Alleged Flight MH370 UFO Teleportation Videos [Hoax]

[tobigtofool]

no it would be even easier than doing everything 100% cgi.

the way its done is you have a model / effect for the orb, you let it track the plane, you delete the non visible orb out manually frame by frame

i think this can be done within a couple hours if experienced

I mean, obtaining the camera would take more work than me just doing it in after effects.

But if it's an "elaborate" hoax, then the work would be doable I guess.

Question, how easily is it to match the 2 footages the way they are in this case that one is made with models?

 

[AmberRobot]

How absolutely certain can we be that these are parts from this plane? Not challenging, asking!

The quoted text says they identified the part by serial number.

 

[Domzh]

I have no PC at hand but if the video is real and the orbs were edited in, than we might find some clipping / masking errors when the orbs appear or disappear around the plane.

maybe someone with software and some time at hand could go through it frame by frame and see if they find anything like that.

this would be the "smoking gun" (or one of multiple) that would be evidence for a fake

 

[Cogg84]

I'm going to come at this from a different angle -- assume for a moment the video is real. It would then show an aircraft being circled by UFOs, the disappearing into a Sky Portal (tm) never to be seen again, off to Dimenison X or Arcturus 4. If all that is true, then the plane in the video cannot be MH370 (aircraft 9M-MRO) because THAT plane did not dissappear into another dimension or the depths of space -- it crashed, bits of it have been recovered:

The first item of debris to be positively identified as originating from Flight 370 was the right flaperon (a trailing edge control surface).[163][164][165] It was discovered in late July 2015 on a beach in Saint-André, Réunion, an island in the western Indian Ocean, about 4,000 km (2,200 nmi; 2,500 mi) west of the underwater search area.[166] The item was transported from Réunion (an overseas department of France) to Toulouse, where it was examined by France's civil aviation accident investigation agency, the Bureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyses pour la Sécurité de l'Aviation Civile (BEA), and a French defence ministry laboratory.[166] Malaysia sent its own investigators to both Réunion and Toulouse.[166][167] On 3 September 2015, French officials announced that serial numbers found on internal components of the flaperon linked it "with certainty" to Flight 370.

Content from External Source

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370

The article goes on to mention other bits of the plane that have been recovered.

Since the plane in the video cannot be Flight MH370, for the video to be real proponents need to find another candidate aircraft that disappeared in the time frame and geographic area the video is claimed to have originated from -- this one without having left wreckage.

Absolutely! Also if this is not MH370, then this planes disappearance was never covered in the news (which would be impossible because plane crashes or disappearances get national and worldwide news coverage). Plane crashes and disappearances are so rare that always get coverage on some level.

Now throw in the UFO’s circling the plane and it blinking out of existence and the video is only available in the bowels of the Internet? Plus it’s been around for almost 10 years? Im not saying the video of the plane isn’t real. But the ufo aspect seems suspect considering how compelling this video looks on face value. I can imagine the average person seeing this and thinking “wow they’re the proof”! So the lack of major attention of this video compared to the grainy navy videos seems wildly unbalanced considering what’s in these videos.

 

[tobigtofool]

The quoted text says they identified the part by serial number.

could be anecdotal?

Is this piece in a investigative laboratory somewhere?

 

[Amathia]

Is it even possible for a plane to vanish into thin air without people immediately noticing in a flight tracker website?

 

[Cogg84]

Is it even possible for a plane to vanish into thin air without people immediately noticing in a flight tracker website?

The was the major point with MH370. It vanished from radar. Then everyone went ape shit and it became a worldwide story almost immediately.

 

[Der Ungrund]

One thing that I was hoping to find by posting it here was VFX artists opinions. Someone did post it to the r/VFX subreddit, which has resulted in the most plausible sounding debunk I've seen thus far, but I admit I know nothing about VFX so I can't really verify any of it. Some of their main points were that:

• A video like this could plausibly be created via a combination of 3D models, particle effects, and composited cloud images.
• The level of detail exhibited in elements like the clouds and the "portal" are likely too intricate for a zoomed in image of fast-moving objects taken with a camera.
• Motion blur is applied inconsistently. It's present on some elements, but not others.
• Inconsistences in pixels/grain suggests it's a mix of composited elements.
• The look of the plane doesn't match with existing heat mapped images of 777s.
• The overall composition of the video seems too "composed" and dramatic (especially the opening of the plane swooping past, followed by the drone passing directly through the contrail).

