Alleged Flight MH370 UFO Teleportation Videos [Hoax]

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
Agreed I felt like through the process of debunking this video there was a healthy amount of skepticism, but its showing its true colors and going completely off the rails.
 
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?
You're right, I don't think we'd observe a noticeable drift in these circumstances in the physical system. This needs a detailed analysis to be persuasive.
 
Last edited:
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
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.
Good of you to pick this up, that was a moderation-queue-delayed post. (It's their third, so they're out of the queue from now on.)

It's definitely parallax. The observer is traveling to the left, and the cloud background appears to travel with them while the closer aircraft/contrail is left behind.

If you've ever looked outside a car side window (do it where you have a view, and don't do this if you're the driver!), you'll have seen the same thing.
PMpxPZK.gif

Source: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xSQc7I3GR-4
 
I don't think we'd observe a noticeable drift in these circumstances in the physical system.
The issue is that the system is actively being targetted, so as long as it's following the target, you won't be able to easily observe drift without accounting for that.

This has already been debunked. I'm not sure if something so mathematical is going to tip people over. Camera shake is a very, very VFX thing to do. You can just eyeball lots of clips from Reaper drones like I did and see that at altitude, this stuff has a totally different characteristic instability than the ordinary high frequency, low amplitude camera shake from this shot.
That's a valid point. Unfortunately, I believe most people won't have access to "lots of clips from Reaper drones"?
 
Turns out that flash in satellite video was created using the same asset as the portal in the FLIR video, just different frame.
Reddit user happygrammies pointed it out here and provided quick comparison. It looked similar enough to me, so I've checked myself and tried to recreate the flash from the SHOCKWV asset and it's definitive match (frame right before the one I've used might be even better). I've screengrabbed the flash from the vimeo upload, as that one seems to have the best quality and just squeezed it a bit to make it circular.
 
Good of you to pick this up, that was a moderation-queue-delayed post. (It's their third, so they're out of the queue from now on.)

It's definitely parallax. The observer is traveling to the left, and the cloud background appears to travel with them while the closer aircraft/contrail is left behind.

If you've ever looked outside a car side window (do it where you have a view, and don't do this if you're the driver!), you'll have seen the same thing.
PMpxPZK.gif

Source: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xSQc7I3GR-4

Demo sceners and gamers from the 80s have always known this as "parallax scroll". It was a very common way of faking the appearance of 3D when all you had access to was 2MHz of CPU.

Alas it's lunchtime - but I definitely want to drill down on the "why it's not a compression artefact", if anyone still doubts that. By coincidence, I was going to mention Voxel Rendering, which has some of the same parallaxey properties as the above, but where all bits of space (volume cells, voxels) are drawn individually.

Teaser:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQBY9BM9g_Y
 
I have done more checking of the squishing issue (sorry if this has all been done before) and confirmed that the 'regicide' and 'vida paranormal' videos both show the same 960x720 video.

The regicide video is missing data due to bordering likely added during the fake SBS stereo creation.

Method:​

Get the regicide fake SBS stereo video file and the vida paranormal video file as cleanly as possible and check they are at source resolution.
  1. Do not crop the regicide video in any way, retain the letterboxing
  2. Expand the video resolution to 1920x720
  3. You now have SBS 960x720 video
  4. Un-squash the vida paranormal video to 960x720
  5. Grab the explosion frame from both videos
  6. Overlay them in some photo editing software (I use Affinity Photo2)
  7. Set the top most frame to blend 'difference'
  8. Observe the lack of difference
  9. Draw a sphere over the explosion
  10. Observe the correct aspect ratio

Visuals:​

Both explosion frames:
regi.pngvida.png
Explosion frames diff:
vida-regi.png

And here is frame one of both videos with difference, confirming the bars from the SBS video are not related to format, they are simply over the source video:

letterboxing-confirmation.png

Ideas:​

I have some theories about why a 4:3 960x720 video was being used as a 16:9 720p video.
  • A production company forgot to add letterboxing - this was a tv production
  • The recipients used a tool like handbrake that will automatically crop the letterboxing, but will output in a standard format like 720p

Video Sources:​

Thanks JunkTheRat for pointing me towards the Vida Paranormal clean video.

