Alleged Flight MH370 UFO Teleportation Videos [Hoax]

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?

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.
 
especially if the drone is maneuvering or facing turbulent conditions.
As close as the drone is to the contrail, it should be experiencing wake turbulence from the B-777.

The Boeing 777-200ER has ~300 t MTOW (maximum take-off weight), which puts it squarely in the "heavy" category. Air traffic control ensures a minimum of 2 minutes separation for light aircraft taking off behind heavy aircraft, and 6 nm (nautical miles) separation en-route, to avoid the wake of the heavy aircraft endangering the lighter aircraft. (See https://skybrary.aero/articles/mitigation-wake-turbulence-hazard for details.)

The encounter in the video doesn't appear to meet these minima.
 
Last edited:
As close as the drone is to the contrail, it should be experiencing wake turbulence from the B-777.

The Boeing 777-200ER has ~300 t MTOW (maximum take-off weight), which puts it squarely in the "heavy" category. Air traffic control ensures a minimum of 2 minutes separation for light aircraft taking off behind heavy aircraft, and 6 nm (nautical miles) separation en-route, to avoid the wake of the heavy aircraft endangering the lighter aircraft. (See https://skybrary.aero/articles/mitigation-wake-turbulence-hazard for details.)

The encounter in the video doesn't appear to meet these minima.
I wrote something about this yesterday, prior to the debunk, however I deleted it shortly after because it can be confusing and inconclusive as a sign of fakery.

My point yesterday was that the fake drone, presuming it was supposed to be a Reaper, would absolutely shake and rattle as it passed the jet wash and vortex of the B777. The 777 is a Code E aircraft whereas the Reaper would be a Code B, meaning there is two (!) codes between them. What makes it inconclusive in this regard is that the Reaper has aerodynamic features that would probably dampen the turbulence, but it would still be very visible to us.

There is a clip from the DoD that shows this clearly, earlier this year two Russian fighters harassed a Reaper over Syria (?). One of the fighters tried to create wake turbulence by flying up behind and over the drone and you can clearly see the drone is shaking and even losing the camera feed briefly.
 
I apologise if I keep adding observations that have been discussed, but I saw Mick posted a squished frame yesterday and wanted to verify my own corrected version. I have looked at it pretty closely and think it seems right, so I am posting the correction here.

For the satellite airliner animation video convert it to the following resolution: 1920x720.
Ensure the side bars are not auto cropped.
You will then see a spherical 'flash' effect and the plane will appear unsquished.
 
The plane is moving way faster in the thermal video than in the satellite video.
Based on relative plane length traveled and 3D matching (+ GPS coordinates for sat.) the plane has a ground speed of around 200km/h in the satellite video and a speed relative to drone of around 500km/h in the thermal video.
It's not really precise but it's enough to tell that the videos are not showing the same trajectory.
"Maybe the thermal video in not fake but they added the VFX effect to discredit both videos" claims don't hold up.
 
The plane is moving way faster in the thermal video than in the satellite video.
Based on relative plane length traveled and 3D matching (+ GPS coordinates for sat.) the plane has a ground speed of around 200km/h in the satellite video and a speed relative to drone of around 500km/h in the thermal video.
It's not really precise but it's enough to tell that the videos are not showing the same trajectory.
"Maybe the thermal video in not fake but they added the VFX effect to discredit both videos" claims don't hold up.
Can you show your working for the drone plane speed? I assume it's based on the decrease of the relative size of the plane in the untracked 1st shot?
 
Can you show your working for the drone plane speed? I assume it's based on the decrease of the relative size of the plane in the untracked 1st shot?
Sorry I forgot to post my data. Here it is :

2D
1692532118955.png

Between frame 39 and 87 the plane goes more that 8 times it's length in distance. Wingspan is 61m, length 63m, if you consider a conservative size of 35 to account for the viewing angle you get 8 times 35m in 2 seconds : 504km/h

3D
Plane 3D model matched to the video, approximate speed computed from positions and frame delta
1692533023164.png

1692533042203.png

1692533150508.png
 
Sorry I forgot to post my data. Here it is :

2D
View attachment 61692
Between frame 39 and 87 the plane goes more that 8 times it's length in distance. Wingspan is 61m, length 63m, if you consider a conservative size of 35 to account for the viewing angle you get 8 times 35m in 2 seconds : 504km/h
Perspective affects the path of the aircraft and the length of its body equally; so it is travelling in excess of 8*63m in 2 seconds, that's 504/2=252m/s=490 knots.

