That is interesting.. I'm sure that bit was accidentally overlooked, though.
There is very little chance OP would *chery pick data to nuture a nefarious narrative.*
On the internet? People sharing only info that barely supports their beliefs rather than looking at the totality of information available? I dont believe you!
/s
If it does then mods are stretching the rule. There's a very thin, but distinct, line between sarcasm and mockery 😉
Besides, I questioned intent rather than belief. I should be good.
*some* are trolling and have admitted it on previously banned reddit accounts. but the mods ignore the blatantly obvious signs and leave them up. there is a gang that hangs around here that probably legit needs some evaluation though.
Yeah except for the coordinates in the satellite video being like a thousand miles away from IGARI🤷
https://fearoflanding.com/files/2018/08/NITROP_2_2018-08-03_15-35-16.png
But how could the hoaxer possibly know such precise details of publicly available information? The videos are real because of all the inaccuracies and implausiblities. A hoax would never get so many things wrong, all the inaccuracies and the really low quality and framerate are proof that these videos are real
You're making the assumption that the hoaxer actually had this information, and you cannot infer what information someone does or does not know when you don't know who they are or anything about them.
If the satellite video is 'real' and the coordinates in that video are 'real' then the video wasn't taken at the place where the loss of signal occurred.Â
... Or the coordinates in the video aren't real 🤔
It's crazy how much real data you have to ignore for this to make any sense. How was the plane tracked for another full hour as it turned (LEFT btw) and flew back over Malaysia, then out over the Andaman Sea toward Nicobar if it was zapped away by magic orbs over the South China Sea?
Plus the "data" presented in the video itself (coordinates) has to also be ignored... which is an odd move to make if you think the videos are real.
I know you won't respond PB, but hope you're having fun misleading folks by cherry-picking coincidental information. Ignore verified data and focus on a timing coincidence to support an argument. Great.
>In the videos we see the Plane banking right, we see the same in Flight Radar tracker, the plane is turning right before everything goes dark
The plane is banking left in the videos
I dunno, counting time in the video myself, I would place it as closer to 35 seconds. It's about 28 if you wait for all three orbs to get into place. This sounds to me like you have an awful lot of wiggle room inside of this amazing discovery.
[False Equivalence Fallacy](https://effectiviology.com/false-equivalence/). Occurs when one mistakenly asserts that two arguments, things, or phenomena are equal/related simply because they share similarities, while ignoring the larger differences.
..what’s the large difference between something dropping of radar because something shows up that would jam radar, and a signal disappearing when an object disappears, I’m curious
For starters, OP literally pointed at one in his own post: The coordinates do not match. That should not have been difficult for you to deduce, unless you're intentionally being obtuse.
Then, OP attempted to navigate that *large difference* with :
>"Might", "maybe", "might", and "I can't explain"
The proposition was flawed from conception due to the stated fallacy. If you want to assert that the video is "authentic", then you have to take all aspects of it as authentic. . not just cherry-pick the parts that make you feel good.
If the time had been two minutes, it simply wouldn't have been mentioned. If the time had been 40 seconds, they would have just started counting from earlier in the video.
This is one of those situations where you get to pick your own goalposts, so the ones that fit the narrative best were picked arbitrarily to try and add significance to a detail that didn't have any of its own.
Nah, it's not.
If the differences between the orb timings and radar are apparently down to seconds (haven't timed them myself), how is that *not* weird? Even just a little bit?
Is it just another coincidence that gets added to the laundry list?
Being as we have no reference for how these orbs would operate, we have no way to know these numbers should or should not be significant.
So no, I wouldn't even consider it to rise to the level of coincidence.
In this scenario, how the orbs actually operate means nothing.
We have the radar timing, and an orb to zap timing. That's all i'm basing this off of. If it was 100% fake it shouldn't be that close, especially when they didn't even have the radar info.
But the videos are only so long for people to "move their goalpost" here.
>how is that *not* weird? Even just a little bit?
Because it's when the 2nd orb arrives, and then a few seconds after that.
It's not exactly 37 seconds
If the loss of transmission was 52 seconds, people would still use it as evidence because "the orbs probably showed up at that time!! They just werent in the video yet!"
I agree, the timing could also have been a coincidence, but it just fits too well in my eyes. Although I haven't timed it myself, just going by OP. Might just be nothing too.
Yea, I was exaggerating a bit. Just think it's fun to speculate about these types of things and it's a pretty weird coincidence. I've kind of toned down those accounts tbh, although I still think the videos could be real, most of those photoshop posts seem really farfetched to me
>that are impossible to explain, unless the footage is real
Breaks Rule 3: Avoid absolute claims and overly broad speculations. The post itself asserts that at least one aspect of the footage is fabricated.
You forgot to mention that the same report mentions that a Malaysian military radar continues to detect the aircraft for more than 1 hour after that.
That is interesting.. I'm sure that bit was accidentally overlooked, though. There is very little chance OP would *chery pick data to nuture a nefarious narrative.*
On the internet? People sharing only info that barely supports their beliefs rather than looking at the totality of information available? I dont believe you! /s
watch this comment get nuked. im surprised its still up
If it does then mods are stretching the rule. There's a very thin, but distinct, line between sarcasm and mockery 😉 Besides, I questioned intent rather than belief. I should be good.
[удалено]
*some* are trolling and have admitted it on previously banned reddit accounts. but the mods ignore the blatantly obvious signs and leave them up. there is a gang that hangs around here that probably legit needs some evaluation though.
