Extremely convincing?
I only ever see one chute (strictly speaking I see one tiny, out of focus blob of white, but I'll readily accept that it could well be a parachute) at the same time. Due to the featureless background it is impossible to work out how the camera is panned and zoomed (i.e. does the person filming switch between two objects too far apart to fit inside the frame simultaneously or is it just shaky footage of single chute?).
So unless you can find a frame showing two parachutes at the same time (I couldn't), I'm afraid the value of this video is pretty much zero.
It was one continuous shot, with zero signs of editing or cut-always.
Now, if it was you shooting the video, would you not wish to zoom in as much as you possibly can to see all you can? And if you were to increase the zoom, you do it with the target in frame, as we can see how hard it was for the operator to get the first chute in frame to start with.
Throughout the clip, there is no indication of additional zoom, which makes me pretty sure the camera/phone was already at maximum zoom from the start clip.
The first blob was significantly smaller than the second, which to me is extremely strong indication of two separate parachutes.
To demand that both chutes be in the same frame, and suggesting this clip as ‘pretty much zero’ value does not strike me as a reasonable assessment of the evidence.
Sure, an aviation enthusiast knows that, but to the average witness the only item aboard a fighter jet with a parachute is probably the crew. From their point of view, two chutes = two pilots. As I said, civilian accident investigation history is *littered* with eye witnesses steadfastly claiming to have seen things far more blatantly in contradiction to the actual event than this.
If it's possible for people to be convinced that they saw an aircraft on fire before it hit the ground even though it was conclusively established not to have been, then I'm not so certain something comparatively subtle like a higher rate of descent on one chute would assuredly disabuse them of the seemingly trivial explanation that there were two pilots. You have to bear in mind the startle factor, and the fact that they'll typically be watching from a considerable distance.
I overlooked your dubious air crash anecdotes before, but your continued insistence on trying to use gross generations to ‘disprove’ an actual clip is boarding on the nonsensical.
This, together with the previous examples of demanding improbable levels of proof and trying to downplay and dismiss pretty convincing evidence is itself a strong indication of someone trying to defend an existing preconceived position rather than looking at the evidence objectively to form the best possible conclusion based on what evidence is available.
Sure, eyewitnesses sometimes get things wrong, but most times they don’t. Which is why eye witeness accounts are considered some of the strongest evidence in any court of law. Try the above line of ‘reasoning’ in front of a judge and see how far that gets you.
Furthermore, we can see the actual clip ourselves.
Go look up some aircrash ejection clips and see the rate at which ejection seats fall and you will realise just how ridiculous your suggestion that one of those blobs in the clip could be an ejection seat with a stabilisation chute is.
Such chutes are only meant to at as an air-break for the ejection seat to pull it away from the aircraft, stabilise it and help with seat separation, that all happens in a matter of seconds at most, which is all the chute is designed to do. They will slow the drop of the seat about as much as you flapping your arms in freefall would slow your own descent.
Look no further than this thread, where you have posters who are absolutely convinced a nondescript black blotch (which is barely discernible, with the benefit of context, as an indeterminate fighter aircraft) must without a shadow of doubt be a Su-30MKI. And they, unlike people unexpectedly seeing an aircraft shoot-down, have the advantage of being able to replay and pause the footage at will.
Again, trying to use generalisations to counter a specific, unrelated piece of evidence.
The fact remains, to date we only have word of mouth to go by here, and past experience shows that it's highly unreliable. No official confirmation, no (believable) pictorial evidence.
Only if we dismiss the best evidence to date based on highly dubious and illogical arguments.
Previously there was only what the locals were recorded as saying there were multiple chutes (I don’t understand the language, but assumed people would have jumped on something as obvious as mistranslations given the lengths some have gone to try and dismiss the idea that a second plane was shot down that day). Multiple people all independently describing the same observation is pretty strong evidence in itself, but now we also have a clip that shows two chutes in the sky at the same time. That is extremely convincing in my book.
Also, you are wrong that there were no official confirmations. The Pakistani government has officially claimed, from the offset, that they have shot down two Indian fighters.
Sure, you can argue that the Indians have officially denied that they lost a second aircraft. However that doesn’t quite carry as much weight since they also denied loosing any aircraft until irrefutable proof was presented to the world.
Unfortunately, I get the feeling we are unlikely to get to the truth until well after the Indian elections.
It is obvious why Modi’s government would do all it can to keep news of an MKI loss suppressed, as even their fake news spammers would struggle to put a positive spin on that.
Pakistan and China are more interested in de-escalation rather than sales pitching the JF17 with a confirmed MKI kill, since such news may well drive Modi to further military misadventures to try and undo the terminal damage such revelations would do to his re-election bid.
Russia would obviously not advertise the loss; America and Europe also has zero interest in presenting evidence to unmask the coverup.
I do not say the above to try and provoke anyone, only to temper expectations here, as it is unlikely we will get the kind of irrefutable proof some demand until months or even years down the line.
