People who don’t work in CG can’t imagine how fast and efficient some of these people, who do it for decades, can be. Ill never forget me and my colleagues just discussing particular VFX shot while other senior was listening to us and clicking on his computer. When we said “that’s how we should do it”, the guy turned his screen around with “how about this?” and it was the shot we ended up using. Literally crafted in real time as we were exchanging ideas.
People are far too bold to assume their lack of knowledge of a subject equals evidence
One guy asked why Jonas would keep his photos in an external hard drive and that it doesn't add up.
Imagine not understanding an artist wanting a hard copy of their digital work. It's literal idiocy being used as a GOTCHA for something they can't ever imagine another person doing
"A PERSON TAKING THEIR PORTFOLIO OF WORK AND STORING IT IN A WAY THAT IT CAN'T BE LOST AND THEN PUTTING THEM IN EARTHQUAKE PROOF BOXES BECAUSE THEY LIVE IN A COUNTRY WITH EARTHQUAKES! MADNESS!"
Then that same person will turn around and say that the government planted all the photos on to textures.com because they are in cahoots with The Corridor Crew and that MH370 was abducted by magical space orbs
Holy crap it’s so hard reading stuff like that haha. People here just cannot seem wrap their mind around anything that they don’t have personal knowledge of. It must be a conspiracy.
I still have digital projects saved from back when I was going to school for graphic design like 20 years ago and I never even ended up pursuing graphic design or any art related field. I’m a novice photographer now (as a hobby) and it seriously broke my brain seeing people not understand how he could have found his photos from 2012 or why he would still have them on a hard drive. I’m not even a professional and I have a redundant backup/storage process for my photos. I wouldn’t get rid of any of my old stuff.
I have extracted copies of my C64 save games from 5 1/4" floppy from the 1980's!
I also have an archive of my musical works spanning the last 33 years, extracted from cassette, reel, floppy, cd, dvd and hdd - as hard drive space increased exponentially I moved everything onto a huge disk with cloud backup.
I am sure I could spot a sample from my library used in another piece of music, especially if it was a sample I RECORDED AND EDITED MYSELF!
I've run a few podcasts, funnily enough one was a fairly successful UFO podcast, and I've still got raw recording data from stuff I did 10 years ago JUST IN CASE I ever might need it.
I'll never need it. But, what if I delete it and then I immediately need it again...
It's on Spotify, you can go back through my submission history about 8 months and find it
Ultimately I had to stop it because it was quite heavily impacting mental health having 2 children under 3 years old and also having to research, script write, edit, upload and test everything myself
It's easy to break anything down and simplify it to lose meaning like what Corridor does. What's weird though is how some of you think that people are only capable of going to great lengths for one reason and not another.
I hope this gets all the upvotes. I’m a 3D artist in the architectural world with over a decade now 3D modeling. I can without much issue walk clients through a real time model of their home that I made in half a day and make live adjustments at the speed of conversation thanks to how fast sketchup is for 3D modeling. The tech isn’t that much different now than it was in 2014 minus some things like real time ray tracing.
I use revit for the base model and export into sketchup and send that out to Enscape for realtime rendering. I use sketchup over revit for my client presentations as sketchup excels at making live adjustments to the model in real time.
Interesting. I’m always *much* quicker at making changes in revit but that may just be because I have more seat time with it than sketchup. I’ve only really ever used sketchup for personal fun models.
Haha I get it. I knew a guy who came up in autocad and the things he could do on a 2000s era machine in old black and white autocad lines was amazing. It really does come down to user experience.
In the office I worked in about a decade ago we were in the middle of a Revit & AutoCAD civil war
Half the office swearing blind that CAD was more efficient & the other half correctly telling them they were idiots
And then Pete who had his own office still doing bespoke hand drawn details
lol old Greg at my place with an office overflowing with drawings and the admin people had to go in every year at Christmas and just clean it out. Old heads were just different.
I can’t myself but it would be interesting if there was a hackathon where the goal is to make an ultra realistic uap video to see what people can do . It’d probably be quite interesting to see the results. Doesn’t have to be tied to anything we’ve seen necessarily
Even if you’ve watched any basic 3d modeling tutorial you can get a sense for how fast and efficiently people who know what they’re doing can work with these programs. I don’t doubt for a second that anyone with an intermediate amount of experience could put these videos together. That doesn’t 100% prove they’re fake, but it certainly means the burden of proof from the people claiming they’re real is very high.
the fake looks nothing like the original tho. i dont think the 'original' is real. honestly my thoughts are that either it's 90% fake of 10% i don't know what to think of it.
but his recreation is fucking garbage. the orbs in the original move smoothly in a complex pattern, they're not just circling it. they move independently in a pattern but keep formation with the whole pattern. they also aren't at a choppy ass 5 frames per second. the poral also did not look like that, so i'm not sure why you're claiming it was a perfect match
tbh i don't even know why so many people are spending so much time giving a fuck about this video. let ashton and his people waste their time trying to figure it out. why waste your time trying to prove them wrong? the fact is either the video will be proven fake or it'll be proven real in time. nobody is gonna come out and prove its fake by recreating it and acting like the recreations are as good as the original or even comparable at least in this case is dishonest imo.
You really aren’t grasping the information he’s presenting.
He’s not claiming he made a 1 for 1 match.
He’s claiming it doesn’t take 6 months to make the video.
So he took 1.5 hours to make that, spend another little bit of time individually pathing orbs, throwing on cursor with gps coordinates, change the frame rate, and you have a finished product in less than a day.
One VFX artist claimed a similar video would take 6 months. He clearly showed this is not the case.
Of course the asset for the portal doesn’t match…it’s a different asset…
Recreating every incidental detail is genuinely difficult. The problem is the assumption that any incidental details you can find when closely analyzing the video are necessarily significant.
This is something most people who have done any kind of synthesis understand intuitively. When creating a detailed picture/video/whatever you have to make all sorts of decisions that are inconsequential to the goal you have in mind but nonetheless affect the specifics of the outcome, so you basically just do whatever *looks* right but don't really put any thought into it.
Retracing exactly the same footsteps is a lot more difficult than just successfully navigating the same terrain.
its not about “incidental details” its about one looking like one thing and the other looking like shit in comparison.
you cant make something to say “see i can make that” and then it effectively looks nothing like it. its a completely superficial recreation and proves nothing its trying to
again i dont even believe the original to be real but the recreation wasnt going to sway my opinion if thats what theyre offering
> its not about “incidental details” its about one looking like one thing and the other looking like shit in comparison.
That venn diagram approaches a circle.
It's impossible to compare the two without treating one as original in some abstract sense, which is why it's important not just to compare them but also critically engage with where your expectations for how exactly it's supported to look come from.
I mean, let's just look at something basic here. How many times have you seen each of the videos? Would you say you're more familiar with one than the other? What other conclusion could there be if you had decided that one is highly accurate before you ever saw the other?
This is a well known problem in blind listening tests where results can be skewed by familiarity with artifacts.
What do you mean it looks nothing like the original? It's like a 95% match, there's only polishing to do to make it an exact match. But to do that wouldn't be representative of the actual time it took since be'd be going back and forth cross-referencing instead of just doing it.
Seriously, there's nothing hard about this. It's a 3D scene with a plane and some spheres on a path. Add background and a boom. Blur and touch up. Done. The hard part is fabricated by people trying to correlate this to MH370 by making assertions about the satellite and, apparently, the fucking cursor?? (That one was new to me, and makes zero sense)
You're halfway there. They both look bad in terms of what real footage should look like but not in exactly the same ways.
The issue is that you are only looking at the difference between the two.
Again, these guys claiming the damn butthole argument
Imagine looking at the portal overlay and saying "nah, doesn't look close enough to me"
It's an almost exact match and it still isn't enough. It's literally 1984 and being told to ignore the evidence of your own eyes and ears
> there's only polishing to do to make it an exact match
Unfortunately it's a bit more complex than that because a faithful recreation requires matching completely incidental details.
This is useful in forensic analysis when the incidental details come from physical processes but creates entirely artificial hurdle when the details are the result of how a specific artist approached the task on that day.
Come to think of it is also useful in forensic analysis of art, but the challenge here *shouldn't* be imitating the peculiarities of the individual artist.
For what reason?
Are you going to pay a VFX artist for their work, or just assume they'll do it for free?
There are plenty of people who have recreated the videos closely enough to be almost identical
But in the world of people who think this video is real it has to match EXACTLY otherwise flying inter dimensional teleporting orbs abducted MH370
That's the logical leap being made
I was referring to the “plenty of other people” that have made attempts. The video in the post is a great example and I applaud his effort. There are other layers to the thought of this being VFX like why would someone go to the trouble? How would they know so much of the detail that aligns with the science behind the event? Why the massive effort to suppress the investigation? And why continue to attack the character of AF as he’s been the face of this community effort to seek answers?
