Help to debunk: 737 flies backward

[Sunsignature]

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"

That is exactly why I think is only a camera effect.
And even (I know this is subjective) when I watch this video repeatedly on the big screen, I can see what Mendel was referring to that camera shake is quite evident once the type of effect caused here is known. Simply the zoom and the lack of visual references camouflage this movement very well.

Personally, if I had to bet, I'd say this guy purposely shoots these videos to make them look like "anti-gravity planes", but it's a bit puzzling what his motivations would be; Unlike other types of scammers, it doesn't seem to make any financial profit. It could be that he's doing it for entertainment, but man, it's a bunch of videos on his channel, like he really believes in his own BS.

 

[Alexandria Nick]

ive never seen a moving thing, stop and reverse with my eyes.

There's a place that I see "backwards" flying airliners all the time.

This ramp in Alexandria, Virginia is a reliable site for it https://goo.gl/maps/NELvNdRZkzooAuYEA

Aircraft landing from the south at KDCA are going from right to left across the sky here. By this point on the ramp, you've lost most visual reference to anything other than the sky, aircraft, and the light masts. You can't even see the trees. The Streetview camera mast is tall enough to show them, but in a regular car, you can't. You're also going fast enough and turning broad enough that your field of view is moving faster across the sky than the airplane is. At a certain point, the aircraft appears to slow down, pause, and then move from left to right. You can reference it because you see the plane on the left side of a light mast, and then a second later, it is on the right side.

 

[deirdre]

There's a place that I see "backwards" flying airliners all the time.

and you think "that airplane is moving backwards"?

i guess like people not noticing contrails, it is possible that a person wouldn't have ever previously noticed that when you move, so do other things in perspective.

 

[jarlrmai]

and you think "that airplane is moving backwards"?

i guess like people not noticing contrails, it is possible that a person wouldn't have ever previously noticed that when you move, so do other things in perspective.

What we are saying is that a common optical illusion can either legitimately confuse people, or be knowingly exploited to make odd looking videos on YouTube. Or you can know about it and still notice it when you see it and can recognise places where the optical illusion is likely to occur as seems to be the case for Alexandria.

 

[NorCal Dave]

and you think "that airplane is moving backwards"?

I guess that's the crux of it, after seeing something like that, what do you make of it.

Like Alexandria Nick, I now remember a place where planes "appear" to float in air when driving on 505 and/or I80 near Travis Air Force Base (Fairfield CA). The base is home to a lot of BIG C5s and C17s that are constantly coming and going. Depending on how you view them from the interstate, they often look like they're floating in mid air and not moving.

BUT, I know they're not.

 

[deirdre]

What we are saying is that a common optical illusion can either legitimately confuse people, or be knowingly exploited to make odd looking videos on YouTube. Or you can know about it and still notice it when you see it and can recognise places where the optical illusion is likely to occur as seems to be the case for Alexandria.

i see. so when dave asked

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

my answer should have been, technically yea the plane would move from the right side of the pole to the left side in real life with naked eyes. Just like your perspective of buildings move in real life as you move.

got it. my mistake. i misunderstood the context of what Dave was getting at.

 

[deirdre]

he also stopped filming the plane once his girlfriend (or guy friend driver) ran out of driving room because once the car was still the plane flies on.
Obviously the plane could have turned off the anti grav. But the film maker didnt say "ah he must have turned off the anti-grav!"... so i'm going with the uploader knew what he was doing.

 

[JMartJr]

Likely most folks here would know what retrograde motion of Mars (or of anything else) is, but as it happens I have handy a couple of illustrations of the concept that I did for another project. Since they are handy, here they are. Essentially, as Earth, in an inner, faster, orbit overtakes and passes Mars, parallax makes Mars's motion across the background stars seem to stop and for a time to backtrack a bit.

 

[Mick West]

@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?

It is zoomed alot, could be a lot of digital zoom. Phones vary.

 

[Mick West]

What timestamp is the Plaza sign readable?

