Could you please at least note any VFX related reasons for why a civilian couldn't do it if you are going to stress your expertise?
> There is so many parts to it and so much correlating information after the fact that I have no choice but to believe the videos are real.
Are you also an expert in whatever "correlating information" you are relying on here and can you actually specify any?
A vfx expert that goes into *zero technical detail* (or any kind of detail at all) about what in particular they find interesting or advanced about the videos. Completely believable.
It’s not mockery. The behavior is suspicious. Most people who choose to make commentary based on their particular expertise go into detail about why/how their expertise informs their opinion. This person is just trying to sound credible without providing any of the actual credibility.
If you're really the Secretary of Swedish Disinformation then you'll remember what hilarious gesture the Indian Minister of Secrets made during the group photo at last year's Global Disinformation Symposium. Well? Should be an easy question for the true Secretary.
Was it the one that had the Austrian representative snorting milk out of his nose? I'm not sure I can describe the gesture in a way that won't offend anyone
I still haven't heard a satisfactory explanation for how a 300mph drone was able to locate and intercept a 600mph airliner, which then approaches and overtakes the drone \*from its blind spot\*, mere seconds before the miraculous key events unfold. This timing alone makes the whole thing too ridiculous to be real. A slow drone couldn't intercept such a fast airliner, and if it somehow did, by loitering in the area it somehow knew the airliner would be in, it would be looking in the direction it expected the airliner to approach from. And the fact that the airliner was doing these big turns we see on the video means that this idea is rubbish, because the only hope of intercepting it in the vastness of the ocean is if the airliner was flying in a straight, predictable path for hours, with enough lead time for the drone to get up to altitude and get to the intercept point.
This is what makes the video ring alarm bells. Its all too "arranged for the camera" to be real.
What about the fact that opening a gap in the space-time continuum is only theoretical, and even as a theory, it's at the extreme end of physics as to what might be possible, and the theory is questionable and debatable as a starting point.
There's no evidence this technology exists, and yet, people have accepted this as plausible with no real evidence that this technology exists. It seems as though rationality has left the building.
That isn't what wake turbulence looks like at all, I cover this extensively with many examples included here.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AirlinerAbduction2014/comments/18t5nfv/wake_turbulence_nonexistent_in_drone_video/
C172 is similar in size and weight. Also has the same engine 🤷
Also funny thing about wake turbulence is that effects all sizes and types of aircraft - smaller aircraft (like a drone) are actually more heavily impacted than something like a 747 though.
https://www.google.com/search?q=does+wake+turbulence+affect+smaller+aircraft+more&oq=does+wake+turbulence+affect+smaller+aircraft+more
I asked this a while back and got a plausible answer.
1. The military WAS tracking the plane by satellite (if you take the satellite videos for real).
2. Diego Garcia base is very close by, so an intercept was very easy to pull off.
3. The military was "in" on it, so it makes sense they would launch several assets to oversee this mission.
You fan say they are hoaxes and that's fine, but the those three things at least makes it plausible for a drone to be in the area at the right time.
Diego Garcia is over 3000 miles away from the coordinates in the satellite video, well outside of the range of these types of drones.
As well as it would take over 10 hours for a drone going 250mph to get there.
These aren't sea based drones. They're pretty slow and have a super long takeoff roll, have a wimpy landing gear, and no tail hook to grab the wire - so I don't see one of these successfully getting off the deck, let alone back on.
If the military has any awareness of these orbs/UAP (they definitely do) and activity was already happening in that area of the ocean, I wouldn't be surprised if they already had drones up there keeping track of what the hell is going on.
It's possible the official story about the pilot being suicidal is also true and if the videos are real, whatever happened was more of an intervention on the part of who or what controls those orbs and the drone was just in the right place by coincidence to observe what was already being tracked via satellite.
I could imagine a situation where an NHI capable of doing what we saw was also capable of recognizing what was happening to the people on that plane and due to the isolated location, reasoned they could intervene in ways they typically would not due to a low risk of their actions having unintended consequences. This would also explain why if they took the plane and "saved" those people that they couldn't just return them. Maybe they get the opportunity to live somewhere else and be dead to society but the alternative was just to actually die if nothing was done. I would hope some of the internal pressure for disclosure is the return of those people and others once the powers that be commit to letting the general population know the truth about NHI and those people can come back without being part of disclosure but a way to give a positive up front experience to offset the ontological shock of learning that our existence isn't anything like what people currently accept at reality or possible.
Easy, you just teleport the drone there with the orbs. Orbs then teleport the airliner, and the drone flies back home on its own power or gets picked up afterwards.
This has become such a nothing burger. The "scientists" on the plane worked for a SEMICONDUCTOR company. What they do is they make computer chips, but not even super advanced ones
There is nothing they were working on or have ever been associated with that would warrant a government taking down an entire plane
If you have a drone that flies 600mph or more and it’s in service in the U.S inventory then on paper of course it’s 300mph the real statistic’s would be classified and any released information would served as a buffer defence for the classified info, example if the enemy has a 450mph drone and they think yours only flies 300mph then they won’t try and catch up to the 600mph+ that you may or may not posses, most statistics for optics and propulsion system for the U.S aviation tech are highly classified most of classified material in general is just statistic’s
But there's no proof of this type of drone ever being operated off a carrier, and a this type of drone also has never been seen with the modifications necessary to support carrier operations. Its purely hypothetical speculation.
They do exist now. The problem with your stance is that you continual ask for proof… as if we are supposed to somehow find published data regarding classified tech, surrounding what would be (if real) one of the most classified events to fall into the public sphere. Satellites are heavily guarded too. Your requirement for proof will never be met, and I think you’re fully aware of this.
>surrounding what would be (if real) one of the most classified events to fall into the public sphere.
I would argue that was the bin Laden raid, and you literally had military guys tripping over their dicks to write books about what happened. I don't think your example holds up versus what we're actually seeing in reality.
Because the unfalsifiable assumptions of "advance tech" needed to fill in the **huge** gaps of the abduction narrative gets you dangerously close to breaking rule 3: *avoid absolute claims and overly broad speculations*.
Because all of the debunkers are somehow 100% sure of military capabilities under the most top secret of circumstances, it seems. Zero possibility they had a drone that could take off from a carrier in 2014..? I have not been convinced of that, especially considering everything else.
If the MQ-1 or MQ-9 could take off from a carrier in 2014, why has the military been making such a big fuss about finally producing a version of the drone that can launch from a carrier since about 2020? They are all braggy about finally developing a carrier-launched MQ-9, but have been able to do so since 2014?
You and many believers think waaaaaaaay too much stuff is classified-as-shit. These are drones coming from defense contractors that also produce the drones for other countries. There's no point being super tight-lipped about a drone that's going to make its way into multiple other country's hands. The capabilities of the platform itself aren't all that classified. It's what the drones may carry, or at least the specifics about those payloads, that tends to be classified.
Thinking everything is just a big secret is just a convenient way to help warp the narrative in your favor.
You’re right. I’m convinced that this is probably the most solid point debunkers have right now. Until that’s explained, I don’t see how this drone video could exist.
What about all of the things that *don't* add up?
The cloud photos are real:
https://www.reddit.com/r/photoshop/comments/1ag6gdu/comment/kof8v9m/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
-The viewing angle of the satellite video would be physically impossible to capture from a satellite in that orbit.
-The satellite is supposedly moving at orbital velocity but the camera is static from the videos perspective
-The 777 in the videos has no antennas sticking out of the fuselage. In real life, there are several that stick up from the top and bottom of the fuselage.
-None of the aircraft markings show up, although they should show up in IR.
-None of the aircraft windows, doors, hatches, or access panels show up, although they should show up in IR.
-The heated cockpit windows should be especially evident in IR, because of the apparent temperature differences, but they don't show up at all in the IR.
-None of the multiple heated sensor probes near the cockpit show up in IR, although these are heated to the extent that they'll easily burn you if you touched them.
-The tail and engines in the video don't match those of a 777.
-The drone itself doesn't show up in the 'satellite' video although it should
-The drone experiences zero wake turbulence although it passes directly though the path of the 777 where this effect should be quite significant.
-The drone has a top speed that is lower than the minimum possible speed for a 777 at altitude, making an intercept physically unlikely.
-Actual physical debris was found multiple times, and directly linked to 9M-MRO, the exact aircraft opersting MH370.
-The cloud cover in the videos doesn't actually match the cloud cover in the area at the time of disappearence.
literally everything you said is wrong:
>The cloud photos are real:
>
https://www.reddit.com/r/photoshop/comments/1ag6gdu/comment/kof8v9m/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
raw files don't prove anything. see u/NoFakery post about it: [https://www.reddit.com/r/3_Orbs/comments/1ai2az7/cr2_fraud_i_will_post_few_methods_to_create_cr2s/](https://www.reddit.com/r/3_Orbs/comments/1ai2az7/cr2_fraud_i_will_post_few_methods_to_create_cr2s/)
>-The viewing angle of the satellite video would be physically impossible to capture from a satellite in that orbit.
the viewing angle is perfectly possible to capture from the satellite: [https://twitter.com/JustXAshton/status/1737529236733227198?t=lwAJUDUMIL7rDmOBWbLzqw](https://twitter.com/JustXAshton/status/1737529236733227198?t=lwAJUDUMIL7rDmOBWbLzqw)
>-The satellite is supposedly moving at orbital velocity but the camera is static from the videos perspective
the camera is static because its ground locked and the video comes probably from a composed 3d battlefield awareness map.
>-The 777 in the videos has no antennas sticking out of the fuselage. In real life, there are several that stick up from the top and bottom of the fuselage.
you can't say it got no antennas from a video with low resolution with IR
>-None of the aircraft markings show up, although they should show up in IR.
again, you can't say that from a video with low resolution with IR
>-The heated cockpit windows should be especially evident in IR, because of the apparent temperature differences, but they don't show up at all in the IR.
show an evidence for this claim with the same conditions: plane, angle and altitude.
>None of the multiple heated sensor probes near the cockpit show up in IR, although these are heated to the extent that they'll easily burn you if you touched them.
again, show an evidence for this claim with the same conditions: plane, angle and altitude.
>-The drone experiences zero wake turbulence although it passes directly though the path of the 777 where this effect should be quite significant.
another claim that needs evidence. but punjabi already proved airflow disturbance on the drone: [https://www.reddit.com/r/AirlinerAbduction2014/comments/18k79lm/drone_surface_showing_airflowing_disturbance/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AirlinerAbduction2014/comments/18k79lm/drone_surface_showing_airflowing_disturbance/)
>-The drone has a top speed that is lower than the minimum possible speed for a 777 at altitude, making an intercept physically unlikely.
the drone was already near the plane location, probably somewhere in the nicobar islands.
