Debunked: MH370 Passenger Philip Wood sends Photo/Text from Diego Garcia [Fake EXIF GPS Data]

[Mark Barrington]

One who laughs is Glenn Beck

Ah, OK. Sorry, using media video of a person going through a tragic time to exploit them and denigrate their grief is something that annoys and angers me, and I should try not to react to it so emotionally. My opinion of Glenn Beck as a human being could not be lower, but that's neither here nor there in respect to the argument at hand. That issue of people misusing video of suffering and grieving people is pretty well covered in the 'Not enough tears' thread, and not a whole lot more needs to be said about it.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-sandy-hook-not-enough-tears.1078/

 

[Pete Tar]

But when I read this article without affect, just looking in a precise way, I must admit the pic seem photoshoped :
http://nodisinfo.com/phil-wood/

You find this crap to be believable? It's written by a muslim religious zealot who clearly just makes stuff up and has absolutely no shame.
Do you support treating a victim of a disaster this way?

Arch-fraudster Sarah Bajc is fooling no one. She is nothing other than a rabid, extremist Zionist agent, hostile to the bone, bent on spreading great corruption in the land.

She tells lies. She foments confusion. She is a cheat and a falsifier, which is impossible to refute. Now, she is using social media to the extreme to maintain that corruption for which she is one of Zionism's chief agents:

 

[Anne]

You find this crap to be believable? It's written by a muslim religious zealot who clearly just makes stuff up and has absolutely no shame.
Do you support treating a victim of a disaster this way?

Arch-fraudster Sarah Bajc is fooling no one. She is nothing other than a rabid, extremist Zionist agent, hostile to the bone, bent on spreading great corruption in the land.

She tells lies. She foments confusion. She is a cheat and a falsifier, which is impossible to refute. Now, she is using social media to the extreme to maintain that corruption for which she is one of Zionism's chief agents:

My observation was on the pic which I in fact see as fake ; the arm is too long. Once again, my choice is to observe if the facts exposed seem correct or not. I look after explanation. If I find one which helps me to understand, I don't care who exposed it but look after the possibility I have to observe if it is true.

I do the same concerning Sarah Bajc. You say she is a victim of a disaster. I wonder why she is so often in the medias, being one partner. 239 persons miss. Sarah Bajc is, if I refer to the link I gave of Jeff Rense and Yoichi Shimatsu "a woman in the know". She worked at a high level in a company specialised in remote-piloting tech.

I absolutely ignore if he is a victim of a disaster or not. She appears in medias specialised in cover up. Not even one explanation was given. It is just impossible.

 

[Pete Tar]

Not even one explanation was given. It is just impossible.

One explanation for what? What's impossible?

I wonder why she is so often in the medias,

Because she's the partner of the only American passenger talking to American media about losing her partner - you don't understand why the media would have any interest in talking to her?

 

[Anne]

Ah, OK. Sorry, using media video of a person going through a tragic time to exploit them and denigrate their grief is something that annoys and angers me, and I should try not to react to it so emotionally. My opinion of Glenn Beck as a human being could not be lower, but that's neither here nor there in respect to the argument at hand. That issue of people misusing video of suffering and grieving people is pretty well covered in the 'Not enough tears' thread, and not a whole lot more needs to be said about it.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-sandy-hook-not-enough-tears.1078/

I truly don't think he misused. He would have do so if he had presented only one video. What he exposed is the fact that on 239 passengers, there is one partner who appears very often. He questions this fact, and points that she may be not sincere. I never forget who owns the medias and what they do cover. In this sense, if one persons appear much more than others, I try to understand why, knowing what I know on disinfo.

 

[WeedWhacker]

My observation was on the pic which I in fact see as fake ; the arm is too long.

Huh??

I've seen this same sort of "claim" made from many people, on many topics....people who usually don't bother to investigate the photograph's details: Focal lens length, possible distortions in reproduction for viewing on the Internet, etc.

 

[Anne]

One explanation for what? What's impossible?


Because she's the partner of the only American passenger talking to American media about losing her partner - you don't understand why the media would have any interest in talking to her?