Vida Paranormal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69V5btijqJE
Regicide: First page of this thread
 
Last edited:
"why it's not a compression artefact"

I presume the compression artefact they are referring to is that of motion estimation. That's where a block you wish to draw on screen is identified as being the same as a nearby region from a frame that you've already processed. Rather than sending the data for the whole block again, it just sends the short vector of where the data should be copied from, say "three pixels left, half a pixel down".

That this takes place in all modern video compression is most easily seen in the glitching errors where a scene ought to change to something completely different, say a rainforest cuts to a commentator's face, but there's a problem with the first frame containing the face, and then the forest starts moving its head and opening its mouth and weird stuff like that. You even get the sense of face-like depth in this weirdness, as where the ears should be barely move, but the nose and the lower jaw move a whole lot more - the different square blocks move around indepenently off each other (which I was going to liken to voxel rendering). All the motion's still being done correctly, but under this glitching it's moving the wrong things around (until the next whole frame is sent explicitly in full, or other repair techniques are performed).

This motion estimation is calculated independently for each block, but the important thing is that it's done block by block. Given that the contrails are at an angle, there are some parts of them that fill the whole block that they are in, and other parts that barely graze the corner of their block. The blocks filled with contrail will have their motion estimated to be that of the contrail, the blocks filled with background and very little contrail will have their motion estimated to be that of the ground below. That would mean that if motion estimation mis-guesses are responsible for the contrail being in the wrong place, then the contrail edge/sliver clocks would be in different wrong places than the full-block contrail blocks. But I see no examples of this kind of artefact. And that's not even the biggest killer to the "compression artefact" argument, it's just the one that should affect the largest number of blocks. And they all have to be mis-guessed in the same way. All while the plane's being motion estimated correctly. Too many coincidences required for that to be likely.

However, the real killer is the single blocks that contain both bits of the contrail and bits of the plane. There's no way that the different parts of a single block can be predicted to move in different directions. And yet there are instances of this - almost every frame. It's not obvious where the block boundaries originally were, as the file's clearly been processed and reprocessed, but given that there's jitter between the two components in almost every frame, at least some of those must have been within the same block - and it only takes one block that's breaking the rules to tell you that it's been composited rather than motion being misestimated.

My background: worked on videotelephony back in the 90s, and apart from the lack of need to skip fwd or back, it's basically the same tech based on the same information-theoretic and psychovisual principles.
 
If someone has some good publically viewable clips from Reaper drones that would be handy for this and other cases.
doesnt matter. they will always argue "that its easy to post edit the footage, just because reasons, and that this doesnt mean its not real" or "they can change the HUD" or "i am an anonymous reaper pilot who can definitely say this is 100% how it would look like". /s
 
doesnt matter. they will always argue "that its easy to post edit the footage, just because reasons, and that this doesnt mean its not real" or "they can change the HUD" or "i am an anonymous reaper pilot who can definitely say this is 100% how it would look like". /s
Doesn't matter how "they" argue, if it works for us, it's useful.

Some people are always incredulous, you can't stop doing something because it wouldn't convince them, because nothing will if they're not ready for it.
 
I presume the compression artefact they are referring to is that of motion estimation. That's where a block you wish to draw on screen is identified as being the same as a nearby region from a frame that you've already processed. Rather than sending the data for the whole block again, it just sends the short vector of where the data should be copied from, say "three pixels left, half a pixel down".

