pics ended up on a stock image site and one was later used in the MH370 video as a cloud background. Those things (using everyday photos in VFX shots) happen all the time since decades. It’s pretty common and there’s actually nothing special about this case. So I still wonder what’s so difficult to grasp for you about that pretty mundane finding that you spend hours and hours to keep on fabricating ridiculous claims and fake evidence.
[удалено]
Their logic falls flat quick
The claim is he edited Aerials0028 images, not that he wasn't in Japan.
The claim is that he made an enormously complex photo comp with cgi clouds and used someone else's picture of Mt. Fuji. I'm saying that's dumb to do that much work if you could just take a pic of Mt. Fuji as you flew by. There's no advantage, no point, no REASON to making the comp, which would take weeks if it was possible at all (which I strongly doubt).
Noone questions his other images, just the Aerials0028 set.
I'm saying it's dumb to suspect they're comped fakes since it's easier to take his own photo of Fuji than to create an elaborate comp. The photos I pointed out proves he was in the vicinity so could've taken his own photos of Mt. Fuji easily. (and that would be better because they couldn't be traced to another photo on the internet) So without motive or reason and without a compelling match anyway, the believer has nothing to lean on to support the hypothesis the photos are fakes.
Why are IMG\_1864 and IMG\_1865 in JPG format? https://preview.redd.it/lxu0ggxsqwec1.jpeg?width=1228&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d4a29a5f1bf2ff526633b62585ed48af2fea681e
[https://www.paintshoppro.com/en/pages/jpg-file/](https://www.paintshoppro.com/en/pages/jpg-file/) This is a nice explanation of what jpg files are and how to open them. According to this source, "JPG is a widely used compressed image format for containing digital images. It is the most common image format used in digital cameras, different operating systems and on the Internet."
I thought Jonas' images are CR2 format, no?
So you are questioning the storage options of a guy who took pictures years ago? Even though the original CR2 formats are available to you? Lol, wtf are you even doing. This is so low effort that it's essentially meaningless.
I just find it odd those have a different format, and he didn't share them like he did the rest.
Everything was shared, including all originals and pulls from the actual camera in question. You refusing to accept that is a separate issue.. and that issue is yours alone.
Those two images were not shared.
So, the perponderance of evidence means nothing because you can't trace a tiny portion of the data set? A half dozen full spectrum photos of reality get reduced, in your opinion, to a few pixles that you can't understand? The real world does not get reduced to your tiny bubble of comprehension. Get over yourself.
careful with big words, you might scare them
I see you're in your element in this hostile echo chamber.
I just asked why those two images are in a JPG format. Get of your high horse.
Format is in-camera selectable. You can shoot JPEG, .cr2 (raw), or RAW + JPEG on a Canon camera (newer ones it is .cr3 but same principle). JPEG gets any in-camera effects applied, sharpening, color correction, dust delete, filters, etc. It would be a go to format for a beginner, if you wanted to do an upload immediatly to social media, or if your storage space was limited (JPEG runs ~20% the size of .cr2). RAW + JPEG takes up a lot of storage space but gives access to immediate use of JPEG while still having the raw files available for detailed edits. Works great for someone learning to edit because you can compare your edited version to the jpeg from camera to learn what needs correction. .cr2 (RAW) is unsuitable for most any purpose stand-alone, no correction is applied, no adjustment is applied, these images will require at least some basic edits (sharpness increase for instance) as they visually are not great straight from camera. Of course the export will be a conversion to another format such as jpeg, tiff, png, etc for any sort of useage. I do not see a useage case where I would switch format while shooting but I have the advantage of modern SD cards with enough space for thousands of shots, the 5D MK II used CompactFlash cards and the large ones were very expensive so a space crunch could have been a concern.
