It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Tomnod.com Sighting .... Wtf is this plane doing here? Could this be Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 ?

page: 14
120
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 01:38 PM
link   

DrMescalito

championoftruth

parad0x122
reply to post by UberL33t
 


I'm curious of that too, I can't tell if this thing is flying or somehow just..parked in the woods? If the latter...how the F is that even possible without disturbing the surrounding area?





It's fake.A moving plane at 300 to 500 mpg would generate smear or be fuzzy due to motion.this is sharp.

photoshopped.

sad people.attention seekers.


You know what is sadder, computer illiterate people like yourself who couldn't
have spent all of a few minutes to see not only is it NOT fake, people have determined

where it is,
What it is not,
and what it probably is.

The image is 100% legit from TOMNOD.

The idiocy in your post is astounding,


eply to post by parad0x122


The image in this shot is of a plane that is approx. 100 feet long. Flight MH370 is a boeing 777 and is just under 250 feet long.

That just proves the picture is fake or some other plane because it is the wrong size.




posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 01:43 PM
link   

parad0x122
reply to post by championoftruth
 

Okay, than explain this to me: How does a photoshopped image end up in a satellite imagery database that anyone on the internet can log into and see? The images I posted can be verified by logging into the sight yourself, and navigating to that map.

You would've known this had you read the thread.


You said TONMOD is down.How very convenient.

A moving image generates motion blur but this one looks static.

Even human runners on a race track genberate a motion blur at 30 miles an a hour yet a a plane moving at 300 to 500 mpg generates no motion blur and yet you claim the exposure time is short but if is so short how can it take a BRIGHT picture.eh?

Someone else said the plane is 100 metres short of the 250 metres 777 size.

So lack of motion blur and short size proves that it is fake.



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 01:52 PM
link   

championoftruth
Even human runners on a race track genberate a motion blur at 30 miles an a hour


Have you ever owned a camera?

Or have any experience with one?

Two variables ...

1. shutter speed or exposure time

2. the relative speed of movement across the camera's field of view (not its actual speed - whatever that means)

You have no idea what you're talking about ...


edit on 3/19/14 by SherlockH because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/19/14 by SherlockH because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 02:50 PM
link   

championoftruth
It's fake.photoshopped.

Thanks championoftruth...

I shudder to think WHERE we would be without you...


"It's genius, I tell ya! Pure genius!" ~ Jackie Gleason



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by championoftruth
 


Google Earth is littered with planes in flight:



The only problem I have with this topic, is the fact that the supposed satellite image was taken around 4 AM. It should be really dark, and impossible to see the jet at 4 AM. I don't think the time is correct. Especially with a very fast shutter speed to remove motion blur (the satellite is moving so it needs to have a fast shutter), it should be even darker.



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by championoftruth
 


Okay, just because you're being persistently stubborn, I will attempt to break this down for you. So we'll start with:


championoftruth

You said TONMOD is down.How very convenient.

I said that at the time Tomnod (notice the spelling?) was experiencing high traffic and wasn't loading quickly/at all. Somehow, you've managed to log onto the internet and use this forum, so I can readily assume that you at least know how to turn a computer on. Traffic passing through a web server (or in this specific case, the crowds of people searching for the plane through Tomnod) can easily cause pretty much any server to lag/slow/crash given the right amount of people attempting to access it. This is the nature of networking, a well known fact.


championoftruth
A moving image generates motion blur but this one looks static.

Where to begin on this one...first off, I'm assuming you mean an image of something in motion, not a moving image. (A moving image is what most would call: a movie.) IF this is the case, you're still only partially correct than. If you are taking a picture of something that is literally moving faster than the camera's lens is capable of completing a shutter cycle, then yes motion blur can occur. However when the shutter speed and aperture (amount of light let into the camera during a shutter cycle) are compensated for this motion, MAGIC TIME: you now have clear images of objects mid-motion. This can also be referred to as a "freeze frame".

Now onto the next blunder...

championoftruth
Even human runners on a race track genberate a motion blur at 30 miles an a hour yet a a plane moving at 300 to 500 mpg generates no motion blur and yet you claim the exposure time is short but if is so short how can it take a BRIGHT picture.eh?

