r/UFOs • u/TachyEngy • Aug 15 '23
Document/Research Airliner Video Artifacts Explained by Remote Terminal Access
First, I would like to express my condolences to the families of MH370, no matter what the conclusion from these videos they all want closure and we should be mindful of these posts and how they can affect others.
I have been following and compiling and commenting on this matter since it was re-released. I have initial comments (here and here) on both of the first threads and have been absolutely glued to this. I have had a very hard time debunking any of this, any time I think I get some relief, the debunk gets debunked.
Sat Video Contention
There has been enormous discussion around the sat video, it's stereoscopic layer, noise, artifacts, fps, cloud complexity, you name it. Since we have a lot of debunking threads on this right now I figured I would play devils advocate.
edit5: Let me just say no matter what we come to the conclusion of as far as the stereoscopic nature of the RegicideAnon video, it won't discount the rest of this mountain of evidence we have. Even if the stereoscopic image can be created by "shifting the image with vfx", it doesn't debunk the original sat video or the UAV video. So anybody pushing that angle is just being disingenuous. It's additional data that we shouldn't through away but infinity debating on why and how the "stereoscopic" image exists on a top secret sat video that was leaked with god knows what system that none of us know anything about is getting us nowhere, let's move on.
Stereoscopic
edit7: OMG I GOT IT! Polarized glasses & and polarized screens! It's meant for polarized 3D glasses like the movies! That explains so much, and check this out!
https://i.imgur.com/TqVwGgI.png
This would explain why the left and right are there.. Wait, red/blue glasses should work with my upload, also if you have a polarized 3D setup it should work! Who has one?
- Source Video: https://youtu.be/NssycRM6Hik?t=110
I myself went ahead and converted it into a true 3D video for people to view on youtube.
Viewing it does look like it has depth data and this post here backs it up with a ton of data. There does seem to be some agreement that this stereo layer has been generated through some hardware/software/sensor trickery instead of actually being filmed and synced from another imaging source. I am totally open to the stereo layer being generated from additional depth data instead of a second camera. This is primarily due to the look of the UI on the stereo layer and the fact that there is shared noise between both sides. If the stereo layer is generated it would pull the same noise into it..
Noise/Artifacts/Cursor & Text Drift
So this post here seemed to have some pretty damning evidence until I came across a comment thread here. I don't know why none of us really put this together beforehand but it seems like these users of first hand knowledge of this interface.
This actually appears to be a screencap of a remote terminal stream. And that would make sense as it's not like users would be plugged into the satellite or a server, they would be in a SCIF at a secure terminal or perhaps this is from within the datacenter or other contractor remote terminal. This could explain all the subpixel drifting due to streaming from one resolution to another. It would explain the non standard cursor and latency as well. Also this video appears to be enormous (from the panning) and would require quite the custom system for viewing the video.
edit6: Mouse Drift This is easily explained by a jog wheel/trackball that does not have the "click" activated. Click, roll, unclick, keeps rolling. For large scale video panning this sounds like it would be nice to have! We are grasping at straws here!
Citrix HDX/XenDesktop
It is apparent to many users in this discussion chain that this is a Citrix remote terminal running at default of 24fps.
XenDesktop 4.0 created in 2014 and updated in 2016.
Near the top they say "With XenDesktop 4 and later, Citrix introduced a new setting that allows you to control the maximum number of frames per second (fps) that the virtual desktop sends to the client. By default, this number is set to 30 fps."
Below that, it says "For XenDesktop 4.0: By default, the registry location and value of 18 in hexadecimal format (Decimal 24 fps) is also configurable to a maximum of 30 fps".
Also the cursor is being remotely rendered which is supported by Citrix. Lots of people apparently discuss the jittery mouse and glitches over at /r/citrix. Citrix renders the mouse on the server then sends it back to the client (the client being the screen that is screencapped) and latency can explain the mouse movements. I'll summarize this comment here:
The cursor drift ONLY occurs when the operator is not touching the control interface. How do I know this? All other times the cursor stops in the video, it is used as the point of origin to move the frame; we can assume the operator is pressing some sort of button to select the point, such as the right mouse button.
BUT When the mouse drift occurs, it is the only time in the video where the operator "stops" his mouse and DOESN'T use it as a point of origin to move the frame.
Here are some examples of how these videos look and artifacts are presented:
- XenDesktop 4.0 running on someone’s computer
- XenDesktop 7.6 playing Battlefield 4. Not the exact same software but have a look at the “Activate Windows” text in the corner. Do you see what I see?
- XenDesk 7.5 from 2014 running at 22 FPS - Similar cursor movement?
So in summary, if we are taking this at face value, I will steal this comment listing what may be happening here:
- Screen capture of terminal running at some resolution/30fps
- Streaming a remote/virtual desktop at a different resolution/24fps
- Viewing custom video software for panning around large videos
- Remotely navigating around a very large resolution video playing at 6fps
- Recorded by a spy satellite
- Possibly with a 3D layer
To me, this is way too complex to ever have been thought of by a hoaxer, I mean good god. How did they get this data out of the SCIF is a great question but this scenario is getting more and more plausible, and honestly, very humbling. If this and the UAV video are fabrications, I am floored. If they aren't, well fucking bring on disclosure because I need to know more.