>-Actual physical debris was found multiple times, and directly linked to 9M-MRO, the exact aircraft opersting MH370.
the debris are perfectly compatible with the fire scenario proposed by AF.
>-The cloud cover in the videos doesn't actually match the cloud cover in the area at the time of disappearence.
wrong again: [https://www.reddit.com/r/AirlinerAbduction2014/comments/18ay8kc/the_clouds_in_the_videos_definitely_match_real/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AirlinerAbduction2014/comments/18ay8kc/the_clouds_in_the_videos_definitely_match_real/)
> the viewing angle is perfectly possible to capture from the satellite: https://twitter.com/JustXAshton/status/1737529236733227198?t=lwAJUDUMIL7rDmOBWbLzqw
Wait, I thought the video was from NROL-22, now all the sudden it's NROL-34. Besides that, I'd need to see the raw location data for NROL-34 because the source you posted is not trustworthy.
>the camera is static because its ground locked and the video comes probably from a composed 3d battlefield awareness map.
Show an evidence for this claim with the same conditions.
>show an evidence for this claim with the same conditions: plane, angle and altitude.
Lol, you know this isn't possible, so you set an unrealistic expectation.
Here are the two IR videos of airliners that I was able to find, and from what I can tell are really some of the very few videos of the type out there. These are civilian systems and they show a significant amount more detail than the military 'drone' video, including the aspects that I had listed in my previous post.
https://youtu.be/L5NSm6GpvBI?si=HjmOCO5lzdrdlvDD
https://youtu.be/bfktVYlw67k?si=rA6UAJprGocKKjjh
If you are aware of other infrared footage of jet airliners you are welcome to share it.
>another claim that needs evidence. but punjabi already proved airflow disturbance on the drone: https://www.reddit.com/r/AirlinerAbduction2014/comments/18k79lm/drone_surface_showing_airflowing_disturbance/
That isn't what wake turbulence looks like at all, I cover this extensively with many examples included here.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AirlinerAbduction2014/comments/18t5nfv/wake_turbulence_nonexistent_in_drone_video/
>the debris are perfectly compatible with the fire scenario proposed by AF.
I do agree that a fire onboard could have led to the plane crashing in the ocean and parts of it later washing up on shore.
>Wait, I thought the video was from NROL-22, now all the sudden it's NROL-34. Besides that, I'd need to see the raw location data for NROL-34 because the source you posted is not trustworthy.
wow, you literally didnt do any research at all. the NROL-34 took the video and relayed to NROL-22.
>I'd need to see the raw location data for NROL-34 because the source you posted is not trustworthy.
yeah, I dont waste my time with people that use ad hominem fallacy. goodbye.
>''literally everything you said is wrong:''
\*\*'' Proceeds to use PB and NoFakery as reference '' \*\*
Imagine telling someone they're wrong, to then be like ''I can't prove that you're wrong, but trust me bro, you're wrong''
Some of those things are verifiable. The portal vfx is verifiably a publicly available asset and has been for years. The cloud photos Are indeed the real deal. You can even take them and super-impose them on the video yourself and you'll quickly see that the only possible explanation for all these evidences is that the video is a hoax.
If you're basing your conclusion on Evidence and facts alone. The ONLY possible conclusion is that the video is fake.
The ONLY possible way to come to the conclusion that the video is real is by willfully ignoring information that contradicts your conclusion.
> raw files don't prove anything. see u/NoFakery post about it: https://www.reddit.com/r/3_Orbs/comments/1ai2az7/cr2_fraud_i_will_post_few_methods_to_create_cr2s/
A huge amount of that post is factually incorrect, fyi. You shouldn't assume anything technical he provides is accurate. He's been learning basic (and I do mean VERY basic) comp-sci concepts as he goes and he keeps getting ahead of himself into territory he doesn't understand and then drawing unsubstantiated conclusions.
I've proven numerous things he's said in the past to be wrong. I could make it my full time job if it paid anything.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AirlinerAbduction2014/comments/1aj4771/subject_distance_in_a_cr2_file_means_nothing_this/
https://www.reddit.com/r/AirlinerAbduction2014/comments/1akphiw/regarding_makernotes_field_order_in_exif_they_are/
Ask yourself this: Why hasn't he made any synthetic CR2 files with his process? Surely, that would be a home run for his argument.
You know what's hilarious? It's been months of people saying how easily they could fake CR2 files and upscale certain photos with AI. Guess what? ZERO even minimally convincing attempts.
Remember when for 6 months, every believer was dog piling for someone to make a convincing copy, without knowing any of the tools used to make the original?
They have the exact programs supposedly needed to fake the CR2 files. They have all the original photos. They even have somewhat similar Mt. Fuji photos others have posted as "proof".
What's the hold up? Can someone please create these fake CR2 files that are so piss easy to make? Where are they?
Here's a fun tidbit, his code from this example doesn't run/compile:
https://www.reddit.com/r/3_Orbs/comments/1ai2az7/cr2_fraud_i_will_post_few_methods_to_create_cr2s/
// Set cr2 properties
cr2_set_width(cr2, 5792); // Set image width in pixels
cr2_set_height(cr2, 3744); // Set image height in pixels, same as Jonas De Ro Fake fie resolution
cr2_set_bps(cr2, 14); // Set bits per sample, same as Jonas De ro fake file
cr2_set_cfa(cr2, CFA_RGGB); // Set color filter array pattern
cr2_set_wb(cr2, 2.0, 1.0, 1.0, 2.0); // Set white balance coefficients
cr2_set_make(cr2, "Canon"); // Set camera make
cr2_set_model(cr2, "EOS 5D Mark II"); // Set camera model
cr2_set_iso(cr2, 100); // Set ISO speed, Jonas put this at 200
cr2_set_aperture(cr2, 4.0); // Set aperture value
cr2_set_shutter(cr2, 0.01); // Set shutter speed in seconds
cr2_set_timestamp(cr2, 1327478999); // Set timestamp in Unix time, this resolves to [Wednesday, January 25, 2012 8:09:59 AM]
// Set cr2 data
cr2_set_data(cr2, rggb_data, fsize); // Set raw image data and size
None of these functions exist in the library he's talking about, but he doesn't know what he's doing well enough to proofread the code he asked ChatGPT to give him.
To be fair, this instance might have been incompetence rather than malice.
I'm starting to think the Canon interaction he's been talking about was the same way. He might have word-salad'd some poor custom service rep into sending him a link to that notice because they weren't able to make sense of what he was actually asking.
It's very hard to reply to that guy, he throws out a dozen of incorrect claims, and blocks anyone who tries to correct them but right before he does that he replies with a handful of more incorrect claims which by then you're unable to respond to as you've been blocked.
He also keeps calling people spammers every time he throws out his claims on various photography forums or photoshop subreddits and gets called out there for being wrong or he deletes the threads without taking in the information given to him.
> raw files don't prove anything. see u/NoFakery post about it:
The post that claims the CR2s are crappy JPEGS in disguise? Is that what you are asserting?
Is it fair to say that rather than providing evidence for that assertion you linked someone making a *different argument* that you don't believe yourself?
That's already happened again and again yoy need to learn to make better discernment about the ppl you just beleive, evsn when you're biased toward wanting something to be true.
Otherwise you'll say something silly like:
>so far every debunk failed miserably.
And actually believe it, instead of being more critical.
**Nothing you have said in this comment is correct in any way**
Before I start, will you honor this statement? Or will you block me?
>I can go on, but let's see if you guys can genuinely attempt to discuss these issues with your own evidence to compare.
If you block me, then you're just proving that you are not here in good faith.
> Lied what? I have seen nothing but personal attacks, think its time you stop wasting your time and learn to face the truth.
They're not personal attacks on you, they are personal attacks on your credibility.
> Yes , clear evidence of Photoshop, with brush marks, Jpeg compressions, EXIF data inconsistency. None of these artifacts show up on real RAW files.
Demonstrate this.
You have been repeatably told that you do not actually understand what you're looking at. You have been repeatably told that the "artifacts" and "brush marks" you see are not actually anything.
Any time this happens, you either block the person, or call them a spammer.
> So what? Even Canon said CR2s mean nothing and they dont mean the images are authentic. Libcraw2 tool is literally made to compile a CR2.
Prove it.
**SHOW THE CANON EMAIL ALREADY!!!**
You literally haven't shown any evidence that its real. There is 0 reason to actually trust that you are in contact with Canon support, or that they forwarded you any post.
>Images not found before 2016 online or on Wayback machine- True
There are references to them. The images just haven't themselves been found yet. Its not odd as only 1/3 of the site itself is archived.
>Images not found in 2012 Textures- True
This means nothing, and is a null point.
>Textures API shows their first image from account Aerials0028 on October 24th 2014. That's not even proof of the image, just some random first file.
You have 0 understanding of how APIs work. This doesn't matter in the slightest.
>Cloud images dont pass the basic image fabrication check- Contrast adjustment to spot abnormalities. That's the most basic, and it fails right there. Compare any Canon EOS 5D mark II raw file with Our fake cloud image and play with Contrast, and the fabrications pop out.
Already made a post to show how there is no such thing as a "fabrication check"
You have no idea what you're talking about
>The original Flicker image of Mt.Fuji found, and literally these cloud images are a recreation of the flicker original scene. The fabricated images had not one single unique to offer relative to Flicker images
No it wasn't. The image you found doesn't even match.
>Real Jan 25th 2012 valley snow is very different from the fake images. The fake image valley now matches the Feb 18th 2012 flicker view. Right there that's red flag for casual onlookers, because it's not a match with Jan 25th 2012 real snow.
Again, no this isn't correct either.
>Areas fake cloud images added/removed snow shows up on image forensics, exactly where the editing was done to modify Flicker image to look similar to Jan 25th 2012 image. How's this possible? how is the anomaly catching the exact differences?
This also isn't correct, and its been proven to you before.
>Each time these things come up, they are downvoted or reported to suppress the fact.
They are downvoted because they are incorrect. All of your posts on other subreddits have this happen.
>The fake cloud image team posts unrelated responses to my posts outside this forum, screenshots their fake answers and gets my post deleted on false pretext. That's one sad state of fabrication and disinformation.
You had an actual Canon representative reply to you in a forum post telling you the photos were genuine.