If you can up your estimate to more than 512 knots, you'd have proven the aircraft is not a Boeing 777-200, but rather a shorter model, as 512 knots is its maximum speed. I expect the aircraft would need to descend to exceed it, and would be in danger of disintegrating.

SmartSelect_20230820-142751_Samsung Internet.jpg

Typical Cruise Speed: Mach 0.84 (905 km/h, 490 knots) at a cruise altitude of 35,000 ft (11,000 m)

Maximum Cruise Speed: Mach 0.89 (950 km/h, 512 knots) at a cruise altitude of 35,000 ft (11,000 m)


It is physically impossible to fly a standard rate turn of 360⁰/2 min (as in the satellite video) with only 30⁰ bank with a speed in excess of 250 knots.
 
Last edited:
Perspective affects the path of the aircraft and the length of its body equally
Didn't think about it but you're absolutely right.

Depending on how I eyeball the 3D matching, I get far higher speeds sometimes so the results don't contradict each other.

If the video is made by replacing a plane by a 777 in a real video, I think too that the 777 is replacing a far smaller plane in this video. Since size is part of the speed estimation it would mean a lower speed for the original plane.
 
Last edited:
Sharing a new stitched background based on my resolution correction; because all the ones I can find are squished.

Note the extremely odd shadowing on the cloud middle bottom.

satviewstitch.png
 
Last edited:
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.
Although I agree with you, I don't know enough about compression to respond to the people yelling "this is a compression anomaly". Even in this video you shared, there are some anomalies that break motion continuity. Here's an example from :32. Could this same compression problem ever be the cause of the breaks we're seeing in the contrails?
plane-compression.gif
 
Last edited:
Are
Perspective affects the path of the aircraft and the length of its body equally; so it is travelling in excess of 8*63m in 2 seconds, that's 504/2=252m/s=490 knots.

If you can up your estimate to more than 512 knots, you'd have proven the aircraft is not a Boeing 777-200, but rather a shorter model, as 512 knots is its maximum speed. I expect the aircraft would need to descend to exceed it, and would be in danger of disintegrating.

View attachment 61696
Typical Cruise Speed: Mach 0.84 (905 km/h, 490 knots) at a cruise altitude of 35,000 ft (11,000 m)

Maximum Cruise Speed: Mach 0.89 (950 km/h, 512 knots) at a cruise altitude of 35,000 ft (11,000 m)


It is physically impossible to fly a standard rate turn of 360⁰/2 min (as in the satellite video) with only 30⁰ bank with a speed in excess of 250 knots.
Aren't you measuring speed relative to the drone this way? If the aircraft was in 100 kts winds but the drone wasn't, it could easily exceed 500 kts without busting airframe limits. Unlikely, but not entirely impossible.

Also, converting Mach number to kts depends on air temperature, so the 512 kts limit is only a rough estimate.

The aircraft will have a limit based on Mach number (which can't be converted into a "speed" limit without knowing the exact air data parameters on the day) and an airspeed limit based on indicated airspeed (which can't be converted to inertial speed or ground speed without knowing air data parameters and wind on the day). Note most videos will show aircraft from ground, therefore what you observe as motion is ground speed.

TL;DR it's very hard from a video alone to judge whether airframe limits would have been busted.
 
Aren't you measuring speed relative to the drone this way? If the aircraft was in 100 kts winds but the drone wasn't, it could easily exceed 500 kts without busting airframe limits. Unlikely, but not entirely impossible.
They were at the same height and quite close, so, unlikely.
I think we're measuring speed relative to the clouds?
But then there might also be an element of parallax from the drone movement.
 
I believe this would profit from circles or arrows. Is it visible on screenshots of the video, or does it only show up in the composite?
It is present in the video. There are a number of curiosities that have already been mentioned. Not least that the final frames of the video show a crisper and possibly moving image. I am trying to figure out whether this is a photograph of clouds above the sea, a video of the same, or a composited scene; ie individual cloud images. Given the laziness of the flir video effects I find it hard to see this being a composited scene, and not just a video/photo. Things like this fringe shadow makes me think twice.

fringe shadow.png
 
Last edited:
It is present in the video. There are a number of curiosities that have already been mentioned. Not least that the final frames of the video show a crisper and possibly moving image. I am trying to figure out whether this is a photograph of clouds above the sea, a video of the same, or a composited scene; ie individual cloud images. Given the laziness of the flir video effects I find it hard to see this being a composited scene, and not just a video/photo. Things like this fringe shadow makes me think twice.
I have added more notes in the attached image.

satviewstitch_notes.png
 
Why, exactly? Clouds do have shadows.