That this takes place in all modern video compression is most easily seen in the glitching errors where a scene ought to change to something completely different, say a rainforest cuts to a commentator's face, but there's a problem with the first frame containing the face, and then the forest starts moving its head and opening its mouth and weird stuff like that. You even get the sense of face-like depth in this weirdness, as where the ears should be barely move, but the nose and the lower jaw move a whole lot more - the different square blocks move around indepenently off each other (which I was going to liken to voxel rendering). All the motion's still being done correctly, but under this glitching it's moving the wrong things around (until the next whole frame is sent explicitly in full, or other repair techniques are performed).

This motion estimation is calculated independently for each block, but the important thing is that it's done block by block. Given that the contrails are at an angle, there are some parts of them that fill the whole block that they are in, and other parts that barely graze the corner of their block. The blocks filled with contrail will have their motion estimated to be that of the contrail, the blocks filled with background and very little contrail will have their motion estimated to be that of the ground below. That would mean that if motion estimation mis-guesses are responsible for the contrail being in the wrong place, then the contrail edge/sliver clocks would be in different wrong places than the full-block contrail blocks. But I see no examples of this kind of artefact. And that's not even the biggest killer to the "compression artefact" argument, it's just the one that should affect the largest number of blocks. And they all have to be mis-guessed in the same way. All while the plane's being motion estimated correctly. Too many coincidences required for that to be likely.

However, the real killer is the single blocks that contain both bits of the contrail and bits of the plane. There's no way that the different parts of a single block can be predicted to move in different directions. And yet there are instances of this - almost every frame. It's not obvious where the block boundaries originally were, as the file's clearly been processed and reprocessed, but given that there's jitter between the two components in almost every frame, at least some of those must have been within the same block - and it only takes one block that's breaking the rules to tell you that it's been composited rather than motion being misestimated.

My background: worked on videotelephony back in the 90s, and apart from the lack of need to skip fwd or back, it's basically the same tech based on the same information-theoretic and psychovisual principles.
Yes, thank you FatPhil. This is what I was referring to. I was not talking about the parallax effect at all. Nor was I talking about the contrails in this particular video. I should have been more specific in my post. In the example I posted, there are actually three things to look at.

1. I put 3 red lines in my gif. The main point of this was to call out the tiny cloud directly in front of the plane. For one frame it tracks WITH the plane INSTEAD of with the other clouds. Then it jumps back to its correct position.
2. There are 5 frames here. Notice how the plane moves only a few pixels in frames 1, 2 and 3; then a huge jump from 3 to 4; and then a few pixels from 4 to 5 again. This is due to the predictive motion FatPhil is referring to.
3. There is a tiny piece of contrail that goes missing in the big jump frame (frame 4).
plane-compression.gif
The big jump I mention in point 2 can be seen many times by watching the original video back at normal speed. The plane makes 10 huge motion jumps relative to it's standard smooth motion between :24 and :35
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrZ-KGxrteg
.

I was pointing this out to call out the fact that video compression CAN make things move incongruously. I think FatPhil has a good point that the chances of the plane and the contrails always being in different predictive blocks in the UFO video wouldn't make sense.
 
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.
At what distances do we start to experience vortex?
 
At what distances do we start to experience vortex?
The vortex comes from the wings tips, constantly. It also lasts for a long time, although it isn't stationary.

The very close pass was the first thing I mentioned when looking at the drone footage when it hit /r/ufos. Despite being an artist/dev (with a degree in animation) it was blindingly obvious that the drone would be thrown around if it really did what was depicted. Many people seem to have misunderstood this issue to be one of 'turbulence' when it is really an issue of being 'thrown out of the sky'. They also mocked me saying a military drone would have some tech to stop this being an issue. I guess everything can just be magic now.

This video was the one that caught my eye then:
Note: The video contains photos of just before a plane crash, so obviously don't watch it if that will upset you.
Source: https://youtu.be/ktqo2Mqqdlk?t=232

 
Last edited:
The jitter came from twitter, the Low poly, the 24fps, and the photograph of a camera positioned on an actual drone was posted on reddit.

