Alleged Flight MH370 UFO Teleportation Videos [Hoax]

[theDampSquid]

Hello I'd like to share some potentially new information:

-Flight MH370 disappeared on March 8, 2014

-"RegicideAnon" posted one of the infamous videos to YouTube on May 19, 2014 link to archive
-"AreaAlienware" posted a better version of the video to Vimeo in August of 2014 link to video

Arguments have been made that given the time between the disappearance and video releases, VFX artists may have been able to create a fake.

I have identified a potential earlier source of the video. "Dual Gamma" posted what may have been the same video titled "UFOs with Vortex as Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 Vanishes from Radar" on March 10, 2014, just 2 days after the disappearance. Here is the link to the archived version. Unfortunately the video is not archived but check it out for yourself. Appears to have been the same video in question.

If this video was uploaded only 2 days after the disappearance, likelihood of a vfx fake is decreased.

As a VFX artist this level or work is totally doable in a day. I get paid to do 5-8 shots of this standard a day. If it was an entirely CGI shot that's a different story, but it could very easily have been made with footage of a plane and a little bit of 2d compositing.

 

[McKing]

I have a question for the vfx artists here. Talking about the ufo argument of it is too complex to have done in 2 days, or the 2 months depending on the video. What if the vfx guy already made most of the work, had those videos done with either a different plane, or different details. Then he hears about the news of the missing plane and thinks, hey I just need to change a few things I would have a compelling video. How much effort would something like this have taken?

 

[Rhakorii]

With regards to the straight lines on the fuselage, a Redditor (genflugan) posted this image, sourced from this video (timestamp 1:01). The straight lines are clear, but I honestly don't know whether that's a feature of the drone or an artifact.

 

[Mendel]

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/15p6aps/simulating_the_mq1_camera_pose/


Someone said they tried it but there attempt looks flawed to me, incorrect drone model (as per the claims) and they never show a good external view of where they positioned the camera.

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/15p6aps/comment/jw0hv0i/


However accurate this may be or not, drone footage of a 777 in a holding pattern may already exist without that being 9M-MRO.

 

[Domzh]

I agree this whole thing is in poor taste, I feel bad participating in the debunk.

I think if the person that created this CGI is out there, at this point they should come forward with any evidence to show they created it to save the families of the victims of this tragedy more trauma as it hits the media more.

tbf this was 10 years ago. we dont know their age, if they are even on social media (and even if, the majority of people are outside of this ufo bubble) or dead.

 

[Domzh]

regarding the drone, initially the claim was that its a MQ-1 predator but when they (r/ufos) found out that the predator would have been too slow for a 777 they switched and decided it had to be a grey eagle (MQ-1C)

btw, what about the antenna on the nose of the drone. shouldnt it be visible in the video? because it isnt.


edit: i cant stand this narrative of "oh wow look at this detail, thats super hard to fake especially in 2014, therefore its legit footage". thats such a common stance since forever. they would have probably said the same about clips of the old godzilla movies back in the days.

 

[jarlrmai]

tbf this was 10 years ago. we dont know their age, if they are even on social media (and even if, the majority of people are outside of this ufo bubble) or dead.

The Mirror in the UK is now reporting this story.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/flying-orbs-filmed-spinning-around-30695336.amp

Since Elizondo and Grusch the UFO bubble has expanded.

 

[Mendel]

I agree this whole thing is in poor taste, I feel bad participating in the debunk.

I think it's worth emphasizing (as I have) that we have a final accident report that took years to produce, we have wreckage of the aircraft, there is no doubt what happened to the aircraft, and there's a reasonable hypothesis why it happened, just the details of the "how" are, unfortunately, unknown. The wreck of 9M-MRO is the Titanic of our century, just that much harder to find.

Compare:

Article:

Northwest Orient Airlines Flight 2501 was a DC-4 propliner operating its daily transcontinental service between New York City and Seattle when it disappeared on the night of June 23, 1950. [...] The aircraft was at approximately 3,500 feet (1,100 metres) over Lake Michigan, 18 miles (29 kilometres) NNW of Benton Harbor, Michigan,[3] when flight controllers lost radio contact with it soon after the pilot had requested a descent to 2,500 ft (760 m).

