Alleged Flight MH370 UFO Teleportation Videos [Hoax]

Thanks very much, got it.

So it's not a stereoscopic video at all.
Yes, it is. But it's like someone took a 2D video, tilted it slightly, and then took 3D footage of that. (That's what the "gradient" talk is about.) Kind of like taking 3D footage of your 2D screen at an angle.
 
Yes, it is. But it's like someone took a 2D video, tilted it slightly, and then took 3D footage of that. (That's what the "gradient" talk is about.) Kind of like taking 3D footage of your 2D screen at an angle.
Yes, what I meant to say is it's made to look like a stereoscopic video but doesn't contain any depth information, so it's not originally been shot with a stereoscopic camera setup.

Is that understanding correct? And can we take this as a fact, or is it still debated?
 
To quickly elaborate on that: The difference between the two frames is not indicative of anything. Took me less than 10 minutes to recreate my own vanishing effect (could be improved by carefully hand-drawing the exposure-mask and making the bulb look more fuzzy but I think it's mostly there):
original_vanish.gifmy_vanish.gif
Left: Original, Right: Mine.

Now, here's both versions by using "Difference" as layer style:
diff_original_040.jpgdiff_mine_next_040.jpg
And finally, as a gif:
diff_compare_mine_original.gif

I honestly fail to see how this proves volumetric clouds, 3D lighting and a budget of a gazillion dollars, or that it was somehow beyond the capabilities of a 17 year old prankster in 2014.
Nice work, I was going to try the same thing. I haven't really seen anything that would require 3d fx and several arguments against it like lack of parallax. If you had a video of a plane from wherever it seems like you'd just need to mask in the portal and mask out the plane for a some frames after.

After the plane disappear there's non movement anymore so compression algorithms could have a easier task and give a sharper image.
As I recall most compression algorithms at the time used DCT to separate 16x16px regions of the screen (macroblocks) so that only small areas with movement and color changes would be rencoded between keyframes (I-frames), to avoid doing more work than necessary/increasing bandwidth. So if I'm remembering correctly I don't think encoding would explain the frame after the portal suddenly being sharper.
 
Predator drone top speed is 309 km/h.

777 takeoff speed range is 200-300 km/h
777 typical airspeed is 900km/h, doesn't seems to go lower than 400 km/h according to this graph from the FAA (FAA Report)

What a coincidence that the drone managed to catch up with the 777 right at the time it was teleported to the shadow realm.

1692188171684.png
 
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.
Logical fallacy. Just because it disappeared it doesn't mean it never reappeared perhaps minutes or hours later.
 
Predator drone top speed is 309 km/h.

777 takeoff speed range is 200-300 km/h
777 typical airspeed is 900km/h, doesn't seems to go lower than 400 km/h according to this graph from the FAA (FAA Report)

What a coincidence that the drone managed to catch up with the 777 right at the time it was teleported to the shadow realm.
I recommend the graph that actually shows absolute air speed (the mach number depends on air density). Note that it shows the maximum speed for that altitude.
Screenshot_20230816-165752_Samsung Notes.jpg
It's not true that it "doesn't go lower", the 777 starts falling out of the sky at ~150 knots (275 km/h), which it does at least once per flight when it lands (crashes excepted).

However, provided the aircraft in the footage is a 777-200, @Orthonormal has pegged it at ~200 knots (~370 km/h), which would be a fine speed for a holding pattern or a landing approach. See https://www.metabunk.org/threads/alleged-flight-mh370-ufo-teleportation-videos.13104/post-297751 for details.

It's not really clear to me why drones would be used to intercept UFOs, F-18s seem to like that role, too? It wouldn't be a problem to color in the ATFLIR footage later.
 
Last edited:
The blog post mentions that when GOES-14 is corrected it uses "infrared imagery to estimate the height of the cloud". There are a few other ways to estimate depth that I mentioned above (in-track stereo or SAR interferometry). This correction doesn't happen on the satellite, but in-software on the ground. The visible imagery is combined with a depth estimate to create a displaced image.
Note how pixelated the edges of the clouds are after this correction.

It seems fairly obvious that no such 'correction' has been applied to the 'MH370' video, therefore it is almost certainly a fake.
 
Taking a step back, I'm very confused about how this whole abduction thing is even meant to fit into the known events of MH370's journey. It takes off as normal, completes one half of ATC handover, then goes dark and takes a U-turn back across the Malay peninsula. It stops responding to ATC radio communication requests and satellite phone calls. At this point something has gone very, very wrong with MH370, whether hijacking, or some kind of freak fire or malfunction or hypoxia event. Whatever you believe, the flight is already anything but normal.

And then the aliens choose to strike? And somehow a satellite and UAV have already been tasked to film this over the Andaman Sea, even though nobody outside the aircraft has yet realised it is in distress?

Then we have the Inmarsat pings that tell us the aircraft's engine monitoring systems were still phoning home for several more hours, and the burst time offsets show that plane continued to cruise at a steady rate. So had the plane been abducted at this point, or not? Or was it abducted only after the last Inmarsat communication was received, and the plane was hundreds of miles from the co-ordinates shown in the satellite video? Never mind the wreckage!

This is akin to being shown a video of United 93 getting abducted on 9/11, and being asked to take it seriously.
 
