MA flew itself into Active Track subject

[sar104]

Great lets see the flight records.

I never saw the flight records, but I took a close look at the video record at the time and it's consistent with the frame rate and the documented behavior in other logs of these aircraft spinning after propulsion loss. I don't see any indicators that it was fabricated.

 

[Deleted member 114292]

You really should have read the thread.

Yes he was very convincing.
So let's see the flight logs.

 

[sar104]

Yes he was very convincing.
So let's see the flight logs.

Well then send the OP a message if you are so concerned to see them - then you can put your flight log analysis skills to work. However, that post is nearly two years old and the OP hasn't been active on the site for 18 months. Or you could do a frame-by-frame video analysis to figure out if the spin rates are realistic (~ 3 Hz - they are) and the descent time to the ground is appropriate (~ 3 seconds - it is). Alternatively, you are completely free to "believe" whatever you want to on this subject - no evidence required.

 

[Deleted member 114292]

I really don't care - it's just amusing to see you all fall for it.

 

[sar104]

I really don't care - it's just amusing to see you all fall for it.

Is that what you imagine passes for a clever reply? Of course you don't care, and you are either far too easily amused or simply lost for any meaningful response. I guess as soon as you have to figure something out for yourself it becomes way too much effort.

 

[Deleted member 114292]

Don't know if it's clever or not. If you found insulting it was not mean to be - it's just how I feel about it.
Put them on air data and compare the kmls. Should be pretty simple either they intersect or they don't.
I am the first to agree I am not a record analysis - you can't do everything well and it seem that there already some of you that do it quite well.
My opinions about flight records would be a hack and at least I did give reasons why I thought it was a fake - be they good or bad I did take the time to express why I thought that.
In this day and age you need to be easily amused or you will not be amused very often.
If you had seen them then I would believe your analysis - mine would be worthless.

 

[sar104]

Don't know if it's clever or not. If you found insulting it was not mean to be - it's just how I feel about it.
Put them on air data and compare the kmls. Should be pretty simple either they intersect or they don't.
I am the first to agree I am not a record analysis - you can't do everything well and it seem that there already some of you that do it quite well.
My opinions about flight records would be a hack and at least I did give reasons why I thought it was a fake - be they good or bad I did take the time to express why I thought that.
If you had seen them then I would believe your analysis - mine would be worthless.

Well in that case then perhaps you might be willing to give some credence to my conclusions from analyzing the video, rather than snidely responding that you were simply amused that I had fallen for some kind of hoax.

 

[Deleted member 114292]

I have no idea about your skills as a video analyst - detecting fakes is a whole other ballgame, and I admit that I am not.
I have made fake videos and my feeling is that its fake.
Plus the fact that no flight records were posted. If I had that crash I would be eager to know what could be gleaned from the.
I do know about your expertise analysing flight records and frankly I am surprised you did not ask to see them.

 

[sar104]

I have no idea about your skills as a video analyst - detecting fakes is a whole other ballgame, and I admit that I am not.
I have made fake videos and my feeling is that its fake.
I do know about your expertise analysing flight records and frankly I am surprised you did not ask to see them.

My video analysis, in this case, was simply a matter of looking frame-by-frame at the collision and the resulting descent. I didn't ask to see them because I didn't see any need for the data within them. The event was self-evident, the video consistent, and the interest was in the tracking decision making, not the crash. Either you didn't look at the video frame by frame or you are unfamiliar with the countless other videos of aircraft descent following propulsion loss. It's consistent.

Your first three points in #77 are incorrect - the video frames are continuous and the spin rates are not only possible - they are expected. And note that DJI did examine the logs and their conclusion is quoted in post #65.

 

[Prismatic]

1. Discontinuity in the footage between the "crash" and the fake spin.

Not true. During the impact (at 1/4 speed playback), you can see debris in the air.

2. The fake spin - there is not a conceivable force that would cause the drone to spin up that fast, or at all for that matter.

