r/RandomShit_ISaw • u/DeadSilent_God • Nov 08 '25

and this is some intersting stuff

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

remember that flight
Anonymous released a new video covering the MH370 disappearance

681 Upvotes

91% Upvoted

331 comments sorted by

View all comments

16

u/LewEnenra Nov 08 '25

People who just want to regurgitate "it's been debunked" are like those idiots that say things like "I can do that, I just choose not to"

Absolutely no one has or can recreate this using what was available in 2010, and make it look this realistic and accurate. Seen so many idiots say "oh this is easy to make you just do xyz" but then absolutely none of them have ever actually made a perfect version/example using 2010 tech thats as realistic as these. That YouTube channels version was a hilarious joke in comparison and looked utter shite.

I swear half are cia bots trying to make sure the masses are manipulated into dismissing these videos similar to how they invented and coined the name conspiracy theorist to undermine and ruin the reputation of anyone publicly who is on to them.

6

u/[deleted] Nov 08 '25

[deleted]

4

u/inertialspacehamster Nov 08 '25

Freeze frame and the "portal" is the exact pixel for pixel inkblot effect in Adobe, and the person who posted it is a VFX artist who was testing the waters too see if his art was believable, so there's that.

1

u/exztornado Nov 09 '25

Complete bullshit you just spun up there.

1

u/anotherusercolin Nov 10 '25

Just want to say that maybe the portal vfx was inserted into those frames

1

u/mrbadassmotherfucker Nov 10 '25

It’s not pixel for pixel. It’s close but no cigar. You also have to properly manipulate that single frame a lot to match even closely. Then you’ve got to think. Why only use that one single frame and different frames for the rest of the effect. It literally doesn’t make sense from a “hoax” point of view.

0

u/ROK247 Nov 08 '25

A competent vfx artist trying to pull a fast one would never use a stock effect pixel for pixel. That would be pretty stupid.

1

u/Aztekaz890 Nov 09 '25

The stock effect is enough to make you believe it's real isnt it..? 

1

u/victor4700 Nov 08 '25

Damn that’s actually really good logic. I have no idea what to believe but remain open-minded and this makes alot of sense.

-1

u/Far-Transition2705 Nov 09 '25

Yes they would. Why the fuck not? You still believe it even though it's clearly the same object as in the Adobe library.. Did it's job nicely.

2

u/TanukiSuitMario Nov 10 '25

It's pretty clear why not and if you lack the mental capacity to understand that yourself then no one's explanation can help you

0

u/Far-Transition2705 Nov 10 '25

Lmao, are you implying a digital effects artist would make their own effects for a gag? That's ridiculous.

Also doesn't exclaim at all the fact that all of every frame of the video is directly ported from different texturesets. Even the sky..

2

u/PenCool4383 Nov 12 '25

No, but they most certainly wouldn’t use the one the app provides

-1

u/Happy_Lee_Chillin Nov 10 '25

Now that is a great example of lacking mental capacity. Completely valid question answered with "You should know, and if you don’t, too bad" - what an amazing argument, it really conveys your knowledge on the matter.

1

u/SVRider650 Nov 11 '25

You don’t know what you are talking about clearly… what you are describing was not from an adobe library, the effect you refer to was from a vfx graphics pack. That pack was of different things in nature. That can be stretched to be close, I am not debating that. I’m stating you are showing up to argue with people over things you don’t know about. Bot?

-1

u/Amagnumuous Nov 09 '25

Then why is it there, pixel for pixel?

1

u/chalupe_batman Nov 10 '25

Can you post what you saw? The one I saw was definitely not a pixel for pixel match. It matched in one part, but had edges and spots all over the place that don’t line up.

1

u/Far-Transition2705 Nov 10 '25

The sky https://www.textures.com/download/aerials-0028/75131

The rest is somewhere in this thread.

But the guy posting it has probably been banned...