Taking a step back, I'm very confused about how this whole abduction thing is even meant to fit into the known events of MH370's journey. It takes off as normal, completes one half of ATC handover, then goes dark and takes a U-turn back across the Malay peninsula. It stops responding to ATC radio communication requests and satellite phone calls. At this point something has gone very, very wrong with MH370, whether hijacking, or some kind of freak fire or malfunction or hypoxia event. Whatever you believe, the flight is already anything but normal.

And then the aliens choose to strike? And somehow a satellite and UAV have already been tasked to film this over the Andaman Sea, even though nobody outside the aircraft has yet realised it is in distress?
Well, if you're not beholden to any facts, feel free to assume the lizard people had hijacked the aircraft and flew it to a spot where they could abduct it unseen. The satellite data was a coverup, it's not real. The wreckage is really from MH17. And the filming was done via a reverse engineered alien craft.

All you need is a little imagination, and you, too, can live in a fantasy world, my friend, where the news is fake, but anonymous clips on the Internet are real.
 
I recommend the graph that actually shows absolute air speed (the mach number depends on air density). Note that it shows the maximum speed for that altitude.
Screenshot_20230816-165752_Samsung Notes.jpg
It's not true that it "doesn't go lower", the 777 starts falling out of the sky at ~150 knots (275 km/h), which it does at least once per flight when it lands (crashes excepted).

However, provided the aircraft in the footage is a 777-200, @Orthonormal has pegged it at ~200 knots (~370 km/h), which would be a fine speed for a holding pattern or a landing approach. See https://www.metabunk.org/threads/alleged-flight-mh370-ufo-teleportation-videos.13104/post-297751 for details.

It's not really clear to me why drones would be used to intercept UFOs, F-18s seem to like that role, too? It wouldn't be a problem to color in the ATFLIR footage later.
200 knots is too slow for a 777-200 in cruise configuration (with flaps retracted) at most sensible weights though. At altitude I would be very surprised to see much below 230 knots (indicated airspeed, which is the one shown on the flight deck). And these 230 knots will be much faster in terms of true airspeed (which is higher than indicated because the air up there is thinner and you need a quicker airflow to push the needle to the same indication, figuratively speaking). So what we would expect is more like 400 knots true airspeed which is 400 knots ground speed when there is no wind. Same difference applies to the supposed drone though.

F-18 would be a possibility. By the way - what's the range of any video platform, and where would they stage from?
 
200 knots is too slow for a 777-200 in cruise configuration (with flaps retracted) at most sensible weights though. At altitude I would be very surprised to see much below 230 knots (indicated airspeed, which is the one shown on the flight deck). And these 230 knots will be much faster in terms of true airspeed (which is higher than indicated because the air up there is thinner and you need a quicker airflow to push the needle to the same indication, figuratively speaking). So what we would expect is more like 400 knots true airspeed which is 400 knots ground speed when there is no wind. Same difference applies to the supposed drone though.
These are all valid points.
But can we see the aircraft's configuration? The stereo footage doesn't have enough detail.
And we don't know its altitude, either, given the lack of true stereo data.
We do know that the measured 200 knots are airspeed because they're determined relative to the clouds.
It could still be real footage of an aircraft in a holding pattern, possibly filmed from below.
 
Hello all, been lurking for a while and it’s been very entertaining to say the least. I’m an ATP with over 17 years of flying, my last 10 on various ETOPS equipment.

To my eye the satellite video looks very odd and that’s without taking into account the actual event depicted.

First thing I noticed, the white caps are not moving ? Very first obvious thing.

Second, the perspective, if from a satellite seems wrong. It looks like the cirrus type clouds are under the cumulus clouds and the aircraft flying above both. Does not make much sense to me. Looks more like a sky picture taken from the ground. Cirrus clouds are usually high in the atmosphere and cumulus clouds like these small ones below. They also do not seem to be moving or growing at all which is odd especially if it’s during daytime.

Obviously there are many other things in this video that screams fake but those are the ones I first noticed as a person who’s spent a LOT of time looking down at the ocean and air traffic below from the flight levels.

Cheers
 
this thread / forum is getting more attention from journalists it seems :
 

Attachments

  • RDT_20230816_2040525161157901527628083.png
    RDT_20230816_2040525161157901527628083.png
    1.1 MB · Views: 45
These are all valid points.
But can we see the aircraft's configuration? The stereo footage doesn't have enough detail.
And we don't know its altitude, either, given the lack of true stereo data.
We do know that the measured 200 knots are airspeed because they're determined relative to the clouds.
It could still be real footage of an aircraft in a holding pattern, possibly filmed from below.
Agreed. But the chances of observing a holding pattern at 200kts true airspeed (usually a low altitude holding with slats and possibly flaps out) with contrails (usually at high altitude) are ... well, not zero, but also definitely not one.
 
These are all valid points.
But can we see the aircraft's configuration? The stereo footage doesn't have enough detail.
And we don't know its altitude, either, given the lack of true stereo data.
We do know that the measured 200 knots are airspeed because they're determined relative to the clouds.
It could still be real footage of an aircraft in a holding pattern, possibly filmed from below.
Can't check at the moment, but the IR one could be detailed enough to at least hint at slats/flaps or not
 
Agreed. But the chances of observing a holding pattern at 200kts true airspeed (usually a low altitude holding with slats and possibly flaps out) with contrails (usually at high altitude) are ... well, not zero, but also definitely not one.
Article:

This photo was taken near Portland, Oregon on December 11th, 2005, at around 11AM.


