Alleged Flight MH370 UFO Teleportation Videos [Hoax]

[cptreynolds]

A Boeing 777 should fly at about 13km altitude max, while a LEO satellite would be flying at altitutes in the hundreds of km. I can't make sense of that picture in a way that the satellite isn't capturing the ground, unless that satellite is far away and getting a side view, while the path of the plane is of small eccentricity, suggesting a viewpoint closer to the horizontal axis. Someone already suggested that the viewpoint might be from the ground (sorry, chicken memory) and looking at the composite picture, that seems likely to me.

It could be against the sea.

To me it looks like it's a high altitude holding filmed from above. There's quite a few air to air shots from flight decks on airliners.net for example, no reason to not have a video, too.

 

[cptreynolds]

If someone had the patience, they could look at the coordinates in the satellite video (which update as the mouse drags the image around), and try to figure out whether the distance travelled implied by the lat/long deltas corresponds to a plausible velocity for a 777.

Actually, view coordinates updating on mouse drag sound like an MS Flight Simulator feature if my memory isn't too far off.

 

[JAFO]

I was just about to check if the moon was remotely possible as a candidate for the illumination, thanks for doing the work! Although I'm not sure the times are exactly right, the 02:22 disappearance time in UTC+8, but it looks like Heavens Above is showing times in UTC+05:30? This is the right time zone for that location, as the Nicobar islands are part of India, but the local times quoted for MH370 are usually Malaysia time.

The time of 02:22 was for the last primary radar contact that was NEAR the location of the supposed satellite video. That time is LOCAL time.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malay...ile:MH370_flight_path_with_English_labels.png

The UTC+05:30 is the offset for the selected location.

 

[omaehamoushindeiru]

This user is analyzing the possibility that the stereo image was captured by two different satellites, and that the data was collected by the NROL-22 as the SIGINT receiver

I think what you meant to say was "baselessly speculate that this must be the case because otherwise the text on the bottom left would make no sense". There is no indication anywhere that this satellite has relay capabilities or has ever been used for that purpose. Also, please directly quote the claims and evidence, if possible.

 

[yoshy]

Someone with VFX skills tells why its prety hard to fake this.


Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/15pxdf6/mh370_discussion_from_videovfx_hobbyist_point_of/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=2

These posts happen all the time on that subreddit. Some "expert" on reddirt says it's impossible to fake for a variety of reasons, then another expert, or even random metabunkers/redditors, debunk all of the "expert"'s claims. It's happened several times at least, often with pilots.

 

[csep]

the colors seem odd. It almost seem like colorized night vision as these goggles. Of course since the sensors system in these satellites are confidential it would be difficult to know for sure.

Source: https://youtu.be/kBPcinUz-L0

 

[Ann K]

Might this be a legitimate video of a legitimate flight (no necessity that it be the one in question), doctored with fake coordinates and a smattering of UFOs? I'd think that would be a lot easier to do than inventing the entire thing.

 

[tobigtofool]

I have a stinking sensation metabunk will end up finding the real crash wreckage while trying to debunk this vdieo.

 

[Ann K]

I have a stinking sensation metabunk will end up finding the real crash wreckage while trying to debunk this vdieo.

We already have crash wreckage.

 

[jarlrmai]

Might this be a legitimate video of a legitimate flight (no necessity that it be the one in question), doctored with fake coordinates and a smattering of UFOs? I'd think that would be a lot easier to do than inventing the entire thing.

Real footage taken by what though? An actual NRO satellite and high altitude long range UAV?

 

[JAFO]

Might this be a legitimate video of a legitimate flight (no necessity that it be the one in question), doctored with fake coordinates and a smattering of UFOs? I'd think that would be a lot easier to do than inventing the entire thing.

Watch this HD Video of a plane captured via sattalite and note the parallax. I would expect to see similar in any legitimate flight captured from orbit.

 

[Ravi]

Watch this HD Video of a plane captured via satellite and note the parallax. I would expect to see similar in any legitimate flight captured from orbit.

This was done using active tracking. The satellite is actively controlled so that the telescope can stay on target, while the satellite is orbiting.

 

[Mendel]

I have a stinking sensation metabunk will end up finding the real crash wreckage while trying to debunk this vdieo.

Last I checked, we have no deep sea search capabilities.
We're good at debunking, though.