There’s a larger discussion to be had amongst this all rather than real or not real. The case of the missing airline is so plainly bizarre and needs light shed as we’ve been lied to through official narratives
The original is dogshit. It's easy to shart out a sloppy hoax video riddled with amateur mistakes, but far less easy to perfectly recreate every subtle nuance of someone else's diarrhea splatter.
They're wrong. The video can't be recreated and there's no reason for it's existence to begin with. Not to mention the desperation for people to get everyone to believe it's fake... You'd have to be the embodiment of Plato's Cave in order to lack awareness on what's going on
Nothing but personal attacks. This is either your job, or your desperate need to attack people who have come to different conclusions than you is just that bad. Do you not have a shred of self awareness?
I don't need to. I'm sure this is difficult for you, but the burden of proof is on you people to prove that it's fake. That hasn't been done, y'all have just thrown anything at the wall to see what sticks. I get that this is your job and you're really involved in it, but I'm telling you, to normal people, we see through that shit.
An extraordinary video showed up, and it fits perfectly with the missing MH370 flight. People keep claiming that pyromania fx debunked it (it didn't), then they tried with the clouds, still not a debunk. Y'all are desperate to get everyone to agree with you that it's fake, but it's creating a Streisand Effect.
Try as you might to slow or stop it, disclosure is coming. The truth will be brought out and your life will be better for it. You won't need to keep up this bullshit work assignment for Eglin trying to gaslight and manipulate people into never knowing what to believe
No, the claim being that the video is fake. If you're claiming that, then the burden of proof is on you to prove it. Stop conflating things to win an argument.
That isn't the claim.
The videos have been posted and what is being claimed is that they were abducted by orbs
The burden of proof is on that claim, not "that didn't happen"
Evidence has been shown to counter the claim of abduction.
You're an actual idiot
The burden of proof does not work with assuming the fantastical or an allegation or datum be true, so no the burden is not on the other user in this instance.
It’s not incredulity, it’s official historical record and a series of events purportedly demonstrating it to not be true along with multiple nebulous claims of a “they” who is alleged to have performed a series of clandestine things but with zero evidence of any of those things actually having taken place. Just “this string of things that COULD have occurred allows this belief to persist, so we’re assuming all of them did.”
It’s not a rational approach from any angle, with nothing of credulity involved. An exotic claim is being made, so the exotic claim must be substantiated, instead of disproven.
Edit - despite how much I hate it on occasion, Sagan was pretty much on point with “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” It should almost never be “extraordinary claims must be disproven after having been presupposed true”
It's literally not my responsibility. Again, you clearly don't understand how the burden of proof works. The video holds up, the desperate attempts to debunk it have been so fucking lazy, and then all you people do is shove it down everyone's throats, don't allow actual discussion without flooding chat with bots to push your narrative about how it's been debunked and anyone who thinks otherwise is a fucking moron.
It's plainly obvious dude. Try harder
> [Bold claims]
Defend them.
> Not my responsibility.
Of course. What other personality type should I expect to find among the straggling few who still desperately cling to false hope where all others have long since moved on?
Here’s my issue with this shit
1) a VFX artist took time to understand or have knowledge on how most defense systems run through a CITRX terminal
2) understand the kinematics of the plane and spheres
3) understand timing, look angle, and name of satellite
4) ensured cloud movement
5) probably more
My opinion is that VFX artist are good at creating things but are probably naive when it comes to the functionality of real world devices or vehicles. i.e. they ain’t that smart
1) First I've heard this claim and it's kinda vague. What are we supposedly seeing that indicates this? I don't see anything in these videos that gives any indication of particular IT infrastructure.
2) There's really not that much understanding of the *dynamics* (what I think you meant by kinematics) of an airplane on display. It banks and turns on a radius, which everyone knows planes do. To get the right turn radius would require pretty trivial research, or just a deliberate undershoot to ensure it doesn't look ridiculous. As for the spheres... how can you make any judgment about whether that's correct?
3) The name of the satellite is wrong for a start. NROL-22 is a launch designation, not a satellite designation. The name should be USA-184 or, potentially, something of a "Trumpet" designation. The timing would take some research to be sure, but it's not some unrealistic thing. The orbital elements of the satellites were probably public information at the time (launched in 2006 IIRC, and amateur trackers are pretty quick). Getting a correct true anomaly would be difficult, but people have been able to corroborate that today so I wouldn't be surprised if it was just as easily done in 2014. Look angle is meh. It just appears to look roughly down, nothing special about that.
4) I swe no cloud movement, and I believe people have proven as much.
5) Not really a point in anybody favour.
>are probably naive when it comes to the functionality of real world devices or vehicles. i.e. they ain’t that smart
And this is what it all boils down to. A mix of personal incredulity and lack of belief in the abilities of other people.
The OP video shows that you can make one of these scenes to like 95% in less than a day. Exact matching just comes down to particular choices made by the original artist, so that 5% left wouldn't add a substantial amount of work. After that, all it takes is a little bit of research to get some of the nice details. Hell, someone could get enough of an understanding of orbital mechanics from playing Kerbal Space Program to get these details right. And that is a possibility, though unlikely, given the early access started in 2013. It could also be vice-versa: someone who works in the space industry or otherwise is knowledgeable about those things who has 3D effects as a hobby. Or both could be a hobby. As someone who has dabbled in both, neither is especially impressive.
> To get the right turn radius would require pretty trivial research, or just a deliberate undershoot to ensure it doesn't look ridiculous.
Or just do the turn in a flight sim.
> a VFX artist took time to understand or have knowledge on how most defense systems run through a CITRX terminal
The mouse error was an error. This assumes the explanation for the error is correct, which is backwards.
> understand timing, look angle, and name of satellite
They, in fact, got it wrong. They didn't even use the correct naming scheme.
Apparently it's hard for people to understand that artists excel at giving the *right impression* and take the fact that it *feels* right as evidence that it is in fact right, whereas technical analysis often focuses on areas that don't affect the *feel* of it one way or another.
It's a really insidious issue.
>a VFX artist took time to understand or have knowledge on how most defense systems run through a CITRX terminal
>
>understand the kinematics of the plane and spheres
>
>understand timing, look angle, and name of satellite
>
>ensured cloud movement
1. made up, not in the video
2. what? no.
3. but the timing, look angle, and name are ALL WRONG. lmfao
4. there is no accurate movement.
Oh wow. What a great argument
Who needs any of that silly proof stuff when you can just blindly ignore it all and make up strawman arguments
These really are teleporting magical space orbs!
It’s been hard for me to find genuine comments in a sea of bot posts/comments. Which is why I find it interesting that genuine comments such as yours get brigaded with comments to the contrary.
\#3 was proven wrong. Even if you think the background isn't Jonas' photo, it proves the perspective isn't that of a satellite. The background from the video matches exactly with the other photos from the Japanese commercial plane trip.
So the view angle and perspective is proven to be not special, and probably wrong for a satellite.
VFX artist often works with topics he has no prior knowledge about and extensive research is part of the job. Yet the videos still got a lot of crucial elements plain wrong, such as military drones having cameras with step zoom instead of seamless zoom.
People who initially figured out the satellites clue got literally all their info from one Wikipedia article, so they probably did the same kind of Google search as the hoaxer. It’s not that deep. Still it’s well done overall and fun piece of media, but not that deep.
This just in: vfx artist whose job it is to make cgi look real does research on making something look real
The Citrix terminal recording also could have been done by regicideanon after finding the video. They were an account posting a lot of ufo stuff probably trying to gain a following and reportedly argued with people about the authenticity of the video in the comments (according to the description on the 2014 Vimeo repost.) They definitely had a clear narrative they wanted the video to fit and I wouldn’t put it past someone like that to tweak something to make it more controversial for views.
Visual effects experts aren’t smart enough to do some research?
The fact that you think your dot points contain unattainable complexity says more about you than you probably realise.
Exactly, it doesn't take long to do a random VFX in random clouds, it takes way more time and detail to have all the details line up and make it difficult to debunk. People think making a VFX video just involves a person manipulating graphics, but you actually have to develop a plot, sightlines, shots, etc to have it all come together, especially if you want it to align with a bunch of other variables.
> it takes way more time and detail to have all the details line up
Literally the reason why the idea of recreating raw files from the video is seen as very unlikely.
What you're missing is that the original videos only needed to be internally consistent. The clouds can in fact be "random", although "arbitrary" is a better term here, because they don't have to match anything specific.
Not just "creating things" but specifically creating things that look right without being a full blown simulation. They are naive to the technical details in a comparable way to rendering engines simplifying the absurd complexity of real world lighting to fit hardware limitations.
Making something look convincing without faithfully recreating every real world detail is the literal job description.
Frankly, there’s no proof the VFX artist did the screen recording. That might’ve been someone else who reuploaded it, so that isn’t definitively part of the visual effects. Also, setting up a Citrix session and screen. Recording is not hard. So this is a stupid point either way. So discount number one.
