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.