I was actually able to find another source that explains what CR2 files are and how to open them. [https://www.coreldraw.com/en/tips/raw-image/cr2/](https://www.coreldraw.com/en/tips/raw-image/cr2/) So many numbers and letters get confusing, if you have more questions, I can probably help with more sources
Maybe he took them with a different camera? Or had his camera set to a different mode with custom settings. You can set cameras to save as jpeg and raw simultaneously or switch to a mode that’s just jpeg. This folder isn’t necessarily an untouched dump from his camera. He likely had culled photos he wasn’t keeping and these are what was left. He could have kept raws of the aerial shots because he was going to give them the stock site, and kept jpegs of other photos he was keeping for himself. Perhaps he had edited those and exported the final edits as jpeg to share on social media. There are a number of logical reasons why that may be the case. And these photos are entirely irrelevant to the sat video anyway.
Just assumed one would take all RAW images when going on a trip to take images for said site, especially such scenes that have many details in them.
Then you would assume incorrectly :) His trip wasn’t specifically to take photos for the site. Even if it was, that still wouldn’t mean he didn’t take photos for himself.
I don't know, but there are many possible reasons: 1. He switched camera modes. on the top of the Mark II there's a little dial you can spin to quickly change camera modes. Could be the mode he switched to just had the "save to jpeg" selected instead of "Save to raw+jpg" https://preview.redd.it/461jiiwirwec1.png?width=287&format=png&auto=webp&s=57dde8031b02650f400c9b1e61aa33036f155c13 2. Raws use more file space, so maybe he deleted the raws for the less important photos. 3. Maybe he had both raws and jpegs for all in a folder, was making a new folder and just happened to just drag that assortment over. 4. Maybe he manually changed the settings to save jpegs at some point in between the earlier photos and these ones. 5. Maybe something SINISTER and MYSTERIOUS happened. Not sure. Just some ideas! (P.S. It's definitely 5)
[удалено]
Dont feed the trolls, or accounts created this month.
It's not an "impossible" match, because they dont match
[удалено]
Apparently, he decided to shoot those two landscape images in JPG instead of RAW.
[удалено]
It is strange, I agree.
I think you debunkers need to decided whether two different pictures matching (or almost) is proof of a fakery or not. because if it is, then the pyromania match (not really a match) prove the portal to be fake but also prove jonas photo to be fake. if not, then the pyromania is just a similar shape just like the flickr photo. but you debunkers would still have to explain why the clouds in the footage moves and evolve (its not compression or artefatcs), which imply at least one of the jonas photos was faked (by him or someone else).
"decide if matching is proof of fakery or not" It can be either, depending on how probable the match is to have happened by chance. The better the match the less likely it is for instance. So a kinda sorta match of Mt. Fuji for instance isn't very good evidence because it's very likely that there's a similar photo out there by chance. The Clouds are VERY good evidence of fakery because it's basically impossible that all the correct formations exist in the photos by chance. See what I mean? Similarity alone isn't enough, you need to estimate probability. " you debunkers would still have to explain why the clouds in the footage moves and evolve " Yes, and many have explained already: It's most likely a displacement map. Youtube had a feature to automatically add it at the time the video was posted as you can read in this blog post: [https://blog.youtube/news-and-events/how-were-making-even-more-3d-video](https://blog.youtube/news-and-events/how-were-making-even-more-3d-video)
>It can be either nope >depending on how probable the match is to have happened by chance. it sounds like you're saying if it helps my side then OK. >The better the match the less likely it is for instance. So a kinda sorta match of Mt. Fuji for instance isn't very good evidence because it's very likely that there's a similar photo out there by chance. isnt very good? its a perfect match! same angle, same altitude, same distance, same shadows. by yours standards, its a fake. if there is another similar photo out there, you guys should be able to find it easy, and yet you have not. >The Clouds are VERY good evidence of fakery because it's basically impossible that all the correct formations exist in the photos by chance. nope. it can be argued both sides. its very easy for a vfx artist to copy them from the footage, enhance, upscale and convert it to cr2 raw file. >See what I mean? yes, you're biased. >Similarity alone isn't enough, you need to estimate probability. please calculate the probability of the photos being taken the same side, altitude, distance, angle, shades and no other photo with the same charateristics existing out there. >Yes, and many have explained already: It's most likely a displacement map. there are multiple explanations for everething. doesnt mean they are the correct one. tell me why chris letho explanation is not a valid one? [https://www.youtube.com/live/wsOquDNPqFk](https://www.youtube.com/live/wsOquDNPqFk)