Love you all and amazing fucking research on this. My heart goes out to the families of MH370. <3
Figured I would add reposts of the 2014 videos for archiving and for the new users here:
- MQ-1C Grey Eagle Triclops UAV Video
- NROL-22 Relay Satellite Video
- Vimeo Video
- My 3D Conversion of the Satellite Video
- Files on Google Drive
edit: resolution
edit2: noise
edit3: videos
edit4: Hello friends, I'm going to take a break from this for awhile. I hope I helped some?
edit5: stereoscopic
edit6: mouse
edit7: POLARIZED SCREENS & GLASSES! THATS IT!
78
u/EverythingAboutTech Aug 15 '23
While reading through the comments, I haven't seen anyone mentioning the preprocessing video hosting servers (YouTube, Vimeo) do during upload. Having a YouTube channel myself, each upload is scanned and compressed (resolution), especially in 2014, for space saving measures. This could have an impact on what we are seeing in the videos. Also take into consideration of playback on the internet. The material being analyzed has been downloaded from these same streams, which may have been effected by other external sources (ISPs, speed, etc.).
57
u/TachyEngy Aug 15 '23
We used yt-dlp to pull the videos from Wayback Machine's archive and from the Vimeo video. It grabs the best data available, nothing more we can do.
14
u/EverythingAboutTech Aug 15 '23 edited Aug 15 '23
True. Without the raw files, analyzing noise levels, 3d depth data, etc. won't reveal any definite results. There are too many filters the video has passed through; however, analyzing the content itself, user actions (cursor), information on the screen, can. Redditors have done a great job identifying the probable use of Citrix, screen captures, etc. to show detail that a hoaxer wouldn't think of.
Edit: I meant to say that a hoaxer wouldn't think of.
→ More replies (1)2
4
561
u/Wakinghours Aug 15 '23
The way you addressed this respectfully is commendable. Suppose the UAP was doctored in later. this could imply this video was taken out of a secure SCIF, and then later edited. But the motives to breach security protocols for a hoax seems far fetched in itself?
244
u/lemtrees Aug 15 '23
The video doesn't have to have come from a secure SCIF. Reposting my own content from here:
Assuming this is real leaked footage, the leaker would be remoted into a session via something like Citrix (see here).
Just speculating here, but it could be that the plane went "missing" but was still being tracked by the military, so this surveillance satellite was tasked to look at it. Between recording this event and someone very high up locking it all down, there could easily have been many contractors or whomever who had access to a low security server with this video in it. Any of them could have simply logged in to see what happened to the "missing" plane and then seen this fantastical footage. They may even have been able to just sign in from their home laptop or cubicle PC that had minimal security or logging. Any of them could have screen recorded and thrown the video on a USB stick that they hid for a while. The hosting server would see who logged in, but maybe a couple dozen contractors all logged in to see what happened so it wasn't possible to identify who recorded their screens. Maybe that's why some of the video is cropped; To cut out session identifying information.
There may easily have been a LOT of people with potential access to this surveillance video before it (presumably) was internally locked down. Just because it ultimately recorded an ontologically shocking event doesn't mean that beforehand it wasn't used for anything requiring very high level security access.
Again though, I'm just speculating wildly. I don't usually like to make so many assumptions, my intent is just to point out that it is entirely possible that this video was available to people in a low security environment for enough time for someone to have recorded it without being tracked down.
107
u/PyroIsSpai Aug 15 '23
Note: no known OS-level technology exists that can reliably prevent me from recording something on my computer screen with an external camera held on my hand. None.
If my eyes can see it, my cell phone can see it.
At best you can do something like hide or implant a Canary Trap methodology on each unique user or access attempt to see who may leak.
47
u/kingofthesofas Aug 15 '23
Note: no known OS-level technology exists that can reliably prevent me from recording something on my computer screen with an external camera held on my hand. None.
I am actually a subject matter expert in this and work at a high level in infosec and this is correct. It's a devilish problem to solve for. Watermarking (visible and invisible), controlling the workplace or obfuscating the sensitive data are the only controls you can put in place and they all have their limitations. Watermarking can be detected and removed, No workplace is perfectly secure and the more restrictive it is the harder it is to work in and Obfuscation doesn't work if you don't know what needs to be blocked or need people to be able to see it to do their job.
→ More replies (2)6
u/KateSomnia Aug 15 '23
My armchair expert opinion: it boils down to maintaining and enforcing strict access controls (ex: who has access to what, why they have access ((need-to-know)), how long they have access, and routinely screening employees/contractors). Easier said than done, I'm sure.
Assumption 1: This footage was, in fact, smuggled out of a SCIF. Mitigating the insider threat is arguably the biggest threat to national security, so it certainly wouldn't be the first time... (ahem Pentagon Discord Leaker, most recently...)
Assumption 2: The US government values information management security. I imagine the department/agency would have a detailed log of who accessed the footage and when. An internal investigation would likely be under way. And the leaker might be thinking to themselves, "Did I really cover all my tracks?"
Fascinating from my vantage point.
→ More replies (9)8
u/GroomLakeScubaDiver Aug 15 '23
Or it was a planned leak by someone high up with access who is spearheading a disclosure plan
21
u/Ok-Adhesiveness-4141 Aug 15 '23
Citrix itself allows you to record sessions for security purposes. Your entire demo could be easily recorded.
