Good point! With a slant view from a few hundred miles, what are the chances of an unobscured view of the aircraft for much of the manoeuvre, while there clearly are a number of clouds around. No further clouds between aircraft and satellite?
Nice. Any chance you can upload the reduced width video?So I had a feeling the single frame sat video was stretched horizontally and the stereo vid was squashed
In the drone video the orbs are circular/spherical, but in the single frame video they are not
It doesn't make much sense though because in the single frame sat vid the mouse cursor and text looks right, but the orbs and plane look stretched, it's not motion blur because the orbs remain stretched lengthwise when moving up the frame.
So it means this video was taken by someone watching a stretched version of the original thing, and then the stereo video was created FROM a squashed version of the video, because the squash applies to the mouse cursor.
I took the plane side on from the drone video and overlaid i on the side on in, and found I had to reduce the width on the video by ~50% to get roughly equal orbs and a plane that matched the proportions from the drone video and also allows the stereo version to fit 2 side by side,it adds gaps as well so it's either over squashed or not, it gets hard to get exact when the quality is so low.
ATFLIR loses optical tracking during the lens switch, which is bad for combat use.
Ah, ok. I thought it had 2:1 for IR and 4:1 for TV, but it looks like I was reading that wrong.
Does the contrail move?
The aircraft would be above the clouds at cruise; but then it would be too fast for that turn.
Only if the subject is not also also being tracked by RADAR which maintains the ATFLIR on target even without optical tracking working.
The Patterson/Gimlin film had witnesses promoting it, plaster casts of footprints, and a story, in short, provenance and provenience. It also later had witnesses testifying it to be a hoax, and no actual bigfoot remains ever found.
The thermal video here has a continuous zoom but the target is lost multiple times because it's not even stabilized/tracked.
It doesn't.
Yeah and the specs do list tracking methods for the type of optics used in drones, per the previously posted spec
Yeah, but that would be because it's fake.
• low-poly drone model
That looks squashed now, to me. Can you see what it looks like scaled to common screen ratios like 4:3, 5:3 or even 5:4?
Usual screen ratios won't be an exact match because we know the video is cropped.
I agree. But it won't be enough to disprove the video to some people. "Maybe it's a topsecret drone prototype, with another kind of sensor pod"Yeah and the specs do list tracking methods for the type of optics used in drones, per the previously posted spec
It seems less and less likely it's from a real drone camera to me.
- Thermographic
- Smooth zoom
- Not tracked
- Minimal overlay
Maybe one could calculate the squish factor from fuselage length and wing span at beginning and end. A few angles to consider, but it might be possible
I used the plane length from the side on shot in the drone vid (because it's the same plane right) 50% on the horizontal was what got the plane scale to match.
I think it's a dead end given it so long ago, it's cycled out of caches/histories etc. But it's not really my area, finding links to it in old forums etc is sometimes a working strat.
Yes, but what if it isn't the same plane? One could use the roughly 90 degrees turn in the visible light video to calculate how much the same aircraft changes geometry to calculate de-squish.
Yes, no luck as of the moment.
the poster of one, (possibly not THE original as there seems to have been a few postings back in 2014, two to Youtube and one to Vimeo, all by different people), was a user called 'regicideanon' - Reddit decided it was some guy from Arizona but this appears to have been squashed, no doubt after the guy received a barrage of messages -
I got some insufferable and illogical responses from people over there who can't handle the fact it might be fake. That's Reddit for you.
It used to be more relaxed. It all changed when they got a new can of mods (or worms) openend.
Netflix Doc getting released, perhaps?
Article: Instead of giving the 239 suffering families and the public a true story, Netflix exploited a horrifying tragedy to push conspiracy theories.
And precisely because there isn’t 100% uncertainty, conspiracy theorists have stepped in, confident that their bizarre explanations are every bit as legitimate as the “MH370 consensus,” such as it is. This is where the Netflix documentary comes into play.
The three-part series MH370: The Plane that Disappeared proposed three theories to explain what happened: (1) The Pilot, (2) The Hijack, and (3) The Intercept. To its credit, the documentary explained everything that I have written above in the first theory about the pilot. If only Netflix had stopped there. Instead, it went on to propose two more theories.
In “The Hijack,” the documentary heavily relied on journalist Jeff Wise, who proposed that Russian terrorists hijacked the airplane by climbing down into an electronics compartment (called the Main Equipment Center, MEC) hidden beneath the first class cabin, commandeering the plane, faking satellite location data, and flying it to Kazakhstan. But this theory ignores some important facts and ends up creating more questions than answers.
In “The Intercept,” Netflix delves further into fantasy by promoting the work of French journalist (I’m using that word here very loosely) Florence de Changy, who proposed that the U.S. government used special aircraft called AWACS to jam MH370’s communications system (thereby causing it to disappear from radar), after which it was then shot down. Why? According to de Changy, MH370 was carrying “poorly documented Motorola electronics equipment” that the U.S. did not want China to have. So, the U.S. murdered 239 innocent civilians to ensure that China did not get that equipment.
In my opinion this would be a large part of it, though I don't believe the January posts are related to that, most of them lack reference to the documentary and present it as something found from a phantom source. Why I'm holding to post more on it, it's possible both, neither, or one or the other lent credence to it but the others not. Hard to tell at the moment.
To clarify my own point. The satellite view plane animation ends with a roll that if meant to be near flat would only be seen in a top down view from the camera. The background and bounced light interaction indicates to us that this is filmed at an angle, not top down. For this to be the correct final roll in both videos the plane would need to be rolled significantly right, with the drone and drone camera looking down to account for the slight apparent left roll in the drone footage.
I’ve used spiderfoot to crawl for his username, email address and (supposedly) real name.
what cut are you referring to?
Given the angle mismatch I would suggest the animator had limited options, so it’s worth looking into. It could also be a still from a video like a 4k demo reel.