A widespread search was commenced including using sonar and dragging the bottom of Lake Michigan with trawlers, but to no avail. Considerable light debris, upholstery, and human body fragments were found floating on the surface, but divers were unable to locate the plane's wreckage.[5]

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Orient_Airlines_Flight_2501

Compare:
Lake Michigan: surface area 58,030 km², average depth 85 m
Indian Ocean: surface area 70,560,000 km², average depth 3,741 m
MH370 search area: bathymetry 710,000 km², sonar >120,000 km²


It's also worth emphasizing that the data in this video is bogus, that there were no assets in place to record this footage, and that this footage is not that hard to fake if you have the right material to start with, i.e. footage of two airliners doing standard rate turns.

 

[RobertBillyBob]

For the plane to "pop out" so much more than anything else in the video, the difference in distance between plane/camera and middle of cloud layer/camera would need to be an order of magnitude higher than the height of the whole cloud layer, from cumulus to cirrus. It doesn't seems realistic to me.

For the sake of the argument I used the disparity map to deform the video along the z axis. It's hard to represent in a 2D image, but as I expected if you look around in 3D space it doesn't look like a 3D scene at all for any frame of the video.

This wouldn't explain the inconsistency in the disparity of the aircraft though. For the first 40 seconds the disparity is larger, then it's very small until the flash. To explain this, we would have to assume that the animator accidentally keyframed a shift to the plane/clouds overlay around 40 seconds in. But this would be inconsistent with the fact that the clouds tend to have similar disparity throughout the video.

I may have an explanation for this.
I was able to get an estimated a 3D trajectory for the plane and the movement seems to be mostly in a plane inclined 45° relative to the camera.
If you make the hypothesis that we're actually seing the underside of the plane, the first 35s the plane is go away from the camera, then it turns and stays at the same distance. The difference in distance between the closest and farthest point seems to be roughly 2km.

The clouds are a 2D layer used as a background in the 3D scene, the plane is a 3D asset with a trajectory that goes away from the camera. The mouse cursor and text are also a 2D layer in the 3D scene, but closer to the camera.
You render this for the "left eye view", then you distort slightly the 2D layer to fake depth data, move the camera a bit, and render the "right eye view".

This give a pair of video where :
- there's no real depth to the clouds, but the illusion of it at the first glance.
- there is depth data to the plane, with a stronger disparity for the first half than later
- no cloud movement except for a few small distortions
- no parallax nor traces of it being corrected

For me this explains every weird facts about this video.


Reconstruction of the 3D trajectory :


I matched the 2D position and 3D rotation of a 3D model of the plane to a stitched version of the left eye video for 18 keyframes. Then
I used the 3D orientation of the plane to estimate the changes in the third dimension between keyframes by using the fact that a plane moves mostly where it's pointing.
It's not very precise, but it's good enough to get an idea of the 3D trajectory.
There are actually 2 different solutions, depending on whether we are seing the topside or the underside of the plane. Those two solutions are symmetrical.

 

[jarlrmai]

So the Triclops Grey Eagle is 2 Raytheon sensor pods mounted on the weapon pylons, a bit like ATFLIR takes up a pylon slot on the F/A-18

So this means 3 sensors rather than one hence triclops, in that article it seems to imply that the 2 wing sensors are operated independently from the main UAV sensor package, but who knows about this speculative setup.

In the article they are listed as DAS-2 pods

two similar Raytheon DAS-2 sensors under the wings were

Content from External Source

As far as I can tell this basically refers to some generation of Raytheon MTS sensor balls obviously if this were a real drone, we'd have no way of knowing which if any version was fitted.

A 2005 era spec sheet for one of them is here

https://bemil.chosun.com/nbrd/data/10040/upfile/200907/20090718001213.pdf



IR and TV are mentioned, no mention of Thermal IR could be considered to be thermal, but it's very unlikely, given the preponderance of MWIR (like ATFLIR).