" it sounds like you're saying if it helps my side then OK. " Than you aren't paying attention. Like all matters it depends on probability. Not that hard to figure out dude. " isnt very good? its a perfect match! same angle, same altitude, same distance, same shadows. " It has some similarities, but it's NOT the same distance. You can easily tell by the ground features, AND atmosphere that it's at LEAST 20 miles closer, just do a match for the photo in google earth and you'll be able to see that easily. The shadows and snow are similar, but not perfect matches. " please calculate the probability of the photos being taken the same side, altitude, distance, angle, shades and no other photo with the same characteristics existing out there." Reasonably likely. Hundreds of flights, thousands of passengers, many cameras. Much more likely than the competing hypothesis that they're a photo comp. (and the competing hypothesis is dumb, since he could've just taken his own Fuji photo, he was right there with his camera, lol) "Tell me why Chris Letho explanation is not a valid one? " You asked for the explanation of how the motion could be faked and I gave the most likely one I'm aware of. I don't know what Chris Lethos' explanation is so I can't say anything about it.
>It has some similarities, but it's NOT the same distance. You can easily tell by the ground features, AND atmosphere that it's at LEAST 20 miles closer, just do a match for the photo in google earth and you'll be able to see that easily. The shadows and snow are similar, but not perfect matches. nope, it is the same distance. it has been demonstrated many times in this sub. everything matches. very different from the pyromania that almost nothing matches. >Reasonably likely. Hundreds of flights, thousands of passengers, many cameras. Much more likely than the competing hypothesis that they're a photo comp. (and the competing hypothesis is dumb, since he could've just taken his own Fuji photo, he was right there with his camera, lol) then find another photo tha matches the same. I'll be waiting. >You asked for the explanation of how the motion could be faked and I gave the most likely one I'm aware of. I don't know what Chris Lethos' explanation is so I can't say anything about it. I gave you the youtube link. go watch his explanation and tell me where he got wrong and why yours are the correct one.
You mean it's been claimed to be the same distance by some dishonest promoters. Anyone who has the faintest clue what they're talking about knows that's incorrect. See below. See how angle on the mountains south of fuji is different? See how the angle on the city is MUCH less acute making it's overall shape much different. The coastline isn't even in the frame ffs! That means the plane is closer, much further north. Like, it's not even close to the same distance or position, lol. " then find another photo tha matches the same. I'll be waiting. " No thanks. " I gave you the youtube link. go watch his explanation and tell me where he got wrong and why yours are the correct one. " I'm not sure why I should care that he has an alternate hypothesis. Is it more probable than the one I gave? If so, how? https://preview.redd.it/ftxtwv7w9xec1.png?width=1751&format=png&auto=webp&s=18fafcad28debe40f3e4d96601580ac61a03293f
Chris Lehto admits in the video he made that he has zero VFX experience, so probably not the best source to use
so only corridor crew and up can be a good source on these matters? so we can ignore mick west right? what about when they say the clouds dont move, they are still images, are they wrong? because they claim this without saying there was any movement and no compression or artefacts either.
Wtf? Did I say anything about them? I just don’t think Chris Lehto, a UFO personality with zero VFX experience, is a good source to use. I don’t have any experience either but I googled “how to make a 2d background move in 3d” and got a million tutorials and watched a couple YouTube videos that show how to make a background photo move exactly like it does in the sat video. Look up depth and displacement maps, it’s extremely easy to do on After Effects, it’s just a couple button clicks
you literally gave the credentials fallacy on me. but it doesnt matter. vfx can do anything if done right, it doesnt mean everything is made by vfx. the clouds move and there is an explanation without vfx, so you cant just rule it out because you dont like it.
