Alleged Flight MH370 UFO Teleportation Videos [Hoax]

[deirdre]

Why the arbitrary limit of 6 hours?

i think because the web archive version (which i dont even think was the orignal) claimed the footage was received March 12, 2014 (the day the news came out mh370 last pinged in that [kinda] area.)

I'm guessing people believe that claim, so IF that claim is true then the video would have had to have been made fast. (even though in actuality the video could have been made 7 years prior and just the satellite coordinates added.)

 

[a_robot_kicker]

Why the arbitrary limit of 6 hours? And why must it only be done by 1 vfx artist and not a team? And why are people using the difficulty and complexity of creating such a vfx video as evidence against its having been faked? Hoaxes span the gamut from highly sophisticated to very crude attempts and everything in between.

For the sake of argument, the difficulty in pulling off a hoax is absolutely grounds for the hoax being more or less likely for the simple reason that people might have better things to do with their time and money. At some point believing in a sufficiently complex hoax becomes just another conspiracy theory, especially if you pull in multiple people. For example, conspiracy theorists who think the zapruder film, or the moon landing, or 9/11 is a hoax; at some point it's just too big to keep a secret and the cost involved in perpetuating the hoax beggars belief. That said, this particular video doesn't meet that threshold for me.

There is also an actual hard timelimit on this hoax from the disappearance of MH370 to the release of the video which appears to be a few months. Certainly longer than 6 hours but you have to weigh the timelimit against the plausibility that a vfx artist could do it in time.

 

[John J.]

Watching the first video again, I think we're looking at the underside of the aircraft in the first few seconds.
As the plane levels out (from our perspective, i.e. starts moving more L to R across our screens) the vertical tailplane becomes visible, pointing upwards.


Source: https://youtu.be/jPwi_BD3zbo


Admittedly, it isn't part of the poster's claim that we are seeing the top of the aircraft in the opening seconds, but if it is being viewed from far above, that isn't an unreasonable assumption.

While a commercial airliner might be able to fly inverted (upside down) I can't think of a sane reason to do so with fare-paying passengers on board. Even if the pilot were trying to evade UFOs: there are rare real-world occasions where passenger jets are "forced down" by military jets, but I've never heard of the relevant civil pilot attempting aerobatic manoeuvres in an attempt to escape.

If we assume that the aircraft is being viewed from above, and we are initially seeing the topside of the aircraft, then the aircraft's left wing is the one to the right of the fuselage, as we view it at first.
That wing appears rather brighter throughout most of the footage, useful for keeping tabs on "what is where".

The labels "L", "R" (in yellow) below are based on those assumptions (that we are initially seeing the top of the aircraft).
The green shape is to give a very rough indication of the orientation of the tailfin.



I think the position of the tailfin indicates that the filming starts with us viewing the underside of the aircraft, not the top.

A plane being filmed from the ground, maybe at a manufacturer's demonstration or airshow, is more likely than an upside-down plane being filmed from a SIGINT satellite (which might not have visual recon capabilities).

There is nothing in the footage, re. the UFOs, that couldn't be done with quite basic CGI (IMHO- no special knowledge of this, but a few white dots zipping around, and *flash* it's gone, can't be that difficult).
Of course, the fact that footage can be replicated with CGI doesn't mean that the original footage is CGI.

But I think the evidence strongly suggests that this (and the "IR" stuff) is deliberate hoaxing.
If so, in the circumstances the hoax is both tasteless and callous.

 

[Ann K]

It displays very well rendered clouds

Why would anybody need to "render" clouds that are already there to be filmed?

 

[Daves!]

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/15p14tp/megathread_mh370_relevant_posts_regarding_mh370/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=2


this is a summary of all the post regarding the "MH370 abduction" please take a look at 4th link
( " part III the rabbit hole goes deeper" ) it explains in very great and deep detail every argument why it could be fake and why not.
I appreciate the time and work the OP put into it.
Amazing work almost detective work. Maybe we can put our findings also there ?

 

[NorCal Dave]

this is a summary of all the post regarding the "MH370 abduction" please take a look at 4th link

It might be interesting, but PLEASE remember the "no-click policy". Don't just say "go look here", show us what's relevant (copy & paste or screenshot) so we know what you're talking about. It needn't be the entire thread or article, but at least some highlights to go along with your summery.

