This does explain a lot of weird things that go on in commercial and general aviation as "observed" in the "news." We have dived into the abyss of AI faked-everything. The Alice in Wonderland adventure of what's actually real. Also, tried-and-true bigger the lie the more anyone appears crazy challenging it. For example, what popular YouTuber who covers aviation is willing after verifying at least some of these fakeries? to then make the claim it's all smoked-videos-and-mirrors?
Unless with five physical senses you truly witness an event––intuition now demands question everything, especially when disseminated by The Beast system. Not a pessimistic way to approach Life, just where humanity currently is on its evolving spiritual path.
One of the reasons for these vile fake crash reports is for the cockroach cruelites to keep people in a regular state of exhaustion, stress, and fear, to lower our innate tendency toward a mostly positive mindset, to weaken our immune system strength, to attack us in innumerable ways so we shut up and shut down, throw our money away on illusory causes, among other actions. They will never again dupe the awakened, protected, and activated like dear, wise Petra and increasing ranks of thinkers like us, the readers here. We know better and we shall rise above and win. It had sure as heck better happen soon, the mass reckoning. Thank you for your continued fine work, Petra.
Motive is not my strong point. Discouraging regular people from air travel doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Why would airlines agree to that? But who knows?
Maybe there's the reverse psychology effect of encouraging them. After all, their Revelation of the Method technique seems to only make them believe their nonsense more.
Airlines seem to have a hard time with increasing fuel prices and plans to close a lot of the public airports by 2030 that I read about. I didn't intend to say that airlines themselves want to encourage fear of flying. But they might comply with psyops that do make people afraid of flying, which would help with making people less mobile, which seems to be one rather important objective in Agenda 2030, furthered in more than one way.
Yep, you're spot on. We could definitely say its to scare people and keep them from moving around. I've come to look at these things differently. The purpose might be simply to give them people something to be scared about and something to hold people's attention. Simply "tension" and that itself is a strategy: https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/the-definition-of-strategy-of-tension
Airliner "crashes" are for different reasons. 911 served many purposes, all for THE N(j)ew World Order. 1: It was blamed on Muslims. 2: It put the masses that fly under much greater surveillance. 3: Insurance companines paid the owners of 3 buildings GR8 $$$. 4: Put useless people to work at taxpayers/airline taxes. 5: We are all Palestinians now.
Petra! I saw this article come up early this morning and I told myself I have to read it. I read it and then I went on your site, "OCCAM'S RAZOR ON TERROR EVENTS" and I've spent so much time on it reading your posts. Excellent work and I look forward to learning so much from you.
Whilst I totally disagree with you about 9/11, so we'll not go there, I can go with you on some of the other ones. Seats and people! Seats and people! (you should provide a link to that one every time you mention plane crashes - it's genius)
My question is why do you think they do these things? Leaving aside the fact they are just a bunch of small-minded shits with nothing better to do, who would prefer to do shit things (as small-minded shits are wont to do) than use their undoubted money, power and influence to turn this world into a wonderful place to live.
Although the 'how' does interest me, from a purely academic curiosity point of view, I am often more interested in the 'why' - it's a more important question in the end. I think a lot of so-called conspiracy theorists get far too caught up in the 'how' such that they forget the 'why' - the 'why' being the big picture. And of course this is a significant part of the purpose of the cognitive infiltrators. Distract and misdirect etc.
Anyway - let me know what your thoughts are on the 'why' question (and let's leave 9/11 aside for the moment - I mean all these other fake crashes).
My question equally to you, Evelyn, is why do you think they do these things? The why is more important I'll grant but I don't know the why necessarily, I just know the Revelation of the Method part. In the case of the shooting down of the Tehran plane I've put an explanation and I think there are very obvious reasons in the case of 9/11 - for the others I don't know and whether there's always specific reasons for individual crashes or whether they just like to keep us scared by a steady infliction on us I don't know.
Thanks for the suggestion for putting a link to the Seats and people video on the Tehran plane. I've now included it.
People are too keen on the one why to explain everything. There are different reasons for different people involved in each event. There are also different reasons for different events. And there are multiple reasons on top of that.
