Alleged Flight MH370 UFO Teleportation Videos [Hoax]

[Mendel]

Re: the thermographic video:

1. The creator found or recorded of a video of a passing plane, with contrails. Assuming this was a real video, it was recorded by one plane passing another at an exceptionally unsafe distance out over a large body of water. (It probably wasn't made in a video game or some other simulation, because it would have been easy to just swap out the plane at the point of simulation, and because a game or simulation wouldn't have had a pre-existing camera shake that requires careful stabilization). This video was not recorded by someone with a handheld camera, but by someone with access to a PTZ camera mounted on a plane. They would have had to use the zoom already when the footage was first recorded.

Why do you think it was a close distance? the pass at the start?
Why do you think the zoom is part of the original footage?
I agree the camera wasn't handheld because there's a lot of magnification and that's not possible to do well handheld.
This source was 30 fps.

2. In 2D, the creator stabilized the original footage, but poorly. And yet, they stabilized it well enough to doctor the footage to remove the original plane.

How do you know this was done?
You think the poor stabilisation in this step caused the contrail jitter?

3. Then in 3D they rendered the Boeing 777, the refractive/spinning orbs, orbs changing from hot to cold after the third one joins, orb helical trails, orb thrust/forward vectors, and engine exhaust. They used matchmoving to track the position and zoom of the original camera, then they render with motion blur and exported this 3D render as a 2D sequence with alpha for compositing in the next step. (Note the original plane would have been much smaller than the 777, or we would see it peeking out, or other artifacts from the swap.)

The render was at 24 fps.

4. In 2D, the creator added a 2D overlay of a drone cowl and MQ-1C nose with the air intake hotspot detail, rather than using the more common forward-mounted FLIR position. Then they added the previously rendered 3D sequence in 2D, and camera shake with additional motion blur (this is separate from the previous motion blur that blurred high-speed objects) in a way that scales proportionally to the zoom. This is also where they would add defocus.

If they never did step 2, they wouldn't have to add shake here.
Could they have added the zoom at this stage?

5. Finally, in 2D they added the 4 5 frames of hand-drawn portal animation, added sensor noise, and converted the grayscale working space to rainbow mapping, and lastly added the HUD cursor overlay. Then they compressed it once, before it was uploaded by others to YouTube where it got recompressed.

Why was the sensor noise added? Was it not present in the source footage?

 

[Mendel]

Here is that same clip sped up x10 along side the Airplane clip (is unlisted, which this forum seems to not allow embedding)-
https://youtube.com/shorts/3lZe5_22kyw

This is the video:
Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=3lZe5_22kyw

The fact that the clouds have ragged edges means that there is turbulent air movement going on. That's why these clouds shouldn't not change.

The forum doesn't embed the "shorts" URLs, you have to rewrite them. @Edward Current

 

[tobigtofool]

While messing with the contrails thing I noticed after the plane disappears, so do the contrails, the camera looks around and zooms out, there is no evidence of them anywhere, could just be out of frame, but idk seems like we should see them still just at the end (there is a cloud puff behind the teleport, and the camera seems to pan back towards it enough that I'd think you'd see the contrail still.

 

[DeepThroat]

I'm not seeing the plane contrails bounce at all. I just see the orb contrails obscure it briefly and repeatedly.

 

[Mendel]

While messing with the contrails thing I noticed after the plane disappears, so do the contrails, the camera looks around and zooms out, there is no evidence of them anywhere, could just be out of frame, but idk seems like we should see them still just at the end (there is a cloud puff behind the teleport, and the camera seems to pan back towards it enough that I'd think you'd see the contrail still.

so... you've done VFX work, but can't imagine where the contrails went?

 

[tobigtofool]

Don't understand what you are insinuating.

I stabilized the orb, I wanted to see if their contrails jittered.

1. There are drop frames on the orbs (it f'd up my script first go) and I had to manually adjust.
2. the contrails on the orb jitter the same as the contrails on the plane

So does that mean the orb contrails are real, but the orbs are not if we follow the same logic?

