Satellite images show clearly that Russia faked its MH17 report

a reply to: Xcathdra

What fact? We still don't know who it is that shot that plane down.

originally posted by: AVoiceOfReason
a reply to: Xcathdra

What fact? We still don't know who it is that shot that plane down.

Which version of the Russian position would you like us to believe?

originally posted by: AVoiceOfReason
a reply to: AlphaStrike1001

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

Non sequiltur.

What method are you calling into question?

My first point is that "terrain features and seasonal vegetation changes when compared with google earth images shows that the Russian satellite dates were faked."

What exactly is the method there you question?

"I find the method of using a totally different image and different photoshopping more likely to be a deflection than valid argument. "

So unless you can explain how a wedding photo and the sat image are a valid error level comparison you really have no reason to question bellingcats method there

Unless you can explain errol level analysis of points C and D in a comparison of of the wedding photo the method is not in question.

a reply to: AlphaStrike1001

No dude its literally as sequitur as it can be. The method was used again and it proved to be unreliable.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I don't want you to believe anything bro.

a reply to: AlphaStrike1001

He cant tell you why the method is flawed because he cant explain the method. The method must be flawed in order to debunk bellingcats conclusions in order to justify the Russian position.

Ive asked several questions that he refuses to answer, which tells me all we need to know on what the intent behind the post is. Repeat as often as possible the method is flawed while ignoring the requests as to explain why. Ignore questions that require a specific answer while responding in gibberish to drag out the conversation, bury the relevant info under pages of useless nonsense, while dragging the thread off topic.

The bellingcat investigation is valid and the methods used are valid and reproducible by others looking at it. I have asked several times now which Russian version he wants us to believe, since they have released about 5 different theories, all fact and all true, depending on their mood with no response.

originally posted by: AVoiceOfReason
a reply to: Xcathdra

I don't want you to believe anything bro.

Case in point and proof of what I was saying.

a reply to: Xcathdra

No I'm literally just pointing out that the method was used again and proved to be unreliable.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: AVoiceOfReason
a reply to: Xcathdra

I don't want you to believe anything bro.

Case in point and proof of what I was saying.

Lol you've gotten really look with your replies since I was on here last. What exactly were you saying?

a reply to: AVoiceOfReason

and yet you cant explain what method was used and why its not reliable.

a reply to: Xcathdra

You mean the method that shows inconsistencies in an image that is clearly unreliable?


Because it didn't show inconsistencies in an image that was clearly shopped. So not very reliable is it?

originally posted by: AVoiceOfReason
a reply to: Xcathdra

You mean the method that shows inconsistencies in an image that is clearly unreliable?

Yes the Russian images and explanation along with them are unreliable. just as their images of an aircraft shooting down MH17 with a missile were also unreliable... and doctored.

Russia seems to have a history of fabricating information to support their false narrative. Repeating bellingcats investigation is flawed without being able to explain why doesn't support your position.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Whoa. Good one.

originally posted by: AVoiceOfReason
a reply to: AlphaStrike1001

No dude its literally as sequitur as it can be. The method was used again and it proved to be unreliable.

There are several methods used and i am pointing out two in particular.

One is the method of comparing the sat image to the google earth image.

The other is the method of ELA.
If you are trying to question the method of error level analysis you must explain how the wedding photo is a valid comparison. If you question bellingcat's method of ELA you must explain error level discrepancies of the points C and D.

So i ask for the third and last time, what method and if you want to cite ELA please explain.

a reply to: AlphaStrike1001

What difference does it make what image was used for comparison? If it isn't reliable in the wedding picture then what exactly is it that makes it reliable in the satellite image? If its reliable it should be reliable anywhere right? Or has the mending if what is or isn't reliable different all the sudden?

originally posted by: AVoiceOfReason
a reply to: AlphaStrike1001

Ok, so you do not refute the fact that russia faked the dates of the sat images.(that was the method of using google earth

It matters because i am not going to take a "russian bolgger"s word for it.

The belingcat report doesn't claim the ELA is the smoking gun, they present it in probabilistic terms and the way that video tries to debunk it only shows a misunderstanding.

It is saying that some original parts of the wedding image have a bright value while it expects the un-edited parts to be dark. This is not really how it works, an original image can have lots of error values and areas with continuous colors will start rather dark because they are easy to compress, so they have little compression errors.
However, as you save the image over and over it gets more and more smudged so the error values of the entire image will fade to black. Now if you add a new part to the image, then the added element will stick out in the error analysis because it has not yet been smudged as much as the rest. If you check the Bellingcat report you will find that this is what happens with the military vehicles in that image, which suggests that they were edited later.
Hence my questions about parts C and D. Even if you can answer these questions you will still have not proved that these sat images are the real deal.

a reply to: AlphaStrike1001

I don't know if Russia faked the dates. Why are you asking me about that?

You won't take the russian bloggers word for it and I'm not going to take bellingcats word for it. You can form your own opinions on whatever you want. My opinion is that the debunk is bunk. Its not a professional opinion but its my opinion. If you got a problem with rt's debunking of the debunking then please go make a thread about it and ill be glad to check it out.

a reply to: AVoiceOfReason

Basically your argument is that you do not understand any of my posts and do not understand how your video refutes the bellingcat report on faked sat images.

You do not have to take bellingcats word for it. Just analyze the data presented in it. I looked at the video you posted and my conclusion based on its lack of evidence/data sets brings concerning questions about its lack of details.
After all the proof is in the details and your video on the bellingcat report lacks even basic details.

The argument in the video does not even try to refute or even address the comparison of google earth bellingcat uses to prove that the date on the sat images was faked.

Although i have refuted your video, it does not need its own thread because it is about this topic.
You could have just said you do not care what the facts are or what evidence is presented because you will not believe the sat images were faked.

a reply to: AlphaStrike1001

You misunderstand, I don't care either way. I don't know who is faking and who isn't. Americas sattalite images were "debunked" too. Someone claimed they used wrong dates, they even backed it up with "proof". Do I believe them? No! And neither should anyone because its not good science. image analysis is not a good indicator of jack #. I don't have to understand it to know that through the stream of time its been used to wrongly prove or falsify things. And it usually sounds pretty legit. But it isn't.

a reply to: AVoiceOfReason

if you didn't care you would not have wasted the last few pages trying to argue a non point.

bellingcat has made its research open and transparent where as Russia has been caught lying since the start.

A BUK missile brought down MH17 and it came from rebel controlled / Russian controlled territory.
Pro Russian rebels in fact claimed credit on social media for bringing down what they thought was a military aircraft.
Russian media has show the pro Russian rebels / Russian forces with BUK launchers that they "captured" from Ukraine.
There are recorded phone calls of the rebels and Russian armed forces discussing their actions.