You clearly have not seen much video from high speed drone crashes. That wild spin is not at all unlike the video my MA took when I inadvertently backed her into a cliff at full throttle. (My bad, but I had Refresh.)

3. The spin looks pieced together from stills

Really? Including the rotational and forward (descent) motion blur? Oooh, this is a deep fake! ("... looks pieced together ...", this opinion from the guy who admits no expertise in video analysis.)

xx
4. No stills of the damaged AC.
5. And the biggest NO FLIGHT LOGS. Show me the kmls of the two AC's converging.
Why would he not post this in a crash forum?

Why? It could be because the crash-specific forum didn't exist at the time! And the OP wasn't asking for flight analysis, so why would he post logs?

"It perceived the Inspire as an enemy." really? Y'all gonna swallow that one?

Sigh. The OP used colorful language, and somehow this is "evidence" of fraud (not to mention also "evidence" of your fellow forum members immense stupidity).

No one thing below is not possible, its when you add them up.

They add up to zilch. You've provided a spectacularly uninformed--willfully so--analysis.

I suppose the Apollo moon landing were faked, too.

 

[Deleted member 114292]

I did not mean the frames are not continuous I mean the shot is not continuous. In other words you see the inspire then switch to falling with no transition - you never actually see the inspire make contact.
I didn't say the spinning was not possible just un-likely I've never seen a crash with such regular spinning.
And even at that it could be from some other crash.
What force would cause that? And if if that point is wrong, as I said it's the sum of evidence.
How do you know DJI examined to logs? Really you don't - it's the ops statement. I agree the emails sound like what they would say but there is plenty of posted DJI emails here to create that.
And why no logs?" To me that a huge piece of missing evidence. Which is why I said what I said about them - while they could be faked that would probably be rather difficult (maybe they can't?).

 

[Deleted member 114292]

I suppose the Apollo moon landing were faked, too.

No that really happened. If for no other reason the russians at the time would have called us out.
They hated that we did that.
They could basically track the whole mission on radar and tell from what direction the transmissions were coming from.
There was a crash forum at that time.

 

[sar104]

I did not mean the frames are not continuous I mean the shot is not continuous. In other words you see the inspire then switch to falling with no transition - you never actually see the inspire make contact.
I didn't say the spinning was not possible just un-likely I've never seen a crash with such regular spinning.
And even at that it could be from some other crash.
What force would cause that? And if if that point is wrong, as I said it's the sum of evidence.
How do you know DJI examined to logs? Really you don't - it's the ops statement. I agree the emails sound like what they would say but there is plenty of posted DJI emails here to create that.
And why no logs?" To me that a huge piece of missing evidence. Which is why I said what I said about them - while they could be faked that would probably be rather difficult (maybe they can't?)

That's not correct either. The first few frames clearly show the collision with the gimbal being kicked hard left and CCW.

 

[sar104]

No that really happened. If for no other reason the russians at the time would have called us out.
They hated that we did that.
They could basically track the whole mission on radar and tell from what direction the transmissions were coming from.
There was a crash forum at that time.

You are seriously arguing that the fact that this was posted in the Mavic Air discussion forum, rather than the crash assistance forum, is evidence that it was faked?

 

[Deleted member 114292]

You are seriously arguing that the fact that this was posted in the Mavic Air discussion forum, rather than the crash assistance forum, is evidence that it was faked?

Of course not. Again, it's the sum of the evidence - that's just one piece - if he had posted in crash someone would have (most likely) asked for the flight records. In this day an age I would never take just a video as evidence of anything.
See is not believing. Are you maintaining that it could NOT have been faked?
All the moon shot videos could have been faked, but there is tons of other evidence that it did happen.
Ironically the video on the moon shot was kinda an afterthought thrown in for PR.