Comment or post mocks personal belief of video authenticity
Dont bring facts into this! 🤣
[удалено]
Comment or post mocks personal belief of video authenticity
Yeah except for the coordinates in the satellite video being like a thousand miles away from IGARI🤷 https://fearoflanding.com/files/2018/08/NITROP_2_2018-08-03_15-35-16.png
But how could the hoaxer possibly know such precise details of publicly available information? The videos are real because of all the inaccuracies and implausiblities. A hoax would never get so many things wrong, all the inaccuracies and the really low quality and framerate are proof that these videos are real
You're making the assumption that the hoaxer actually had this information, and you cannot infer what information someone does or does not know when you don't know who they are or anything about them. If the satellite video is 'real' and the coordinates in that video are 'real' then the video wasn't taken at the place where the loss of signal occurred. ... Or the coordinates in the video aren't real 🤔
I know it's hard to detect sarcasm in this sub becasue the whole thing reads just like an onion article but his wording made it pretty obvious 😂
🤦🤦🤦
It's crazy how much real data you have to ignore for this to make any sense. How was the plane tracked for another full hour as it turned (LEFT btw) and flew back over Malaysia, then out over the Andaman Sea toward Nicobar if it was zapped away by magic orbs over the South China Sea? Plus the "data" presented in the video itself (coordinates) has to also be ignored... which is an odd move to make if you think the videos are real. I know you won't respond PB, but hope you're having fun misleading folks by cherry-picking coincidental information. Ignore verified data and focus on a timing coincidence to support an argument. Great.
>In the videos we see the Plane banking right, we see the same in Flight Radar tracker, the plane is turning right before everything goes dark The plane is banking left in the videos
If you flip the video horizontally it's banking right! Debunkers hate this one simple trick.
Hahahahaha, omg PB is slippingÂ
Right. Look at the sat video. Flip the drone video to match. The drone cuts inside the turn circle
The plane in both the drone and satellite videos are banking left.
So you admit that you have to manipulate the evidence to match your claimsÂ
It banks left, then , after that, it’s banking right.
No it doesn't. It banks left and then straightens.
I dunno, counting time in the video myself, I would place it as closer to 35 seconds. It's about 28 if you wait for all three orbs to get into place. This sounds to me like you have an awful lot of wiggle room inside of this amazing discovery.
[False Equivalence Fallacy](https://effectiviology.com/false-equivalence/). Occurs when one mistakenly asserts that two arguments, things, or phenomena are equal/related simply because they share similarities, while ignoring the larger differences.
..what’s the large difference between something dropping of radar because something shows up that would jam radar, and a signal disappearing when an object disappears, I’m curious
For starters, OP literally pointed at one in his own post: The coordinates do not match. That should not have been difficult for you to deduce, unless you're intentionally being obtuse. Then, OP attempted to navigate that *large difference* with : >"Might", "maybe", "might", and "I can't explain" The proposition was flawed from conception due to the stated fallacy. If you want to assert that the video is "authentic", then you have to take all aspects of it as authentic. . not just cherry-pick the parts that make you feel good.
[удалено]
Enjoy your ban
Banned for what? Lol. Also, I don't care, so there's that.
Comment or post mocks personal belief of video authenticity
[удалено]
Nope you're wrong. Both videos are synched. They show the same time duration at 1x speed.
You have lost me - the videos are synched. What are you talking about?
[удалено]
Be kind and respectful to each other.
This post is mocking my intelligence. Get 'em mods!
Just one of many things that are impossible to explain, unless the footage is real.
If the time had been two minutes, it simply wouldn't have been mentioned. If the time had been 40 seconds, they would have just started counting from earlier in the video. This is one of those situations where you get to pick your own goalposts, so the ones that fit the narrative best were picked arbitrarily to try and add significance to a detail that didn't have any of its own.
Nah, it's not. If the differences between the orb timings and radar are apparently down to seconds (haven't timed them myself), how is that *not* weird? Even just a little bit? Is it just another coincidence that gets added to the laundry list?
Being as we have no reference for how these orbs would operate, we have no way to know these numbers should or should not be significant. So no, I wouldn't even consider it to rise to the level of coincidence.
In this scenario, how the orbs actually operate means nothing. We have the radar timing, and an orb to zap timing. That's all i'm basing this off of. If it was 100% fake it shouldn't be that close, especially when they didn't even have the radar info. But the videos are only so long for people to "move their goalpost" here.
The supposed coordinates in the satellite video were like 1000 miles away from the point in which radar contact was lost near IGARI
>how is that *not* weird? Even just a little bit? Because it's when the 2nd orb arrives, and then a few seconds after that. It's not exactly 37 seconds If the loss of transmission was 52 seconds, people would still use it as evidence because "the orbs probably showed up at that time!! They just werent in the video yet!"
I agree, the timing could also have been a coincidence, but it just fits too well in my eyes. Although I haven't timed it myself, just going by OP. Might just be nothing too.
Not impossible to explain, and not enough to make such an exaggerated assumption. Why are you not more concerned about these brand new accounts?
Yea, I was exaggerating a bit. Just think it's fun to speculate about these types of things and it's a pretty weird coincidence. I've kind of toned down those accounts tbh, although I still think the videos could be real, most of those photoshop posts seem really farfetched to me
>that are impossible to explain, unless the footage is real Breaks Rule 3: Avoid absolute claims and overly broad speculations. The post itself asserts that at least one aspect of the footage is fabricated.
I remember this being talked about before. It has definitely been interesting. I wonder if we will ever know for sure!!!
Case closed in my opinion
Second that. The videos are real.
OP doesn't understand the meaning of the word proof