I'm not sure what you're talking about, other than the general idea that MH370 disappearance was hoaxed. Throw us a bone or 2.

 

[MrSuperhate]

Theoretically simple unicellular life should be possible on many worlds with a relatively small set of preconditions. Complex life is a whole different question though. The rarity of intelligent complex life is even harder to estimate.

To add to this, life on Earth began very quickly but it took 3.2 billion years for multicellular life to evolve. For anyone interested in this sort of thing I would highly recommend John Michael Godier's channel on YouTube and his podcast Event Horizon.

 

[Max Phalange]

When you apply a gradient over the image like one of the posters claims was done to achieve the lighting effect on the clouds when the 'implosion' happens, you get the following:



The gradient applied is obvious.
But in the actual video we see this:



You can see the clouds in front of the 'implosion' get backlit, and those behind it, get frontlit. You could technically achieve this effect by hand-painting in around the edges but look at the following:



Notice that? Of course not. In the color image you can't even tell there was any front light or backlight effect happening at all. It makes sense if some artists went to the painstaking process of brightening those areas up that they would make it at the very least visible without having to explicitly diff the frames.
And besides, if they're going to make two videos from different perspectives anyways, it doesn't make any sense to use a 2d background for one, and actually model the clouds in the other video.
But at the very least, I believe anyways, the satellite video MUST be a fully 3d cg video with no real elements at all, if you believe this video to be false.
(I don't by the way.)

The “backlit” effect is because the pixels of those clouds are already fully saturated — they’re overexposed and clipping to full white. So applying a lightening effect over that area cannot lighten their main bulk any further, and only affects the fringes which are not already fully white.

So then when you diff the lightened image with the original, the only differences are around the fringes of those clouds, giving the misleading impression that they’re backlit.

Other clouds in the scene are not fully saturated so can be lightened. These are the ones which the claim says are front-lit.

 

[Max Phalange]

Something I haven’t seen addressed is that the “portal” in the satellite video emits a bright flash of light in the visible spectrum, appearing white.

But in the thermal video the “portal” is dark (appearing even colder than the sky).

What explanation is offered for the broadband emission of photons in the visible spectrum, but complete absence of photons in the adjacent infrared spectrum? What type of physical processes produce a burst of light but are colder than ambient temperature?

 

[metac3]

The “backlit” effect is because the pixels of those clouds are already fully saturated — they’re overexposed and clipping to full white. So applying a lightening effect over that area cannot lighten their main bulk any further, and only affects the fringes which are not already fully white.

So then when you diff the lightened image with the original, the only differences are around the fringes of those clouds, giving the misleading impression that they’re backlit.

Other clouds in the scene are not fully saturated so can be lightened. These are the ones which the claim says are front-lit.

What effect are you claiming was applied during the explosion? It's clearly not a gradient centered on the explosion because you have to remember that the water would get lightened as well and would therefore look smooth. You're left with two choices: they erased those parts of the gradient where it should not apply (the water and the cloud below); or it's volumetric lighting being applied to 3dcg clouds.
To me, it clearly hasn't been hand painted, (as in: tediously dodged and burned to achieve a volumetric lighting effect) and instead HAS TO BE 3dcg if you want to believe that it's fake.

 

[Wizard]

Teleportation makes little sense. It looks like a vaporization, a disintegration, or even a gravity based weapon. If MH370 did have the transponder disabled and it appeared to be a threat, it could be a shoot down of some kind. If it isn't MH370, it could be a plane that the military was testing a new weapon on. I see some people saying it must be fake, that some kid with Adobe Premiere just whipped it up for fun in a few days or weeks. Could be, I'm not a VFX artist.. but perhaps on this video, the reality-shift would be too disturbing to ever believe it is actually real.

 

[doctorpangloss]

This is my first post because this video is so amusingly clearly VFX and it got a lot of mainstream social media attention.