8s30f, although "readable" is a bit of a stretch - more just "recognizable if you know the types of words mini-malls have in their names". Here it is with the Sunco in the background. I though the boxes spelled out "UNAD" or something, but no.

 

[Mick West]

@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?

Being "squished" isn't really a function of the lens - that's the same with any lense from that position. The zoom just makes everything bigger (and crops the image).

Comparing the wide shot at the end to the maximum zoom that's a 24x zoom, and appears to be optical, so probably not a phone. But he's also a "glitches-in-the-matrix" enthusiast who probably carries a camera around.

It does seem rather convenient though.

 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

I find the fact that this even needs debunking slightly worrying.

 

[Mick West]

I find the fact that this even needs debunking slightly worrying.

It's not that it needs debunking – it's that it needs explaining. It's a fun puzzle.

 

[Mendel]

it's a bunch of videos on his channel, like he really believes in his own BS.

It looks like he tried to get a NWO/UFO channel going, but dropped the project when it wouldn't take off?

The channel's most recent vid I immediately facepalmed over was this:

These jets have freighter versions with no windows, and the cockpit windows are barely visible from that angle. It's either wilful ignorance, or purposely misleading.

 

[deirdre]

huh. it might actually be a matrix glitch spot. this is one of the best UFOs i've seen (granted it's a bit sideways, but still)

and teh same type thing in 2007 (but the snow globe glass is invisible.) and as soon as you move your car it's a different time of day? maybe they stopped to eat in the deli? strange.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.819...BQlFWxXGA!2e0!5s20070801T000000!7i3328!8i1664

 

[JMartJr]

It's not that it needs debunking – it's that it needs explaining. It's a fun puzzle.

Plus we got the Overpass API tool outta it. A clear "win." (Edited to correct tool name.)

 

[Sunsignature]

View attachment 48886
These jets have freighter versions with no windows, and the cockpit windows are barely visible from that angle. It's either wilful ignorance, or purposely misleading.

Indeed, and as some comments on his video also point out, it is a cargo plane. Specifically, a Kallita company aircraft (you can clearly recognize the paint patterns in the attached image).

In addition, the author has a position certainly ridiculous.

Let's assume for a moment that this really is a secret government super drone.
Okay, cool. So, that very secret plane is supposed to land at a common airport (if it were a military base or "area 51", well, that would be a little more believable) and ordinary in front of the views of hundreds and even thousands of people, and of all of them, he and only he would be the one to notice and capture it in a frankly bad and poorly recorded video shot (this even seems to be recorded on purpose).

Come on, it really is impossible to see windows on a tilted, opaque, backlit (cargo) plane. If this were as he says, there would be a lot of people (or he could even do it himself) recording it even from the airport terminals or in surrounding areas, and yet we get this...

Obviously, like all conspiracy theories, it is limited only by the imagination of its proponents, and he could say something like the plane magically "appears" its windows on approach to the airport or some similar nonsense, but we already know that

 

[Edward Current]

Let's assume for a moment that this really is a secret government super drone.
Okay, cool. So, that very secret plane is supposed to land at a common airport (if it were a military base or "area 51", well, that would be a little more believable) and ordinary in front of the views of hundreds and even thousands of people, and of all of them, he and only he would be the one to notice and capture it in a frankly bad and poorly recorded video shot (this even seems to be recorded on purpose).

Come on, it really is impossible to see windows on a tilted, opaque, backlit (cargo) plane. If this were as he says, there would be a lot of people (or he could even do it himself) recording it even from the airport terminals or in surrounding areas, and yet we get this...

The euphoria of feeling special, from having seen/discovered/learned something that others aren't privy to, seems to close the mental pathways that ordinarily lead to reasonable questions like this.

Having cemented a belief in this way, the next step in the process is always to evangelize this discovery/knowledge, often accompanied by an intensive, intellectually dishonest defense of the belief.

 

[Investigator1]

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?