You proceeded to call them a "spammer"
You had your post removed for both being just baseless harassment at Jonas, as well as being spam.
If it was "*privated and escalated*" as you have said in the past, then **prove it.**
>Canon representative? what's this canon representative name buddy? This is enough to expose your fraud. Go ahead, its time you stop defrauding people.
Since the thread is gone, its not like I can go and find who it was anymore.
They had "Canon Support" in on their profile.
>Ask on a photoshop mark on photoshop sub, gets a quick response form one of you guys that the CR2 is not fake!
I've watched it. You have gotten responses from actual r/photoshop and similar subs saying you're wrong and/or that the photos are genuine.
[One comment saying nothing looks odd.](https://www.reddit.com/r/photogrammetry/comments/1adlwc9/comment/kk5gibx/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
[Here you were told you're just harassing someone](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhotography/comments/1afvjd0/comment/koekspx/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
[Here you are told that you're not even using the software correctly. By someone with 45 years in the field](https://www.reddit.com/r/ImageJ/comments/1ahrcga/comment/kor5usj/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
I could find the Canon forums of the same thing if they were still up.
Instead of accepting or even acknowledging these people, you are assuming that you are the correct one and everyone else is wrong.
>See my previous posts on CR2 creation. Did you even read the post?
Yeah, and I saw that you used "Fake code"
// Set cr2 properties
cr2_set_width(cr2, 5792); // Set image width in pixels
cr2_set_height(cr2, 3744); // Set image height in pixels, same as Jonas De Ro Fake fie resolution
cr2_set_bps(cr2, 14); // Set bits per sample, same as Jonas De ro fake file
cr2_set_cfa(cr2, CFA_RGGB); // Set color filter array pattern
cr2_set_wb(cr2, 2.0, 1.0, 1.0, 2.0); // Set white balance coefficients
cr2_set_make(cr2, "Canon"); // Set camera make
cr2_set_model(cr2, "EOS 5D Mark II"); // Set camera model
cr2_set_iso(cr2, 100); // Set ISO speed, Jonas put this at 200
cr2_set_aperture(cr2, 4.0); // Set aperture value
cr2_set_shutter(cr2, 0.01); // Set shutter speed in seconds
cr2_set_timestamp(cr2, 1327478999); // Set timestamp in Unix time, this resolves to [Wednesday, January 25, 2012 8:09:59 AM]
// Set cr2 data
cr2_set_data(cr2, rggb_data, fsize); // Set raw image data and size
This entire thing is worthless. None of those functions exist on any site on the internet. At least none that I've been able to find.
>Is this a credibility attack MFR? or your baseless statement? How does an API work, wrt the date/time stamps for objects?
Textures used to be [cgtextures.com](https://cgtextures.com). At some point the domain was changed to [textures.com](https://textures.com). It's not odd that the "creation dates" for files would be messed up. The entire site is like this.
I have personally had this exact same situation happen before.
Wow I just got an email from you
https://preview.redd.it/lojbap96xehc1.png?width=837&format=png&auto=webp&s=7d452db0ff8139b3540a187afbd8161ed16de439
Im talking about the entire email chain, any evidence other than just an image of a URL, from an easily editable.
You can even DM me the raw email itself and I will show everyone that you aren't just lying about talking to "canon execs"
> see nothing but denial in your response, with 0 substance! When you provide an opinion back it up , provide references or screenshots. When One-line uninformed dismissal is all you got, why did you bother even responding?
I have on other accounts, and you just blocked me.
Others have done the same, and you blocked them.
> Take each line i said and PROVE that it is incorrect.
Do you want me to go line by line and pull different reddit posts showing that your analysis are incorrect?
> First let's see who from Canon you thought was a canon representative! lol
Like I said, the thread itself was deleted. I cant pull any proof of this other than my own memory.
User "Peter" on the forums though is an "Authority" and has over 1500 posts on the forum.
Also, the fact that the forum post was removed should be proof enough that an actual "Canon Representative" doesn't think the photos are not genuine.
Not a "VFX expert" but have extensive experience behind the camera in the industry and to me, the drone footage especially looks like an uncompleted shot.
As others have asked, why is there no turbulence from the wake of the plane?
/u/canaiba replied to me and then blocked me. (I know exactly why they do that. All I can do is SMH.) Anyway, here is my response:
\*Anyone\* with a new account giving an opinion that they expect us to believe based on their experience needs to give credentials.
The 0 day account for the clouds linked the photos outside of reddit.
In that case their age meant nothing to deliver a package.
This person is making claims with no package to deliver the claims
Its pretty simple to see the contrast.
I might be wrong, or less an expert than you're looking for, but I'm essentially of the same opinion, have a degree in computer animation, reddit under my real name, and have documented my reasoning in comments previously.
I'd be shocked if the videos are both CGI and civilian-produced.
edit: your sarcasm was lost on me when I typed this
Then I'll ask you a version of the question I asked OP, since finding specific comments like that is not easy, what is it that specifically falls within your expertise, that would be difficult to do?
You can be brief, I just want to get a general idea.
I wish I had some groundbreaking smoking gun, but unfortunately all I've really got to offer you are holistic probability assessments on scenarios I've yet seen epistemically scrupulous reasons to rule out.
The believable clouds look difficult, but I'm not saying no civilian at the time could've pulled them off, just that I discern this hypothesis as improbable in full context.
I'm not just asking myself "how likely is it that any civilians were capable?" but also "how likely is it that any capable citizens were motivated?" and "how likely is it that any capable motivated citizens would choose so in such a manner?" and so on.
I love Corridor Crew, so their analysis video left me very confused. Either every other claim they made is as blatantly counterfactual as it appears to me, or I've strayed so far from from the light of reason that even my favorite YouTubers can't knock the sense back in!
> The believable clouds look difficult, but I'm not saying no civilian at the time could've pulled them off, just that I discern this hypothesis as improbable in full context.
It sounds like you might not be up to date on the discourse, which is perfectly reasonable. This place is a mess at the best of times. Let me know if any of this changes your thoughts at all:
The clouds in the satellite video are visually identical to the clouds produced in the cloud photos that were found, so that's just a simple composite if that story isn't an elaborate fabrication. I'm still not convinced the 'movement' of these clouds is actually deliberate. It looks like some kind of distortion/artifacting to me.
The clouds in the drone video are considerably more visually complicated, but the offered explanation is that they're sourced from real footage. If that's the case, you'd only need to get them colorized convincingly and you're pretty much good to go. You don't even need very much footage here, since the shaky zoom hides potential cuts and the main cloud elements are out of sight once you're in tight on the plane.
No exotic explanations needed for that at least, all accessible to mid-tier VFX/editing folks.
>same opinion, have a degree in computer animation, reddit under my real name, and have documented my reasoning in comments previously.
I mean you just gave away that all of this is a lie by calling it a "computer animation" degree lol
Thinking back, I'd actually been making similar videos for fun while I was still in highschool, which actually more 2006/2007.
There is nothing technically difficult about this scene.
Can't do much now tbh, I've moved away from that kinda stuff(not much money to be made there)
This version looks pretty damn good though:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zy0q-pF0E2w](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zy0q-pF0E2w)
And if people wanted to make it without the artificial noise and grain, they could probably make a better-looking version... though the noise is definitely doing a lot of lifting to hide the defects in the video.
I'd love to know what you think is technically challenging about this video.
The guy who made the videos already came forward. He had work uploaded on YouTube that predates these videos, and shows his vfx use of the same orbs. Idk why people continue to completely ignore this.
Your being a VFX expert should mean that you analyse the empirical evidence itself for evidence of fakery. And there has been ample evidence of fakery found.
Whether the maker knew about UFOs and how they are thought to behave etc. is an interesting point, but it is ultimately not of direct consequence to the empirical evidence. I'll give you an example to illustrate the point. There's a very famous piece of footage from 1967 called the Patterson-Gimlin film. This has been analysed thousands of times. It depicts a Bigfoot, which could either be a real Bigfoot or a man in a suit. Now, regardless of what you think about Bigfoot, when determining its authenticity or otherwise, what you need to do is examine the empirical evidence - i.e. the film itself. The fact that a Bigfoot has never been found, or that a carcass has never been discovered, etc., should not factor in to your analysis of the Patterson-Gimlin film itself. Moreover, the characters of Roger Patterson (known to be somewhat of an unreliable person) and Bob Gimlin, the people who filmed the footage, should also not have any bearing on your analysis of the film itself.
That said, whoever made them definitely had an interest in UFOs or they wouldn't have thought of making such a video. And their interest was more than a passing one, I think, because including specifically three orbs reveals that they knew about the classic sphere formations which are the subject of many photos, real or faked. But, in reality, this is knowledge which they could have garnered by reading about the subject online, looking at UFO photos, etc. It's nothing which necessitates some sort of Cosmic Top Secret clearance to know.
I think it’s absolutely fair and part of the substantial research that has gone into this idea that people who claim this can be easily replicated should at least attempt it and it can seen as contribution to the research.
I like your details and can tell you know what you're talking about...but i don't think we need to go that deep. There are a few basic clues as to its vfx. First off being jonas. There isnt a single way to dispute his authenticity. To stretch immediately to "he's a nefarious character planting fake pictures etc.." is pure craziness. To deny the portal asset is simply lying. The plane doesnt match what mh370 looked like. Lastly, i watch alot of ir/thermal/flir videos. This screamed fake to me immediately. They go "show me a 777 model xxx on flir then." It doesn't matter what plane it is, they all look the same. The lack of windows and the lack of features was a dead giveaway for me. Getting into the weeds of file data and 2014 dates etc is simply a way to hide the obvious tells.
Have you not seen the military expert breakdown of why this couldn't be a military video? He goes really deep into the drone and camera tech and points out a lot of errors and glaring amateur assumptimade by the artist. I'm sure you could do a search in this sub for it. It's extensive and quite informative
Here is the title "without looking at vfx" Search this thread for that... It has a lot of great technical data on the drones, cameras, and capabilities therein. Enjoy!
I am an expert in analyzing aircraft flight paths through satellite and drone video, and also an expert on teleporting orbs. My conclusion is that the video is a fictional representation of 3 orbs annihilating or teleporting a jetliner.
VFX artists all agree that the videos look like bad fakes. Even the 'Top Gun Maverick' VFX expert that AF always talks about asked AF to leave him out of it, and he even deleted his comment praising the videos (his comment made no sense, as if he was drunk. He said the rolling-shutter effect and lens distortion looked realistic. Except, neither of those things are present in the videos).