My experience comes from working on VFX specifically in the era this was made (2010-2013) intensively as a solo animator of photoreal effects. The clouds read to me as something characteristic EON Vue at the time. Hard to find examples to illustrate this. This software solved clouds: it could deliver essentially photoreal volumetric 3D clouds in 3ds Max and Maya. Its samples were so good that a shot in Cloud Atlas (2012) uses a Vue sunset scene unmodified as a background. If someone is going to find these exact clouds and their behavior, it's going to be in EON Vue. I believe the artist was very savvy in choosing something that seems intuitively very hard to fake but is indeed, at the time, a very very fakeable photoreal effect.

Additionally, as an earlier post mentioned, the contrails read as that tutorialized particle effect, I would agree they seem to be the same.

The orbiting balls look like they are simply transform parented to the animated 777.

The IR video is so nonsensical.

The camera behavior and moves are way too smooth.

The high frequency camera shake in the beginning of the IR footage feels very vanilla, straight out of something like
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2olxDiOr6M
. You could certainly track a fixed point in the footage to measure the camera shake. If the x and y axes are independent of each other but have identical average values of 0 and identical amplitudes, which would be the case if you used 3ds max to shake, it is far more likely to be fake than to have such physical conditions occur naturally. Likewise, if it were perfectly brownian, also far more likely to be fake than physical. There are only a few very limited ways camera shake is simulated so finding any evidence of any of them would be a dead giveaway. Physical camera shake has biases.

Regarding the camera follow: It feels like someone animated it by hand. The errors in the tracking make no sense, but maybe the only way to really show that is to recreate the path of that following craft.

 

[Mendel]

If the presupposition is that this is MH370 I think the idea is that this footage was captured as part of the search effort after it started acting erratically. After 9/11 you could imagine why a military might be interested in tracking a plane that has gone rogue.

What country's military would track this aircraft? Which assets would they use for this? How did they bring the thermal imaging asset into position?
When and why would they commence tracking?
Why does the video tracking start seconds before the aircraft disappears?
What time do you think the disappearance occurs?
How long has the aircraft been tracked at the time?

I see no way to answer all of these questions in a way that makes sense.

because one of the debris show no signs of age nor detoration of salt water after 16 months. Its why it sparkled the idea that it was planted. No one realy understood why the debris wasnt aged and looked as if it was pretty new, although it was indentified as part of MH370 fuselage.

Which part, exactly?

Was one of the parts of debris not aged, or were none of the parts aged?

The flaperon had barnacles on it that were confirmed to be several months old, and to have grown in different temperature waters. See section 2.6.4 Marine Life Examination in the final accident report.

 

[Mendel]

Watching the first video again, I think we're looking at the underside of the aircraft in the first few seconds.

Remember that 9M-MRO had a two-tone livery.

Source, and more pictures, at https://www.planespotters.net/airframe/boeing-777-200-9m-mro-malaysia-airlines/rzgvze

 

[jarlrmai]

Why does the video tracking start seconds before the aircraft disappears?

Yeah if this asset was deployed to intercept and track the plane.

Why does the video start like they are being surprised by the plane flashing past them then tracking in and zooming in?

Given the plane flashed past at a high relative speed,from back to front, how did they catch up?

And if capable of catching up and matching speeds why slow down to let the plane flash past?

 

[Mendel]

Yeah if this asset was deployed to intercept and track the plane.

Why does the video start like they are being surprised by the plane flashing past them then tracking in and zooming in?

Given the plane flashed past at a high relative speed,from back to front, how did they catch up?

And if capable of catching up and matching speeds why slow down to let the plane flash past?

Clearly, the leaked footage was taken by yet another UFO, presumably with the intention of posting the clip on intergalactic youtube for views.
What we think of as thermal images simply accomodates for the different vision of some ETs.

 

[Ravi]

I have not really followed this topic, but are we being made believed some satellite was filming a plane? That sounds rather not realistic.

 

[jarlrmai]

I have not really followed this topic, but are we being made believed some satellite was filming a plane? That sounds rather not realistic.

