07-17-2016, 10:06 AM
I have no objecting to shelling out some money to pay for their costs of sorting editing and sticking them on a few discs and posting them out. I just object that they edited too much info out removing the GPS metadata. Failed to read the dates properly, apparently deliberately removed the 100 photo's in between the 2 they managed to give me from the 24th March and packed it up in a format designed to hide the metadata and foil any close examination of the photos. I just want what I paid for, does not seem likely the Department of Defence is going to release the photo's they say they have.
That and I was surprised it would take them over three months to do such a simple thing, let alone all the stalling they are currently up to.
And on the radar sightings in the article ventus45 posted. You will notice in that Factual Information Report a completely different story is told about what the Thai saw. If you look at the crafty wording used, it is the same as the Malaysian story, might have been, could have been, they were not interested in where it was going. Would not surprise me if that plane landed at RMAF Butterworth and they all knew it was not MH370.
That and I was surprised it would take them over three months to do such a simple thing, let alone all the stalling they are currently up to.
And on the radar sightings in the article ventus45 posted. You will notice in that Factual Information Report a completely different story is told about what the Thai saw. If you look at the crafty wording used, it is the same as the Malaysian story, might have been, could have been, they were not interested in where it was going. Would not surprise me if that plane landed at RMAF Butterworth and they all knew it was not MH370.