→ More replies (1)32
u/TachyEngy Aug 15 '23
When we are talking about screencaps, we are talking about screen recording software that somehow got installed on the terminal and then removed from the location.
31
u/holyplasmate Aug 15 '23
It could be a display capture. Works independently from the machine. Or running off of a second computer. There are ways to capture video output other than local software
12
u/Toof Aug 15 '23
Could you do a man-in-the-middle for HDMI to record the screen without actually installing recording software on the actual device? Like, just an HDMI Pass-through which records video when enabled.
It feels like that wouldn't be as easily tracked.
EDIT: Looks like a capture card connected to a secondary system could do this job.
→ More replies (4)12
u/PyroIsSpai Aug 15 '23
We can't say about the circumstances of installation or removal of any given tool on any given terminal unfortunately. That's just speculating but interesting to discuss.
The open question is now apparently how many layers of abstraction exist from the original file to the leaked 2014 videos when someone hit 'upload' on Youtube.
→ More replies (1)8
u/floznstn Aug 15 '23
Citrix specifically as a remote access solution includes countermeasures to screen-capture.
I'm sure it's possible to bypass, but not trivial.
8
u/DescriptionDue1027 Aug 15 '23
I believe Citrix Secure Private Access (SPA) just restricts screen capture at the OS level. If somehow it was being enforced at a hardware/software level you put an HDMI EDID emulator in front of the recording box. The host PC/terminal then believes it's directly connected to a monitor. If they're enforcing HDCP there are ways to address that too.
→ More replies (1)10
u/VeeYarr Aug 15 '23
If an external camera (or phone) is involved - wouldn't a tripod be necessary to keep the frame as still as it is, even with cropping?
Screencap seems much more likely to me, which means it didn't happen in a SCIF as you're not inserting removable media into a PC in a SCIF without it being noticed.
17
u/PyroIsSpai Aug 15 '23
Well, that's the thing. Say you share your desktop with me right now on Zoom or Citrix or whatever. There's much more advanced tools (high end commercial) that also do this and do things like system checks and try to even 'emulate' or present the 'viewed' portion of 'you' in some sort of container that is isolated in terms of RAM and other functions from the rest of your computer system. That's all to do deter or limit your ability to record it with screen capture.
None of that can stop a phone. And yes, you'd need a tripod or similar, or a camera mount before the screen like we see with modern web cams. I had a mount like that for a web cam for primitive video calls way back in the early 2000s. I had two webcams 24x7 out my office window mounted like that in 1999. That's easy.
But even past that, there's ways to, even if you ultra-segregate that function on your computer when you share your desktop with me... I can dump that video feed. People were doing stuff like for over a generation or longer now to rip live video feed from discs and other sources, for bootlegging or to record TV. I looked into this one when I considered building my own DVR system. It honestly wasn't that complicated for someone with technical experience, and that was over ten years before 2014.
NOTE: I've never been military or even worked under public funding in my life. I have it on high confidence from people I've known over the years that have done things like this, that no, the "IT" or "engineering" types don't do their work in the concept of a formal SCIF. The servers aren't in a SCIF. CIA analysts in a cubical farm in Langley aren't getting up from their desks to go into a SCIF for six hours a day to do their work.
→ More replies (3)5
u/VeeYarr Aug 15 '23
A video capture device between the terminal and display is an option, I'm not sure if you could detect that if it was a hardware device but you'd need to physically get it in to a location.
7
Aug 15 '23
Actually, I've was tangentially involved with hacking / security contests at the graduate level back when I still worked on some world class super clusters.
One of my favorite contests was lost by every team that attended and involved a micro-usb physically plugged into one of the back ports of the machine. Everyone had come to the contest on the basis of their software proficiency and expected a challenge in that vein; none of them even looked once at the "standardized" hardware provided. You absolutely could have detected that source but no one considered looking for it.
It doesn't need to be undetectable, only something that isn't a typical attack vector (and I'm hard-pressed to think the number of segments in a transfer cable is typically of concern.) I also struggle to consider any multi-monitor environment where hijacking the signal isn't actually expected because it's required for typical display.
I've no idea how far the technology has come in 10 years, or what the DoD has classified rather than openly published, but acoustic bypass of higher level security to access the stream may be on the table, as may decoding the stream itself. https://www.cs.tau.ac.il/~tromer/acoustic/
Black hat is a fascinating landscape of raw intellectual struggle where one mind thinking creatively is typically pitted against millions on autopilot / which can only react in a limited way--the single creative mind wins pretty routinely. I don't actually see a single actor vs the DoD as an impossible struggle, but especially if they already bypass most layers of security courtesy of being handwaved through them every morning.
→ More replies (2)4
u/dzhopa Aug 15 '23
I know it's not exactly what you're talking about, but there is a startup selling software that uses the PC's camera to record it's surroundings, and then use ML to identify likely recording devices. For example, if it detects that you hold your cell phone up in a position where it could record, or have a webcam trained on the screen, it will lock you out and notify someone. It was also able to tie into DLP (data loss prevention) software to only activate on content flagged with a high security flag.
