As a VFX artist this level or work is totally doable in a day. I get paid to do 5-8 shots of this standard a day. If it was an entirely CGI shot that's a different story, but it could very easily have been made with footage of a plane and a little bit of 2d compositing.
tbf this was 10 years ago. we dont know their age, if they are even on social media (and even if, the majority of people are outside of this ufo bubble) or dead.
The Mirror in the UK is now reporting this story.
I think it's worth emphasizing (as I have) that we have a final accident report that took years to produce, we have wreckage of the aircraft, there is no doubt what happened to the aircraft, and there's a reasonable hypothesis why it happened, just the details of the "how" are, unfortunately, unknown. The wreck of 9M-MRO is the Titanic of our century, just that much harder to find.
Compare:Article: Northwest Orient Airlines Flight 2501 was a DC-4 propliner operating its daily transcontinental service between New York City and Seattle when it disappeared on the night of June 23, 1950. [...] The aircraft was at approximately 3,500 feet (1,100 metres) over Lake Michigan, 18 miles (29 kilometres) NNW of Benton Harbor, Michigan,[3] when flight controllers lost radio contact with it soon after the pilot had requested a descent to 2,500 ft (760 m).
A widespread search was commenced including using sonar and dragging the bottom of Lake Michigan with trawlers, but to no avail. Considerable light debris, upholstery, and human body fragments were found floating on the surface, but divers were unable to locate the plane's wreckage.[5]
As far as I can tell this basically refers to some generation of Raytheon MTS sensor balls obviously if this were a real drone, we'd have no way of knowing which if any version was fitted.External Quote:
i can guarantee you that none of my family members or friends would see this. they didnt even knew about the senate hearings or ever came across the name of lazar or elizondo.
It doesn't matter; the footage might all be mostly real, but there's nothing in it that allows us to identify the aircraft. It could just be real footage of any two aircraft flying a standard rate turn, with 3 moving dots (and the vanishing effect) added at the computer. (It's probably more fake than that, though.)
What I find odd is the cursor/numbers/screen drag updates on each frame and the plane/orbs on every 4th frame, which makes me think that the main video was made independently then it was screen captured.
Yeah the video of the plane appears to be 6fps and then the mouse and co-ords and screen are in 24fps. Proponents say it's because we are seeing something like Citrix remote desktop being used to control a remote terminal, so we see mouse and UI updates, which also explains the mouse drift b/c virtual mouse. And, and, maybe it's even cell phone footage of a computer screen of a remote session inside of a SCIF. That's a lot of "what if's" for a random video from a deleted youtube.
So if the satellite video is being panned around, is it supposedly a single video with a much larger FOV?
I don't think it's easy for Joe Public.
This is the reason why an decent accurate 3d model of the drone would be useful and also a 777.
2:22am MYT was the time of the last radar contact. At the time, MH370 was near the coordinates in the video. It'd be a broad daylight in America.
That's what I got from the remote desktop arguing folks.
Another avenue is then the area covered in that FOV and the resolution shown in the video and how that stacks up for realistic video camera performance.
This is a great reason to simulate the actual camera position properly, with the camera pod cover obscuring the top of the frame rather than the wing. It might be that the nose obscures this, or it might be that it's genuinely missing.
First, great work on this post. But also, has someone tried to breakdown this theory in detail? I really tried to look at the footage as if it's the underside, and I just can't see it. The shadows, turn, location of the vertical stabilizer, cloud lighting and occlusion, none of it seems consistent with this theory.
You are gonna have to evidence this claim.
I'm working on it, that's actually why I tried to get the 3D trajectory from the satellite video.
Unfortunately all the good enough MQ-X drone models are $$
OK on that day 8 March 2014 Sunrise in KL was 7:21am (OK being higher altitude obviously the sun will rise earlier)
It looks as if the drone should be much further back though - it's not much below the airliner, and we're seeing the contrail from outside the turn, and the aircraft is further inside than the outermost bit of contrail, which means the drone is a substantial segment of the arc behind. This means that the alleged satellite view probably doesn't expand aft from the airliner sufficiently to see the drone.
I wish you would call it MYT (Malaysia time) for consistency with the accident report.
Yes. The ATSB has a website on where they searched for the aircraft.
I think 7 minutes difference is pretty spot on for a fuel estimate that covers 7+ hours.
Basic length/width/height dimensions are available for MQs online, from there shouldn't we be able to get close enough with photos of on the ground MQs and MQs being serviced for the rest of the dimensions like sensor balls etc? There are a decent number of photos with people directly next to the drones or working on/handling their parts(including sensor balls).
So ...(LIZ)^2?
Actually, thinking about this a bit more:
Yes.
"GIMBAL is only 10 miles if it flies this weird magical j-hook path that is an exact mimic of the movement of the aircraft tracking it, plus and minus any positional/speed delta"
