Alleged Flight MH370 UFO Teleportation Videos [Hoax]

[Skartyss1101]

Regarding the thermal footage, has anyone offered an explanation as to why the dark orb trails consistently appear in front of the plane, when they should follow behind it like the orbs do as they circle? This can be clearly seen in the stabilized footage and is present in the original video, as well. It could be an overlooked tell of VFX work.

 

[Mendel]

what cut are you referring to?

my mistake, I think some people misremembered the zoom at the start for a cut, and I didn't check. Sorry.

 

[cptreynolds]

I think this is reasonably definitive that there's some kind of compositing error going on. I replicated the stabilization with a slightly wider view and the shaking is very apparent.

At what point could one call it debunked? This very much makes it not real footage, regardless of the rest of the content, right? There isn't any avenue to explain that shake in real footage, is there?

 

[Ravi]

At what point could one call it debunked? This very much makes it not real footage, regardless of the rest of the content, right? There isn't any avenue to explain that shake in real footage, is there?

No.

 

[Max Phalange]

There isn't any avenue to explain that shake in real footage, is there?

In the land of rational people, you could, if the helixes from the "orbs" were also jittering relative to the aircraft, maybe make an argument about the video codec paying less attention to low contrast areas of the image. But they're rock steady with the aircraft model, while having even less contrast than the airplane contrail.

In reddit world the counterargument seems to be that it's an unspecified "image artifact" or that in the unstabilized footage both the aircraft and the contrails are both shaking, therefore it's fine. Obviously this misses the point entirely.

 

[Sid]

Anyone visited the /ufos sub on reddit lately? It is rather amusing how they seem to trip over each other calling all this proof that aliens took the plane.
Now, I know reddit is the floor drain in terms of realism, but this is all getting silly, as some even try to link it to Grusch..

I regularly check in on the subreddit because I think it's good to keep abreast of the new developments in ufology, and also cos I'm fascinated by... I guess the sociology of believers. Like how you see stuff like Dulce base or MJ-12 come up time after time, long after we know the provenance behind them. It's interesting to me to see how these things are processed, how fresh videos are responded to, etc etc. There's so much fascinating stuff about how they interact with these new events that makes it well worth looking at from my perspective.

I haven't done it in a while because just seeing them all sprinting head first at this video was just a little too depressing. Like I'm well aware that the defining trait of the ufo community is they do not learn lessons, but there's only so many times you can see people trying to come up with really stupid scenarios where theoretically some obviously nonsense detail can be explained away before it just gets too much to look at.

 

[tobigtofool]

How does shaking prove its fake? Can someone re-create a video with shaking to break down what that means?

Nothing said about it makes any sense to me whatsoever.

 

[Ravi]

How does shaking prove its fake? Can someone re-create a video with shaking to break down what that means?

Nothing said about it makes any sense to me whatsoever.

If a camera shakes, the whole scene it is recording will be shaky. This means, if some parts in the scene are not (plane), but the contrail is, then it cannot be real.

 

[RobertBillyBob]

At what point could one call it debunked? This very much makes it not real footage, regardless of the rest of the content, right? There isn't any avenue to explain that shake in real footage, is there?

That's obviously a side effect of the creation of the transdimensional portal.

 

[tobigtofool]

If a camera shakes, the whole scene it is recording will be shaky. This means, if some parts in the scene are not (plane), but the contrail is, then it cannot be real.

So what happens? What events take place during compositing where this mistake is made by the videopgraher?

Do they add jitter to the contrails? did they add the jittering before they added the contrails?

Is the plane footage real, the contrails are fake?

What is the like, "if this is jittering this way, this is likely the process that was applied:"

Would be nice to demonstrate this by recreating it if it's VFX it should be relatively easy to.

Finding footage to use as a counter example would be nice, but I dont know how exactly, Im going to look through airshow footage or something and try to stabilize it and see.