But of course with the less actual details we have the easier it is to just claim its a different sensor etc etc.

 

[Domzh]

The Mirror in the UK is now reporting this story.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/flying-orbs-filmed-spinning-around-30695336.amp

Since Elizondo and Grusch the UFO bubble has expanded.

i can guarantee you that none of my family members or friends would see this. they didnt even knew about the senate hearings or ever came across the name of lazar or elizondo.

the ufo ecosphere really is tiny, even if it is perceived bigger for us. especially outside of the US.

in many european countries this topic is basically non existent.

they said the initial sources of the video indicated that the uploaded was of some spanish speaking origin. if they were from south america or spain, they wouldnt get a lot of exposure (if any at all) with this topic.

i personally think this was done by a hobbyist or by a professional for their "set card" back then.

 

[Mendel]

edit: i cant stand this narrative of "oh wow look at this detail, thats super hard to fake especially in 2014, therefore its legit footage". thats such a common stance since forever. they would have probably said the same about clips of the old godzilla movies back in the days.

It doesn't matter; the footage might all be mostly real, but there's nothing in it that allows us to identify the aircraft. It could just be real footage of any two aircraft flying a standard rate turn, with 3 moving dots (and the vanishing effect) added at the computer. (It's probably more fake than that, though.)

We have
• obscure provenance (nobody knows where it came from)
• small dot of light UFOs
and that is why it can never be reliable evidence,
no matter how realistic the real stuff in it is.

And nobody needs to wade through pages of analysis to see that.

 

[jarlrmai]

cursor and text are also a 2D layer in the 3D scene, but closer to the camera.
You render this for the "left eye view", then you distort slightly the 2D layer to fake depth data, move the camera a bit, and render the "right eye view".

What I find odd is the cursor/numbers/screen drag updates on each frame and the plane/orbs on every 4th frame, which makes me think that the main video was made independently then it was screen captured.

 

[Smordon]

I think the video is fake, but I’m not at all convinced by the ‘evidence’ that it’s a low poly 3d model of a drone.

The one thing the OP of that thread did not provide was a close side by side of the 3d model and the footage. Here is that comparison, provided by r/strangelifeouthere


Source: https://imgur.com/a/ZqjiEo2


Do these look similar to you?

Additionally, I’ve see a few posts in this thread saying something along the lines of “distortion would not add additional corners”

Really? Surely the most common types of digital video distortion are all but guaranteed to add corners (think compression artifacts for example)

 

[JunkTheRat]

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/15p6aps/comment/jw0hv0i/


However accurate this may be or not, drone footage of a 777 in a holding pattern may already exist without that being 9M-MRO.

I made the point in the comments of the same thread that I think this is proof of the same mistake the hoaxer made when creating the original. I believe the sensor pod ball was positioned way higher than it is in reality positioning the nose of the drone much higher in the cameras view than it would be in real life. 0.3m seems to short of a distance when you compare that to photographs of an actual MQ-1C with people standing next to it or near it or working on it. Am I wrong that in real photographs the sensor ball alone looks about that wide not including the bracket that mounts it to the wing? I suspect if you repeat the same test but position the camera pod correctly(or closer to reality) it will look different than the thermal original.

 

[MonkeeSage]

What I find odd is the cursor/numbers/screen drag updates on each frame and the plane/orbs on every 4th frame, which makes me think that the main video was made independently then it was screen captured.

Yeah the video of the plane appears to be 6fps and then the mouse and co-ords and screen are in 24fps. Proponents say it's because we are seeing something like Citrix remote desktop being used to control a remote terminal, so we see mouse and UI updates, which also explains the mouse drift b/c virtual mouse. And, and, maybe it's even cell phone footage of a computer screen of a remote session inside of a SCIF. That's a lot of "what if's" for a random video from a deleted youtube.

 

[Tomer]

Many people are making the point that this is easy to CGI if you have real footage. In that case, where's the real footage? Or at the very least, where is the comparable footage so we can say, look it's easy to get footage like this, someone could of just added the spheres etc.