Don't be so quick to judge reddit, they did excellent work this round.

That sub deserves more credit, seems to me that it's evolving.
 
on reddit the prevalent voice is that this is the best video ever, impossible to fake yadayadayada

their main argument is that the cloud illuminates during the flash and that this would be next to impossible to recreate with such detail.

adding a radial gradient around the flash does exactly that, as one user demonstrated:

https://imgur.io/qnWmAP9

there were also uploads almost 10 years ago with satellite data as an overlay, suggesting to be the NROL-33 military satellite, which was launched on May 22, 2014 – later than the MH370 incident.

i also think the thermal coloration is not convincing for a military drone, which would be in black or white hot. however, someone could post process it manually (unlikely and for whatever reason but in the realm of possibility).

i personally am not sure if the thermal signature of the engine is accurate, it seems to be too cold?

the "portal" shows up as black on the thermal footage. i dont know how a portal would look like because i dont think anyone has ever seen one, but if the thermal is set to rainbow coloring, why would it show up as black and not red yellow or blue...?

edit: added screenshot part of the original footage that had the satellite letters visible in partIMG_5446.jpeg
I believe the font is Courier, or a variant such as New Courier. Using New Courier in a photo editing program, I believe the text in the provided screenshot best lines up with "NROL-22 8.839815 93.195896" as shown in the attached image.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_5446_Overlayed_New_Courier_2.jpeg
    IMG_5446_Overlayed_New_Courier_2.jpeg
    13.6 KB · Views: 53
The big jump I mention in point 2 can be seen many times by watching the original video back at normal speed. The plane makes 10 huge motion jumps relative to it's standard smooth motion between :24 and :35
Not an expert by any means but the jumps in that vid look kind of like they could be caused by image/motion stabilization in whatever device is recording. That would be something else that would need to be taken into account in any comparison videos.
 
At what distances do we start to experience vortex?


Article:
1692658422708.png

....


Separation is applied to aircraft operating directly behind a super or heavy at the same altitude or less than 1,000 feet below, and to small aircraft operating directly behind a B757 at the same altitude or less than 500 feet below:
Heavy behind super - 6 miles.
Large behind super - 7 miles.
Small behind super - 8 miles.
Heavy behind heavy -4 miles.
Small/large behind heavy - 5 miles.
Small behind B757 - 4 miles.
 
Capturing the period of about 16:00 March 7 UTC to 01:00 March 8 UTC, this shows the ground track of NROL-22, aka USA-184. The edge of the highlighted zone would be practically a profile shot from the side, and the center at the dot would be directly down. In a previous post, I believe I have found the text to say "NROL-22" although not with absolute certainty. If this is the satellite the purported footage came from, given the coordinates I likewise found, it seems that either the orbital elements etc. are inaccurate, or the video is not from USA-184. The orbital elements are from https://www.mmccants.org/tles/index.html in the integrated tles elements zip file, and they were displayed via JSatTrak. Of note is that the given coordinates are also in darkness, meaning visible light is unlikely to be sufficient for the given image.

Attached is the image showing my attempt at replicating the original text from a screenshot from the "satellite" video using Courier font, a Google Earth image of a map overlayed from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malay...ile:MH370_flight_path_with_English_labels.png and a marker at the replicated coordinates, and a video showing the position and ground track and "cone of vision" of USA-184.

Edit: Replaced video with 1/4x speed for clarity, changed to .mp4, added reference to image used in overlay map.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_5446_Overlayed_New_Courier_2.jpeg
    IMG_5446_Overlayed_New_Courier_2.jpeg
    13.6 KB · Views: 53
  • Map Overlay And Video Coordinates.png
    Map Overlay And Video Coordinates.png
    642.6 KB · Views: 48
  • USA184in2dImprov.mp4
    1.5 MB
Last edited:
Here is my personal list of all the incongruities in these videos, apart from the Pyromania debunk.