There are 2 videos

The visible colour one is said to be stereoscopic video taken by an NRO satellite in orbit (NROL-22.)
The other one is said to be a thermographic camera video of the same plane during the same time period taken by a UAV.
The plane is supposed to be the Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 The 777 which disappeared during a flight:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370

Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 (MH370/MAS370)[a] was an international passenger flight operated by Malaysia Airlines that disappeared on 8 March 2014 while flying from Kuala Lumpur International Airport in Malaysia to its planned destination, Beijing Capital International Airport in China.[1]

Content from External Source

 

[Ravi]

There are 2 videos

The visible colour one is said to be stereoscopic video taken by an NRO satellite in orbit (NROL-22.)
The other one is said to be a thermographic camera video of the same plane during the same time period taken by a UAV.
The plane is supposed to be the Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 The 777 which disappeared during a flight:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370

Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 (MH370/MAS370)[a] was an international passenger flight operated by Malaysia Airlines that disappeared on 8 March 2014 while flying from Kuala Lumpur International Airport in Malaysia to its planned destination, Beijing Capital International Airport in China.[1]

Content from External Source

Thanks for the update!

 

[Mendel]

The plane is supposed to be the Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 The 777 which disappeared during a flight:

It did not "disappear". It turned off its transponder, deviated off course, and then flew for several hours, mostly presumably unattended, until it crashed in the Indian Ocean. More than 3 dozen parts of the wreckage have since been found, but at the time when the video(s) was created, that hadn't been the case; nor was it widely known that the aircraft had remained aloft for hours after breaking radio/radar contact.

The coordinates in the video roughly correspond to where the aircraft was thought to get "lost", i.e. a left turn off a regular airway route, towards the open ocean. Satellite connections to the aircraft revealed later that it had traveled on for several hours after that.

 

[jarlrmai]

It did not "disappear". It turned off its transponder, deviated off course, and then flew for several hours, mostly presumably unattended, until it crashed in the Indian Ocean. More than 3 dozen parts of the wreckage have since been found, but at the time when the video(s) was created, that hadn't been the case.

I'm just quoting the wikipedia article I linked, yes it "disappeared" and then parts of it later turned up indicating it crashed into the ocean.

 

[a_robot_kicker]

This user went ahead and actually did a stereo analysis on the images in the satellite video with stereoscopic data. Long story short is that there aren't enough features to do a clean disparity map but if you take overall statistics of the image the strongest signal is disparity increasing near the bottom of the image, and the disparity of the plane is very clearly higher than the surrounding sea or clouds.. User thinks this makes the stereo render more realistic but I'm not sure about that. Definitely plausible to me that it could be a real stereoscopic pair, probably filmed in cgi, but the fact that BGM couldn't produce a clean depth map even on the edges of the clouds seems a little suspicious
Source: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/15qrg1e/airliner_video_shows_complex_treatment_of_depth/

 

[beakflip]

The flaperon had barnacles on it that were confirmed to be several months old, and to have grown in different temperature waters. See section 2.6.4 Marine Life Examination in the final accident report.

I'm inclined to think that the debris being mostly aluminum alloys has something to do with the lack of apparent weathering. The oxide layer that forms on the surface makes the material quite inert.

Aluminium has a high chemical affinity to oxygen, which renders it suitable for use as a reducing agent in the thermite reaction. A fine powder of aluminium metal reacts explosively on contact with liquid oxygen; under normal conditions, however, aluminium forms a thin oxide layer (~5 nm at room temperature)[38] that protects the metal from further corrosion by oxygen, water, or dilute acid, a process termed passivation.[34][39] Because of its general resistance to corrosion, aluminium is one of the few metals that retains silvery reflectance in finely powdered form, making it an important component of silver-colored paints.[40] Aluminium is not attacked by oxidizing acids because of its passivation. This allows aluminium to be used to store reagents such as nitric acid, concentrated sulfuric acid, and some organic acids.

Content from External Source

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium

 

[Mendel]

I'm inclined to think that the debris being mostly aluminum alloys has something to do with the lack of apparent weathering.

I'm still waiting to hear which part is not weathered. From the pictures in the report, lots of the debris parts do show weathering.

Remember also that some parts were being used in the households of poor people before being turned in, and presumably cleaned up for that.

 

[beakflip]

I'm still waiting to hear which part is not weathered. From the pictures in the report, lots of the debris parts do show weathering.

Remember also that some parts were being used in the households of poor people before being turned in, and presumably cleaned up for that.

