Help to debunk: 737 flies backward

[Sunsignature]

Hi everyone!

Well, it turns out that I was researching the "frozen planes" (a theory that, for some strange reason, claims that airplanes "freeze" in midair, usually related to UFOs, chemtrails, or simulation theory). Regardless of the ridiculous implications of the theory, and I found videos that offer satisfactory explanations to practically all the claims of airplanes floating still in the air, except one which I cannot explain...

This is the video, approximately at 0:18:
Source: https://youtu.be/OFEsi17UPxs


In it, a commercial aircraft not only stops in the air, but also flies backward before continuing with its trajectory.

I don't have much idea what's going on here. The skeptical channel "plane analyst" approached it in one of the videos, but the explanation was a bit incomplete in my opinion (or I didn't understand ir at all, I'm not an English speaker). basically (from what I could understand) he said it's an effect of camera shake, which is true; however, at the indicated timestamp, the camera movement does not appear to be pronounced enough to justify the plane's trajectory.
Obviously, there is always the option that it is a forgery; however, I do try to consider other options before that...

What am I missing? Have someone any ideas of what happened here or can explain it?

 

[deirdre]

how come in the beginning(right) he has a plane in focus but when he moves actually closer to the plane (left) suddenly the plane is tiny and nothing but a blur?

 

[Sunsignature]

how come in the beginning(right) he has a plane in focus but when he moves actually closer to the plane (left) suddenly the plane is tiny and nothing but a blur?

View attachment 48838

Hmm, interesting observation. I have to confess that originally the fact that the plane was blurry was doubtful to me, but I considered the possibility that it was a problem of focus with respect to the nearby tree and the distant plane(although as you well emphasize, at first both the nearby lamppost and the distant plane are well focused) or the window of the car. I also thought (even though I don't have much of an idea about film or editing) that the contrast of the blue sky can make editing easier...

Unfortunately with the poor quality of focus on the plane, it is difficult to analyze things like perspective change and so on.
Another thing that is strange to me, although it could just be a sudden movement of the camera, is that after the first focus, the plane seems to just disappear...

In any case, as is to be expected from conspiracy theorists, the data on the event are very scarce, almost nil. If this were really an honest post, I would have expected exact date, time and location data, as well as flight and trajectory data (easily obtainable via flightradar24). Even with a bit of luck and having the last two pieces of information, passengers, pilots and even an air traffic controller could be interviewed for any anomaly, provided they agree.

However, we only have this video, with an interesting anomaly, as you point out.

Could we say that with these conditions, the most probable option seems to be favorable for a forgery?

Anyway, thanks for the reply. I'll try to keep watching for any other anomalies

 

[Mick West]

He's in a moving car, the camera locks onto the trees, and parallax causes the motion illusion. It's like the "tic-tac behind trees" illusion.


Source: https://youtu.be/cThB1zfynHQ?t=62



From:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ex...c-ufos-moving-erratically-behind-trees.11556/

 

[Bdoserror]

He's in a moving car, the camera locks onto the trees, and parallax causes the motion illusion. It's like the "tic-tac behind trees" illusion.

That's not entirely true. After about 24s he is parked and you can see the trees and lamp post in the foreground don't move as much.

Personally the atfacting around the plane (and its sudden blurriness as you pointed out) makes me think video edit.

 

[Mendel]

After about 24s he is parked and you can see the trees and lamp post in the foreground don't move as much.

Disagree, the twigs moving up in the frame means the car is driving towards the trees (and the lamppost goes out of shot). I expect the driver is moving down the parking lot before turning left and finally stopping.

If this is near an airport, it's an easy observation to repeat.

 

[deirdre]

It's like the "tic-tac behind trees" illusion.

you should re-embed that video with "copy url at current time" 1:00..people wont watch that first minute since it has nothing to do with this thread topic.

 

[deirdre]

makes me think video edit.

watch Micks video from the 1 minute mark. that guy is standing still too.

 

[FatPhil]

Disagree, the twigs moving up in the frame means the car is driving towards the trees (and the lamppost goes out of shot). I expect the driver is moving down the parking lot before turning left and finally stopping.

If this is near an airport, it's an easy observation to repeat.

Agree - when he first talking, at about 21-24s into the video, the tree's twigs are clearly moving in front of and to the right relative to the lampost, which implies he's still moving forwards, which means the plane, relative to both the lamppost and the twigs, will move backwards. Of course, perhaps the tree's walking to the right instead, and it's not actually a tree it's a Doctor Who monster from the early 70s.

Beware the claws of the parallaxons!