 

[Ravi]

So what happens? What events take place during "compositing" where this mistake is made by the videopgraher?

Overlaying a plane on the existing footage.

 

[tobigtofool]

Overlaying a plane on the existing footage.

can you try to describe it using a process that someone could follow.

CGI plane, over shaking footage of real contrails?

 

[OwnTheNight]

That's obviously a side effect of the creation of the transdimensional portal.

Just a mild case of gravitational lensing

 

[tobigtofool]

I wonder what the artist was thinking when they were like, "I'm going to use a position of the camera that is not on virtually any picture of drones if you google them, Im going to make it a wing modification mod."

And im going to render it super low poly.

It just doesn't make logical sense.

 

[Ravi]

It just doesn't make logical sense.

It does not make sense that a hoaxer might want to go big lengths to try to convince you? You do realise it is 2023 I hope..

 

[Mendel]

can you try to describe it using a process that someone could follow.

CGI plane, over shaking footage of real contrails?

How to make a hoax
1. take existing footage of an aircraft flying a turn
2. track the aircraft in your video editor
3. replace old aircraft with new aircraft+UFO orbs using the track

If step 2 is not 100% perfect, the tracking will be off: the new plane doesn't move exactly like the old plane did. You can see this tracking error because the old contrail seems no longer "attached" to the new aircraft, it shakes. (Or rather, the aircraft shakes, but if you stabilize on the aircraft, everything else appears to shake.)

In real footage, the contrail doesn't do that: it appears "fixed" to the aircraft.

 

[JAFO]

So what happens? What events take place during compositing where this mistake is made by the videopgraher?

Do they add jitter to the contrails? did they add the jittering before they added the contrails?

Is the plane footage real, the contrails are fake?

What is the like, "if this is jittering this way, this is likely the process that was applied:"

Would be nice to demonstrate this by recreating it if it's VFX it should be relatively easy to.

Finding footage to use as a counter example would be nice, but I dont know how exactly, Im going to look through airshow footage or something and try to stabilize it and see.

Notice how the plane and the contrails bounce around together?

 

[deirdre]

It does not make sense that a hoaxer might want to go big lengths to try to convince you? You do realise it is 2023 I hope..

We dont know if the original uploader was trying to hoax anyone.

 

[Mendel]

Finding footage to use as a counter example would be nice, but I dont know how exactly, Im going to look through airshow footage or something and try to stabilize it and see.

That would work.
Look for "contrail spotting" on youtube.

 

[deirdre]

CGI plane, over shaking footage of real contrails?

yes.

 

[tobigtofool]

Notice how the plane and the contrails bounce around together?

I would rather someone show how this effect was created in CGI.

What is going on here?

CGI plane, over fake contrails?

CGI contrails, CGI plane, done separately, composited together?

That's what makes no sense to me. If the plane is real, it should shake, but the contrails should be smooth.

If the contrails are real, and the plane is fake, i don't see how that makes any sense.

If they're both fake they should have the same shaking, unless the author is like, incredibly detail oriented except for something so basic?

It just seems, like not a smoking gun to me, a potential flaw worth proving, but not like "ok wrap it up!"

(the pieces of wreckage, and the antennas that dont appear on the thermo plane, that is more convincing to me)

That would work.
Look for "contrail spotting" on youtube.

Thanks! I wonder if any one does thermo telescopic coverage of airshow.

Are the contrails on the orbs not shaking, but the contrails on the jet are?

would seem logical that if they are all CG (the orbs that is, including their contrails) they should not be shaking, the same as the plane?

And that should mean the orbs would shake, or not shake as well?

yes.

How does that make sense though? like they comped out the real plane, and then put a fake one in that matches the same contrails?

Is it possible there could be artifacts from the thermo optics rendering color instead of what it is seeing?

 

[jarlrmai]

I think what I want is someoen using a telephoto lense really far away, filming a jet with contrails, but also that camera has to be shaking a lot.

