JunkTheRat
New Member
I agree with that, was just giving some of the different ideas I have heard for why any of it could be possible at all. Otherwise what, they knew in advance? Too much tin foil hat for me. It's already pushing it as is.
Alleged Flight MH370 UFO Teleportation Videos [Hoax]
- Thread starter Der Ungrund
- Start date
-
- Tags
- mh370 ufo ufo footage
buak
New Member
At some point there was discussion that the software or technology wasn't up to task to make those kinds of videos. Already in 2010 E-on Vue was readily available through any torrent trackers. It could make very realistic nature scenes, including clouds. I only messed with the stand-alone application at the time, but the plugins had the same capability, and even more realistic rendering with 3dsmax or Maya. Volumetric clouds were easy to make with just presets. I can't post them here, but youtube has lots of videos.
Mendel
Senior Member.
From the accident report:
Diego Garcia is quite far away, and the INMARSAT data proves MH-370 wasn't anywhere near it.
Mendel
Senior Member.
Am I nobody?
I've used the word "Satcom" four times in this thread; my first use of it includes your picture and more, and concludes,
Eburacum
Senior Member.
I see this too. It is inevitable that any real satellite video would show parallax effects between different cloud levels and between the clouds and the ground.
Satellites move at 8-10km/s; they do not stand still. As far as I can see the cloud layer in the background of the alleged MH370 'satellite' clip is a still picture, with a few basic distortion effects applied. It is categorically not a clip filmed from orbit, or a fully 3D render with a moving viewpoint.
RobertBillyBob
Member
Narrow FOV for IR and TV are the same and it's written so. For the wider FOV there's no such indications.
To me this reads as "IR is available in narrow and ultra narrow, wider FOV being TV".
The start of the drone footage seems to be in a rather wide FOV, so if I interpret the specs correctly it's an argument against the footage being real.
But this could be an error in the spec sheet, or a whole other sensor pod mounted on the drone.
Another question I have about the FOVs is about the switching from one to another. Can they switch smoothly from one FOV to another? Right after the portal the footage zooms out all the way back without a visible cut. If you look at 22:03 in this footage of a graphic drone attack by a reaper drone, there is a really visible mechanical switching of FOV and no smooth zooming.
Amathia
Senior Member
PS, I own it and would be happy to download any mods that may look promising and test them out if anyone would like. The game has been out for a long time and one of its appeals is the sheer amount of content the modding community creates for this series, so sorting through both the workshop *and* nexus would be pretty time consuming, but would be happy to try out any mods and record video of any promising looking possibilities.
Hardcore Gamer
Member
Thank you! I looked through and have a few concerns, especially given the 2014 limit, not that many Arma 3 flying drone mods back then, and none of the existing are a great match. Arma 2 didn't have a good modding community either it seems.
Was looking into DCS in which you are capable of flying above the earth but nothing there either
cptreynolds
Active Member
Found while searching Arma 3 stuff. I'm not sure how to embed these shorts, but apparently Digital Combat Simulator allows quite interesting stuff too.
A330 intercept
https://youtube.com/shorts/Kmsjq9Ba4xc
UFO intercept
https://youtube.com/shorts/dALrsWxuA0g
A330 intercept
https://youtube.com/shorts/Kmsjq9Ba4xc
UFO intercept
https://youtube.com/shorts/dALrsWxuA0g
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
Can you see if there are any MQ-1C Gray Eagle simulations, that include useable camera/optics that are pylon mounted?
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
Here is a video of an MQ-1C in Arma 3, so it exists
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6F5pESStNTc
Edit, the thumbnail for this is not a MQ-1C though so not sure, this is what they look like, this mod might just be someone's fantasy drone givena real name.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6F5pESStNTc
Edit, the thumbnail for this is not a MQ-1C though so not sure, this is what they look like, this mod might just be someone's fantasy drone givena real name.
Last edited:
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
Yes it's another point against it being real other military cameras like this we have seen flip the lens to zoom and/or digitally crop for closer FOV, they never use smoothly moveable optics to zoom like a zoom lens for a ILC, it's possible they can use smooth rather than stepped digital FOV changes, but I think the extent of zoom we see from this video it should involve a lens change which would be noticeable.
