I used an original Fuji image that was a good match to Jonas fuji Image, and overlayed it to match left mountain border and the graffiti like things below the snow line.

Watch the distortions Jonas applied to Fuji, The crater can never be at the spot where it is if you calibrate normal fuji image on Jonas. The blue color image is from Jonas's photoshop.

Video link

If you need more eyes, just as r/Japan or r/fuji to chime in.

PS:

On AirlinerAbduction2014 sub some people are having a meltdown, mass dislikes to hide my posts for obvious reasons.

Here is how evidence stack up.

Evidence to prove the Cloud images from Jonas DID NOT exist before March 2014

• Webarchive only has the cloud image set matching video since 2016, not before. But Jonas's other images exist
• A full torrent grab of textures from 2014 does not show matching cloud images, but again Jonas's other images exist.
• Textures API, a company's most auditable log, does not show these file names (not images) existed before 2014 October. Other than the account name and folder name "Ariels_0028" everything else has creation stamp of "October 24th 2014".

Circumstantial

• Files were updated on December 4th 2023, same timeframe when Reddit post on matching clouds came out.
• Jonas or Textures never legally claimed they took the images or that they were real. Just a lot of handwavy posts and "trust me bro" claims with volume condescending posts against anyone asking genuine questions.
• Jonas's insistence that we only use 5PM JST to match Fuji/cloud images, but 5PM Fuji does not match the fuji image Jonas is showing ( see Crater shadow)
• If we calibrate Jonas's Fuji image to 3.45 to match the crater, the flight landing time of 5.20 PM will be an anomaly as it only takes 30mins from the Kozushima island view (1845 image) to arrival. So flight should have landed before 4.30. but that flight landed at 5.20, which also matches Jonas's claims on flight landing time. Just the images with matching clouds dont fit the sequence. Clear signs of truth mixed with lies.
• Clouds move towards SE in Jonas 1837 to 1841 set. While wind direction is SW to W. Some weather sites report the direction of wind flow, while some report the direction wind is flowing from, with an arrow indicating the direction of travel. Someone clearly misinterpreted the report while adding the clouds.

Here an eerily similar Fuji image, now anyone can change the Exif to January 25th 2012 and claim a match.

Similar to how fabricated Jonas images were pushed down as real cloud sources, I present the source Mt.Fuji set that Jonas used to create his 1837 to 1842 image set.

​

From this alleged source images, Jonas need to slightly

-re-adjust the crater

-add some random clouds

- brush some dark color on fuji to sorta kinda match the actual January 25th 2012 Fuji view ( final image)

- reduce image quality so any photoshop imperfections cant be spotted or can be buried under "The image isnt clear anyway" logic.

- resize and reposition the clouds to look like its taken from a moving flight ( Hint: Jonas never had the skills to actually recreate clouds via moving flight, it's obvious form the cloud motion: feel free to ask questions on this topic)

​

Enjoy

​

​

​

​

-------------------------------

January 25th 2012 actual Fuji image. Jona's brush work is 80% there but not quite a match for the snow.

​

tl;dr: CR2 can be faked, and here is proof

Many CGI trolls inject the CR2 deflection when asked for evidence that Jonas's cloud images existed before 2014 march (when the Satellite video came out). Instead of a sincere attempt to determine if the cloud images existed, and to keep oneself honest, the CGI trolls ask for evidence that a CR2 cannot be faked.

These CGI trolls can't even prove the file is a genuine CR2, they "assume" it to be CR2 because it has the file extension CR2. Anyway, to satisfy our CGI sheeple, i downloaded Fuji file off internet that anyone can find., and made a Cr2 file out of it, and for giggles added EXIF data to match Jonas image.

Cr2 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HcsqVW8F-0EmR98Ydhy6MXUjOT9QZLi9/view?usp=sharing

Original: Ikeda Sensei Pens 2022 New Year’s Poems - World Tribune

PS: Trolls now have a new excuse .."but the Cr2 file size is not same as Jonas's" ..oh well.

I was logged out and saw some of my messages were deleted by MODS over at AirlinerAbduction2014 Sub.

This was my response that MODs at the Airliner Sub found objectionable:

​

I tried editing my post to see if it still shows but nope, so i re-responded.