 

[sar104]

Of course not. Again, it's the sum of the evidence - that's just one piece - if he had posted in crash someone would have (most likely) asked for the flight records. In this day an age I would never take just a video as evidence of anything.
See is not believing. Are you maintaining that it could NOT have been faked?
All the moon shot videos could have been faked, but there is tons of other evidence that it did happen.
Ironically the video on the moon shot was kinda an afterthought thrown in for PR.

Except every single piece of "evidence" that you have quoted is incorrect. You have so far got nothing correct apart from noting the lack of logs (not requested), the lack of photos of the wreckage (not pertinent to the event) and the forum in which it was posted. You have studiously ignored every attempt to point out that your evidence is wrong.

Are you going to comment on the spin rates that you said were impossible? Are you going to comment on the frames above - that show the collision? Are you going to comment on DJI's response to the OP? If not, and you plan to simply restate already-debunked comments as if they were still fact, then this discussion is even more pointless than it appeared to be.

I would not go so far as to say that this could not have been faked, but it would have required some hard-to-obtain/construct video frames and a knowledge of collision and flight dynamics that very few people have. And beyond that - why on earth would anyone fake it? To what end? Of all the obscure and uncontroversial things that could be faked, why this? But that's a rhetorical question because, at this stage, if you are still convinced it is fake then you are in a serious state of denial. I'm pretty sure that you are simply incapable of admitting that you made a mistake - hence your refusal to engage properly in the discussion.

 

[The Editor]

I’m so glad I know the Earth is flat and Elvis is still alive.

 

[Prismatic]

... why on earth would anyone fake it? To what end? Of all the obscure and uncontroversial things that could be faked, why this? But that's a rhetorical question because, at this stage, if you are still convinced it is fake then you are in a serious state of denial. I'm pretty sure that you are simply incapable of admitting that you made a mistake - hence your refusal to engage properly in the discussion.

My mom used to quote her father: "There are none so blind as those who will not see."

In that spirit, I am so @Done.

 

[sar104]

I’m so glad I know the Earth is flat and Elvis is still alive.

Some things you just know.

 

[Deleted member 114292]

Except every single piece of "evidence" that you have quoted is incorrect. You have so far got nothing correct apart from noting the lack of logs (not requested), the lack of photos of the wreckage (not pertinent to the event) and the forum in which it was posted. You have studiously ignored every attempt to point out that your evidence is wrong.

Are you going to comment on the spin rates that you said were impossible? Are you going to comment on the frames above - that show the collision? Are you going to comment on DJI's response to the OP? If not, and you plan to simply restate already-debunked comments as if they were still fact, then this discussion is even more pointless than it appeared to be.

I would not go so far as to say that this could not have been faked, but it would have required some hard-to-obtain/construct video frames and a knowledge of collision and flight dynamics that very few people have. And beyond that - why on earth would anyone fake it? To what end? Of all the obscure and uncontroversial things that could be faked, why this? But that's a rhetorical question because, at this stage, if you are still convinced it is fake then you are in a serious state of denial. I'm pretty sure that you are simply incapable of admitting that you made a mistake - hence your refusal to engage properly in the discussion.

I have no evidence. It's purely a circumstantial case. Of course that's my point there is no evidence other than the video.
I think it's a fake but that is just my opinion. I can't prove it because the real evidence is unobtainable.
If you read my posts I never said the spin rate were impossible.

"No one thing below is not possible, its when you add them up."

I did comment on DJI's response - easily faked:
"How do you know DJI examined to logs? Really you don't - it's the ops statement. I agree the emails sound like what they would say but there is plenty of posted DJI emails here to create that."
Plenty of emails from DJI here the glean the verbage from. Perhaps he did have a follow issue and perhap they did comment on that.

I still think it *could* be true - it is you who are unwilling to concede it *could* be false.

That's why I wanted to see the FR's - it would have nailed it down.
It's like a murder suspect that burns his clothes - it certainly does not prove him guilty but you gotta wonder why.
As to the why - people love attention and he sure got that - it's a great story true or not.
It's in the news all the time people make stuff up - often not even for profit.
Heck they even write entire fake books.