It looks to me like the plane is "banking," which means it is moving mostly sideways - away from the camera, which makes it look like it is stopped. It seems to bank for awhile, the move forward a bit, and then bank again. So, it's changing directions.

 

[Mendel]

It looks to me like the plane is "banking," which means it is moving mostly sideways

A fixed-wing aircraft that is banking is not moving mostly sideways, but mostly forward.

The reason for this is that the thrust from its engines can only propel it forward, and must do so with sufficient speed for the wings to have lift; otherwise, the wings would stall, and the aircraft would trundle to the ground - something airline pilots are trained to avoid.

 

[Investigator1]

A fixed-wing aircraft that is banking is not moving mostly sideways, but mostly forward.

The reason for this is that the thrust from its engines can only propel it forward, and must do so with sufficient speed for the wings to have lift; otherwise, the wings would stall, and the aircraft would trundle to the ground - something airline pilots are trained to avoid.

A plane's engines can only propel it forward, but it's rudder can cause it to turn, and gravity can cause it to drop, and it's wings and flaps can overcome gravity and cause it to move at an angle as it slowly drops.

The plane in the video is clearly banking for a landing at some nearby airstrip. I was in the Air Force. I've seen airplanes come in for landings countless times. They seem to hang suspended in the air as they come slowly toward you when you're in the airport tower.

You cannot park a plane in the air. So, you have to look for some logical reason why a plane can appear to "park in the air."

 

[Mendel]

it's rudder can cause it to turn

Yes. This departing aircraft had only turned a little bit, flying a wide turn from runway heading to wherever it was headed next.
However, neither the rudder nor the ailerons can cause the aircraft to move sideways.

Compare: turning the steering on a car in motion causes it to turn, but it won't go sideways.

They seem to hang suspended in the air as they come slowly toward you when you're in the airport tower.

Yes. A landing civil jet aircraft is typically on a long straight slope that ends at the airport; if you're at the airport, the aircraft is coming towards you with very little deviation in any direction, just getting bigger; and you'd see it pretty much head-on. But that's not what's taking place in this video.

So, you have to look for some logical reason why a plane can appear to "park in the air."

Correct. We have above identified this reason as "parallax effect caused by the camera motion", which may well have been pre-planned.

 

[Alexandria Nick]

What we are saying is that a common optical illusion can either legitimately confuse people, or be knowingly exploited to make odd looking videos on YouTube. Or you can know about it and still notice it when you see it and can recognise places where the optical illusion is likely to occur as seems to be the case for Alexandria.

Exactly. I know a spot where not only does the illusion frequently occur, but that I've seen it enough that I've worked out how to reproduce it.

 

[Mendel]

Exactly. I know a spot where not only does the illusion frequently occur, but that I've seen it enough that I've worked out how to reproduce it.

If you have some time on your hand, and a helper, you could do a double video: one video showing the illusion, the other showing the same aircraft at the same time from a stationary camera. If there's a radio on with the sound caught on the videos, they can be synchronized.

 

[DavidB66]

Is it on a treadmill?

 

[MyMatesBrainwashed]

Our brain thinks it's moving backwards because of the gap between it and the lamppost.

Moving would change that gap and zooming at the same time would give an impression of not moving.

That's my guess.

I think the change of "speed" when the plane hits the twigs and our brains have a better reference of the movement of the plane is interesting with respect to this.

It should be fairly easy to replicate (could use toys that don't move but make it look like they are moving) but I'm far too lazy.

 

[MyMatesBrainwashed]

The way the whole thing happens doesn't really sit right either.

I have to imagine it's a super common occurrence wherever they are, because they just happened to film one as they pulled up and nevermind the super casual "look at this plane flying backwards guys".

Camera skills on point but script writing needs work.

 

[MyMatesBrainwashed]

A major detail to support my point is how does the plane go from being above the trees to in the trees?

23 seconds, plane is above the trees. 26 seconds it's about level with the top branches.