Is anyone receiving money. Yes, there is one reason. Reducing competition is another reason. Causing distress, garnering attention, further layers of security, the need for experts to assess safety of everything etc etc.
Good answer and I will use it every time I get the - to my mind - moronic first question, "Why"? The first question is, "What does the evidence say?" ... after which one can move onto the motive question which we may not have a definitive answer to but lack of knowledge of motive doesn't mean anything. I try to get this simple concept through to a friend but she endlessly asks that question first and it drives me bonkers.
Why is not usually used as an enquiry. It is most often used as a complaint (in my country anyway). If someone is asking 'why do I have to put the dishes away?' they are not after an answer (most times). Same goes for the plane crash or most other scams. Any adult of a reasonable level of intelligence can easily find many reasons why (money is usually an obvious one).
Why questions like, Why would they do that? are simply the way most lazy people argue. It is a great question when genuinely asked. But most times why questions are not people seeking knowledge.
I spent a day a while back analysing the questions I was asked. I got asked well over a hundred questions for the day (I have no energy left to answer questions at the end of the day). I judged very few of them were actual questions from someone seeking knowledge. There was a good spread people trying to manipulate me, complain at me and sell me stuff (some of the sales questions were also seeking knowledge in the hope to manipulate me with further questions). Questions are still used to seek knowledge but it's well under half (and mostly from my customers) in my world.
I am happy to listen to people all day long but I limit questions, especially from salespeople and my wife. Questions are exhausting when they are not genuine.
Try spending a day analysing all the questions you are asked and all the questions you ask others.
I have a friend who - whenever I say anything is a psyop - asks the question "Why would they do it?" as if automatically because she can't see an obvious motive then the event can't be a psyop. It doesn't matter how many times I explain that suspicion or knowledge of motive doesn't prove or disprove anything she trots that dumb question out. I used not to think that generally people were so unintelligent but now even people I know have a high IQ just strike me as D-U-M-B simply because of their dumb approach and the facile and trite questions and reasons they constantly put forward.
Or are they actually smart people who don't want to mess with their own ego (or probably more correctly id) because they know the shit storm it will create in their own minds.
I should be working improving my life yet here I am stuffing About.
Ok - why do I think they do these things? You're right to ask my opinion of course.
So, for sure I think there are somewhat obvious psychological reasons. I don't mean from their point of view as small-minded psychopathic shits, I mean in terms of the psychological reaction they want to instil in people. So there's the obvious generalised strategy of tension aspect. 'keep us scared' as you put it.
There's a RoM aspect too I wouldn't wager, designed for those who are awake to such things (cf. all the numbers in the Jeju one - or 'Juju', shall we say). The RoM thing, as regards to numerology etc., is almost certainly part of occult-esque rituals (which also implies that some of these events are real, not faked, but demons would not accept a fake sacrifice, for obvious reasons lol). I say occult 'esque' because these fuckers have a kind of corrupted, distorted parody of the true occult wisdom. Which, yeah, you could call demonic. Demons have always loved to attack and twist and degrade and corrupt spirituality - the most obvious example of this being the monotheistic ideology/pseudo-religion.
This occult/RoM aspect can be deciphered by looking at the metadata and the numerology and all that. I'm probably teaching you to suck eggs here so no further explanation needed.
The other more subtle reason - which is often overlooked I think - would be unique to each event. So there would be something important about for example one or more of the passengers on board. A fake death is one reason (again, no explanation to you required on that score). Then there's transfer of patents (like that south seas one, what was it, MH3-something. Semiconductors going to a certain Rothe's child bloke. That kind of thing is the more, I don't know, espionage-related considerations shall we say. So that would be most likely classified stuff to which the likes of you and I would not be granted access. One would have to study stuff like passenger lists (then do in-depth bios of those passengers - let's roll!) and the confidential business files of the airlines and the insurance agency and so on. And no one who values their sanity could bother doing that. Hah - that's what AI is for! Lol! Or newbie junior intel officers!
So yeah - we should always have that individual/unique/subtle reason somewhere in our heads each time something happens. Doesn't just apply to plane crashes, of course.
