Originally Posted by
macboydus
Anyway, as per usual, I'm enjoying the machinations of the minds here attempting to fathom this incident. It's rather frustrating to see the other site I check—AVHerald—completely close the comments and so adamantly state that the cabin video for this crash is fake. As a scientist, I like to keep an open mind about things. Certainly it's surprising to see such a video, but having examined it, I thought right (!), off to Google maps and attempt to match....sure enough, those tennis courts next to the stadium were a bit of a give away....my only guess is that Simon is just overloaded and has to stop comments out of frustration and a lack of time to moderate.
Now that I find a bit of time, let me share my view and reasons on this video:
So far I found out that there was never a livestream out of the cabin, it was not possible to livestream for this user. Facebook permits livestreams only for users with more than 10,000 followers. The passenger had about 2 dozen followers (and since the crash no new have joined, how could they have been approved even if they requested, if the account owner is dead?) However, the video was uploaded to that account a long time after the crash. This makes clear that somebody else has access to the account and placed the video there a long time later. Only THEN the livestream became public (and this explains why the livestream became known only a day after the crash. Had the video been around as a livestream indeed, it would have been known within an hour after the crash just like the ground observer video).
In the time between the crash and the upload of the video was more than enough time to combine two videos. The first, showing the correct passenger, however, on a previous flight into the old airport (hence before Jan 1st 2023) and the second blurred video, that pretends to show the crash sequence. The transition from the first to the second video is dilletantic. The last fully clear and crystal sharp frame of the first video is followed by the totally blurred first frame of the second video without any transition. The last clear frame still shows the passenger happily and relaxed, the next frame is blurred without transition, there is no visible refocussing of the camera, no movement of the camera, no movement before the camera, no reason for the sudden blur is visible. However, only this first blurred frame "starts" the crash sequence, and the video remains blurred to the very end.
People of Pokhara tell me, that the video in its clear part clearly show the straight final approach to old Pokhara Airport's runway 22, all landmarks etc. are correct. The approach is visible to relatively low height.
Witnesses of the crash however say, that the aircraft was already on a final approach in straight flight (not turning anymore) west of the old airport, crossed the old airport in a nearly perpendicular and straight wings level trajectory across the old runway, and shortly afterwards rolled left and impacted the ground (this is also what the ground observer video shows, the aircraft was wings level until the final roll left!). This approach however is definitely not visible in the cabin video (even if the aircraft was turning base still before the aircraft rolled left, that turn would have been visible in the cabin video too but wasn't).
In the cabin video the development of trouble is also not visible. According to the groundvideo the aircraft increased its pitch progressively, accelerating the pitch rate towards the end. Passengers would not be alerted by this pitch increase and would also not recognize the unusual attitude, however, the trained eye would instantly see the high pitch in the video while showing the outside through the cabin video (this pitch movement was not just a few seconds long, on the ground video the aircraft becomes visible already at a high pitch attitude). Not in the cabin video.
The initial left roll, according to the ground video, was relatively slow at first, hence no big forces onto the passengers, however, clearly noticeable that the aircraft would turn. This is not visible in the cabin video, also no reaction by the passengers. The passengers would have recognized they were on short final having seen the old airport pass by the windows flying over the old runway in a near right angle and would have known, that now a turn would be entirely wrong. Hence the passengers would have been alerted. Nothing visible/audible on the video.
Then the aircraft rolls in with quite some violence, the forces onto the passengers must have been huge and the people would have screamed with certainty in panic. Nothing on the video however.
One of my readers gave me an additional hint, a very good observation: comparing the ground observer video and the cabin video the time in the cabin video between the first blurred frame (before only happy cabin) and the impact is much less than the ground observer video shows.
How did the video get to the public? The BBC writes:
Quote:
Abhishek Pratap Shah, a former lawmaker in Nepal, told Indian news channel NDTV that rescuers had recovered the phone on which the video was found from the plane's wreckage.
"It [the video clip] was sent by one of my friends, who received it from a police officer. It is a real record," Mr Shah told NDTV. Officials in Nepal have not confirmed his claim or commented on the footage.
Endquote
So, on this way the video got the public according to the BBC, possibly also onto the Facebook Account of the passenger. The BBC also raises the question, how even an Internet contact or a live stream could have been accomplished, but nonetheless states the video is authentic because the family confirmed they had seen the video live. However, a live stream was not possible (and the video was uploaded many hours after the crash only), this statement is disproven. I do not think the family is behind the fake (but can't rule this out either), but under this assumption that the family is not part of the fake I believe they are strained with the grief over their lost family member and the sudden interest by media and all those inquiries and said "Yes" and "Amen" to everything, hence the reporter only needed to ask the right question to get his story confirmed (I would even think, had the reporter asked whether his interview partner was already dead, the interview partner would also have said "yes").
However, the BBC story raises one more question: how could one access the mobile phone and get to the video without PIN/password in this time? This all doesn't fit together.
Servus, Simon