Thermal:

Satellite:
  • These kinds of clouds appear at low altitudes, but it is unclear if a 777 will produce contrails at those altitudes
  • The clouds move less than we would expect for these kind of clouds
  • There was no obviously correct satellite that was in position to capture this imagery
  • No evidence the satellite in question even has color imagery, especially when grayscale seems to be favored to maximize resolution and limit noise
  • No parallax movement between the clouds and ocean
  • Portal is bright in visible despite being cold in IR (surprising but not impossible)
  • Given fuel constraints, there was only a brief window after sunrise for this to be captured in the provided location, and the sun would have been much lower.
  • The mouse briefly drifts like we would expect from a keyframing error.
  • Even though the stereo pair is more than a simple shear, it is less than anything that would be especially useful. And it affects the text ( u/JunkTheRat).
  • These orbs are much larger ( u/SpaceJungleBoogie) than other reports of orbs.

I also made a list of all the details that the creator was careful to include. Things that were not accidents, but carefully placed intentional decisions:
  • Both
    • The model and performance of the plane (stall speed, bank angle): lots of discussion about this, enough that it wasn’t obviously impossible.
    • Orbs have motion blur, applied carefully to create an apparent shutter speed effect.
    • The “portal” flash has the right duration. (If it were much longer, it should have appeared in two frames of thermal video. Shorter, and it would be improbable for the 6fps satellite to have captured it.)
    • Realistic contrails and contrail dissipation
    • Careful application of noise
  • Thermal
    • Orbs reflect/refract airplane heat, or they spin (u/GrimZeigfeld)
    • Drone shape and FLIR position matching real world locations
    • Reticle
    • Orb cold trails
    • Orb cold thrust vector
    • Orbs switch from hot to cool when they start rotating
    • Broad defocus
    • Camera shake scales appropriately with zoom and has second blur pass.
  • Satellite
    • Telemetry and mouse interaction, with the position broadly matching one possible crash location
    • Stereo pair with more depth than a simple shear
    • Light carefully reflected in clouds
    • Bloom from clouds
    • Self-shadowing on plane
    • Cursor movement not obviously tweened/keyframed
    • Cursor appearance varies with background
    • The clouds evolve very subtly in a way that doesn’t seem to be accounted for by compression alone
 
At what distances do we start to experience vortex?
I can try to dig into that a little bit. I've touched a 777 and a Reaper on the same day, so I might have a little bit of additional perspective here: 777's are big. Like, REALLY big. A 777 is only 6 feet short of being able to fit a Reaper between the engine nacelles, if the Wikipedia line drawing is to be believed. The wing tip is 14ft above the centerline of the engine!

1692666211503.png
(777 Wiki)

So when I see the below frame of video with nose of the camera aircraft and both engine contrails visible over the wing (or whatever that is supposed to be), that indicates a substantial distance between the camera and even a lowered wingtip.
1692666340116.png
Using publicly available information and photos, any reasonable person could assume that a Reaper is about 2-3ft tall from the top of the SATCOM dome to the bottom of the fuselage (if you want to assume it's an MQ-9, and if you want to step WAY out on a limb and say the model is accurate) If the contrails are 76 feet apart (engine centerline to centerline), and take up about the same angular distance as the forward fuselage, and it's 10ft from the wing to the nose of the Reaper, then we're maybe looking at ~400ft to the contrails, ± an order of magnitude.

Moving on to the actual wake, there was a NASA study that put the wake descent rate of a C-130 at 2-3 feet per second. Ref p5, p10. Crossing the vortex at about 8 seconds after passage of the aircraft would be about 20-30ft of vortex descent.
1692668133767.png
Recent NASA Wake-Vortex Flight Tests, Flow-Physics Database and Wake-Development Analysis

I've heard that a typical wingtip vortex might range between 1/2 and 1 chord length of the wing, so on the order of a few feet. I know of some papers that look at the vortex dimensions for rotorcraft, but I don't know of anything off the top of my head that would be a reliable source for fixed wing aircraft. I don't know much more about it other than solving some very simplified circulation and vorticity problems in school, using something called the Kutta–Joukowski theorem. I'm not involved in aerodynamics other than the loads they impart into the structure.