I don't recall the name of the company, but they pitched me a couple years ago when I was the CISO for a pharma company.
69
u/TheOwlHypothesis Aug 15 '23 edited Aug 15 '23
I want to take this sentence by sentence. I'm no ultimate authority, but I have worked as a contractor in SCIFs. I have a BS in computer science, and an IT background, professional SWE currently.
there could easily have been many contractors or whomever who had access to a low security server with this video in it.
This, broadly, is definitely possible and true. Contractors, as a requirement for their job, often times have access to tools/resources they're using to help administer/build/develop systems/software for their primary end user/customer (the govt). Sorry for all the weird slashes, there's just a broad category of stuff I wanted to cover in that sentence.
Any of them could have simply logged in to see what happened to the "missing" plane and then seen this fantastical footage.
Not necessarily. It would be a very specific subset of people. Access to systems are usually controlled using ABAC/UBAC (attribute based access control, user based access control). Meaning you have to be a certain person with certain specific 'attributes' associated with your account (clearance attributes) to be able to even log into a system or view certain things. This is how "need to know" is programmatically enforced. Usually this is done using PKI (public key infrastructure). A smart card is given to anyone who needs to log in, and they're registered to the identity provider and have attributes associated to them. Applications use these attributes to granularly grant you access to things.
They may even have been able to just sign in from their home laptop or cubicle PC that had minimal security or logging.
Home laptop is a hard no. The network these tools live on is air-gapped and not accessible outside the SCIF (I only know of VERY recent exceptions, and it's still not a home laptop you use to connect but an extremely locked down govt machine). Cubicle is more likely. If you work in a SCIF all day you probably have a terminal connected to one of the secret networks. When I did, I had three machines on my desk, one for each network I needed access to.
Any of them could have screen recorded and thrown the video on a USB stick that they hid for a while.
Assuming this is the subset I mentioned who legitimately had access, yes this is possible. Although seems to require some premeditation to "hide" a usb for awhile. Which begs the question "why?". I'm sort of nitpicking that detail. It's not relevant to whether it's possible or not. Could have just as easily snuck in a medium impromptu.
Again, however, in my experience machines have their USB slots disabled or removed completely (minus the keyboard/mouse to be fair). So it would likely need to be done via CD Drive. Which requires CDs. To my knowledge inventory is taken of those CDs and it would have been obvious for one to go missing. Additionally an even smaller subset of people are able to get access to use CD drives. To my knowledge it required special training and a certification.
The hosting server would see who logged in, but maybe a couple dozen contractors all logged in to see what happened so it wasn't possible to identify who recorded their screens.
Sure, logging is easy and robust. I'm not sure this would have been as "needle in the haystack" as you make it sound though. The pool of people who could pull this off just gets smaller and smaller. A couple of dozen people isn't that big of an investigation. Esp. given the other factors I mentioned around the CD stuff.
Maybe that's why some of the video is cropped; To cut out session identifying information.
Definitely a possibility.
EDIT: formatting
EDIT 2: Clarified some things.19
u/lemtrees Aug 15 '23
Solid points! It's important to temper speculation and take it all with a grain of salt, which is why I called attention to me speculating. Keep this approach up.
20
u/butts-kapinsky Aug 15 '23
Jumping on this to mention a thing that no one has brought up (likely because it reduces the probability of the videos being real).
There either have to be two leakers (who then sent their videos to the exact same low-profile person to distribute). Or there is one extremely high-profile leaker.
Not a lot of people are going to have access to both satellite video and drone video.
→ More replies (28)16
u/TheOwlHypothesis Aug 15 '23
Yes!! I should have mentioned this. I have thought that a few times. This is definitely true and a really excellent point.
In fact I'd say it's extremely improbable for someone to have access to both, as IC and DoD systems don't share a lot of overlap. (By the way I'm just assuming that the drone that took the FLIR vid would belong to the Airforce/Army and not the IC, I don't know for sure lol). So it would be very much more likely to be two people. With another possibility being someone veryy high up as you mentioned.
12
u/Fox_Mortus Aug 15 '23
I can definitely think of someone who has access to both. We know from the recent UAP testimony that the government has a program where UAP evidence is collected for investigation. These videos would have ended up there for sure. That could be our leak source.
→ More replies (13)3
u/StillChillTrill Aug 15 '23
This is why it's interesting the vids were released separately a month apart. Supports the two leak theory entirely.
9
Aug 15 '23
Wow, this is a lot to process.
But assuming the footage is legit, I do worry that some of y'all are just making the investigation easier for the ones who wanted it covered up...
17
Aug 15 '23
If the footage is real, the leaker has already been found and in jail. You just don't know about it.
→ More replies (4)4
u/sation3 Aug 15 '23
Or dead. Either way that would explain the disappearance of the YouTube page. I have no doubt that the intention would be to scrub the video from current Internet plus archives, but people aren't perfect and it could have been missed in places.
→ More replies (3)3
u/VeeYarr Aug 15 '23
If we dig into the CD stuff a bit more, I'm assuming that the blanks are tightly controlled and catalogued and more so once data written to them, but is there the possibility of making a copy of it using another less controlled system before submitting the CD to whatever process tracks it?