At one point, someone else on reddit pointed out that the "portal" effect looks suspiciously similar to a "stock" ink blot effect in various video editing packages, which also seemed very true to me.

Honestly, I assumed the video was fake from the start, mainly just because of the "this looks way too composed to be real, like it's a scene from an action movie" argument. It's just been harder to find a single "smoking gun" element like it typically is with other videos. Most of the real world elements like the satellite and the location are plausible, but that really proves nothing other than that the person who made it was following the MH370 story at the time. So all you really have left to go on are the video elements themselves, but most people lack the sort of VFX expertise to know exactly what to look for (myself included).

 

[Trailblazer]

How absolutely certain can we be that these are parts from this plane? Not challenging, asking!

I'm sure I remember hearing when they were discovered that they had been positively identified as being from a 777, and there is no other 777 unaccounted for anywhere in the world. So...

 

[MrSuperhate]

If the video was shot from a satellite in low Earth orbit, the perspective should shift slightly every frame, yet the background clouds appear perfectly still. If you've ever watched a satellite pass overhead, you'll know how quickly they move across they sky. My understanding is that optical spy satellites operate in LEO where they can get the highest possible resolution. It should be possible to determine how much the image should shift depending on the orbital velocity of the satellite. I'm not sure how to do that myself.

There are also spy satellites in geosynchronous orbit, but they conduct signals intelligence by intercepting radio waves. It's of course theoretically possible for a telescope with a large enough mirror to get the same resolution, but it would have to be significantly larger than a telescope in LEO. According to Google, spy satellites in LEO typically orbit at around 500 km, while geosynchronous orbit is about 57,000 km. Thanks to the inverse square law, you would need a telescope something like 100x larger to get the same resolution.

If someone were to estimate the resolution of the satellite, they could determine how large the aperture of the mirror would need to be to get the resulting footage. If it's something comically large like I think it would be, that would settle it, in my view.

I can't into maths, so I tried using the Bing chatbot. I asked it to presume a resolution of 5 meters from an orbit of 57,000 km. The telescope would have to be 13 meters in diameter. That's twice the size of the James Webb Space Telescope. If anyone could check the math that would be awesome.

 

[Scaramanga]

Any UFO style video with a flash in it automatically gives itself away as a hoax. I don't know why people feel the need to add the flash, but it is such a common hoax trope that you'd think hoaxers would avoid it by now.

 

[Orthonormal]

In principle, it need not be from the top, sure. But to me, it looks like the airplane is shown both in projection from above as well as from the side, which indicates a change in orientation of order 90 degrees. Since the clouds don't change orientation, this would have to be from a change in the aircraft. Look at the difference in the plane's profile at the start of the video and at about 30 seconds in. Looks like a major change to me. And that change is concurrent with a trajectory change of the airplane. So a pretty steeply banked turn, yes? If one had time they could calculate the radius of the turn I units of the size of the aircraft and see how unusual (or not) that kind of turn would be for an aircraft of this size.

I did a very rough calculation. Assumptions:

• In the composite picture the plane length is ~24 px (64m length of B777) and the turn radius along the horizontal axis is 680 px (therefore 1800m)
• The plane covers 90 degrees in about 27 seconds (pointing straight down to straight right).

(1800m*2pi/4)/27 = Speed = 105 m/s
Turning Acceleration = v^2/r = 105*105/1800 = 6.1 m/s^2
This requires a bank angle of: atan(6.1/9.8) = 0.55 radians = 32 degrees
This corresponds to a total acceleration of sqrt(9.8^2 + 6.1^2) = 11.5 m/s^2 ~ 1.15g
Large planes are typically certified to sustain 2.5 g positive and 1 g negative acceleration so the plane is not being stressed. 32 degrees of bank is also pretty normal for a turn.

 

[JMartJr]

How absolutely certain can we be that these are parts from this plane? Not challenging, asking!

I will admit to not being an expert in identifying which airplane a part if from. It is my understanding that they tend to have serial numbers, for the larger bits these are supposedly diagnostic to the point of "Yep, it's from that plane."

CONFIRMED​

Wing flap:​

Where found: Tanzania


When: June


Authorities say this piece of debris has been confirmed to be from MH370. It was found in June on Pemba Island, in the Indian Ocean near the mainland. It is believed to be part of the outboard wing flap of the missing Boeing 777.