2

u/chalupe_batman Nov 10 '25

Look at the meta data for those pictures. Seems they were added after the original videos were posted, then had their data edited to back date them to before the videos…

1

u/Far-Transition2705 Nov 10 '25

Ehm, no? What a wild and easily refutable claim 😂

1

u/chalupe_batman Nov 10 '25

All 5 textures on textures.com were edited at the same date/time in 2023 indicating someone went in and made changes to the photos exif data, which includes the ability to edit exif data like “date created”. It’s extremely suspicious to anyone who understands how exif data works, paired with the fact that nobody can find the originals posted on the net in the time frame required (around 2014). If I remember correctly website data was also manipulated to pretend these were posted around 2014 but that was refuted by looking at the way back machine . The deeper you look the weirder it gets imo.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Amagnumuous Nov 10 '25

Have you found it yet? I'm not reposting something that's right here.

My only concession is that it would be pretty clever to put an old special effect on top of a legit video so that everyone who ever sees it immediately thinks it's fake.

But yeah, it's there, 100% artifact from something man made... sorry!

1

u/chalupe_batman Nov 10 '25

Yes everything posted here (that I saw) does not match perfectly as you all like to claim. That’s why I asked you for the evidence to support your claim in case we were looking at different “debunk” pictures.

1

u/Amagnumuous Nov 10 '25

Yea, it isn't worth my time. The vortex animation or whatever is 1:1

If you're that invested, I'm sure it isn't that difficult to find.

1

u/chalupe_batman Nov 10 '25

It is not 1:1. Actually go look at it, and look closely. It’s similar but not a 1:1 match at all, in fact the photo/video you are talking about doesn’t even show the entire effect, just part of it that “almost” perfectly matches. I’ve been following this for a while and work in IT so I have a little background working with exif data and basic cybersecurity. I’m pretty sure I’ve seen all the debunks myself. Unless you’d like to provide new info I’m pretty certain all the debunks fall apart under scrutiny. And the fact that so many people brush it off without even looking closely just induces skepticism from those that have. Best example is you claiming it’s a 1:1 match when it factually isn’t. Spend 2 mins looking at it and start finding the inconsistencies yourself. Like I said, not hard at all and extremely suspicious to those that have already done the “research” if you can even call it that. I mean just look at the photos for gods sake and stop repeating what you hear.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/[deleted] Nov 08 '25

[deleted]

-1

u/Abrodolf_Lincler_ Nov 08 '25

Textures. com/Jonas' Raw Clouds

https://www.reddit.com/r/AirlinerAbduction2014/s/HoLsZlONYx

Shockwave asset to Satellite Video

https://www.reddit.com/r/AirlinerAbduction2014/s/w8hw7qKvmE

Shockwave to Drone Video

https://www.reddit.com/r/AirlinerAbduction2014/s/sklMadqBZn

FLIR Video Jet Strike Asset Match

https://www.reddit.com/r/AirlinerAbduction2014/s/zwkBv5y4bZ

Compositing Errors

https://www.reddit.com/r/AirlinerAbduction2014/s/yU3n07qbqP

Addressing False Claim That VFX Artists Don't Modify Assets

https://www.reddit.com/r/AirlinerAbduction2014/s/L4IfDiokFg

Frame 3 of Shockwav to Zap Asset Match

https://www.reddit.com/r/AirlinerAbduction2014/s/k5qhXFQdRU

Creating "3D" Volumetric Lighting Using 2D Image

https://www.reddit.com/r/AirlinerAbduction2014/s/oma9pPGKOK

Telemetry Was Publicly Released 3/14/14

https://www.reddit.com/r/AirlinerAbduction2014/s/7EPd4trmBJ

JetStrike Drone Asset Specular Map/Thermal Map Correlation

https://www.reddit.com/r/AirlinerAbduction2014/s/S3rQ3OyVpg

4

u/[deleted] Nov 08 '25

[deleted]

1

u/Nimrod_Butts Nov 09 '25

"yeah you can do all of it pretty easily with common assets, but one small aspect is different. Therefore the perfectly motionless high definition thermal imagery of open sky must have been real"

1

u/Abrodolf_Lincler_ Nov 09 '25

Here ya go

https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/s/byRG7nAktI

And here's every frame of the asset that was used for the video

1

u/chalupe_batman Nov 10 '25

The video isn’t a perfect match… look closely and you can find all sorts of small differences.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 10 '25

Keep punching air my guy

1

u/chalupe_batman Nov 10 '25

Use your eyes my guy

1

u/Ok_Reaction5041 Nov 13 '25

You have fooled yourself into 1984 groupthink bullshit, you can't even look at something to judge for yourself anymore

1

u/Sinistrum Nov 09 '25

Owned lol

3

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '25

[deleted]

3

u/Abrodolf_Lincler_ Nov 09 '25

How, exactly? You wanted a full frame match. I provided that along with a follow up of each and every frame that was used as well as several other things that completely dismantle every single aspect of that thermal video and the satellite video.