For the plane disappearance. We are told we may never know. They just fool us. For example on the 25th of March a 777 which was not programmed was seen, transponder off at the Hague. Two F16 from the Royal Dutch Air Force intercepted it. In fact it has been possible for it to arrive to the Hague without being noticed. But then it has been. Nothing was written on the reason why it was there, on the passengers if there were some. It was a 1503, not truly on his road. I guess the Air Force knows but doesn't tell. It is the same for the MH370.

 

[WeedWhacker]

For example on the 25th of March a 777 which was not programmed was seen, transponder off at the Hague. Two F16 from the Royal Dutch Air Force intercepted it. In fact it has been possible for it to arrive to the Hague without being noticed.

You simply may not post such claims, without some sort of documentation and links. (And, the Hague doesn't have an airport....Amsterdam Schipol is closest. Imperfection in a narrative leads to much misinformation, and hence sometimes..."BUNK").

And the phrase "...a 777 which was not programmed was seen..." just smacks of inaccuracies. The terminology.

I had to hunt, and found a few stories that mentioned this non-event:
http://business.topnewstoday.org/business/article/10433329/

Likely an airplane (it was a Chilean cargo airline) had some communication glitch, usually this is just a result of some pilot error, or equipment failure of some sort.

 

[Pete Tar]

We are told we may never know. They just fool us. For

If that's your belief then nothing you hear will change that - if details do come out you will think they are fake, if the plane truly is lost and can't be found you'll think they have found it but aren't telling us.
You've made up your mind so there's no point in debating anything.

 

[Anne]

You simply may not post such claims, without some sort of documentation and links. (And, the Hague doesn't have an airport....Amsterdam Schipol is closest. Imperfection in a narrative leads to much misinformation, and hence sometimes..."BUNK").

And the phrase "...a 777 which was not programmed was seen..." just smacks of inaccuracies. The terminology.

I had to hunt, and found a few stories that mentioned this non-event:
http://business.topnewstoday.org/business/article/10433329/

Likely an airplane (it was a Chilean cargo airline) had some communication glitch, usually this is just a result of some pilot error, or equipment failure of some sort.

Sorry, I saw it in CNN, and it seemed to me quite unusual :
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/24/world/europe/summit-plane-intercept/

 

[Anne]

If that's your belief then nothing you hear will change that - if details do come out you will think they are fake, if the plane truly is lost and can't be found you'll think they have found it but aren't telling us.
You've made up your mind so there's no point in debating anything.

The question here is just "is it technically possible that a plane disappear during a month". If you have a serious communication on the subject which is not done only by the medias and persons having conflicts of interest, please, do communicate it to me. I found for example
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/03/27/flight-370-the-cia-hoax-gordon-duff/

and think it is correct.

 

[Pete Tar]

What conflict of interest to solving the disappearance are you claiming that people have?

 

[Pete Tar]

The question here is just "is it technically possible that a plane disappear during a month".

Well apparently so. Do you have evidence that it is technically impossible?

 

[WeedWhacker]

Sorry, I saw it in CNN, and it seemed to me quite unusual :

Yes, I looked online a bit, and found the report.

Again, I point to a mis-communication of some sort, no malicious intent.

Note that this isn't the first time a flight crew has mis-communicated, with embarrassing results:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/us/27plane.html?_r=0

Published: October 26, 2009
Any employee at a company that has gone through a merger knows how distracting it can be when the new owner imposes new rules. That distraction, not a nap, was what two Northwest Airlines pilots say caused them to fly far beyond the Minneapolis airport last week, federal investigators reported Monday.

(Those guys were fired, IIRC).



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-asleep-just-minutes-land-freight-flight.html

A pilot has today confessed that he and his first officer fell asleep while flying a freight plane - and woke up minutes before they were due to land.

The pilot, who was referred to as 'John', said he and his co-pilot were towards the end of a long overnight shift that started at 1.30am.

The two were due to land at around 9am in Spain.

Distractions, fatigue...they happen to anyone who is only human.