Holding Pattern Contrail near Nowra, Australia.
 
Can't check at the moment, but the IR one could be detailed enough to at least hint at slats/flaps or not
you means this : where the orbs seem to emit also some kind of contrail ?
 

Attachments

  • RDT_20230816_2104268969991307211590201.gif
    RDT_20230816_2104268969991307211590201.gif
    2.3 MB · Views: 33
this thread / forum is getting more attention from journalists it seems :
Pretty shameful from Coulthart given that he fronted a serious investigative programme about this a few years ago, and knows very well what the facts are.

(Edit: Ross Coulthart is an erstwhile Australian journalist turned UFO podcaster who retweeted the Reddit post of “MH370 being pulled backward into portal”. He was also the host of the serious report below which features an in-depth recreation of MH370 meeting its demise in the South Indian Ocean, prolonged discussion of the recovered debris, and sees him confronting a tearful widow with the likelihood that her husband was murdered by the pilot)




00m22: "Our investigation reveals that the only possible scenario on the evidence is that a skilled pilot did deliberately land the 777 on the water."
 
Last edited:
We didn't understand how a plane can be warped through a teleportation portal backwards, we should just give up I think.

Screenshot_20230816_200148.jpg
original source:

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/15sc8fb/another_wild_detail_objects_in_plane_abduction/

In this frame analysis, I wanted to look into the exact moment the alleged portal is opened (which spans about 9 frames).

TL;DR Using a method called frame stacking, I’ve aligned five frames on top of one another in consecutive order, then afterwards, I used the “Difference” effect in Adobe Photoshop to highlight the details that differ between frames. More details below.

Watching the video in real time, I think we all noticed the inward dive the UFOs take prior to the disappearance, so I wanted to look into that. What I found wasn’t quite that simple.
wglap4dzpdib1.jpg
Picture 1: The first photo is the five frames preceding the portal, overlayed atop one another, with the fifth being the start of the portal. As you can see, the UFOs DO move inward. But more importantly, they move inward and BACK, as though curling in behind the plane to create the portal from behind.
l2y064dzpdib1.jpg
Picture 2: Originally I thought the portal opened from the center, and everything would collapse inward. I suspected this misalignment might be a mistake, but as you can see in picture 2 (with the arrows), real or fake, the effect is deliberate, as every object in the video stretches backward. The plane is meant to be pulled in from behind. This is the only frame I’ve seen thus far with that warping effect.
mo9hu3dzpdib1.jpg
Picture 3: In the third picture, we have five of the later frames stacked to illustrate the motion of the portal effects alone.
ihqgd4dzpdib1.jpg
Picture 4: Three adjacent frames that illustrate the warping effect.

Content from External Source

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/15sc8fb/comment/jwgqmdr/
 
Last edited:
Hello, I'm new here. Big fan of Mick West's analysis, always been fascinated by weird stuff in the sky.
I've seen that the new footage of supposed MH370 abdusction is all the rage right now and I wrote a big post on Reddit r/ufo which is pending approval.
I'll basically just past it here because I think I have some valid points.


TL;DR: the video can't be real because of satellite imaging limits (don't just pick this quote and show me hyper detailed ground imaging as counterargument, I'll address it in the detailed explaination), I'll give other additional clues for why it probably is fake, but the main reason is just that you can't get that quality out of satellite images operating at the geostationary altitude, the only one that could (partially) explain still clouds and lack of parallax movement.

Skip to the IMPORTANT PART if you aren't interested in the clues and just want the hard numbers.


First of all, I'm no physicis nor engineer, but I know enough about optics and imaging (mainly from photography and especially astrophotography background) to know that the video, despite how well made it is, can't be real.

Before the calculations, let me say what made my spider senses tingle as soon as I saw the video:

First of all it's as screengrab, the original video seems kinda low resolution on his own, and so is the recording, it's the oldest trick in the book if you want to hide editing flaws and make the analysis harder.

It's also really convenient that the text is cut off, not making it possible to clearly identify what those numbers and letters meant. Some claim it's a model of spy satellite (USA-184 or NROL-22) however said satellite would be way too small to allow for that image quality and, for reasons I'll explain later, the orbit isn't compatible with the observations.

Talking about the action seen in the video, it just feels too much of a perfect scenario, three spheres doing spiral patterns kidnapping a plane mid flight just seems like a scene out of X-Files!

I've heard people complaining telling other people "How do you think something like that would look ?!?", my problem is that it would look exactly like this based on my sci-fi knowledge, which is what I guess inspired the author. Not a proof of course, but a bit sus to me.



Another super odd fact is that we have not just one, but TWO angles of the same incredible footage from the most remote location possible.

How can we have TWO cameras pointing at a random plane out of the thousands flying at a given time, and that plane is right about to be abducted by aliens (cuz, implying the video is real, there is no other explaination here apart from alien tinkering with space time!).

And no, before anybody says that, nobody has even remotely the capability of simultaneous worldwide meter resolution live feed coverage, that would imply hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of hubble sized satellites, each one requiring his own rocket launch to put it in orbit, pretty sure we would have noticed that, so if the video is real then it would imply they were tracking that specific plane with both a gargantuan spy space telescope and a drone. Seem pretty sus to me that we knew in advance that this pecific plane was about to be vanished by aliens, and also that said aliens who are capable of bending spacetime would still perform the abduction despite a drone filming everything nearby (because they sure would be aware of it!).