Korean Airlines had 2 about 40 years ago. One flying over Kamchatka, all perished including a USA gov't official. It was said, the pilot was trying to save fuel. The Russians said it was carrying surveillance equipment. The other where the pilot read his compass wrong and flew out of Alaska 180 degrees and was forced down in Siberian snow/ice by a Russian air force jet. Only 1 or 2 casualties.
The supposed "discrepancies" between the two photographs are easily explained: (1) the barbed wire is out of focus and therefore the apparent difference in thickness is an optical artifact of the different camera settings or lenses used when taking the photograph. (2) The diagonal support rods are visible on both photographs. (3) The background wall appears to be longer because of perspective. Comparing the two original (uncropped) photographs it is evident that one has been taken roughly a meter to the side of the other (see yellow marking on the wire) which explains the offset of the background.
This of course does not explain the other anomalies.
Wow! I'm utterly flabbergasted at how you do not perceive the discrepancies despite my bending over backwards to align the photos for their clear display.
I have done some more work with the photos which I've added under my first photo and invite you to take a look.
If you still perceive there to be rods in the right photo, a difference in perspective explaining the massive difference in length of the wall, etc so be it.
You are clearly not comparing like with like. The 2 photographs are evidently taken from different locations, that is why the wall and steelwork (in the background on both photos) is in different positions (in relation to cockpit wreckage). Accordingly, the fence, in the foreground in both photos, is not the same section of fencing and thus any comparison of the differences in the fencing is, both, irrelevant and meaningless.
The photograph on the left has been taken at a location further to the right (whilst looking at the wreckage) from outside the fence than the photograph on the right. If the photographs had been taken in the same location then the wall & steelwork (in the background) would be in an identical position (in relation to the cockpit wreckage) when that is evidently not the case.
With respect, whilst your hypothesis about the crash being faked may be right, your reliance upon the differences in the fence in the foreground of the 2 photos (to support it being fake) is fundamentally flawed.
Bill, can you please explain to me how the planes are not in exactly the same location and set at the same angle in both photos when the identical green lines drawn from the top, side and bottom of the images line up with the same three points on the planes?
The reason for the lack of match with the other items is easily explained by Revelation of the Method.
I am not talking about the position of the plane wreckage, I am talking about the positions from where the 2 photographs were taken, which are clearly different position.
If the 2 photos were taken from the same location then everything seen in the photos would be exactly the same distances apart from each other and aligned identically in both photos. The concrete wall and steelwork (in the background) are just 2 clear examples that the angle at which the photo was taken (and thus the position of the photographer for each photo) was different because these are in different positions to the plane cockpit differently aligned.
Other things that are clearly differently orientated are (1) the grey object (at an angle) immediately to the left of the plane (between the earth and the concrete wall); and (2) the black lines (that look like cables or branches) that are on the grey object mentioned at (1) here.
With regard to your green lines, notwithstanding that you are erroneously using the edges of the 2 photos as the starting references (when the photos have different zoom and angle), the ends of the 3 lines on the plane are not at the same points (contrary to your claim). They are clearly different.
The horizontal line (from the left edge of the photo) ends up just on the edge of the plane cockpit in the left image but on the right image ends up much further onto the plane.
The vertical line (from the top edge of the photo) only covers a wee bit of the plane on the left image but much more of the plane on the right image. The line on the left image mostly covers the background but on the right image far less background is covered but much more of the plane.
The vertical line (from the bottom edge of the photo) ends up at the bottom right corner of the Korean flag on the left image but on the right image it ends up inside the flag (away from the bottom right corner).
"If the 2 photos were taken from the same location then everything seen in the photos would be exactly the same distances apart from each other and aligned identically in both photos. The concrete wall and steelwork (in the background) are just 2 clear examples that the angle at which the photo was taken (and thus the position of the photographer for each photo) was different because these are in different positions to the plane cockpit differently aligned."
What I'm pointing out, Bill, is that the photos ARE taken from the same angle and the fact that everything else is out of kilter is an indication that image manipulation is going on. My belief is that these images are completely AI. Notice how the damage to the nose on each looks completely different - sure they could have done stuff to the nose in one image prior to what we see in the other image but it's very odd for all that difference.