 

[Rory]

He must have done it on purpose. He seems to know exactly what he's doing and to have set it up perfectly.

 

[deirdre]

when he first talking, at about 21-24s into the video, the tree's twigs are clearly moving in front of and to the right relative to the lampost, which implies he's still moving forwards,

i'm not following this. i see no indication he is moving at that point. are you talking about the zoom on the camera?

 

[Mendel]

at about 21-24s into the video, the tree's twigs are clearly moving in front of and to the right relative to the lampost, which implies he's still moving forwards

 

[JMartJr]

Disagree, the twigs moving up in the frame means the car is driving towards the trees (and the lamppost goes out of shot). I expect the driver is moving down the parking lot before turning left and finally stopping.

If this is near an airport, it's an easy observation to repeat.

Maybe, but I'm not seeing it -- it looks more like zoom and camera movement all over the place to me. Not saying you are wrong, just that I don't see what you are seeing. IF it is zoom rather than camera "dolly" as the car drives towards the plane, could zoom have the same effect? My gut says "no," but my gut is not always a reliable guide.

By the way, I always get a little suspicious when there is THAT much camera movement, which is easy to add in post and is handy for hiding those little issues that sometimes crop up when messing with a video... that's not probative, of course, but it raises my suspiciosness level.

 

[deirdre]

could zoom have the same effect? My gut says "no," but my gut is not always a reliable guide.

Micks video explains and demonstrates it in post #4, skip to the one minute mark. i just asked him if he took that footage at one minute to demonstrate and he said yes, so he is making it happen and explaining what he is doing. (basically he says digital camera zoom and slight camera movement does it. he also said he's gonna make a new video where he also films himself doing it so we can actually see what the camera person is doing...COMING SOON to a forum near you)

 

[Mick West]

Very little motion is needed, even with relatively distant trees (if you zoom in).

 

[Mendel]

IF it is zoom rather than camera "dolly" as the car drives towards the plane, could zoom have the same effect? My gut says "no," but my gut is not always a reliable guide.

Zoom can not change what the camera sees (beyond restricting the field of view); that only happens in Hollywood movies (Bladerunner is notorious for that). Zoom can only magnify (and possibly add a small amount of distortion).
To change the relative placement of objects in the frame, the camera must be moving.

 

[FatPhil]

i'm not following this. i see no indication he is moving at that point. are you talking about the zoom on the camera?

In the frames @Mendel's captured, you can see several recognisable branch ends next to the lamp pole, but they've all moved right a bit, such that the rightmost one is almost completely obfuscated in the second frame, just its tip remains. There's a lot of jiggling and fiddling that obscures things generally, so it's not immediately obvious, but I have no doubt the camera is still moving to the left at that point, even though he initially seemed to have come to a full stop.

 

[Ravi]

Zoom can not change what the camera sees (beyond restricting the field of view); that only happens in Hollywood movies (Bladerunner is notorious for that). Zoom can only magnify (and possibly add a small amount of distortion).
To change the relative placement of objects in the frame, the camera must be moving.

Perhaps we see a combination, like the "zolly" (zoom and dolly together).

 

[deirdre]

several recognisable branch ends next to the lamp pole, but they've all moved right a bit,

that's like an incredibly minute "bit". esp when you factor that spaces get bigger as you zoom in.
and trees do sway at times. plus im sure he's not a statue in his seat.

not that it matters if you think the car itself is still moving forward at 21 secs. it's ok if we disagree.

 

[Sunsignature]

He's in a moving car, the camera locks onto the trees, and parallax causes the motion illusion. It's like the "tic-tac behind trees" illusion.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cThB1zfynHQ


From:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ex...c-ufos-moving-erratically-behind-trees.11556/

I must confess that, from my point of view, Mick's video on the "tic-tac effect" is too similar to the effect seen in the video in this thread. Also, even that tic-tac effect is much more pronounced than the effect seen on the plane, so the required camera shake is likely to be smoother.

In fact, I originally thought that there was practically no change in perspective was an indication that the subject had not moved at all.
However, in another comment, Mick mentions that it takes a very small movement to achieve this.

Next, I take two screenshots: one at 0:19 (while the plane is flying relatively normal) and another at 0:23 (where the plane is flying erratically, and one of the last moments when we can see the streetlight on the right ). I didn't stretch any of the images, I just made them bigger or smaller trying to overlap one another, and I cannot overlap them. It may be due to other causes, but for me it is an indication that there was indeed a change in perspective, so the guy moved even slightly in those ~4 seconds:

In addition, when superimposing the lamppost in the two captures, note that in one the branches of the tree are observed on the left, while in the other not, proofing Mendel's point...