 

[Joe]

Is it possible the Plane was headed to Diego Garcia to do some damage and was intercepted and shot down ? I also heard that there was no way in hell with todays surveillance technology and satellites that we do not know exactly where it crashed or where it might be . However to admit we have that technology would let our enemies know our abilities .

 

[Mick West]

The photos as evidence has been debunked. If you have something new, then start a new thread.

 

[Mick West]

a closer look at the EXIF data in the fake image reveals it was faked using Picasa, and is not a normal iPhone image:

 

[Svartbjørn]

Gotta love 4chan shenanigans

 

[one durr]

its a seriously weird state of affairs. something is very wrong.

 

[Josh Heuer]

Not trying to nitpick, but in the OP

and the image being black (iPhone 5 has a flash)

but you can easily turn flash off on an iPhone. It's set to 'auto' by default but you can toggle it between auto/on/off. I pretty much always leave mine off.

Just for clarity.

 

[Soulfly]

Well if it was him and he is being held hostage then they probably know he has a phone now. Unless the "unknown military" doesn't have the interwebs.

 

[Mick West]

Not trying to nitpick, but in the OP


but you can easily turn flash off on an iPhone. It's set to 'auto' by default but you can toggle it between auto/on/off. I pretty much always leave mine off.

Just for clarity.

But if you were going to the trouble of sending a photo, it seems more likely you'd turn of the flash than not. Not a huge issue though.

 

[Josh Heuer]

But if you were going to the trouble of sending a photo, it seems more likely you'd turn of the flash than not. Not a huge issue though.

Err..no...the most likely scenario would be that the phone is on the last setting the person had it on. on/off/auto. You can't say for sure whether it was on or off, or on auto. So there's no point even bringing the issue of flash up.

 

[Mick West]

Err..no...the most likely scenario would be that the phone is on the last setting the person had it on. on/off/auto. You can't say for sure whether it was on or off, or on auto. So there's no point even bringing the issue of flash up.

It's clearly off in this photo.
You can tell what it's set to as you take the photo. In this supposed scenario he wrote a detailed text. So why not turn on the flash?

Like I said though, not a big issues, just another minor point against the plausibility of the story.

 

[Pete Tar]

So there's no point even bringing the issue of flash up.

Well there is a point because the pic is of indistinguishable shadows, a situation where flash would normally be considered efficacious if you wanted people to see anything. So not using flash is a deliberate decision to help manufacture the hoax.

 

[deirdre]

Well there is a point because the pic is of indistinguishable shadows, a situation where flash would normally be considered efficacious if you wanted people to see anything. So not using flash is a deliberate decision to help manufacture the hoax.

I don't see any shadows.

 

[Pete Tar]

Someone on another site boosted the picture and there were barely kind of shapes, but yeah, 'indistinguishable shadows' was just shorthand for 'a totally black picture that doesn't show anything'.

 

[Josh Heuer]

It's clearly off in this photo.
You can tell what it's set to as you take the photo. In this supposed scenario he wrote a detailed text. So why not turn on the flash?

Like I said though, not a big issues, just another minor point against the plausibility of the story.

I still don't agree. He simply had flash off. If he's held captive, then I would imagine a flash from a camera is not the 'brightest' idea (nice pun huh?)
And the actual phone screen is much, much dimmer than a flash of the camera. I could see a situation where someone is locked in a small room or space and is able to use the phone without wig detected briefly but would not want to use flash.
Maybe this is a hoax. I don't find the flash issue to be even worth mentioning, as you can't prove anything beyond a doubt and it falls into pure conjecture (why didn't he just...?)

 

[Mark Barrington]

Maybe this is a hoax.

There's no maybe. It IS a hoax. The evidence of manual editing of the EXIF data that Mick uncovered proves that it's a hoax. Also it shows that the original claims that EXIF data was difficult or impossible to fake were pure BS.

But the black photo is also additional evidence that it's not even a believable hoax. He had time to write a 20 some-odd word text in perfect English and did not have time to check the flash setting on the camera? If he was really worried about detection, he could have used the front camera on the phone, and the phone's screen illumination would have provided enough illumination for some image. But, if he were worried about detection, it beggars belief that he would have been able to compose such a long and detailed message without at least trying to capture something with the camera.

