Alleged Flight MH370 UFO Teleportation Videos [Hoax]
- Thread starter Der Ungrund
- Start date
-
- Tags
- mh370 ufo ufo footage
JunkTheRat
New Member
You're not wrong, I just hate that you're right. I myself have been pushing the fact that Regicide isn't the only source, made edits to their videos before uploading to YouTube, and shouldn't be used for video analysis. Always should use any of the sources that didn't go through Regicide's machine for analyzing the videos because we have them and know Regicide did not upload clean 1:1 copies to the internet. If the debunk is based solely on Regicide's uploads, you will have another problem.
JuliettPapa
New Member
The satellite video 'flash' bares a striking resemblance to frame 7 of the SHOCKWV.mov file.
theDampSquid
New Member
I exclusively analysed the satellite video and made a post about why I think it's VFX if you're looking for evidence in that regard (I'm a VFX artist). The mods of r/UFOs removed it but nice to see they've allowed other similar posts...
Yeah, we used if for effects in our early videogames, it's inarguably old.
The explosion appearing bright white in the colour sat view, but cold in the "thermal" view
Zero movement in the clouds, in the satellite view,
No tracking on the military drone that is also using the wrong type of thermal colouring (Even old mate David Falch says it doesn't match military drone footage because of this)
No tracking in general is really suss.
I guess all of these have sci-fi explanations that hand wave them away though
DeepThroat
New Member
I'm not seeing it on either images. There's a lot of differences between the two. Highlighting a sixteenth of a circle that doesn't match but looks similar and saying this is debunked seems disingenuous.
The black dot is also in the wrong proximity to the edges and dissimilar.
The black dot is also in the wrong proximity to the edges and dissimilar.
Last edited:
deirdre
Senior Member.
if you adjust the contrast it has the little nodes off the sides. but thats a hard sell.
LambMaster
New Member
I know there are downsides to wild speculation making a video go viral. But the upside is that it attracts enough attention for someone to put the effort to debunk it. In this case I think the upside outweighed the downside. That's not always the case though. Sometimes the bunk spreads too quickly and other times it lays around forever consistently duping people but never becoming popular enough to warrant a debunking effort.
Credit to Reddit/r/ufos for starting, spreading and ultimately debunking this. That community seems to have gotten large enough to manage all 3 at this point.
Credit to Reddit/r/ufos for starting, spreading and ultimately debunking this. That community seems to have gotten large enough to manage all 3 at this point.
JuliettPapa
New Member
I am suggesting an animator would take inspiration from the same video. It is like a bumpy bubble. Very different from the flir video, but strikingly similar to something in the same VFX clip.
May I ask why your screenshot of the flash looks stretched horizontally? Is that from another variant of the video?
Amathia
Senior Member
Oh man. Are you able to share what it is with us?
Amathia
Senior Member
There is no shortage of ways a dedicated enough believer can come up with excuses about why their favorite piece of evidence hasn't really been refuted. Already on Reddit people were making claims that the videos could be real and someone deliberately went through the effort to create a visual effect that looks just like the effect seen in the video in an attempt to discredit the video.
Debunkers have no obligation to chase every creative escape clause people come up with in an attempt to maintain their beliefs. That would be a task with no end. At a certain point you have to just let a subject go despite the inevitable holdouts.
Ravi
Senior Member.
I concur.
The pool of 1.4m users in that sub is showing that among them are luckily also healthy skeptics.
Max Phalange
Senior Member
RickDoogie
New Member
We can be certain if the quoted statement is true, "serial numbers found on internal components of the flaperon linked it "with certainty" to Flight 370."
Redditors arguing that the Archive.org Pyromania CD images were uploaded too recenlty, so must be fake.
However I found it in a 1995 3DO game:
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=me5sNDwk858&t=3495s
And here's a video of it from 2007
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQbJSA-kzv4&t=32s
However I found it in a 1995 3DO game:
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=me5sNDwk858&t=3495s
And here's a video of it from 2007
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQbJSA-kzv4&t=32s
Last edited:
JunkTheRat
New Member
Nice find. I am so surprised at how fast and far the goal posts get moved. This + all the archive links available going back to the mid 90s should seal it up for anyone trying to claim the effect was planted after the fact to discredit the authenticity of the video.
Editing to add that this looks like another matched frame from from the same effect:
Source: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/15vpuif/i_tried_to_match_another_frame_from_the_pyromania/
another example that uses more changes to show a potentially third matched frame
Last edited:
JMartJr
Senior Member.
Here's another video of a 777 leaving contrails filmed from above, like the fake video.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrZ-KGxrteg
Things jumping up and down like that is just physically impossible.
DeepThroat
New Member
This one is the debunk.
the drone model is missing its antenna at the nose
no parallax in the satellite footage
plane and orb are clipping over the drone HUD
deirdre
Senior Member.
thank you!! ive been looking all over for a vid to see if contrails stay that uniform (in width) for as long as in the op vid. plane spotters have a nasty habit of zooming right up into the airplane vs zooming out to see the contrails!
your plane stays pretty uniform.
RobertBillyBob
Member
I tried to place the camera in 3D space with MQ-1B blueprints and a MQ-9 3D model and it's plausible that the antenna would be obscured by the head of the drone. Only way to know for sure would be to have a MQ-1C model but they are not available for free as far as I know.
Last edited:
Mendel
Senior Member.
@Mick West
at the time the hoax was made, it was not widely known that the Satcom of 9M-MRO kept talking to INMARSAT-3 F1, proving that the aircraft remained airborne for hours after its last radar contact, moving generally away from the geostationary satellite.