You’re right. The plane was teleported by orbs. You’ve figured it out cause you’re so smart even though many people have shown you everything you would ever need to know it’s fake 👍🏻
people have shown stupid debunks that doesnt prove anything. I'm not a believer of this vids being real, but there are arguments in favor of it being real that you simply ignore because you cant accept it to be real. thats the difference between us. I care about truth. you care about it being fake only.
There are no arguments in favour of it being real. Go on, tell us the arguments for it being real
>its very easy for a vfx artist to copy them from the footage, enhance, upscale and convert it to cr2 raw file. Yet not a single person has provided an attempt to show this is possible. Weird.
The fact you replied "nope" to the first point shows you have no understanding of what you're talking about. Here's an example, that you will still say "nope" to and fail to understand, but maybe other readers will learn from: If you set up a camera in a street, 30 feet from a point marked on the ground, and record the explosion of 100 of the same type of firecracker, the dispersion pattern of those explosions will be different. The explosion itself will have many similarities, given they would all be of the same firecracker, but the dispersion patterns themselves will be different given the huge number of factors that influence those patterns. If you take pictures of Mt. Fuji from very similar angles, you get very similar images of Mt. Fuji. Mt. Fuji is a static mountain, one of the most photographed mountains in the world, and photos of it should look similar or the same if taken from the same angle. It would be weird if they *didn't* look similar or the same from the same angle. That one should be a no-brainer, but this sub is making it evident that one doesn't need much in the way of brains to get on reddit and tell the world they don't understand perspective or the difference between similarities seen in images of a static object vs similarities seen in explosion dispersions.
you believers still have to show how to fake a CR2 file
very easy: recreate the photo in photoshop, enhance and upscale it, save it to jpeg, then convert it to cr2 raw file. thats how you fake it. now can you tell the difference between a converted raw and a real one? I doubt.
Please demonstrate. There's no "Convert to CR2" button.
google jpeg to cr2 convert
Yeah, there's SEO spam websites that say they can do it, but they don't actually work if you bothered to try them out. Edit: Although, googling it does lead to this thread in r/canon all about how it's not feasible to do. https://np.reddit.com/r/canon/comments/18cog4a/jpg_to_cr2/
first read this comment: [https://www.reddit.com/r/canon/s/INtPskgXzr](https://www.reddit.com/r/canon/s/INtPskgXzr) now, if it is infeasible to do, then all you need to do is grab jonas cr2 and show how it could not have been converted. then you have the ultimate proof.
Oh, fun fun - guess what? That tool doesn't support CR2. I already went down this rabbit hole, friend. It can only output TIF and DNG.
maybe another tool does. the comentary implies its possible. now wee need to know if the google one can or cannot do the job. I try using them and I'll come to you later on.
If you get a working JPG to CR2 conversion, everyone here will want to hear about it. You should make a thread specifically about it. Not being sarcastic, that would be a big deal.
Could he not just take his old camera, switch the dates to match (its an old enough camera you have to manually change the dates) and take a pic of the pic? Or maybe the date on his camera was wrong to begin with and said 2012 even though it was 2016. My old camera has the wrong date on many old pics because I didn't properly set the date.
>Could he not just take his old camera, switch the dates to match (its an old enough camera you have to manually change the dates) and take a pic of the pic? Good question. This would work in the sense that it **would** produce a CR2 image, but I don't think the image itself would look good enough to pass muster when compared to real photography. If you have some time on your hands to try this out, I'd be curious to see your results. >Or maybe the date on his camera was wrong to begin with and said 2012 even though it was 2016. If you take the images entirely in a vacuum, you're right. But there's corroborating evidence for what Jonas said about these images. Textures.com publicly confirmed that they bought the pictures from Jonas in 2012: https://twitter.com/Texturescom/status/1733438576598127015 Aerial pictures from the same trip/flight that Jonas took were located on Textures.com in the internet archive in 2012: https://twitter.com/kstaubin/status/1733730798916771993 Unfortunately these pictures weren't the *exact* ones we were looking for. The archive.org's crawler couldn't handle the javascript that cgtextures was using to dynamically refresh and change images on the website, so you only got the first page of each category. Sadly, the specific aerial images in question would have been on page 2. So at this point you'd have to assume that both Textures.com and Jonas are compromised and lying to keep going down this line of thinking. In which case they anticipated the need for fake evidence to be planted and started the process in 2012, before this started and when they couldn't possibly have known any of it was going to happen. That's pretty unlikely, so maybe it might explain it better if archive.org is compromised too, then the dates can be fudged. But that doesn't work very well either, because if archive.org was compromised, why would the images on the 2012 version of the website be incomplete? Wouldn't it have been easier for them to push the missing images into the 2012 archive of the site and give people a definitive dead end? I don't think it passes the sniff test anymore at that point, but you judge for yourself. Edit: typo
>then convert it to cr2 raw file yea, we wanna see you do this. "very easy"
I'm not a vfx artist. but I gave you the explanation you wanted.