Edit: misspeling

 

[Edward Current]

Also, these are two different planes. He "accidentally" loses a receding plane and then "re-acquires" an approaching one. Wow, it went backwards a long way in that short time. As Rory said, it seems to be a setup, including the NWO plug at the end because he just couldn't resist.

 

[Mendel]

Also, these are two different planes. He "accidentally" loses a receding plane and then "re-acquires" an approaching one. Wow, it went backwards a long way in that short time.

I'm not quite convinced. It seems to me there's only 1 aircraft, it is indeed receding because it's in a left turn away from the camera (look closely at the tail), and the difference in size is due to zoom: in your first shot, the camera is much farther away from the lantern than in the second shot, but the second shot is more zoomed out, so that the lanterns appear the same size ("zolly"), but the aircraft is smaller due to the magnification change.

As Rory said, it seems to be a setup,

It looks to me that the aircraft is taking off (from a nearby airport), so that'd be a repeating occurence (as noted in post #6), which helps setting this up.
If we had the place, this'd be easy to confirm, but as usual, both place and time are missing from the observation.

 

[Sunsignature]

If we had the place, this'd be easy to confirm, but as usual, both place and time are missing from the observation.

The owner of the channel responded to one of the comments that asked about the place, to which he replied "Albany NY", but nothing more...

 

[NorCal Dave]

The owner of the channel responded to one of the comments that asked about the place, to which he replied "Albany NY", but nothing more...

If we look around Albany NY, we can find similar lights:

And here is where this light is in relation to the airport and planes possibly arriving and departing:

Not saying this is where the video was taken, but it's a start.

 

[Mick West]

There's a Sunco gas station in the background. Like this:

I had a brief poke around, but could not find a matching one. Based on the shadows I think he's facing roughly west. There's a sign that seems to say "Plaza" and a list of stores/businesses

 

[deirdre]

it's here. .. im a dunkin donuts addict.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.818...4!1sji8Dm1Rzgf5Zl3ZROWWDSQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

our trees from the flip side

 

[NorCal Dave]

I was going to say there is clearly a bus stop and our parking runs perpendicular to it, but seems deirdre found it while I was looking around.

 

[Mick West]

it's here. .. im a dunkin donuts addict.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.818...4!1sji8Dm1Rzgf5Zl3ZROWWDSQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Nice.
I spend too much time staring at this sign in the video trying to figure out what it said under "Plaza". Turns out it's just a bunch of squares

So looking West, with probably a northerly departure from ALB

 

[Easy Muffin]

Nice.
I spend too much time staring at this sign in the video trying to figure out what it said under "Plaza". Turns out it's just a bunch of squares

First off, I'm not sure if this thread is the best place to put this, it might be better suited as a new thread in the Tools section for example? I reckon it depends on how helpful you lot think this is.

Anyway, since you've been busy geolocating in here I thought I'd point out the Overpass API which lets you query OSM data in a variety of ways. It heavily depends on the quality of the data but if you search in well-covered areas then this is a very powerful tool indeed. It can save you literally hours over manual searching.

It's available via https://overpass-turbo.eu

Unfortunately the script language may take some reading and practice. The OpenStreetMap Wiki is a good place to start - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Overpass_API

For searchable items look around here - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tags

What's probably the most powerful function for geolocating is its ability to chain clauses so that you can rule out an increasing number of possible locations as you add more things you see in the picture(s) you're trying to locate.

As an example, this is what happens when you drag the map to Albany and query for anything that has the name 'Plaza' in it.

way
  [name~"Plaza"]({{bbox}});(._;>;);
out;

Too many results to do much with it yet, so narrow them down to show only those that are also within 200 metres of a bus stop.

way
  [name~"Plaza"]({{bbox}});(._;>;);
    node(around:200)
        [highway=bus_stop];
out;

Starting to look better.
Some more refining returns this:

way
  [name~"Plaza"]({{bbox}});(._;>;);
    node(around:200)
        [highway=bus_stop][shelter=yes];
    way(around:25)
        [amenity=parking][parking=surface];(._;>;);
out;

This shows surface parking lots that are within 25 metres of a sheltered bus stop and also within 200 metres of a 'Plaza'. There are only three results so we are now well within manageable numbers. A few minutes in Google Streetview will most likely confirm one of these. Turns out it's the one northeast of the airport.
This can at first all feel rather clunky but once you're comfortable with the scripting and you know how to best utilise the different search items then you can quite often pinpoint these kind of pictures in a matter of minutes.

