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.

 

Satellite images show clearly that Russia faked its MH17 report

page: 7
22
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2015 @ 03:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Flatcoat




Are you guys really so confident in your own infallability that anyone who disagrees with you must be a russian shill? Just so you know, I disagree with most of what you post as well....so am I a shill?


Did I say anyone was a shill...NO.

So don't put words in my mouth, because if I am going to call someone a shill I will.




posted on Jun, 3 2015 @ 03:06 AM
link   
a reply to: AVoiceOfReason




The video states that it is no longer in use in Russia....


No it said it was no longer produced in Russia...it didn't say it wasn't used, there is a difference.



the point of the video is that the debunking was lazy and really isnt conclusive of anything.


And neither is the video.



But go ahead and go on a tangent amount a bunch of irrelevant information.


So if your video is a bunch of irrelevant information why post it?



posted on Jun, 3 2015 @ 03:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

I fail to see the relevance. Could have swore we were speaking about the so called debunking of Russians satellite images. So watch the video I posted. And if you have some objections about it then let me know. I could really care less about the "he said she said" spiel.



posted on Jun, 3 2015 @ 03:15 AM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

"this exact missile is no longer in use in Russia". Word for word what was stated in the video.

And yeah buddy the video just proved the debunkers used bad science to come to a conclusion through an example. But you got a bias to protect so ill just let you have this one.

I posted the video because it refutes the debunking. The thing I thought this thread is about. I'm not talking about what politicians or missile manufacturers are saying.



posted on Jun, 3 2015 @ 06:49 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 3 2015 @ 08:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Britguy
there is no evidence of Russia's involvement or support in the shooting down of the aircraft.


Any credibility you could have claimed to have is shot to hell right there.
Did you type that with a straight face?



posted on Jun, 3 2015 @ 09:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Rocker2013

Whats the evidence?



posted on Jun, 3 2015 @ 10:01 PM
link   
The only conclusive point in that video is that a "russian blogger" can use photo shop better than what ever russian official it was that made up the ones in question.

It says the blogger photo shopped an image that would not show the 4 inconsistencies that bellingcat found but did not refute the fact that bellingcat did find 4 inconsistencies.



posted on Jun, 3 2015 @ 10:46 PM
link   
a reply to: AlphaStrike1001

Bellingcat CLAIMED he found inconsistencies.

And even then its pretty clear that whatever method he used was not at all reliable. If its not reliable then what good is it?

edit on 3-6-2015 by AVoiceOfReason because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2015 @ 11:30 PM
link   
But once more the visual inconsistencies are not refuted in the video you post and any of the posts here.

In your video the "russian blogger" simply Photoshop a different image that does not show the inconsistencies bellingcat points out in the russian sat images.

All that shows is that the "russian blogger" is a better counterfeit than who ever in the russian government that made the sat images
It does not refute that the inconsistencies pointed out can be explained in a way that refutes bellingcats findings.



posted on Jun, 3 2015 @ 11:36 PM
link   
a reply to: AlphaStrike1001

The point once again is that Bellingham used a method that is not reliable. So these inconsistencies might not be inconsistencies at all. They are only proclaimed to be inconsistencies.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 12:14 AM
link   
a reply to: AVoiceOfReason

How is the method bellingcat used unreliable if you don't even know what method was used?


edit on 4-6-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 12:17 AM
link   
report a reply to: AVoiceOfReason

The most compelling evidence such as terrain features and seasonal vegetation changes when compared with google earth images shows that the Russian satellite dates were faked.

I do not understand what part of that method of visual inspection and comparison do you have a problem with.

"The difference in the error levels between areas D and C cannot be explained by the image’s content. While error level differences may be caused by blurry image content, the clouds on the right side are sharply defined structures, so the error levels should not exhibit any significant deviations from the central part of the image in this field."

I am not very familiar with error level analysis, but the video based on wedding photo with totally different characteristics seems to be yet another red herring.

Maybe you know a lot about ELA can can explain how a wedding photo can compare to sat images?

I find the method of using a totally different image and different photoshopping more likely to be a deflection than valid argument.
edit on 4-6-2015 by AlphaStrike1001 because: shorten quote from bellingcat report a reply to: AVoiceOfReason The most compelling evidence such as terrain features and seasonal vegetation changes when compared with google earth images shows that the Russian satellite dates were faked. I do not understand what part of that method of visual inspection and comparison do you have a problem with. "The difference in the error levels between areas D and C cannot be explained by the image’s content. While error level differences may be caused by blurry image content, the clouds on the right side are sharply defined structures, so the error levels should not exhibit any significant deviations from the central part of the image in this field." I am not very familiar with error level analysis, but the video based on wedding photo with totally different characteristics seems to be yet another red herring. Maybe you know a lot about ELA can can explain how a wedding photo can compare to sat images? I find the method of using a totally different image and different photoshopping more likely to be a deflection than valid argument.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 12:26 AM
link   
a reply to: AlphaStrike1001

The validity of the method is in question. The method is shown to be unreliable.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 12:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Because it was reproduced and shown to be unreliable. I really don't know how many more times I can repeat this.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 12:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: AVoiceOfReason
a reply to: Xcathdra

Because it was reproduced and shown to be unreliable. I really don't know how many more times I can repeat this.



You cant tell us why its flawed. You are just repeating something, like you accuse others on the other side of the fence.

Which version of events that Russia has put out would you like us to believe?



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 12:32 AM
link   
a reply to: AlphaStrike1001

If I debunk something using a certain method and then someone uses that same method to prove that something false is legitimate what do you call that? I call that an unreliable method. Image analysis can prove all kinds of bull# to be true when in fact it is false, lets take Billy meiers weeding cake UFO for instance. Clearly made from a trash can lid, but after a bunch of none sense its a 10 foot long craft hovering above the ground.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 12:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

I can tell you why its flawed. It was used and proven to be unreliable.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 12:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

And I would like you to believe whatever fills your soul with happy feelings. Cuz I care about you like that.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 12:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: AVoiceOfReason
a reply to: Xcathdra

I can tell you why its flawed. It was used and proven to be unreliable.



As was the Russian investigation results.

I will ask again since you ignored it.. What version of the Russian story are we to take as fact?



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join