Plane wing fragment​

Where found: Mauritius


When: May


The fragment of plane wing has been confirmed as from the missing jetliner. A “part identifier” was legible on the plane piece, officials said, which allowed investigators to identify the wreckage definitively.

Flaperon :​

Where found: Reunion Island


When: July 2015


Australian officials have said the flaperon is confirmed to be from the jetliner – the first trace of the plane since it vanished in March 2014. Numbers found inside the flaperon match records from a company that manufactured it for MH370, French officials said. The unique identifier means it’s definitely from this particular plane.
.

Content from External Source

Source: https://www.cnn.com/2017/03/08/asia/mh370-debris-found/index.html

The source lists some other bits found -- diagnostic down the the level of, say, "A Boeing belonging to Malaysia Air" or "A Boeing 777." Somebody other than me would have to speak to how likely such debris would be to turn up in the Indian Ocean from some source other than a crashed aircraft -- and if it would have to be from a crashed aircraft, , somebody would have to come up with other qualifying aircraft going down in the area with those parts not recovered in the right time frame.

But for purposes of establishing that MH370 went into the ocean, as opposed to through a portal to The Great Unknown, the pieces listed as being definitively from that plane are, to me, sufficient.

 

[sindex]

If the video was shot from a satellite in low Earth orbit, the perspective should shift slightly every frame, yet the background clouds appear perfectly still. If you've ever watched a satellite pass overhead, you'll know how quickly they move across they sky. My understanding is that optical spy satellites operate in LEO where they can get the highest possible resolution. It should be possible to determine how much the image should shift depending on the orbital velocity of the satellite. I'm not sure how to do that myself.

There are also spy satellites in geosynchronous orbit, but they conduct signals intelligence by intercepting radio waves. It's of course theoretically possible for a telescope with a large enough mirror to get the same resolution, but it would have to be significantly larger than a telescope in LEO. According to Google, spy satellites in LEO typically orbit at around 500 km, while geosynchronous orbit is about 57,000 km. Thanks to the inverse square law, you would need a telescope something like 100x larger to get the same resolution.

If someone were to estimate the resolution of the satellite, they could determine how large the aperture of the mirror would need to be to get the resulting footage. If it's something comically large like I think it would be, that would settle it, in my view.

I can't into maths, so I tried using the Bing chatbot. I asked it to presume a resolution of 5 meters from an orbit of 57,000 km. The telescope would have to be 13 meters in diameter. That's twice the size of the James Webb Space Telescope. If anyone could check the math that would be awesome.

The alleged satellite (NROL-22) is in a Molniya orbit. If it passed over the target close to perigee it would have been much closer.

 

[sigmops]

But for purposes of establishing that MH370 went into the ocean, as opposed to through a portal to The Great Unknown, the pieces listed as being definitively from that plane are, to me, sufficient.

For someone who believes this video, I think aliens having the ability to teleport a plane to a far off star would not preclude the ability to send it back, whole or in pieces. Maybe the storyline goes that they sent it to the bottom of the ocean.

 

[Candy-O]

Any UFO style video with a flash in it automatically gives itself away as a hoax. I don't know why people feel the need to add the flash, but it is such a common hoax trope that you'd think hoaxers would avoid it by now.

But we have no frame of reference to compare it to. It's not like we can say " When a REAL alien makes a jet disapear, no flash is seen."

We have no idea what technology or phenomena the orbs are supposed to be using. The entire thing is so far removed from our understanding of physics that is would seem fake, even without a flash. If that plane slowly became transparent over 2 seconds, but no flash, would that feel any more real? There is no way to make a plane disappear like that without violating our understanding of what is real and what is possible

I would add that the flash does feel abrupt and does not seem to propagate naturally, according to what my brain would expect from having seen lightning flashes on clouds before.

 

[Max Phalange]

I would really like to see this pair of videos examined here too. My notes:
1) It looks to me that the satellite name is NROL-22, not NROL-33. You can see that the longitude is 93, and that 3 looks clearly different from the numbers in the satellite name.
2) If the latitude coordinate is -8.8, then it's much closer to the later satellite pings.
3) MH370 had enough fuel for the sun to rise over the Southern Indian Ocean before it would have run out of fuel, so daytime filming by satellite is not out of the question.