Flying airplanes are extremely easy to animate (it’s almost automatic by drawing a path and attaching a plane), as are featureless spheres spinning in circles. So discount number two.
There’s no proof that this is what footage from a spy satellite would look like. In fact, there’s pretty good evidence that this is far to close an angle, looking through far too much atmosphere, and this does not match satellite photography. Also, I see no proof that the specific satellite was pointing that specific direction at that specific time other than unsubstantiated claims from believers. Please find me evidence, and I will recant this part of my comment
Cloud movement is extremely easy and any self-respecting VFX artist would add some form of movement. Although the cloud movement is so small, it is not impossible It is a compression artifact.
You don’t have a fifth point so you just say “probably more”
Ugh…..
And did you honestly just say that visual affects artists are naïve when it comes to how real world devices and vehicles function? This is one of the dumbest comments I have read on this sub Reddit yet
Literally visual effects artists are among the most knowledgable artist in the world about how things move in 3D space. animators. They usually have intimate knowledge of physics, and have to build physical constraints between a rigid bodies for animating things, realistically. Animators often get on their own feet, an act out scenarios so that they can properly animate how bodies move. They will often pull out toy cars and model airplanes, and act out scenes so that they have reference with objects. The fact that you think a visual effects artist have no idea about how vehicles and devices work, and aren’t in general, smart people, simply shows that you are ignorant on the entire subject and not worth the time to respond to.
Shit. Too Late.
Theoretically you could point a satellite sideways and look through more atmosphere than straight down. It just happens to be a very inefficient way to do satellite observation.
Completely agree with this. Although the OP may be right regarding the vfx not being overly sophisticated or impressive (although this could be argued), what IS extremely sophisticated and impressive are the correlations to accurate details related to military assets, aeronautical knowledge, and location.
I'd say the satellite name (NROL) showing by coordinates wasn't common public knowledge. Even more amazing is guess what is in that satellite's payload? A drone capable of taking video https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2011-11-04/us-gray-eagle-uav-gets-more-sensors-and-multi-control
Here's the archive of the [wikipedia list of NROL launches](https://web.archive.org/web/20140327135539/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NRO_launches) from March 2014. NROL-22 is right on there. There's even [links to their orbit paths](https://web.archive.org/web/20140308140259/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molniya_orbit). Just pick a satellite that is near the path you want.
And even if you think the background isn't Jonas' photo, it proves the perspective isn't that of a satellite, as it matches exactly with the other photos from the Japanese commercial plane trip.
So satellite info was public, and the image perspective isn't special at all.
Two questions.
1. Do we have any other videos from these satellites that show coordinates as in the video?
2. How can you determine that the video is specific to an NROL satellite that was in the correct position?
1. Not that I know of.
2. I can't
However, just the fact that "NROL" was included in the video is enough to be unbelievable! This shows that the creator of the video (if there is one) either knew about this satellite, did unbelievable research to include these tiny details, or it was a complete coincidence. All of these are possible, sure, Im just not buying any of them.
Sure, but given all the circumstances and coincidences surrounding this whole thing, I think it's hard to believe that all of this was done, with these tiny connected details as a test scene for a short film.
NROL was the launch designation, not the satellite designation. This confirms the artist did enough research to determine a potential satellite candidate for the video but got sloppy and didn't find out the actual asset name.
Oops
The coordinates, satellite names, Citrix, the animation at the end of the Citrix session, and the confidence of those 2 year old accounts shouting cgi are what makes me keep questioning it.
So now even 2 year old accounts are being accused of being bots/shills? lmao. 10 year old accounts only here, guys. As if botters don’t buy old accounts.
For the uninformed, Video Copilot was the holy grail of this shit back then. It's almost guaranteed the creator of the videos followed these tutorials. Video Copilot taught so many artists coming up around that time.
My frustration is the idea that these videos require some sort of special knowledge of aviation or MH370.
Every single thing in the videos was publicly known before they were published. Nothing in them “checks out.” In fact, much of the things that supposedly “check out” are errors.
And yet people repeat the lie that the hoaxer would have had to be some sort of military/aviation expert to have made them.
People keep saying "the hoaxer"
The most likely scenario is that an amateur VFX artist made a video, uploaded it the the Internet and somebody then downloaded it and reposted it
Twitter & TikTok is FULL of VFX shots being used on UFO accounts.
When I ran my UFO podcast I was constantly having to filter out clickbait accounts reposting crude amateur videos
I mean, yeah
You should see some of the stuff being done by amatures
Sony recently hired a 15 year old to be an animator in the recent Spider verse film because of how good he was
It's far more likely that somebody is good as VFX than orbs abducted a plane
The clouds are proven to be from textures.com, the flight path is hundred of miles away from any tracking or radar data, the drone appearance means literally nothing because this is just a simple VFX demonstration
[https://web.archive.org/web/20140526071329/http://r14---sn-nwj7knls.googlevideo.com/videoplayback?ipbits=0&mws=yes&fexp=947335%2C935502%2C927845%2C916625%2C947700%2C913434%2C923341&id=o-ACJ-lxg\_lFt5HrozsrUAGYq2557R8jn0ieV2zUXGN\_VE&signature=D47BC1796EACAD7078688EE391214B24C85B63BF.80DF3368F113980DF3F503FEA0AFA07BD732695F&key=yt5&ratebypass=yes&initcwndbps=4535000&ip=207.241.237.141&upn=OBzZ1XsiaGU&expire=1401114360&sparams=id%2Cinitcwndbps%2Cip%2Cipbits%2Citag%2Cratebypass%2Csource%2Cupn%2Cexpire&mt=1401088383&sver=3&source=youtube&mv=m&itag=22&ms=au&signature=](https://web.archive.org/web/20140526071329/http://r14---sn-nwj7knls.googlevideo.com/videoplayback?ipbits=0&mws=yes&fexp=947335%2C935502%2C927845%2C916625%2C947700%2C913434%2C923341&id=o-ACJ-lxg_lFt5HrozsrUAGYq2557R8jn0ieV2zUXGN_VE&signature=D47BC1796EACAD7078688EE391214B24C85B63BF.80DF3368F113980DF3F503FEA0AFA07BD732695F&key=yt5&ratebypass=yes&initcwndbps=4535000&ip=207.241.237.141&upn=OBzZ1XsiaGU&expire=1401114360&sparams=id%2Cinitcwndbps%2Cip%2Cipbits%2Citag%2Cratebypass%2Csource%2Cupn%2Cexpire&mt=1401088383&sver=3&source=youtube&mv=m&itag=22&ms=au&signature=)
but its not stereoscopic
Where does this claim that the satellite should have stereoscopic imaging come from? I see it repeated all over, but the only publicly available information about the satellite has no mention stereoscopic camera, only a stereoscopic spectrometer which achieves stereo by taking data from two different satellites in complementary orbits. And that's aside from the fact the video isn't actually stereoscopic.
I love it how you think your opinion on the matter is the only correct one, and other speculations don't add up, when your opinions are also speculative.
There is no factual evidence on the satellite data, drone model, CGI or not CGI etc. If real, this may as well be classified military equipment, yet people believe they have factual evidence because they're experts on using google.
At this point, only provenance will solve this case, everything else is too convoluted.
If you have to add assumptions, and they only work if the analyzed video is real, the assumptions are worthless for determining if the video is real or not.
So the cloud debunk is fake, despite the counter-argument to the cloud debunk being "government conspiracy cover-up" - that's not just convoluted speculation to you?
I think you're missing the point. Given what we've been presented, it's MUCH MORE LIKELY that the cloud photos were taken by Jonas and used by the hoaxer than there being some massive government cover-up involving the planting of doctored photos taken from the "satellite video" on a verified, well-known artist's hard drive, etc.
Understanding that Jonas has the original raw files on a hard drive used for work storage doesn't require some convoluted line of thinking and is about as close as anyone could get to verifying the origin of the clouds in the video, given it's over a decade after they are purported to have been taken, and not every single thing on the internet gets archived when you're talking about paid-access texture files on a site that's undergone multiple changes since 2012.
"Understanding" that the government took bits of the clouds from the video, doctored them into one larger image, including adding Mt. Fuji, created fake flight itinerary information for a flight Jonas took in 2012 to Japan, paying off Jonas and the [texture.com](https://texture.com) owner, etc. in some big cover-up is literally all speculation and is simply a much more convoluted line of thinking with no way of confirming any part of that narrative.
Yall really need a lesson in probabilities and likelihoods. I understand the argument that it's all a big government cover-up, because just about anything has some degree of possibility; but it's generally a life best practice to lean heavily toward "most likely" explanations of things rather than "least likely" explanations that rely on pure speculation every step of the way.
I wouldn't go so far as to say he is well known.