 

[jarlrmai]

Yeah the video of the plane appears to be 6fps and then the mouse and co-ords and screen are in 24fps. Proponents say it's because we are seeing something like Citrix remote desktop being used to control a remote terminal, so we see mouse and UI updates, which also explains the mouse drift b/c virtual mouse. And, and, maybe it's even cell phone footage of a computer screen of a remote session inside of a SCIF. That's a lot of "what if's" for a random video from a deleted youtube.

So if the satellite video is being panned around, is it supposedly a single video with a much larger FOV?

 

[captancourgette]

Sorry for such an obvious question and someone must of pointed out the reason why already, which I missed

I must be wrong but according to wikipedia the flight left at 00:41am (theres an error in the wiki page, where it saiz 12:41) and last contact at 2:22am so its 100% of the time in the dark

So why in the 'satellite' video is it day time?

EDIT: OK reading some more it seems as if it had enough fuel for 7:31 hours flight so I suppose it could of kept flying until dawn and beyond, maybe an hour or two at most. I wonder if you can infer how high in the sky the sun is in the video?

 

[buak]

Hello! I had to make an account after lurking for years.
After reading this thread and many reddit posts, I was wondering why would an MQ-1C even be there in the first place? They were relatively new. The first operational flights happened in Iraq in 2010. Also, as far as I know, they are only operated by the US Army. Not navy or marines or the air force. The nearest US Army base seems to be in South-Korea, so the range wouldn't be sufficient. Even if there are closer bases, would they have this UAV ready to go at that time?

 

[Mendel]

Many people are making the point that this is easy to CGI if you have real footage. In that case, where's the real footage? Or at the very least, where is the comparable footage so we can say, look it's easy to get footage like this, someone could of just added the spheres etc.

I don't think it's easy for Joe Public.

Air Force video of X-37B:

Source: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=J_7eoatC6HY

I expect there's a server (or several) on some airforce networks with lots of these kinds of videos.

Still shots:
https://www.sciencephoto.com/media/868006/view/thermal-image-of-airplane-in-sky
https://www.sciencephoto.com/media/868010/view/thermal-image-of-airplane-in-sky

Video would be more valuable.

 

[RobertBillyBob]

Grey Eagle, Predator and Reaper drones are approximately one third the size of a 777.
Given the angle we can see the drone crosses path with the 777 contrail, shouldn't we be able to see the drone on the "satellite footage"? In the direction of the red arrow.

 

[jarlrmai]

Grey Eagle, Predator and Reaper drones are approximately one third the size of a 777.
Given the angle we can see the drone crosses path with the 777 contrail, shouldn't we be able to see the drone on the "satellite footage"? In the direction of the red arrow.

This is the reason why an decent accurate 3d model of the drone would be useful and also a 777.

I can work out the supposed position of the camera on the drone wings and then the FOV to recreate the plane angle and then we can work out the apparent distances and see if they make sense and if the drone should be visible on the satelite footage.

@Mick West this is also potentially a SitRec able thing right?

 

[Mendel]

Sorry for such an obvious question and someone must of pointed out the reason why already, which I missed

I must be wrong but according to wikipedia the flight left at 00:41am (theres an error in the wiki page, where it saiz 12:41) and last contact at 2:22am so its 100% of the time in the dark

So why in the 'satellite' video is it day time?

2:22am MYT was the time of the last radar contact. At the time, MH370 was near the coordinates in the video. It'd be a broad daylight in America.

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 showed there were no clouds in the area at 2:22: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/alleged-flight-mh370-ufo-teleportation-videos.13104/post-298114

@JAFO showed there was no moon: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/alleged-flight-mh370-ufo-teleportation-videos.13104/post-298112

 

[MonkeeSage]

So if the satellite video is being panned around, is it supposedly a single video with a much larger FOV?

That's what I got from the remote desktop arguing folks.

 

[jarlrmai]

That's what I got from the remote desktop arguing folks.