And if aliens don't care about being seen we should have more videos of this stuff happening, don't you think?



Let's get to the hot part now: camera tech.

It's super weird that a spy satellite would provide full color VIDEOS (important that it's a video, not a still image), because a sensor capable of capturing color images implies you are sacrificing a lot of resolution and signal to noise ratio, both things that are crucial if you're interested in achieving the highest quality imaging of small details, and the reason every single space telescope that I'm aware of operates with monochromatic cameras. Remember Trump's leaked satellite photo? That was monochromatic for a good reason!

One might say: "but I've seen satellite imaging in color". Yes, but that's either because there was a good reason for it to be in color (ie stuff like Google Earth etc) or simply because they combined three images taken using RGB filters (or, more likely, LRGB) that are subsequently combined into the final color images, but you can't get a color video using filters on a mono sensor so that wouldn't be an option.

Now, could there be super high resolution spy satellites with color sensors? Sure, but it's very unlikely, not that it matters as we'll see in the important section where I explain why this can't be satellite video footage.



The look of the image is weird aswell, it doesn't seem to be footage from a satellite, which is usually much cleaner and with better resolution (at least for the imaging scale of the satellite), while here it looks like an video from a normal camera), but again that's just swamped by the compression and screengrab artifacts so it can't be judged properly (starting to see a pattern here, uh?).



Another odd clue: when the planes blinks into oblivion we see a bright flash, and what is weird is that we don't see a clear diffraction spike nor any internal lens reflection artifact or loss of contrast, all things that happen when you photograph a bright light with a mirror telescope (and that's the only possible way to build a large space telescope). Just google "telescope diffraction spike", you'll see what I mean.



So far I just listed clues, but now let's come to the:



IMPORTANT PART:

Diffraction limit.

What is diffraction limit? Essentially how detailed of an image an optical system can produce given it's aperture (in this case how wide the mirror is) and operating wavelength, and that's the absolute best scenario not counting loss of contrast from mechanical diffraction (ie caused by the mirror's support structure), loss of resolution from the sensor (especially in this case where it's a color sensor!), atmosphere, movement of the craft, etc.

This is an hard limit. You simply can't break it regardless of how advanced you think NRO tech is, definitely not without image processing via stacking, doconvolution, drizzle, etc, but it's all stuff you simply can't do in a video.

How can you calculate the diffraction limit?

Just use this tool https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/angular-resolution

Input the optic diameter, a wavelength (I picked 550 nm as a visible light middle ground) and it will give you the resolution (possibly in arcseconds, to make it easier to plug it into the next tool).

We now have the angular resolution, but how does it translate to object size in the real world? Just use this other tool https://www.1728.org/angsize.htm

Plug in the arcsec from the previous tool, pick a distance in meters (ie 400.000 meters, roughly the ISS altitude and possible that of some spy satellites) and it will output the resolution in meters.

Does it work? Let's use a real craft as an example, the WorldView 3 imaging satellite. It has an aperture of 110cm and operates at 620km of altitude. Plug in the numbers and you get 0.371 meters for the green light channel and 0.26 meters for 320nm blue wavelength. What's the resolution spec you can find for that satellite online? 31 centimers, so the numbers match perfectly.



Do we know the size and altitude of the spy telescope? No, but we can take educated guesses (especially for the altitude).

Let's say they used the best they probably have, an Hubble like 2.5m space telescope, we know it's something NRO is capable of.

Biggest space telescope we have is the James Webb Space Telescope, it's almost impossible for a number of reasons (remember, the JWST is INSANELY complex, and we're talking about videos from a telescope at least 10 years old counting launch date, and in any case a JWST like spy scope wouldn't match the header of the video mentioning the NROL-22, indicating something is off) even for the US GVT to have such an instrument available for spying (because it would be so big that we'd have noticed it and tracked it in the night sky, but we can calculate for that too.

Remember, you can't hide stuff in space, we have ameteurs photographing the ISS in insane detail, a behemoth like that wouldn't go unnoticed!



Now we need the altitude:

How high was the satellite? Very high. Proof? There is absolutely ZERO parallax shift in the clouds compared to whatever's underneath (regardless of them being smaller clouds or waves as someone suggested) or between the clouds themselves. There is just some slight movement (and over a minute, considering how fast windws are at that altitude, that's sus on his own) that could be some simple warp or actually even just some artifact due to the extreme video compression and artifacts, but asolutely nothing indicating parallax that would suggest that it's footage coming from a moving satellite.

The only way to have a footage that still is if the satellite is geostationary, and even in that case it would pretty much be IMPOSSIBLE for the clouds to be that still at that altitude if the view of the satellite is fixed in place as indicated by lack of parallax motion (using the 65m long Boeing 777 as reference, 1px of the video in 720p is roughly 54 centimeters!).
The small discrepancy that could indicate clouds movement (implying it's not artifact) consists of a few pixels at best, meaning at several km of altitude with strong windws those clouds AT BEST moved by a couple of meters, and never relative to each other, they just appear to change shape VEEEERY slightly, again by such a small amount that it could be video compression or editing shenanigans.

Compare it to footage from the ISS (like the live feed you can find on Youtube), just see how fast clouds zip by and how you can see the various layers of clouds move in respect to each other and compared to the ground. And that's relatively wide angle footage, you would notice it SO MUCH MORE if it was a telephoto shot, especially if it was stabilized on a particular subject at an altitude like in this video.