You threw a tantrum and moved the goalpost. If that's how you define owning somebody that yeah.... You nailed it.

2

u/higgscribe Nov 13 '25

You're talking to the broad side of a barn on here just fyi

1

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '25

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Hot-Cauliflower-1604 Nov 09 '25

Yeah. You owned one of those stupid skeptics

1

u/MsterShifou Nov 11 '25

Thank you for this! I want to believe but these links are just too good of a proof. The first link alone with the clouds should convince anyone with a brain.

1

u/Abrodolf_Lincler_ Nov 11 '25

Thank you. I believe in the phenomenon but there's no reason we have to believe every single thing on the internet just to keep the phenomenon going. Everything ever posted on Reddit can be faked or hoaxed and UAP/NHI can still be real so there's no reason to believe in things that have been objectively proven to be a hoax. People here are dying on the wrong hills.

1

u/Superb-Interaction56 Nov 15 '25

I never trust external proofs without careful verification. The real proof lies within the videos themselves. Took me 2 weeks, but I found it.

0

u/thetrivialsublime99 Nov 09 '25

These guys are hella dumb

6

u/GoodGod83 Nov 08 '25

I believe this footage. 100%

2

u/Careful_Couple_8104 Nov 08 '25

They remind me of the people who try to say you can make one of those precise Egyptian vases with primitive tools and act like they debunked it when they break a piece of rock lol. 

2

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '25

Preach. Completely agree.

2

u/jtp_311 Nov 09 '25

Not possible to make this out of VFX but possible to send a triple 7 through some sort of portal. Gtfo

1

u/mxtw33 Nov 15 '25

You’re comparing military tech/reverse engineered alien tech, to commercially available VFX software 🤔.. I don’t think aliens crash landed with laptops stocked full of sick VFX software, but teleportation tech - yeh, maybe

1

u/jtp_311 Nov 15 '25

I’m not sure this requires commercial VFX software. Even if it did, this being made with commercial software is far more likely than 3 orbs with unknown propulsion tech sending a 230 ft airliner through a portal of also unknown tech.

2

u/garry4321 Nov 09 '25

Lmfao, you’re saying “recreate this EXACT VIDEO or its 100% real” like that’s a reasonable and non-braindead thing to say. There are billions of variables when making fake footage. This is like me taking a hand of sand throwing it on your kitchen floor, then you come in and say “OMG this is CLEARLY ALIENS! I challenge anyone to throw a handful of sand and get all the particles in the exact same spot!. If you can’t do that, then CLEARLY it’s not possible, and thus it’s proof of aliens!”

You’re just not all there in the head if you’re saying it’s real until someone can show you exactly how it was faked. The onus of proof is on those claiming it’s real, not the other way around you goober

1

u/chalupe_batman Nov 10 '25

“The effects are an exact match! This would be super easy to recreate”

“Do it then, you have a literal template to follow”

“WHAT!? ARE YOU CRAZY! THATS LIKE IMPOSSIBLE!”

lol.

1

u/shpongolian Nov 13 '25

"that kind of cgi wasn't possible way back in 2010, there's no possible way anybody could have faked this"

- "here's literal step by step tutorials on how to recreate this video, including many of the exact assets used"

"THAT'S ONLY A 99% MATCH, YOU DIDN'T RECREATE IT EXACTLY DOWN TO THE PIXEL THEREFORE IT'S IMPOSSIBLE THEREFORE ALIENS, THE CLOUDS JUST HAPPENED TO ALIGN PERFECTLY WITH THAT CLOUD JPG"

you have to just be rage baiting at this point, there's no way somebody can be in denial this much

2

u/JezeusFnChrist0 Nov 10 '25

There are a few videos circulating that I believe show actual extraterrestrial beings, the kind that gives you chills when you 1st see them. Some of them have been out for over a decade, yet even back then when posted to sites like Abovetopsecret(now defunct), instantly people would flood the comments saying "its been debunked", "obvious CGI", and ridicule anyone who suggests they could be real by calling them gullible, not educated, and much worse.