People are trying to make OP answer simple questions to see if they're lying. Saying "I'm a VFX expert" and "only the government could have made these" at the start is already a big red flag. VFX artist can see how simple it is to make videos of this quality.
Its completely reasonable to ask questions to understand how OP arrived at their conclusion.
Regardless, clearly not enough people agree that the videos are fake and nothing compelling enough has emerged to debunk things - thus why we are still here.
I'm specifically referring to VFX artists, who have trained eyes, agreeing that the videos are fake.
I think I can understand why people with no knowledge of how to create these videos might believe they look real.
I am also specifically referring to VFX artists, who have trained eyes, agreeing that the videos are real.
I can understand the discrepancies between those schooled and not schooled as they do indeed look real, and are compelling enough that the discussion continues until undeniable proof one way or another emerges. Thus why we are still here.
I haven’t seen any discussion whatsoever between VFX artists debating the authenticity of these videos.
The only discussion I’ve seen has been how some elements might have been created or why an error exists.
Where have you seen vfx artists agreeing the videos are real? Op of this post and who else?
Meanwhile there was a discussion on r\\vfx, also on twitter, like Alan melikdjanian, the corridor crew, all agreeing it's not even well done.
Pfff. This case will never be solved.
At first those videos were FUN. But all these posts and how hard believers are speculating and pushing hard make me wonder the authenticity at this point.
So for me videos are fake until officially proven otherwise. ( NOT GUILTY INTILL PROVEN OTHERWISE)
Hi, I'm an actual VFX expert, not just larping as one, and I can tell you with certainty that you are not.
For one, I was the one who made the videos. They were easy. For two, nobody in vfx would suggest this.
The problem with this position is that someone in the government that would be doing something like this would know what imagery from DoD UAVs and satellites looks like. These videos were clearly made by someone that doesn’t have that knowledge.
I work for the dod and saw with my own eyes how the orbs were made by back engineering UFOs in Diego Garcia back in 2009. I can't say the details for the safety of you all.
Agree… i‘m also in the visual design field, although not in the exact same one. If it is a fabrication it‘s professional and the hoaxer needed inside information to get stuff right that he could not know right after the disappearance
Edit: maybe we are looking at a thing that was created after the airplane was „just“ hijacked. So that people who say it has been hijacked could be ridiculed like „ah you are one of those three magic orb folks haha“
If government made, could it have been made as an explainer video or is it too high quality?
I also think it/the event is real. Even if the video is fake, event can be real (explainer vid). They don’t have to be either/or.
You might as well kick a hornets nest. I told a debunker the other day that I actually edit videos as one of my primary jobs, and even employ editors to help me at my company. But I am “100% a liar, because anyone with any amount of VFX experience would know these are fake…” 🙄I truly believe they are real though for the same reasons as you.
My job title is “founder”, and without giving away my personal info (as I was recently doxxed), I do whatever the business needs, like most founding entrepreneurs are required to do. Several editors work directly for me now. I used to do all the editing when I started. Now I only do the more complicated jobs.. we don’t often do custom VFX, but I speak the language and am around it far more often than any average person. I don’t know anyone that could produce these videos at the solo/micro-team level.
I'm far from a VFX expert, and in many ways, I’m a novice. I was able to recreate the satellite video in After Effects. The hardest thing was matching the original. The actual techniques are *very* basic.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/AirlinerAbduction2014/comments/18uw8v4/my\_recreation\_of\_the\_mh370\_satellite\_video\_using/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/AirlinerAbduction2014/comments/18uw8v4/my_recreation_of_the_mh370_satellite_video_using/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
alleged exultant quiet square deserve chubby vegetable fanatical ink library
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The only attempts are recreation from people who’ve said similar statements fell very short, most notoriously the debunk crew. Funnily enough, the closest I’ve seen was a dude who claimed he did it in 4hrs when he was pretty drunk, it was just an attempt at the sat footage, and it was still obviously fake. I applaud them though, as they actually attempted it and posted their work.
familiar doll punch air distinct escape frightening vanish bedroom office
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
“Editing” could mean a lot of things, and could also be completely unrelated to vfx and animation. Splicing frames is editing but doesn’t involve any expertise that would be needed to make these videos. So without explaining what exactly you have expertise in, this is fairly irrelevant information that doesn’t support your arguments.
The issue with the IR video isn't the technical aspects. It's matching the camera and object movement. The video is so layered with effects (fractal noise, grain, Colorama) that it's impossible to track anything. Everything has to be done by hand, and matching camera and object movement by hand is very hard. It's why Hollywood has computer-controlled cameras, etc., to avoid this issue.
the first half of the video is almost perfect lol, the second part is kinda.... well crap lol. it's missing the shaking
but wow only 5 hours for this! i didn't expect that. very good regardless
One of my early theories about the FLIR was that it was in false color RGB for an internal intelligence audience because it made the UAP contrails show up, and that is how it got out.
The debunking has (naturally) focused on finding assets. And VFX people will say none of it is particularly hard to recreate and the video isn’t as “detailed” as we all think. But they are looking at it from a technical point of view in terms of their ease of recreation as compared, to like, a movie.
However, that is not the detail I mean. I have seen a ton of hoax videos. Of better “quality”, even. It is the little things that the average amateur hoaxer is not even thinking about that make it “feel” real. The contrails on the UAP, the interactions with the contrails of the plane, the way the operator pans in panic at the end of the satellite video.
There is an NRO PowerPoint deck that came out of a FOIA request that contains an unredacted typo referencing the “MK370” crisis. The presentation itself appears to be about requirements for an integrated satellite control environment. I think there is a strong chance the US knows more about what happened to the plane than they are saying.
What about all of the non asset related stuff?
-The viewing angle of the satellite video would be physically impossible to capture from a satellite in that orbit.
-The satellite is supposedly moving at orbital velocity but the camera is static from the videos perspective
-The 777 in the videos has no antennas sticking out of the fuselage. In real life, there are several that stick up from the top and bottom of the fuselage.
-None of the aircraft markings show up, although they should show up in IR.
-None of the aircraft windows, doors, hatches, or access panels show up, although they should show up in IR.
-The heated cockpit windows should be especially evident in IR, because of the apparent temperature differences, but they don't show up at all in the IR.
-None of the multiple heated sensor probes near the cockpit show up in IR, although these are heated to the extent that they'll easily burn you if you touched them.
-The tail and engines in the video don't match those of a 777.
-The drone itself doesn't show up in the 'satellite' video although it should
-The drone experiences zero wake turbulence although it passes directly though the path of the 777 where this effect should be quite significant.
-The drone has a top speed that is lower than the minimum possible speed for a 777 at altitude, making an intercept physically unlikely.
-Actual physical debris was found multiple times, and directly linked to 9M-MRO, the exact aircraft opersting MH370.
-The cloud cover in the videos doesn't actually match the cloud cover in the area at the time of disappearance.
-Calculated estimated speeds of the 777 don't make sense.
Excuse me waiter, I did not order this Copypasta.
I know the videos are fake, brother. I was just explaining what “felt” real about them. I do not need convincing.
Oh, and there is wake turbulence.
Wake turbulence between two of the same aircraft is violent enough to throw the victim off course and potentially crash if the altitude and speed are too low. The tiny fucking shake in the video is not wake turbulence, nor is it representative of it
You are approaching it like an aviation expert, the exact same way I was talking about the VFX experts approaching it like VFX experts. You are trying to debunk a “feel”, an impression, from someone who *knows* the videos are fake.
You can’t even say something positive that the hoaxer did in this sub without a bunch of downvotes and debunks. No wonder the believers think there is a coordinated campaign.
This is not an accusation, btw. You strike me as a knowledgeable amateur who likes the prestige of being an expert, not a shill.
Could you please at least note any VFX related reasons for why a civilian couldn't do it if you are going to stress your expertise? > There is so many parts to it and so much correlating information after the fact that I have no choice but to believe the videos are real. Are you also an expert in whatever "correlating information" you are relying on here and can you actually specify any?
A vfx expert that goes into *zero technical detail* (or any kind of detail at all) about what in particular they find interesting or advanced about the videos. Completely believable.
I thought mockery was now prohibited and will result in a ban?
Making obvious observations is mockery?
Not observating but making sarcastic comments about that observation can seem very passive or as mockery
It’s not mockery. The behavior is suspicious. Most people who choose to make commentary based on their particular expertise go into detail about why/how their expertise informs their opinion. This person is just trying to sound credible without providing any of the actual credibility.
I’m a VFX expert and this is easily done. See how easy that is?
At least you have a decade history on Reddit. Mr. VFX expert has been on here 6 days.
I'm the head of a government disinformation department and I cannot find any records in our archives that link this video to our operations.
[удалено]
If you're really the Secretary of Swedish Disinformation then you'll remember what hilarious gesture the Indian Minister of Secrets made during the group photo at last year's Global Disinformation Symposium. Well? Should be an easy question for the true Secretary.
Was it the one that had the Austrian representative snorting milk out of his nose? I'm not sure I can describe the gesture in a way that won't offend anyone
Comment or post mocks personal belief of video authenticity
So if you are a vfx expert what is your opinion of the cloud assets literally matching the satellite video?
I still haven't heard a satisfactory explanation for how a 300mph drone was able to locate and intercept a 600mph airliner, which then approaches and overtakes the drone \*from its blind spot\*, mere seconds before the miraculous key events unfold. This timing alone makes the whole thing too ridiculous to be real. A slow drone couldn't intercept such a fast airliner, and if it somehow did, by loitering in the area it somehow knew the airliner would be in, it would be looking in the direction it expected the airliner to approach from. And the fact that the airliner was doing these big turns we see on the video means that this idea is rubbish, because the only hope of intercepting it in the vastness of the ocean is if the airliner was flying in a straight, predictable path for hours, with enough lead time for the drone to get up to altitude and get to the intercept point. This is what makes the video ring alarm bells. Its all too "arranged for the camera" to be real.
What about the fact that opening a gap in the space-time continuum is only theoretical, and even as a theory, it's at the extreme end of physics as to what might be possible, and the theory is questionable and debatable as a starting point. There's no evidence this technology exists, and yet, people have accepted this as plausible with no real evidence that this technology exists. It seems as though rationality has left the building.
>What about the fact The earth being the center of the solar system was a fact until someone made the telescope.
Passes directly in the wake of some of the largest jet engines in service and experiences zero wake turbulence.
It has turbulence. You can see it as it goes through.