Another avenue is then the area covered in that FOV and the resolution shown in the video and how that stacks up for realistic video camera performance.

 

[Kyle McDonald]

btw, what about the antenna on the nose of the drone. shouldnt it be visible in the video? because it isnt.

This is a great reason to simulate the actual camera position properly, with the camera pod cover obscuring the top of the frame rather than the wing. It might be that the nose obscures this, or it might be that it's genuinely missing.

we're actually seing the underside of the plane

First, great work on this post. But also, has someone tried to breakdown this theory in detail? I really tried to look at the footage as if it's the underside, and I just can't see it. The shadows, turn, location of the vertical stabilizer, cloud lighting and occlusion, none of it seems consistent with this theory.

I think I follow your theory about how it was produced. It's quite complex, and doesn't explain why they would go to all that effort when they could have just rendered another view in 3D. The only explanation I can think of is that the fake 3D clouds didn't look as good in 2D, so they wanted to use real clouds instead? Because the alternative—that they specifically avoided rendering another 3D view just to complicate things and throw debunkers off the trail—is too absurd for me to entertain.

I did look into one more thing today, which is the noise characteristics of the videos. Some folks have suggested that there are standard ways to add camera shake, for example. And there are also standard ways to add noise. We might expect some similar noise characteristics between the two videos if they were made by one person working with the same pipeline.

Instead, I see very different noise characteristics between the two videos. Here is the noise for the thermal video and noise for the satellite video. I got these videos by taking a 5-frame running mean around the current frame, and subtracting the current frame. Taking the absolute value and scaling the brightness up 10x. Here are two stills.






What I see is that the two cameras have noise profiles that I would consider representative for that kind of imaging device. The satellite image has a kind of flickery DCT compression I would expect from satellite images. The FLIR has a kind of big bubbly noise I would expect from a raw feed from a thermal camera (though I only personally have experience with a few consumer-grade models, this noise looks similar).

I was hoping to see some more similarity between the two. Obviously this proves nothing, except that the hoaxer went through the time and effort to research the noise characteristics of the cameras that they wanted to simulate, and handled the exporting and compression differently in each case.

 

[jarlrmai]

What I see is that the two cameras have noise profiles that I would consider representative for that kind of imaging device.

You are gonna have to evidence this claim.

 

[cptreynolds]

Anyone yet tried to match the orb trajectories between both videos?

 

[RobertBillyBob]

Anyone yet tried to match the orb trajectories between both videos?

I'm working on it, that's actually why I tried to get the 3D trajectory from the satellite video.

 

[jarlrmai]

This is a great reason to simulate the actual camera position properly, with the camera pod cover obscuring the top of the frame rather than the wing. It might be that the nose obscures this, or it might be that it's genuinely missing.

Unfortunately all the good enough MQ-X drone models are $$

https://sketchfab.com/3d-models/general-atomics-mq-1c-gray-eagle-b9b14cbee23246bc8d4f3320bfa978c7

 

[captancourgette]

2:22am MYT was the time of the last radar contact. At the time, MH370 was near the coordinates in the video. It'd be a broad daylight in America.

OK on that day 8 March 2014 Sunrise in KL was 7:21am (OK being higher altitude obviously the sun will rise earlier)
So based on the fuel the latest it could remain with fuel is 8:12am KL time

1. Its assumed it disappeared further west so Sunrise is going to be later than 7:21, though we dont know how much more west it is
2. When did it get teleported away? At the exact moment it ran out of fuel?
According to wiki the final contact was at 08:19:37 so after it had ran out of fuel (or maybe the fuel estimate was slightly wrong)

To me the video does not look to be taking place near dawn, but what do I know?

Video of dawn/dusk from ISS

 

[cptreynolds]

Grey Eagle, Predator and Reaper drones are approximately one third the size of a 777.
Given the angle we can see the drone crosses path with the 777 contrail, shouldn't we be able to see the drone on the "satellite footage"? In the direction of the red arrow.

