Alleged Flight MH370 UFO Teleportation Videos [Hoax]

"Plane swallowed by sky portal" are not new ideas.
I'd add 'Through the Purple Cloud' to that long list.

Screenshot 2023-12-04 at 23.38.07.png
Jack Williamson, 1931
F_K4W2jWUAAHtgM.jpg

The portal is opened by the combination of red rain and green crystals...
F_K-zpVWIAAlX9m.jpg


Source: https://archive.org/details/Wonder_Stories_v02n12_1931.05_images_
 
Last edited:
At some point you have to accept the general consensus unless you can find some concrete proof of the contrary.

Noooo. That is not how science works. It is 100% the duty of anyone making a claim for the authenticity of anything to prove it is genuine. General consensus actually has nothing to do with it. Everything is false by default.....and if anyone claims to have proof of aliens then it should be definitive proof. Blurry videos with flashy lights do not even cause a 1% swing from zero in my scientific correctness-ometer.
 
Noooo. That is not how science works. It is 100% the duty of anyone making a claim for the authenticity of anything to prove it is genuine. General consensus actually has nothing to do with it. Everything is false by default.....and if anyone claims to have proof of aliens then it should be definitive proof. Blurry videos with flashy lights do not even cause a 1% swing from zero in my scientific correctness-ometer.
I understand what you saying, but I didn't mean "consensus" as opinion. I mean after looking at all of the evidence, the prevailing consensus is that the videos are a hoax. And I don't think it's fair to say that everything is false by default. It would be more accurate to say nothing can be definitively stated as fact until it is proven. This isn't a court of law where a person is innocent until proven guilty.
 
And I don't think it's fair to say that everything is false by default. It would be more accurate to say nothing can be definitively stated as fact until it is proven. This isn't a court of law where a person is innocent until proven guilty.

Science isn't about fairness. It's about the entire burden of proof being upon anyone making a claim. That does indeed mean that all claims are false by default. Science is very much like a court of law....any claim is false until evidence shows otherwise.

Blurry videos of the sort shown are so easy to hoax that they don't count as evidence for anything. Indeed, I very much doubt whether any video, no matter how crisp and clear and detailed, could these days pass as evidence. I think we've long passed the stage where the only viable evidence for UFOs is to have one that is widely available for scientific and public scrutiny. I'm not holding my breath on that.
 
You can't say a hypothesis is false until it has been proven false. A hypothesis is neither false NOR true until it is tested to prove one way or the other.
 
You can't say a hypothesis is false until it has been proven false. A hypothesis is neither false NOR true until it is tested to prove one way or the other.
But you CAN say it's false if the evidence shows it is something else entirely. We've done that with UFOs, debunking them one at a time. If you say "Interstellar craft are here in our atmosphere" it's up to you to prove it, else it remains unproven. You can't really prove a negative, so it's unrealistic for you to demand that. If you say "THIS picture shows an interstellar craft", it can be disproved by showing it's, say, a butterfly.

The current count is many thousands of butterflies, beetles, birds, balloons, drones, kites, reflections, etc to zero interstellar craft. (And the LIZ is still the LIZ.) As for "wormholes", you'd have to explain what one even looks or acts like. Good luck.
 
Blurry videos of the sort shown are so easy to hoax that they don't count as evidence for anything. Indeed, I very much doubt whether any video, no matter how crisp and clear and detailed, could these days pass as evidence.
Evidence needs provenance.

. I think we've long passed the stage where the only viable evidence for UFOs is to have one that is widely available for scientific and public scrutiny.
It's worthless without provenance.
We've been discussing an "ancient" vase that, since it has no provenance, could easily be a modern fake.
We've been discussing "alien" mummies that, without provenance, are probably fakes.
Even if people only made claims about these that were reasonable, due to the fact that nobody can say for what objects these claims are about, i.e. where they originate, they're worthless.
 
I turned the claimed stereo pair into a wiggling video (I personally just can't see the depth in crossview videos, but wigglegrams work fine). Anyway, it's visible that the convergence point of the stereo pair changes when the image is being panned around.

The video's aspect ratio has been stretched to 4:3, as the original seemed vertically squished somehow. Duplicate frames have also been removed.
 

Attachments

  • wigglestereo.mp4
    17.5 MB
Evidence needs provenance.


