Alleged Flight MH370 UFO Teleportation Videos [Hoax]

[Eburacum]

I found a couple of places in a larger satellite image that look similar to the plane vid

Note that the thin altostratus or cirrostratus in that image is above the cumulus, and partially obscures it. In the plane vid the cumulus seems to cast shadows on the cirrus, which should not be possible if the photo is taken from above.

One possible explanation for this is that the cloud image shows deep shadows beneath the cumulus onto the ocean, which lowers the total brightness of the image in those regions and makes the cirrus disappear due to a contrast effect. This suggests the cloud texture is heavily processed, which does seem to be the case.

Another possible explanation is that the thin, veil-like cloud is below the cumulus, and is in fact low-level stratus just above the ocean surface. But it looks too streaky for that.

Another possible explanation is that this image was taken from below, from ground level or a low-level plane, and the 'shadows' of the cumulus are in fact the non-illuminated portions of those clouds, which obscure the cirrus behind. Whatever the reason, these do not look like typical satellite cloud images.

 

[Domzh]

Parts in 10000 are going to be noise. How big was the source video, was it 400 lines? Because the above looks suspiciously like:
[1 3/400 x]
[0 1 0]
i.e. a 3 pixel sheer of a region 400 pixels high. I seem to remember 3 pixels of sheer being mentioned upthread, this seems to confirm it.

i have no idea what you guys are talking about lol

could someone roughly ELI5 please?
only if possible of course.

edit: spelling

 

[RobertBillyBob]

could someone roughly ELI5 please?

The right side of the "stereo" video seems to be the same that the left side but slightly deformed to simulate a stereo pair of images.

"Transformation matrix" (special kind of arrays) can be used to represent some types of deformations applied to images. Using math and code I estimated a 2D transformation matrix that can be used to deform the left side into the right side. The coefficients in this 2D transformation matrix are tied to the scaling, shearing and offsetting of the image.
This is the same as trying to align the images by hand in photoshop, except that it's math that gives you the right alignment instead of guessing values by yourself.

The difference between the right side and the left side deformed by the matrix is really close to zero. This means that there is almost no differences between the left and right sides of the video that can't be explained by a 2D transformation, and so this is doesn't seems to be a real 3D stereoscopic video.

 

[Domzh]

great explanation, thank you so much!

 

[deirdre]

and so this is doesn't seems to be a real 3D stereoscopic video.

How would a real 3d stereoscopic video be different?

 

[RobertBillyBob]

How would a real 3d stereoscopic video be different?

Close one eye and hold out a finger in front of an object. Switch eyes and you'll see the finger is not in front of the object anymore. If you had taken a picture with each eye you wouldn't be able to align both of them. If you align the finger the object won't be aligned, if you align the object the finger won't be aligned.

If the video was really stereoscopic you'd have the same issue. If you align the lower altitude clouds, the higher altitude ones wouldn't be aligned.

 

[deirdre]

If you align the lower altitude clouds, the higher altitude ones wouldn't be aligned.

so when you say

The difference between the right side and the left side deformed by the matrix is really close to zero.

you mean like a real stereoscopic would move like "4" vs "close to zero" ?

 

[Mendel]

so when you say

you mean like a real stereoscopic would move like "4" vs "close to zero" ?

no, what he's saying is that if you deform for the cumulus clouds and compute the difference, the cirrus clouds would stand out; and vice versa.

But as it is, nothing stands out; so either those clouds are at the same altitude (metereologically impossible), or the image was flat to begin with.

 

[JuliettPapa]

As per my previous comments, given the cloud scale, types, and the need for some subject matter in a ~45degree photo (You can't hang out of an airliner window!) one would need to look at things like air-to-air photos and video. Pay close attention to things like air to air refuelling videos and photos because they use a ~45degree camera to monitor.

