Zip AES encryption fakery?

>>56022671
No, don't think so. If you use standard software to decrypt it, there's pretty much nothing that can be done to fake it.

File: d2.png (68KB, 753x450px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 753x450px

>>56022671
Another screenshot from the PDF. It reads:
>This is starting to feel like a moving manmade object/structure in the air.
>Encounters a directed energy that causes it to malfunction, go out of control
>then to descend faster
>parts break off of the main part
>it then impacted a surface

File: d3.png (83KB, 458x623px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 458x623px

>>56022671
Another screenshot of the PDF mentioning "jet" and "explosive"

>>56022711
>>56022695
One lucky guess is nothing.

Do people really still believe in prophecies?
I mean fucking hell

Fire
Storm
Metal
The end of things


Then I wait until something happens, then say I predicted it.

>>56022671
I don't know if it's possible to have multiple keys that both decrypt to something coherent, however the guy may have just gotten lucky, plane crashes are actually quite common. Is there anything in the pdf specific to the circumstances of the EgyptAir 804 crash, or is it just describing a generic plane crash?

>>56022695
>vague depictions of events happen
Your leg is being pulled anon. Plane crashes are as common as school and mass shootings here in the states nowadays

tl;dr
>>56022729

>>56022731
If your predictions are detailed (unlike the mess you wrote) and spot on for a long time, I will believe you.

>>56022671
>>56022711
It's not in spooky territory until it mentions Egypt, 884 or May 19th

>>56022746
You really are stupid

>>56022769
Why?

>>56022759
Or at least "Mediterranean", "Smoke", or "No Survivors".

>>56022729
Actually, even 3 lucky guesses are nothing.
If you have a million dipshits making a million vague predictions, one is going to be spot on out of pure chance.

The brain conveniently forgets that there are people making wrong predictions all the time and only remembers the right one, and will also warp the 'predictions' in their own head so they seem to make more sense in retrospect.

A slight understanding of psychology tells you that humans are so susceptible to fooling themselves that prophecies are just beyond retarded.

>>56022778
Is it spooky if it mentions a lot of loyalty?

>>56022773
I just made that shit up
I could keep making lists of shit I make up and just pick the one that's right in retrospect and you'd believe me like a fucking moron
Kill yourself, or at least sterilise yourself. You're a cancer on the human race and you're the type of person who voted for hitler

>>56022671
>April 2016
>man-made structure falling from the sky and crashing
wew, that's so specific it's almost screaming EgyptAir flight 804 crashed on May 19 2016.

>>56022805
"flight plan"
"hired gun"
"Dr. Pavel"

>>56022811
I specifically mentioned that the trash you wrote in your post won't do. Can you even read?

File: d4.png (618KB, 746x446px) Image search: [Google]

618KB, 746x446px

>>56022729
>>56022731
>>56022736
>luck
True, it's *only* a description of a generic plane crash, but then they posted more documents in May. The PDFs mention this:
>light shines on people gathered or seated at table
>dim narrow cramped people
>dark
>voices, music, hip hop
>leather, warm
>people moving
>footsteps, voices, shuffle
>sweat, dirty, people, cigarette
>bandanas
>frenzy, yelling
>liquor, tobacco, leather
>alcohol, broken glass
>voices yelling, damp air
>large metal irregular structure
>people in love
>Miami insurgent insurrection

In June the most notable news event was the Orlando gay night club shooting. Pic of the irregular structure. Seems like more than luck, but that's why I'm asking the question about the encryption.

>>56022878
Predicting this stuff is an easier tasks than doing what you're suggesting to AES.

>>56022746
Why does everyone require 100% accuracy before they stop claiming fraud? Sure, greater than 99% of psychic claims are fraud, that's true. But we should still look at the data, or otherwise don't comment, as your response should be "I don't know". Eye witness testimony is notoriously poor. You can't recall yesterday with 100% accuracy. In fact there is almost nothing you can do with 100% accuracy. Why shouldn't we hold this to the same standard as all other accepted science? If we compare the descriptions to other random top news events, we can see whether or not a description matches more often than chance fairly easily, and a psychic effect could be demonstrated very easily (if it's real), and it's certain the statistically significant result would be nowhere near 100%.

>>56022671
How exactly do you determine "most prominent news story"? This is like those fortune tellers which say some vague stuff and your mind assumes everything is spot on about you when it could apply generally to almost anyone.

>>56022979
There are plenty of criteria that given a set of samples will provide an answer whether it's a product of random guesswork or if there is sense to it. IIRC we were using Student's t-test for that in university, although how exactly eludes me at the time.

In any case,
>don't comment
is the last thing you should do.