However, the coordinates on the HUD put the disappearance in the area where MH-370 dropped off the radar; weather satellite images show that the sky was cloudless; and it was a moonless night.
It was also not known then that over 40 pieces of wreckage, some with serial numbers, would later be washed ashore, proving that 9m-MRO did not leave the planet.
NROL-22 was the launch number, the satellite is USA-184, it's covering the northern hemisphere most of the time, and did when MH-370 went missing.
The clouds don't move in the sat video.
The aircraft is moving too slowly for a 777 at altitude.
The video is not actually stereoscopic, the clouds are flat.
The cursor drifts as if animated.
at the time the hoax was made, it was not widely known that the Satcom of 9M-MRO kept talking to INMARSAT-3 F1, proving that the aircraft remained airborne for hours after its last radar contact, moving generally away from the geostationary satellite.
However, the coordinates on the HUD put the disappearance in the area where MH-370 dropped off the radar; weather satellite images show that the sky was cloudless; and it was a moonless night.
It was also not known then that over 40 pieces of wreckage, some with serial numbers, would later be washed ashore, proving that 9m-MRO did not leave the planet.
NROL-22 was the launch number, the satellite is USA-184, it's covering the northern hemisphere most of the time, and did when MH-370 went missing.
The clouds don't move in the sat video.
The aircraft is moving too slowly for a 777 at altitude.
The video is not actually stereoscopic, the clouds are flat.
The cursor drifts as if animated.
Max Phalange
Senior Member
There's also a full-colour version of BLUESHOC on Pyromania vol3 called DEPTHSHO. Looks like it is the same explosion as SHOCKWV but from a different camera angle.
Sid
New Member
And as if to confirm the continued need to put the satellite to bed: looking through the r/ufo threads, there are people saying "they used this specific version of citrix that includes cursor drift! thats such attention to detail!"
It's fascinating because if you asked that person a week ago what citrix was they'd probably ask if its a juice startup. But now that someone created a specific chain of events where an obvious sign of dodginess could theoretically potentially be explained by a series of possible events in a certain manner, that sign is actually evidence of incredible foresight and brilliant attention to detail.
It's fascinating because if you asked that person a week ago what citrix was they'd probably ask if its a juice startup. But now that someone created a specific chain of events where an obvious sign of dodginess could theoretically potentially be explained by a series of possible events in a certain manner, that sign is actually evidence of incredible foresight and brilliant attention to detail.
DeepThroat
New Member
Does feel a little off logically that somebody would put great amounts of time into creating a head-scratcher of a hoax just to nab VFX from the 90's — care just enough to edit the effect to be dissimilar but not enough to be unrecognizable. It feels like you would either go to the extreme of not editing the shape at all or editing it beyond recognition. Bizarre to cheapen out at the punchline after so much effort prior; and then cheapen out even more in marketing the final product.
Max Phalange
Senior Member
It's pretty interesting over there right now, you can watch people descending into the conspiracy rabbit hole in real time. Currently they're trying to witch-hunt the publisher of the Pyromania effects CD ROMs, because he has worked for the DOD/DOE (he has restored old footage from the Trinity test).
Hardcore Gamer
Member
No. Here's a Youtube channel dedicated to people who make products which appear as you describe it, plus a video showing how methods to break these down <video>
doctorpangloss
New Member
The stabilization and motion errors keep on giving.
I got around to tracking the first 7s of footage. This is an After Effects wiggle, that's 2D perlin noise motion, which isn't physical at all.
The simplest statistical explanation is that the mean of the deltas is very close to zero, which is the purpose of the AE wiggle and not physical.
I got around to tracking the first 7s of footage. This is an After Effects wiggle, that's 2D perlin noise motion, which isn't physical at all.
The simplest statistical explanation is that the mean of the deltas is very close to zero, which is the purpose of the AE wiggle and not physical.
deirdre
Senior Member.
exactly.
tobigtofool
Active Member
If you can teleport an airplane into the future, you can go back in time and insert VFX that are ripped from the event recordings into Diablo easily.
Davey
New Member
If it were actually physically wiggling in place, wouldn't the mean of the deltas still be close to zero? Or are you saying, in real life, cameras don't jiggle in place?
tobigtofool
Active Member
When someone says the deltas are zero, it means when the camera stops shaking, it goes back to rest at its exact original position (for clarity).
In an ideal condition where the camera is perfectly balanced and there's no external force acting upon it (like wind), then after any disturbance, it might return to its original position, and the mean of the changes in its position (the deltas) might be very close to zero. However, real-world conditions often introduce factors that can cause a deviation.
If a camera is mounted on the wing of a flying MQ-9 Reaper drone and you're measuring the "deltas" (changes in position) of the camera, they will likely vary significantly.
The mean of these deltas would probably not be close to zero, especially if the drone is maneuvering or facing turbulent conditions.
Last edited:
Davey
New Member
I understand what delta means, but in real life, a mounted camera could not just jiggle mostly in place for seven seconds? It would be expected to noticeably and measurably drift away from the home position?
It's truly baffling....why would the DoD say it was on a PHYSICAL disc from the 90s? That's objectively auditable, unless they think they made and distributed thousands of copies in some secret rollout and covered it all up. And the idea they did some elaborate reverse-engineered infrared fake video to look like the "real" satellite video but with a glaring error, but then stayed totally silent about the error for almost a decade and only posted about it after the video blew up? It's really strange over there. And often nasty-I saw some people saying really hateful stuff about this place, as if this is some kind of federal psyop mecca
Mendel
Senior Member.
I don't think it's been demonstrated that this took "great amounts of time".
I think this was easier to create than to debunk, and the VFX use and other features of the videos show that the creator expended the necessary effort but not more.
Similar threads