Like Brian Dunning is fond of saying, we should make sure there is something to explain before trying to explain it.

 

[tobigtofool]

Digression:

The Langoliers exist just behind the wave front of time moving through reality -- they eat the leftover existence once time has passed on. That includes, but is not limited to, the airport and plane; they eat leftover reality. For some reason when time rolls past, everything is left except the people, who are surfing along the wavefront, as it were. Our Heroes wind up getting left behind for reasons I forgot and can't be bothered to go look up.

/Digression

If you don't do your work like a good boy that is.

 

[omaehamoushindeiru]

The “backlit” effect is because the pixels of those clouds are already fully saturated — they’re overexposed and clipping to full white. So applying a lightening effect over that area cannot lighten their main bulk any further, and only affects the fringes which are not already fully white.

So then when you diff the lightened image with the original, the only differences are around the fringes of those clouds, giving the misleading impression that they’re backlit.

Other clouds in the scene are not fully saturated so can be lightened. These are the ones which the claim says are front-lit.

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.

 

[Eburacum]

In the clip supposedly filmed from a satellite, I can see two distinct cloud layers; a layer of cumulus and a vaguely stripey layer of stratus. If the 'satellite' clip really were filmed from a moving satellite, then we would expect to see movement between the cloud layers caused by parallax.

A satellite moving in a circular LEO orbit would be moving at 8 to 10 kilometres per second with respect to the ground; similarly, at the lowest point of a Molinya orbit the speed would be 10 kilometres per second. However, the two layers of cloud do not move with respect to each other, whereas if they were filmed by something moving at 10km/s we should expect to see some relative movement. Therefore this clip was not filmed from a moving satellite in LEO or a Molinya orbit. Whoever faked this clip forgot to move the location of the virtual camera.

 

[Domzh]

what if theres no CGI / 3D modeling going on at all?

one could simply speed up the process by using footage from MS flight simulator or similar. even in 2014 they had very good clouds already.

the FLIR effect is easily done in Adobe After Effects, the only work needed would be some manual adjustment of the colors.

The thermal effect and screen recording will also mask obvious signs that its game footage.

The orbs can also be done in AE.

If someone would use recorded flight footage from MS FS or FSX or similar, then import the video into AE and add thermal, orbs and the portal then this would also explain why we see the back fin of the plane within the portal animation / the background changing when it disappears.

would it be fully 3D or "real" then we could expect that the plane somehow "morphs" during this phase.

This would drastically reduce the required skill level and time investment that everyone seems so eager to take as an argument against the video being fake.

i can think of two smoking guns to proof its fake:

1) as i said before: shadow behavior of the clouds during the light flash. the brighter parts get brighter but the shadow stays the same. the shadows clouds (edit) can only get brighter if the flash outshines the sun. this means we should expect the shadow to tranform (angle of the shadow and or darkness).

2) if someone could analyze the orbs going behind the plane on a pixel level and see if there are any issues (merging, clipping etc). This was very often a tell tale sign with other UFO fakes where the UFO was put into existing footage and the masking wasnt working 100%.

Both points should proof its a fake imo. Even on their own.

 

[a_robot_kicker]

In the clip supposedly filmed from a satellite, I can see two distinct cloud layers; a layer of cumulus and a vaguely stripey layer of stratus. If the 'satellite' clip really were filmed from a moving satellite, then we would expect to see movement between the cloud layers caused by parallax.

A satellite moving in a circular LEO orbit would be moving at 8 to 10 kilometres per second with respect to the ground; similarly, at the lowest point of a Molinya orbit the speed would be 10 kilometres per second. However, the two layers of cloud do not move with respect to each other, whereas if they were filmed by something moving at 10km/s we should expect to see some relative movement. Therefore this clip was not filmed from a moving satellite in LEO or a Molinya orbit. Whoever faked this clip forgot to move the location of the virtual camera.

Best guess is that the cloud layer is 2d and the jet is 3d overlaid on it. The wrenches thrown in that would be the "lighting differences" and the "stereo parallax" on the clouds, but I think both can be explained away as purely 2d effects.