In both photos the plane:
--- is facing in exactly the same direction
--- is exactly the same size (due to my zooming and cropping)
If the plane is facing in exactly the same direction then the line of sight is identical. Plus the cropping and zooming to align the sizing and framing mean we should see the same things at the same place but we don't.
Consider the top of the images: in the left image you see land behind which you can vaguely see vegetation while in the right you see bare trees with no land. Completely different!
I note that you completely avoided my points that all 3 of the green lines (that you added) do not end up at the same points on the plane in both the images (contrary to your claim that they all did).
The photos clearly ARE NOT taken at the same angle.
There is wreckage in the foreground (inside the fence) projecting upwards and partially obscuring the cockpit wreckage. It can be more easily seen in the photo on the right because it hides the fireman (from the waist down), who is on the right hand side. It also partially hides the fireman in the centre. It hides his head, right shoulder and and his right arm (as we look at the photo).
That bit of wreckage that is sticking up in the air in front of the plane is dark grey in colour and there are 4 light grey areas along its right edge that is sticking up in the air. Probably not the best description but it looks a bit like part of dentures plate with 4 false teeth attached.
This same piece of wreckage (sticking up) can be seen in the photo on the left. It is clearly in a different position (to the cockpit wreckage behind it) as it it is further to the left (nearer to the centre of the photo) than it is seen in the photo on the right.
In the right photo, the top "tooth" (light grey colour) is in front of the lowest part of the plane nose-cone that remains part of the cockpit main wreckage. In the left photo this top "tooth" is in front of the gaping hole in the nose of the plane and the foreground ("false teeth") wreckage is clearer much further over to the left.
This is entirely consistent with the photo on the left being taken from a location further to the right of the location from which the photo on the right was taken. It is also fully consistent with the concrete wall & steelwork (in the background) being seen in a different position in relation to the cockpit wreckage.
The vertical elevation of the photographers of the 2 photos is also different. This is evident by the height of the wall (in the background) compared to the cockpit wreckage and also the height of the barbed wire coils of fencing in the foreground.
In the image on the right the background wall is slightly higher up than the cockpit and the barbed wire fence is lower down (and intrudes far less into the image). This is consistent with the photographer on the right taking his photo from a higher vertical elevation.
You can easily check this for yourself by making a rectangular viewfinder with your 2 hands and frame an object mid distance that has things/ objects in both the background and foreground. Then move up and down keeping the mid-distance (main) object in the centre of the frame. When you move up the background object moves up (in relation to the main object) and the the foreground object moved down (in relation to the main object).
The photos have clearly been taken at a different angle and elevation.
With regard to the trees that you say can be seen in one photo (on the right) and not the other this is clearly because the background (with trees) captured in the right photo is not in the field of view of the photo on the left because it is taken from a different angle and the plane cockpit is in the line of sight to the tree in the background.
Many air disasters are caused by explosions of the pressurised spraying equipment in the front cargo holds of passenger jets. I investigate this on my site look-up.org.uk. I can’t provide a direct URL as my site is blocked on mobile browsers but the article is a home page feature.
I’m not suggesting anything you say is incorrect as I have not analysed your data yet, it was to suggest that what I describe is happening. In hindsight I suspect Lockerby was one of the first of these incidents. The entire airline industry is a total fraud with many flights flying around empty - no passengers - just cargo of chemicals. Air Crash Investigators are also a fraud. Fake passports, crisis actors at airports crying when empty planes go down. All sorts is going on.
I’ll have to look into your stuff and see if we have common ground. I’ve not been active with planes since 2017.
Thank you for this reference, however, while some of the planes may have crashed for the reasons you describe the first one I looked at strikes me as faked immediately simply due to the numbers:
This does explain a lot of weird things that go on in commercial and general aviation as "observed" in the "news." We have dived into the abyss of AI faked-everything. The Alice in Wonderland adventure of what's actually real. Also, tried-and-true bigger the lie the more anyone appears crazy challenging it. For example, what popular YouTuber who covers aviation is willing after verifying at least some of these fakeries? to then make the claim it's all smoked-videos-and-mirrors?
Unless with five physical senses you truly witness an event––intuition now demands question everything, especially when disseminated by The Beast system. Not a pessimistic way to approach Life, just where humanity currently is on its evolving spiritual path.