It's worthless without provenance.
We've been discussing an "ancient" vase that, since it has no provenance, could easily be a modern fake.
We've been discussing "alien" mummies that, without provenance, are probably fakes.
Even if people only made claims about these that were reasonable, due to the fact that nobody can say for what objects these claims are about, i.e. where they originate, they're worthless.
The "teleportation" video is even worse. Even if you go back to its apparent first appearance in 2014, the original post makes no claims that they know where it came from.
 
Evidence needs provenance.

To some extent. But....if one of Bob Lazar's alleged crashed UFOs was on display at the Science Museum where it could be readily studied by scientists who could conclude that it came from some non human source, then I don't think a chain of custody or a definitive source location would really matter in terms of proof of non-human intelligence. Provenance may matter for some ancient vase.....but we may never have full provenance for Lazar's UFOs, assuming they even exist.
 
To some extent. But....if one of Bob Lazar's alleged crashed UFOs was on display at the Science Museum where it could be readily studied by scientists who could conclude that it came from some non human source, then I don't think a chain of custody or a definitive source location would really matter in terms of proof of non-human intelligence. Provenance may matter for some ancient vase.....but we may never have full provenance for Lazar's UFOs, assuming they even exist.
We have "scientists" who conclude that the Mexican mummies are "authentic".
If there's a UFO without provenance, why would I trust any scientists on that? They've been deceived before.
 
But....if one of Bob Lazar's alleged crashed UFOs was on display at the Science Museum where it could be readily studied by scientists who could conclude that it came from some non human source, then I don't think a chain of custody or a definitive source location would really matter in terms of proof of non-human intelligence.
Given that metallurgists and material scientists keep inventing new products, and that such materials may be proprietary in foreign countries without their descriptions being part of published literature, I think that it would be extraordinarily difficult to say authoritatively "This came from a non-human source". I think the best you could hope for would be "Well, I've never seen this before!"
 
But you CAN say it's false if the evidence shows it is something else entirely. We've done that with UFOs, debunking them one at a time. If you say "Interstellar craft are here in our atmosphere" it's up to you to prove it, else it remains unproven. You can't really prove a negative, so it's unrealistic for you to demand that. If you say "THIS picture shows an interstellar craft", it can be disproved by showing it's, say, a butterfly.

The current count is many thousands of butterflies, beetles, birds, balloons, drones, kites, reflections, etc to zero interstellar craft. (And the LIZ is still the LIZ.) As for "wormholes", you'd have to explain what one even looks or acts like. Good luck.
Yes. You basically just restated what I just said.
 
Perhaps I wasn't clear. My point was that you cannot disprove a hypothesis. You can only disprove the claimed examples that go into the hypothesis.
Something that's not falsifiable doesn't deserve to be called a hypothesis.

Aether theory is disproven, in favor of relativity.
Miasma theory is disproven, in favor of germs.
Etc.

Disproof is possible. Proof is not.
 
Perhaps I wasn't clear. My point was that you cannot disprove a hypothesis. You can only disprove the claimed examples that go into the hypothesis.
That really depends on the hypothesis doesn't it? If a person says mountains aren't real, you can take them to see a mountain. Hypothesis disproven.
 
TBH the most convicing argumet Ive haerd about the video being CGI is the volumetric effect on the jet contrails.

Has that been debunk/debunked by the folks that think this one is real?

It's in the VFX guys video.

(Moderator note: Off topic removed)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
TBH the most convicing argumet Ive haerd about the video being CGI is the volumetric effect on the jet contrails.

Has that been debunk/debunked by the folks that think this one is real?

It's in the VFX guys video.
They don't always use the physicist-approved language as they explain things through a CGI lens. Then again, I make that mistake too, you use the argot you're most used to. However, on that point, I think they are probably right, as it seemed like there was too much ability to see through what should be opaque (in he frequency range in question). Something sufficiently opaque will not give you that volumetric sum - they are correct about that complaint. However, a lot of that assumes you know what the sensor was, which we don't. So they're neither provably right or wrong, they're discussing something with incomplete information - information that should have been provided if there had been an honest attempt to know what was going on.
 