But again it's a problem with the lack of detail with the claim, there's no claimed specified camera system so it's just another "probably is fake" but there could be some classified camera we've never seen that zooms, it's unlikely given what we've seen in the past though.
Whoops, don't know how I missed that!! Anyways, adding onto what you already posted, the small gaps between the pings prove that the alleged interdimensional teleportation couldn't have lasted very long. Because the satellite video coordinates clearly and undeniably show that the "teleportation" happened near Malesia, not down south near Australia where the plane eventually crashed. The plane was apparently teleported into the alien verse, teleported back, and then kept flying for hours.Am I nobody?
I've used the word "Satcom" four times in this thread; my first use of it includes your picture and more, and concludes,
If you view the footage from the perspective of a VFX artist working before before the Inmarsat data became public in late May 2014, everything makes much more sense. At the time there was no sign of the plane after it went off military radar in Malesia. Nobody publicly knew that it actually had flown for a long period afterwards. So it being permanently teleported/destroyed by aliens makes for a clean ending to the story. Unfortunately for this attempted narrative, the Inmarsat data would come to mess everything up. Now the narrative of an alien teleportation/return/eventual crash just seems very silly. When there aren't even any gaps in the story for aliens to fill.
Mendel
Senior Member.
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
It does, it's a similar thing as we see in the ATFLIR videos, they do a 2:1 or 4:1 digital crop to decrease the FOV for the viewer (I think ATFLIR is only 2x crop)Compare:
The note about "electronic zoom" makes no sense if it isn't smooth.
Smooth zooms are fairly useless for practical combat use, you want it zoomed NOW and fine control over the actual FOV is not needed, unlike say for photography.
Amathia
Senior Member
Thank you! I looked through and have a few concerns, especially given the 2014 limit, not that many Arma 3 flying drone mods back then, and none of the existing are a great match. Arma 2 didn't have a good modding community either it seems.
Was looking into DCS in which you are capable of flying above the earth but nothing there either
If I remember correctly Arma 3 was released around the same time that Steam was releasing their Workshop for mods. I think Arma 3 was one of the first games that came out of the gate with full Workshop support. Arma 2 had quite a big modding community too, but for the time period you'd find them in places like Moddb.com and the Bohemia forums. I remember that game had a massive modding community because the original Day Z mod was for Arma 2. I believe the original mod that eventually became PUBG was also an Arma 2 mod.
Given the sheer number of mods you can mix and match and run at the same time though, it could definitely take a while to find the right combination of them to recreate one of these videos. There's a lot of content to sort through here.
tobigtofool
Active Member
It looks to me like the camera is about right where the hellfire missal is, is there any possible way there are cameras that could be mounted there?
Is there any possibility that camera could be on an actual missal rather than the drone?
I spent a bit last night looking through Reaper diagrams to see if I could find any camera additions or mods or things, but there really isnt.
There is an antenna about where the camera is, on the right wing, but idk and doubt if antenna can sometimes mean camera in technical jargon.
If one were to find a discrepancy between the movement pattern of the spheres in the FLIR video and the movement pattern of spheres in the satellite video, that would show evidence of doctoring. Has anyone attempted to see if the two movement patterns align? Perhaps tracing and comparing the movements?
They seem fairly complex, so there is a high likelihood of creating a discrepancy between the two views.
They seem fairly complex, so there is a high likelihood of creating a discrepancy between the two views.
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
Yes there is a triclops variant of the grey eagle
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-...eagle-uav-gets-more-sensors-and-multi-control
JMartJr
Senior Member.
Would not the same amount of change be happening in the clouds no matter where you filmed them from? If we're talking the clouds actually changing. If we're talking changes in viewing angle producing parallax effects, the Burj Kalifa vid ought to be useful. All of those buildings top out at a known height above the ground, so watching the change in the appearance of the buildings, the point their top intersects the ground and of the building shadows, should give plenty of points of reference for the mathematically inclined...
Hardcore Gamer
Member
- I don't think clouds *need* to discernably move (actual cloud shape change) in the specific scenario where satellite is filming at a very slant angle, which appears to be in the UAP video, since the distance from the sat to the airplane could be beyond what the resolution could see.
- I do agree with the parallax, BUT I still want to find satellite footage that's very slant And looking at clouds to see if the parallax is much smaller - as we'd expect (do we expect this, per optics/physics?)