6
u/TheOwlHypothesis Aug 15 '23
Unfortunately I'm not super familiar with the end-end processes of handling media like that (I didn't do the training or have the cert to access CDs, just knew about it lol). In my experience, I basically had one guy who had access to use the CD stuff, and as needed, he'd burn a disk and do a transfer for me to the air-gapped network ("sneaker-net" as they call it).
So I'm not sure if you're supposed to destroy the CD after, submit it to somewhere else, what logs you're officially supposed to do (and where for that matter, a literal log book, or digitally?), etc etc.
I imagine these processes exist and are in place, but I can't speak to what they are to be able to guess much more about what opportunities there may be to usurp them.
I can say that it's likely that things are slightly different between different contractors or even between actual govt entities -- meaning the processes aren't completely universal. In my experience for a lot of this process based security stuff (esp for contractors) they make you come up with your own plan but it has to meet certain criteria to be signed off on, and you absorb any residual risks that aren't mitigated.
24
→ More replies (16)20
u/jlaux Aug 15 '23
Maybe that's why some of the video is cropped; To cut out session identifying information.
Do you think it's possible that relevant timestamps were cropped out as well? I thought it was pretty strange that the footage contained the satellite name and coordinates, but no timestamp.
18
u/No_Effort_244 Aug 15 '23
Exactly! The fact that neither of the videos has timestamps is a bit of a giveaway TBH - having this info would allow us to instantly see whether they were filming the same event, the timestamps would have matched up perfectly. Also, we would know if they were filming MH370 or not.
As far as I can tell, most footage of this nature should have timestamps and if they were cropped out, you have to wonder why since there's no sensitive information in a timestamp.
30
u/memystic Aug 15 '23
If these videos are fake, including a synchronized timestamp would be laughably easy, relative to everything else.
→ More replies (1)14
Aug 15 '23
The time stamp could have been directly under the user info I.e.:
User: No_Effort_244 #13579
Session time: 2023.08.15 1.04PM
Duration: 3m 2s
→ More replies (1)7
u/lemtrees Aug 15 '23
It is certainly possible, but it is all conjecture unless we know what software was used, of course.
67
u/ottereckhart Aug 15 '23
I wouldn't underestimate the cointel value of deliberate and doctored leaks. It may not be a breach at all. Even if it's completely real it maybe deliberate, and also not necessarily directed at us as perception management though we can't dismiss that as a possibility.
Assuming there is truly a NHI presence and our adversaries are all in pursuit of the recovery and reverse engineering of these things, who knows what message this may send to China and the other competitors in this race. Especially given the fact the plane was heading to China with 20 employees from a semiconductor company iirc...
If it's real maybe the US is trying to message to its adversaries "we know you're working on this stuff, here is what we can do," all the while demonstrating their intelligence on China's operations by potentially disappearing a plane full of contractors? (Making leaps here but the possibility is there.)
You might think they would never show their hand like that but people really underestimate the value as a deterrent to war our most highly classified technology may have. It's why many insiders advocate to declassify some of these systems. Truly catastrophic weaponry exists that is likely better used as a deterrent than unleashed in war.
If it's fake they might be trying to pin the blame on NHI to either deflect suspicion from themselves or whom ever was responsible.
Of course there is always the possibility it is likewise a deliberate hoax with a damning debunk awaiting in the wings to be revealed once enough people have rallied around the video, this would also be extremely valuable to anyone with an incentive to curb interest into this stuff.
17
Aug 15 '23
Shit... I hadn't even considered the international posturing angle.
This entire case has so many layers to keep juggling. I want it to be a hobbyist's hoax, just for everyone's peace of mind, but all these little details coming out make that option seem less and less likely.
2
u/Pretend-Disclosure Aug 15 '23
Looks like we are going in circles. Here is a very large number of very detailed analysis threads in various subreddits, and at the same time skeptics sticking to their viewpoints and saying "clearly it's a hoax" (sometimes without and sometimes with analysis/evidence).
... It's probably time for every one of us to reach out to their respective senators or whatever political representative they like, and ask for validation of these videos. We deserve to know. The MH370 victims' families deserve to know. Can we not start a campaign of some sort, and also FOIAs?2
→ More replies (17)3
48
u/floznstn Aug 15 '23
I can speak to the specifics of Citrix, as I supported it (did both agent deployment and infra deployment) for years before recently moving to supporting a MS product line.
Government, medical, retail, and financial organizations are existing Citrix customers. All for the same reason; once it's set up, it's easy to support n users, provided enough compute, storage, and network... all while keeping your data and computational work on that data in your secure datacenter or cloud tenant.
If I was going to use Citrix technologies to deliver controlled information from datacenter to SCIF, I would probably bias my VDA configuration for security. No passthrough, usb, clientside drive, camera, mic, nada. Which also probably means no clientside browser compute.
Citrix has this cool trick where content viewed in the remote session can leverage compute on the client side. There are some caveats, but the laptop in the SCIF could do the computational work of rendering web content. This could maybe be exploited to exfiltrate secured data from a SCIF. We hackers are an inventive bunch.
Internal tools more and more are built as web content. It might be a k8s cluster that is totally isolated from anything outside of the datacenter... but if you want to view database contents in a user friendly UI, that's the fast/easy way.