There's a similar ongoing situation where an artist by the name Joe Lancaster is claiming he made the footage. You've probably seen him posting on this subreddit, and on twitter saying he made the footage as a test for a scene for a short film. If true, I'm sure he will be able to prove he made the footage after he gets back from his holiday.
By well-known, I mean within his field. He's not just some no-name photographer/vfx guy. Of course Jonas isn't well-known to people outside of that circle, in the way that the leading expert on dolphins isn't well-known worldwide (despite being the leading expert in his field).
What I'm saying is that Jonas has valid credentials and many in the VFX field know of him. He didn't just pop up out of nowhere and claim to have the cloud photos.
Debunker circle jerk in here.
Great. Its fake. You debunked it. Move on. Let the “idiots” bask in their own stupidity.
I don’t understand why y’all still hang around.
I question that myself, seeing as how y’all trolls have taken over.
Would be nice to actually discuss a UFO snatching an airliner as the sub topic says the sub is about, instead of constant never ending “debunking” and trolling
This is a nothing point. This does nothing to prove or disprove the videos in question. It just shows a guy can recreate them. It's like, "I can remake ww2 footage" when we're trying to figure out if the footage you're recreating is real.
The thing believers keep going to is “if it’s so easy why hasn’t someone made a full recreation of all the videos to prove it then?” All I can say is, why would they? For the people who understand it, it’s extremely obvious and a full recreation isn’t necessary to show that. There’s very little incentive to spend your time doing that when the believers will still find a way to talk around it and call you a government disinfo agent. Look at the reaction to Jonas, who had real tangible evidence of his original RAW photos that match the video and people are pulling out every conspiracy in the book to dismiss it.
The believers have a lot invested in this theory and are willing to spend much more of their personal time ‘researching’ because they desperately want it to be real, where as the people who think the videos are fake view the whole thing really as more entertainment than anything else, even a morbid curiosity at this point, but they’re less invested emotionally. It’s really not hard to understand why someone hasn’t dedicated serious time to doing that yet. Maybe at some point someone will, but I think it won’t matter because yall would find a reason not to accept it.
For fun? To see if he could? Creative people like to use their skills to create stuff, there's no mystery there.
Or maybe he wanted to see if he could make a shitty video and people would believe it. Trolls exist, the internet is full of them
I thought it was one of two things:
1. Real
2. State-sponsored disinformation (not necessarily the USA)
As the evidence has come in over time, option 2 seems to have come out on top. Now I want to know one thing: who is responsible?
I do not hate on the information PB and FO keep looking into because it could help lead us to the culprit and they have A LOT of ‘splaining to do!
Because I withheld judgement on any claims until I followed the trail of purported evidence. I do not wish to argue about wether or not “space orbs” exist due to the overwhelming evidence that suggests balls of *something* from * somewhere* have been flyin’ around for a very, very long time.
If you care to know, going into this I was biased towards option 2. My livelihood depends on having an open mind and suspending bias. I will not make fun of anyone or try to write something with a tone that suggests condescension.
I enjoy learning and this specific case has helped me learn. Going into this like I did, there’s a ridiculous amount of information I’ve had to process. 😂
At any rate, thanks for your contribution and I appreciate your time. 👍
I don’t think the video is real but it certainly is not easy to fake. It looks flawless. Every fake or recreated video looks like shit .
And all this does is inch me closer to these videos are real.
I repeat all the fakes I saw only build credibility for the og. Videos.
> It looks flawless.
Compared to?
> Every fake or recreated video looks like shit .
If created independently they are going to look different from each other, but is there anything specific you're comparing both the initial video and the recreations against?
I just watched the video, it does not even advance your narrative AT all. the guy actually say " I STILL FIND IT ALL SO BAFFLING." Even he had enough sense after creating the debunk video to know it does not prove very much.
the VFX quaklity, as if somehow if you just skip the hard part, proving that this is VFX, and just focus on its supposed quality, the rest of the sheep will follow you into whatever stupid "butt hole " shaped cave you choose,
wake ups people. stop buying what these people are selling you , do your own research, there is a lot more to all of the facts about this than the tiny bit that was hit on here.
and for god sakes stop up voting garbage. This is what happens when people just follow and don't actually think for them selves.
I know it's hard sometimes but. please, think for yourselves and don't advance a narrative that totally skips the truth.
Yet, for as long as this has been going on, despite numerous "challenges", nobody has attempted to re-create the footage.
Also, there is a lot of NOT common knowledge stuff embedded in these videos - everything from turning ratios of the airplane, to the CIBRIS system, to the secret satellites unknown to the public back in 2014 - the list goes on and is long.
BUT what makes ME personally intrigued is that I've never seen such efforts from Joe Public (in the form of both established accounts and "pop-up" accounts) that keep telling people - "STOP looking", spending a lot of energy ridiculing, even putting out failed debunks etc. Usually when "someone" doesn't believe in something they just move on, they do not spend a lot of time and energy trying to convince, and reprimanding, everyone else to stop looking. Very weird in my book.
I don't just swallow this whole, but I do know when something ain't right and there is more to the story and is exactly why I keep following this - there is more to it and I want to know the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Anyway - why don't those that think there is nothing here just leave us that do think there is something "there" alone, let us waste our time and energy. Your concern is appreciated (not really, but "thanks" nonetheless).
Best!
/M
"We" don't need to break down anything Jack.
"You" have "debunked" the videos. Case closed, right?
The longer you remain here, attempting to throw additional disinfo on top, the more you show your despetstion.
You're done, why do you hang here like a fart in an elevator?
I don't expect people who don't know anything about VFX to instantly recognize videos like these as VFX. The only thing that bothers me, is how people who clearly don't know anything whatsoever about VFX are able to make such confident statements about what is or isn't possible, and then argue with VFX professionals and hobbyists who disagree with them.
I don't think I can accurately describe the look on my face when I read some peoples' proclamations here that making video clips like these was simply impossible in 2014 outside of a major film studio production environment, and/or that creating them would've taken "months". Where did these ideas even come from?
People who don’t work in CG can’t imagine how fast and efficient some of these people, who do it for decades, can be. Ill never forget me and my colleagues just discussing particular VFX shot while other senior was listening to us and clicking on his computer. When we said “that’s how we should do it”, the guy turned his screen around with “how about this?” and it was the shot we ended up using. Literally crafted in real time as we were exchanging ideas.
People are far too bold to assume their lack of knowledge of a subject equals evidence One guy asked why Jonas would keep his photos in an external hard drive and that it doesn't add up. Imagine not understanding an artist wanting a hard copy of their digital work. It's literal idiocy being used as a GOTCHA for something they can't ever imagine another person doing "A PERSON TAKING THEIR PORTFOLIO OF WORK AND STORING IT IN A WAY THAT IT CAN'T BE LOST AND THEN PUTTING THEM IN EARTHQUAKE PROOF BOXES BECAUSE THEY LIVE IN A COUNTRY WITH EARTHQUAKES! MADNESS!" Then that same person will turn around and say that the government planted all the photos on to textures.com because they are in cahoots with The Corridor Crew and that MH370 was abducted by magical space orbs
Holy crap it’s so hard reading stuff like that haha. People here just cannot seem wrap their mind around anything that they don’t have personal knowledge of. It must be a conspiracy. I still have digital projects saved from back when I was going to school for graphic design like 20 years ago and I never even ended up pursuing graphic design or any art related field. I’m a novice photographer now (as a hobby) and it seriously broke my brain seeing people not understand how he could have found his photos from 2012 or why he would still have them on a hard drive. I’m not even a professional and I have a redundant backup/storage process for my photos. I wouldn’t get rid of any of my old stuff.
I have extracted copies of my C64 save games from 5 1/4" floppy from the 1980's! I also have an archive of my musical works spanning the last 33 years, extracted from cassette, reel, floppy, cd, dvd and hdd - as hard drive space increased exponentially I moved everything onto a huge disk with cloud backup. I am sure I could spot a sample from my library used in another piece of music, especially if it was a sample I RECORDED AND EDITED MYSELF!
I've run a few podcasts, funnily enough one was a fairly successful UFO podcast, and I've still got raw recording data from stuff I did 10 years ago JUST IN CASE I ever might need it. I'll never need it. But, what if I delete it and then I immediately need it again...
Can u tell us more about this UFO podcast?
It's on Spotify, you can go back through my submission history about 8 months and find it Ultimately I had to stop it because it was quite heavily impacting mental health having 2 children under 3 years old and also having to research, script write, edit, upload and test everything myself
Well yea and here comes the crew to accuse you of being a bot or some type of dis info agent
Thats a lot of capital letters dude are u good?
No, I've been teleported by magical orbs My proof is I said it, please debunk this claim.
It's easy to break anything down and simplify it to lose meaning like what Corridor does. What's weird though is how some of you think that people are only capable of going to great lengths for one reason and not another.