You've seen JAFOs post right?

 

[jarlrmai]

Is it possible there could be artifacts from the thermo optics rendering color instead of what it is seeing?

At the point where you are just saying things like this, you need to be doing the research.

 

[FastIndy]

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?

MQ-9s have been seen with other pods under their wings. Look for things like "Gorgon Stare".
https://theaviationist.com/2015/04/05/gorgon-stare-increment-2-kaf/

 

[tobigtofool]

At the point where you are just saying things like this, you need to be doing the research.

Thanks, Im creating a task list. Asking questions is never wrong.

MQ-9s have been seen with other pods under their wings. Look for things like "Gorgon Stare".
https://theaviationist.com/2015/04/05/gorgon-stare-increment-2-kaf/

This is what I find interesting, if you're going to make a fake, why start off with such a rarely known thing about drones?

Every picture of a drone everywhere, every diagram, shows the camera on the hull, the only pic I have seen of them not was supplied ITT

Like, perhaps the artist was like, "I dont care if there are no cameras here, I want it to seem like this was taken from an Mq9 drone at a glance"

Yet went through so much trouble elsewhere to make it convincing? It seems strange, but people are strange!

 

[deirdre]

I would rather someone show how this effect was created in CGI.

embedded at end so you can see result. then the whole video shows you how its done.

the plane is fake.

2014

Source: https://youtu.be/pfUHL0AMAhI?t=3023

 

[Mendel]

Thanks! I wonder if any one does thermo telescopic coverage of airshow.

Are the contrails on the orbs not shaking, but the contrails on the jet are?

And that should mean the orbs would shake, or not shake as well?

It doesn't matter if its thermal video or not, the objects are where you see them.
Thermal cameras are not magic, they just show another type of light. (Some animals might be able to see it.)

How to make a hoax
1. take existing footage of an aircraft flying a turn
2. track the aircraft in your video editor
3. replace old aircraft with new aircraft+UFO orbs using the track

If step 2 is not 100% perfect, the tracking will be off: the new plane doesn't move exactly like the old plane did. You can see this tracking error because the old contrail seems no longer "attached" to the new aircraft, it shakes. (Or rather, the aircraft shakes, but if you stabilize on the aircraft, everything else appears to shake.)

In real footage, the contrail doesn't do that: it appears "fixed" to the aircraft.

The orbs are fake and move with the fake aircraft. The contrail is real and belongs to a real aircraft that's obscured by the fake aircraft that was added on top of it.

The orbs don't have contrails.

 

[tobigtofool]

It doesn't matter if its thermal video or not, the objects are where you see them.

Does a thermo camera do any compression? does it procsess footage in any way? What artifacts do thermo cameras produce?

The orbs don't have contrails.

They have those spirally purple contrails, that at some point start moving forward, rather than from behind them (which is crazy and seems to me like the artist must have been like, "this will seem cool and alien!")

 

[Mendel]

Does a thermo camera do any compression? does it procsess footage in any way? What artifacts do thermo cameras produce?

It's no different from a normal camera.

 

[tobigtofool]

It's no different from a normal camera.

Dont digital cameras can create artifacts, like the triangle that that corbel guy that was real.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US20140184805A1/en

 

[jarlrmai]

digital cameras can create artifacts, like the triangle that that corbel guy was so stoked on.

https://www.flir.com/support-center...librating-to-reduce-horizontal-line-artifact/

That artifact is a physical artifact of the aperture not a digital camera artifact it would happen if it were a film camera.

Go and do some research, learn about cameras then apply that knowledge to these situations.

 

[Mendel]

That artifact is a physical artifact of the aperture not a digital camera artifact it would happen if it were a film camera.

Go and do some research, learn about cameras then apply that knowledge to these situations.

He's just fishing for excuses for it not to be fake.

 

[tobigtofool]

He's just fishing for excuses for it not to be fake.

Classic metabunk.