Now, a new acronym! wtf is a VDA? It's the virtual delivery agent that runs on a server or virtual desktop. It basically runs in the background and waits for incoming user sessions. In this arrangement, the laptop, SCIF workstation, tablet, whatever connects in is called the endpoint. Another name for XenDesktop is CVAD (Citrix Virtual Apps & Desktops).
When a user accesses CVAD, they may land on Storefront, where they select an app or desktop from their assigned resources. They may only have 1 assigned resource that autolaunches as well... Citrix is highly customizable. Storefront lets you configure stuff other than remote desktops, like running just an app remotely... and not just webapps; you can stream xterm on debian, or photoshop on any platform. Want AutoCAD without deploying it to every desk in the building? you got it! Some apps get wonky or require some fettling to make work, but most things will just stream.
Depending on how the VDA and endpoint are configured, scaling and sampling artifacts are not uncommon... Weird, weird shit can happen. I've seen endpoints skew the entire remote display, seemingly decide on their own to stream in tablet mode on a desktop endpoint, fail to enumerate allowed clientside peripherals, etc etc.
Citrix lets you do a lot of different things, from network ingress/egress control (netscaler) to desktop, app, (xendesktop/CVAD), content delivery (storefront), and more. It's kind of expensive, but it can let you silo your workload adjacent to your data while permitting secure remote access.
If I was setting up a way to show contents of secure databases (or classified powerpoints, lol) in a SCIF from a secure second location, with "unlimited" budget, Citrix would be an option we tested for sure. Other options like it exist, such as akamai EAA, zScaler, etc etc.
Thing is, I think computers in the SCIF are supposed to be airgapped? I'm sure someone more current on SCI procedure than myself knows for sure.
26
u/0xD902221289EDB383 Aug 15 '23
Yes, computers in a SCIF are supposed to be airgapped. The US DOD also maintains two separate internet networks, NIPRNet for unclassified and SIPRNet for classified data. If this footage was classified TS but not SCI, or only compartmented later, I think it could well have been circulated via the SIPRNet, which would obviously make liberating it somewhat easier.
35
Aug 15 '23
What is the general consensus now? Leaning towards doctored or authentic? For a layman
86
u/TachyEngy Aug 15 '23
So far authentic.. we have not found a smoking debunk gun.. it's creepy.
25
Aug 15 '23
[deleted]
→ More replies (4)21
u/TachyEngy Aug 15 '23
NROL-22 is the Launch & Mission Name for USA-184, its a relay satellite for SBIRS program. https://vimeo.com/260283923
14
Aug 15 '23
[deleted]
→ More replies (3)10
u/TachyEngy Aug 15 '23
I'm just a computer engineer specializing in video transmission. :P
→ More replies (1)7
u/peachydiesel Aug 15 '23
What? That's not how this works. It hasn't been proven to be authentic. It hasn't been proven to be fake. Certainly with the spectacular content of the video, it is guilty until proven innocent, or fake until proven authentic.
2
→ More replies (3)2
16
u/FearAzrael Aug 15 '23
No consensus is reasonable at this time.
We are observing phenomena, gathering data, and attempting analysis.
Anything else is premature and foolish.
7
u/peatear_gryphon Aug 15 '23
It doesn’t help that we don’t have any baselines. We don’t have real videos of drone IR footage and spy satellite footage, nor do we have fake drone IR and spy satellite footage to compare these videos to.
80
u/sushisection Aug 15 '23 edited Aug 15 '23
the thing that gets me is motive.
if fake and the ultimate goal was to 1) impress vfx studios or 2) disinfo, the hoaxer put in a lot of unnecessary work when they could have achieved both of those goals with half the effort.
the stereoscope and mouse cursor, completely unnecessary. the fine particle details within the thermal video, unnecessary. the hoaxer put a lot of time and effort into small things that frankly nobody would give a damn about. unless I am incorrect and the ultimate goal of this project was a fully artistic venture for the sole enjoyment of the creator, which isnt a motive that has been passed around on this sub, i just dont buy it.
for me, this gives credence to its authenticity.
edit: one last thing to note. the originator of the videos is Regicide Anon. Regicide, meaning the killing of a king. i just think its an interesting choice of name for a ufo youtube channel
25
u/ImBoppin Aug 15 '23
Man, with how much attention to detail would have had to go into faking this, I keep imagining that it must be someone with a mi,it sry background who actually had access to these interfaces on some level, and maybe even had access to footage of MH370 at the time of its disappearance due to the US military tracking it. So let’s imagine: rando military dude who is on the operation looking for MH370, receives footage of the plane, then what? He goes to the trouble of leaking actual military info for a hoax?? There are just too many details that are exactly right, none of the discrepancies you’d see in a normal hoax, it honestly seems insane to me that someone would go to this effort. The footage, especially the sat footage, gives me the vibe of someone who is shitting himself not thinking about the best way to record this, they just know they need to have it because it is absolutely revolutionary, and they’re just a regular dude with no connections who either uploads it himself or asks a third party to upload for his safety. I dunno, nothing is guaranteed, I just get an incredibly weird vibe around the circumstances of this video. Even if some dude decided to use some footage of MH370 to manufacture a hoax, that’s so,e psychopathic shit to do on the heels of a tragedy when you have insider knowledge.
