J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VIII

[Blitzo]

Maybe the drone is flying autonomously and J-20 is observing it's flight/integrity, hence the close proximity.

There's literally any number of reasons why J-20 and GJ-11 could be flying in formation with each other.

What I'm saying is that flying in formation with each other is unimportant either way, if one is interested in their degree of assessing their degree of MUMT development because flying in formation is one of the least important elements and most basic parts of MUMT that they should be well ahead of by now.

 

[broadsword]

We don't definitively know if it is real or not, but using our usual metrics for assessing credibility, at this stage it is unlikely to be real without other indicators or backing from credible individuals.

Even if it is real, it is unimportant anyhow.

What usual metrics?

Unimportant, yet was posted by a veteran watcher and mod.

 

[Blitzo]

What usual metrics?

Metrics that support a picture is likely to be more credible:
- same object/objects photographed from multiple angles
- absence of differences in colour/shadowing
- comments by credible people/insiders on the Chinese internet side who endorse the legitimacy of a picture

Unimportant, yet was posted by a veteran watcher and mod.

? You mean Deino?

He is posting it here as a "to be aware" for record keeping and to ask how credible it is, which is reasonable but he is not endorsing its authenticity.
Furthermore the original poster however is not Deino, but rather the person on facebook who we know nothing about.

 

[broadsword]

Metrics that support a picture is likely to be more credible:
- same object/objects photographed from multiple angles
- absence of differences in colour/shadowing
- comments by credible people/insiders on the Chinese internet side who endorse the legitimacy of a picture

Based on that picture, can you describe the qualities that made you doubt its credibility?

? You mean Deino?

He is posting it here as a "to be aware" for record keeping and to ask how credible it is, which is reasonable but he is not endorsing its authenticity.
Furthermore the original poster however is not Deino, but rather the person on facebook who we know nothing about.

Of course, I was referring to the poster based here.
Then @latenlazy responded that it was not credible and I gave my take, but mine was the one you found disagreeable?

 

[Blitzo]

Based on that picture, can you describe the qualities that made you doubt its credibility?

One single picture angle (i.e. no multiple angles), being posted by some random person whose background we do not know, of sufficiently poor quality and resolution that we cannot discern whether the inconsistencies in shadowing and angle of the two aircraft are a reflection of doctoring or not.
Which means the image at this stage doesn't deserve us to entertain it as credible.

Of course, I was referring to the poster based here.
Then @latenlazy responded that it was not credible and I gave my take, but mine was the one you found disagreeable?

I didn't find your post disagreeable, I was merely adding onto what you said.

You wrote "Flying together should not be a cause for surprise anymore" which I agree with, and I was elaborating that it doesn't matter whether it's flying together or not and it also doesn't matter whether the picture is real or not.

 

[broadsword]

One single picture angle (i.e. no multiple angles), being posted by some random person whose background we do not know, of sufficiently poor quality and resolution that we cannot discern whether the inconsistencies in shadowing and angle of the two aircraft are a reflection of doctoring or not.
Which means the image at this stage doesn't deserve us to entertain it as credible.

So it was poor quality, but it could be true as well, isn't it? Can you say that it was PS based on shadows?

 

[Blitzo]

So it was poor quality, but it could be true as well, isn't it? Can you say that it was PS based on shadows?

This is PLA watching, we do not have the luxury of justifying the credibility of an image with "but it could be true as well".

If we are presented with a poor quality image, the onus is on other metrics/factors to suggest authenticity.
Without those other metrics/factors which suggest authenticity, we are obliged to assume that it is likely to be fake/doctored/not real until indicated/proven otherwise.

 

[broadsword]

This is PLA watching, we do not have the luxury of justifying the credibility of an image with "but it could be true as well".

If we are presented with a poor quality image, the onus is on other metrics/factors to suggest authenticity.
Without those other metrics/factors which suggest authenticity, we are obliged to assume that it is likely to be fake/doctored/not real until indicated/proven otherwise.

That can apply to many pictures. It all depends on your interpretation of some blurry pictures that were discussed for pages. In this case, I'm of the opinion that the shadows do not disprove anything.

 

[Blitzo]

That can apply to many pictures. It all depends on your interpretation of some blurry pictures that were discussed for pages. In this case, I'm of the opinion that the shadows do not disprove anything.

If you have your own standards you use to assess likelihood of authenticity, that's fine.

My view, based on the many years of assessing pictures, is that the combination of limited/unclear sourcing credibility, lack of multiple picture angles, and poor picture resolution and odd features means we don't have the right to entertain it as having credibility yet.


If there are new picture angles or credible individuals who endorse it, then that would change things.

 

[broadsword]

If you have your own standards you use to assess likelihood of authenticity, that's fine.

My view, based on the many years of assessing pictures, is that the combination of limited/unclear sourcing credibility, lack of multiple picture angles, and poor picture resolution and odd features means we don't have the right to entertain it as having credibility yet.


If there are new picture angles or credible individuals who endorse it, then that would change things.

Let's hear it from @latenlazy