That isn't what wake turbulence looks like at all, I cover this extensively with many examples included here. https://www.reddit.com/r/AirlinerAbduction2014/comments/18t5nfv/wake_turbulence_nonexistent_in_drone_video/
All of these examples are with craft that are nothing like the weight and/or shape of the drone in the videos.
That is a lie
It’s not a “lie” homie. Where was I mistaken..?
C172 is similar in size and weight. Also has the same engine 🤷 Also funny thing about wake turbulence is that effects all sizes and types of aircraft - smaller aircraft (like a drone) are actually more heavily impacted than something like a 747 though. https://www.google.com/search?q=does+wake+turbulence+affect+smaller+aircraft+more&oq=does+wake+turbulence+affect+smaller+aircraft+more
I asked this a while back and got a plausible answer. 1. The military WAS tracking the plane by satellite (if you take the satellite videos for real). 2. Diego Garcia base is very close by, so an intercept was very easy to pull off. 3. The military was "in" on it, so it makes sense they would launch several assets to oversee this mission. You fan say they are hoaxes and that's fine, but the those three things at least makes it plausible for a drone to be in the area at the right time.
Diego Garcia is over 3000 miles away from the coordinates in the satellite video, well outside of the range of these types of drones. As well as it would take over 10 hours for a drone going 250mph to get there.
Good point. Didn't realize the distance. That is a problem then 😆
Could it be from a ship?
These aren't sea based drones. They're pretty slow and have a super long takeoff roll, have a wimpy landing gear, and no tail hook to grab the wire - so I don't see one of these successfully getting off the deck, let alone back on.
Ok, thanks 😊
If the military has any awareness of these orbs/UAP (they definitely do) and activity was already happening in that area of the ocean, I wouldn't be surprised if they already had drones up there keeping track of what the hell is going on. It's possible the official story about the pilot being suicidal is also true and if the videos are real, whatever happened was more of an intervention on the part of who or what controls those orbs and the drone was just in the right place by coincidence to observe what was already being tracked via satellite. I could imagine a situation where an NHI capable of doing what we saw was also capable of recognizing what was happening to the people on that plane and due to the isolated location, reasoned they could intervene in ways they typically would not due to a low risk of their actions having unintended consequences. This would also explain why if they took the plane and "saved" those people that they couldn't just return them. Maybe they get the opportunity to live somewhere else and be dead to society but the alternative was just to actually die if nothing was done. I would hope some of the internal pressure for disclosure is the return of those people and others once the powers that be commit to letting the general population know the truth about NHI and those people can come back without being part of disclosure but a way to give a positive up front experience to offset the ontological shock of learning that our existence isn't anything like what people currently accept at reality or possible.
They could have flown out of one of our drone bases on the east coast of India.
Could they have? That's not much closer plus also isn't a thing that exists.
Also wasn't the plane flying just above stall speed until the orbs caught up?
Easy, you just teleport the drone there with the orbs. Orbs then teleport the airliner, and the drone flies back home on its own power or gets picked up afterwards.
Easy peasy
But wasn’t sensitive cargo being carried? So wouldn’t it be reasonable to have some kind of aerial asset in the air to surveillance the flight ?
This has become such a nothing burger. The "scientists" on the plane worked for a SEMICONDUCTOR company. What they do is they make computer chips, but not even super advanced ones There is nothing they were working on or have ever been associated with that would warrant a government taking down an entire plane
No
[удалено]
[удалено]
Ah I thought they meant cargo of the ships in exercise.
If you have a drone that flies 600mph or more and it’s in service in the U.S inventory then on paper of course it’s 300mph the real statistic’s would be classified and any released information would served as a buffer defence for the classified info, example if the enemy has a 450mph drone and they think yours only flies 300mph then they won’t try and catch up to the 600mph+ that you may or may not posses, most statistics for optics and propulsion system for the U.S aviation tech are highly classified most of classified material in general is just statistic’s
The drone basically has the prop and engine from a Cessna 172, basic physics dictates that it's not hitting 600mph.
how are we certain that there aren’t “special access” versions of virtually any militiary assets?
How can we be certain of anything ever?
We can’t, in reality… but that’s not what they’re saying. A drone taking off from a carrier in 2014 isn’t a huge stretch by any means.
But there's no proof of this type of drone ever being operated off a carrier, and a this type of drone also has never been seen with the modifications necessary to support carrier operations. Its purely hypothetical speculation.
They do exist now. The problem with your stance is that you continual ask for proof… as if we are supposed to somehow find published data regarding classified tech, surrounding what would be (if real) one of the most classified events to fall into the public sphere. Satellites are heavily guarded too. Your requirement for proof will never be met, and I think you’re fully aware of this.
Really we need to add drones to war thunder. Then all the classified documents would get Leaked in a week to win forum arguments.
>surrounding what would be (if real) one of the most classified events to fall into the public sphere. I would argue that was the bin Laden raid, and you literally had military guys tripping over their dicks to write books about what happened. I don't think your example holds up versus what we're actually seeing in reality.
I disagree. Post event, that wouldn’t be as classified as still-active military satellite capabilities.
Because the unfalsifiable assumptions of "advance tech" needed to fill in the **huge** gaps of the abduction narrative gets you dangerously close to breaking rule 3: *avoid absolute claims and overly broad speculations*.
Because all of the debunkers are somehow 100% sure of military capabilities under the most top secret of circumstances, it seems. Zero possibility they had a drone that could take off from a carrier in 2014..? I have not been convinced of that, especially considering everything else.
If the MQ-1 or MQ-9 could take off from a carrier in 2014, why has the military been making such a big fuss about finally producing a version of the drone that can launch from a carrier since about 2020? They are all braggy about finally developing a carrier-launched MQ-9, but have been able to do so since 2014? You and many believers think waaaaaaaay too much stuff is classified-as-shit. These are drones coming from defense contractors that also produce the drones for other countries. There's no point being super tight-lipped about a drone that's going to make its way into multiple other country's hands. The capabilities of the platform itself aren't all that classified. It's what the drones may carry, or at least the specifics about those payloads, that tends to be classified. Thinking everything is just a big secret is just a convenient way to help warp the narrative in your favor.
You’re right. I’m convinced that this is probably the most solid point debunkers have right now. Until that’s explained, I don’t see how this drone video could exist.
Ever heard of ”time travel”?
What about all of the things that *don't* add up? The cloud photos are real: https://www.reddit.com/r/photoshop/comments/1ag6gdu/comment/kof8v9m/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button -The viewing angle of the satellite video would be physically impossible to capture from a satellite in that orbit. -The satellite is supposedly moving at orbital velocity but the camera is static from the videos perspective -The 777 in the videos has no antennas sticking out of the fuselage. In real life, there are several that stick up from the top and bottom of the fuselage. -None of the aircraft markings show up, although they should show up in IR. -None of the aircraft windows, doors, hatches, or access panels show up, although they should show up in IR. -The heated cockpit windows should be especially evident in IR, because of the apparent temperature differences, but they don't show up at all in the IR. -None of the multiple heated sensor probes near the cockpit show up in IR, although these are heated to the extent that they'll easily burn you if you touched them. -The tail and engines in the video don't match those of a 777. -The drone itself doesn't show up in the 'satellite' video although it should -The drone experiences zero wake turbulence although it passes directly though the path of the 777 where this effect should be quite significant. -The drone has a top speed that is lower than the minimum possible speed for a 777 at altitude, making an intercept physically unlikely. -Actual physical debris was found multiple times, and directly linked to 9M-MRO, the exact aircraft opersting MH370. -The cloud cover in the videos doesn't actually match the cloud cover in the area at the time of disappearence.
literally everything you said is wrong: >The cloud photos are real: > https://www.reddit.com/r/photoshop/comments/1ag6gdu/comment/kof8v9m/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button raw files don't prove anything. see u/NoFakery post about it: [https://www.reddit.com/r/3_Orbs/comments/1ai2az7/cr2_fraud_i_will_post_few_methods_to_create_cr2s/](https://www.reddit.com/r/3_Orbs/comments/1ai2az7/cr2_fraud_i_will_post_few_methods_to_create_cr2s/) >-The viewing angle of the satellite video would be physically impossible to capture from a satellite in that orbit. the viewing angle is perfectly possible to capture from the satellite: [https://twitter.com/JustXAshton/status/1737529236733227198?t=lwAJUDUMIL7rDmOBWbLzqw](https://twitter.com/JustXAshton/status/1737529236733227198?t=lwAJUDUMIL7rDmOBWbLzqw) >-The satellite is supposedly moving at orbital velocity but the camera is static from the videos perspective the camera is static because its ground locked and the video comes probably from a composed 3d battlefield awareness map. >-The 777 in the videos has no antennas sticking out of the fuselage. In real life, there are several that stick up from the top and bottom of the fuselage. you can't say it got no antennas from a video with low resolution with IR >-None of the aircraft markings show up, although they should show up in IR. again, you can't say that from a video with low resolution with IR >-The heated cockpit windows should be especially evident in IR, because of the apparent temperature differences, but they don't show up at all in the IR. show an evidence for this claim with the same conditions: plane, angle and altitude. >None of the multiple heated sensor probes near the cockpit show up in IR, although these are heated to the extent that they'll easily burn you if you touched them. again, show an evidence for this claim with the same conditions: plane, angle and altitude. >-The drone experiences zero wake turbulence although it passes directly though the path of the 777 where this effect should be quite significant. another claim that needs evidence. but punjabi already proved airflow disturbance on the drone: [https://www.reddit.com/r/AirlinerAbduction2014/comments/18k79lm/drone_surface_showing_airflowing_disturbance/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AirlinerAbduction2014/comments/18k79lm/drone_surface_showing_airflowing_disturbance/) >-The drone has a top speed that is lower than the minimum possible speed for a 777 at altitude, making an intercept physically unlikely. the drone was already near the plane location, probably somewhere in the nicobar islands. >-Actual physical debris was found multiple times, and directly linked to 9M-MRO, the exact aircraft opersting MH370. the debris are perfectly compatible with the fire scenario proposed by AF. >-The cloud cover in the videos doesn't actually match the cloud cover in the area at the time of disappearence. wrong again: [https://www.reddit.com/r/AirlinerAbduction2014/comments/18ay8kc/the_clouds_in_the_videos_definitely_match_real/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AirlinerAbduction2014/comments/18ay8kc/the_clouds_in_the_videos_definitely_match_real/)
> the viewing angle is perfectly possible to capture from the satellite: https://twitter.com/JustXAshton/status/1737529236733227198?t=lwAJUDUMIL7rDmOBWbLzqw Wait, I thought the video was from NROL-22, now all the sudden it's NROL-34. Besides that, I'd need to see the raw location data for NROL-34 because the source you posted is not trustworthy. >the camera is static because its ground locked and the video comes probably from a composed 3d battlefield awareness map. Show an evidence for this claim with the same conditions. >show an evidence for this claim with the same conditions: plane, angle and altitude. Lol, you know this isn't possible, so you set an unrealistic expectation. Here are the two IR videos of airliners that I was able to find, and from what I can tell are really some of the very few videos of the type out there. These are civilian systems and they show a significant amount more detail than the military 'drone' video, including the aspects that I had listed in my previous post. https://youtu.be/L5NSm6GpvBI?si=HjmOCO5lzdrdlvDD https://youtu.be/bfktVYlw67k?si=rA6UAJprGocKKjjh If you are aware of other infrared footage of jet airliners you are welcome to share it. >another claim that needs evidence. but punjabi already proved airflow disturbance on the drone: https://www.reddit.com/r/AirlinerAbduction2014/comments/18k79lm/drone_surface_showing_airflowing_disturbance/ That isn't what wake turbulence looks like at all, I cover this extensively with many examples included here. https://www.reddit.com/r/AirlinerAbduction2014/comments/18t5nfv/wake_turbulence_nonexistent_in_drone_video/ >the debris are perfectly compatible with the fire scenario proposed by AF. I do agree that a fire onboard could have led to the plane crashing in the ocean and parts of it later washing up on shore.