- Parallax can also be seen here, comparing the shadow of the rightmost cloud moving very little over 15s, yet the cloud "moving" in our perspective. BUT this seems to be non-slant footage.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5BazZA8nvk
- Parallax can also be seen here, comparing the shadow of the rightmost cloud moving very little over 15s, yet the cloud "moving" in our perspective. BUT this seems to be non-slant footage.
TBH, I'm gonna start doing image searches of satellite pictures over the water that look like the uap video. I'm now personally convinced it isn't video, having watched so much sat footage over the past few days.
theDampSquid
New Member
2014 wasn't that long ago in terms of VFX capabilities. Davey Jones from Pirates of the Carribbean was made in 2006 and is still some of the best CGI that exists. Obviously they had an entire team but it's also an entirely CGI character, this is a simple compositing job that could be done since the 80's
theDampSquid
New Member
digital distortion can affect the visual appearance of light, colour, compression, sometimes cause two dimensional turbulent displacement, but it doesn't turn curved surfaces into sharp corners, and any two dimensional displacement it does cause is not consistent to content in the scene (it can't track itself to an object to maintain it's shape)
In a hypothetical circumstance where distortion happened to create corners, it would seemingly move across any objects that moved across the scene, as in, the corners would stay still in frame while it affected whatever passed underneath it
Liquid Snake
New Member
its just speculation on my part but the release of the video randomly onto the internet, the somewhat thought-out story it tells, tenuous-at-best ties to MH370 to begin with, and quality of VFX (vs amateur UFO videos on youtube) screams failed ARG or marketing for a canned hollywood film. consider, films like the donnie darko sequel did exactly this and check out the description of that upload:
its basically the exact same story for how this footage was found recently on the internet archive, uploaded by an anonymous source, with a dead link to original post. my guess would be this was marketing or production material for a film involving an airliner getting abducted by UFOs, possibly cancelled due to distastefulness with MH370 going missing or for some other reason.
Ahab
New Member
I have a feeling that a VFX house would have come forward by now. Or, at the very least, featured it in one of it's VFX sizzle reels.
theDampSquid
New Member
Like Snake said with the distastefulness, I'd imagine they'd prefer not to be associated with it. It's also nothing special worth putting in a showreel, especially with no one really seeing it (until now)
tobigtofool
Active Member
At this point, I think this is on the road to become our generations video of a walking bigfoot...
Believe it if you want, or accept it's probably a man in a suit.
Believe it if you want, or accept it's probably a man in a suit.
Kyle McDonald
Member
Great work on this. It does look very similar to me, too. I'm not sure if that's because these effects are designed to emulate real noise, or because this noise was generated by those effects, but it does provide an avenue for this to be faked and that's helpful to know.
I used phase_cross_correlation to check adjacent frames. This technique isn't perfect, especially in the presence of noise, but it picks up well on full-frame motion. You can see when the plane is not in the shot it doesn't have anything to measure (motion goes to zero). Even at the beginning I would expect a little more shaking to be measured.
What I see is that the y shaking is consistent and large, but the x shaking is relatively smaller in the middle section (around 800 frames), and maybe similar around the 600 and 1200 frames section. The x shaking has more low frequency power because the video is panning left and right, which is to be expected.
I think this could be replicated by simply setting some scale on the camera shake automation. Does anyone know if there are any standard camera shake automation controls that, by default, provide more y shake than x shake? I can try to get more precise numbers on the standard deviation in these different sections. Hopefully it's the same, and I'm just being tricked by the graph, because if the animator also automated the camera shake scale that's another surprise to add to the pile.
I was double-checking my work on this and I don't think phase_cross_correlation can analyze the camera shake adequately. It makes some registration mistakes when the plane is at the edge of the screen. I think it would be more appropriate to use a traditional motion tracker or a technique that includes feature detectors or computes optical flow. Let me take another look at this.
Last edited:
theDampSquid
New Member
I know that in most 3d software you can add noise values, and adjust their scale and speed value to each axis separatelyGreat work on this. It does look very similar to me, too. I'm not sure if that's because these effects are designed to emulate real noise, or because this noise was generated by those effects, but it does provide an avenue for this to be faked and that's helpful to know.
This got me thinking about the camera shake. I thought there might be a tell in the camera motion, for example if this was implemented in a naive way then I would expect both axes of the camera shake to have a similar standard deviation.
