No, we don't.
The image in the first picture is insufficient to meet standards for confirmation of its status as "J-15B using WS-10".
Again, yes, we do.
And yes, it's sufficient. If you'll only accept clear, HD 4K images as sufficient evidence, I don't think you're being realistic. Being too cautious and burying your head in sand won't do anything any favors.
You also fail to provide any specific reasons of why this evidence isn't usable, citing vague past experiences. Any reasons why this image might be misleading *in terms of it, just a singular J-15B airframe, using WS-10s?* Meanwhile, no AL-31 engines has nozzles shorter than the horizontal stabs, so this pattern holds unless you can offer contradicting examples or logical reasons why it wouldn't.
but we've been burned too many times in past years for past aircraft type, for imagery of insufficient quality that everyone considered to be a domestic engine which ultimately wasn't.
This is pretty anecdotal, no? Past mistakes do not automatically disqualify current evidence. If so, it's an unjustified assumption. Each photo should be evaluated on its own merits, and the visual evidence at hand clearly indicates a noticeably (significantly, even) shorter nozzle length not seen on other J-15 airframes except for the one with WS-10s. Your argument holds no weight if you can't point to specific reasons why this imagery isn't sufficient this time.
I've seen you bring up the "we've been burned too many times in the past..." quite a few times now IIRC, yet you fail to provide even a single example of this happening in this scenario. Has there been an image so horribly deformed with so much artifacts that makes the AL-31 look shorter than it is here? That the nozzles, somehow not clear enough to be discerned as AL-31s yet clear enough to see that it's shorter than the tails? I sincerely doubt it.
Without clear examples and/or specifics, you're relying on a generalisation and false equivalence to dismiss the current case, which is neither a valid argument or logically sound. I showed a discernable evidence with clear supporting evidence, that the image does show a J-15B with engines having characteristics only matching WS-10s. It remains unrefuted.
If anything we have a degree of culpability and responsibility in framing the discussion here so that people outside who read this forum don't walk away with a wrong impression that ends up getting circulated.
It's true, and I agree that we should aim for high standards, but being cautious doesn't mean disregarding usable evidence. Shouldn't the responsibility of this forum be to analyze evidence rationally, not just dismissing it outright without *valid*, non-vague reasons? You're calling for a level of absolute certainty that at this point in time, is both unrealistic and unnecessary in this context. I'm not claiming it with 100% certainty, but rather presenting a well-supported analysis based on clear, observable difference.
Ignoring this would be less responsible than discussing the most likely conclusion.
1725447534745.jpeg