 

[Ann K]

Watch this HD Video of a plane captured via sattalite and note the parallax. I would expect to see similar in any legitimate flight captured from orbit.

There is really nothing but the CLAIM that says it was captured by satellite, is there?

 

[omaehamoushindeiru]

There is really nothing but the CLAIM that says it was captured by satellite, is there?

No. And it's rather suspicious that the cars seem to be moving at 1fps (with incredibly strong motion blur) while the shadow and plane move as smooth as possible.

 

[beakflip]

No. And it's rather suspicious that the cars seem to be moving at 1fps (with incredibly strong motion blur) while the shadow and plane move as smooth as possible.

The shadows of the building move smoothly because they move slower than the cars do (ps: oh, derp, that shadow!, yea, also smoother than it should be, even more of a red flag than the plane). The plane does not, though. There's something mighty fishy going on...

 

[PublicStranger]

This is a Boeing 777 using Microsoft Flight Simulator, looks pretty real doesn't it?

I have a pretty good gaming PC rig so when I have a free few hours I will try and recreate the exact footage in the video (minus the rotating orbs obviously) and see how close I can get the actual flight footage shown in the video.

It's possible we are looking at a video game here.

 

[cptreynolds]

This is Boeing 777 using Microsoft Flight Simulator, looks pretty real doesn't it?

I have a pretty good gaming PC rig so when I have a free few hours I will try and recreate the exact footage in the video (minus the rotating orbs obviously) and see how close I can get the actual flight footage shown in the video.

Not having followed flightsims for a few years, I'm a little in shock and awe.

That's way to shiny for the original video, by by the way.

 

[PublicStranger]

Not having followed flightsims for a few years, I'm a little in shock and awe.

That's way to shiny for the original video, by by the way.

I'd have to toggle the graphical settings a bit, possibly lower them significantly and play with the camera angles but I think theres an option in game where you can record a full flight and have a free roam cam that follows the plane 360 from any direction and distance.

 

[Mendel]

This is a Boeing 777 using Microsoft Flight Simulator, looks pretty real doesn't it?

I have a pretty good gaming PC rig so when I have a free few hours I will try and recreate the exact footage in the video (minus the rotating orbs obviously) and see how close I can get the actual flight footage shown in the video.

At the very least it'd show whether the outlines match a 777-200ER.

 

[Mick West]

I downloaded the "original" from archive.org
https://web.archive.org/web/20140525100932/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ok1A1fSzxY

Noted on reddit by u/Randis, it's not stereoscopic, it's the same vdeo on both sides, distored on one. You can tell by the noise patterns matching.

Article:

.i did some overlays to compare the sides and i quickly noticed that the mix of noise pattern and compression artifacts looks pretty much the same for most of the footage
...
What does it mean? It means that this video was doctored and that someone did put some effort into making it appear more legit. that is all. There is absolutely NO WAY that 2 different cameras would create the same noise pattern and the encoder would create the same artifacts. even highspeed images shot on a completely still camera will not produce the same noise patterns in sequential frames.

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/15qr9l0/mh370_airliner_video_is_doctored_proof_included/

I can confirm this is true. Same noise patterns on both sides.

 

[Sid]

Beside the lack of parallax on the satellite video another thing that bothers me is the timing. When was this supposedly captured? The plane took off just after midnight, in the dark. The clouds appear to be illuminated from above. The moon set that night just prior to MH370 taking off. At the time of last primary radar contact (02:22) it was 45dgrees below the horizon.

The only way this can really be solved is if we assume it was doing donuts in the area until daylight came, at which point it was zapped. But then that would necessitate no one noticing it in the interim between it going missing and it getting zapped, obviously would not line up with the inmarsat data, doesn't line up with the flight plan recovered from the pilot's computer, and generally doesn't exactly make sense for the pilot to do when his plan seemed to be basically to see how far south he could get.

So on a basic level it just doesn't add up at all.

 

[Wizard]

This is a Boeing 777 using Microsoft Flight Simulator, looks pretty real doesn't it?

I have a pretty good gaming PC rig so when I have a free few hours I will try and recreate the exact footage in the video (minus the rotating orbs obviously) and see how close I can get the actual flight footage shown in the video.

It's possible we are looking at a video game here.

It would have to be the Flight Sim from 2014 to be accurate.. the video was originally posted 9 years ago.

 

[PublicStranger]

It would have to be the Flight Sim from 2014 to be accurate.. the video was originally posted 9 years ago.