Could the plane be the only thing that is real in this footage, and everything else is CGI? That'd be more plausible to me.

Not sure why the orbs, and their contrails wouldn't have the same jitter if that were the case though.

I am still not convinced that the jittering couldn't be caused by artifacting.

 

[Mendel]

2. the contrails on the orb jitter the same as the contrails on the plane

View attachment 61661
Sorry, I'm not seeing it. The black orb trail (NOT a contrail) doesn't shake. Because the color is so similar to the background blue, it suffers more from compression artefacts, but the position is steady. Note that the artefacting never affects the trail as a whole.

 

[tobigtofool]

View attachment 61661
Sorry, I'm not seeing it. The black orb trail (NOT a contrail) doesn't shake.

Watch the orb centered in the frame, notice the "black orb trails" jitters all over the place while the orb remains static in the center of the frame.

 

[Mendel]

Watch the orb centered in the frame, notice the contrail jitters all over the place while the orb remains static in the center of the frame.

it's NOT a contrail, otherwise it'd be the same temperature as the jet engine contrail.

The orb is circling, therefore the orb trail is not straight, but follows the motion of the orb. But if you observe the place where the trail is attached to the orb, you see no movement there: the attachment is solid.

 

[tobigtofool]

it's NOT a contrail, otherwise it'd be the same temperature as the jet engine contrail.

Dude, it's a space alien magical time traveling purple trail, I assume 1. it is a CGI effect..

I used the word contrail because its the smoke effect coming from a flying ORB in a conversation about contrails.

The orb is circling, therefore the orb trail is not straight, but follows the motion of the orb. But if you observe the place where the trail is attached to the orb, you see no movement there: the attachment is solid.

Every single frame the "magic purple trail coming from the time traveling space orbs" is jittering, exactly the same as the contrails of the jet are, while the orb is not.

 

[Mendel]

I used the word contrail because its a smoke effect

a normal person would call it a smoke trail
because you think it is made up of smoke, not of condensation

 

[Mendel]

Every single frame the "magic purple trail coming from the time traveling space orbs" is jittering, exactly the same as the contrails of the jet are, while the orb is not.

Compare Mick's clip with yours:

I think this is reasonably definitive that there's some kind of compositing error going on. I replicated the stabilization with a slightly wider view and the shaking is very apparent.

View attachment 61621

View attachment 61661
Sorry, I'm not seeing it. The black orb trail (NOT a contrail) doesn't shake. Because the color is so similar to the background blue, it suffers more from compression artefacts, but the position is steady. Note that the artefacting never affects the trail as a whole.

The contrails are jittering strongly, the smoke trails are not.

 

[tobigtofool]

Compare Mick's clip with yours

They're jittering the same.

 

[SuppaCoup]

Don't understand what you are insinuating.

I stabilized the orb, I wanted to see if their contrails jittered.

1. There are drop frames on the orbs (it f'd up my script first go) and I had to manually adjust.
2. the contrails on the orb jitter the same as the contrails on the plane

So does that mean the orb contrails are real, but the orbs are not if we follow the same logic?

Could the plane be the only thing that is real in this footage, and everything else is CGI? That'd be more plausible to me.

Not sure why the orbs, and their contrails wouldn't have the same jitter if that were the case though.

I am still not convinced that the jittering couldn't be caused by artifacting.

I don't agree, the plane's contrail comes off of it in a much more intense fashion, the lines of the orbs are fuzzed out but they're not jumping around the same as far as I can see.
Edit: After further review I think toobig is onto something-the low quality of the video and rotating motion are visually confusing, but the orb lines do seem to have a similar jumping behavior.

 

[tobigtofool]

I don't agree, the plane's contrail comes off of it in a much more intense fashion, the lines of the orbs are fuzzed out but they're not jumping around the same as far as I can see.

The reason is you're looking at a straight line, not a curl, so it looks more pronounced but it is moving an equidistance if you measure it.

It's more apparent at the peak of the arch, it jumps way up, way down way up..

You might also notice that at that point, is also the largest jitter on the jets trail in that clip. The jitter intensity is synced up between the orb and the jet.

