by Demosophist » Fri Dec 01, 2023 1:47 am
If I could post images to this forum, that’s what I’d do right now in order to demonstrate to folks just how much you are grasping for straws. Anyone can look at the comparison of the portal and VFX footage at 0.59 seconds in the video I posted (
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMu187Et1qc) and see that there are numerous details in the 60 degree arc of the explosion shown in the MH370 video that match the stock footage EXACTLY. The odds against that are ASTRONOMICAL.
Anyone can tell that the match is not exact. The peaks and valleys are more or less in the same place, which is a phenomenon called correlation and the correlation on that characteristic is high... but it isn't 1. The amplitude of the wave and the periodicity are also not exact, and in fact are probably less than .5 so you're reading exactitude into the data, which is a perceptual effect. Finally, you can't compute the odds because your starting point is the denial of a common pattern. You're starting from the assumption that the pattern is random when it clearly isn't, any more than the patterns that Peratt studied are random. Other comments you make along this line have the same flaw.
https://twitter.com/level39/status/1728766051389964746
Nice try but there isn’t ONE image in this video where the pattern “matches”, much less “exactly matches”, the 60 degree arc already pointed out for comparison. Their BEST comparison is between claimed Royal Astronomical Society data (notice that they don't actually give a source you can check) and a different 60 degree arc in the MH370 video … one that has much less pronounced details (call them wiggles) than the first 60 degree arc ... and therefore would be much easier to match, if they could.
I would never have thought that perception could play such a large role as it does in this case. The Astronomical Society match looks pretty
exact to me. You appear to be saying that the person who documents commonality among Taylor-Fared [Note: I mean Taylor-Sedov, haha.] patterns is somehow lying about it? I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree about that.
And remember, we're not trying to get an
exact match. That's hyperbole. What we're saying is that there is a commonality of instability patterns making it easy to find a match that
looks exact within the parameter of human perception.
I also notice that you didn’t address the meaning of the letters and numbers at the bottom of the image in the original MH370 video that certainly suggest the video is a complete fake,
The frame with the numbers cuts them off at the midpoint, which appears to cause many people to read a "2" as a "3" but there is enough of the image showing that it clearly is a "2" if you look closely. But if you think otherwise, we'll have to agree to disagree about that too. Anyway, this is also "rebunked" pretty thoroughly an Ashton's site. Note the two numbers on the left that can be misread as "33" but are, in fact "22," so is referencing the NROL-22 satellite, not NROL-33.
Again, I'm amazed at what people claim they see in relation to this controversy. They tend to read "intent" into everything, without bothering about other facts and how they're related. There is clearly something going on here that breaks with common assumptions about physics. I have my own ideas about what it is, but I'll leave you to yours. There is no great urgency to leap to a conclusion.
[Update: Having said all that, I suppose it's possible that the video
could have been faked, if you ignore the timeline which would make it very unlikely. But if the physics paradigm was broken by 2014 as is claimed by Ashton, et al, then it's certainly possible that there were image editing capabilities that, in theory, could have faked it. What I'm saying is that the certainty that people have that it's fake is unjustified.]
[quote]If I could post images to this forum, that’s what I’d do right now in order to demonstrate to folks just how much you are grasping for straws. Anyone can look at the comparison of the portal and VFX footage at 0.59 seconds in the video I posted (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMu187Et1qc) and see that there are numerous details in the 60 degree arc of the explosion shown in the MH370 video that match the stock footage EXACTLY. The odds against that are ASTRONOMICAL.[/quote]
Anyone can tell that the match is not exact. The peaks and valleys are more or less in the same place, which is a phenomenon called correlation and the correlation on that characteristic is high... but it isn't 1. The amplitude of the wave and the periodicity are also not exact, and in fact are probably less than .5 so you're reading exactitude into the data, which is a perceptual effect. Finally, you can't compute the odds because your starting point is the denial of a common pattern. You're starting from the assumption that the pattern is random when it clearly isn't, any more than the patterns that Peratt studied are random. Other comments you make along this line have the same flaw.
[quote]https://twitter.com/level39/status/1728766051389964746
Nice try but there isn’t ONE image in this video where the pattern “matches”, much less “exactly matches”, the 60 degree arc already pointed out for comparison. Their BEST comparison is between claimed Royal Astronomical Society data (notice that they don't actually give a source you can check) and a different 60 degree arc in the MH370 video … one that has much less pronounced details (call them wiggles) than the first 60 degree arc ... and therefore would be much easier to match, if they could.[/quote]
I would never have thought that perception could play such a large role as it does in this case. The Astronomical Society match looks pretty [i]exact[/i] to me. You appear to be saying that the person who documents commonality among Taylor-Fared [Note: I mean Taylor-Sedov, haha.] patterns is somehow lying about it? I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree about that.
[img]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53366551417_8282d6d5ac_b.jpg[/img]
And remember, we're not trying to get an [i]exact match[/i]. That's hyperbole. What we're saying is that there is a commonality of instability patterns making it easy to find a match that [i]looks exact[/i] within the parameter of human perception.
[quote]I also notice that you didn’t address the meaning of the letters and numbers at the bottom of the image in the original MH370 video that certainly suggest the video is a complete fake,[/quote]
The frame with the numbers cuts them off at the midpoint, which appears to cause many people to read a "2" as a "3" but there is enough of the image showing that it clearly is a "2" if you look closely. But if you think otherwise, we'll have to agree to disagree about that too. Anyway, this is also "rebunked" pretty thoroughly an Ashton's site. Note the two numbers on the left that can be misread as "33" but are, in fact "22," so is referencing the NROL-22 satellite, not NROL-33.
[img]https://preview.redd.it/l1j1vznq3jhb1.png?width=1920&format=png&auto=webp&s=885f9eb0c35f34fcf7354bdd58a1f16b2652041b[/img]
Again, I'm amazed at what people claim they see in relation to this controversy. They tend to read "intent" into everything, without bothering about other facts and how they're related. There is clearly something going on here that breaks with common assumptions about physics. I have my own ideas about what it is, but I'll leave you to yours. There is no great urgency to leap to a conclusion.
[Update: Having said all that, I suppose it's possible that the video [I]could have been[/I] faked, if you ignore the timeline which would make it very unlikely. But if the physics paradigm was broken by 2014 as is claimed by Ashton, et al, then it's certainly possible that there were image editing capabilities that, in theory, could have faked it. What I'm saying is that the certainty that people have that it's fake is unjustified.]