See:
https://www.pond5.com/stock-footage...refueling-squadron-conduct-boom-operator-2013
https://www.pond5.com/stock-footage...refueling-squadron-conduct-boom-operator-2013
https://www.pond5.com/stock-footage...refueling-squadron-conduct-boom-operator-2013

 

[RobertBillyBob]

you mean like a real stereoscopic would move like "4" vs "close to zero" ?

The difference between the right side and the left side deformed by the matrix is really close to zero

This means that if you make an image where each pixel is the difference between the corresponding pixels in the two images you get 0 (or close enough) for almost every pixel. If the images didn't match perfectly you'd get areas of high differences where they don't (a bit of cloud vs the sea)

 

[JuliettPapa]

960 aligned:


I can't see the viewport to lat lon mapping solution, but I only have access to google's projection to check it. The ratio is certainly off from my checks. It is possible they used some GIS software with a different projection? Or did they just guess at a ratio and use pixels?

Also how exactly would the coordinates be gathered? If this is a top down mercator, and there is no latitudinal skew, are these accurate coordinates genuinely calculated for a west-east vector; filmed on a west-east vector with a downward angle would result in an x axis skew right? It feels like there is an obvious solution here because someone sat and did the maths. Did they skew it on the wrong axis? Did they just use pixels with some random ratio? Why is x so inconsistent? Arrgh!

[EDIT]
I see probable cursor slide on frames 1460 and 1461. That could mean the final frame is at the extent of the viewport bounds on x.
Now it makes more sense, but still suggests the x skew. Was this put into a GIS tool, and the author selected the view angle as west-east by accident? Why would such a tool drop digits? If they calculated this themselves it didn't occur to them that this was rotated? Note lat lon is y,x and images are x,y but they have correctly assigned the latlon in the text label... So many questions and so few answers!


[EDIT] I just thought of something else. The 'fake stereo' shear certainly smells like some artefact of GIS software image rectification.

 

[swagmaster]

Would be crazy if the vids are real but they just taped over the footage with a bunch of orbs and vfx explosions

 

[Domzh]

why would image rectification create a second "stereo" image? i dont understand that reasoning. wouldnt it only transform the main, single image?

 

[Mendel]

Would be crazy if the vids are real but they just taped over the footage with a bunch of orbs and vfx explosions

yes, but the aircraft is likely not 9M-MRO if it's real footage, and it would probably have been taken some time before.

 

[Mendel]

why would image rectification create a second "stereo" image? i dont understand that reasoning. wouldnt it only transform the main, single image?

You put the original image left and the transformed image right, and then you get a "tilt" stereo effect.

 

[Domzh]

You put the original image left and the transformed image right, and then you get a "tilt" stereo effect.

thats clear to me. what isnt is why someone would try to mimic a stereoscopic video by not even doing it properly with enough offset to actually achieve an effect of some sort? i understood that the rectification is almost non existent.

 

[Mendel]

thats clear to me. what isnt is why someone would try to mimic a stereoscopic video by not even doing it properly with enough offset to actually achieve an effect of some sort?

I think that's what we're all wondering about.

 

[jarlrmai]

Stereoscopic imaging is used with reconnaissance photography because the perception of depth was found to aid intelligence gathering.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_reconnaissance

Frederick Charles Victor Laws started experiments in aerial photography in 1912 with No. 1 Squadron RAF using the British dirigible Beta. He discovered that vertical photos taken with 60% overlap could be used to create a stereoscopic effect when viewed in a stereoscope, thus creating a perception of depth that could aid in cartography and in intelligence derived from aerial images

Content from External Source

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CORONA_(satellite)

The first CORONA satellites had a single camera, but a two-camera system was quickly implemented.[40] The front camera was tilted 15° aft, and the rear camera tilted 15° forward, so that a stereoscopic image could be obtained.[30]

Content from External Source

So if faked it's a misguided attempt to add legitimacy to the footage.

 

[Mendel]

The front camera was tilted 15° aft, and the rear camera tilted 15° forward, so that a stereoscopic image could be obtained.