Okay, so aside from the atrocious spelling and severe over-exaggeration of the physical capabilities of an average human runner (the world's fastest runner ever documented was 28mph), this one is pretty closely related to the answer above....
except I have no idea how anything is capable of moving in a unit of miles per gallon....

Regardless, I have to make the assumption that you may have meant MPH, or miles/hour, or miles per hour. Anyway, the answer to this one is pretty basic: this is possible through taking the picture with an incredibly high-powered, advanced satellite. Ironically, or shall I say "conveniently", these are on the list of adjectives one could use to describe the satellite systems that Tomnod.com employs for creating the images used on their site.



championoftruth
So lack of motion blur and short size proves that it is fake.


So... lack of knowledge proves that you have no valid argument.


*microphone drop*

edit on 19-3-2014 by parad0x122 because: added reply to tag.



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 03:35 PM
link   

parad0x122
reply to post by championoftruth
 


Okay, just because you're being persistently stubborn, I will attempt to break this down for you. So we'll start with:


championoftruth

You said TONMOD is down.How very convenient.

I said that at the time Tomnod (notice the spelling?) was experiencing high traffic and wasn't loading quickly/at all. Somehow, you've managed to log onto the internet and use this forum, so I can readily assume that you at least know how to turn a computer on. Traffic passing through a web server (or in this specific case, the crowds of people searching for the plane through Tomnod) can easily cause pretty much any server to lag/slow/crash given the right amount of people attempting to access it. This is the nature of networking, a well known fact.


championoftruth
A moving image generates motion blur but this one looks static.

Where to begin on this one...first off, I'm assuming you mean an image of something in motion, not a moving image. (A moving image is what most would call: a movie.) IF this is the case, you're still only partially correct than. If you are taking a picture of something that is literally moving faster than the camera's lens is capable of completing a shutter cycle, then yes motion blur can occur. However when the shutter speed and aperture (amount of light let into the camera during a shutter cycle) are compensated for this motion, MAGIC TIME: you now have clear images of objects mid-motion. This can also be referred to as a "freeze frame".

Now onto the next blunder...

championoftruth
Even human runners on a race track genberate a motion blur at 30 miles an a hour yet a a plane moving at 300 to 500 mpg generates no motion blur and yet you claim the exposure time is short but if is so short how can it take a BRIGHT picture.eh?

Okay, so aside from the atrocious spelling and severe over-exaggeration of the physical capabilities of an average human runner (the world's fastest runner ever documented was 28mph), this one is pretty closely related to the answer above....
except I have no idea how anything is capable of moving in a unit of miles per gallon....

Regardless, I have to make the assumption that you may have meant MPH, or miles/hour, or miles per hour. Anyway, the answer to this one is pretty basic: this is possible through taking the picture with an incredibly high-powered, advanced satellite. Ironically, or shall I say "conveniently", these are on the list of adjectives one could use to describe the satellite systems that Tomnod.com employs for creating the images used on their site.



championoftruth
So lack of motion blur and short size proves that it is fake.


So... lack of knowledge proves that you have no valid argument.


*microphone drop*

edit on 19-3-2014 by parad0x122 because: added reply to tag.



Well also anothor poster above said that the satellite is also moving thousands of miles a hour and now you say high speed eliminates it but the image is bright and get this there is NO shadow cast. A large plane casts shadows as shown in google earth video above and you have not explained the missing 100 metre of plane as another poster above said.

All in all this proves that is not the missing plane and you are mistaken or anmoured of a pet theory which you are unwilling to let go.Just admit it you are wrong.You will sleep better tonight.



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 03:45 PM
link   
Since the image was taken bv satellite, every object in the field of view will be in focus because the depth of field is high. This is why high altitude clouds AND the ground are in focus in these types of shots. The plane could be flying at 38000 feet but because of the depth of field would appear to be flying at treetop level.. if that were true though, then the plane's shadow would be clearly visible against the trees. Based on the time of day and the existing shadows, there should be a shadow next to the plane at some short distance if it is quite low... I cant see it in the attached images but it is hard to see shadows in jungle canopies anyway.
Just my thoughts...