Even a Molniya that the NROL 22 spy satellite has wouldn't achieve that, unless the video was taken at the apogee at minumum speed, but that's at an even higher altitude than a geostationary orbit ruling it out even more.



So, it can't be a relatively low orbit satellite flying by, but could it be geostationary? Nope.
Let's make the calculations (again using 550nm as a visible light middle ground) and the altitude of 35.786km!

For a 250cm aperture telescope we get 0.0554 arcseconds of resolution, that transalte to a resolution of 9.6 meters. Definitely not enough for the footage we saw, remember each pixel in that video at 720p is 50cm, pretty much what you'd get if the WorldView 3 if it was a few hundreds km higher, but still in a MUCH lower orbit compared to what's implied here.

So that's it, video is impossible with REASONABLE assumptions.

But as I said, let's assume, irreasonably, that NRO is operating a 6.5m JWST like behemoth, what would its resolution be? We get 0.0213 arcseconds at 550nm, translated to geostationary that's 3.7 meters, again nowhere nearly enough resolving power for that footage, especially since that's the perfect scenario with a monochromatic camera, hence not even counting the loss of resolution from a color sensor or any other form of image degradation you'd get in the real world.

What is 100% sure is that no telescope in the SBIRS program (the one mentioned in the video text) has capabilities even remotely close to those of the HST/big spy scope, let alone to the JWST that still wouldn't be enough for a footage like this, and that's assuming those satellites even have optical imaging capabilities at all!



Oh, and all the calculations are made assuming we're looking straight down from above the plane, which is clearly not the case case since we're seeing clouds at an angle, so the distance is even higher easily adding thousands of km! (And would it even be possible to have clouds that look like that, with the angle and separation clearly visible, from that far away without them being all compressed by the perspective? I'm not sure).



Again, the clouds are the most suspiscious thing, people have claimed that they move slightly, honestly I don't think it's the case and the movement (which very small) could be simply explained by compression/editing artifacts which plague the video, if there was any real wind movement or, more important, parallax movement it would be unequivocable and constand during the whole video, like I said you can see how evident it is in the ISS onboard footage. Same goes for the flash illuminating the clouds, some claim it is super accurate, I say it's not hard to make by slimply brightening the edges a bit in the flash frame while the low quality of the video hides all eventual imperfections.

One last thing, always about clouds: google pictures of "clouds from satellite" and "clouds from plane", see for yourself which one resembles more the ones seen in the video, which would reinforce my hypotheis that what we're seeing is just a 2d photo of clouds photo on which the plane was composited on.

https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detai...in-sky-malaysia-royalty-free-image/1503418106



This one in particular is not the same image but looks extremely similar, even with the small white dots that aren't moving in the video, just apply a curve regulation to clip the white a bit and it looks exactly the same kind of photo!

https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detai...f-a-plane-above-royalty-free-image/1186044529

The smoking gun would be to find the source image/video, but after so many years it might be impossible, implying it's wasn't a photo whoever made the video took himself.
 
Are there many examples of confirmed satellite filming of an aircraft in flight, from identifiable and reliable sources, that we can compare to the "MH-370" video?
This is the only satellite footage including an airplane I can find.
Thank you JAFO!

Even with the Burj Khalifa video, I think there are maybe some questions.

If there's an absence- or only very few- videos of aircraft filmed in flight, in real time, from a satellite, it might imply that these events are in themselves very rare, despite the estimated 8,000+ airliners in the sky at any one time.

I think we need to find footage from identifiable satellite operators (or their clients), where provenance isn't in doubt.
We're currently being asked to believe that the "MH-370 abduction" video is filmed from a satellite, even though we can't find many (any?) other examples of verified satellite filming of flying aircraft.

Considering we don't know the source of the MH-370 video with its supposed extraordinary events,
then unless we can find known satellite footage of more mundane flights, that broadly resemble the MH-370 video,
I think we should consider that the video is from the outset a hoax.
 
this thread / forum is getting more attention from journalists it seems :
Pretty shameful from Coulthart given that he fronted a serious investigative programme about this a few years ago, and knows very well what the facts are.





What are you guys talking about? PLEASE explain your posts a bit better. Am I supposed to watch 2 full segments of Coultarts old tv show to get what's going on? Did Coulthart make claims about UFOs in his show? If so, tell us. Preferably with a time stamp where the specific claim is made.

How does Coulthart figure in this?

@Daves! Where you trying to post this?:

1692217339364.png

I'm still not seeing Coulthart here. Come on guys, we can't read your minds and don't always have time watch a boat load of videos or read through endless reddit threads.

@PublicStranger Mendel had to post the relevant parts of the thread you highlighted so we can understand what the claim is.

Explain what you're presenting and how it's relevant and use the "preview" button to make sure what you think your posting is posted.

Not ranting, just suggesting.
 
diff.png
This is the difference between the two sides for the frame with the flash. The right side was sheared with a value of 3 in Gimp. You could get an even closer match with subpixel precision for offset and shear, but gimp doesn't allow it. I may code something myself later.
You would get something completely different if there was depth data.