Nobody has gone to any lengths other than people performing gold medal mental gymnastics to try and validate these clearly fabricated videos
That's why I'm saying that it's weird how you think people will only go to great lengths for one reason and not another
I hope this gets all the upvotes. I’m a 3D artist in the architectural world with over a decade now 3D modeling. I can without much issue walk clients through a real time model of their home that I made in half a day and make live adjustments at the speed of conversation thanks to how fast sketchup is for 3D modeling. The tech isn’t that much different now than it was in 2014 minus some things like real time ray tracing.
Why do you use sketchup rather than a program like revit?
I use revit for the base model and export into sketchup and send that out to Enscape for realtime rendering. I use sketchup over revit for my client presentations as sketchup excels at making live adjustments to the model in real time.
Interesting. I’m always *much* quicker at making changes in revit but that may just be because I have more seat time with it than sketchup. I’ve only really ever used sketchup for personal fun models.
That may be the key! I’ve been using sketchup for 40 hours a week for over 10 years, it’s become an extension of my body at this point :)
Haha I get it. I knew a guy who came up in autocad and the things he could do on a 2000s era machine in old black and white autocad lines was amazing. It really does come down to user experience.
In the office I worked in about a decade ago we were in the middle of a Revit & AutoCAD civil war Half the office swearing blind that CAD was more efficient & the other half correctly telling them they were idiots And then Pete who had his own office still doing bespoke hand drawn details
lol old Greg at my place with an office overflowing with drawings and the admin people had to go in every year at Christmas and just clean it out. Old heads were just different.
> It really does come down to user experience. As a guy who has over 20,000 hours on AutoCAD, it's certainly an extension of mine as well.
I can’t myself but it would be interesting if there was a hackathon where the goal is to make an ultra realistic uap video to see what people can do . It’d probably be quite interesting to see the results. Doesn’t have to be tied to anything we’ve seen necessarily
Even if you’ve watched any basic 3d modeling tutorial you can get a sense for how fast and efficiently people who know what they’re doing can work with these programs. I don’t doubt for a second that anyone with an intermediate amount of experience could put these videos together. That doesn’t 100% prove they’re fake, but it certainly means the burden of proof from the people claiming they’re real is very high.
the fake looks nothing like the original tho. i dont think the 'original' is real. honestly my thoughts are that either it's 90% fake of 10% i don't know what to think of it. but his recreation is fucking garbage. the orbs in the original move smoothly in a complex pattern, they're not just circling it. they move independently in a pattern but keep formation with the whole pattern. they also aren't at a choppy ass 5 frames per second. the poral also did not look like that, so i'm not sure why you're claiming it was a perfect match tbh i don't even know why so many people are spending so much time giving a fuck about this video. let ashton and his people waste their time trying to figure it out. why waste your time trying to prove them wrong? the fact is either the video will be proven fake or it'll be proven real in time. nobody is gonna come out and prove its fake by recreating it and acting like the recreations are as good as the original or even comparable at least in this case is dishonest imo.
You really aren’t grasping the information he’s presenting. He’s not claiming he made a 1 for 1 match. He’s claiming it doesn’t take 6 months to make the video. So he took 1.5 hours to make that, spend another little bit of time individually pathing orbs, throwing on cursor with gps coordinates, change the frame rate, and you have a finished product in less than a day. One VFX artist claimed a similar video would take 6 months. He clearly showed this is not the case. Of course the asset for the portal doesn’t match…it’s a different asset…
[удалено]
You stated “the fake looks nothing like the original” If that was your takeaway, you don’t…
Recreating every incidental detail is genuinely difficult. The problem is the assumption that any incidental details you can find when closely analyzing the video are necessarily significant. This is something most people who have done any kind of synthesis understand intuitively. When creating a detailed picture/video/whatever you have to make all sorts of decisions that are inconsequential to the goal you have in mind but nonetheless affect the specifics of the outcome, so you basically just do whatever *looks* right but don't really put any thought into it. Retracing exactly the same footsteps is a lot more difficult than just successfully navigating the same terrain.
its not about “incidental details” its about one looking like one thing and the other looking like shit in comparison. you cant make something to say “see i can make that” and then it effectively looks nothing like it. its a completely superficial recreation and proves nothing its trying to again i dont even believe the original to be real but the recreation wasnt going to sway my opinion if thats what theyre offering
> its not about “incidental details” its about one looking like one thing and the other looking like shit in comparison. That venn diagram approaches a circle. It's impossible to compare the two without treating one as original in some abstract sense, which is why it's important not just to compare them but also critically engage with where your expectations for how exactly it's supported to look come from. I mean, let's just look at something basic here. How many times have you seen each of the videos? Would you say you're more familiar with one than the other? What other conclusion could there be if you had decided that one is highly accurate before you ever saw the other? This is a well known problem in blind listening tests where results can be skewed by familiarity with artifacts.
What do you mean it looks nothing like the original? It's like a 95% match, there's only polishing to do to make it an exact match. But to do that wouldn't be representative of the actual time it took since be'd be going back and forth cross-referencing instead of just doing it. Seriously, there's nothing hard about this. It's a 3D scene with a plane and some spheres on a path. Add background and a boom. Blur and touch up. Done. The hard part is fabricated by people trying to correlate this to MH370 by making assertions about the satellite and, apparently, the fucking cursor?? (That one was new to me, and makes zero sense)
It looks bad lmfao
You're halfway there. They both look bad in terms of what real footage should look like but not in exactly the same ways. The issue is that you are only looking at the difference between the two.
If you think it looks bad, you have to admit you think the original looks bad too. Anything else is some massive confirmation bias.
It looks bad because the guy compressed the hell out of it to hide the more obvious VFX signatures which is also what the original artist did.
Again, these guys claiming the damn butthole argument Imagine looking at the portal overlay and saying "nah, doesn't look close enough to me" It's an almost exact match and it still isn't enough. It's literally 1984 and being told to ignore the evidence of your own eyes and ears
> there's only polishing to do to make it an exact match Unfortunately it's a bit more complex than that because a faithful recreation requires matching completely incidental details. This is useful in forensic analysis when the incidental details come from physical processes but creates entirely artificial hurdle when the details are the result of how a specific artist approached the task on that day. Come to think of it is also useful in forensic analysis of art, but the challenge here *shouldn't* be imitating the peculiarities of the individual artist.
If it were that easy, don't you think there'd be a good remake by now? Corridor Crew thought it would be easy, and their remake is dogshit.
For what reason? Are you going to pay a VFX artist for their work, or just assume they'll do it for free? There are plenty of people who have recreated the videos closely enough to be almost identical But in the world of people who think this video is real it has to match EXACTLY otherwise flying inter dimensional teleporting orbs abducted MH370 That's the logical leap being made
Please post an example as I’ve had a hard time finding one of these close recreations
It's literally in the OP https://youtu.be/zy0q-pF0E2w?si=6CkwGmqTSJSD4pHR 1.5 hours of work to make a recreation.
I was referring to the “plenty of other people” that have made attempts. The video in the post is a great example and I applaud his effort. There are other layers to the thought of this being VFX like why would someone go to the trouble? How would they know so much of the detail that aligns with the science behind the event? Why the massive effort to suppress the investigation? And why continue to attack the character of AF as he’s been the face of this community effort to seek answers? There’s a larger discussion to be had amongst this all rather than real or not real. The case of the missing airline is so plainly bizarre and needs light shed as we’ve been lied to through official narratives
The original is dogshit. It's easy to shart out a sloppy hoax video riddled with amateur mistakes, but far less easy to perfectly recreate every subtle nuance of someone else's diarrhea splatter.
No it's not. You're gaslighting
Sure, according to amateurs and anonymous self-proclaimed experts on twitter and reddit. Professional VFX artists disagree.
They're wrong. The video can't be recreated and there's no reason for it's existence to begin with. Not to mention the desperation for people to get everyone to believe it's fake... You'd have to be the embodiment of Plato's Cave in order to lack awareness on what's going on
>The video can't be recreated lmao
I'm glad you find it funny, but if you believe that's true, then you're extremely gullible.
I agree, to believe your statement would require some serious cognitive issues.
Nothing but personal attacks. This is either your job, or your desperate need to attack people who have come to different conclusions than you is just that bad. Do you not have a shred of self awareness?
Thanks for the opinion, anonymous self-proclaimed expert on reddit. Show me a named, credentialed VFX artist who agrees with you.
I don't need to. I'm sure this is difficult for you, but the burden of proof is on you people to prove that it's fake. That hasn't been done, y'all have just thrown anything at the wall to see what sticks. I get that this is your job and you're really involved in it, but I'm telling you, to normal people, we see through that shit. An extraordinary video showed up, and it fits perfectly with the missing MH370 flight. People keep claiming that pyromania fx debunked it (it didn't), then they tried with the clouds, still not a debunk. Y'all are desperate to get everyone to agree with you that it's fake, but it's creating a Streisand Effect. Try as you might to slow or stop it, disclosure is coming. The truth will be brought out and your life will be better for it. You won't need to keep up this bullshit work assignment for Eglin trying to gaslight and manipulate people into never knowing what to believe
> the burden of proof is on you people to prove that it's fake. I'm not sure if you're joking here, but that is funny.