That's true, I'll give it a download, the video is poor quality so you could probably even get away with a flight sim from 2010.

There are mh370 mods you can download so you can even fly the exact same plane.

 

[PublicStranger]

MH370 on Microsoft flight x 2014. The clouds and contrails bear an uncanny resemblance



Bit of a side-point but it's crazy how much progress has been made with simulations and video games alike in the space of 9 years. Remarkable.

 

[cptreynolds]

At the very least it'd show whether the outlines match a 777-200ER.

In the "satellite" videos, the aircraft does look a little squished. The wing planform and sweep as well as the wing position along the fuselage don't really seem to match. At first it resembles an A380, and then during the last bit the visual impression it gives is 707 rather than 777. How I know? Used to be a plane nerd, however far from infallible.

Having said all that, the slightest amount of lens compression or so can change the visual cues for an aircraft type rather comprehensively. I've been fooled a few times. So, while it doesn't really look like a 777-200ER in the video, it could still have been one in front of the camera.

The IR video looks very much 777-esque, no doubt there.

 

[cptreynolds]

MH370 on Microsoft flight x 2014. The clouds and contrails bear an uncanny resemblance



Bit of a side-point but it's crazy how much progress has been made with simulations and video games alike in the space of 9 years. Remarkable.

It's not the correct aircraft though. The Malaysian one was a -200ER, this one's a -200LR (the wing tips give it away - they're swept farther back than the rest of the wing. These are so-called "raked wing tips" which are only to be found on -200F, -200LR and -300ER in the 777 family)

 

[Mendel]

In the "satellite" videos, the aircraft does look a little squished. The wing planform and sweep as well as the wing position along the fuselage don't really seem to match. At first it resembles an A380, and then during the last bit the visual impression it gives is 707 rather than 777. How I know? Used to be a plane nerd, however far from infallible.

Having said all that, the slightest amount of lens compression or so can change the visual cues for an aircraft type rather comprehensively. I've been fooled a few times. So, while it doesn't really look like a 777-200ER in the video, it could still have been one in front of the camera.

The IR video looks very much 777-esque, no doubt there.

Thank you. I've wondered as to how glare might make all parts (fuselage, wings, stabilizer) look wider than they actually are.

 

[PublicStranger]

It's not the correct aircraft though. The Malaysian one was a -200ER, this one's a -200LR (the wing tips give it away - they're swept farther back than the rest of the wing. These are so-called "raked wing tips" which are only to be found on -200F, -200LR and -300ER in the 777 family)

The 200ER model has been available for modded download since 2008ish on various sim websites.

It wouldn't even have to be Malaysian airlines I guess, as long as its the same model.

Various stills from that video of the cloud formation and contrails.

Depending on the youtubers' computer specs from that video in 2014 I could imagine you get them even more realistic with some decent hardware from that era.

 

[cptreynolds]

The 200ER model has been available for modded download since 2008ish on various sim websites.

It wouldn't even have to be Malaysian airlines I guess, as long as its the same model.

Various stills from that video of the cloud formation and contrails.

Depending on the you youtubers' computer specs from that video in 2014 I could imagine you get them even more realistic with some decent hardware from that era.

What I'm saying is these pictures show a 777-200LR, but we need a -200ER.

The -200ER would have slightly shorter wings, no fancy back-swept wing tips, and smaller engines.

 

[PublicStranger]

What I'm saying is these pictures show a 777-200LR, but we need a -200ER.

The -200ER would have slightly shorter wings, no fancy back-swept wing tips, and smaller engines.

Yeah I know . I just meant the 200ER was also available as a video game plane model since 2008, so if the video is indeed a hoax it is possible to have it inserted in some kind of flight simulator and then refilmed off a screen with some edits.

 

[RobertBillyBob]

At the start of the thermal video it looks like the camera is under the wing of a "Reaper"-like drone, but from what I've seen that's not where the camera should be. In every picture I've found the camera is under the "head" of the drone. Does anybody know if there really is a drone with a thermal camera under the wings?

 

[Max Phalange]

The time of 02:22 was for the last primary radar contact that was NEAR the location of the supposed satellite video. That time is LOCAL time.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malay...ile:MH370_flight_path_with_English_labels.png

The UTC+05:30 is the offset for the selected location.