To be explicit about this, the forward-facing picture is taken, then the satellite travels a bit, then the backward-facing picture is taken; for example, if you did this on the ISS with 400 km altitude, you'd see 100 km ahead or back, and if you wait 26 seconds between pictures, they'd show the same spot with a 200 km baseline. (It's like looking at the wrinkles in a piece of paper 5" (13 cm) in front of your eyes.) CORONA was orbiting at 121-160 km, so could've taken a pair of pictures about every 8-10 seconds.

Obviously this is useless for tracking airborne aircraft, because the aircraft moves too much between shots.

If there was video from such a platform, it would show parallax as the platform is travelling.

 

[Mendel]

for example, if you did this on the ISS with 400 km altitude, you'd see 100 km ahead or back, and if you wait 26 seconds between pictures, they'd show the same spot with a 200 km baseline.

P.S.: For comparison, NROL-22's lowest altitude (perigee) still exceeds 1000 km. (And the satellite wasn't even there.)

 

[deirdre]

thats clear to me. what isnt is why someone would try to mimic a stereoscopic video by not even doing it properly with enough offset to actually achieve an effect of some sort? i understood that the rectification is almost non existent.

because 90% of viewers wouldn't even wonder why he is showing 2 side by sides. it just looks 'fancy' and high tech. (you might also avoid a copyright strike since you "transformed" the piece into something else)

And it's still 100% more believable than this thing or most of the UFO stories we hear that so many believe:

 

[JWrightBrain]

P.S.: For comparison, NROL-22's lowest altitude (perigee) still exceeds 1000 km. (And the satellite wasn't even there.)

I saw a video proponent online pushing the idea that it's a different satellite, USA229 (NROL-34). I have NO idea why he thinks it's 34, especially since the lettering on the screen looks nothing like a "4". I'm supposing he's just eliminating 22, because the evidence is too strong that it wasn't in the area at the time. He just can't let it go.

 

[Mendel]

I saw a video proponent online pushing the idea that it's a different satellite, USA229 (NROL-34). I have NO idea why he thinks it's 34, especially since the lettering on the screen looks nothing like a "4". I'm supposing he's just eliminating 22, because the evidence is too strong that it wasn't in the area at the time. He just can't let it go.

NOSS satellites are for signals intelligence, so wouldn't have a video feed?
And MH370 had gone radio silent, so how would they track it?

 

[Harabeck]

I saw a video proponent online pushing the idea that it's a different satellite, USA229 (NROL-34). I have NO idea why he thinks it's 34, especially since the lettering on the screen looks nothing like a "4". I'm supposing he's just eliminating 22, because the evidence is too strong that it wasn't in the area at the time. He just can't let it go.

The idea is that if NROL-22 is unsuitable as the satellite taking the image, then they can argue that it was the relay for the satellite that did. Seems like the if you were going to label the feed at all, you'd label it with the source and not the relay to me, but what do I know?

 

[Sid]

So, in the aftermath of these videos finally dying their death amongst the community and people accepting they're not real: has there been any widespread, significant reflection amongst the UFO community on the debacle? The entire subreddit got caught up in a frenzy over videos that have turned out to be done with stock effects from before many of it's users were likely even born, and it quickly dissolved: has anyone seriously bothered to contemplate the implications beyond the vague posting about intel agencies masterminding the whole thing?

 

[deirdre]

has anyone seriously bothered to contemplate the implications beyond the vague posting about intel agencies masterminding the whole thing?

maybe you should be asking them.

 

[Amathia]

So, in the aftermath of these videos finally dying their death amongst the community and people accepting they're not real: has there been any widespread, significant reflection amongst the UFO community on the debacle? The entire subreddit got caught up in a frenzy over videos that have turned out to be done with stock effects from before many of it's users were likely even born, and it quickly dissolved: has anyone seriously bothered to contemplate the implications beyond the vague posting about intel agencies masterminding the whole thing?