Someone on Reddit found the clouds used as the background for the “satellite” video, assets from textures.com

Source for clouds found (please excuse formatting, I’m on mobile):
First satellite video fully debunked - Source for clouds found

So, as an vfx artist I was interested in how someone had made those videos. I was 100% sure the clouds in the first video was a 2d still image so I began to search the internet for cloud footage, first I looked at NASA:s sites, then some stock footage site but then, as a vfx artist myself I often used [textures.com](https://textures.com) in work, a good source for highdef images. So I began looking at the cloud image available on that site, only took me maybe 20 minutes before I found a perfect match of one of the cloud formation. So I looked at other ones from the same collection and found other matches as well

https://preview.redd.it/ll7snruv7z4...bp&s=a34b564e5e977355304a51959deb03125ed5061d

https://preview.redd.it/rnzdvzsu7z4...bp&s=04d4d982edb75914a7654356e28474ac74d79f5b

https://preview.redd.it/siqtaanyaz4...bp&s=8637dc6f40ad7b41ffe8611ea5c7c1c68fd83568

https://reddit.com/link/18dbnwy/video/iys8ktfwbz4c1/player

https://www.textures.com/download/Aerials0028/75131

This is the link to the cloud textures I found. Edit: The cloud textures are flipped horizontal to match the video. I am sure there could be textures found to match the second video as well but I have spent to much time on this to bother.

So I hope this one close the debate whatever it is real or not

Here’s a comparison frame with the MH370 video on top, and the cloud texture below:
86FE8C87-186B-4268-BE29-0DC63FDA9BD1.jpeg


The EXIF data on the texture images dates them as having been created in 2012.
 
Last edited:
Given that metallurgists and material scientists keep inventing new products, and that such materials may be proprietary in foreign countries without their descriptions being part of published literature, I think that it would be extraordinarily difficult to say authoritatively "This came from a non-human source". I think the best you could hope for would be "Well, I've never seen this before!"

Well, yes, but then I'd expect anything presented to the scientific community or the general public as a genuine piece of 'other' technology to be SO radically different to anything mankind could come up with that there'd be absolutely no doubts about it. I would not be impressed if they spent 6 months researching it only to then find the 'Made In China' label under the alleged anti-gravity motor.
 
Given we know the location/time from the raw files (assuming camera date/time are accurate) would there be historical satellite photos that might show the cloud formations?

It's a long time ago though so might not be possible.
 
Kim Dotcom has conceded, and says he's going to pay the reward ($100K) to the photographer.

Source: https://twitter.com/KimDotcom/status/1733198949522293158


He brought a lot of people into the hoax, so hopefully that will help some of them out.


That is pretty huge!

Watching the video I'm thinking, someone paid you to travel around the world and take pictures? Wow great job!

Then he gets a 100k bonus 10 years later.. what a life!

Very cool - I'm a little sad that we don't live in a interdimensional world, but glad that the progress of this debunk has come so far.
 
Dotcom should offer some of that cash to whatever support group there is for the families of the victims of this tragedy.
 
Ashton Concedes. Losing support from Dotcom was just too much for him to sidestep.


Source: https://twitter.com/justxashton/status/1733214296463544660

View attachment 64501
External Quote:
The case remains unresolved. The body of evidence uncovered from investigating the videos is extensive and the fire scenario still presents the best evidence-based story to date. MH370x will not go away.
* We will continue to seek the truth of what happened to the plane.
* We will learn the secrets of advanced science unknown to the public.
* We will render the old system obsolete.
What "body of evidence"? What scenario? What "advanced science"? What system?

This guy seems completely unphazed by the debunk and just keeps on peddling his space-age salvation as if the video was real?!?
 
* We will learn the secrets of advanced science unknown to the public.
* We will render the old system obsolete.
OK, he's got the old blow-hard sneering "We non-scientists will prove we are smarter than all of science" thing going. I personally think some snark would not go amiss in addressing his arrogance, but I'd prefer to ignore him unless and until he comes up with some evidence. I'll not hold my breath.
 
OK, he's got the old blow-hard sneering "We non-scientists will prove we are smarter than all of science" thing going. I personally think some snark would not go amiss in addressing his arrogance, but I'd prefer to ignore him

lol
 
He's not giving up yet.

Ashton: "Personally I think the videos are still real but I can't deny that the cloud debunk does significant damage, right, so that's why I have to publicly come out and state that we can't really say that they are authentic with this type of evidence that shows that there could be assets in them that come from these pictures."

It's about 26 minutes in.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s03Bmnjn_Bk
 
Ashton: "Personally I think the videos are still real but I can't deny that the cloud debunk does significant damage, right, so that's why I have to publicly come out and state that we can't really say that they are authentic with this type of evidence that shows that there could be assets in them that come from these pictures."
He's not concerned with truth, he's concerned with belief. (That's what the debunk does damage to.)
He reasons like a propagandist, not like a scientist.

And to the "overwhelming evidence" people, this is one more of these thousands of reports that can't all be wrong.
 
Back
Top