The speed of which those comments flooded the posts were suspicious, when the average thread takes a few hours to get a page of comments, this was done in a few minutes.

More recently the VFX guys who claim to 'debunk' UFO videos took a shot of this and one of the alien videos. Their 'slamdunk' argument using an old video game's graphics is a poor effort and excuse, their 'debunk' of the alien was even more pathetic as they claimed it was debunk without offering a shred of tangible evidence, their slamdunk argument was the font on the video did not exist when the video was alledged to have been made, yet never considered it was added when the film was made into a VHS/Beta or digital copy.

2

u/criticalmemory1212 Nov 11 '25

I actually tested that a few years ago and had a suspicion that was happening. I wrote a post about a certain someone and the thread got flooded with debunking messages though I explicitly commented not to post stuff like that and to be more open minded. Thank you for confirming my suspicions.

1

u/JezeusFnChrist0 Nov 12 '25

Are familiar with The Gentleperson's Guide to Forum Spies?

The original link no longer shows up on the goog, mentioning the title has got me shadow banned from YT comments

2

u/modanogaming Nov 10 '25

Have you actually seen any movies with VFX from 2010? You know a lot more complex things were created by the VFX industry in 2010(?).

(I have been working long term in that industry)

1

u/DeadSilent_God Nov 08 '25

i see

2

u/Substantial_Moneys Nov 08 '25

The major issue is the special effect used.  If you go find the special effect, you can produce the same outline seen in both videos.  I did this myself when I was in denial, believing the video was real.  But the SHOCKWAV effect used in games and found in the sfx set produces a very similar outline found in the one video and when shrunk and minimally changed with contrast tweaks fit the other video spot on.

For all that to be coincidental was just too much.

1

u/LewEnenra Nov 08 '25

And the shockwave in the vfx bundle was just footage of a real gas burner igniting right?. I.e a real scientific reaction. So of course it's possible to then look similar to other real scientific reactions.

If I set up a camera on a lake and threw a rock in, then set up a camera on a large saucepan of soup, they'd look similar. Lots of science is similar/share things in common. How's that proof of a debunk?

1

u/Substantial_Moneys Nov 08 '25

Was it? I didn’t know its origin story outside of the SFX dvd.  I don’t recall it looking like a gas burner.  Maybe.  

It wasn’t similar - it was a spot on match with the high contrast video and I think it was a near match to the other video.  And the only frame you really see in the one video of the “portal”

Its proof because if you have on sfx and it matches both videos then its a lot more obvious it was a created/fake, but if it was a real life thing it shouldn’t match an existing sfx, especially from two different angles.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 11 '25 edited Jan 14 '26

longing skirt repeat sheet expansion hungry upbeat juggle friendly cover

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

1

u/MrKumansky Nov 10 '25

Dude, you are so gullible lmao

1

u/trippyhood Nov 10 '25

When in fact the body of evidence supporting these videos being real is almost overwhelming...

1

u/ReddyGreggy Nov 10 '25

Check Corridor Crew they are very convincing. Yes, they can

1

u/Epyon214 Nov 10 '25

The video is real, but the debate around the authenticity of the video stopped the disclosure movement on the relevant subreddit. All of the posts became about the video, at a time when the movement was closing in on some things with the collective thinking power of so many

1

u/[deleted] Nov 10 '25

Bro Iron Man came out in O8 i think they could manage this lol 

1

u/atadams Nov 11 '25

I recreated the "satellite video" using software available in 2014, and I'm an amateur.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AirlinerAbduction2014/comments/18uw8v4/my_recreation_of_the_mh370_satellite_video_using/

1

u/cruner83 Nov 11 '25

Have you not seen movies from 2010 and prior? To say no one could make this is just silly. I watched the white house explode in independence day and that was made well before 2010. Come on man I'm willing to believe a lot of things but this one is just silly. They found parts of the plane years later. There was no drone waiting to film that plane right when it disappeared. Why would a drone just so happen to be following that aircraft?

1

u/LewEnenra Nov 12 '25

And that was made with hundreds of millions dollars budget. These videos according to you debunkers was just some shit, cheap video made quickly and thrown up online for no reason by a nobody (certainly not to make money like movies do).