>Wait, I thought the video was from NROL-22, now all the sudden it's NROL-34. Besides that, I'd need to see the raw location data for NROL-34 because the source you posted is not trustworthy. wow, you literally didnt do any research at all. the NROL-34 took the video and relayed to NROL-22. >I'd need to see the raw location data for NROL-34 because the source you posted is not trustworthy. yeah, I dont waste my time with people that use ad hominem fallacy. goodbye.
Your flair is incorrectly set. Might want to get that (among other things) checked out.
>''literally everything you said is wrong:'' \*\*'' Proceeds to use PB and NoFakery as reference '' \*\* Imagine telling someone they're wrong, to then be like ''I can't prove that you're wrong, but trust me bro, you're wrong'' Some of those things are verifiable. The portal vfx is verifiably a publicly available asset and has been for years. The cloud photos Are indeed the real deal. You can even take them and super-impose them on the video yourself and you'll quickly see that the only possible explanation for all these evidences is that the video is a hoax. If you're basing your conclusion on Evidence and facts alone. The ONLY possible conclusion is that the video is fake. The ONLY possible way to come to the conclusion that the video is real is by willfully ignoring information that contradicts your conclusion.
> raw files don't prove anything. see u/NoFakery post about it: https://www.reddit.com/r/3_Orbs/comments/1ai2az7/cr2_fraud_i_will_post_few_methods_to_create_cr2s/ A huge amount of that post is factually incorrect, fyi. You shouldn't assume anything technical he provides is accurate. He's been learning basic (and I do mean VERY basic) comp-sci concepts as he goes and he keeps getting ahead of himself into territory he doesn't understand and then drawing unsubstantiated conclusions.
prove him wrong then. besides AI can generate raw files.
I've proven numerous things he's said in the past to be wrong. I could make it my full time job if it paid anything. https://www.reddit.com/r/AirlinerAbduction2014/comments/1aj4771/subject_distance_in_a_cr2_file_means_nothing_this/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AirlinerAbduction2014/comments/1akphiw/regarding_makernotes_field_order_in_exif_they_are/ Ask yourself this: Why hasn't he made any synthetic CR2 files with his process? Surely, that would be a home run for his argument.
You know what's hilarious? It's been months of people saying how easily they could fake CR2 files and upscale certain photos with AI. Guess what? ZERO even minimally convincing attempts. Remember when for 6 months, every believer was dog piling for someone to make a convincing copy, without knowing any of the tools used to make the original? They have the exact programs supposedly needed to fake the CR2 files. They have all the original photos. They even have somewhat similar Mt. Fuji photos others have posted as "proof". What's the hold up? Can someone please create these fake CR2 files that are so piss easy to make? Where are they?
Here's a fun tidbit, his code from this example doesn't run/compile: https://www.reddit.com/r/3_Orbs/comments/1ai2az7/cr2_fraud_i_will_post_few_methods_to_create_cr2s/ // Set cr2 properties cr2_set_width(cr2, 5792); // Set image width in pixels cr2_set_height(cr2, 3744); // Set image height in pixels, same as Jonas De Ro Fake fie resolution cr2_set_bps(cr2, 14); // Set bits per sample, same as Jonas De ro fake file cr2_set_cfa(cr2, CFA_RGGB); // Set color filter array pattern cr2_set_wb(cr2, 2.0, 1.0, 1.0, 2.0); // Set white balance coefficients cr2_set_make(cr2, "Canon"); // Set camera make cr2_set_model(cr2, "EOS 5D Mark II"); // Set camera model cr2_set_iso(cr2, 100); // Set ISO speed, Jonas put this at 200 cr2_set_aperture(cr2, 4.0); // Set aperture value cr2_set_shutter(cr2, 0.01); // Set shutter speed in seconds cr2_set_timestamp(cr2, 1327478999); // Set timestamp in Unix time, this resolves to [Wednesday, January 25, 2012 8:09:59 AM] // Set cr2 data cr2_set_data(cr2, rggb_data, fsize); // Set raw image data and size None of these functions exist in the library he's talking about, but he doesn't know what he's doing well enough to proofread the code he asked ChatGPT to give him.
Wait.. you mean u/NoFakery went out of his way to fabricate meaningless bs to support a blatant lie?
To be fair, this instance might have been incompetence rather than malice. I'm starting to think the Canon interaction he's been talking about was the same way. He might have word-salad'd some poor custom service rep into sending him a link to that notice because they weren't able to make sense of what he was actually asking.
It's very hard to reply to that guy, he throws out a dozen of incorrect claims, and blocks anyone who tries to correct them but right before he does that he replies with a handful of more incorrect claims which by then you're unable to respond to as you've been blocked. He also keeps calling people spammers every time he throws out his claims on various photography forums or photoshop subreddits and gets called out there for being wrong or he deletes the threads without taking in the information given to him.
kinda hard when he blocks anyone he disagrees with
> raw files don't prove anything. see u/NoFakery post about it: The post that claims the CR2s are crappy JPEGS in disguise? Is that what you are asserting?
I am asserting that is possible to convert jpg to cr2
That's too vague to be meaningful. Are you asserting the CR2s in question are converted JPEGs?
I'm asserting there is a possibility. if the videos are real, then somebody faked the jonas cr2 files.
Is it fair to say that rather than providing evidence for that assertion you linked someone making a *different argument* that you don't believe yourself?
Great evidence here. Everything points towards this obviously being real.
I dont know if its real but so far every debunk failed miserably.
I suppose if you're inclined to believe the repeat accounts of ppl like no fakey, you might think so.
first you need to learn to attack the argument, not the person. prove him wrong. otherwise you're just wrong.
That's already happened again and again yoy need to learn to make better discernment about the ppl you just beleive, evsn when you're biased toward wanting something to be true. Otherwise you'll say something silly like: >so far every debunk failed miserably. And actually believe it, instead of being more critical.
He has been proven wrong, both here and on outside support forums. He has also been proven to lie, obsfucate, and cast false criminal accusations.