 

[jarlrmai]

Anyway, since you've been busy geolocating in here I thought I'd point out the Overpass API which lets you query OSM data in a variety of ways. It heavily depends on the quality of the data but if you search in well-covered areas then this is a very powerful tool indeed. It can save you literally hours over manual searching.

It's available via https://overpass-turbo.eu

This is incredibly useful stuff, thanks. Should certainly be added to the tools thread.

I'm wondering if there are any cold cases this could be applied to..

 

[Mick West]

Anyway, since you've been busy geolocating in here I thought I'd point out the Overpass API which lets you query OSM data in a variety of ways. It heavily depends on the quality of the data but if you search in well-covered areas then this is a very powerful tool indeed. It can save you literally hours over manual searching.

That's great! I've started a new thread in the tools section with some minor edits to a copy of your post:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/geolocation-with-the-overpass-api.12213/

 

[deirdre]

I spend too much time staring at this sign in the video trying to figure out what it said under "Plaza"

i did that too for a while. I didn't even try to look on the map, until you said Sunoco. In the northeast, Plazas with dunkin donuts nearby are as common in the suburbs as trees (and faux old fashion street lights) in parking lots.

and none of my screengrabs had the Sunoco colors showing. took me the longest to figure out where you thought you were seeing a Sunoco.


and because @NorCal Dave actually watched the video all the way to the end and posted his pic, i can easily see that the camera car was indeed continuing to move left after it looked like he had stopped. (that pink thing i drew is the camera car)

 

[Mendel]

View attachment 48878

This actually shows the parallax effect really well: if you pay attention to the big house, it appears to move left a lot, and that same effect would make the aircraft appear to move backwards. The house obviously didn't actually move that way, and neither did the aircraft.

 

[deirdre]

@Mick West am i right to assume too that his guy had a proper camera all ready to go (vs a cell phone) ..based on how squished the sunoco sign and plaza sign are in the vid? "squished" as in perspective shortening? is that the term?

can cell phones zoom that much?

 

[jarlrmai]

What timestamp is the Plaza sign readable?

 

[NorCal Dave]

Here's a screen grab from one of his other videos making the same anti-gravity claim. He seems to be filming in this same area? This plane looks like it's maybe on approach, but I would assume, if it's like the Sacramento airport, some days planes take off to the North and land to the South and then reverse on other days depending upon weather.

I can't really tell if he knows all about parallax and therefore makes these as hoaxes? If this is the same area it would suggest he knows how to film from here to get the effect he wants.

Or, he really is paranoid about what he thinks are secret government flights, and therefore films a lot of them, maybe while hanging out at the Dunkin. Then he stumbles upon what he really thinks are anti-gravity planes because he doesn't understand parallax. His channel is full of Chem-trails and secret flights.

What I don't know, maybe other do, does the camera and zooming exaggerate the parallax? Would the plane appear to stop and reverse to the naked eye while driving around the parking lot? I'll definitely take a camera with me next trip to the airport.

EDIT:
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhZxVnCu3S8

 

[deirdre]

What timestamp is the Plaza sign readable?

Mick likely has fancier graphic cards and capabilities. (i only knew it was a plaza because thats what plaza signs look like.) my computer doesnt do HD apparently.

look at the 8 second mark. ??
and use > < keys to go frame by frame. thats when i could almost read the sign (although i thought maybe that one store said TJ Maxx.. i was way off) 8 secs in frame by frame is also when you can finally see the Sunoco colors.

 

[deirdre]

Would the plane appear to stop and reverse to the naked eye while driving around the parking lot?

no, i don't think so. ive never seen a moving thing, stop and reverse with my eyes. even if we put a box around our eyes (like blinders on a horse) to restrict the view, i think our brains would override and visual that might be there ie. our brain knows we are moving. add: and where we are in space "spatial awareness"

it would be an interesting addition to that Brain Games show, where they show us all other examples of how our brains override our vision.

 

[Mendel]

What I don't know, maybe other do, does the camera and zooming exaggerate the parallax? Would the plane appear to stop and reverse to the naked eye while driving around the parking lot? I'll definitely take a camera with me next trip to the airport.

Mars appearing to move in retrograde is an astronomical example of the same effect. It doesn't matter what you use to look at it.

I think this footage is helped by this: you can't really judge the distance to the aircraft, and the background is uniformly blue. The shaking and zooming serves to disguise the true motion of the observer.

 

[jarlrmai]

You can be tricked when walking or moving your head by a stationary light and moving or distant one in a dark sky, say a streetlight and a plane. You just need a lack of reference points and you can see movement that isn't there.