>>56022979
A fucking 9 year old did a test on Reiki practitioners and blasted their anuses out. The study was published in a real medical journal.
If you believe in psychic bullshit you are dumber than a 9 year old

>>56022993
You ask a question, then without knowing the answer go on to criticize. Here is the answer to your question. They have a formula to automatically determine the most prominent news event for a given month. A computer picks it based on the front pages of CNN and New York Times, number of days a story is on the front page, and number of links to a story from other stories. There are some other criteria, like known events are excluded, so the political conventions in the U.S. in July were excluded. Based on the formula, they are deeming that the most prominent news story for the month, and that is the actual target the psychics are going for.

>>56023017
I do not understand this. An experiment was performed, and a result was achieved. That result showed that the Reiki practitioners had problems with their anus (taking your word for it, did not read the paper myself). What part of this causes your hostility?

>>56023126
Your request to stop doubting liars does. Not the person you're responding to.

>>56023148
Try meditation or psychedelics. It may help cure the ills of many in this thread who need to see things as they are. Far too many emotional reactions to an unemotional topic. My stance is that it may be worth looking into a small number of extraordinary claims. They are interesting mental exercises to attempt to prove or discredit. I want to believe something like this is possible, and I have looked into many cases over a couple of decades. Do you know how many cases I've found that are convincing beyond any doubt? Zero. Not one. But I still look. I learn about psychology which should be more accurately named brain failures. I keep looking, because it only takes one occurrence to change everything we believe to be true. There is perhaps some decent work by Dean Radin and Daryl Bem which shows some kind of precognitive effect, but it is small and requires a large number of trials to reach a significant result. In any case, we are not advanced. We did not have photography 200 years ago. In 200 years people will look at our best understanding of science and have a nice laugh. Don't get so worked up. We don't know as much as we think.

>>56023324
>Do you know how many cases I've found that are convincing beyond any doubt? Zero. Not one.
Look at you. Didn't you just give an advice to not comment unless you DO believe? And there you are admitting to doing otherwise. Sad.

>>56023126
It's a famous study.
Googling '9 year old reiki study' gave me this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Rosa
The girl herself, with a description of the study.
The tl;dr is that reiki practitioners don't have psychic powers and they're complete scam artists, no matter how much they believe in themselves.

People who believe in psychic predictions are stupider than a 9 year old.

could be possible that the zip has different password thar decrypt different file?

>>56024890
>could be possible that the zip has different password thar decrypt different file?
>>56022671
>Does anyone know if it's possible to decrypt different data based on the password provided?

read the OP friendo

>>56023367
Self-delusion does not qualify one as a scam artist. We all hold ideas to be true which are not, the first for most people being that we are basically rational.

>>56023353
No, that's not what I said. In fact I never mentioned belief. I said don't comment if you haven't looked at the data, and in the case where you have not looked at the data the appropriate response would be "I don't know, I haven't looked at the data". It doesn't matter if you think that most psychics are frauds, or most black people are criminals, or any other generalization. In all cases, it is preferable to look at the data in each case before forming an opinion. We all profile to some degree, it's a shortcut that provided an evolutionary advantage, and in some situations it is useful, for instance if you are doing university research, you need to spend your time on experiments that are most likely to provide some good results, so you may choose to avoid looking into long-shot areas like paranormal claims. Even then, the researcher could not logically say, "I didn't look at this case, but it's complete bullshit". That's the kind of idiocy and fraud you find with people like James Randi.

Belief and knowledge of a topic are not the same. You can be the world's foremost expert on dark matter and still not hold any belief about which theory is correct. If there is still too little data, then "I don't know" is still the most logical prevailing belief to hold, despite having looked at all of the available data.

There is no need to attribute sadness. You could simply point out the flaw of logic in the discussion and help everyone learn something.

>>56023367
>People who believe in psychic predictions are stupider than a 9 year old.
Even if we accept this as true, then I count myself as fortunate that I don't believe in psychic predictions, and that I only have an interest in reviewing the data with a critical eye to see if anything might be there.

It seems to be a common belief here that science is a competitive sport where you need to pick a side and cheer for your team regardless of the levels of irrationality you reach. It's ironic that people who attribute stupidity to others are making emotional claims instead of logical arguments. You make a logical claim, "look at the data from this study, the results are self-evident", which is exactly the right thing to say, but then you follow that up with a very illogical claim, or at least a claim for which you left out the evidence for. Saying these psychics are frauds "because Emily Rosa" is not a logical argument, any more than saying all white people are racist "because David Duke". These psychics may indeed be frauds, but Emily Rosa has no bearing on that argument.

>>56022695
sounds like oceanic 815 to me.

>>56026273
You're replying to adolescents. Of course 12 year olds are going to be edgy, emotional and defensive about their beliefs.

>>56022911
>Predicting this stuff is an easier task than doing what you're suggesting to AES.

True, but they could have found a vulnerability to WinZIP's AES implementation.

>>56022671
>Quoting /x/