Edit: I tried this. The screen doesn't provide enough illumination for the front camera in a darkened room to make a recognizable image. So, I was wrong about that.

 

[Landru]

Does Diego Garcia have cell coverage?

 

[WeedWhacker]

Does Diego Garcia have cell coverage?

Found this "Country Calling Codes" website:
http://www.countrycallingcodes.com/mobile/mobile-codes.php?callfrom=United States&callto=Diego Garcia

I saw a post (another thread) by a new member who was stationed at Diego Garcia in 2000 - 2001, and said there were no cell towers at that time. However, this many years on, it certainly seems likely (especially as a convenience for the U.S. Navy).

Also, some claims from the original hoax story, like this:

* Diego Garcia has never been mentioned to the public

...is an obvious fabrication. Of course, moot at this point, since the EXIF data spoofing is already proven.

 

[Mark Barrington]

Does Diego Garcia have cell coverage?

It's worth noting that you don't need a cellular connection to send a text message from an iPhone to another Apple device using iMessage. You just have to bribe the guard to get the wireless password.

 

[Josh Heuer]

There's no maybe. It IS a hoax. The evidence of manual editing of the EXIF data that Mick uncovered proves that it's a hoax. Also it shows that the original claims that EXIF data was difficult or impossible to fake were pure BS.

The fact that the EXIF data CAN be faked is not proof that it IS a hoax. Sure, it lends credibility to the case of it possibly being a hoax but it isn't proof. Don't confuse yourself by jumping to conclusions.

But the black photo is also additional evidence that it's not even a believable hoax. He had time to write a 20 some-odd word text in perfect English and did not have time to check the flash setting on the camera? If he was really worried about detection, he could have used the front camera on the phone, and the phone's screen illumination would have provided enough illumination for some image. But, if he were worried about detection, it beggars belief that he would have been able to compose such a long and detailed message without at least trying to capture something with the camera.

Wrong, the screen's illumination would have been only what the camera saw; pretty much darkness. Go into a dark room and use your camera (front facing) and see what the picture looks like. I'll bet it's as dark as the room.

 

[Mark Barrington]

Wrong, the screen's illumination would have been only what the camera saw; pretty much darkness. Go into a dark room and use your camera (front facing) and see what the picture looks like. I'll bet it's as dark as the room.

Point taken. I guess I overestimated the low light performance of the front camera. It sucks.

 

[Josh Heuer]

Point taken. I guess I overestimated the low light performance of the front camera. It sucks.

Yes, it really does.

 

[Mark Barrington]

The fact that the EXIF data CAN be faked is not proof that it IS a hoax.

The fact that the EXIF data in this case had actual evidence of being manually edited PROVES that his was a hoax. Post #57 by Mick shows the lat/lon data was inserted by Picasa after the photo was taken.

 

[Josh Heuer]

The fact that the EXIF data in this case had actual evidence of being manually edited PROVES that his was a hoax. Post #57 by Mick shows the lat/lon data was inserted by Picasa after the photo was taken.

Ah, I see, thanks.

 

[WeedWhacker]

...the question of why 5 US Chinese who have invented an important weapons system are on their way to China?
<snip>
Now we have to see if the NWO has enough compassion thru US service people to return all of them alive - they failed this test with Oklahoma and 9/11 so I have no faith that anyone will be left alive to tell what happened, including selected US service members.

WOT?!?

 

[Svartbjørn]

What interests me is the question of why 5 US Chinese who have invented an important weapons system are on their way to China?

Because they're Chinese and they wanted to go home after a trip? Its not all that uncommon. The same thing happens here in the US. Northrop Grumman and just about every other DoD contract company in the US sends their design people all over the world for trips, and they fly home.. nothing weird about that. Members of CSIS take trips around the planet and return home.. nothing weird there either.. it happens every day.

 

[Balance]

What's that saying, a lie can travel around the world before the truth has got it's boots on?

At least the truth is getting out there

(can't seem to copy paste individual tweets from twitter now)They are on this persons timeline.
https://twitter.com/haloefekti