The Untold Story of Malaysian Flight MH370

originally posted by: ArMaP
A stereoscopic video from two satellites would show a much bigger difference in perspective between the left and right views than this video shows.

I thought your other arguments were far more persuasive, which explained why they aren't satellite videos.

To wit:

originally posted by: ArMaP
What I find strange is that the perspective looks wrong for a satellite, as they are supposed to be orbiting from a great distance above commercial flights, not almost at the same altitude, as the perspective appears to show.

Agreed.

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: NeighborhoodWatch

The satellite speed is around 20,000 km/h, so if the plane was flying at 1,000 km/h the speed difference would be 19,000 km/h.

Also, as I said above, the satellite would have travelled almost 300 km during the length of the video, and we do not see any perspective change in the clouds.

Also agreed, speed difference would be ballpark 19,000 km/h in same direction or 21,000 km/h in opposite direction or somewhere in between, which should produce a perspective change during the length of the video.

I also want to point out that the alleged "VFX artist" who apparently doesn't know how to make this kind of fake in 1-5 hrs like the other VFX artist, still was able to recognize this is not satellite imagery. Notice he distinctly refers to drone imagery, so he's at least on the ball enough to recognize it can't be satellite imagery. Again the satellite mentioned in the OP video was stated as a relay satellite. If people think this is what satellite videos look like when the speed difference is 19,000 km/h to 21,000 km/h, then this really is descending into flat earth-type of denying reality since these videos show no such speed difference. At least read what the VFX artist says about it being drone footage, since he also apparently sees it's not satellite imagery, it can't be.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

"The idea that a drone would randomly be following that closely behind a passenger jet....", see that reference to drone? Even this guy knows it's not satellite imagery, because satellite imagery doesn't look like this for reasons explained previously and repeated above.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0
You're suggesting both videos are completely cgi?

I'm saying both videos may be CGI.

You know how to use waybackmachine, right? Meaning they had 4 days to make it.

As I said before, someone with the right tools and knowledge could do something like this in a couple of days or even less.

This is the problem, that's simply not true, especially with 4 days to make it. They would have a decade old tech and there's no way the video is all cgi. It could not all be cgi.

So the plane goes down, someone creates the 2 cgi videos and doesn't advertise them and leaves them for years to be discovered. All these points have been addressed by Ashton.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0
You're suggesting both videos are completely cgi?

I'm saying both videos may be CGI.

You know how to use waybackmachine, right? Meaning they had 4 days to make it.

As I said before, someone with the right tools and knowledge could do something like this in a couple of days or even less.

This is the problem, that's simply not true, especially with 4 days to make it. They would have a decade old tech and there's no way the video is all cgi. It could not all be cgi.

So the plane goes down, someone creates the 2 cgi videos and doesn't advertise them and leaves them for years to be discovered. All these points have been addressed by Ashton.

Sigh.

Again.. these guys…. Corridor Crew… in this video..




Quickly and totally debunked the videos. And pointed out that the videos could be made in that time frame. And go through a quick rundown.


They also pointed out there was a DYI how to create jet contrails release in the same time frame.


Anyway. The CGI could be made quickly because the videos have things like….

The clouds in this video.


Are completely static, not moving, no growing, not shrinking, not swirling over time. The background is a static map.

Video debunked.

Also pointed out.

The image left from the flight 370 hoax heat signature video is a filtered version of found stock footage and was able to be replicated on the right.


The videos could be made quickly because they utilize stock footage changed with filter settings.

There is no doubt the videos are fake.

The observation that people who are absolutely sure they are right, refuse to read many of the posts of those would disagree.

Such is the nature of this place.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0
This is the problem, that's simply not true, especially with 4 days to make it. They would have a decade old tech and there's no way the video is all cgi. It could not all be cgi.

10 years old tech is not a problem, the first time I used a 3D program (3D Studio MAX) was more than 20 years ago.
Were both videos published 4 days after the disappearing of Flight MH370? I thought only one was.
And why do you say that they could not "all be cgi"? What makes it impossible?

So the plane goes down, someone creates the 2 cgi videos and doesn't advertise them and leaves them for years to be discovered. All these points have been addressed by Ashton.

The two videos may have been created by two different people and published at different dates, I haven't seen any reference to the first time the thermal-looking video was seen.

Publishing and not advertising is not a sign that the videos are not CGI.
In fact, the stereoscopic video was not publish as showing MH370, it only said that it was a large plane.

originally posted by: Lazy88

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0
You're suggesting both videos are completely cgi?

I'm saying both videos may be CGI.

You know how to use waybackmachine, right? Meaning they had 4 days to make it.

As I said before, someone with the right tools and knowledge could do something like this in a couple of days or even less.

This is the problem, that's simply not true, especially with 4 days to make it. They would have a decade old tech and there's no way the video is all cgi. It could not all be cgi.

So the plane goes down, someone creates the 2 cgi videos and doesn't advertise them and leaves them for years to be discovered. All these points have been addressed by Ashton.

Sigh.

Again.. these guys…. Corridor Crew… in this video..

Quickly and totally debunked the videos. And pointed out that the videos could be made in that time frame. And go through a quick rundown.


They also pointed out there was a DYI how to create jet contrails release in the same time frame.


Anyway. The CGI could be made quickly because the videos have things like….

The clouds in this video.

Are completely static, not moving, no growing, not shrinking, not swirling over time. The background is a static map.

Video debunked.

Also pointed out.

The image left from the flight 370 hoax heat signature video is a filtered version of found stock footage and was able to be replicated on the right.

The videos could be made quickly because they utilize stock footage changed with filter settings.

There is no doubt the videos are fake.

twitter.com...