I used phase_cross_correlation to check adjacent frames. This technique isn't perfect, especially in the presence of noise, but it picks up well on full-frame motion. You can see when the plane is not in the shot it doesn't have anything to measure (motion goes to zero). Even at the beginning I would expect a little more shaking to be measured.
What I see is that the y shaking is consistent and large, but the x shaking is relatively smaller in the middle section (around 800 frames), and maybe similar around the 600 and 1200 frames section. The x shaking has more low frequency power because the video is panning left and right, which is to be expected.
I think this could be replicated by simply setting some scale on the camera shake automation. Does anyone know if there are any standard camera shake automation controls that, by default, provide more y shake than x shake? I can try to get more precise numbers on the standard deviation in these different sections. Hopefully it's the same, and I'm just being tricked by the graph, because if the animator also automated the camera shake scale that's another surprise to add to the pile.
doctorpangloss
New Member
(edit for brevity and to limit to contributions only)
why aren't the drone cameras stabilized?
why aren't the drone cameras stabilized?
Last edited:
DeepThroat
New Member
https://reports.aviation-safety.net/2014/20140308-0_B772_9M-MRO.pdf
Points of interest:
The Mode S symbol of MH370 dropped off from radar display at 1720:36 UTC [0120:36 MYT], and the last secondary radar position symbol of MH370 was recorded at 1721:13 UTC [0121:13 MYT].
The disappearance of the radar position symbol of MH370 was captured by the KL ACC radar at 1721:13 UTC [0121:13 MYT]. The Malaysian military radar and radar sources from two other countries, namely Viet Nam and Thailand, also captured the disappearance of the radar position symbol of MH370. The Bangkok radar target drop occurred at 1721:13 UTC [0121:13 MYT] and Viet Nam’s at 1720:59 UTC [0120:59 MYT]
37 seconds matches with the orbs appearing in the video to the point where the plane disappears in the video.
The Military radar data provided more extensive details of what was termed as “Air Turn Back”. It became very apparent, however, that the recorded altitude and speed change “blip” to “blip” were well beyond capability of the aircraft. It was highlighted to the Team that the altitude and speed extracted from the data are subjected to inherent error. The only useful information obtained from the Military radar was the latitude and longitude position of the aircraft as this data is reasonably accurate.
At 1721:13 UTC [0121:13 MYT] the Military radar showed the radar return of MH370 turning right but shortly after, making a constant left turn to heading of 273°, flying parallel to Airway M765 to VKB (Kota Bharu).
At 1801:59 UTC [0201:59 MYT] the data showed the “blip” on a heading of 022°, speed of 492 kt and altitude at 4,800 ft. This is supported by the “blip” detected by Military radar in the area of Pulau Perak at altitude 4,800 ft at 1801:59 UTC [0201:59 MYT]. At 1803:09 UTC [0203:09 MYT] the “blip” disappeared, only to reappear at 1815:25 UTC [0215:25 MYT] until 1822:12 UTC [0222:12 MYT], about 195 nm from Butterworth, on a heading of 285°, speed of 516 kt and at an altitude of 29,500 ft.
An altitude of 29,000ft would be consistent with the thermal imagery shown. If you can prove the heading isn’t 285 degrees then that could be an avenue for debunking the footage.
Fig 1.1G on page 59 (PDF) or page 13 of the report shows three radar contacts close to the MH370 route. This is surprising.
Points of interest:
The Mode S symbol of MH370 dropped off from radar display at 1720:36 UTC [0120:36 MYT], and the last secondary radar position symbol of MH370 was recorded at 1721:13 UTC [0121:13 MYT].
The disappearance of the radar position symbol of MH370 was captured by the KL ACC radar at 1721:13 UTC [0121:13 MYT]. The Malaysian military radar and radar sources from two other countries, namely Viet Nam and Thailand, also captured the disappearance of the radar position symbol of MH370. The Bangkok radar target drop occurred at 1721:13 UTC [0121:13 MYT] and Viet Nam’s at 1720:59 UTC [0120:59 MYT]
37 seconds matches with the orbs appearing in the video to the point where the plane disappears in the video.