 

[JunkTheRat]

you have to comp out the old plane or you'll see it behind the fake plane.

Which is the best raw video of the thermo video to use as a test case?

Is it this one?


Source: https://youtu.be/HiVE5B8ZgGs

There are portions of this video where the jiter does match, the area where we know they do not is during an extreme closeup where there is massive noise, which I could imagine could cause artifacting, but I'll convince myself this is fake if the jitter is consistent throughout the video this weekend.

Here you go:
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69V5btijqJE

 

[tobigtofool]

They're jittering the same.

You can see the contrail and the magic black smoke trails in this frame move drastically downward the exact same distance at the exact same time.

 

[SuppaCoup]

The reason is you're looking at a straight line, not a curl, so it looks more pronounced but it is moving an equidistance if you measure it.

It's more apparent at the peak of the arch, it jumps way up, way down way up..

You might also notice that at that point, is also the largest jitter on the jets trail in that clip. The jitter intensity is synced up between the orb and the jet.

I think you're right-I think I found a few frames where the orb does seem to jump off the line. Might indicate the same issue with the contrail jitter also affected the orb lines. The low quality of the whole thing and rotating motion makes it pretty hard to see, hopefully we can get further video analysis that makes it easier to see and quantify. I think the lack of parralax in the alleged satellite video debunks this full stop, but we should all treat these videos as a good target for thorough analysis.

 

[cptreynolds]

I think you're right-I think I found a few frames where the orb does seem to jump off the line. Might indicate the same issue with the contrail jitter also affected the orb lines. The low quality of the whole thing and rotating motion makes it pretty hard to see, hopefully we can get further video analysis that makes it easier to see and quantify. I think the lack of parralax in the alleged satellite video debunks this full stop, but we should all treat these videos as a good target for thorough analysis.

If there were such things as UFO video debunking training courses, I'd venture the hypothesis we're looking at something custom-built with deliberate errors for exactly this.

It's weird, as in there's just enough stuff to show it's very probably artificial, but the effort that must have gone into this is stunning.

I also thought (someone said this before) maybe it's some sort of aeronautical VFX nerd challenge as in "hey look, I can animate an UFO encounter in this software" - "that's awesome, if you give me the trajectories I'll build you a thermal IR to go with it". That certainly sounds like something my university group could have been up for, except I'm too old for the study mates to have made animated CGI videos.

 

[Ravi]

I think you're right-I think I found a few frames where the orb does seem to jump off the line. Might indicate the same issue with the contrail jitter also affected the orb lines. The low quality of the whole thing and rotating motion makes it pretty hard to see, hopefully we can get further video analysis that makes it easier to see and quantify. I think the lack of parralax in the alleged satellite video debunks this full stop, but we should all treat these videos as a good target for thorough analysis.

In the VIS video, in the background you see these "white foam" waves not changing at all during the whole 37sec. Normally (like seen from a plane, when over water/sea) these white foam bits will come and go, as the waves ride. This surely can point to a still image being used.

 

[V0LDY]

1. The creator found satellite imagery of clouds that approximately matches the real-world footage they recorded above in very unsafe conditions. (Note: this exact satellite imagery has not been found, we're just speculating.) They made very slight distortions to the clouds at this stage to give them the appearance of evolving.

Check my big post at page 8, I'd argue that the clouds aren't even satellite images, I posted some stock photos samples of clouds from commercial airplanes that looks extremely similar to what we see in the video and would have surely been much easier to find compared to actual satellite imaging https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detai...f-a-plane-above-royalty-free-image/1186044529
I think the author simply rendered and animated the plane + UFOs in 3D then added them to the 2d image of the clouds, the fact that the video is panned manually also suggests that it was just animation added over a big 2d canvas.

Talking about the clouds, at that altitude you'd expect to see wind movement, if the video is 720p every pixel is less than 60cm based on the plane length, yet we see absolutely no drift at all, just some minor inconsistencies which could be artifacts of compression/compositing at worst and an attemp to give them a little shake with some very light 2d distortion at best.