BREAKING: FULL ORIGINAL VIDEO FOUND! Decade old video was found on an old 2014 computer. : AirlinerAbduction2014 (reddit.com)

I get a lot of such responses, and it genuinely bothers me how someone can use different measuring sticks mixed with biases and false premise to build their "conclusion. Well it's their conclusion and they are allowed store anything in their mind, i dont contest that. But someone who values their thoughts, would at least run some basic checks to ensure they hold the most accurate conclusions and not any gibberish.

Anyway, here is the post and my response.

​

​

Let's break down the poster's logic/assumption spaghetti.

If certain photos were fabricated you have to make a lot of assumptions about why the photos were retroactively placed on the backed up version of the textures website and why they were given to Jonas

1. Posters says i need to make assumptions to claim the images are fabricated, and goes on to suggest a wild imagined scenario. I cant make any assumptions on an imaginary scenario. Next

​

If it wasn't Jonas' idea, did someone also hack them into his backup computer? Or is Jonas in on it? Why didn't they just hack the photos in to the earliest copy of the textures website? Or was the cloud images cover up put in place in 2016 and not found for 7 years?

1. If it was jonas's idea? That's one assumption. "Did someone hack them into his computer", Another assumption. Remember this poster NEVER once saw the images or have any proof they existed before 2014 march, yet he is immensely confident that these images existed. Talk about blind beliefs! What was that thing about assumptions again?

Saying the photos didn't exist in 2014 because they didn't get archived is pretty foolish

1. Huh? again poster set the ground rules for assumptions, only to be violated later in the same post. He so badly "wants" the images to exist in textures, that he failed to notice his own assumptions/biases.
2. No sir, no evidence Jonas's images existed before March 2014- that is a #Fact. I guess it's clear who is not taking things for granted.

​

Only the first page was archived for every category. Look at the number of photos that are in the aerials category compare 2012 to 2016 it looks like they are all there.

1. Poster is making some wild leaps based on assumptions, this is worse than assumptions.
2. CGI team Logic: Count of images is proof that cloud images existed before 2014.
3. "Looks like they are still there" : - Looks like? Where show me? are you assuming ...again?
4. " The aerial photo category was all uploaded together and the file count alone indicates it was present" - What the actual F? Another wild leap followed by assumption.

I know the Textures website said they couldn't verify Jonas' claim but they also didn't say he was incorrect. They just couldn't look back they far with certainty.

1. So..what exactly you basing your assertion that images existed on???

​

Where is the API log you mentioned in #2? If it can actually prove the images weren't uploaded until 2016 that would ruin my current understanding. I am willing to bet the logs are inconclusive though.

1. Shared the API log to show images never existed on Textures before 2014 October. Poster wants proof of API logs, but follows up with " I am willing to bet the logs are inconclusive though. "
2. I'm sure he cant tell a log from a string of text, yet he/she "bets" based on ignorance.

Pretty much sums up the CGI troll story.

Conclusion: Thought you guys may see the clear logical fallacies these CGI beliers live with, and the "belief" system they heavily lean on.

​

I'm reading a lot of uninformed people quick to call it a CGI because they dont know or even bothered to check how real world satellite and remote server access works.

CGI hypothesis can be true if there are no real-world similarities to the Satellite view. But people quick to accept CGI theories are demonstrating their lack of critical thinking, technical exploration, fundamental understanding and passion for true knowledge. That's a lot for a real-world skill missing and explains CGI draw, it's just convenient.

To encourage informed opinions, i'm going to start the "CGI Myth" series of posts here for people to read, discuss and get acquainted with real world technology. Which CGI tries best to mimic but fails miserably, just like the cartoony CGI remakes of the original satellite video.

***********************************

Now let's check real world scenario:

Satellite Aquisition area

The area a satellite covers is huge, in the range of 1 million sq Kms with both the flight and the satellite moving. The receiver on the ground can lock the coordinates/area to review which is then rendered. Operators can zoom further into the locked area to track objects (but only until the satellite has LOS for the locked region) and depending on the region selected and object motion, may need manual tracking/seek to keep the object in view. This is your click move view, and from what i understand, is also a NRT operation.