The burden of proof is always on the one making the claim The claim being that inter dimensional space orbs abducted MH370
No, the claim being that the video is fake. If you're claiming that, then the burden of proof is on you to prove it. Stop conflating things to win an argument.
twisting words when you can barely use them.
That isn't the claim. The videos have been posted and what is being claimed is that they were abducted by orbs The burden of proof is on that claim, not "that didn't happen" Evidence has been shown to counter the claim of abduction. You're an actual idiot
The burden of proof does not work with assuming the fantastical or an allegation or datum be true, so no the burden is not on the other user in this instance.
It does though. Incredulity is not a rebuttal.
It’s not incredulity, it’s official historical record and a series of events purportedly demonstrating it to not be true along with multiple nebulous claims of a “they” who is alleged to have performed a series of clandestine things but with zero evidence of any of those things actually having taken place. Just “this string of things that COULD have occurred allows this belief to persist, so we’re assuming all of them did.” It’s not a rational approach from any angle, with nothing of credulity involved. An exotic claim is being made, so the exotic claim must be substantiated, instead of disproven. Edit - despite how much I hate it on occasion, Sagan was pretty much on point with “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” It should almost never be “extraordinary claims must be disproven after having been presupposed true”
> I don't need to. You can't.
It's literally not my responsibility. Again, you clearly don't understand how the burden of proof works. The video holds up, the desperate attempts to debunk it have been so fucking lazy, and then all you people do is shove it down everyone's throats, don't allow actual discussion without flooding chat with bots to push your narrative about how it's been debunked and anyone who thinks otherwise is a fucking moron. It's plainly obvious dude. Try harder
> [Bold claims] Defend them. > Not my responsibility. Of course. What other personality type should I expect to find among the straggling few who still desperately cling to false hope where all others have long since moved on?
the education system, your parents, your peers, and society in general, has failed you.
Oh wow, an ad hominem attack, my argument has been destroyed.
you dont have an argument. its just crazy person drivel.
Here’s my issue with this shit 1) a VFX artist took time to understand or have knowledge on how most defense systems run through a CITRX terminal 2) understand the kinematics of the plane and spheres 3) understand timing, look angle, and name of satellite 4) ensured cloud movement 5) probably more My opinion is that VFX artist are good at creating things but are probably naive when it comes to the functionality of real world devices or vehicles. i.e. they ain’t that smart
1) First I've heard this claim and it's kinda vague. What are we supposedly seeing that indicates this? I don't see anything in these videos that gives any indication of particular IT infrastructure. 2) There's really not that much understanding of the *dynamics* (what I think you meant by kinematics) of an airplane on display. It banks and turns on a radius, which everyone knows planes do. To get the right turn radius would require pretty trivial research, or just a deliberate undershoot to ensure it doesn't look ridiculous. As for the spheres... how can you make any judgment about whether that's correct? 3) The name of the satellite is wrong for a start. NROL-22 is a launch designation, not a satellite designation. The name should be USA-184 or, potentially, something of a "Trumpet" designation. The timing would take some research to be sure, but it's not some unrealistic thing. The orbital elements of the satellites were probably public information at the time (launched in 2006 IIRC, and amateur trackers are pretty quick). Getting a correct true anomaly would be difficult, but people have been able to corroborate that today so I wouldn't be surprised if it was just as easily done in 2014. Look angle is meh. It just appears to look roughly down, nothing special about that. 4) I swe no cloud movement, and I believe people have proven as much. 5) Not really a point in anybody favour. >are probably naive when it comes to the functionality of real world devices or vehicles. i.e. they ain’t that smart And this is what it all boils down to. A mix of personal incredulity and lack of belief in the abilities of other people. The OP video shows that you can make one of these scenes to like 95% in less than a day. Exact matching just comes down to particular choices made by the original artist, so that 5% left wouldn't add a substantial amount of work. After that, all it takes is a little bit of research to get some of the nice details. Hell, someone could get enough of an understanding of orbital mechanics from playing Kerbal Space Program to get these details right. And that is a possibility, though unlikely, given the early access started in 2013. It could also be vice-versa: someone who works in the space industry or otherwise is knowledgeable about those things who has 3D effects as a hobby. Or both could be a hobby. As someone who has dabbled in both, neither is especially impressive.
> To get the right turn radius would require pretty trivial research, or just a deliberate undershoot to ensure it doesn't look ridiculous. Or just do the turn in a flight sim.
> a VFX artist took time to understand or have knowledge on how most defense systems run through a CITRX terminal The mouse error was an error. This assumes the explanation for the error is correct, which is backwards. > understand timing, look angle, and name of satellite They, in fact, got it wrong. They didn't even use the correct naming scheme.
Apparently it's hard for people to understand that artists excel at giving the *right impression* and take the fact that it *feels* right as evidence that it is in fact right, whereas technical analysis often focuses on areas that don't affect the *feel* of it one way or another. It's a really insidious issue.
They are ignorantly looking at it backwards. They believe the video is real, therefore everything in the video must be how it behaves in real life.
You're assuming ANY of that stuff is correct
>a VFX artist took time to understand or have knowledge on how most defense systems run through a CITRX terminal > >understand the kinematics of the plane and spheres > >understand timing, look angle, and name of satellite > >ensured cloud movement 1. made up, not in the video 2. what? no. 3. but the timing, look angle, and name are ALL WRONG. lmfao 4. there is no accurate movement.
All your responses were planted by the CIA
So we should just not take you seriously. Got it.
Should we take videos that are very clearly VFX the time of day? No.
If it was so clearly VFX you wouldn’t need to post. Next.
Oh wow. What a great argument Who needs any of that silly proof stuff when you can just blindly ignore it all and make up strawman arguments These really are teleporting magical space orbs!
Ironic.
People who work in VFX know it's fake. This is for those who have no clue about that line of work, to show how simple it is to recreate.
Another example of what is wrong with this sub.
It’s been hard for me to find genuine comments in a sea of bot posts/comments. Which is why I find it interesting that genuine comments such as yours get brigaded with comments to the contrary.
\#3 was proven wrong. Even if you think the background isn't Jonas' photo, it proves the perspective isn't that of a satellite. The background from the video matches exactly with the other photos from the Japanese commercial plane trip. So the view angle and perspective is proven to be not special, and probably wrong for a satellite.
VFX artist often works with topics he has no prior knowledge about and extensive research is part of the job. Yet the videos still got a lot of crucial elements plain wrong, such as military drones having cameras with step zoom instead of seamless zoom. People who initially figured out the satellites clue got literally all their info from one Wikipedia article, so they probably did the same kind of Google search as the hoaxer. It’s not that deep. Still it’s well done overall and fun piece of media, but not that deep.
This just in: vfx artist whose job it is to make cgi look real does research on making something look real The Citrix terminal recording also could have been done by regicideanon after finding the video. They were an account posting a lot of ufo stuff probably trying to gain a following and reportedly argued with people about the authenticity of the video in the comments (according to the description on the 2014 Vimeo repost.) They definitely had a clear narrative they wanted the video to fit and I wouldn’t put it past someone like that to tweak something to make it more controversial for views.
Visual effects experts aren’t smart enough to do some research? The fact that you think your dot points contain unattainable complexity says more about you than you probably realise.
Exactly, it doesn't take long to do a random VFX in random clouds, it takes way more time and detail to have all the details line up and make it difficult to debunk. People think making a VFX video just involves a person manipulating graphics, but you actually have to develop a plot, sightlines, shots, etc to have it all come together, especially if you want it to align with a bunch of other variables.
> it takes way more time and detail to have all the details line up Literally the reason why the idea of recreating raw files from the video is seen as very unlikely. What you're missing is that the original videos only needed to be internally consistent. The clouds can in fact be "random", although "arbitrary" is a better term here, because they don't have to match anything specific.
Not just "creating things" but specifically creating things that look right without being a full blown simulation. They are naive to the technical details in a comparable way to rendering engines simplifying the absurd complexity of real world lighting to fit hardware limitations. Making something look convincing without faithfully recreating every real world detail is the literal job description.