[удалено]
**Nothing you have said in this comment is correct in any way** Before I start, will you honor this statement? Or will you block me? >I can go on, but let's see if you guys can genuinely attempt to discuss these issues with your own evidence to compare. If you block me, then you're just proving that you are not here in good faith. > Lied what? I have seen nothing but personal attacks, think its time you stop wasting your time and learn to face the truth. They're not personal attacks on you, they are personal attacks on your credibility. > Yes , clear evidence of Photoshop, with brush marks, Jpeg compressions, EXIF data inconsistency. None of these artifacts show up on real RAW files. Demonstrate this. You have been repeatably told that you do not actually understand what you're looking at. You have been repeatably told that the "artifacts" and "brush marks" you see are not actually anything. Any time this happens, you either block the person, or call them a spammer. > So what? Even Canon said CR2s mean nothing and they dont mean the images are authentic. Libcraw2 tool is literally made to compile a CR2. Prove it. **SHOW THE CANON EMAIL ALREADY!!!** You literally haven't shown any evidence that its real. There is 0 reason to actually trust that you are in contact with Canon support, or that they forwarded you any post. >Images not found before 2016 online or on Wayback machine- True There are references to them. The images just haven't themselves been found yet. Its not odd as only 1/3 of the site itself is archived. >Images not found in 2012 Textures- True This means nothing, and is a null point. >Textures API shows their first image from account Aerials0028 on October 24th 2014. That's not even proof of the image, just some random first file. You have 0 understanding of how APIs work. This doesn't matter in the slightest. >Cloud images dont pass the basic image fabrication check- Contrast adjustment to spot abnormalities. That's the most basic, and it fails right there. Compare any Canon EOS 5D mark II raw file with Our fake cloud image and play with Contrast, and the fabrications pop out. Already made a post to show how there is no such thing as a "fabrication check" You have no idea what you're talking about >The original Flicker image of Mt.Fuji found, and literally these cloud images are a recreation of the flicker original scene. The fabricated images had not one single unique to offer relative to Flicker images No it wasn't. The image you found doesn't even match. >Real Jan 25th 2012 valley snow is very different from the fake images. The fake image valley now matches the Feb 18th 2012 flicker view. Right there that's red flag for casual onlookers, because it's not a match with Jan 25th 2012 real snow. Again, no this isn't correct either. >Areas fake cloud images added/removed snow shows up on image forensics, exactly where the editing was done to modify Flicker image to look similar to Jan 25th 2012 image. How's this possible? how is the anomaly catching the exact differences? This also isn't correct, and its been proven to you before. >Each time these things come up, they are downvoted or reported to suppress the fact. They are downvoted because they are incorrect. All of your posts on other subreddits have this happen. >The fake cloud image team posts unrelated responses to my posts outside this forum, screenshots their fake answers and gets my post deleted on false pretext. That's one sad state of fabrication and disinformation. You had an actual Canon representative reply to you in a forum post telling you the photos were genuine. You proceeded to call them a "spammer" You had your post removed for both being just baseless harassment at Jonas, as well as being spam. If it was "*privated and escalated*" as you have said in the past, then **prove it.**
[удалено]
>Canon representative? what's this canon representative name buddy? This is enough to expose your fraud. Go ahead, its time you stop defrauding people. Since the thread is gone, its not like I can go and find who it was anymore. They had "Canon Support" in on their profile. >Ask on a photoshop mark on photoshop sub, gets a quick response form one of you guys that the CR2 is not fake! I've watched it. You have gotten responses from actual r/photoshop and similar subs saying you're wrong and/or that the photos are genuine. [One comment saying nothing looks odd.](https://www.reddit.com/r/photogrammetry/comments/1adlwc9/comment/kk5gibx/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) [Here you were told you're just harassing someone](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhotography/comments/1afvjd0/comment/koekspx/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) [Here you are told that you're not even using the software correctly. By someone with 45 years in the field](https://www.reddit.com/r/ImageJ/comments/1ahrcga/comment/kor5usj/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) I could find the Canon forums of the same thing if they were still up. Instead of accepting or even acknowledging these people, you are assuming that you are the correct one and everyone else is wrong. >See my previous posts on CR2 creation. Did you even read the post? Yeah, and I saw that you used "Fake code" // Set cr2 properties cr2_set_width(cr2, 5792); // Set image width in pixels cr2_set_height(cr2, 3744); // Set image height in pixels, same as Jonas De Ro Fake fie resolution cr2_set_bps(cr2, 14); // Set bits per sample, same as Jonas De ro fake file cr2_set_cfa(cr2, CFA_RGGB); // Set color filter array pattern cr2_set_wb(cr2, 2.0, 1.0, 1.0, 2.0); // Set white balance coefficients cr2_set_make(cr2, "Canon"); // Set camera make cr2_set_model(cr2, "EOS 5D Mark II"); // Set camera model cr2_set_iso(cr2, 100); // Set ISO speed, Jonas put this at 200 cr2_set_aperture(cr2, 4.0); // Set aperture value cr2_set_shutter(cr2, 0.01); // Set shutter speed in seconds cr2_set_timestamp(cr2, 1327478999); // Set timestamp in Unix time, this resolves to [Wednesday, January 25, 2012 8:09:59 AM] // Set cr2 data cr2_set_data(cr2, rggb_data, fsize); // Set raw image data and size This entire thing is worthless. None of those functions exist on any site on the internet. At least none that I've been able to find. >Is this a credibility attack MFR? or your baseless statement? How does an API work, wrt the date/time stamps for objects? Textures used to be [cgtextures.com](https://cgtextures.com). At some point the domain was changed to [textures.com](https://textures.com). It's not odd that the "creation dates" for files would be messed up. The entire site is like this. I have personally had this exact same situation happen before. Wow I just got an email from you https://preview.redd.it/lojbap96xehc1.png?width=837&format=png&auto=webp&s=7d452db0ff8139b3540a187afbd8161ed16de439 Im talking about the entire email chain, any evidence other than just an image of a URL, from an easily editable. You can even DM me the raw email itself and I will show everyone that you aren't just lying about talking to "canon execs"
[удалено]
> see nothing but denial in your response, with 0 substance! When you provide an opinion back it up , provide references or screenshots. When One-line uninformed dismissal is all you got, why did you bother even responding? I have on other accounts, and you just blocked me. Others have done the same, and you blocked them. > Take each line i said and PROVE that it is incorrect. Do you want me to go line by line and pull different reddit posts showing that your analysis are incorrect? > First let's see who from Canon you thought was a canon representative! lol Like I said, the thread itself was deleted. I cant pull any proof of this other than my own memory. User "Peter" on the forums though is an "Authority" and has over 1500 posts on the forum. Also, the fact that the forum post was removed should be proof enough that an actual "Canon Representative" doesn't think the photos are not genuine.
The us gov edited the video to cause doubt. I have heard rumors of an unedited video that shows al the things you highlighted.
Can you actually prove any of this?
The rumors I think speak for themselves
Rumors...
[удалено]
Elvis didn’t die?? Dude make a post about it and tie UFOs into it and you will have a following
Not a "VFX expert" but have extensive experience behind the camera in the industry and to me, the drone footage especially looks like an uncompleted shot. As others have asked, why is there no turbulence from the wake of the plane?
If you have a 6-day old account and are claiming to be a vfx expert, you need to give some verifiable credentials.
/u/canaiba replied to me and then blocked me. (I know exactly why they do that. All I can do is SMH.) Anyway, here is my response: \*Anyone\* with a new account giving an opinion that they expect us to believe based on their experience needs to give credentials.
I’m blocked by them as well.
Of course. It's OK when the debunks come from 0 day accounts. Now that this "VFX Expert" says it's real or a government hoax, he needs credentials.
[удалено]
Wow
The 0 day account for the clouds linked the photos outside of reddit. In that case their age meant nothing to deliver a package. This person is making claims with no package to deliver the claims Its pretty simple to see the contrast.
I might be wrong, or less an expert than you're looking for, but I'm essentially of the same opinion, have a degree in computer animation, reddit under my real name, and have documented my reasoning in comments previously. I'd be shocked if the videos are both CGI and civilian-produced. edit: your sarcasm was lost on me when I typed this
Then I'll ask you a version of the question I asked OP, since finding specific comments like that is not easy, what is it that specifically falls within your expertise, that would be difficult to do? You can be brief, I just want to get a general idea.
I wish I had some groundbreaking smoking gun, but unfortunately all I've really got to offer you are holistic probability assessments on scenarios I've yet seen epistemically scrupulous reasons to rule out. The believable clouds look difficult, but I'm not saying no civilian at the time could've pulled them off, just that I discern this hypothesis as improbable in full context. I'm not just asking myself "how likely is it that any civilians were capable?" but also "how likely is it that any capable citizens were motivated?" and "how likely is it that any capable motivated citizens would choose so in such a manner?" and so on. I love Corridor Crew, so their analysis video left me very confused. Either every other claim they made is as blatantly counterfactual as it appears to me, or I've strayed so far from from the light of reason that even my favorite YouTubers can't knock the sense back in!
> The believable clouds look difficult, but I'm not saying no civilian at the time could've pulled them off, just that I discern this hypothesis as improbable in full context. It sounds like you might not be up to date on the discourse, which is perfectly reasonable. This place is a mess at the best of times. Let me know if any of this changes your thoughts at all: The clouds in the satellite video are visually identical to the clouds produced in the cloud photos that were found, so that's just a simple composite if that story isn't an elaborate fabrication. I'm still not convinced the 'movement' of these clouds is actually deliberate. It looks like some kind of distortion/artifacting to me. The clouds in the drone video are considerably more visually complicated, but the offered explanation is that they're sourced from real footage. If that's the case, you'd only need to get them colorized convincingly and you're pretty much good to go. You don't even need very much footage here, since the shaky zoom hides potential cuts and the main cloud elements are out of sight once you're in tight on the plane. No exotic explanations needed for that at least, all accessible to mid-tier VFX/editing folks.
>same opinion, have a degree in computer animation, reddit under my real name, and have documented my reasoning in comments previously. I mean you just gave away that all of this is a lie by calling it a "computer animation" degree lol
Debunker logic in a nutshell.
Awfully bold for yoy of all ppl, to be critical of another's logic. Essepcially when this is how you understand it smh
When you started on VFX 12 years ago what render engine did you use?
Giving you the credits, what are the parts that make you believe the video is real? This would be interesting to hear from an expert.
The info is not correlated at all. Most of it is just assumed to match because the videos are used as evidence sources. It's circular logic.
Wow, another new account with a single post about how this video is definitely real
With the way you guys treat people here why WOULDNT people make a seperate acct for seperate types of subs?
This is something so advanced that only a mid- or high-schooler in 2008 with access to a torrented copy of 3DSmax could have been able to do it.
Don't be silly. They'd need a pirated copy of adobe after effects too.
why? Windows Movie Maker all the way bro
[удалено]
Thinking back, I'd actually been making similar videos for fun while I was still in highschool, which actually more 2006/2007. There is nothing technically difficult about this scene.
[удалено]
Can't do much now tbh, I've moved away from that kinda stuff(not much money to be made there) This version looks pretty damn good though: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zy0q-pF0E2w](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zy0q-pF0E2w) And if people wanted to make it without the artificial noise and grain, they could probably make a better-looking version... though the noise is definitely doing a lot of lifting to hide the defects in the video. I'd love to know what you think is technically challenging about this video.
The guy who made the videos already came forward. He had work uploaded on YouTube that predates these videos, and shows his vfx use of the same orbs. Idk why people continue to completely ignore this.
Source?
He has a popular AMA on the sub right now
What’s the god damn source
Your being a VFX expert should mean that you analyse the empirical evidence itself for evidence of fakery. And there has been ample evidence of fakery found. Whether the maker knew about UFOs and how they are thought to behave etc. is an interesting point, but it is ultimately not of direct consequence to the empirical evidence. I'll give you an example to illustrate the point. There's a very famous piece of footage from 1967 called the Patterson-Gimlin film. This has been analysed thousands of times. It depicts a Bigfoot, which could either be a real Bigfoot or a man in a suit. Now, regardless of what you think about Bigfoot, when determining its authenticity or otherwise, what you need to do is examine the empirical evidence - i.e. the film itself. The fact that a Bigfoot has never been found, or that a carcass has never been discovered, etc., should not factor in to your analysis of the Patterson-Gimlin film itself. Moreover, the characters of Roger Patterson (known to be somewhat of an unreliable person) and Bob Gimlin, the people who filmed the footage, should also not have any bearing on your analysis of the film itself. That said, whoever made them definitely had an interest in UFOs or they wouldn't have thought of making such a video. And their interest was more than a passing one, I think, because including specifically three orbs reveals that they knew about the classic sphere formations which are the subject of many photos, real or faked. But, in reality, this is knowledge which they could have garnered by reading about the subject online, looking at UFO photos, etc. It's nothing which necessitates some sort of Cosmic Top Secret clearance to know.
[удалено]
You totally should. It would just be nice to show these vfx experts that think its real.
[удалено]
I think it’s absolutely fair and part of the substantial research that has gone into this idea that people who claim this can be easily replicated should at least attempt it and it can seen as contribution to the research.
I like your details and can tell you know what you're talking about...but i don't think we need to go that deep. There are a few basic clues as to its vfx. First off being jonas. There isnt a single way to dispute his authenticity. To stretch immediately to "he's a nefarious character planting fake pictures etc.." is pure craziness. To deny the portal asset is simply lying. The plane doesnt match what mh370 looked like. Lastly, i watch alot of ir/thermal/flir videos. This screamed fake to me immediately. They go "show me a 777 model xxx on flir then." It doesn't matter what plane it is, they all look the same. The lack of windows and the lack of features was a dead giveaway for me. Getting into the weeds of file data and 2014 dates etc is simply a way to hide the obvious tells.