As for the thermal video I'd say it's just derived from the original animation used for the satellite one.

 

[Domzh]

I wonder what the artist was thinking when they were like, "I'm going to use a position of the camera that is not on virtually any picture of drones if you google them, Im going to make it a wing modification mod."

And im going to render it super low poly.

It just doesn't make logical sense.

you know what i think?

the earliest description was "what might had happen to mh370" (paraphrasing).

i dont think the intention was to produce a hoax. i think the producer wanted to create a funny video and show some vfx skills he learned.

if the person behind it would see how many people described it as "the best footage ever", self proclaimed vfx experts say "its almost impossible to be faked, its so good", i guess they would burst out laughing in disbelief

 

[Domzh]

In the VIS video, in the background you see these "white foam" waves not changing at all during the whole 37sec. Normally (like seen from a plane, when over water/sea) these white foam bits will come and go, as the waves ride. This surely can point to a still image being used.

might be clouds not water

 

[Domzh]

what if the contrails were an effect that is motion tracking the plane?

theres no real footage, no real contrails. they animated the plane in a skybox, recorded it, then put the recording in after effects and added contrails, thermal, orbs and the portal

 

[ETOPS_Driver]

The flash of the aircraft disappearing reflects on the nearby cumulus cloud. Therefore it is flying at approximately the same altitude.

Small Cumulus clouds like the ones in the satellite video are typically below 10 000 ft.

Airliners don't make contrails below 10 000ft. The air is not cold enough especially not in that part of the world.

 

[JMartJr]

CGI plane, over shaking footage of real contrails?

Essentially, yeah, that is my understanding. if you are laying in a fake plane and UFOs to real footage, you'll want to anchor them to something so they automatically stay in the correct position as the video progresses. If you do this sloppily, they won't stay exactly in the right place... they won't "shake" when the real footage does.

 

[NegativeExile]

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/15vjz0z/thermal_tampering_strong_evidence_of_manipulation/


Looking for inputs; am I wrong with this debunk?

 

[CascadeSkeptic]

Indeed NROL-33 was not launched until May 2014, per wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NRO_launches

The Heavens Above website can be used to find the location of NROL-22 (aka USA 184) and rewind to find any passes on the date in question (MH370 takeoff was 16:42 UTC on March 7 2014, or 00:42 local time which is UTC+8).

Unfortunately you can't directly link to Heavens Above satellite pass pages, but this screenshot shows passes near the (-8.8, 93) location in March 2014:

View attachment 61176

The March 7 pass happened at ~12:53 UTC, so roughly 4 hours before MH370 took off.

View attachment 61183

The March 8 pass was a few minutes earlier, ~12:48 UTC, so around 19 hours after contact with MH 370 was lost.

View attachment 61184

If you take a look at the Heavens Above orbit page for NROL-22, you will see it makes only two revolutions per day in a highly eccentric Molniya orbit. So twelve hours after the pass illustrated above, the Earth would have rotated by 180 degrees, andthe next pass would be somewhere near the Galapagos islands. After another 12 hours it's back over the (-8.8, 93) coordinate again (fractionally further east and five minutes earlier - each time it precesses slightly further around the globe).

This means it never went near the (+8.8, 93) coordinate at all in March 2014.

(edit: I realize "near" is a slightly nebulous concept when you're dealing with an object that's looking down from orbit. So here's the pass of the (+8.8, 93) co-ordinate:

View attachment 61182

and this is of course just a few minutes later — so the exact latitude whether +8.8 or -8.8 seems to be moot. NROL-22 wasn't there when MH370 could have been).


.View attachment 61175

Hey Max,


Is Heavens Above still working for you, and is there a way to shortcut to the date range you want when using it?

I wanted to see USA-184's orbit path for myself. When I got there (after clicking the back in time arrow for about ten straight minutes) it looked like this. No info and same for a few months in either direction.

Are there any alternatives to Heavens Above that are easier to use?

The location of the satellite during the MH370 flight seems pivotal and under appreciated.

Cheers!