The Military radar data provided more extensive details of what was termed as “Air Turn Back”. It became very apparent, however, that the recorded altitude and speed change “blip” to “blip” were well beyond capability of the aircraft. It was highlighted to the Team that the altitude and speed extracted from the data are subjected to inherent error. The only useful information obtained from the Military radar was the latitude and longitude position of the aircraft as this data is reasonably accurate.
At 1721:13 UTC [0121:13 MYT] the Military radar showed the radar return of MH370 turning right but shortly after, making a constant left turn to heading of 273°, flying parallel to Airway M765 to VKB (Kota Bharu).
At 1801:59 UTC [0201:59 MYT] the data showed the “blip” on a heading of 022°, speed of 492 kt and altitude at 4,800 ft. This is supported by the “blip” detected by Military radar in the area of Pulau Perak at altitude 4,800 ft at 1801:59 UTC [0201:59 MYT]. At 1803:09 UTC [0203:09 MYT] the “blip” disappeared, only to reappear at 1815:25 UTC [0215:25 MYT] until 1822:12 UTC [0222:12 MYT], about 195 nm from Butterworth, on a heading of 285°, speed of 516 kt and at an altitude of 29,500 ft.
An altitude of 29,000ft would be consistent with the thermal imagery shown. If you can prove the heading isn’t 285 degrees then that could be an avenue for debunking the footage.
Fig 1.1G on page 59 (PDF) or page 13 of the report shows three radar contacts close to the MH370 route. This is surprising.
Last edited:
FatPhil
Senior Member.
Technically not. We can only discard "This was created from VFX of publically accessible high-altitude/military testing footage.". That we can't find it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
cptreynolds
Active Member
Is that the thermo or the visible light video?Great work on this. It does look very similar to me, too. I'm not sure if that's because these effects are designed to emulate real noise, or because this noise was generated by those effects, but it does provide an avenue for this to be faked and that's helpful to know.
This got me thinking about the camera shake. I thought there might be a tell in the camera motion, for example if this was implemented in a naive way then I would expect both axes of the camera shake to have a similar standard deviation.
I used phase_cross_correlation to check adjacent frames. This technique isn't perfect, especially in the presence of noise, but it picks up well on full-frame motion. You can see when the plane is not in the shot it doesn't have anything to measure (motion goes to zero). Even at the beginning I would expect a little more shaking to be measured.
What I see is that the y shaking is consistent and large, but the x shaking is relatively smaller in the middle section (around 800 frames), and maybe similar around the 600 and 1200 frames section. The x shaking has more low frequency power because the video is panning left and right, which is to be expected.
I think this could be replicated by simply setting some scale on the camera shake automation. Does anyone know if there are any standard camera shake automation controls that, by default, provide more y shake than x shake? I can try to get more precise numbers on the standard deviation in these different sections. Hopefully it's the same, and I'm just being tricked by the graph, because if the animator also automated the camera shake scale that's another surprise to add to the pile.
cptreynolds
Active Member
RobertBillyBob
Member
In blender you can add noise modifiers to each property channel individually.
There are discussions about doing camera shake in the Blender StackExchange dating more than 10 years.
FatPhil
Senior Member.
It makes less sense if it is smooth. 2 discrete digital zoom levels were listed, and of course the unzoomed state is assumed to exist. If it was continuous, there would be no point in listing 3 zoom levels. Why list 2x? If there's a continuum between 1x and 4x, then 2x would be assumed to exist, as would every other intermediate value, so you wouldn't list it.Compare:
The note about "electronic zoom" makes no sense if it isn't smooth.
Eburacum
Senior Member.
The important factor here is the difference in level between the two cloud layers. In the 'MH370' 'satellite' video, there are two distinct cloud layers, a layer of fluffy cumulus and a layer of banded stratus, probably altostratus or cirrostratus. The stratus layer would be thousands of feet higher than the cumulus, so the visible bands or stripes should move at a detectably different rate to the cumulus due to the effects of parallax. But there is no detectable movement.
I'm also concerned about the effects of atmospheric extinction at a distance - if the plane is being filmed at a very significant slant angle, then it is being observed through hundreds of miles of atmosphere, and the scattering effects of the atmosphere should reduce visibility significantly, if the plane is very far away from the satellite. This clip appears to be filmed at a very great slant angle, yet the footage is remarkably clear and free of scattering effects.
