MH370 Teleportation Video Synthetic Repeating Noise

[Mick West]

The background noise in an image is the "grain" or "static", the random pattern of variations in brightness you can see here (contrast set to 5 in Sitrec)

I was looking for repeating patterns in the clouds when one of my bots noticed there was an unusual pattern of repeating noise in the background, repeating 32 frames apart and separated by 512 pixels.

I generated a "Noise Pattern Detection" tool to further find and visualize this.
https://www.metabunk.org/sitrec/?custom=1/MH370 Thermal/20261017_113826_d2a0eb1f6b55d8032489098a94f3b4f0.js

Turn it on, and you'll immediate get a very distinctive graph with peaks every 32 frames. This graph shows how much similarity is detected between frames a certain distance apart. So this is showing every 32 frames, then 64, 96, etc. A very artificial signal of every 32 frames.

It's not perfect because the image often contains clouds, or a plane and orbs, so the noise is obscured.

Click "Max Contrast" to see the noise better, and then "Show on video". The "Where the Repeat is" timeline shows green where the repeat signal is greater. Click on a green region.

Then click on the Source or Target. These show which columns match between two frames, color-coding the match. The pattern consistently maps source strip = target strip XOR (some number)

You can also click on a column in the main image. Either way, it will show the duplicated columns with their frame numbers.

Note the last column, with the plane in, is different.

I also added a "NPD Folder Scan" button that scans all the videos in a folder (recursively) for repeating noise patterns. I ran it on my "Investigating" folder, which has about 4000 video files collected over many years. Only the MH370 hoax videos have it. (There were some false positives with a strongly repeating texture, but that only showed it needed an artificial pattern to exist)

This unique pattern of repeating noise must be artificial. I think this is yet another demonstration that the video is fake.

 

[Mick West]

I did this using spare capacity included in my subscription (and one free reset) on and off over a week. Had I used the API, it would have been. quite expensive.

Again, that's not what I paid. It was free, as it was compute that was spare and going to waste as part of my subscription. (I like to try to get my money's worth). I include the above to get a sense of how much effort it took the robot to do this. 4.5 days of constant "thinking".

 

[FatPhil]

The first question that comes to mind is whether the noise can now be subtracted from each frame, just so we can get a clearer view of what the source layers were before adding the noise. I know that we have a positive ID on the "explosion" asset already, but maybe we can go from "they're obviously the same" to "they're undeniably identical".

 

[Fin]

Impressive work! Really cool stuff. Bravo

 

[JMartJr]

That is remarkable. I would remark on it, to people. (Everything is a movie reference...)

Seriously, that is impressive as all get out. I'm trying to think of other videos where it would be potentially useful...

PS: It reminds me vaguely of the video of a UFO supposedly shot from a moving car, which was made in some game engine, and where the pattern of road texture kept repeating. I have distinct memories of Mick and of Captain Disillusion spotting this, but am now unable to find either of them.

Found Mick's video about it:
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfrjyklzF14


My memory of the Captain taking about it may be false, then.

In any case, finding patterns where there should be none is a clever way to find evidence of fakery. It's not all about the purported UFO, sometimes the clues are in the background!

 

[NorCal Dave]

I did this using spare capacity included in my subscription (and one free reset) on and off over a week. Had I used the API, it would have been. quite expensive.

So, if I'm reading this right, it would have cost someone around $3500 to use the AI coding bots to help write this noise detection "plug in" ( I don't know what else to call it) for Sitrec? And that's with an experienced manager running the show, right? Is that a good deal?

Just to clarify, what's detected could be real noise or grain, it's just been looped in 32 frame increments? Or is the whole thing a generated fake bit of noise and grain that runs on a looping 32 frame increment?

 

[RobertBillyBob]

So, if I'm reading this right, it would have cost someone around $3500 to use the AI coding bots to help write this noise detection "plug in" ( I don't know what else to call it) for Sitrec? And that's with an experienced manager running the show, right? Is that a good deal?

At this price you could hire a freelance developer with a few years of experience for about a week (or longer for an in-house developer) which seems enough to code this at a glance. So neither good nor bad deal cost wise.

 

[Mick West]

At this price you could hire a freelance developer with a few years of experience for about a week (or longer for an in-house developer) which seems enough to code this at a glance. So neither good nor bad deal cost wise.

Yeah, but I didn't pay that. That's the cost in raw API calls. I have a Pro subscription which is $200/month, which I use for my consulting work and personal project. This was all spare capacity on that.

So more like $50 (one week) of money I was spending anyway. The subscriptions are a good deal if you max them out.

 

[Mick West]

Just to clarify, what's detected could be real noise or grain, it's just been looped in 32 frame increments? Or is the whole thing a generated fake bit of noise and grain that runs on a looping 32 frame increment?