P.S.: in the editor, click on the icon for the attached image, and choose "Insert..." - "full image".
Just because in a composite scene fringe effects are more likely. I can't see how this is a natural shadow. Thanks for the note about inserting.
 
Just because in a composite scene fringe effects are more likely. I can't see how this is a natural shadow. Thanks for the note about inserting.
In my search of clouds in satellite footage, seeing cloud's shadows in really far-off or unintuitive places was common. And often a shadow of one cloud landed below the "expected shadow" of a different cloud, making it even more unintuitive. But intuitiveness =/= truth.

Here is an example which initially completely tripped me up, where the shadow of the rightmost cloud lands right below the middle cloud.
1692546988333.png

The video from the screengrab
 
I can't see how this is a natural shadow.
There's a thinner layer of clouds behind, upon which a cloud can cast a shadow. That can happen even with a nearly-invisible haze in the air. Sorry, but I can't remember where to find an excellent photo someone has posted on Metabunk of a vertical shadow made by the contrail of a plane that was traveling directly overhead, but perhaps another reader knows where it is.
 
There's a thinner layer of clouds behind, upon which a cloud can cast a shadow. That can happen even with a nearly-invisible haze in the air. Sorry, but I can't remember where to find an excellent photo someone has posted on Metabunk of a vertical shadow made by the contrail of a plane that was traveling directly overhead, but perhaps another reader knows where it is.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/dark-vertical-lines-in-folkestone-kent-—-contrail-volumetric-edge-shadow.12958/
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/dark-beam-in-front-of-a-contrail-massa-italy-edge-shadow.6708/


on google use > site:metabunk.org vertical shadow contrail
 
There's a thinner layer of clouds behind, upon which a cloud can cast a shadow. That can happen even with a nearly-invisible haze in the air. Sorry, but I can't remember where to find an excellent photo someone has posted on Metabunk of a vertical shadow made by the contrail of a plane that was traveling directly overhead, but perhaps another reader knows where it is.
I was guessing the thin layer is Cirrus Fibratus, which would put them above the larger clouds, but I take your point. At a guess the large clouds look like Stratocumulus. Does anyone else have an opinion on the larger cloud type?
In my search of clouds in satellite footage, seeing cloud's shadows in really far-off or unintuitive places was common. And often a shadow of one cloud landed below the "expected shadow" of a different cloud, making it even more unintuitive. But intuitiveness =/= truth.

Here is an example which initially completely tripped me up, where the shadow of the rightmost cloud lands right below the middle cloud.
View attachment 61703
The video from the screengrab
I noted the same in #689 attachment. It certainly is hard to assign shadows without a larger scene. So far the only thing we can say for certain (on balance, a VFX dude won't have top secret optical platform output) is that this is not a satellite image, as optically it would be improbable.
 
I wrote something about this yesterday, prior to the debunk, however I deleted it shortly after because it can be confusing and inconclusive as a sign of fakery.

My point yesterday was that the fake drone, presuming it was supposed to be a Reaper, would absolutely shake and rattle as it passed the jet wash and vortex of the B777. The 777 is a Code E aircraft whereas the Reaper would be a Code B, meaning there is two (!) codes between them. What makes it inconclusive in this regard is that the Reaper has aerodynamic features that would probably dampen the turbulence, but it would still be very visible to us.

There is a clip from the DoD that shows this clearly, earlier this year two Russian fighters harassed a Reaper over Syria (?). One of the fighters tried to create wake turbulence by flying up behind and over the drone and you can clearly see the drone is shaking and even losing the camera feed briefly.
This clip?

Source: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=g04AJQEBiVc&t=17
 
As close as the drone is to the contrail, it should be experiencing wake turbulence from the B-777.

The Boeing 777-200ER has ~300 t MTOW (maximum take-off weight), which puts it squarely in the "heavy" category. Air traffic control ensures a minimum of 2 minutes separation for light aircraft taking off behind heavy aircraft, and 6 nm (nautical miles) separation en-route, to avoid the wake of the heavy aircraft endangering the lighter aircraft. (See https://skybrary.aero/articles/mitigation-wake-turbulence-hazard for details.)