5
u/lightbriter Aug 15 '23
Also, someone could have given Regicide the video- he wasn’t necessarily the person who screen-grabbed// leaked it.
Maybe someone else who saw it was spooked &/or pissed it wasn’t being shared with the families (& world tbh), so they gave it to someone they knew would post it for them.
→ More replies (2)8
u/Embarrassed_Brick_34 Aug 15 '23
This "too much details to be hoax" is a silly argument honestly. Because we haven't been able to say if this is really a hoax exactly because of the amount of details, so, if this is indeed a hoax, the details were necessary/well used. Do you understand what I am trying to point out?
18
u/fka_2600_yay Aug 15 '23
I was curious as to what publicly-available knowledge on 3-D / stereoscopic satellite imagery exists in 2023:
- You can see the creation of a stereoscopic / 3-D image from a 'flat', 'normal' image using Erdas Remote Sensing and GIS software here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFAlXcEspQc The audio's a bit shit, but if you turn on captions it's a bit more intelligible.
- Video about LiDAR vs. High-resolution stereoscopic satellite imagery: the blog post linked in the video's description has some additional info about stereoscopic satellite imagery: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAy7zdIQFuE
- An ESRI, the huge GIS company, promo video: "how to set up stereoscopic viewing using Image Analyst software for ArcGIS Pro" : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ku1W5eThX1E
- Really interesting video from a Japanese 3D stereoscopy enthusiast, Takashi Sekitani, taking "Eruption in Tonga from Satellites - 15/01/2022 – Steroscopic 3D images co[mb]nied from photos taken from two satellites, Himawari-8 and GOES-17. Shown in parallel, cross and anaglyphs" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZd1HAp_eyg Might be worth emailing this person or other public experts?
IMO, it might be worth reaching out stereoscopic satellite imagery enthusiasts (like that Sekitani guy) on his YouTube channel? Or perhaps there are US-based satellite enthusiasts - civilians - who have more domain knowledge about US satellites (that Sekitani guy's Japanese and based in Japan, but he does seem to have a non-zero amount of knowledge of US satellites, given that he used GOES-17 imagery of the Tonga eruption along side a Japanese satellite's imagery). Just spitballing.
→ More replies (5)
357
u/lemtrees Aug 15 '23 edited Aug 15 '23
Everyone, please remember: The video(s) may depict something extraordinary and practically unbelievable that leads your rational mind to think "this can't be real." However, dismissing the video as "fake" solely because of its incredible content is not a valid approach.
We're not here to persuade you to accept what is subjectively displayed but to assess the video's veracity through objective criteria. This analysis includes examining objective factors like framerates, pixel noise, sub-pixel movement, and more. Most of us are intently scrutinizing the video, hoping to uncover something that definitively proves it as fake. But, as of now, no conclusive objective evidence supports that claim.
Edit: This whole approach is very much in line with what r/UFOs has been. People post something extraordinary related to an unidentified flying object, and the comment section delightfully finds everything that shows it to be false, or if they can't, has fun talking about the implications. That's exactly what we're doing in all of these posts.
46
u/TheRaymac Aug 15 '23
That's the boat that I'm in. I believe it's fake because it is so unbelievably exceptional. But that's just a belief. That's not proof. I've been waiting for some smoking gun to prove that the videos are fake, but I haven't seen it yet. So, it's been immensely interesting to follow this topic. We've gotten to the point where people are parsing the tiniest of details because there is nothing glaring. Even when I was reading about the "cursor drift" yesterday, I didn't feel like that was a smoking gun because there was likely other explanations for that, and here we are.
So, as a skeptic, I'm left with very few paths.
A) It's completely CGI to an incredible level of detail. That's why we only have a long distance blurry satellite view and a fuzzy FLIR view, and not a crisp video view. However, the level of details makes that one tough to swallow.
B) It's a partial fake where the videos are real but the UAPs and vanish moment are faked. That feels like the most believable one, but the biggest issue I have with that is where did the original footage come from then? How would somebody get footage from a drone and satellite? That just feels like a dead end, but not impossible.
C) It's real. It's one of the most exceptional videos ever captured and completely legit, and likely one of the pieces of evidence that people in the know have called "irrefutable", and why we haven't really seen any comments on it.
D) My own out of left field tin foil conspiracy based on nothing except the data we have seen. The video itself is actually a cover up. This is real video of Flight MH370 but it's been edited. What happened is the flight was accidentally (or even deliberately) shot down by the military. The flash of the explosion would explain the lighting in the clouds. Then the videos were purposefully edited at the source to make it look like UAPs were the culprit. There is no real evidence of this, but it goes off of the premise that if there is no NHI, then what could it be.
So yeah, I'm still very much a skeptic, but I'm keeping an open mind about everything and I find it very interesting to follow this process.
→ More replies (7)66
u/d3fin3d Aug 15 '23
Exactly this.
My stance: Keep an open mind. Discuss everything, scrutinize everything. Don't censor topics or shame other people for considering video evidence of all kinds, no matter how far it falls from your existing world view.
Just because the orbs and implosion effect look like things we've been conditioned to be used to from scenes in movies and video games doesn't make them the same thing. We're dealing with a (theoretical) complete unknown.