One of the reasons for these vile fake crash reports is for the cockroach cruelites to keep people in a regular state of exhaustion, stress, and fear, to lower our innate tendency toward a mostly positive mindset, to weaken our immune system strength, to attack us in innumerable ways so we shut up and shut down, throw our money away on illusory causes, among other actions. They will never again dupe the awakened, protected, and activated like dear, wise Petra and increasing ranks of thinkers like us, the readers here. We know better and we shall rise above and win. It had sure as heck better happen soon, the mass reckoning. Thank you for your continued fine work, Petra.
Thank you, IF.
What purpose would that have? Discouraging regular people from air travel?
Motive is not my strong point. Discouraging regular people from air travel doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Why would airlines agree to that? But who knows?
Maybe there's the reverse psychology effect of encouraging them. After all, their Revelation of the Method technique seems to only make them believe their nonsense more.
Airlines seem to have a hard time with increasing fuel prices and plans to close a lot of the public airports by 2030 that I read about. I didn't intend to say that airlines themselves want to encourage fear of flying. But they might comply with psyops that do make people afraid of flying, which would help with making people less mobile, which seems to be one rather important objective in Agenda 2030, furthered in more than one way.
Yep, you're spot on. We could definitely say its to scare people and keep them from moving around. I've come to look at these things differently. The purpose might be simply to give them people something to be scared about and something to hold people's attention. Simply "tension" and that itself is a strategy: https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/the-definition-of-strategy-of-tension
Upgrading of airports is the likely purpose of this one.
Yes, what's the point of fakery.
Spooking us for sure.
I know that I am just repeating your comment PO.
Airliner "crashes" are for different reasons. 911 served many purposes, all for THE N(j)ew World Order. 1: It was blamed on Muslims. 2: It put the masses that fly under much greater surveillance. 3: Insurance companines paid the owners of 3 buildings GR8 $$$. 4: Put useless people to work at taxpayers/airline taxes. 5: We are all Palestinians now.
Here's a piece I wrote in 2019 on the same subject. I do not think we crisscross on any crashes, as mine predates yours by five years.
https://pieceofmindful.com/2019/03/17/newtons-third-law-and-aircraft/
Thanks Mark, will add to list. Lockerbie occurred to me after I posted but hadn't got around to looking for analysis of it.
Petra! I saw this article come up early this morning and I told myself I have to read it. I read it and then I went on your site, "OCCAM'S RAZOR ON TERROR EVENTS" and I've spent so much time on it reading your posts. Excellent work and I look forward to learning so much from you.
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/
Thank you, Franklin.
Whilst I totally disagree with you about 9/11, so we'll not go there, I can go with you on some of the other ones. Seats and people! Seats and people! (you should provide a link to that one every time you mention plane crashes - it's genius)
My question is why do you think they do these things? Leaving aside the fact they are just a bunch of small-minded shits with nothing better to do, who would prefer to do shit things (as small-minded shits are wont to do) than use their undoubted money, power and influence to turn this world into a wonderful place to live.
Although the 'how' does interest me, from a purely academic curiosity point of view, I am often more interested in the 'why' - it's a more important question in the end. I think a lot of so-called conspiracy theorists get far too caught up in the 'how' such that they forget the 'why' - the 'why' being the big picture. And of course this is a significant part of the purpose of the cognitive infiltrators. Distract and misdirect etc.
Anyway - let me know what your thoughts are on the 'why' question (and let's leave 9/11 aside for the moment - I mean all these other fake crashes).
My question equally to you, Evelyn, is why do you think they do these things? The why is more important I'll grant but I don't know the why necessarily, I just know the Revelation of the Method part. In the case of the shooting down of the Tehran plane I've put an explanation and I think there are very obvious reasons in the case of 9/11 - for the others I don't know and whether there's always specific reasons for individual crashes or whether they just like to keep us scared by a steady infliction on us I don't know.
Thanks for the suggestion for putting a link to the Seats and people video on the Tehran plane. I've now included it.
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/blog/did-ps-752-crash-in-tehran
People are too keen on the one why to explain everything. There are different reasons for different people involved in each event. There are also different reasons for different events. And there are multiple reasons on top of that.