What I’m saying is that we agree the last contact was at 02:22 MYT, but I think you’ve calculated the Moon’s position at 02:22 IST, which is 2.5 hours after the aircraft was in that location.

Either way, the moon was below the horizon when MH370 showed up.

 

[Domzh]

MH370 on Microsoft flight x 2014. The clouds and contrails bear an uncanny resemblance



Bit of a side-point but it's crazy how much progress has been made with simulations and video games alike in the space of 9 years. Remarkable.

In FSX you can even import a model of a predator drone, which allegedly took the video.

Based on a forum discussion you should have a bottom mounted camera view.

you can find the model here (link opens a website with several 3d models for fsx):

https://simviation.com/1/search?submit=1&keywords=predator&x=14&y=14

 

[Domzh]

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):

Left: Original, Right: Mine.

Now, here's both versions by using "Difference" as layer style:

And finally, as a 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.

isnt it already enough smoking gun evidence to proof it a fake that the shadows are not changing their angle?

the flash is bright enough to outshine the sun, yet no new shadows are seen.

the portal is closer than the sun, its impossible to have the same angle on all clouds it illuminates.

 

[PublicStranger]

In FSX you can even import a model of a predator drone, which allegedly took the video.

Based on a forum discussion you should have a bottom mounted camera view.

you can find the model here (link opens a website with several 3d models for fsx):

https://simviation.com/1/search?submit=1&keywords=predator&x=14&y=14

Very interesting, looking forward to giving this a go.

 

[slavishcrusader]

It's a definitive fake.
The fact that NROL-22 and its payloads can't even capture an image in visible light spectrum, let alone a video of cinematographic quality is proof enough for me.
Whoever made this fake, did a masterful work by mixing it with some elements of truth. And thus it's fooling thousands of people.
It's also attracting the nastiest breed of people(the kind which calls you glowie when you disagree with them lol).

 

[Sid]

It's a definitive fake.
The fact that NROL-22 and its payloads can't even capture an image in visible light spectrum, let alone a video of cinematographic quality is proof enough for me.
Whoever made this fake, did a masterful work by mixing it with some elements of truth. And thus it's fooling thousands of people.
It's also attracting the nastiest breed of people(the kind which calls you glowie when you disagree with them lol).

It's very interesting how it really skirts the line of believability in a particular way. If you don't dig too deep and you're willing to believe, it lines up roughly: NROL 22 is a military recon satellite *kinda* nearby at the time, and the coordinates are around where it could have been. Obviously, at the time it was made, there was not a single trace of the plane, so it being zapped explains why the search can't find anything. It's actually kind of ingenious.

Of course, when you put more thought into it and piece things together, you can see the holes. NROL 22 wasn't in the right place at the exact right times, and isn't some omnipotent reconnaissance asset. The plane couldn't have been at those coordinates at that time, because we have the inmarsat data combined with the captain's flight simulator as an indication of his direction, and we know it wasn't zapped because we've found bits of debris. But all these things are close enough that if you want to believe, you can and it feels ever so close to being true.

 

[RobertBillyBob]

Concerning the "stereoscopic 3D" claim of the satellite images, if you unskew the image on the right and compute the difference with the left side you get a very small difference. It looks like there's not much more than compression noise.



Compare to what you get with real images ( from Stereoscopic view of clouds from NASA on youtube)


You can't get a good matching between the two sides because the different viewing angles differences in the cloud masses perceived shapes.

 

[Der Ungrund]

There's a debunk of this video causing a stir on reddit right now from user u/kcimc. Short version: He noticed that the cursor in the video's UI is drifting unnaturally smooth at one point, which he argues is due to messing up the keyframing of an animation in a VFX editor:

But the big thing to notice is how smoothly the cursor is drifting. I estimate the cursor moves 17px in 214 frames, that's 0.08 pixels per frame. While many modern pointing interfaces track user input with subpixel precision, I am unaware of any UI that displays cursors with subpixel precision. Even if we assume this screen recording is downsampled from a very large 4K screen, and we multiply the distance by 5x, that's still 0.4 pixels per frame.

This is exactly what it looks like when you are creating VFX, and keyframe an animation, and accidentally delete one keyframe that would have kept an object in place—causing a slow drift instead of a quick jump.

This cursor drift has convinced me more than anything that the entire satellite video is VFX.

While I follow the argument here, I mostly have to take it on faith that what he's saying is indicative of VFX editors. Is anyone here able to confirm?