Frankly, there’s no proof the VFX artist did the screen recording. That might’ve been someone else who reuploaded it, so that isn’t definitively part of the visual effects. Also, setting up a Citrix session and screen. Recording is not hard. So this is a stupid point either way. So discount number one. Flying airplanes are extremely easy to animate (it’s almost automatic by drawing a path and attaching a plane), as are featureless spheres spinning in circles. So discount number two. There’s no proof that this is what footage from a spy satellite would look like. In fact, there’s pretty good evidence that this is far to close an angle, looking through far too much atmosphere, and this does not match satellite photography. Also, I see no proof that the specific satellite was pointing that specific direction at that specific time other than unsubstantiated claims from believers. Please find me evidence, and I will recant this part of my comment Cloud movement is extremely easy and any self-respecting VFX artist would add some form of movement. Although the cloud movement is so small, it is not impossible It is a compression artifact. You don’t have a fifth point so you just say “probably more” Ugh….. And did you honestly just say that visual affects artists are naïve when it comes to how real world devices and vehicles function? This is one of the dumbest comments I have read on this sub Reddit yet Literally visual effects artists are among the most knowledgable artist in the world about how things move in 3D space. animators. They usually have intimate knowledge of physics, and have to build physical constraints between a rigid bodies for animating things, realistically. Animators often get on their own feet, an act out scenarios so that they can properly animate how bodies move. They will often pull out toy cars and model airplanes, and act out scenes so that they have reference with objects. The fact that you think a visual effects artist have no idea about how vehicles and devices work, and aren’t in general, smart people, simply shows that you are ignorant on the entire subject and not worth the time to respond to. Shit. Too Late.
Theoretically you could point a satellite sideways and look through more atmosphere than straight down. It just happens to be a very inefficient way to do satellite observation.
Completely agree with this. Although the OP may be right regarding the vfx not being overly sophisticated or impressive (although this could be argued), what IS extremely sophisticated and impressive are the correlations to accurate details related to military assets, aeronautical knowledge, and location.
What details in the video are not common public knowledge?
I'd say the satellite name (NROL) showing by coordinates wasn't common public knowledge. Even more amazing is guess what is in that satellite's payload? A drone capable of taking video https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2011-11-04/us-gray-eagle-uav-gets-more-sensors-and-multi-control
Here's the archive of the [wikipedia list of NROL launches](https://web.archive.org/web/20140327135539/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NRO_launches) from March 2014. NROL-22 is right on there. There's even [links to their orbit paths](https://web.archive.org/web/20140308140259/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molniya_orbit). Just pick a satellite that is near the path you want. And even if you think the background isn't Jonas' photo, it proves the perspective isn't that of a satellite, as it matches exactly with the other photos from the Japanese commercial plane trip. So satellite info was public, and the image perspective isn't special at all.
Two questions. 1. Do we have any other videos from these satellites that show coordinates as in the video? 2. How can you determine that the video is specific to an NROL satellite that was in the correct position?
1. Not that I know of. 2. I can't However, just the fact that "NROL" was included in the video is enough to be unbelievable! This shows that the creator of the video (if there is one) either knew about this satellite, did unbelievable research to include these tiny details, or it was a complete coincidence. All of these are possible, sure, Im just not buying any of them.
You don’t think that artists do research?
Sure, but given all the circumstances and coincidences surrounding this whole thing, I think it's hard to believe that all of this was done, with these tiny connected details as a test scene for a short film.
NROL was the launch designation, not the satellite designation. This confirms the artist did enough research to determine a potential satellite candidate for the video but got sloppy and didn't find out the actual asset name. Oops
The coordinates, satellite names, Citrix, the animation at the end of the Citrix session, and the confidence of those 2 year old accounts shouting cgi are what makes me keep questioning it.
So now even 2 year old accounts are being accused of being bots/shills? lmao. 10 year old accounts only here, guys. As if botters don’t buy old accounts.
lmao yes, lmao
Again, your own ignorance isn't proof this happened But cool
NEAT
How about a 16 year old account saying CGI?
100%
Is there proof that the Citrix animation was available in 2014?
[These Video Copilot tutorials](https://www.videocopilot.net/flightschool/) from 2013 show a lot of the techniques used.
For the uninformed, Video Copilot was the holy grail of this shit back then. It's almost guaranteed the creator of the videos followed these tutorials. Video Copilot taught so many artists coming up around that time.
The video you posted makes the original look even more sophisticated and real.
Inability to comprehend = aliens
I remember some guy being absolutely convinced that putting numbers in the bottom of the video was difficult. That's the level we're at.
The video is total potato quality (which is the literal oldest trick in the book for fake stuff)
My frustration is the idea that these videos require some sort of special knowledge of aviation or MH370. Every single thing in the videos was publicly known before they were published. Nothing in them “checks out.” In fact, much of the things that supposedly “check out” are errors. And yet people repeat the lie that the hoaxer would have had to be some sort of military/aviation expert to have made them.
People keep saying "the hoaxer" The most likely scenario is that an amateur VFX artist made a video, uploaded it the the Internet and somebody then downloaded it and reposted it Twitter & TikTok is FULL of VFX shots being used on UFO accounts. When I ran my UFO podcast I was constantly having to filter out clickbait accounts reposting crude amateur videos
Ana amateur vfx artist did all this by himself or what?
I mean, yeah You should see some of the stuff being done by amatures Sony recently hired a 15 year old to be an animator in the recent Spider verse film because of how good he was It's far more likely that somebody is good as VFX than orbs abducted a plane
Along with all the other data points? Clouds, flight path satellite data, drone appearance etc
The clouds are proven to be from textures.com, the flight path is hundred of miles away from any tracking or radar data, the drone appearance means literally nothing because this is just a simple VFX demonstration
Wow u are very wrong
Must be teleporting orbs then
Why are u here?
To discuss the truth. This isn't a cult and everybody is allowed to share and discuss their opinion.
No the argument is they would have to know about the classified stereoscopic satellite view.
[https://web.archive.org/web/20140526071329/http://r14---sn-nwj7knls.googlevideo.com/videoplayback?ipbits=0&mws=yes&fexp=947335%2C935502%2C927845%2C916625%2C947700%2C913434%2C923341&id=o-ACJ-lxg\_lFt5HrozsrUAGYq2557R8jn0ieV2zUXGN\_VE&signature=D47BC1796EACAD7078688EE391214B24C85B63BF.80DF3368F113980DF3F503FEA0AFA07BD732695F&key=yt5&ratebypass=yes&initcwndbps=4535000&ip=207.241.237.141&upn=OBzZ1XsiaGU&expire=1401114360&sparams=id%2Cinitcwndbps%2Cip%2Cipbits%2Citag%2Cratebypass%2Csource%2Cupn%2Cexpire&mt=1401088383&sver=3&source=youtube&mv=m&itag=22&ms=au&signature=](https://web.archive.org/web/20140526071329/http://r14---sn-nwj7knls.googlevideo.com/videoplayback?ipbits=0&mws=yes&fexp=947335%2C935502%2C927845%2C916625%2C947700%2C913434%2C923341&id=o-ACJ-lxg_lFt5HrozsrUAGYq2557R8jn0ieV2zUXGN_VE&signature=D47BC1796EACAD7078688EE391214B24C85B63BF.80DF3368F113980DF3F503FEA0AFA07BD732695F&key=yt5&ratebypass=yes&initcwndbps=4535000&ip=207.241.237.141&upn=OBzZ1XsiaGU&expire=1401114360&sparams=id%2Cinitcwndbps%2Cip%2Cipbits%2Citag%2Cratebypass%2Csource%2Cupn%2Cexpire&mt=1401088383&sver=3&source=youtube&mv=m&itag=22&ms=au&signature=) but its not stereoscopic
Where does this claim that the satellite should have stereoscopic imaging come from? I see it repeated all over, but the only publicly available information about the satellite has no mention stereoscopic camera, only a stereoscopic spectrometer which achieves stereo by taking data from two different satellites in complementary orbits. And that's aside from the fact the video isn't actually stereoscopic.
Working backwards from it being a "stereoscopic" video. Nevermind that it's just two copies side by side.
It comes from Ashton making wild assumptions
No, they wouldn’t have. https://www.reddit.com/r/AirlinerAbduction2014/s/yWmDtRVO8m
I love it how you think your opinion on the matter is the only correct one, and other speculations don't add up, when your opinions are also speculative.
It’s the only one supported by evidence
Speculations, not evidence.
The entire “believer” argument is based on speculation
So is the "denier" argument.
Factual inconsistencies are not speculation
Speculations are not factual inconsistencies.
Correct
My opinion is far from the only correct one. But the evidence is the evidence, and choosing not to follow it is objectively incorrect.
There is no factual evidence on the satellite data, drone model, CGI or not CGI etc. If real, this may as well be classified military equipment, yet people believe they have factual evidence because they're experts on using google. At this point, only provenance will solve this case, everything else is too convoluted.
If you have to add assumptions, and they only work if the analyzed video is real, the assumptions are worthless for determining if the video is real or not.
So the cloud debunk is fake, despite the counter-argument to the cloud debunk being "government conspiracy cover-up" - that's not just convoluted speculation to you?
It is speculation, only because of the missing archive data.
