Have a look also at their diagram that I attached to the post #143 (
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/de...-may-have-found-mh370.3558/page-4#post-103991)
It clearly shows the photos are being transmitted to the ground station from satellites and/or planes. So no developing of analog films at all. The "analog" films are then exposed from the digital data transmitted from the satellites or planes.
There's that similar diagram here:
http://agrivice.com.au/media/PM-2.pdf which has this text next to the satellite:
External Quote:
aerospace photography of the ground to forecast the deposit
And this text next to the plane:
External Quote:
aerospace photography of the search area
So there's some difference how they are used.
To really illustrate my approach in this and why I care about these details and am so cautious about what exactly they themselves have claimed, let's have a thought experiment in how it could go if you and I could get a chance to have a debate with those GeoResonance guys. And before going on, I want to emphasize that I don't expect everybody would or should make their arguments with this kind of approach, but just to illustrate how I think about it.
Let's say you would say to them that they are using digital images from commercial satellites, because they can't be analog or can't be from a plane as the area is so big etc. They would then say to you that, no, we use analog, plane, etc. and we have said it clearly here and here. You may have noticed some obvious problems in what they have said, and tried to make some sense of it with a couple of assumptions of your own, but that way you pretty much lost the argument already and got the burden of proof on your side.
Similarly if you base your arguments on something like them using, say, digital 24-bit rgb images to extract something that couldn't fit into 24-bits, you are basically calling them all complete idiots. And if my hunch is right that they are just misguided scientists, but still scientists, it's highly unlikely all of them would be so stupid.
And yes, based on all that we know, it probably wouldn't really change the end result whether they used a satellite, plane, magic wand or tarot cards. As there's that small problem of the plane not being there. But still they can have an endless list of excuses. Like that silt they already mentioned, all 6 micrometers of it or so according to the silt accumulation figures mentioned here, and that's already based on the rather generous assumption of the silt actually climbing on top of the plane and sticking there, on the vertical surfaces and all. But nevertheless it's pretty much impossible to win with arguments you can't really prove, or even worse, for which they can prove you wrong.
So what I would do instead would to rely primarily on claims they and their business partners have made themselves. Why yes, they might have lied. Good. That's my advantage.
I would probably start by asking about their connection to SNUNEI, as told by themselves in that Adelaidenow article. If they deny that connection, they just proved they have lied. I won.
If they acknowledge it, I would continue with the documents explaining the methods used by SNUNEI. If they claim those are forgeries, I would ask them to have their business partners validate that, and if they would call them forgeries as well, then I would have burned a couple of those other companies that have displayed such forgeries. I would count that as a win for me as well.
If both would be accepted as valid starting points, then I could continue with the details of those documents. I would ask a number of details like what is that satellite with orbit height of 280km. Then I would take on some specific details of their methods and state something like: look at this part here, I have this dude, David, here, who's an expert on these things, and he says that is garbage. And no, he's not a nuclear physicist, or leprechaun tamer, but he doesn't need to be, as that specific part does not involve any of that stuff.
In essence I'm saying that it's hard to lose if you start by taking the words of your opponents as facts (or acting as if you do), and prove things through their words, keeping the burden of proof on their side, so that even if something you said turns out to be untrue, it was their fault anyway.