It looks as if the drone should be much further back though - it's not much below the airliner, and we're seeing the contrail from outside the turn, and the aircraft is further inside than the outermost bit of contrail, which means the drone is a substantial segment of the arc behind. This means that the alleged satellite view probably doesn't expand aft from the airliner sufficiently to see the drone.

 

[FatPhil]

The Mirror in the UK is now reporting this story.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/flying-orbs-filmed-spinning-around-30695336.amp

Since Elizondo and Grusch the UFO bubble has expanded.

>checks calendar<

August's well known for this, we call it "slow news month", or more broadly "silly season".

The Sun do it better than The Mirror though (equally terrible tabloids in the UK)

(found via a search for "slow news month", which ended me up here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4198990.stm )

 

[Mendel]

OK on that day 8 March 2014 Sunrise in KL was 7:21am (OK being higher altitude obviously the sun will rise earlier)
So based on the fuel the latest it could remain with fuel is 8:12am KL time

I wish you would call it MYT (Malaysia time) for consistency with the accident report.
MYT = UTC+8

1. Its assumed it disappeared further west so Sunrise is going to be later than 7:21, though we dont know how much more west it is

Yes. The ATSB has a website on where they searched for the aircraft.

2. When did it get teleported away? At the exact moment it ran out of fuel?
According to wiki the final contact was at 08:19:37 so after it had ran out of fuel (or maybe the fuel estimate was slightly wrong)

I think 7 minutes difference is pretty spot on for a fuel estimate that covers 7+ hours.
The engineers think the Satcom logged on again because it rebooted, and they think it rebooted because the engines shut off for lack of fuel, shutting down the power generators, and then the APU (auxiliary power unit in the back of the aircraft) came on with whatever small amount of fuel it had in its fuel line, and that enabled the Satcom to reboot and send its final message.

Since the aircraft was probably at a fairly high altitude, it would have glided for a time after the engines shut down.

 

[JunkTheRat]

Unfortunately all the good enough MQ-X drone models are $$

https://sketchfab.com/3d-models/general-atomics-mq-1c-gray-eagle-b9b14cbee23246bc8d4f3320bfa978c7

Basic length/width/height dimensions are available for MQs online, from there shouldn't we be able to get close enough with photos of on the ground MQs and MQs being serviced for the rest of the dimensions like sensor balls etc? There are a decent number of photos with people directly next to the drones or working on/handling their parts(including sensor balls).

 

[Ann K]

We have
• obscure provenance (nobody knows where it came from)
• small dot of light UFOs
and that is why it can never be reliable evidence,
no matter how realistic the real stuff in it is.

So ...(LIZ)^2?

That's enough for me to disregard it. The camera and special effects guys are having fun here trading tech talk, but that's entirely apart from the basic question of the authenticity of the premise that UFOs (apparently flying stunts) brought down a particular plane in some unexplained fashion.

 

[cptreynolds]

All of this, minus a minor point - given that the wreckage didn't show up right away, in principle it could have been portalled and then portalled back (in pieces or at whole).

Not saying that's even remotely probable in my view, but strictly thinking the existence of wreckage actually doesn't say it can't have entered a portal, only that not everything stayed "there".

Actually, thinking about this a bit more:

If for argument's sake we entertain the hypothesis that teleportation is possible, we can't then use any location-based arguments to debunk that.

Aircraft was at location X at time T1 for a satellite ping? Easy - zap.
Wreckage was at location Y at time T2? Zap.
And so on.

 

[Mendel]

Actually, thinking about this a bit more:

If for argument's sake we entertain the hypothesis that teleportation is possible, we can't then use any location-based arguments to debunk that.

Aircraft was at location X at time T1 for a satellite ping? Easy - zap.
Wreckage was at location Y at time T2? Zap.
And so on.

Yes.
"It's magic" is always unfalsifiable.

 

[jarlrmai]

Yes.
"It's magic" is always unfalsifiable.

"GIMBAL is only 10 miles if it flies this weird magical j-hook path that is an exact mimic of the movement of the aircraft tracking it, plus and minus any positional/speed delta"

"Well of course it did that its an alien spacecraft capable of anything we can imagine"