I think you already know the answer to this. If it *has* led to any kind of contemplation for anyone, it likely only happens in private on an individual level. This is not a community that recognizes learning from one's mistakes as a virtue, much less admitting to them publicly.

 

[Kyle McDonald]

reflection amongst the UFO community on the debacle

I wrote a wrap-up post on r/UFOsmeta here. I originally posted it to r/UFOs and it got stuck in a moderation queue. Then it was approved. Then it got deleted. But the comments are still visible. I also cross-posted to r/AirlinerAbduction2014 here. There were under 10k views and a handful of comments. r/UFOsmeta saw a 50% upvote rate while, surprisingly, r/AirlinerAbduction2014 saw a 78% upvote rate.

My conclusion was, basically: r/UFOs might be the only community capable of turning these videos into a problem (i.e. believing they are worth investigating) but they also seem to be the only community capable of convincing themselves that it is fake (the final debunk didn't come from Metabunk or Twitter, but from r/UFOs itself). And this time, that debunk generally "passed" across different social groups, spreading to other communities (including 1M+ view YouTube streamer types).

For comparison, I looked into the 2007 tic-tac leak, and read through the comments there. It was generally considered "debunked" at the time, not because of any in-depth analysis but because of explanations like "the story says the tic-tac moved wildly, and this video doesn't show any maneuvers at all". There was one person who said the HUD wasn't convincing, and then an Air Force veteran chimes in to disagree, and no one pays attention to them.

On the other hand, searching r/UFOs for "MH370" or "airliner" and sorting by popularity, the community has mostly upvoted good analysis.

My personal opinion is that we should do our best to minimize and acknowledge our prejudice when approaching a topic, and try to work together to form a belief based on the evidence available. And I think r/UFOs did a better job with this video than ATS did with the tic-tac, which is a kind of improvement.

 

[tobigtofool]

Reddit is a place where you can focus on any conversation you gravitate to.

My experience with this video on that site was, wow r/ufo's is racing metabunk to debunk this one!

Someone even posted a picture taken from the position of the camera on a real drone, that was crazy!

This is not a community that recognizes learning from one's mistakes as a virtue, much less admitting to them publicly.

I think when you see something that alters your way of thinking, even if it's just a video, it's basic survival instinct to be defensive about it, and realizing you were wrong can bring shame and frustration that can make it difficult to come out and even say how you've grown from it.

It's easier to just walk away.

I know when i stopped beliving in UFOs I just walked away. I didn't get on a podium and start announcing all the things Ive learned.

There is more churn in the UFO community than I think there isn't.

UFOoligists though, I ain't gonna defend them.

 

[Tezcatlipoca]

I wrote a wrap-up post on r/UFOsmeta here. I originally posted it to r/UFOs and it got stuck in a moderation queue. Then it was approved. Then it got deleted. But the comments are still visible. I also cross-posted to r/AirlinerAbduction2014 here. There were under 10k views and a handful of comments. r/UFOsmeta saw a 50% upvote rate while, surprisingly, r/AirlinerAbduction2014 saw a 78% upvote rate.

My conclusion was, basically: r/UFOs might be the only community capable of turning these videos into a problem (i.e. believing they are worth investigating) but they also seem to be the only community capable of convincing themselves that it is fake (the final debunk didn't come from Metabunk or Twitter, but from r/UFOs itself). And this time, that debunk generally "passed" across different social groups, spreading to other communities (including 1M+ view YouTube streamer types).

For comparison, I looked into the 2007 tic-tac leak, and read through the comments there. It was generally considered "debunked" at the time, not because of any in-depth analysis but because of explanations like "the story says the tic-tac moved wildly, and this video doesn't show any maneuvers at all". There was one person who said the HUD wasn't convincing, and then an Air Force veteran chimes in to disagree, and no one pays attention to them.