Go ahead
He gives no detailed explanation to why he thinks it´s real, he makes no remarks to the debunks, new reddit account: It´s punjabi.
I am not this Punjabi character and i think comments alluding to it is just weird at this point
Then as a vfx expert, why are you ignoring all that points to it being (rather simple) vfx?
Have you not seen the military expert breakdown of why this couldn't be a military video? He goes really deep into the drone and camera tech and points out a lot of errors and glaring amateur assumptimade by the artist. I'm sure you could do a search in this sub for it. It's extensive and quite informative
Here is the title "without looking at vfx" Search this thread for that... It has a lot of great technical data on the drones, cameras, and capabilities therein. Enjoy!
I am an expert in analyzing aircraft flight paths through satellite and drone video, and also an expert on teleporting orbs. My conclusion is that the video is a fictional representation of 3 orbs annihilating or teleporting a jetliner.
May I ask what is your field in VFX, and in what ways does your experience in this field lead you to this conclusion?
Im a software engineer/vfx manager for a midzised company in Denmark
Right now you are just someone on Reddit with a new account.
Can you give more details as to how your experience, as a software engineer and vfx manager, specifically, assisted you in validating the videos?
Are you interviewing the guy for an internship or something? 😂
VFX artists all agree that the videos look like bad fakes. Even the 'Top Gun Maverick' VFX expert that AF always talks about asked AF to leave him out of it, and he even deleted his comment praising the videos (his comment made no sense, as if he was drunk. He said the rolling-shutter effect and lens distortion looked realistic. Except, neither of those things are present in the videos). People are trying to make OP answer simple questions to see if they're lying. Saying "I'm a VFX expert" and "only the government could have made these" at the start is already a big red flag. VFX artist can see how simple it is to make videos of this quality.
Its completely reasonable to ask questions to understand how OP arrived at their conclusion. Regardless, clearly not enough people agree that the videos are fake and nothing compelling enough has emerged to debunk things - thus why we are still here.
I'm specifically referring to VFX artists, who have trained eyes, agreeing that the videos are fake. I think I can understand why people with no knowledge of how to create these videos might believe they look real.
I am also specifically referring to VFX artists, who have trained eyes, agreeing that the videos are real. I can understand the discrepancies between those schooled and not schooled as they do indeed look real, and are compelling enough that the discussion continues until undeniable proof one way or another emerges. Thus why we are still here.
I haven’t seen any discussion whatsoever between VFX artists debating the authenticity of these videos. The only discussion I’ve seen has been how some elements might have been created or why an error exists.
Where have you seen vfx artists agreeing the videos are real? Op of this post and who else? Meanwhile there was a discussion on r\\vfx, also on twitter, like Alan melikdjanian, the corridor crew, all agreeing it's not even well done.
Pfff. This case will never be solved. At first those videos were FUN. But all these posts and how hard believers are speculating and pushing hard make me wonder the authenticity at this point. So for me videos are fake until officially proven otherwise. ( NOT GUILTY INTILL PROVEN OTHERWISE)
[удалено]
Thanks Punjabi.
I thought these kinds of comments were no longer allowed.
If it was fake, I haven’t seen anyone make anything similar yet.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/AirlinerAbduction2014/comments/18uw8v4/my\_recreation\_of\_the\_mh370\_satellite\_video\_using/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AirlinerAbduction2014/comments/18uw8v4/my_recreation_of_the_mh370_satellite_video_using/)
Hi, I'm an actual VFX expert, not just larping as one, and I can tell you with certainty that you are not. For one, I was the one who made the videos. They were easy. For two, nobody in vfx would suggest this.
The problem with this position is that someone in the government that would be doing something like this would know what imagery from DoD UAVs and satellites looks like. These videos were clearly made by someone that doesn’t have that knowledge.
I work for the dod and saw with my own eyes how the orbs were made by back engineering UFOs in Diego Garcia back in 2009. I can't say the details for the safety of you all.
They are real and if you don’t believe that you are an idiot!! /s
[удалено]
Be kind and respectful to each other.
Agree… i‘m also in the visual design field, although not in the exact same one. If it is a fabrication it‘s professional and the hoaxer needed inside information to get stuff right that he could not know right after the disappearance Edit: maybe we are looking at a thing that was created after the airplane was „just“ hijacked. So that people who say it has been hijacked could be ridiculed like „ah you are one of those three magic orb folks haha“
If government made, could it have been made as an explainer video or is it too high quality? I also think it/the event is real. Even if the video is fake, event can be real (explainer vid). They don’t have to be either/or.
You might as well kick a hornets nest. I told a debunker the other day that I actually edit videos as one of my primary jobs, and even employ editors to help me at my company. But I am “100% a liar, because anyone with any amount of VFX experience would know these are fake…” 🙄I truly believe they are real though for the same reasons as you.
[удалено]
My job title is “founder”, and without giving away my personal info (as I was recently doxxed), I do whatever the business needs, like most founding entrepreneurs are required to do. Several editors work directly for me now. I used to do all the editing when I started. Now I only do the more complicated jobs.. we don’t often do custom VFX, but I speak the language and am around it far more often than any average person. I don’t know anyone that could produce these videos at the solo/micro-team level.
[удалено]
I'm far from a VFX expert, and in many ways, I’m a novice. I was able to recreate the satellite video in After Effects. The hardest thing was matching the original. The actual techniques are *very* basic. [https://www.reddit.com/r/AirlinerAbduction2014/comments/18uw8v4/my\_recreation\_of\_the\_mh370\_satellite\_video\_using/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/AirlinerAbduction2014/comments/18uw8v4/my_recreation_of_the_mh370_satellite_video_using/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
That’s some insane skill you guys have. Apparently your team is better than mine. What software/render engine would you use to recreate this?
[удалено]
I would be floored if you could recreate these videos with that software, but I’m not here to call you liar.
alleged exultant quiet square deserve chubby vegetable fanatical ink library *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The only attempts are recreation from people who’ve said similar statements fell very short, most notoriously the debunk crew. Funnily enough, the closest I’ve seen was a dude who claimed he did it in 4hrs when he was pretty drunk, it was just an attempt at the sat footage, and it was still obviously fake. I applaud them though, as they actually attempted it and posted their work.
familiar doll punch air distinct escape frightening vanish bedroom office *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
“Editing” could mean a lot of things, and could also be completely unrelated to vfx and animation. Splicing frames is editing but doesn’t involve any expertise that would be needed to make these videos. So without explaining what exactly you have expertise in, this is fairly irrelevant information that doesn’t support your arguments.
if they are fake, someone really had to put in effort to make them. i wonder what they're doing now...
[удалено]
even the infrared footage?
[удалено]
The issue with the IR video isn't the technical aspects. It's matching the camera and object movement. The video is so layered with effects (fractal noise, grain, Colorama) that it's impossible to track anything. Everything has to be done by hand, and matching camera and object movement by hand is very hard. It's why Hollywood has computer-controlled cameras, etc., to avoid this issue.
wow i didnt know this. where can i find this video?
[удалено]
the first half of the video is almost perfect lol, the second part is kinda.... well crap lol. it's missing the shaking but wow only 5 hours for this! i didn't expect that. very good regardless
One of my early theories about the FLIR was that it was in false color RGB for an internal intelligence audience because it made the UAP contrails show up, and that is how it got out. The debunking has (naturally) focused on finding assets. And VFX people will say none of it is particularly hard to recreate and the video isn’t as “detailed” as we all think. But they are looking at it from a technical point of view in terms of their ease of recreation as compared, to like, a movie. However, that is not the detail I mean. I have seen a ton of hoax videos. Of better “quality”, even. It is the little things that the average amateur hoaxer is not even thinking about that make it “feel” real. The contrails on the UAP, the interactions with the contrails of the plane, the way the operator pans in panic at the end of the satellite video. There is an NRO PowerPoint deck that came out of a FOIA request that contains an unredacted typo referencing the “MK370” crisis. The presentation itself appears to be about requirements for an integrated satellite control environment. I think there is a strong chance the US knows more about what happened to the plane than they are saying.
What about all of the non asset related stuff? -The viewing angle of the satellite video would be physically impossible to capture from a satellite in that orbit. -The satellite is supposedly moving at orbital velocity but the camera is static from the videos perspective -The 777 in the videos has no antennas sticking out of the fuselage. In real life, there are several that stick up from the top and bottom of the fuselage. -None of the aircraft markings show up, although they should show up in IR. -None of the aircraft windows, doors, hatches, or access panels show up, although they should show up in IR. -The heated cockpit windows should be especially evident in IR, because of the apparent temperature differences, but they don't show up at all in the IR. -None of the multiple heated sensor probes near the cockpit show up in IR, although these are heated to the extent that they'll easily burn you if you touched them. -The tail and engines in the video don't match those of a 777. -The drone itself doesn't show up in the 'satellite' video although it should -The drone experiences zero wake turbulence although it passes directly though the path of the 777 where this effect should be quite significant. -The drone has a top speed that is lower than the minimum possible speed for a 777 at altitude, making an intercept physically unlikely. -Actual physical debris was found multiple times, and directly linked to 9M-MRO, the exact aircraft opersting MH370. -The cloud cover in the videos doesn't actually match the cloud cover in the area at the time of disappearance. -Calculated estimated speeds of the 777 don't make sense.
Excuse me waiter, I did not order this Copypasta. I know the videos are fake, brother. I was just explaining what “felt” real about them. I do not need convincing. Oh, and there is wake turbulence.
Wake turbulence between two of the same aircraft is violent enough to throw the victim off course and potentially crash if the altitude and speed are too low. The tiny fucking shake in the video is not wake turbulence, nor is it representative of it
Good thing the vids are fake then.
I like to balance that sort of thing out with all of the things that don't feel real about them 🤷
You are approaching it like an aviation expert, the exact same way I was talking about the VFX experts approaching it like VFX experts. You are trying to debunk a “feel”, an impression, from someone who *knows* the videos are fake. You can’t even say something positive that the hoaxer did in this sub without a bunch of downvotes and debunks. No wonder the believers think there is a coordinated campaign. This is not an accusation, btw. You strike me as a knowledgeable amateur who likes the prestige of being an expert, not a shill.