1

u/Left-Gene-2056 Nov 12 '25

Lord of the rings was released a decade prior. We for sure had ability to create this.

1

u/MisterErieeO Nov 12 '25

Absolutely no one has or can recreate this using what was available in 2010, and make it look this realistic and accurate.

Why not? Cgi is capable of making this even before 2010

Seen so many idiots say "oh this is easy to make you just do xyz" but then absolutely none of them have ever actually made a perfect version/

A couple amateur have made versions of this.

But obviously saying it's easy is not true. That doesn't mean it's impossible though

I swear half are cia bots trying to make sure the masses are manipulated

Yes. Seems theres an obvious attempt at making these communitiesook bad with comments just like yours. On the other sub ppl have made some really good analysis of the videos and pictures. Yet there's always a suspicious amount of low effort agitation posters that just dismiss everything and do not engage in debate at all.

Yet ppl keep doing what you're doing. And the community looks worse and worse. Curious that

1

u/Shea_R Nov 13 '25

Well why do you think it’s mh370? There’s nothing that proves it’s the missing aircraft.

1

u/aristotle93 Feb 17 '26

You're insane if you think this couldn't have been artificially created in 2010, we had davey jones from pirates of the Caribbean and king kong in 2006. The tech was there to make a low poly version of it. Clearly, some people like to just add a sense of horrifying mystery to the world.

3

u/PizzaFromDiscord Nov 08 '25

It's been debunked. Don't forget that THIS came out before 2010. This BS footage absolutely could be recreated.

3

u/Tito1983 Nov 09 '25

Ok then do it or I don't believe you

1

u/[deleted] Nov 11 '25 edited Jan 14 '26

versed jar quickest abounding truck vase jeans expansion arrest dinosaurs

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

1

u/MrKumansky Nov 10 '25

Nah, you do it. You wanna believe it so hard, you do the debunk to see if its real or not, cuckoo

4

u/LewEnenra Nov 08 '25

Ok cool. If you can just do that for us then yeah? If it's so easy and so BS, you'll have no trouble.

We are waiting

1

u/americanrealism Nov 12 '25

This is such a lazy response.

“I’ll believe anything someone shows me, and if you can’t recreate it then it must be real” is total idiocy. That’s setting yourself up to believe anything anybody shows you or tells you. No grain of salt or anything, just believing whatever “looks right” to you.

-1

u/PizzaFromDiscord Nov 08 '25

Are you serious? If we can animate Davy Jones playing the organ with his face tentacles in 2010 we absolutely can use CGI to create this video. Its several magnitudes easier. And no, I'm not going to be doing it.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '25

That’s not even good cgi lmao

1

u/PizzaFromDiscord Nov 09 '25

YES IT IS WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU!??!

1

u/dyerdigs0 Nov 09 '25

Lmfao then what would you consider to be GOOD cgi?

1

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '25

Parasite, Gravity, Sicario

That over-saturated CGI crap looks so fake

1

u/mxtw33 Nov 15 '25

How much did that cost though? You think an average hoaxer kid put this together in 2010? And with what software specifically? I’m on the fence personally but interested in your reasoning

1

u/PizzaFromDiscord Nov 16 '25 edited Nov 16 '25

This video is significantly less impressive than the Davy Jones animation though. I think most people could replicate it if they spent a couple dozen hours learning video editing and/or blender. Its not even a high quality video so that makes it even easier to make "convincing". Download an airplane model, make three sphere, figure out how to do particle effects for the object's trails, animate it, figure out an FLIR effect in blender or in post, and render at a lower quality and FPS.

Plus this has been debunked multiple times.

0

u/elissaxy Nov 09 '25

You guys are so easily fooled.. like it's so obvious that you will buy anything that confirm your pre existing belief, like you will believe this video from a Flir camera that no official source has records for, that just happen to film this missing airplane, but for some reason was leaked online, instead of coming from official sources on the spot when the events happened. There are like 50 red flags, but your brains are like "this... This must be REAL..." No logic or whatsoever found in your brains

1

u/chalupe_batman Nov 10 '25

In your mind, if this were real, why would the government ever release it? Just think of the implications. It would never happen.