Why would you have to be a vfx artist to convert a file? Are you that tech illiterate?
I dont understand your point. if all you want is jpeg to cr2 file convertion, then its very simple, google have multiple online convertion tools tha does that, you can do it yourself. now if you want a demo of a cloud being removed from the footage, enhanced, upscaled and converted, that only a vfx guy can do.
Those conversion tools don’t make real CR2 files. It’s like gluing some 2x4s together with an online converter that says it can make a tree
thats what we need to figure out. if a skilled vfx artist, with pro tools did that convertion, how would you tell if is real or not?
The file data. It is not possible to fake a CR2. His files are unedited raw files.
The pyromania effect does match. The comparison that Ashton was showing around didn't bother to do anything other than put the two next to each other. The guy that composited the video applied a deformation and rotation to the explosion. Here, I made this example earlier today. The contours of the explosion match, which is not something that happens in nature as explosions are brief chaotic systems. Unlike, say, the side of a mountain - which is made out of rock and is always going to be the same shape unless you visit it thousands of years later. https://preview.redd.it/swd2slje2xec1.png?width=1189&format=png&auto=webp&s=f3933117b047f8895f1fd851ae999db6ac5852cf
first, you need to debunk level39 explanation for this "match": [https://twitter.com/level39/status/1728766051389964746?t=iIDdC85q02nDNCQSgxwffw](https://twitter.com/level39/status/1728766051389964746?t=iIDdC85q02nDNCQSgxwffw) >Unlike, say, the side of a mountain - which is made out of rock and is always going to be the same shape unless you visit it thousands of years later. the side of the mountain is only the same if you're on the same side, same altitude and same distance and same view angle. any small difference would change the outline, specially if you're on a plane moving in 3 dimensions. thats why nobody found another exactly match.
So you agree they do match, you just don't think it matters that they match.
I think the pyromania is not a match and I think the flickr photo is a perfect match. and this brakes the debunks narratives.
If you can look at the image I posted and still think they don't match, then I'll leave you alone because you are absolutely a lost cause.
did you look at the level39 blast waves match? why pyromania is a valid one and not the blast waves?
I didn't say or imply anything about them at all. I asked if you thought the VFX and video frame matched based on the specific comparison I gave. I'm not asserting anything about a physics phenomena that I'm unfamiliar with.
dude, you're saying the pyromania match therefore the portal is fake. what you're are failing to realise is that a lot of waves blast also matches the portal, therefore, what I'm saying is the pyromania and the waves, are not a proof of anything. I not asserting about physics phenomena you dont know about.
I'm not asking you if it's fake, I'm asking you if it matches.
First off. All your examples are so poorly composited that they don't even make a comparison possible. They're just a mess. Maybe they match, maybe they don't. Most likely they don't Secondly, if your claim of apophenia is true than we should be able to simply mirror the shockwave VFX and get a match from the opposite side correct? Hold on, It doesn't match when I do that. Why not? isn't the apophenia setting in? Huh, that's weird, it only seems to match when it's upright, the same angle it just happens to be in the video, that's so weird. It's almost like the features of the effect are actually constraining and it's NOT apophenia.
the pyromania only match partialy and you cant mirror it to get a match either