The depth map you get looks very much like a noisy vertical gradient, not at all like 3D clouds. There no real depth data, but the algorithm you used tried to find a depth data that could explain the differences between the images, so its results are not significant.
Even to the noise lining up - good work.
Handy cheap hack that used to work in older graphics packages I used - embed the image into a larger canvas, say twice the height, and just shear the whole canvas by 5 or 7 pixels, to simulate 2.5 or 3.5 for the region you're interested in.
The video on the right is not an exact copy of the one on the left, or simply warped by a slight shear, but distorted by a depth map.
So - given that it's now demonstrated that it was simply warped with a slight shear - what was your precise reasoning for making a factual statement in such unambiguous and absolute terms. Walk us through your thought processes, and what you did to reject such a hypothesis, please?
 
I'd love to hear their take on it. The satellite video passes the tests that they usually pick up on (motion blur, consistent lighting, black levels). It's also worth noting that their expertise is not in satellite imagery, and there may be other things unique to satellite imagery that they would misinterpret as fake or not pick up on as fake.

Watching their videos is a good reminder that if this is a hoax, these are unique videos when it comes to hoaxes. As far as I know, there are no other satellite videos of UFOs, or of UFOs this close to any other object, or in high resolution thermal.


The blog post mentions that when GOES-14 is corrected it uses "infrared imagery to estimate the height of the cloud". There are a few other ways to estimate depth that I mentioned above (in-track stereo or SAR interferometry). This correction doesn't happen on the satellite, but in-software on the ground. The visible imagery is combined with a depth estimate to create a displaced image.


The NRO does make videos, and is always seeking proposals for improving these capabilities.


I've looked more closely at a few versions of this video, and I think the only useful ones are the RegicideAnon video and the Jose Matos video. The Vimeo one is converted from 24fps to 29.97fps, and is missing frames as you mention. The Jose Matos video is exactly the same length as the RegicideAnon video. I suspect that the "original" or "source" video may have been two separate videos that were combined by RegicideAnon into a single side-by-side video (with some vertical black bars/cropping, for some unknown reason). And that Jose Matos just uploaded one of the two videos.
I'm no Corridor crew but I am a professional VFX artist. I've never used this website but here's a post I made on Reddit of what I could determine from the video and a 3am mobile phone session . There's a lot of assumptions and it's hard to really "prove" at this degree, but hopefully there's some knowledge there that can help others with different knowledge than mine. I possibly covered some stuff that's already been discussed but maybe my two cents will be valuable to someone

Here's the post:

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/15t0pve/a_vfxcomp_artists_analysis_on_the_mh370_satellite/
 
Last edited:
The depth map you get looks very much like a noisy vertical gradient, not at all like 3D clouds. There no real depth data, but the algorithm you used tried to find a depth data that could explain the differences between the images, so its results are not significant.
what was your precise reasoning for making a factual statement in such unambiguous and absolute terms. Walk us through your thought processes, and what you did to reject such a hypothesis, please?
Thank you both for pushing back on this. I still believe it's more than just shearing, and I think if you follow me for a moment I may convince you too. I think it's important to look at more than one frame and see whether this effect is consistent across the video.

I coded this up first using phase_cross_correlation in skimage to compute sparse registration against median-filtered sections of the video where the frame is not panning.

1692216853797.png

In theory that range in disparity for a given y position is showing the distance from the tops of the clouds to the ocean level. If this was a simple shear, the disparity would be very tight around the red line. Compression artifacts alone shouldn't account for 2px+ of disparity in still, denoised images.

To make sure it's not just the phase_cross_correlation algorithm, I used StereoSGBM again for dense disparity. It has more artifacts, but we can iron out most of them by taking the mean disparity across each row of all the image pairs:

1692217342723.png

I'm ignoring the top and bottom of the image because in the case of both algorithms it looks like something strange is happening there (it's nonlinear). It's too big to just be edge artifacts from compression (which wouldn't extend a whole 100+ pixels from the border). And it appears in both algorithms so it's not just StereoSGBM. The red line fit is x=-0.00782, b=7.44.

The thing we want to know is whether the clouds, ocean, or aircraft deviate from this mean disparity, because that would indicate the image is not just sheared. So I rendered out a version of what you did above, but I implemented it with code (link to notebook here) so that I could do supixel precise shearing. I exported a new video with just the differences between the right image and a sheared version of the left image.

1692218889191.png
Here is the video. The fact that the aircraft pops out indicates that it is not following the shearing. So it's clear to me that this isn't just image shearing. When there are white halos around objects, that means they are popping out relative to the mean disparity for that row.

If I wanted to fake this, I would make a depth map that was generated by adding a gradient to the original image, then apply a large blur filter on top. The plane and clouds are white and often have white halos, and the blur would explain the strange edge falloff at the top and bottom.

However, that wouldn't explain why the orbs pop out, but other small white dots in the image do not pop out. So this rules out the above explanation for it being faked.

Could the halo effect on the aircraft just come from video compression, given the fact that the orbs are moving, but the other white dots in the image are not? I think this might be part of it, but not all of it—because the other white dots don't pop out when the image is panning. Video codecs do have different ways of compressing large-region movement and small-region movement though, so this would need some deeper investigation to fully rule out.

But if I'm right that this isn't just a sheared image, and it's not just making the white parts pop out—the creator would have to carefully prepare their depth map by separating the ocean background from the clouds and aircraft in the foreground. Then add the gradient, then the blur, and then apply their depth map.

One final thing that's surprising to me is that, assuming this is just an effect, it isn't applied consistently across the whole video. Sometimes the airplane appears to pop out more, other times less. At first I thought it might be vertical vs horizontal motion because the footage is squashed, but that's not it. So the creator would have to vary the gradient a little bit throughout the video.