The encounter in the video doesn't appear to meet these minima.

I disagree that the distance to the supposed airliner would necessarily place the camera aircraft in the wake. Wake vortices begin very strong, but small, and take time for the vortex to expand and dissipate. So while a small fighter can refuel behind something big and heavy, generating strong vortices, like a KC-10 Extender, there are well-defined areas that they are avoiding. The time between the flyby and when the camera aircraft passes the contrail is very small, and wouldn't be long enough for the wake turbulence to drift and expand.
 
I disagree that the distance to the supposed airliner would necessarily place the camera aircraft in the wake. Wake vortices begin very strong, but small, and take time for the vortex to expand and dissipate. So while a small fighter can refuel behind something big and heavy, generating strong vortices, like a KC-10 Extender, there are well-defined areas that they are avoiding. The time between the flyby and when the camera aircraft passes the contrail is very small, and wouldn't be long enough for the wake turbulence to drift and expand.
The wake vortex starts at the wingtip, and judging by the contrail, the drone passes very close by where the left wingtip passed.

Since the drone body appears to have been added as CGI, if it's real footage, it would've been taken from farther away, I think?
 
OT: discussing and reading over at r/ufos was quite the ride. im exhausted after a couple of days. there are some extremely weird people over there. its like having a discussion as an atheist with the pope about the existence of god. no matter what kind of evidence you could provide, it would never be accepted. people are now believing a random supernova ring is as equal of a match as the actual pyromania effect its absolutely ridiculous
 
The wake vortex starts at the wingtip, and judging by the contrail, the drone passes very close by where the left wingtip passed.

Since the drone body appears to have been added as CGI, if it's real footage, it would've been taken from farther away, I think?
That's been my thinking, but I've also been trawling for videos of high altitude near misses.
 
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.
Shouldn't this be a nail in the coffin for the satellite video? If footage that's clearly stamped with coordinates (8.828815 93.195896) shows clouds, when in reality there were no clouds there at the time, it obviously cannot be real. Either the coordinates were stamped onto some unrelated footage, or various kinds of other fakery happened. Either way the footage is not what it's being purported to be.

You'd hope an artist whose work took this long for this forum to analyze did their due-diligence and checked the local weather/time before making a clip. Now the footage shows clouds being illuminated by something, when in reality it was a moonless cloudless night. Oops.
 
That's been my thinking, but I've also been trawling for videos of high altitude near misses.
I'm sure there used to be video around of Airbus (?) doing high altitude wake vortex encounter testing where they deliberately flew a smaller aircraft into the wake vortices of a larger preceding aircraft. Can't find any at the moment, though.
 
OT: discussing and reading over at r/ufos was quite the ride. im exhausted after a couple of days. there are some extremely weird people over there. its like having a discussion as an atheist with the pope about the existence of god. no matter what kind of evidence you could provide, it would never be accepted. people are now believing a random supernova ring is as equal of a match as the actual pyromania effect its absolutely ridiculous
As a long-time former member, the sub has felt more and more cult-like since the Grusch story broke. I actually started to feel uncomfortable even visiting it. This MH370 situation has been even worse. Just bizarre really.

I was over there earlier and there seemed two avenues of 'thought': one was that the MH370 videos were deliberately spread around the community as a distraction from the 'real' story i.e. Grusch, and the other was that the FX used to debunk them was itself fake to fool people into thinking the MH370 videos weren't real.

It's just become a breeding ground for conspiracy theories. So yeah, I'm done.
 
Although I agree with you, I don't know enough about compression to respond to the people yelling "this is a compression anomaly". Even in this video you shared, there are some anomalies that break motion continuity. Here's an example from :32. Could this same compression problem ever be the cause of the breaks we're seeing in the contrails?
View attachment 61700
This isn't caused by compression but by actual cloud movement and/or parallax from the relative motions of the plane filming and the plane being filmed, which we would expect to see in these videos if they were real. But notice the contrails still originate from the same relative points and remain fixed relative to the plane even as they both appear to drift sideways compared to the background. In the alleged thermal video the contrails appear to originate from quite different locations on the plane in different frames. That is not expected from either relative motion or compression.
 
Trying to run reverse image searches on clouds in the alleged satellite video, nothing so far-anyone know about if any software companies in the 90s-early 2000s might have had famous stock image compilations of clouds that might not be indexed on google?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top