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:



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



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



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:



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).


.

 

[metac3]

When you apply a gradient over the image like one of the posters claims was done to achieve the lighting effect on the clouds when the 'implosion' happens, you get the following:



The gradient applied is obvious.
But in the actual video we see this:



You can see the clouds in front of the 'implosion' get backlit, and those behind it, get frontlit. You could technically achieve this effect by hand-painting in around the edges but look at the following:



Notice that? Of course not. In the color image you can't even tell there was any front light or backlight effect happening at all. It makes sense if some artists went to the painstaking process of brightening those areas up that they would make it at the very least visible without having to explicitly diff the frames.
And besides, if they're going to make two videos from different perspectives anyways, it doesn't make any sense to use a 2d background for one, and actually model the clouds in the other video.
But at the very least, I believe anyways, the satellite video MUST be a fully 3d cg video with no real elements at all, if you believe this video to be false.
(I don't by the way.)

 

[Amathia]

But we have no frame of reference to compare it to. It's not like we can say " When a REAL alien makes a jet disapear, no flash is seen."

We have no idea what technology or phenomena the orbs are supposed to be using. The entire thing is so far removed from our understanding of physics that is would seem fake, even without a flash. If that plane slowly became transparent over 2 seconds, but flash, would that feel any more real? There is no way to make a plane disappear like that without violating our understanding of what is real and what is possible.

David Copperfield would like a word.

 

[jarlrmai]

For someone who believes this video, I think aliens having the ability to teleport a plane to a far off star would not preclude the ability to send it back, whole or in pieces. Maybe the storyline goes that they sent it to the bottom of the ocean.

Well of course, made up magic can do anything.

 

[MrSuperhate]

The alleged satellite (NROL-22) is in a Molniya orbit. If it passed over the target close to perigee it would have been much closer.

And thus the satellite's motion should be seen clearly in the video.

 

[Mendel]

(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:



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).

From the scale of the map/distance to the target, the altitude of the satellite, and accounting for curvature, what would the viewing angle have been? For either coordinate?

It should be possible to determine how much the image should shift depending on the orbital velocity of the satellite. I'm not sure how to do that myself.

You could view some ISS onboard camera footage, on youtube or elsewhere. The orbital speed is approximately the same to other LEO orbits.

 

[Mendel]

I did a very rough calculation. Assumptions:

• In the composite picture the plane length is ~24 px (64m length of B777) and the turn radius along the horizontal axis is 680 px (therefore 1800m)
• The plane covers 90 degrees in about 27 seconds (pointing straight down to straight right).

(1800m*2pi/4)/27 = Speed = 105 m/s
Turning Acceleration = v^2/r = 105*105/1800 = 6.1 m/s^2
This requires a bank angle of: atan(6.1/9.8) = 0.55 radians = 32 degrees
This corresponds to a total acceleration of sqrt(9.8^2 + 6.1^2) = 11.5 m/s^2 ~ 1.15g
Large planes are typically certified to sustain 2.5 g positive and 1 g negative acceleration so the plane is not being stressed. 32 degrees of bank is also pretty normal for a turn.

90⁰ in 27 seconds means it's a 2-minute-turn.

Article:

A standard rate turn is defined as a 3° per second turn, which completes a 360° turn in 2 minutes. This is known as a 2-minute turn, or rate one (180°/min).

Standardized turn rates are often employed in approaches and holding patterns to provide a reference for controllers and pilots so that each will know what the other is expecting.

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_rate_turn

105 m/s = 204 knots ≈ 200 knots, given the inaccuracy of our length standard.

200 knots seems like a reasonable speed for an aircraft in a holding pattern:

Article:

The Boeing 777-200ER take off or rotate speed (VR) typically occurs between 130 – 160 knots (roughly 120-180 mph) depending on the weight of the aircraft. At a typical take-off weight of around 230,000 kgs, the take off speed would be approximately 145 kts which is approximately 165 mph.

B777 Landing Speed

A typical landing speed (or speed over the threshold known as VREF) at a landing weight of 190,000 KGS is approximately 135 kts or 155 mph

Source: https://www.flightdeckfriend.com/ask-a-pilot/what-speed-does-a-boeing-777-takeoff-and-land/

Wouldn't that require them to find footage that was identical to the 2nd video?