-Marc Dantonio



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by championoftruth
 


I never said I though it was MH370..I said COULD THIS BE. It's stated in the title for crying out loud! I've agreed multiple times with multiple people on this thread that there's no way this is the plane but... yeah.... You clearly don't do much reading of threads, as much as you attempt to troll them.



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by fxmodels
 


Well put! Thanks for the additional explanation of depth of field too.
Even though the chances of certain "contributors" on here understanding what you said are slim to none.



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 04:30 PM
link   

kuraijanai2013
reply to post by amkia
 


My guess would be that we are looking at the plane belly up with no engines and the mist is smoke from a crash?


Really?
Pretty sad/ridiculous "guess".
The plane is obviously in the air and not crashed or landed.
You think a plane is just going to crash land upside down, fully intact, and just be "smoking"?
Just


Nice find Parad0x!

edit on 19-3-2014 by Ahmose because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 05:16 PM
link   

championoftruth

parad0x122
reply to post by UberL33t
 


I'm curious of that too, I can't tell if this thing is flying or somehow just..parked in the woods? If the latter...how the F is that even possible without disturbing the surrounding area?





It's fake.A moving plane at 300 to 500 mpg would generate smear or be fuzzy due to motion.this is sharp.

photoshopped.

sad people.attention seekers.


Of all the thickheaded people in this thread...
I think you win!
You can't insert a photoshopped image onto a map on Tomnod.com
ANYONE can go to the same site and see the same image in the exact same location.
I have it up now in another tab.
What is your malfunction? Don't like to read? Can't comprehend? Just plain braindead? What?
But anyway, Congrats on winning the "Thickhead of the Thread" award.



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by WeAre0ne
 


Yeah it looks a lot like these planes and it's current heading and location in relation to the airport northeast of it suggests it is on approach. Thanks to Google Earth I think we can see this for what it is, a plane that is landing.

Besides does anyone really think if a plane that crashed in the forest it would look like it was perfectly nestled down? No, there would be downed trees, a debris trail and most likely a torn up fuselage.



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 06:23 PM
link   
Why is this thread still alive!?

Was a interesting lead, thx OP.

But we established its not the plane (size and shape and all).



Why are ppl saying its faked!?
Its not fake... Its just the wrong plane.

End of story.

Am I missing something here?



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Is the photo for real?Can anyone tell if that's the right make?Can anyone tell for sure if that's THE missing plane?Would be amazing if its the actual plane but there's too many ifs.And what's become of the passengers?200 plus people aren't easily hidden either.



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by parad0x122
 


Interesting picture of a large airplane in an odd location. This is not the missing plane that is in the news this week.

Notice the outline of the wing, specifically the trailing edge. The plane we are looking for has a distinct change at a distance of around 20 % of the distance from the fuselage to the wing tip. The picture is a different model aircraft.



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 10:07 PM
link   
What is the update on this?



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 10:17 PM
link   

DrumStickNinja
reply to post by WeAre0ne
 


Yeah it looks a lot like these planes and it's current heading and location in relation to the airport northeast of it suggests it is on approach. Thanks to Google Earth I think we can see this for what it is, a plane that is landing.

Besides does anyone really think if a plane that crashed in the forest it would look like it was perfectly nestled down? No, there would be downed trees, a debris trail and most likely a torn up fuselage.


They weren't speculating it was a crashed plane in the first place...



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 10:20 PM
link   
"OMG" why sign up to a forum if you can't read 13 pages and imprint it into your brain.

Yes its not the plane but was interesting.

its a320 airbus now leave it at that and move on instead of sinking the answer again.



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 10:45 PM
link   
Where can we call if we have a possible sighting regarding Flt 370? I posted here about coordinates I found a few days ago and tonight I just found what appears to be a debris field nearby those coordinates. I have called my local station here on Long Island ( NY), tried CNN tips line but all they do is put me through to 'comment' line......I am trying desperately to relay this information. The image I had on my satellite pic from Monday, shows the correct shape of the 777. I can zoom in enough to see the metal on the engines but not the name on the plane. I assume the image was taken shortly before the possible crash. I have been trying to get this info to someone for 5 days now.
If anyone knows who to call, please help.
Thank you,
Linda



new topics




 
120
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join