 

[Wizard]

If the 'satellite' clip really were filmed from a satellite, then we would expect to see movement between the cloud layers caused by parallax. A satlellite moving in a circular LEO orbit would be moving at 8 to 10 kilometres per second with respect to the ground; similarly, at the lowest point of a Molinya orbit the speed would be 10 kilometres per second. We can see at least two different layers of cloud in these images - however, the two layers of cloud do not move with respect to each other, whereas if they were filmed by something moving at 10km/s we should expect to see some relative movement. Therefore this clip was not filmed from a moving satellite in LEO or a Molinya orbit.

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: Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/15qcz9i/mh370_airliner_videos_part_iv_new_relevant/

However there is another post indicating that the coordinates and cursor move in a way that would indicate the stereo-scopic version is an edit or was done in post. A copy of the original non-stereoscopic video can be found here:


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KS9uL3Omg7o

 

[Domzh]

could the alleged stereoscopic evidence be a result of the "hoaxer" overlaying the same background on two different layers, "sandwiching" the airplane layer in between to make it go through and behind clouds?

 

[JAFO]

If the 'satellite' clip really were filmed from a satellite, then we would expect to see movement between the cloud layers caused by parallax. A satlellite moving in a circular LEO orbit would be moving at 8 to 10 kilometres per second with respect to the ground; similarly, at the lowest point of a Molinya orbit the speed would be 10 kilometres per second. We can see at least two different layers of cloud in these images - however, the two layers of cloud do not move with respect to each other, whereas if they were filmed by something moving at 10km/s we should expect to see some relative movement. Therefore this clip was not filmed from a moving satellite in LEO or a Molinya orbit.

This pretty much solidifies to me that the video we are seeing is NOT video or is a composite of images and video not recorded from the same source. It may be actual cloud images from a satellite but I don't think you can explain away the lack of parallax. Here is what an airliner looks like from space. Not sure what altitude the plane is at but we know the distance of the tip of the Burj Khalifa is 828m/2700ft. Notice how much that moves and how the airplane also appears to slew over the background.

 

[beakflip]

Composite image from Twitter. (@528vibes)

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.

 

[JAFO]

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.

 

[Max Phalange]

If the 'satellite' clip really were filmed from a satellite, then we would expect to see movement between the cloud layers caused by parallax. A satlellite moving in a circular LEO orbit would be moving at 8 to 10 kilometres per second with respect to the ground; similarly, at the lowest point of a Molinya orbit the speed would be 10 kilometres per second. We can see at least two different layers of cloud in these images - however, the two layers of cloud do not move with respect to each other, whereas if they were filmed by something moving at 10km/s we should expect to see some relative movement. Therefore this clip was not filmed from a moving satellite in LEO or a Molinya orbit.

Furthermore we can lookup satellite weather imagery from the period that the aircraft was in the vicinity of the co-ords in the video, and see that there was no cloud present. These are from Hirawami-8:




The co-ordinates in the video put the plane at approximately (8.8, 93.4), pretty much right over the Nicobar islands. These are the lower end of the island chain on the far left of the weather images. Based on the last sighting on military radar, MH370 would have been there shortly after 18:22. Image from Wikipedia:



There are also raw infrared images available from here: http://weather.is.kochi-u.ac.jp/sat/ALL/2014/03/07/

18:00:


19:00:


You can see the same clouds along the western tip of Sumatra as in the composite Hirawami-8 images (I think these are from the same sat, and these raw IR images are used to produce the colored composite — the visible light images show nothing because it was midnight). But again, no apparent cloud where the plane is purported to be in that satellite video.

And it goes almost without saying that a bright blue ocean seems very incongruous in a video that would have had to be recorded in the depth of night, no matter how sophisticated your spy satellite's optics are purported to be.

 

[Max Phalange]

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.

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.

 

[Mendel]

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 45d egrees below the horizon.

Last satcom contact with MH370 was at 00:19 UTC.
Sunrise in Perth on March 8th, 2014, was at 6:10 = 22:10 UTC, so if the aircraft was within 2 hours west of Perth, it'd have been sunlit (at a low angle) when it crashed.

 

[Max Phalange]

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.

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.

 

[Mendel]

Although I'm not sure the times are exactly right, the 02:22 was 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.

That's from the official report.