It looks more like 32 unique source noise frames which are reused with the columns permuted. So each frame has the same noise (where visible) as frames 32 frames away, but with the columns shuffled and blended or blurred a bit

A cheap fast way of getting noise that does not seem to repeat. Using 2014 tech. Now you'd probably just regenerate every frame on GPU or multi core CPU

What annoying is that I can't find another example of the same thing.

 

[owntheissue]

A cheap fast way of getting noise that does not seem to repeat. Using 2014 tech. Now you'd probably just regenerate every frame on GPU or multi core CPU

Apologies if this is a repeat question @Mick West but have you (or anyone else with verified expertise in that era) ever estimated required total time to create those videos?

Is "cheap/fast" the MO or am I under appreciating the craftsmanship?

 

[Fin]

Apologies if this is a repeat question @Mick West but have you (or anyone else with verified expertise in that era) ever estimated required total time to create those videos?

Is "cheap/fast" the MO or am I under appreciating the craftsmanship?

A skilled CGI artist using a program like Blender could do it in a few hours or less. Corridor Crew on YouTube did a video showing how it was probably done. I used to make similar animations in blender. It's just a model of an aircraft parented to a curve path (would take minutes to rig), then the smoke particles for the contrails or maybe repeating image cards overlapping (maybe using a plugin, basically automatic), the orbiting orbs would take a few more minutes. Background images of clouds: 5 minutes to find, download, insert and tweak. Then the drone we're "filming" from, a few more minutes. A good pc back when the hoax was made might take a few hours to render it, or less. The majority of the time would be tweaking things to the artist's taste and rendering the final result. Then insert into a video editor to do the grain and fake IR cam filter.
If the artist already had the files & models prepared it could easily be made in less than an hour and possibly rendered in another hour or so, maybe less.

[Edited to add]
Correction: my guess is the fake IR filter may have been applied in the CG rendering app (eg blender) rather than later on in the video editing software. This would allow for more control over which objects are affected and by how much. Again, this would probably be done using a plugin. I can't remember if Corridor Crew covered this in their video.

 

[NorCal Dave]

A skilled CGI artist using a program like Blender could do it in a few hours or less.

I don't doubt that all. However, if someone was interested in creating this video the time and cost may not matter much. The cost would be tied up in the computer as they weren't spending money on AI tokens back then. As for time, if someone is into something, it might not be a deciding factor. You might be able to do it in a few hours, it would likely take me weeks to months as I've never fooled around with Blender. It appears the video first showed up approximately 4 months after MH370 disappeared, so plenty of time.

I think this often comes up with hoaxes. An argument is made that it would take way too long or be too expensive, so it must be real. The time and effort expenditure becomes a supposedly limiting factor. An experienced Blender person may have cranked this out in a day, or a newbie may have spent weeks, it's ultimately irrelevant. It's a hoax and someone spent the amount of time they were willing to spend to create it.

 

[RobertBillyBob]

I don't doubt that all. However, if someone was interested in creating this video the time and cost may not matter much. The cost would be tied up in the computer as they weren't spending money on AI tokens back then. As for time, if someone is into something, it might not be a deciding factor. You might be able to do it in a few hours, it would likely take me weeks to months as I've never fooled around with Blender. It appears the video first showed up approximately 4 months after MH370 disappeared, so plenty of time.

I think this often comes up with hoaxes. An argument is made that it would take way too long or be too expensive, so it must be real. The time and effort expenditure becomes a supposedly limiting factor. An experienced Blender person may have cranked this out in a day, or a newbie may have spent weeks, it's ultimately irrelevant. It's a hoax and someone spent the amount of time they were willing to spend to create it.

When I've seen the question of "how long would it take to cgi the video" it was going with the claim that the video was released not long after the plane disappearing, so the argument is that the video has to be ready fast, not that nobody would take the time to do it.
I think it's ignoring that someone could already be working on a video close to this before the plane disappeared and think "this is my time to shine" when they heard the news.

 

[JMartJr]

I think it's ignoring that someone could already be working on a video close to this before the plane disappeared and think "this is my time to shine" when they heard the news.

Agree. "UFO Steals Plane From the Sky" is enough of a scifi trope, from "This Island Earth" through "Close Encounters" that it would come as no surprise at all that somebody was messing about with Blender or a similar software package by making a video showing such a thing.

It would even be possible that the maker of the video had no role in releasing it as supposedly depicting the MH-370 disappearance - if they shared it with friends or others interested in playing with the software for fun or professionally, slapping that identification onto it and releasing it as a hoax may have had nothing to do with the creator at all!

Given that it is demonstrably fake, the details of who made it and why are secondary, however. It would be fun to know, to complete the solving of the mystery, but that will not much change what we already know. Nor would it change the opinions of those who simply Want To Believe.