If the camera is fixed then the plane must have reduced altitude. Planes coming into land would obviously be reducing altitude but the footage before the plane goes weird doesn't suggest a rapidly descending plane. It might even be possible to get an estimate of the altitude it must've come down by but that's well beyond my pay grade.

Another way the plane could end up below the trees is if the observer moved towards the trees.

And to add to this, notice how the plane appears to be reducing altitude (in relation to the trees) as it appears to move backwards.

 

[Mendel]

Planes coming into land would obviously be reducing altitude

Planes coming in to land are pointed towards the airport, not away from it like this one is; it helps the pilots find the runway.

though, come to think of it...

Source: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TMq7aT8rvo0

 

[MyMatesBrainwashed]

Planes coming in to land are pointed towards the airport, not away from it like this one is; it helps the pilots find the runway.

Oh cool, I hadn't bothered confirming location and directions but if it's as you say then that further supports that this plane isn't actually reducing altitude as it appears to just like how it isn't actually moving backwards as it appears to.

Tis the observer moving

I think we (our brains) aren't as drawn to the descent movement because we know that planes can and do descend. But pay attention to it and it's very unnatural. Not to mention seems directly proportional to it's forward and backwards movements (something that could be further analysed).

 

[Mendel]

So looking West, with probably a northerly departure from ALB
View attachment 48870

I hadn't bothered confirming location and directions

Sometimes it pays to read the whole thread. ;-)

 

[MyMatesBrainwashed]

Sometimes it pays to read the whole thread. ;-)

I would still need to confirm it. Especially considering the "probably".

 

[deirdre]

If the camera is fixed then the plane must have reduced altitude.

i'm not sure i see a reduction in altitude per se, but another reason things can visually look like they are moving closer to the horizon is because they are moving further away from us. This happens alot with contrails.

if you look carefully we arent really looking at the exact "side" of the plane, it is slightly angled away from us (his butt is closer to us than his nose)

Mystery Missile: (actually a contrail)

Article:

"It's coming more or less straight towards you and it's in level flight," says West. "It's not climbing. It's not descending. It's probably around 35,000 feet."

Source: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/missile-mystery-laid-to-rest/

a second mystery missile. using this pic as its easier to see the phenomenon, but same explanation Mick gave above.

 

[MyMatesBrainwashed]

i'm not sure i see a reduction in altitude per se, but another reason things can visually look like they are moving closer to the horizon is because they are moving further away from us. This happens alot with contrails.

That's very true and is probably happening here as it does appear to be going lower as it moves through the twigs (from like 32 seconds. That's when I think we are seeing the proper movement of the plane and it does appear to be moving very slightly down due to as you say its moving away) and also probably accounts for why we aren't drawn to it like its flying backwards.

But it's the 25 seconds to 28 that there must be a drastic movement down to account for the where the plane appears in relation to the tree (if the camera is static). I don't think the speed its flying away can account for that drastic change in height. And that change in height just happens to coincide with its movement backwards. It stops moving backwards, it stops "dropping".

 

[Hougenai]

A plane's engines can only propel it forward, but it's rudder can cause it to turn, and gravity can cause it to drop, and it's wings and flaps can overcome gravity and cause it to move at an angle as it slowly drops.

The plane in the video is clearly banking for a landing at some nearby airstrip. I was in the Air Force. I've seen airplanes come in for landings countless times. They seem to hang suspended in the air as they come slowly toward you when you're in the airport tower.

You cannot park a plane in the air. So, you have to look for some logical reason why a plane can appear to "park in the air."

Actually the rudder doesn't actually 'turn' a plane, that's achieved by banking using aelerons or flaperons (sometimes with rudder). The rudder only chnages the orientation of the nose, not direction of the plane.


I'm a bit confused as to why so many have been drawn in to location and position analysis. For me there is a simple debunk .
Aerofoil sections of plane wings are physically incapable of generating lift in reverse. Attempts to fly backwards by simply applying reverse thrust will result in a flight profile of a brick.