Since the clouds in the colored video are not discernible, all they'd need is a similar aircraft flying a standard rate turn, which can be found in the holding pattern or approach to any major airport.

---

Has the aircraft been identified as a Boeing 777-200ER?

 

[FatPhil]

The reason this one feels fake, is because if it is not it is absolutely real.

We cant explain this one away with bokah, star positions, or flight trackers.

@jarlrmai and other photo nerds - do you think this can be analysed in terms of depth of focus and circles of confusion?

As I've said before, it looks painfully fake to me. Sometimes you can just tell, even if you can't explain why. As soon as you work out why, of course, the tech nerds improve the models (e.g. all CGI people looked fake, or bizarrely made up, as there was something just "wrong" with the skin - until they worked out subsurface scattering a few years back). Maybe we need someone from the Corridor Digital to sign up here, I'm sure they'd take it to pieces quite quickly. Maybe I should just get my cousin to sign up here and make his own recreation of it (using only 10-year-old tech of course, for fairness).

 

[Mendel]

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

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

That's ~12 hours after the final satellite contact.
It's apparent that MH370 was long out of fuel by then.

From the accident investigation report (via https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20140308-0 ):

Article:

Source: https://reports.aviation-safety.net/2014/20140308-0_B772_9M-MRO.pdf

From the Australian ATSB, who led the search:

Article:

Satellite communications (SATCOM) data​

Following the loss of primary radar, the only available information was from satellite signalling messages, also referred to as ‘handshakes’, between the ground station, the satellite and the aircraft’s satellite communication system.

For each transmission to the aircraft, the ground station recorded the burst timing offset (BTO) and the burst frequency offset (BFO).

Figure 2: Satellite communications schematic

Source: Inmarsat

Burst Timing Offset (BTO)​

The BTO is a measure of the time taken for a transmission round trip (ground station to satellite to aircraft and back) and allows a calculation of the distance between the satellite and the aircraft. Based on this measure, a possible location ring can be mapped on the surface of the earth (Figure 3). An analysis of SATCOM system parameters showed that the accuracy of the rings was ± 10 km. This analysis was validated using recorded BTO values from the initial stage of the flight when the aircraft’s position was known.

Figure 3: Satellite ring derivation

Source: Inmarsat



There were 7 handshakes between the ground station and the aircraft after the loss of primary radar data. The location rings calculated from the recorded BTO values are shown in figure 4.

Figure 4: MH370 timing (UTC) with corresponding rings arrowed

Source: Inmarsat/Boeing /Google

The information from the BTO places the aircraft somewhere on each ring at the corresponding time. By taking the maximum speed of the aircraft into account, the rings can be reduced in length to arcs – there are some areas of the rings it simply could not have reached.

Source: https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2014/considerations-on-defining-the-search-area-mh370

Note that the final arc is not anywhere near the coordinates in the video.

If the footage is genuine, it cannot show MH370. But we know it passed through the hands of someone who attributed it to MH-370, and that person is obviously unreliable. This pretty much destroys what little credibility the origin story (provenance) of this video had. If the person who said it was MH370 was wrong, then this could just as well be CGI.

 

[Mendel]

I'm going to come at this from a different angle -- assume for a moment the video is real. It would then show an aircraft being circled by UFOs, the disappearing into a Sky Portal (tm) never to be seen again, off to Dimenison X or Arcturus 4. If all that is true, then the plane in the video cannot be MH370 (aircraft 9M-MRO) because THAT plane did not dissappear into another dimension or the depths of space -- it crashed, bits of it have been recovered:

From the accident report (via https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20140308-0 ):

Article:

Source: https://reports.aviation-safety.net/2014/20140308-0_B772_9M-MRO.pdf

The "almost certain" parts typically have properties that are unique to Malaysian Airlines (MAL), who are not reported to have lost another Boeing 777 in the ocean (although one was shot down over Ukraine).

I don't doubt that MH370 ended up in the Indian Ocean, on Earth.

 

[Mendel]

Is it even possible for a plane to vanish into thin air without people immediately noticing in a flight tracker website?

A passenger plane missing is immediately noticed by everyone who expected someone aboard the aircraft to arrive. That's one reason why a fake like this is immoral: to suggest to the people left behind that their loved ones may have ended up abducted by aliens is preying on their grief and denying them closure.

