与「OFFICIAL_AIRLINE」相关的搜索结果

Ali's WILD first impression of New York as he arrives for the FIFA World Cup 2026™. Qatar Airways is the official airline sponsor of the journey to the FIFA World Cup 2026™.

Welcome on board! 블랙핑크가 대한항공에 탑승한 여러분을 환영합니다 #BLACKPINK# WORLD TOUR [BORN PINK]의 공식 항공사, 대한항공의 특별 기내 웰컴영상을 만나보세요! #BLACKPINK_WORLDTOUR# #BLACKPINK_BORNPINK# #OFFICIAL_AIRLINE# #KoreanAir# #WELCOME_VIDEO# #YG#

Important news for Argentina as Lionel Scaloni confirms Dibu Martínez, Cuti Romero and Leo Messi are all feeling better. Sponsored by @AmericanAir, Official North American Airline Supplier of FIFA World Cup 26™

Ashton Forbes Claims Secret U.S. Technology Removed MH370 From the Sky...🧐🤔 More than a decade after Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 disappeared with 239 people aboard, the aircraft’s main wreckage and flight recorders have still not been located. That unresolved absence has allowed numerous alternative theories to develop, including one centered on two viral videos that appear to show a passenger aircraft surrounded by three luminous objects before suddenly disappearing. In a recent interview, information technology consultant Ashton Forbes argued that the videos may show what happened to MH370. Forbes does not believe the objects were extraterrestrial. He claims they may represent secret technology developed or operated by the United States military, possibly the U.S. Navy. The two controversial recordings are commonly described online as a satellite video and an infrared drone video. Both appear to show a large passenger aircraft flying through clouds while three small objects circle it. The sequence ends with a bright visual event, after which the aircraft and the objects are no longer visible. Forbes says he began investigating the recordings after encountering them online in 2023. He explains that he had no previous involvement with the UFO community and initially approached the material by asking what evidence would need to exist for the videos to be authentic. His argument depends on three broad areas. The first is the unresolved disappearance of MH370. The second is the alleged timing and provenance of the videos. The third is the possibility that classified military technology could account for the aircraft’s apparent disappearance. Forbes argues that a Boeing 777 should not have been able to disappear completely in 2014. He points to satellite surveillance, military radar, aircraft engine monitoring, acoustic detection systems and over the horizon radar networks as technologies that might have recorded the aircraft or its destruction. He specifically refers to Australia’s Jindalee Operational Radar Network, which can monitor activity across very large distances. From his perspective, the absence of a publicly released record showing the final moments of MH370 suggests that relevant information may have been withheld. However, MH370 did not disappear without leaving any trace. Military radar recorded the aircraft reversing direction and crossing the Malay Peninsula after communication with civilian air traffic control ended. Satellite communication data also indicated that the aircraft continued operating for several hours after it vanished from conventional air traffic tracking. Those records became the basis for the official search in the southern Indian Ocean. Physical debris was later recovered from islands and coastlines in the western Indian Ocean. A flaperon found on Réunion Island was confirmed as belonging to MH370, and additional pieces were either confirmed or assessed as almost certainly originating from the aircraft. The main fuselage, engines and flight recorders remain missing, but it is inaccurate to say that no physical evidence from the aircraft has ever been found. Forbes also points to the online history of the alleged satellite video. The original upload reportedly described the file as having been received on March 12, 2014, four days after MH370 disappeared. The video itself was published online in May 2014. Forbes argues that this narrow timeline would have made it extremely difficult for someone to create an elaborate fabrication containing accurate details about the case. The problem is that the “received March 12” statement comes from the anonymous uploader’s description. It is not an independently authenticated government timestamp. A description written by the person uploading a video cannot establish when the underlying footage was created or received. The fact that the material appeared online within several months of the disappearance is relevant to its history, but it does not prove that it was recorded by a military satellite or drone. It also does not make visual effects work impossible. The strongest public challenge to the alleged satellite video concerns its cloud background. Researchers identified cloud photographs that appear to match the background used in the video. Those photographs were reportedly taken in 2012, approximately two years before MH370 disappeared, and later appeared in an online visual asset library. The photographer provided raw image files associated with the original photographs. If the match is genuine, the implication is substantial. A real satellite recording of MH370 in 2014 could not naturally contain a cloud scene photographed in another location in 2012. That would indicate that the video was assembled using preexisting visual material. Supporters of the videos have disputed the conclusion, questioned the history of the image files and argued that the entire moving sequence has not been satisfactorily reproduced from a single static background. Nevertheless, the visual correspondence remains one of the most serious problems facing the authenticity claim. The infrared video has also been criticized because the final flash resembles an existing visual effects element used in older digital productions. Similar appearance alone does not automatically prove that an effect was copied, but it adds another unresolved issue to the footage. Forbes rejects the idea that these elements conclusively demonstrate a hoax. He believes the videos contain technical details, motion, perspective and apparent sensor information that would have been unusually difficult to fabricate so soon after the disappearance. He also argues that two different viewpoints showing the same event would require a coordinated and technically sophisticated production. Even if the videos were authentic recordings of a real aircraft, a further problem would remain. Nothing visible in them independently identifies the plane as MH370. There is no readable registration number, no authenticated telemetry and no verified chain of custody connecting the recordings to the aircraft. The association with MH370 was made online after the disappearance. Forbes’s most extraordinary claim is that the three objects and the aircraft’s disappearance may be linked to secret human technology rather than extraterrestrial intervention. He describes the objects as advanced systems associated with the U.S. military and suggests that the event could involve technology capable of manipulating space, energy or the physical position of the aircraft. No publicly available technical evidence currently demonstrates that the United States possesses a system capable of making a Boeing 777 disappear in the manner shown. No identified satellite operator, drone crew, intelligence officer or military program has authenticated the footage. No original government file, metadata record or classified document has been publicly verified as its source. The official investigation also provides a different evidentiary trail. Radar and Inmarsat data indicate that MH370 continued flying for hours after its initial diversion. Confirmed debris recovered in the Indian Ocean is consistent with the aircraft having ended in that region. These findings do not explain why the plane diverted, who controlled it during its final hours or exactly where the main wreckage lies. They do, however, create a major conflict with the interpretation that the aircraft disappeared during the event shown in the viral recordings. The continued mystery of MH370 is real. The failure to locate the main wreckage and flight recorders has left the families of those aboard without a complete explanation. There were also serious failures in communication, coordination and the early search response. Those failures deserve continued investigation. But an unresolved tragedy does not automatically validate every alternative explanation. For the viral videos to be accepted as genuine evidence, investigators would need the original files, a verifiable chain of custody, authenticated metadata, confirmation of the recording platforms, orbital or flight data matching the scene, and independent analysis showing that the imagery was not assembled from existing visual assets. Forbes presents the videos as the key to solving one of aviation’s greatest mysteries. The publicly available evidence currently supports a more cautious conclusion. The footage is historically connected to the MH370 discussion and contains enough detail to continue generating debate, but its source remains unverified and major visual evidence indicates that at least part of it may have been artificially constructed. Until the original files and their provenance can be authenticated, the videos cannot establish that MH370 was removed by UFOs, secret U.S. technology or any other unconventional system.