No I am just not like, "welp wrap it up, those dont match and I know how everything works!"

I'll wait till they show up before i say this isnt fake.

I just told you its like the big foot video yesterday.

The low poly thing is not convincing.

The jitter was discovered this morning.

Seems like jumping the gun to me.

The thing that really makes this seem fake is the wreckage and the antennas not appearing on the thermo video.

Those are plenty. But if you cant convince me how it was created in CGI dont get mad i dont believe you that you think it was.

The current theory of using real contrails and a fake reaper drone and fake plane, is far from logical.

 

[jarlrmai]

He's just fishing for excuses for it not to be fake.

Oh I know but maybe people can learn things, half of the questions have already been addressed in thread, but now there's a fairly solid debunk, they need to ask them all over again.

 

[tobigtofool]

Oh I know but maybe people can learn things, half of the questions have already been addressed in thread, but now there's a fairly solid debunk, they need to ask them all over again.

I find people that jump to conclusions to be wrong more often than not. Im just slower to be convinced, sorry but I am not sorry.

Right now the theory is "real contrails, fake plane"

That is insane to me.

 

[Mendel]

The current theory of using real contrails and a fake reaper drone and fake plane, is far from logical.

What is not logical about it? To me, it looks like a low-effort method to create a good-looking hoax.

have you seen my list of the 3 steps it takes?

 

[jarlrmai]

Classic metabunk. 14 pages of guesswork and getting mad at people unconvinced.

No I am just not like, "welp wrap it up, those dont match and I know how everything works!"

I'll wait till they show up before i say this isnt fake.

I just told you its like the big foot video yesterday.

It's clear you either don't understands the debunk, of this nor the green triangle example you used.

They've been explained, the questions you are asking don't even relate to the debunk posited, you asked questions that have been answered, in direct quotes to you in posts posted a few minutes before you asked them again.

Never mind, that in the reality of epistemology it should be the other way around, i.e. someone who thinks it is real needs to demonstrate why it's real because it has no provenance and we know that that UFO videos are quote often faked, where as we have no actual other aircraft knowingly abducted by UFOs. So start there and let us ask you the questions.

 

[tobigtofool]

What is not logical about it? To me, it looks like a low-effort method to create a good-looking hoax.

have you seen my list of the 3 steps it takes?

Have you ever created a CGI video? It would make no sense to use a fake plane and real contrails in any scenario.

It'd be incredibly more difficult to match even the general path of that plane with CGI aniamtion let alone the same contrail shapes, and rotations.

What even woudl be the purposue of comping out the plane? Why not use the real plane?

It would be far more realistic to use a fake plane, and fake contrails, or at best a real plane, and fake contrails.

 

[Cogg84]

Have you ever created a CGI video? It would make no sense to use a fake plane and real contrails in any scenario.

It'd be incredibly more difficult to match even the general path of that plane with CGI aniamtion let alone the same contrail shapes, and rotations.

What even woudl be the purposue of comping out the plane? Why not use the real plane?

It would be far more realistic to use a fake plane, and fake contrails, or at best a real plane, and fake contrails.

I’m guessing the real plane wasn’t the same model of MH370. That’s why you would use a different plane over real footage.

 

[tobigtofool]

I’m guessing the real plane wasn’t the same model of MH370. That’s why you would use a different plane over real footage.

Neither is this plane, it's missing the antennas.

it was a plane that had engines in the same spots as a MH370, but, was so different other ways, it had to be swapped out?

You'd need a plane that was almost identical. Which would make it be extremely strange.

Contrails would be far easier to create in CGI than the physical animation of an airplane.

There are at least 2 videos totally synced up, if you were matching video of another plane. It'd be beyond difficult (or impossible) to sync them up.

This is why I don't find these arguments about what we're looking at here convincing.

I just don't know enough about the camera, the optics, the sensors, the motion tracking, to not question if it is artifacts still.