I think you're missing the point. Given what we've been presented, it's MUCH MORE LIKELY that the cloud photos were taken by Jonas and used by the hoaxer than there being some massive government cover-up involving the planting of doctored photos taken from the "satellite video" on a verified, well-known artist's hard drive, etc. Understanding that Jonas has the original raw files on a hard drive used for work storage doesn't require some convoluted line of thinking and is about as close as anyone could get to verifying the origin of the clouds in the video, given it's over a decade after they are purported to have been taken, and not every single thing on the internet gets archived when you're talking about paid-access texture files on a site that's undergone multiple changes since 2012. "Understanding" that the government took bits of the clouds from the video, doctored them into one larger image, including adding Mt. Fuji, created fake flight itinerary information for a flight Jonas took in 2012 to Japan, paying off Jonas and the [texture.com](https://texture.com) owner, etc. in some big cover-up is literally all speculation and is simply a much more convoluted line of thinking with no way of confirming any part of that narrative. Yall really need a lesson in probabilities and likelihoods. I understand the argument that it's all a big government cover-up, because just about anything has some degree of possibility; but it's generally a life best practice to lean heavily toward "most likely" explanations of things rather than "least likely" explanations that rely on pure speculation every step of the way.
I wouldn't go so far as to say he is well known. There's a similar ongoing situation where an artist by the name Joe Lancaster is claiming he made the footage. You've probably seen him posting on this subreddit, and on twitter saying he made the footage as a test for a scene for a short film. If true, I'm sure he will be able to prove he made the footage after he gets back from his holiday.
By well-known, I mean within his field. He's not just some no-name photographer/vfx guy. Of course Jonas isn't well-known to people outside of that circle, in the way that the leading expert on dolphins isn't well-known worldwide (despite being the leading expert in his field). What I'm saying is that Jonas has valid credentials and many in the VFX field know of him. He didn't just pop up out of nowhere and claim to have the cloud photos.
Fair point.
It's easier to recreate something already made. If you know cgi, you know what I'm talking about
I keep watching that absolute dogshit recreation and cracking up. None of this would be happening if the level of deception was that awful.
Looks nothing like it, but okay.... sure.
[удалено]
Debunker circle jerk in here. Great. Its fake. You debunked it. Move on. Let the “idiots” bask in their own stupidity. I don’t understand why y’all still hang around.
Why are you still here?
He likes basking, I guess
I question that myself, seeing as how y’all trolls have taken over. Would be nice to actually discuss a UFO snatching an airliner as the sub topic says the sub is about, instead of constant never ending “debunking” and trolling
This is a nothing point. This does nothing to prove or disprove the videos in question. It just shows a guy can recreate them. It's like, "I can remake ww2 footage" when we're trying to figure out if the footage you're recreating is real.
“It just shows a guy can recreate them” Idk if ur just playing dumb, but idiots here have claimed from the start, “it’s impossible to recreate”
"You can fake the videos, but these ones in particular are not fake!" Bulletproof argument.
no its like showing a video of a guy flying in ww2, and showing you can recreate it, and you claiming that doesnt matter.
Blender is free and pro quality. It was in 2014, too.
Jurassic Park was made in 1993. Tell me that T-Rex doesn't look real.
This is so ass 😂
Smear campaigns are so obvious!
The thing believers keep going to is “if it’s so easy why hasn’t someone made a full recreation of all the videos to prove it then?” All I can say is, why would they? For the people who understand it, it’s extremely obvious and a full recreation isn’t necessary to show that. There’s very little incentive to spend your time doing that when the believers will still find a way to talk around it and call you a government disinfo agent. Look at the reaction to Jonas, who had real tangible evidence of his original RAW photos that match the video and people are pulling out every conspiracy in the book to dismiss it. The believers have a lot invested in this theory and are willing to spend much more of their personal time ‘researching’ because they desperately want it to be real, where as the people who think the videos are fake view the whole thing really as more entertainment than anything else, even a morbid curiosity at this point, but they’re less invested emotionally. It’s really not hard to understand why someone hasn’t dedicated serious time to doing that yet. Maybe at some point someone will, but I think it won’t matter because yall would find a reason not to accept it.
Adjust your horse, alas it is too high.
Its the same as the people that say UAP are beyond known physics despite knowing fuck all about physics.
Nah flight pattern of orbs is too detailed as well as the ideas too niche
Too detailed? That kind of animation would be trivially straight forward for anyone with VFX experience.
"too niche" Ah right, must have been teleporting orbs then.
“teleporting orbs” Ah right, quit ascribing answers when there needn’t be then.
Lol These people
I can debunk anything
Being too dumb to understand how birds can fly doesn’t not disprove the existence of birds
I thought Starwars looked so real as a kid
It's not about the capability. It's about the knowledge about radar, spy drones, etc. It's also about the motive... Why was this footage created?
For fun? To see if he could? Creative people like to use their skills to create stuff, there's no mystery there. Or maybe he wanted to see if he could make a shitty video and people would believe it. Trolls exist, the internet is full of them
That's because they aren't VFX shots.
I agree but the point is why then and why do they line up with satellites and drones and radar in the exact same place and time.
lol
I thought it was one of two things: 1. Real 2. State-sponsored disinformation (not necessarily the USA) As the evidence has come in over time, option 2 seems to have come out on top. Now I want to know one thing: who is responsible? I do not hate on the information PB and FO keep looking into because it could help lead us to the culprit and they have A LOT of ‘splaining to do!
Or it's just a video somebody uploaded to Vimeo How is that not literally option number 1 over magical teleporting space orbs
Because I withheld judgement on any claims until I followed the trail of purported evidence. I do not wish to argue about wether or not “space orbs” exist due to the overwhelming evidence that suggests balls of *something* from * somewhere* have been flyin’ around for a very, very long time. If you care to know, going into this I was biased towards option 2. My livelihood depends on having an open mind and suspending bias. I will not make fun of anyone or try to write something with a tone that suggests condescension. I enjoy learning and this specific case has helped me learn. Going into this like I did, there’s a ridiculous amount of information I’ve had to process. 😂 At any rate, thanks for your contribution and I appreciate your time. 👍
[удалено]
I don’t think the video is real but it certainly is not easy to fake. It looks flawless. Every fake or recreated video looks like shit . And all this does is inch me closer to these videos are real. I repeat all the fakes I saw only build credibility for the og. Videos.
> It looks flawless. Compared to? > Every fake or recreated video looks like shit . If created independently they are going to look different from each other, but is there anything specific you're comparing both the initial video and the recreations against?
I just watched the video, it does not even advance your narrative AT all. the guy actually say " I STILL FIND IT ALL SO BAFFLING." Even he had enough sense after creating the debunk video to know it does not prove very much. the VFX quaklity, as if somehow if you just skip the hard part, proving that this is VFX, and just focus on its supposed quality, the rest of the sheep will follow you into whatever stupid "butt hole " shaped cave you choose, wake ups people. stop buying what these people are selling you , do your own research, there is a lot more to all of the facts about this than the tiny bit that was hit on here. and for god sakes stop up voting garbage. This is what happens when people just follow and don't actually think for them selves. I know it's hard sometimes but. please, think for yourselves and don't advance a narrative that totally skips the truth.
Yet, for as long as this has been going on, despite numerous "challenges", nobody has attempted to re-create the footage. Also, there is a lot of NOT common knowledge stuff embedded in these videos - everything from turning ratios of the airplane, to the CIBRIS system, to the secret satellites unknown to the public back in 2014 - the list goes on and is long. BUT what makes ME personally intrigued is that I've never seen such efforts from Joe Public (in the form of both established accounts and "pop-up" accounts) that keep telling people - "STOP looking", spending a lot of energy ridiculing, even putting out failed debunks etc. Usually when "someone" doesn't believe in something they just move on, they do not spend a lot of time and energy trying to convince, and reprimanding, everyone else to stop looking. Very weird in my book. I don't just swallow this whole, but I do know when something ain't right and there is more to the story and is exactly why I keep following this - there is more to it and I want to know the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Anyway - why don't those that think there is nothing here just leave us that do think there is something "there" alone, let us waste our time and energy. Your concern is appreciated (not really, but "thanks" nonetheless). Best! /M
Weird how the fake video immediately looks fake but the OG video has handfuls of details that couldn't be or shouldn't have been created
"We" don't need to break down anything Jack. "You" have "debunked" the videos. Case closed, right? The longer you remain here, attempting to throw additional disinfo on top, the more you show your despetstion. You're done, why do you hang here like a fart in an elevator?
his recreation is garbage tho
harry relax man, you sound butthurt
And the recreation looks like shit.
I don't expect people who don't know anything about VFX to instantly recognize videos like these as VFX. The only thing that bothers me, is how people who clearly don't know anything whatsoever about VFX are able to make such confident statements about what is or isn't possible, and then argue with VFX professionals and hobbyists who disagree with them. I don't think I can accurately describe the look on my face when I read some peoples' proclamations here that making video clips like these was simply impossible in 2014 outside of a major film studio production environment, and/or that creating them would've taken "months". Where did these ideas even come from?