Is anyone receiving money. Yes, there is one reason. Reducing competition is another reason. Causing distress, garnering attention, further layers of security, the need for experts to assess safety of everything etc etc.
Good answer and I will use it every time I get the - to my mind - moronic first question, "Why"? The first question is, "What does the evidence say?" ... after which one can move onto the motive question which we may not have a definitive answer to but lack of knowledge of motive doesn't mean anything. I try to get this simple concept through to a friend but she endlessly asks that question first and it drives me bonkers.
Why is not usually used as an enquiry. It is most often used as a complaint (in my country anyway). If someone is asking 'why do I have to put the dishes away?' they are not after an answer (most times). Same goes for the plane crash or most other scams. Any adult of a reasonable level of intelligence can easily find many reasons why (money is usually an obvious one).
Why questions like, Why would they do that? are simply the way most lazy people argue. It is a great question when genuinely asked. But most times why questions are not people seeking knowledge.
I spent a day a while back analysing the questions I was asked. I got asked well over a hundred questions for the day (I have no energy left to answer questions at the end of the day). I judged very few of them were actual questions from someone seeking knowledge. There was a good spread people trying to manipulate me, complain at me and sell me stuff (some of the sales questions were also seeking knowledge in the hope to manipulate me with further questions). Questions are still used to seek knowledge but it's well under half (and mostly from my customers) in my world.
I am happy to listen to people all day long but I limit questions, especially from salespeople and my wife. Questions are exhausting when they are not genuine.
Try spending a day analysing all the questions you are asked and all the questions you ask others.
I hear you!
I have a friend who - whenever I say anything is a psyop - asks the question "Why would they do it?" as if automatically because she can't see an obvious motive then the event can't be a psyop. It doesn't matter how many times I explain that suspicion or knowledge of motive doesn't prove or disprove anything she trots that dumb question out. I used not to think that generally people were so unintelligent but now even people I know have a high IQ just strike me as D-U-M-B simply because of their dumb approach and the facile and trite questions and reasons they constantly put forward.
Or are they actually smart people who don't want to mess with their own ego (or probably more correctly id) because they know the shit storm it will create in their own minds.
I should be working improving my life yet here I am stuffing About.
Yay! Seats and people!
Ok - why do I think they do these things? You're right to ask my opinion of course.
So, for sure I think there are somewhat obvious psychological reasons. I don't mean from their point of view as small-minded psychopathic shits, I mean in terms of the psychological reaction they want to instil in people. So there's the obvious generalised strategy of tension aspect. 'keep us scared' as you put it.
There's a RoM aspect too I wouldn't wager, designed for those who are awake to such things (cf. all the numbers in the Jeju one - or 'Juju', shall we say). The RoM thing, as regards to numerology etc., is almost certainly part of occult-esque rituals (which also implies that some of these events are real, not faked, but demons would not accept a fake sacrifice, for obvious reasons lol). I say occult 'esque' because these fuckers have a kind of corrupted, distorted parody of the true occult wisdom. Which, yeah, you could call demonic. Demons have always loved to attack and twist and degrade and corrupt spirituality - the most obvious example of this being the monotheistic ideology/pseudo-religion.
This occult/RoM aspect can be deciphered by looking at the metadata and the numerology and all that. I'm probably teaching you to suck eggs here so no further explanation needed.
The other more subtle reason - which is often overlooked I think - would be unique to each event. So there would be something important about for example one or more of the passengers on board. A fake death is one reason (again, no explanation to you required on that score). Then there's transfer of patents (like that south seas one, what was it, MH3-something. Semiconductors going to a certain Rothe's child bloke. That kind of thing is the more, I don't know, espionage-related considerations shall we say. So that would be most likely classified stuff to which the likes of you and I would not be granted access. One would have to study stuff like passenger lists (then do in-depth bios of those passengers - let's roll!) and the confidential business files of the airlines and the insurance agency and so on. And no one who values their sanity could bother doing that. Hah - that's what AI is for! Lol! Or newbie junior intel officers!
So yeah - we should always have that individual/unique/subtle reason somewhere in our heads each time something happens. Doesn't just apply to plane crashes, of course.
Lots of interesting numbers in that Jeju one, for sure. All those multiples of 4 - lots of 8s, lots of 24s etc.