You can also see the size of vortices generated by the deployment of the flaps below. Air spills around the end of the deployed flaps, but the vortex remains extremely tight.
1692668736188.png

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViKYFsN3p24


All of this is mainly to say that I wouldn't be surprised if we were able to find the original source video for the contrails somewhere. If it were all CGI, I wouldn't be surprised either.
 
Moving on to the actual wake, there was a NASA study that put the wake descent rate of a C-130 at 2-3 feet per second. Ref p5, p10. Crossing the vortex at about 8 seconds after passage of the aircraft would be about 20-30ft of vortex descent.
1692668133767.png
Recent NASA Wake-Vortex Flight Tests, Flow-Physics Database and Wake-Development Analysis

I've heard that a typical wingtip vortex might range between 1/2 and 1 chord length of the wing, so on the order of a few feet. I know of some papers that look at the vortex dimensions for rotorcraft, but I don't know of anything off the top of my head that would be a reliable source for fixed wing aircraft. I don't know much more about it other than solving some very simplified circulation and vorticity problems in school, using something called the Kutta–Joukowski theorem. I'm not involved in aerodynamics other than the loads they impart into the structure.

You can also see the size of vortices generated by the deployment of the flaps below. Air spills around the end of the deployed flaps, but the vortex remains extremely tight.
1692668736188.png

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViKYFsN3p24

The flap tip vortices are much smaller, tighter than the wing tip ones. On top of this, usually those condensation trails only show the vortex core, not the whole rotating air mass. If you go to 5:35 in this video
Source: https://youtu.be/dfY5ZQDzC5s, you can see the whole wake system of an aircraft visualised in a cloud.

Also, the contrails widen up quickly behind the aircraft, so estimating them to be behind engine centerlines certainly yields too low a number.
 
That's a useful post; excerpting:
1692666211503.png
(777 Wiki)

So when I see the below frame of video with nose of the camera aircraft and both engine contrails visible over the wing (or whatever that is supposed to be), that indicates a substantial distance between the camera and even a lowered wingtip.
1692666340116.png
Using publicly available information and photos, any reasonable person could assume that a Reaper is about 2-3ft tall from the top of the SATCOM dome to the bottom of the fuselage (if you want to assume it's an MQ-9, and if you want to step WAY out on a limb and say the model is accurate) If the contrails are 76 feet apart (engine centerline to centerline), and take up about the same angular distance as the forward fuselage, and it's 10ft from the wing to the nose of the Reaper, then we're maybe looking at ~400ft to the contrails, ± an order of magnitude.
Is that the vertical distance? Because the Reaper is subsequently flying to the left, closer to the trail.
Moving on to the actual wake, there was a NASA study that put the wake descent rate of a C-130 at 2-3 feet per second. Ref p5, p10. Crossing the vortex at about 8 seconds after passage of the aircraft would be about 20-30ft of vortex descent.
1692668133767.png
Recent NASA Wake-Vortex Flight Tests, Flow-Physics Database and Wake-Development Analysis

I've heard that a typical wingtip vortex might range between 1/2 and 1 chord length of the wing, so on the order of a few feet.
There's quite a bit of research on wake vortices. My source is Holzäpfel, Frank (2005) Aircraft Wake Vortex Evolution and Prediction. Habilitation, TU München . Excerpts:
Article:
SmartSelect_20230822-073820_Samsung Notes.jpg

SmartSelect_20230822-073601_Samsung Notes.jpg

SmartSelect_20230822-073652_Samsung Notes.jpg
We could probably compute the vortex descent speed from this, given some assumptions about the speed of the aircraft and its altitude. The weight should be included in the accident report, but depends on the amount of fuel left at the time.