 

[MyMatesBrainwashed]

I've tried some screenshots to help illustrate what I'm on about (I've resized screen grabs so they are similar size).

This taken from 25 seconds...

... this from 28 seconds (end of moving backwards)...

... and this from 31 seconds...

25 seconds to 28 shows a fairly drastic difference in height compared to the trees yet very little change in height between 28 and 31 seconds.

Either the "height" of the plane changed or the observer moved? Yes/no?

While doing this it was also quite interesting how the trees wouldn't properly align for each photo. Not sure that should be the case if just zooming in and out? I'm probably gonna look at that a bit closer now too.

 

[Trailspotter]

The "backward" flying could be a simple combination of cross-wind and perspective. The plane is flying away at a small angle to the viewing direction, shifting to the left, whereas its nose tilted to the right, toward the wind.
I often see this effect, watching a cross-wind landing along the runway and slightly to its side, as in my video below (from 1:05):

Source: https://youtu.be/WRpwyO8ISR0?t=65

 

[FatPhil]

Correct. We have above identified this reason as "parallax effect caused by the camera motion", which may well have been pre-planned.

Aided by a fair bit of foreshortening, as it is receding from us - which also explains the "drops in altitude" illusion/confusion stated above. However, you can absolutely create the effect without the foreshortening if you know which direction to move the camera (against the plane's motion).

Foreshortening can be very effective on its own to get the "stationary" effect. I can't point to an air-based example (I think some were mentioned up-theread), but I am *often* very annoyed by broadcasts of F1 races where the start is shown from the PoV of a highly-zoomed-in camera at the end of a very long start straight. 1-2-3-4-5-randompause-START! and the cars do nothing. Maybe they slide to the left and the right a bit. Of course, they're coming right at us, but when you reduce the ability to perceive movement that dimension, your mind plays tricks on you. This is why the old "it was approaching faster than I thought, and I thought I could pull out in time" type car accidents occur.

 

[NorCal Dave]

But it's the 25 seconds to 28 that there must be a drastic movement down to account for the where the plane appears in relation to the tree (if the camera is static). I don't think the speed its flying away can account for that drastic change in height. And that change in height just happens to coincide with its movement backwards. It stops moving backwards, it stops "dropping".

But I think the thing is, the camera is never "static", it's in a moving vehicle with the actual parking lot it's driving through being identified between post #26 and #30. In addition the camera, whatever it is, is often zooming in and out. The most dramatic section seems to be a "truck zoom" as I learned it. The camera is moving towards or away from the primary subject, while simultaneously zooming in or out. It's the classic "hallway" scene from scary movies.

 

[MyMatesBrainwashed]

But I think the thing is, the camera is never "static", it's in a moving vehicle with the actual parking lot it's driving through being identified between post #26 and #30. In addition the camera, whatever it is, is often zooming in and out. The most dramatic section seems to be a "truck zoom" as I learned it. The camera is moving towards or away from the primary subject, while simultaneously zooming in or out. It's the classic "hallway" scene from scary movies.

Seems to be commonly called the dolly zoom.

I agree that the camera is not static and it's moving forwards but if feels like they've made attempts to hide that and it's about proving it.

I think that proof is possibly in the trees.

This grab taken from around 23 seconds...

This taken from around 32 seconds...

Here they are overlayed 50/50 with that prominent V at the top lined up...

If the camera was just zooming then I would expect these to line up better, unless I'm mistaken.

The most dramatic difference is down the bottom right corner where 3 twigs become 2 (2 are overlapped, I think).

But the car isn't pointing directly at these (camera pans right a bit when car stops) so as it moves forwards (I think it has to be forwards to increase gap between plane and post for dramatic backwards movement) these closer trees rotate a bit in relation to the observer and therefore don't line up with where they started.

If the car had been pointing directly at the subject they could've avoided this.

Maybe I'm wrong about the zoom and alignment. And I guess you could claim wind has moved the branches.

But I put this forward to be considered and critiqued.