On the other hand, searching r/UFOs for "MH370" or "airliner" and sorting by popularity, the community has mostly upvoted good analysis.

My personal opinion is that we should do our best to minimize and acknowledge our prejudice when approaching a topic, and try to work together to form a belief based on the evidence available. And I think r/UFOs did a better job with this video than ATS did with the tic-tac, which is a kind of improvement.

I think something important to recognize here with debunking, getting a bit more into strategically messaging, is that we are largely posting to people with adverse opinion, in cases like forums, we are an actual adversarial information environment. While people tend to do a fantastic job at debunking, especially community efforts, the end result is very rarely crafted, or repackaged into another product, that effectively messages to audiences that believe the content. Part of the reason why in-group approaches like those on r/UFOs are effective, is the amount of adversarial characteristics are limited.

While we should all work our best to acknowledge, recognize, and control what we need, it is also important to recognize how to communicate messaging if we're trying to reach audiences that believe the content, rather than those who are neutral or in support of the debunk.

 

[FatPhil]

I saw a video proponent online pushing the idea that it's a different satellite

This is how Gish Gallops begin.

 

[Mendel]

My conclusion was, basically: r/UFOs might be the only community capable of turning these videos into a problem (i.e. believing they are worth investigating) but they also seem to be the only community capable of convincing themselves that it is fake (the final debunk didn't come from Metabunk or Twitter, but from r/UFOs itself).

hosting an archive of original UFO videos, without any re-encoding, and with a unique case number for each video.

Content from External Source

MUFON?

The fact that this was never submitted to MUFON is the first indication that it's fake.

If this video was evidence, it would
• have provenance: a witness explains how it was published. The Navy videos have that.
• show recognizable UFOs
• not teleport an aircraft away where the debris later turns up here

The fact that the coordinates put the aircraft where it was believed to have disappeared in mid-March, but was known to not have disappeared after the INMARSAT data became public, is just the icing on the cake.

Anyone who is willing to believe this video is a conspiracy theorist at heart, because this video is not possible without a global conspiracy and cover-up. And that's before you regard any analysis on it.

---

Grusch has really been fuelling the conspiracy theory side of ufology recently, so this video re-surfacing is just a perfect example of Zeitgeist.

On the upside, Metabunk had more members join/become active, due to Grusch and this video.

 

[JWrightBrain]

This is an obvious statement...but Twitter/X wasn't helpful AT ALL.

 

[JWrightBrain]

BTW on Twitter the story is morphing a bit. I know one guy pushing the angle that the UFO's and portal are added effects to cover up the CIA shooting down the plane. I have no idea what motive the CIA would have.

 

[Cogg84]

BTW on Twitter the story is morphing a bit. I know one guy pushing the angle that the UFO's and portal are added effects to cover up the CIA shooting down the plane. I have no idea what motive the CIA would have.

It’s pretty fascinating to see people cling to these stories even after they have been thoroughly debunked.

 

[Harold]

I saw a video proponent online pushing the idea that it's a different satellite, USA229 (NROL-34). I have NO idea why he thinks it's 34, especially since the lettering on the screen looks nothing like a "4". I'm supposing he's just eliminating 22, because the evidence is too strong that it wasn't in the area at the time. He just can't let it go.

There was a brief and fast moving pass during the approximate time of the video, which seems to likely be MH370 given the coordinates from the video line up with extending the path at the last radar ping of it, but the timing is off from what would be expected. I've made some recordings attached showing the passes, using the following TLEs for NROL-34 (two for the two SATCAT numbers on Wikipedia) and one for NROL-22, as some in the UFO community try to pass off as being the relay, which seems highly doubtful. This is on top of the numerous other pieces of evidence.
USA 184 HISTORICAL
1 29249U 06027A 14067.77000809 0.00000557 00000-0 00000-0 0 00
2 29249 63.5721 73.8375 6997416 268.0662 17.6741 2.00638278 76
NROL 34 HISTORICAL
1 37386U 11014A 14071.17708178 0.00000000 00000-0 00000-0 0 09
2 37386 63.4405 171.2054 0038844 168.8109 191.1891 13.40638870 01
NROL 34 HISTORICAL SECOND
1 37391U 11014B 14071.17699329 0.00000000 00000-0 00000-0 0 02
2 37391 63.4388 170.9912 0039319 169.0189 190.9811 13.40638083 00
Edit: UTC time stamp on top. Each second corresponds to one hour in real time.