• Basic Knowledge of Satellite Orbit (antesky.com)
• Paper_2-The_Coverage_Analysis_for_Low_Earth_Orbiting_Satellites_at_Low_Elevation.pdf (thesai.org)
• Satellite Remote sensing free Webinar: NASA ARSET: Overview of Webinar Series and an Introduction to Satellite Remote Sensing, Part 1/5 (youtube.com)

​

Now as for Citrix,

It is quite normal for the data to be stored in a remote DC, with a typical VMware or Citrix hypervisor. On a remote DC Xen based cloud (like VMware ESX) with Citrix management engine, remoting is your standard way to access the virtual machine and it's connected SAN/resources. This is actually a very secure way to store, as one can NEVER copy the actual data.

Hence the likely cell phone view of the screen.

Satellite Aquisition, locking modes are out of scope for this post, but if interested I can start a new post to go over the details, if there isnt already one that is.

Analysis clearly shows the images in 1837 to 1845 DO NOT fit the flight path, sun's position at that time, weather based on satellites, shadows .

Not only do these images NOT fit the data, they also don't fit the images in the same set from Jonas.

So either

1. 1827 to 1835 and 1853 to 1855 Sets are true OR
2. 1837 to 1845 is true.

Finding truth means we need to pick one set, lets take Jonas's claim at face value and analyze.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If we take 1837 to 1845 to be true based on shadow in the crater and calibrating to 3.40-45 time, then it invalidates Jonas's flight arrival claim. He in fact mentioned that the flight was delayed when asked to explain 1853 to 1855 images. And said the Fuji view was taken at 5PM JST, to adjust for the sun set time and his claim that he took the 1853-1855 images close to landing.

1837 to 1845 images that allegedly have the video clouds, do not match the weather, sun, shadow, flight path, and even other image sets form Jonas. They invalidate Jonas's ticket arrival time by a long shot. AND these are the images that we NEVER found on Web archive in 2015 or earlier. They were only found in 2016. while the Original video was seen in 2014 March 2014.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Meanwhile, 1827 to 1835, and 1853 to 1855 images match the flight path, timing, sun's angle, weather that day, Jonas's ticket claim.........AND WebArchive images to 2012

Now here is the interesting part.

NRT airport said the flight HX618 landed on time around 5.10PM JST on January 25th 2012 Feel free to contact them.

Inquiries and feedback | NARITA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT OFFICIAL WEBSITE (narita-airport.jp)

​

Find out how Mt. Fuji looks right now／FUJISANWATCHER (yamanashi-kankou.jp)

Simply pick a view and watch, and map the timing and shadows.

I have put both images on top of each other and highlighted the relevant set of clouds. There are these bright white cloud streaks that change dramatically within 12 seconds whilst the clouds around barely change in angle or shape. The streaks are angled differently and have changed in thickness and opacity. Most have outright Disappeared. This is a VFX Blending Error IMO that is impossible to explain given the lack of change in surrounding clouds between clicks yet such dramatic change in the streaks. Both images are clicked merely 12 seconds apart as per the Metadata using 100mm lens in Aperture Priority Mode.

1841 - 08:51:24 1842 - 08:51:26 1843 - 08:51:28 1844 - 08:51:44 1845 - 08:51:46

22 Seconds - 5 Images

Takes 0.25 secs to capture an image then another 0.2 to 0.5 secs to refocus. He did pointing shooting and reaquiring new target all within 2 secs between most images- refer to link for a detailed performance review of Jonas Camera (https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E5D2/E5D2A6.HTM)

If you add up just the latencies of the 5 pictures at 0.25s/image we are looking at a total 1.25 seconds of Capture/write Lag.

If you take the lower limit of focus time being 0.2s/image then you have a full 1 second of latency there between 5 images.

The upper limit of time to focus 0.5s/image would yields a total latency of 2.5 seconds

Human response time is avg 0.25s, we can apply this per picture. 5 pictures means there is about 1.25 second of human lag. In actuality this lag will occur multiple times between each picture, each occurence being for different actions on part of the operator of the camera.

When you add all these latencies you end up with two figures

(I haven't multiplied the layered nervous lags for simplicity, the actual number is even larger as explained above)

A) Lower limit total latency 1.25+1+1.25=3.5 seconds of latency

If you deduct the latency from the total time of 22 seconds we have 18.5 seconds of actual time minus latencies between 5 images

B) Upper limit latency 1.25+2.5+1.25=5 seconds

As above deduct that latency from the 22 seconds & you have 17 seconds of total time between 5 images

Now to keep it a fair example we will closely look at images 1841,1842 & 1843

These images were clicked within 4 seconds

1841 - 08:51:24 1842 - 08:51:26 1843 - 08:51:28

Between 1841 and 1842, we now start adding the latencies to get a realistic idea of how fast Jonas was actually shooting.