It's all very feasible, and compression is definitely going to help out with masking all of this. We just have an increasing complexity of the theory needed to explain that this is a hoax. Personally, if I were making this, I would have opted for a handheld recording of a screen rather than getting all these details right and distributing a screen recording for it to be picked apart.
 
Article:

This photo was taken near Portland, Oregon on December 11th, 2005, at around 11AM.


Holding Pattern Contrail near Nowra, Australia.
Well... my point wasn't there aren't holdings with contrails, only there won't be many with contrails where the speed is around 200 kts. Do we know what these are? Looks like aerial tanker racetracks, I'd say, so maybe not necessarily applicable to civil airliners, but of course not sure.
 
I think we need to find footage from identifiable satellite operators (or their clients), where provenance isn't in doubt.
We're currently being asked to believe that the "MH-370 abduction" video is filmed from a satellite, even though we can't find many (any?) other examples of verified satellite filming of flying aircraft.
I'm looking for this type of footage, but how are we even sure it's satellite footage? Other possibilities:
  • U2-style spy plane (flies 70,000 to 80,000 feet high)
  • high-altitude research or spy baloons (90,000 feet to 130,000 feet high)
  • Other High Altitude Platform Stations
What does something at 30,000 to 40,000 feet look like when it's filmed from something at 70,000 feet?
 
The fact that the aircraft pops out indicates that it is not following the shearing. So it's clear to me that this isn't just image shearing. When there are white halos around objects, that means they are popping out relative to the mean disparity for that row.
The fact that *only* the aircraft pops out, and not the clouds, indeed says that it's not been sheared. But the clouds have. To me this reinforces the hypothesis of compositing the plane (and it looks like the three orbs too) on top of a pre-sheared backdrop.
 
Thank you both for pushing back on this. I still believe it's more than just shearing, and I think if you follow me for a moment I may convince you too. I think it's important to look at more than one frame and see whether this effect is consistent across the video.

I coded this up first using phase_cross_correlation in skimage to compute sparse registration against median-filtered sections of the video where the frame is not panning.

1692216853797.png

In theory that range in disparity for a given y position is showing the distance from the tops of the clouds to the ocean level. If this was a simple shear, the disparity would be very tight around the red line. Compression artifacts alone shouldn't account for 2px+ of disparity in still, denoised images.

To make sure it's not just the phase_cross_correlation algorithm, I used StereoSGBM again for dense disparity. It has more artifacts, but we can iron out most of them by taking the mean disparity across each row of all the image pairs:

1692217342723.png

I'm ignoring the top and bottom of the image because in the case of both algorithms it looks like something strange is happening there (it's nonlinear). It's too big to just be edge artifacts from compression (which wouldn't extend a whole 100+ pixels from the border). And it appears in both algorithms so it's not just StereoSGBM. The red line fit is x=-0.00782, b=7.44.

The thing we want to know is whether the clouds, ocean, or aircraft deviate from this mean disparity, because that would indicate the image is not just sheared. So I rendered out a version of what you did above, but I implemented it with code (link to notebook here) so that I could do supixel precise shearing. I exported a new video with just the differences between the right image and a sheared version of the left image.

1692218889191.png
Here is the video. The fact that the aircraft pops out indicates that it is not following the shearing. So it's clear to me that this isn't just image shearing. When there are white halos around objects, that means they are popping out relative to the mean disparity for that row.

If I wanted to fake this, I would make a depth map that was generated by adding a gradient to the original image, then apply a large blur filter on top. The plane and clouds are white and often have white halos, and the blur would explain the strange edge falloff at the top and bottom.

However, that wouldn't explain why the orbs pop out, but other small white dots in the image do not pop out. So this rules out the above explanation for it being faked.

Could the halo effect on the aircraft just come from video compression, given the fact that the orbs are moving, but the other white dots in the image are not? I think this might be part of it, but not all of it—because the other white dots don't pop out when the image is panning. Video codecs do have different ways of compressing large-region movement and small-region movement though, so this would need some deeper investigation to fully rule out.

But if I'm right that this isn't just a sheared image, and it's not just making the white parts pop out—the creator would have to carefully prepare their depth map by separating the ocean background from the clouds and aircraft in the foreground. Then add the gradient, then the blur, and then apply their depth map.

One final thing that's surprising to me is that, assuming this is just an effect, it isn't applied consistently across the whole video. Sometimes the airplane appears to pop out more, other times less. At first I thought it might be vertical vs horizontal motion because the footage is squashed, but that's not it. So the creator would have to vary the gradient a little bit throughout the video.

It's all very feasible, and compression is definitely going to help out with masking all of this. We just have an increasing complexity of the theory needed to explain that this is a hoax. Personally, if I were making this, I would have opted for a handheld recording of a screen rather than getting all these details right and distributing a screen recording for it to be picked apart.
What if we are both right?
The cloud background image is 2D but the plane and the orbs are a 3D asset? Or just another 2D layer with a fake z offset?
It doesn't make sense that there's more depth to the plane than to the whole cloud layers if it's a real 3d scene.
Thanks for taking the time to apply the process to the whole video, I was planning to do it eventually but didn't have time
 
I wonder if the person who made this would be interested in stepping forward if someone offered a financial reward for doing so? I'd love to see the process they used to create this. It's a pretty impressive video. Perhaps we could crowdsource a cash prize as a community?
 