For an aircraft to go missing secretly, it'd probably be hauling freight as part of clandestine operation. I'd expect that some aircraft hauling drugs from South America have dropped into the ocean with the general public being unaware of them being missing.

Compare:

Article:

Mystery Mali Boeing​

18 Nov 16 7 Comments
On the 2nd of November in 2009, a burnt-out Boeing 727 was discovered abandoned in the Saharan desert of Mali in west Africa. The initial reaction was that the Boeing must have crash-landed on this spot but investigators soon discovered that it had landed safely on the make-shift desert airstrip — a dried out lake bed. Afterwards, it had been deliberately set on fire and left there to burn.

Eventually, some facts were established. The point of the flight was clear: the aircraft was transporting cocaine and “other illegal substances”. The UN Office of Drugs and Crime confirmed that the aircraft carried 10 tonnes of cocaine (22,000 pounds, 10,000 kilograms) to be taken to Europe from Mali, known for its smuggling activity. Nine jeeps, using forged number plates, met the aircraft and carried the cargo away. That’s where the trail was lost.

The only real evidence remaining was the burnt Boeing 727 and the fact that only drug trade profits could be high enough to be worth destroying the aircraft.

The aircraft was a “ghost ship”, history and provenance unknown. This makes the deliberate torching of the aircraft even stranger, having successfully “fallen off the radar” of aviation authorities.

The AeroTransport Data Bank, which tracks aircraft capable of carrying 30 passengers or more, has a special status for aircraft which appear neither to be flying nor stored: UFO, or ultimate fate obscure.

Source: https://fearoflanding.com/crazy/mystery-mali-boeing/

Article:

Source: https://www.aerotransport.org/php/go.php

The MH370 aircraft, registration 9M-MRO, is listed as "crashed"/"destroyed".

 

[Slixton]

I tried to focus on one section of clouds to see if there was any sign of movement. 12 Full seconds and there was zero movement. Cursor was in original clip (from AreaAlienware vimeo clip)

In my experience, clouds are always in movement, changing shapes especially at the periphery. Like in this clip (from pixabay):

However I found another clip where the shape of the clouds don't change much at all (from pixabay):

Given the distance to the clouds and the low resolution of the clip, I'm not sure the lack of clouds changing shape is anything definitive.

But in both of my stock examples, the clouds are still panning to the side. Why aren't the clouds in the original clip moving at all, either in relation to one another or to the camera? Is there even a way for the clouds to remain so stationary. If this is shot from a moving satellite, shouldn't there be some angular velocity that shows up or something like that?

 

[omaehamoushindeiru]

I tried to focus on one section of clouds to see if there was any sign of movement. 12 Full seconds and there was zero movement. Cursor was in original clip (from AreaAlienware vimeo clip)
[...]
But in both of my stock examples, the clouds are still panning to the side. Why aren't the clouds in the original clip moving at all, either in relation to one another or to the camera? Is there even a way for the clouds to remain so stationary. If this is shot from a moving satellite, shouldn't there be some angular velocity that shows up or something like that?

Maybe try comparing the video to actual full motion video from spy satellites.

Oh wait, such a thing doesn't exist? Well, if the video is indeed supposed to show footage recorded by NROL-22 (launched in 2006), I think that alone would be quite the revelation. Such a level of optical detail and downlink bandwidth, plus the capability to track a position perfectly with clouds hardly moving at all from frame to frame would be a news on its own.
/EDIT: What I also find odd is that the video is stereoscopic. It is true that USA-184 carried NASA's TWINS-A instrument, which creates stereoscopic images. But these images are energetic neutral atom images with a time resolution of 60s. So, is this video implying that the unrelated spy satellite also, for some reason, had a stereoscopic imager? If so, why? That doesn't make any sense to me.

 

[Pasta_Swan]

The very fact that these 2 videos are not pushed to the top of “best video evidence of ufo/uap’s”, and that the three navy videos are still being shown on news stories whenever uap/ufo story is covered is clear evidence that these videos are not genuine. On face value these 2 videos look like definitive proof of some sort impossible flying technology circling a flying plane, crescendoing into all the objects blinking out of existence. You can’t beat that. Meanwhile zero msm outlets have this video? Jeremy Corbell (the king of leaked ufo videos) doesn’t have this video? Doesn’t add up.