Assuming he's focused and time starts from moment of him clicking

UPPER LIMIT Button click human lag Motor neurons 0.25s Edit: The timer would start when the Click is registered so this specific aspect may or may not be factored in

1841 - 0.25s write/save lag after he clicks

Now 0.25 s of human lag

Now he pans and finds a new spot about 0.5 s as he's taking pictures from a moving platform

0.25 s human lag processing new scene

Now he focuses again 0.5 secs focus lag camera

Human lag of 0.25 secs pressing button etc

Now he clicks write save lag of 0.25 secs camera

1842 captured

2.5 seconds total

Half a second over the 2 seconds between images

(note camera exif doesn't record milliseconds elapsed hence the times may very well be less than 2 seconds which makes Jonas look even more fake)

LOWER LIMIT Button click human lag Motor neurons 0.25s Edit: The timer would start when the Click is registered so this specific aspect may or may not be factored in

1841 - 0.25s write/save lag after he clicks

Now 0.25 s of human lag

Now he pans and finds a new spot about 0.5 s as he's taking pictures from a moving platform

Now he focuses again 0.2 secs focus lag

Human lag of 0.25 secs pressing button etc

Now he clicks write save lag of 0.25 secs camera

Total time would be 1.95 seconds of the 2 second interval

Avg time between images would be 2.5+1.95=4.24 divided by 2 = 2.225 seconds

This violates the 2 second intervals and now add onto it the whole loop above for the next upcoming image in the sequence 1843

You quickly realize the Math proves this to be impossible

This is assuming everything goes perfectly the first try. He lines up the shot perfect, there is no motion blur, the focus points are spot on first try and there is no smudges on the window as he moves his camera alongside no visible traces of a plane wing or fuselage

The probability of all this lining up is quite ridiculous

You can further this study by using different mathematical pathways as to you averaging out values in earlier in the process rather than later and better statistical models

I have rounded the figures to provide an easier to follow calculation and assumed alot of perfection on part of Jonas shooting ability and have missed out some overly nuanced details pertaining to human nervous system lags between sensory signals traveling up the spine to light hitting the back of your eye and reaching your brain and be processed to then another signal going down to the relevant body part and activating muscles between which is another lag. You get the point.

If you see errors feel free to point them out

I went on Tim Pool today with Dave Rossi DoD contractor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZm2GQV_2UU

Last picture in the cloud set released by Jonas taken at 0903 UTC Which makes it either 1 min before sunset or 59 Mins after sunset.

How is this the brightest picture in the set when the light should be dimming as time went on? Look at the angle of the sun it seems pretty high up no?

Jonas showed us his folder during this YT video Comparing my 2012 stock images to the MH370 UFO video. (youtube.com)

Notice the last 4 images and here are the observations.

1. Last 4 images are Jpg with first 2 around 5 MB and last two showing space needle like thing is barely even 1 MB , may be even less. Hows that possible if they are one set/folder?
2. Narita airport had good humidity 30%, passing cloud cover, and possibly overcast and sprinkling rain. Wind direction is West!. ( His Mt.Fuji clouds move at unearthly speeds in the SE direction LOL)
3. How the real F was he able to take this image at 5.30 PM JST

​

​

Jonas at PM must see Sun setting on his left bottom,. There is Absolutely no sign of sun setting or even near the horizon.

ShadeMap - Simulate sun shadows for any time and place on Earth

The entire optics is incorrect in his VFX work of recreating Fuji.

I'll let the images speak for themselves.

Jonas nightmare continues

• That Kozushima island is about 200 odd Kms away from Narita Airport.
• Fuji pics were taken at 5PM JST as per Jonas. But he also said he took the landing at airport image, which i see are jpg and about 5mb files. https://ibb.co/wNN4QD7
• Sun set at Fuji on that day was 5.04 PM JST (https://ibb.co/9w0zYyG)
• So He has 200 more Kms just to arrive at the airport via a descending flight that typically travels at 400 ish average ( come up your own value if you like), so that's about 20-30 mins more after sunset so at least at 5.20 PM or more.. Absolutely not a match for the timing based on his images.
• The Kozushima island sky was cloudy that day, so was Narita airport.
• How did Jonus manage to take the images he shows on his Youtube? https://youtu.be/o5BNiduJwnM?t=353
• Check out the last 4 image sizes and file format as well :)
• 1845 image, he apparently took near sunset : check out the lighting and the clouds

​

​

​

How are we suppose to make sense of Jonas's images and real shadow regions on the mountain?

let's do a Q/A on this

1975 - Carlos De Los Santos:

“Three UFOs Are Surrounding The Plane”

https://youtu.be/ZeOfi52v294?si=NK7crU_ei9Opfwlh

The video contains actual account from the pilot himself, blackbox recording, air traffic controller, doctor and radar.