 

[V0LDY]

There was a brief and fast moving pass during the approximate time of the video, which seems to likely be MH370 given the coordinates from the video line up with extending the path at the last radar ping of it, but the timing is off from what would be expected. I've made some recordings attached showing the passes, using the following TLEs for NROL-34 (two for the two SATCAT numbers on Wikipedia) and one for NROL-22, as some in the UFO community try to pass off as being the relay, which seems highly doubtful. This is on top of the numerous other pieces of evidence.
USA 184 HISTORICAL
1 29249U 06027A 14067.77000809 0.00000557 00000-0 00000-0 0 00
2 29249 63.5721 73.8375 6997416 268.0662 17.6741 2.00638278 76
NROL 34 HISTORICAL
1 37386U 11014A 14071.17708178 0.00000000 00000-0 00000-0 0 09
2 37386 63.4405 171.2054 0038844 168.8109 191.1891 13.40638870 01
NROL 34 HISTORICAL SECOND
1 37391U 11014B 14071.17699329 0.00000000 00000-0 00000-0 0 02
2 37391 63.4388 170.9912 0039319 169.0189 190.9811 13.40638083 00
Edit: UTC time stamp on top. Each second corresponds to one hour in real time.

What kind of data is this? Are those orbits the one the satellite had in the past or is it the current one? Cuz AFAIK satellite orbits aren't reliable so far back in time because of atmospheric drag, corrections etc.
Not that it matters because the video is fake anyway and it clearly dind't show satellite footage (and even if it did, definitely not from NROL which apparently has IR capabilities for ICBM detection or smth like that, plus it's not geostationary), just curious

 

[Harold]

What kind of data is this? Are those orbits the one the satellite had in the past or is it the current one? Cuz AFAIK satellite orbits aren't reliable so far back in time because of atmospheric drag, corrections etc.
Not that it matters because the video is fake anyway and it clearly dind't show satellite footage (and even if it did, definitely not from NROL which apparently has IR capabilities for ICBM detection or smth like that, plus it's not geostationary), just curious

The TLEs I used were dated to within a few days of the MH370 disappearance, so they should be fairly accurate for the given time frame. They were both slightly after, so any maneuver/adjustment burns prior to MH370 should be reflected, assuming each TLE is accurate to the time it is dated to. More information on the format can be found on the Wikipedia page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-line_element_set. I found the TLEs at http://www.planet4589.org/space/elements/ which has lists of them for various satellites organized by their SATCAT numbers, with each page having a list of TLEs generated at different dates, as denoted by the fields 7-8 of line 1 of each (as denoted by the Wikipedia article).

 

[SuppaCoup]

The ride never ends...
This discussion thread on r/UFOs over at reddit treads over old ground, treating the alleged satellite's supplied coordinates of MH370 as holy writ when they actually seem to reflect flawed early info about the missing plane. A cloud formation in the general area of these alleged coordinates is said by them to have traces of the "warp explosion"-this is very odd given that the clouds we can see in the videos seem totally unaffected by the flash of energy, and the cloud formation claimed as evidence looks completely normal and ordinary next ot all the other ones in the area and doesn't seem like a good match to what we see in terms of how the clouds look in the video.

 

[SkepticSteve]

Yea, turns out the weather satellite was taking photos at the same time the NROL platform was in position over the Indian Ocean. Such a coincidence.