The lack of for-profit companies reporting on extraordinary videos that supposedly were created a decade ago cannot attribute any kind of veracity as to the videos' origins, neither positive nor negative.

Msm outlets are incredibly conservative (in a risk-averse sense, not strictly in the political) - they simply don't cover the UFO/UAP topic without verifiably flawless credentials. This would explain why the 3 navy videos are still being circulated by msm outlets on the rare occasion they do publish on UFO/UAP; those videos have been acknowledged to originate with the Navy, by the Navy themselves.

And maybe Corbell does have these videos, but took one look and said "lol nah, these fake as hell."

 

[deirdre]

As I've said before, it looks painfully fake to me. Sometimes you can just tell, even if you can't explain why.

its because the dots are too synchronized. (and yet not synchronized enough to be creating some kind of force field/wormhole to vanish a plane)

*ex. they go counter clockwise for a while then go clockwise a few turns..which any dancer will tell you is to kill the diziness then counter clockwise again etc

at the end this whole section once the plane comes out of the cloud,and then disappears is what i refer to as the Herdonan flip. the dots dont "move" to new positions, they just flash/appear into new patterns. (53 secs to 55secs) .

Easier to see in slo motion, under "settings"



makes no sense even for aliens
(the flip dots in video are identical pattern, unlike my red dots i freehanded just to show people what they are looking at.)

 

[LambMaster]

Don't we already have a subforum for this topic?

 

[Mendel]

Don't we already have a subforum for this topic?

https://www.metabunk.org/forums/flight-mh370.45/ , but most posts there predate the final report.

I think this post is fine in the UFO subforum, but it shouldn't be in "Navy Videos".

 

[Narfi]

I tried to focus on one section of clouds to see if there was any sign of movement. 12 Full seconds and there was zero movement. Cursor was in original clip (from AreaAlienware vimeo clip)

There is a small dark spot on the cloud that appears right after the flash.
Quick and dirty screen shot just to show where it is:


Not sure what to make of it. CGI artifact or the aliens abducted a bit of cloud too?

 

[RoboKop]

There is a small dark spot on the cloud that appears right after the flash.
Quick and dirty screen shot just to show where it is:


Not sure what to make of it. CGI artifact or the aliens abducted a bit of cloud too?

Looks like the top of the cloud is slowly separating.


This is probably the best fake UFO video ever. The production and detail is amazing.
I worked as a CGI artist and imo someone who created this was top notch.
Maybe it is from some cancelled movie about MH370?

The most mind blowing fact is that it went viral after 9 years.

 

[JAFO]

Maybe try comparing the video to actual full motion video from spy satellites.

Oh wait, such a thing doesn't exist?

Here is full motion 1080P video from space from 2014. Many other examples but this is one which contains clouds.

 

[RoboKop]

Interesting detail, looks like the clouds have the same shape in both videos?

 

[Ann K]

I tried to focus on one section of clouds to see if there was any sign of movement. 12 Full seconds and there was zero movement.

Given a lack of information about wind speeds, I don't think a discussion of cloud movement is especially pertinent.

If this is shot from a moving satellite, shouldn't there be some angular velocity that shows up or something like that?

That's a point, even though changes in the clouds themselves may not matter.

 

[slavishcrusader]

There is a small dark spot on the cloud that appears right after the flash.
Quick and dirty screen shot just to show where it is:


Not sure what to make of it. CGI artifact or the aliens abducted a bit of cloud too?

Compare the frames before/after.
The appearance of cloud is accompanied by sharp edges+sharp contrast. Which indicates refocussing.
I believe the video is from some other surveillance SAT and not NROL-22.
NROL-22 probably relayed this video from some other low orbital SAT equipped with optical payload.

 

[JMartJr]

Msm outlets are incredibly conservative (in a risk-averse sense, not strictly in the political) - they simply don't cover the UFO/UAP topic without verifiably flawless credentials.

At the moment, the amount of coverage in the NY Times, among others, seems to be violating thus rule!

But I'd agree that some video going through periodic cycles of repost on Reddit or 4chan might not come to the attention of the major media, nor be taken seriously by them if it did, and that would not have much to do with whether it was real. But there may be a reason this one seems stuck in the 4chanverse... looking as fake as it does and serving to explain the total disappearance of a plane now known not to have totally disappeared without a trace would make it harder for this one to go "mainstream," I think.