I love that kind of stuff
Korean Airlines had 2 about 40 years ago. One flying over Kamchatka, all perished including a USA gov't official. It was said, the pilot was trying to save fuel. The Russians said it was carrying surveillance equipment. The other where the pilot read his compass wrong and flew out of Alaska 180 degrees and was forced down in Siberian snow/ice by a Russian air force jet. Only 1 or 2 casualties.
Thanks, David, will check them out. Neither of them sounds particularly credible.
The supposed "discrepancies" between the two photographs are easily explained: (1) the barbed wire is out of focus and therefore the apparent difference in thickness is an optical artifact of the different camera settings or lenses used when taking the photograph. (2) The diagonal support rods are visible on both photographs. (3) The background wall appears to be longer because of perspective. Comparing the two original (uncropped) photographs it is evident that one has been taken roughly a meter to the side of the other (see yellow marking on the wire) which explains the offset of the background.
This of course does not explain the other anomalies.
Wow! I'm utterly flabbergasted at how you do not perceive the discrepancies despite my bending over backwards to align the photos for their clear display.
I have done some more work with the photos which I've added under my first photo and invite you to take a look.
If you still perceive there to be rods in the right photo, a difference in perspective explaining the massive difference in length of the wall, etc so be it.
You are clearly not comparing like with like. The 2 photographs are evidently taken from different locations, that is why the wall and steelwork (in the background on both photos) is in different positions (in relation to cockpit wreckage). Accordingly, the fence, in the foreground in both photos, is not the same section of fencing and thus any comparison of the differences in the fencing is, both, irrelevant and meaningless.
The photograph on the left has been taken at a location further to the right (whilst looking at the wreckage) from outside the fence than the photograph on the right. If the photographs had been taken in the same location then the wall & steelwork (in the background) would be in an identical position (in relation to the cockpit wreckage) when that is evidently not the case.
With respect, whilst your hypothesis about the crash being faked may be right, your reliance upon the differences in the fence in the foreground of the 2 photos (to support it being fake) is fundamentally flawed.
Bill, can you please explain to me how the planes are not in exactly the same location and set at the same angle in both photos when the identical green lines drawn from the top, side and bottom of the images line up with the same three points on the planes?
The reason for the lack of match with the other items is easily explained by Revelation of the Method.
I am not talking about the position of the plane wreckage, I am talking about the positions from where the 2 photographs were taken, which are clearly different position.
If the 2 photos were taken from the same location then everything seen in the photos would be exactly the same distances apart from each other and aligned identically in both photos. The concrete wall and steelwork (in the background) are just 2 clear examples that the angle at which the photo was taken (and thus the position of the photographer for each photo) was different because these are in different positions to the plane cockpit differently aligned.
Other things that are clearly differently orientated are (1) the grey object (at an angle) immediately to the left of the plane (between the earth and the concrete wall); and (2) the black lines (that look like cables or branches) that are on the grey object mentioned at (1) here.
With regard to your green lines, notwithstanding that you are erroneously using the edges of the 2 photos as the starting references (when the photos have different zoom and angle), the ends of the 3 lines on the plane are not at the same points (contrary to your claim). They are clearly different.
The horizontal line (from the left edge of the photo) ends up just on the edge of the plane cockpit in the left image but on the right image ends up much further onto the plane.
The vertical line (from the top edge of the photo) only covers a wee bit of the plane on the left image but much more of the plane on the right image. The line on the left image mostly covers the background but on the right image far less background is covered but much more of the plane.
The vertical line (from the bottom edge of the photo) ends up at the bottom right corner of the Korean flag on the left image but on the right image it ends up inside the flag (away from the bottom right corner).
"If the 2 photos were taken from the same location then everything seen in the photos would be exactly the same distances apart from each other and aligned identically in both photos. The concrete wall and steelwork (in the background) are just 2 clear examples that the angle at which the photo was taken (and thus the position of the photographer for each photo) was different because these are in different positions to the plane cockpit differently aligned."
What I'm pointing out, Bill, is that the photos ARE taken from the same angle and the fact that everything else is out of kilter is an indication that image manipulation is going on. My belief is that these images are completely AI. Notice how the damage to the nose on each looks completely different - sure they could have done stuff to the nose in one image prior to what we see in the other image but it's very odd for all that difference.