Taking a step back, I'm very confused about how this whole abduction thing is even meant to fit into the known events of MH370's journey. It takes off as normal, completes one half of ATC handover, then goes dark and takes a U-turn back across the Malay peninsula. It stops responding to ATC radio communication requests and satellite phone calls. At this point something has gone very, very wrong with MH370, whether hijacking, or some kind of freak fire or malfunction or hypoxia event. Whatever you believe, the flight is already anything but normal.

And then the aliens choose to strike? And somehow a satellite and UAV have already been tasked to film this over the Andaman Sea, even though nobody outside the aircraft has yet realised it is in distress?

Then we have the Inmarsat pings that tell us the aircraft's engine monitoring systems were still phoning home for several more hours, and the burst time offsets show that plane continued to cruise at a steady rate. So had the plane been abducted at this point, or not? Or was it abducted only after the last Inmarsat communication was received, and the plane was hundreds of miles from the co-ordinates shown in the satellite video? Never mind the wreckage!

This is akin to being shown a video of United 93 getting abducted on 9/11, and being asked to take it seriously.
All of this, minus a minor point - given that the wreckage didn't show up right away, in principle it could have been portalled and then portalled back (in pieces or at whole).

Not saying that's even remotely probable in my view, but strictly thinking the existence of wreckage actually doesn't say it can't have entered a portal, only that not everything stayed "there".
 
Is it just me or the "teleport" effect looks completely fake/cheap, to begin with? It's like a 1960s VFX artist's idea of what a teleportation effect MIGHT look like.
 
Is it just me or the "teleport" effect looks completely fake/cheap, to begin with? It's like a 1960s VFX artist's idea of what a teleportation effect MIGHT look like.
Based on the velocity and semi-randomness of the circling orbs I would think these were more akin to miniaturizing or cloaking orbs. I think teleportation orbs and the resulting flash look very different than what we see in this 100% real videos.
 
Hello I'd like to share some potentially new information:

-Flight MH370 disappeared on March 8, 2014

-"RegicideAnon" posted one of the infamous videos to YouTube on May 19, 2014 link to archive
-"AreaAlienware" posted a better version of the video to Vimeo in August of 2014 link to video

Arguments have been made that given the time between the disappearance and video releases, VFX artists may have been able to create a fake.

I have identified a potential earlier source of the video. "Dual Gamma" posted what may have been the same video titled "UFOs with Vortex as Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 Vanishes from Radar" on March 10, 2014, just 2 days after the disappearance. Here is the link to the archived version. Unfortunately the video is not archived but check it out for yourself. Appears to have been the same video in question.

If this video was uploaded only 2 days after the disappearance, likelihood of a vfx fake is decreased.
 
What if we are both right?
The cloud background image is 2D but the plane and the orbs are a 3D asset? Or just another 2D layer with a fake z offset?
It doesn't make sense that there's more depth to the plane than to the whole cloud layers if it's a real 3d scene.
Thanks for taking the time to apply the process to the whole video, I was planning to do it eventually but didn't have time
This is a good hypothesis, and simpler than applying a single depth map to everything. So it would be: apply a shear to the background, then take the the clouds and aircraft and shift them a consistent amount.

This wouldn't explain the inconsistency in the disparity of the aircraft though. For the first 40 seconds the disparity is larger, then it's very small until the flash. To explain this, we would have to assume that the animator accidentally keyframed a shift to the plane/clouds overlay around 40 seconds in. But this would be inconsistent with the fact that the clouds tend to have similar disparity throughout the video.

So this implies the animator would have had one shearing for the ocean, then a shearing + offset for the clouds, and a shearing + offset for the aircraft that accidentally got bumped around 40 seconds. Complex, but doable. I do feel like we are getting close to just acknowledging that the depth is complex enough to arguably be a real depth map, and it would be great to get any interferometric imagery of clouds + oceans for testing this. Maybe we can find something declassified.

Instead of going through all this work in post, I think it would be much easier to export a real depth map from the same 3D render that produced the thermal video and apply that. But in that scenario, why not just render the scene from two unique perspectives?

The fact that *only* the aircraft pops out, and not the clouds, indeed says that it's not been sheared. But the clouds have. To me this reinforces the hypothesis of compositing the plane (and it looks like the three orbs too) on top of a pre-sheared backdrop.
Check out the video I link to after the picture, the clouds also pop out to varying degrees over the course of the video. I just picked a still frame that didn't have many clouds (though you can still see one, at the bottom right).
 
So if these UFOs made the aircraft dissappear near the Nicobar islands. What caused it to divert from where it was , and then fly all the way off course to the Nicobar islands for the UFOs to teleport it in the first place.
 
Found the rest of the SkySat videos (Burj Khalifa/Dubia) posted to the Planet labs YT channel. Combing through them to find a plane. Channel link: https://www.youtube.com/@planetlabs/search?query=skysat

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


Also looking at Earth-i's sat color video stuff, but no footage yet
EDIT: Their YT channel has a lot of vids https://www.youtube.com/@EarthiLtd/videos

I reviewed multiple amateur high-altitude balloon vidoes at: 80k feet, 95k feet, and 105k feet. I believe that if a balloon had a stabilized platform and hi-res camera it could track a plane as seen in the ufo video, but haven't found *any* civilian examples.

After reviewing this type of footage, I'm now more confident first that it's civ satellite and less likely that it's a spy UAV.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top