Dallas BLINKs! 🖤💖 Come get your official tour gear before the show! Our merch trailer will be open today Tuesday, October 25 @ 12PM (CDT) - located in PNC Plaza at American Airlines Arena. See you there! ✨

We're giving away a CONTROL Resonant custom wrapped NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 to celebrate its official release with #RTXON#. To enter: 🟢 Share this post 🟢 Comment #RTXON# T&Cs:

Meta's deal to buy Manus got blocked, so I gave Meta's Muse a Manus 2.0-style launch film instead. Left: the official Manus film. Right: Claude Opus 5.5 + Seedance 2.5 from one URL. (Unofficial concept.) Want one for your product? Reply with your URL. First 5 are free.

我在 @SolvProtocol ：约 50 $BTC 至今无法正常赎回，我贪的是你 3% 的年化收益，你图的却是我的全部本金。 2026年7月8日，我从 Binance 提取约 50 BTC，通过正常渠道转换为 SolvBTC → BTC+。 我的目的非常简单，没有进行任何复杂交易或投机操作，只是希望通过持有 BTC+ 获得约 3% 的年化收益。 因为投入金额很大，存入以后我基本每天都会登录 Solv 官网查看 BTC+ 的净值以及收益增长情况。后来我发现 BTC+ 的铸造和赎回功能突然暂停。 7月13日，BTC+ 发生安全事件，但当时作为普通用户的我并不知道究竟发生了什么。 7月18日、7月20日，我两次在官方社区询问为什么 BTC+ 暂停铸造和赎回，希望了解自己的资产到底发生了什么，但始终没有得到针对这一问题的有效回复。 7月22日，Solv Protocol 才公开披露此次安全事件，并表示用户资产未受损。 7月31日，项目方宣布相关功能恢复，工作人员也明确告诉我“现在可以发起赎回了”。但当我实际操作时，却发现我的地址仍然受到限制，约 50 BTC 对应资产无法正常赎回。 从7月31日至今，我持续通过官方 Discord、Telegram 和邮件寻求解决。项目方要求我提供的资金来源、交易记录、钱包控制证明、账户信息以及其他说明，我都一直积极配合提交。 截至目前，双方已有约 60封邮件往来，其中约50封由我发送。9月份也通过各种渠道，联系该项目相关人员，但都没有给我回复任何有效信息。 我的诉求只有一个：解除限制，恢复正常赎回，让我取回自己约 50 BTC 对应的资产。 我愿意继续配合合理的风控及合规审核，也已经按照要求提供相关资料。 请 @SolvProtocol 正面回答： 资料已经提交，审核还需要多久？ 为什么我的地址至今仍然受到限制？ 什么时候才能恢复正常赎回？ 我之所以选择 BTC+，是因为当时我在 Binance Web3 Wallet 的 BTC 理财/收益相关页面看到了 BTC+ 产品的展示/推荐入口。出于我长期以来对 Binance 平台的信任，我对通过 Binance Web3 Wallet 接触到的该产品也产生了较高的信任，因此决定将约 50 BTC 转入 BTC+。 也希望 Binance 联合创始人兼 Co-CEO 何一 @heyibinance，以及 Binance Co-CEO Richard Teng @_RichardTeng 能够关注我的遭遇。 @Venusprotocol 作为Solvbtc重要的借贷市场，针对该项目目前官方群组出现的大量用户反馈长期无法赎回受限的情况，你们是否已经启动专项的风险评估？ 同时，我也希望 @SolvProtocol 的投资方及生态相关方能够关注此事： @yzilabs @blockchaincap @LaserDigital_ @OKX_Ventures @TheSpartanGroup @IOSGVC @hashed_official @mirana 我并不是要求这些投资方或 Binance 为 Solv 承担责任。 我只是希望各位作为 Solv 的投资方、生态相关方，以及我最初接触这一产品的重要渠道，能够关注一个普通用户约50 BTC长期无法正常赎回的问题，并协助推动 @SolvProtocol @Ryanchow_defi @Will42w @myantokengeek 给出明确、透明且可执行的处理方案。 希望大家能对我伸以援手，感谢感谢。