Note from figure 3 and 4 that the area of strong upward air velocity extends beyond the vortices and would affect a light aircraft if a substantial portion of its wing entered that space.

I'm using your diagram to identify the approximate locations of the contrails and vortex centers:
1692666211503.png

Then I transferred the markings to your screenshot, using the contrails as guide:
1692666340116.png
I superimposed the Figure 3 velocity profile in yellow, and the Figure 4 velocity streamlines in orange. Intuitively, it looks as if the danger zone extends down to the altitude of the drone, even before we consider that the vortex is descending.

If the parts of the Reaper are a CGI addition, but the footage is real, the actual camera platform could have been much farther away, and thus safe from the wake turbulence.
 
That's a useful post; excerpting:

Is that the vertical distance? Because the Reaper is subsequently flying to the left, closer to the trail.

There's quite a bit of research on wake vortices. My source is Holzäpfel, Frank (2005) Aircraft Wake Vortex Evolution and Prediction. Habilitation, TU München . Excerpts:
Article:
SmartSelect_20230822-073820_Samsung Notes.jpg

SmartSelect_20230822-073601_Samsung Notes.jpg

SmartSelect_20230822-073652_Samsung Notes.jpg
We could probably compute the vortex descent speed from this, given some assumptions about the speed of the aircraft and its altitude. The weight should be included in the accident report, but depends on the amount of fuel left at the time.

Note from figure 3 and 4 that the area of strong upward air velocity extends beyond the vortices and would affect a light aircraft if a substantial portion of its wing entered that space.

I'm using your diagram to identify the approximate locations of the contrails and vortex centers:
1692666211503.png

Then I transferred the markings to your screenshot, using the contrails as guide:
1692666340116.png
I superimposed the Figure 3 velocity profile in yellow, and the Figure 4 velocity streamlines in orange. Intuitively, it looks as if the danger zone extends down to the altitude of the drone, even before we consider that the vortex is descending.

If the parts of the Reaper are a CGI addition, but the footage is real, the actual camera platform could have been much farther away, and thus safe from the wake turbulence.
That's fantastic, really helpful!

One thing that bugs me which I can't really find much info on is why the contrails don't roll up in the vortex - maybe they're hotter and stay aloft a little better? But surely it'll all mix up? And if that's the case, can't they just serve as a visual "avoid" zone outside of which you're probably ok? I should know this, having worked in a related field, but it's almost 20 years ago now... I feel a bit rusty.
 
One thing that bugs me which I can't really find much info on is why the contrails don't roll up in the vortex
They do!
Article:
SmartSelect_20230822-092543_Samsung Internet.jpg
With four engines, these aircraft produce four separate contrails, each of which acts like a streakline for the flow behind the wing. So what we see in these images is not the wingtip vortices themselves, but what their effect is on flow moving across different parts of the wing.

More and bigger pictures at the source.
 
Here is my personal list of all the incongruities in these videos, apart from the Pyromania debunk.
You forgot the plane speed discrepancy between the videos :
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.
This is important because it's proof that 2 different planes where abducted!
 
You forgot the plane speed discrepancy between the videos :

This is important because it's proof that 2 different planes where abducted!
Or the same aircraft was abducted twice.

• Two airliners get abducted.
• They have to fight to the death.
• The winner gets to go back (with their memories MIB'ed)
• The loser's debris is dumped in the ocean
 
wow they got us, this documentary looks....kinda similar to....a video that came out years before it?
oh no none of them said predictive programming, it's one of THOSE subreddits....
r/AirlinerAbduction2014
The official community for keeping track of the events unfolding over the 2014 Airliner Satellite and UAV videos (Discord Server is Live). "Our utmost respect towards the victims and families of MH370. Our hearts'll always be with Flight MH370."
Content from External Source
"Official"?
 