All these things have been addressed.

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Ok.

Some random twitter link? When the listed facts debunk the videos beyond a rational and reasonable doubt.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0


This is the problem, that's simply not true, especially with 4 days to make it.

Where dies the 4 days come from? Fight disappeared March 8, 2013? Videos were supposedly posted May 19, 2014?

a reply to: Lazy88

I suppose people look at the "received" date instead of the "published" date.

Finally sat down and caught up with this thread.

WOW!

I love the opinions, videos, conjecture and insights presented. The true epitome of ATS. Well done guys!


I have nothing as far as expertise or wisdom to impart but one thing that's bugging me is this.

WHY would ANYONE offer a lot of $$$ to identify the person(s) responsible for these "leaked" videos?
WHAT purpose would that serve and to WHOM?

Theoretical.....some of the video evidence floating around out there IS real and WAS leaked. WHO would care about the identity of the leakers? Certainly NOT Kim.Com (or other sites) but I'm sure some folks in the USGOV would. They might be aware that this was a purposeful drop of classified material, maybe not so much specific to the airliner but more because it might expose some capabilities of our intelligence services and they DO NOT want this information in the public domain.

Now, how best to track down those responsible for leaking this? Masquerade as a "bounty" via some large, public sites to crowd-source the help because their efforts have come up empty thus far.

Kind of like how large-city PDs would announce "giveaways" to people with active warrants and when they showed up, they'd be arrested.


Food for thought.

a reply to: ArMaP

Opps
Wrong thread.

🤣🤣🤣🤣

Run theses through the wayback machine..

originally posted by: Lazy88
Oh.

Run these through the wayback machine.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

web.archive.org...

So after watching the Anon video (thank you interrupt42), I find it interesting that they redirect the context of the video from the plane event to UFOs.

Also keep in mind that a popular CS revolves around the "next world war" being us against an alien threat. Videos like this simply push that narrative by laying groundwork for public opinion, along the lines of "OMG they abducted a plane and it's passengers!"

Another interesting point brought up in the video is dealing with transspectrum/teleportation technologies which I found very very interesting if true after recently watching an episode of TWF dealing with "Mad Mike" and his time machine. The technologies exist according to that ep.

Covered just now on infowars:

twitter.com...

Now on the right thread.

To get an idea of how relatively easy it is to create a scene in Blender, here's one that was created in one day.



One thing I didn't think about was the rendering time, but both the thermal video and supposed satellite video have a very low resolution and low details, so a low polygon count scene would be enough and would render faster.

a reply to: Lazy88

Thanks.

So the thermal image video appears to be from June 2014.

originally posted by: ArMaP
Now on the right thread.

To get an idea of how relatively easy it is to create a scene in Blender, here's one that was created in one day.

That video really confirms what is possible in one day, it's amazing! He even says he's not very experienced with animations, but he seems to know his way around blender well, so maybe he usually uses it to create static models. Just imagine how much more someone who is experienced with animations could do in one day!

Not only did he do that in one day, the result looks a lot more realistic than the fake-looking videos which don't have much resolution and don't even look realistic for the low resolution they have. Like that shock wave thing that was made from stock footage just looks so completely fake. Mick West says the fakes looked so silly, he didn't even see any point in debunking them, so he didn't. But people kept asking him so he put this 2 minute summary video together summarizing the results of debunks other people have done, where again the fake shock wave made from stock footage features prominently, along with the static clouds:

Debunks of the Aliens Abducting a Plane

I didn't debunk this one, as I thought it was a bit too silly to waste much time on. But other people found proof that the videos were fake - specifically because they used stock footage from the 1990s.

Of course some people trying to live in an alternate reality bubble say everything Mick West says is a lie, but the debunks he talks about here aren't even his, in this case.

Corridor crew debunk is debunked

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0
Corridor crew debunk is debunked

In Ashton's mind he thinks he's debunking the debunk, but it just makes him look delusional.

Specifically, when he talks about the clouds, he says they do change. But the two images he shows do not show the clouds evolving, to me it looks like exactly the same image, just offset a hair. He even refers to it as "wiggling" and he says it's just what you'd expect for changing clouds. No, it's not what we expect to see two identical images with a slight offset, we expect more change than that, like Lazy88 described here:

originally posted by: Lazy88
...The CGI could be made quickly because the videos have things like….

The clouds in this video.

Are completely static, not moving, no growing, not shrinking, not swirling over time. The background is a static map.

Video debunked.

Ashton's "proof" the clouds change actually proves the opposite. The "wiggling" he shows is between two identical images with a slight offset.

Also pointed out.

The image left from the flight 370 hoax heat signature video is a filtered version of found stock footage and was able to be replicated on the right.

The videos could be made quickly because they utilize stock footage changed with filter settings.

There is no doubt the videos are fake.

Again Ashton seems delusional to claim that those don't match. They clearly do. But he says don't look there, look in the middle, where it's different. OK yes it's different in the middle but his arguments for why the middle can't be edited make no sense. Of course the middle can be edited, then you're left with that matching edge.

Also Ashton is going back and forth between talking about drone imagery and satellite imagery, which is very confusing. It seems like he can't make up his mind which the videos are supposed to be.

Here's Corridor Crew's reaction, to the reaction, to the reaction. Some of the comments to this video are spot on.

Reaction, to the Reaction, to the Reaction #vfx #mh370 #debunk



Corridor Crew apparently has a more extended version of that, but they didn't post it on youtube. Someone said it's behind a paywall.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

The two videos are obvious CGI. Makes you wonder how and why certain people are so invested in the proven hoax they can’t let it go. My 10 year old kid looked at the videos and without hesitation was like they’re fake. People fall for that?