 

[Daves!]

the portal seems to be fake according to someone on reddit. It matches almost 99% ( given or take ) with a CD-Rom VFX element from the 90's.

I had a feeling that something was borrowed like the clouds but it seems that the portal was ;


Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/15vizx1/the_plane_video_has_vfx_elements_used_for_the/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=2

 

[Daves!]

the portal seems to be fake according to someone on reddit. It matches almost 99% ( given or take ) with a CD-Rom VFX element from the 90's.

I had a feeling that something was borrowed like the clouds but it seems that the portal was ;


Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/15vizx1/the_plane_video_has_vfx_elements_used_for_the/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=2

This even proofs it ;

https://imgur.io/a/xhH9aQl

 

[Ravi]

Very nice!
Here is another one:

 

[Edward Current]

It's time for this to be declared "debunked" with a pinned post in this forum. As someone who created a (even dumber) hoax video 12 years ago that's still going strong — getting 2 million views just a few weeks ago! — I know that this one will keep coming around.

 

[deirdre]

This even proofs it ;

https://imgur.io/a/xhH9aQl

you've been here for 2 years. is the reason you cant post correctly that you are on a phone? or is it just because you think you are still on Reddit?

 

[DadThrowsBolts]

Seeing a lot of posts about the orb "trails" and how they switch to being in front of the orbs. Please watch again closely. The "trails" always always always start in front of the orbs. They never trail the orbs. In the beginning, before their orbit stabilizes, they come from the front and then get blown behind "by the wind". This is why it appears the trails break from the orbs. It's parallax. The trails are at a different z-index by the time they get behind the orbs. If this were Reddit I would take the time to posts proofs, but you guys have a keen enough eye that you can see this if you're looking for it.

 

[Daves!]

you've been here for 2 years. is the reason you cant post correctly that you are on a phone? or is it just because you think you are still on Reddit?

both.

 

[Max Phalange]

Hey Max,


Is Heavens Above still working for you, and is there a way to shortcut to the date range you want when using it?

I wanted to see USA-184's orbit path for myself. When I got there (after clicking the back in time arrow for about ten straight minutes) it looked like this. No info and same for a few months in either direction.

Are there any alternatives to Heavens Above that are easier to use?

The location of the satellite during the MH370 flight seems pivotal and under appreciated.

Cheers!

No, you literally have to hit the "previous" arrow hundreds of times (I actually had wrist pain the next day!). There's a huge blob of binary state that gets round tripped to the server each time, you can't hack it to jump to a specific date.

It might be easier to contact the owner of Heaven's Above. To be honest I also have doubts about the accuracy of that data, it seems to be back-calculated from Feb 2023. so might not account for any orbit adjustments over the last decade.

 

[Mick West]

Very nice!
Here is another one:
View attachment 61671

That match is from the the file SHOCKWV file, there's another video of the same explosion BLUESHOC (both attached here, reconvereted to PRORES format for ease of viewing.

The second file also matches, when you distort to match the viewpoint.

 

[JunkTheRat]

That match is from the the file SHOCKWV file, there's another video of the same explosion BLUESHOC (both attached here, reconvereted to PRORES format for ease of viewing.

The second file also matches, when you distort to match the viewpoint.

I added it in the reddit thread so I'll add it here for backing up the availability of the file at the time, it was readily available for purchase/download online in 2010/2012: https://web.archive.org/web/20120526161846/https://vcefilms.com/pyromania.aspx

Check the link on the archive page for their 'Pond5' clip download site archives.

 

[Mick West]

It's time for this to be declared "debunked" with a pinned post in this forum. As someone who created a (even dumber) hoax video 12 years ago that's still going strong — getting 2 million views just a few weeks ago! — I know that this one will keep coming around.

The Pyromanics match should be evidence enough. But what else shoudl be listed in a summary?

• Shaking contrails
• 24 fps Framerate issues?

What else? Don't want to overcomplicate it.

 

[RobertBillyBob]

The thermal video is solidly debunked by the vfx element, but the satellite video could still be true.
Accusations of the thermal video being a deliberate fake aiming to discredit the satellite view will definitely be raised.