Well we all know (I hope) that reddit is the absolute worst. ATS is nothing compared to the stupidity seen on reddit. And don't get me started on the ridiculous moderation.
 
I wanted to be more rigorous concerning the "stereo video" so I used pyelastix to estimate the affine transform between the two sides.

I get this transform matrix :
[ 1.0001702e+00 -7.4857669e-03 7.6533375e+00]
[-1.5309395e-05 1.0002457e+00 -5.2175015e-02]

This is the residual difference after the correction :

1692698024179.png


The plane pops out way less than during our previous tests (but still a little bit).

1692698837645.png

edit : the following is wrong, there was a bug in my code :
Left-Right disparity with the source video / with Left simulated by applying the matrix transform to Right:
(thanks to @Kyle McDonald for his notebook)
1692701872740.png1692701880664.png
 
Last edited:
I wanted to be more rigorous concerning the "stereo video" so I used pyelastix to estimate the affine transform between the two sides.
Great work on this! It's good to have some solid evidence of what StereoSGBM hallucination looks like. Did you try running pyelastix on multiple sections? I mean, on the different parts of the video where the cursor isn't panning.

I'd be very curious if the transformation matrix turns out about the same in the different sections, and what the residuals look like if you take an average across all the transformation matrices (or just apply the matrix from one section to another).

My impression from exploring this is that the transformation is not 100% consistent from section to section. And I don't totally understand whether this is due to matching artifacts from StereoSGBM and phase_cross_correlation, or if there was some other kind of keyframing that happened here when the creator made the video.
 
My impression from exploring this is that the transformation is not 100% consistent from section to section. And I don't totally understand whether this is due to matching artifacts from StereoSGBM and phase_cross_correlation, or if there was some other kind of keyframing that happened here when the creator made the video.
Or maybe the transformation was applied to a larger source image that was being scrolled through a viewport.
Like, if you put an image diagonally on an easel, and then zoom in and pan across it vertically, the stereo separation will change with the vertical coordinates, even though it's still the same diagonal.
(If that makes any sense.)
 
My disparity comparison was wrong, I had a small bug in my code.
I can't get a good similarity map when simulating the left side with the matrix transform , but if I correct the transform in the source image the disparity map is doesn't show much anymore. Without the transform there isn't depth data, but the process doesn't work well the other way around.
I think the small differences due to video encoding create really small differences that StereoSGBM propagate in the disparity map, but it needs more investigation.


without correction / with the correction :
1692702284387.png1692702297377.png
 
It just struck me. RE satellite animation: The vertical letterboxing would be required to hide the fake stereo skew of the edges if this was not done within a viewport. But then how would we reconcile the 'Vida Paranormal' video having the text and cursor?

[1] The author made three versions of the render:
  • RIGHT SBS fake stereo skew with letterboxing, mouse, text
  • LEFT SBS with letterboxing to match the skew covering from RIGHT, mouse, text
  • LEFT 2D with mouse, text
[2] The author made two versions of the render:
  • LEFT 2D with mouse, text
  • RIGHT 2D fake stereo mouse, text
Then they put the video into some fake SBS stereo authoring tool that added the letterboxing to hide the skew.
Probable artefact of method [2] is that the mouse cursor would be skewed in the RIGHT video. Is that the case? Yes, see below.

I think [2] is more likely, so looking into such tools may be useful.

[CHECKED]

Cursor skew making [2] probable:
 
Last edited:
r/AirlinerAbduction2014
The official community for keeping track of the events unfolding over the 2014 Airliner Satellite and UAV videos (Discord Server is Live). "Our utmost respect towards the victims and families of MH370. Our hearts'll always be with Flight MH370."
Content from External Source
"Official"?
"the families have our utmost respect. sorry that your mother was abducted by aliens.

you dont believe it? paid shill actors!"
 
Back
Top