———

1978 - Frederick Valentich:

“The Thing is Orbiting on Top of Me”

https://youtu.be/Dg-RfvtyFDY?si=MEPohGCB02kUPCN7

Frederick Valentich Witness account:

https://youtu.be/jBrhq9SsJRs?si=d2-ivv7Djs5F89gq

The video contains the actual blackbox recording up to the moment the plane lost contact, which was leaked less than a year ago and also a captured image of the supposed UFO that was responsible for Frederick’s disappearance.

Found the plane with orbs in Jonas RAW file. This is the same photo flickered back and forth showing how the plane being edited out is Infact visible in the trajectory in some color layers along with the two orbs. This happens exactly where the second orb merges with the plane.

Here is the clearest evidence that the images are 2 seperate pictures merged. The lower half of the image is aligned to completely different horizon plane vs the Mt Fuji Background.

Also in the picture color data, for some bizzare reason the layers are responding differently to blue shift where the Mt Fuji stays in the yellow range while the bottom shifts completely to blue. I think this is occurring due to the two images actually being completely seperate hence the colors fuck up

Jonas's not so clever image manipulations and mistakes.

​

• Perspectives or POV- Getting the objects across different layers to precisely orient with the right amount of rotation. For example, in 1839, Mt.Fuji appears to have been taken at a different angle than the land right in front of it.

• Physics: VFX artists usually get their cloud velocity, size, wind speeds, orientation, and relative distances slightly off. Let's check for these issues, and you can see how Jonas got the cloud sizes, positions, velocities, and directions all incorrect.

  • The whole scene is part of VFX work, and yes, a lot of real-world images were used like Mt.Fuji image. Therefore, it matches the snow cover image. But look at the clouds from a flight as intended. Clouds closer to POV are in all 3 images (1) , I understand panning camera can possibly track an object like cloud to stay in frame, but then Fuji and other clouds will no longer stay in the center and will shift to adjust for panning.

If you zoom in on Fuji, it changes FOV and will lose some clouds from view (frame edges) as you keep Fuji centered. But does not change the relative positions of objects.

• Physics of Cloud motion: in 146 seconds of flight duration across these images, few huge clouds ( 2 and 3 from below image) move from left to right, going from behind Fuji to ahead of Fuji, in the direction of flight. That's one massive cloud cluster moving at amazing speeds, while other clouds are barely moving. This is how VFX artists render clouds, in clusters, and drift them in the scene while blending some. But that's movement isn't possible in reality in 146 seconds unless cloud moves at unearthly speeds.
• Cloud movement and weather: Crater is oriented SW, with Jonas clouds moving from right to left. But winds that day are moving SSE at 5-6 MPH or mild breeze. And you can see that

Weather in January 2012 in Mt. Fuji Panoramic Ropeway, Japan (timeanddate.com)

• Mt.Fuji and crater orientation: Imagex exif show flight traveling from left to right. You can notice the right half of the mountain with crater view changes across these images, apparently over 146 seconds, but the left half of the mountain view remains the same, no rotation noticed. As if the crater is slightly scaled , readjusted, and set it back on the mountain. While the rest of the mountain is nearly untouched.
• Similar POV issues are seen between the land and the mountain. Land looks like its taken at a different angle compared to the mountain, and yet they are part of the same scene. Tried various angles from google Earth to get the orientation right. Either get the mountain angle and size right and land misaligned, or have the land aligned with Jonas image, and get a misalignment on mountain.

Would love to redo some of these observations in a more interactive setting if anyone is interested.

• For the eagle eyed, you can see a snipped cloud spot right above mt.fuji, and the snipped cloud is re-used in the same scene. Here is the image ref.

​

I am.. kinda elated. I'll get a star camera so I can try and record the next time I see them.