In both photos the plane:
--- is facing in exactly the same direction
--- is exactly the same size (due to my zooming and cropping)
If the plane is facing in exactly the same direction then the line of sight is identical. Plus the cropping and zooming to align the sizing and framing mean we should see the same things at the same place but we don't.
Consider the top of the images: in the left image you see land behind which you can vaguely see vegetation while in the right you see bare trees with no land. Completely different!
Petra,
I note that you completely avoided my points that all 3 of the green lines (that you added) do not end up at the same points on the plane in both the images (contrary to your claim that they all did).
The photos clearly ARE NOT taken at the same angle.
There is wreckage in the foreground (inside the fence) projecting upwards and partially obscuring the cockpit wreckage. It can be more easily seen in the photo on the right because it hides the fireman (from the waist down), who is on the right hand side. It also partially hides the fireman in the centre. It hides his head, right shoulder and and his right arm (as we look at the photo).
That bit of wreckage that is sticking up in the air in front of the plane is dark grey in colour and there are 4 light grey areas along its right edge that is sticking up in the air. Probably not the best description but it looks a bit like part of dentures plate with 4 false teeth attached.
This same piece of wreckage (sticking up) can be seen in the photo on the left. It is clearly in a different position (to the cockpit wreckage behind it) as it it is further to the left (nearer to the centre of the photo) than it is seen in the photo on the right.
In the right photo, the top "tooth" (light grey colour) is in front of the lowest part of the plane nose-cone that remains part of the cockpit main wreckage. In the left photo this top "tooth" is in front of the gaping hole in the nose of the plane and the foreground ("false teeth") wreckage is clearer much further over to the left.
This is entirely consistent with the photo on the left being taken from a location further to the right of the location from which the photo on the right was taken. It is also fully consistent with the concrete wall & steelwork (in the background) being seen in a different position in relation to the cockpit wreckage.
The vertical elevation of the photographers of the 2 photos is also different. This is evident by the height of the wall (in the background) compared to the cockpit wreckage and also the height of the barbed wire coils of fencing in the foreground.
In the image on the right the background wall is slightly higher up than the cockpit and the barbed wire fence is lower down (and intrudes far less into the image). This is consistent with the photographer on the right taking his photo from a higher vertical elevation.
You can easily check this for yourself by making a rectangular viewfinder with your 2 hands and frame an object mid distance that has things/ objects in both the background and foreground. Then move up and down keeping the mid-distance (main) object in the centre of the frame. When you move up the background object moves up (in relation to the main object) and the the foreground object moved down (in relation to the main object).
The photos have clearly been taken at a different angle and elevation.
With regard to the trees that you say can be seen in one photo (on the right) and not the other this is clearly because the background (with trees) captured in the right photo is not in the field of view of the photo on the left because it is taken from a different angle and the plane cockpit is in the line of sight to the tree in the background.
Many air disasters are caused by explosions of the pressurised spraying equipment in the front cargo holds of passenger jets. I investigate this on my site look-up.org.uk. I can’t provide a direct URL as my site is blocked on mobile browsers but the article is a home page feature.
I’m not suggesting anything you say is incorrect as I have not analysed your data yet, it was to suggest that what I describe is happening. In hindsight I suspect Lockerby was one of the first of these incidents. The entire airline industry is a total fraud with many flights flying around empty - no passengers - just cargo of chemicals. Air Crash Investigators are also a fraud. Fake passports, crisis actors at airports crying when empty planes go down. All sorts is going on.
I’ll have to look into your stuff and see if we have common ground. I’ve not been active with planes since 2017.
Thank you for this reference, however, while some of the planes may have crashed for the reasons you describe the first one I looked at strikes me as faked immediately simply due to the numbers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EgyptAir_Flight_804
66 onboard
02:33 time of alleged crash
23:09 (11:09) departure time
22,000 ft (plunged)
In addition, the cause of the crash seems unfathomable with a lot of implausible explanations given including pilot smoking in cockpit.
https://onemileatatime.com/news/egyptair-flight-804-crash/
No wreckage.