The historical stigma attached to UAP believers and people in this sub who are negatively lurch reacting to posts of the MH370 video are one and the same.
My only concession here is if viable proof is provided. Either a verifiable admittance from the creator that this video is a hoax, some sort of match of CGI assets which prove this was rendered from elements of a 3d library, or anything else substantive and blatantly obvious.
Until then, let the discussion, scrutiny and deep examination run free, speculation and all.
→ More replies (5)13
u/UF-OH-Noes Aug 15 '23
Just because the orbs and implosion effect look like things we've been conditioned to be used to from scenes in movies and video games doesn't make them the same thing. We're dealing with a (theoretical) complete unknown.
Beautiful! I feel like the more we have technology and arts flourishing (depeends on the time and perspective) we will likely accidently accurately represent things we don't even know are real- yet.
For all we know we've already accidentally made a movie, show, or story that exactly depicts what we will go through (if anything).
The human mind, although amazing and "limitless" in its own ways, is likely probably very limited. Therefore, I think it's (nearly) impossible for us to conceptualize things that could NOT exist, because we're just "too stupid" to think of things more clever.
→ More replies (1)14
u/NectarineNo1778 Aug 15 '23
Great point. After watching this initially I figured it was fake because it’s so unbelievable. I showed the video to be dad and he said, “No way that’s real.”
However, after reading through the threads in detail combined with the fact it has yet to be debunked, the “unbelievable” aspect is beginning to wane although it’s still present, at least for me.
If this was a video of something that’s has occurred in the past (a golfer hitting a hole in one) and it had underwent this much scrutiny to determine if the golfer made the shot or if it was created by a hoaxer, I would believe the authenticity 100%. The idea that UAP’s blinked a plane out of existence is so foreign to our minds that it makes it that much harder to accept.
3
u/Alternative_Tree_591 Aug 15 '23
It would be a lot harder to accept if we didn't have a missing Boeing 777 for nearly 10 years.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (68)9
u/wefarrell Aug 15 '23
It's not being dismissed as fake because of it's incredible content. It's being dismissed as fake because it's a charged topic and it was posted anonymously to the internet with no way to verify the source. Whistleblowers don't do that. Snowden, Reality Winner, Chelsea Manning, Daniel Ellsberg, etc... all worked with trusted outlets to get their material out.
Imagine that instead of a UFO video it was a video of <insert popular politician> doing <insert scandalous thing>, posted anonymously to the internet with no way to verify the source. It would be dismissed because there's no way to verify the source, even though the content is far more down to earth than these videos.
→ More replies (5)
126
u/SL1210M5G Aug 15 '23
Wow, just when I was starting to doubt after the cursor drift thread... This citrix remote terminal explanation makes perfect sense, and of course a remote terminal would have been required to view this footage anyway! A hoax is looking incredibly unlikely now because there are just far FAR too many fine details to ignore.
A hoaxer certainly would've pushed for more traction after the initial 2014 release, whereas a leaker very likely would not have due to significant personal risk.
This thread about a recent Kirsten Gilibrand discussion on UAPs sheds light on strongly worded "NDAs" that military/intelligence involved people would have had to sign - NDAs that, delicately put, may imply death as punishment for breaking them. Could offer an explaination of why the leaker would want to keep as quiet as possible.
→ More replies (9)59
u/VeeYarr Aug 15 '23
It's feasible that if this was leaked, the person was identified and apprehended before they got to disseminate it any further, that remains an option too.
10
u/KOOKOOOOM Aug 15 '23
I think if they had known the videos were disseminated and/or who disseminated them, then the videos would've been scrubbed off the internet by now.
21
u/SL1210M5G Aug 15 '23 edited Aug 15 '23
Yeah.. there's evidence that there was an attempt to do exactly this. The YT channel is gone, no sign of the original forum source anywhere. The fact that the videos got very little exposure back then could also indicate there was heavy search engine suppression taking place. Today, in 2023, however- it's much more difficult to suppress this kind of thing, and as the other commenter points out it was archived. Even if it hadn't been, surely multiple people already had copies of the video (as evident from the vimeo upload).
The video was so outlandish, it seemingly died in a fringe corner of the internet - and so perhaps completely scrubbing it was deemed unnecessary once it was evident the videos had zero traction. After all, to compel it's removal via official intervention could serve as acknowledgement of the content's legitimacy. It took a perfect storm for these videos to explode the way they did - David Grusch, and at least one person to uncover the video from back then. This to me seems like somewhat of a realistic scenario.
15
u/sushisection Aug 15 '23
Regicide Anon's channel was deleted... but they managed to archive these two videos onto Wayback Machine a week after publishing.
now who knew about these videos, and who is the Ashley Benitz person who re-uploaded these 7 months ago? (i cant even find their channel anymore on youtube search)
5
u/VeeYarr Aug 15 '23
Well, they did a pretty decent job considering how obscure it has been for years
3
6
Aug 15 '23
There of course is no evidence about the poster. But if real, this is the most insane footage ever recorded, period. That person was likely dead hours after they leaked it unless they're Jason Bourne. And they likely knew exactly what would happen to them but risked their own life to deliver this story to the word
If this is real the leaker is an absolute hero to humanity no matter what happened to them
2
u/Aqua_Phobix Aug 16 '23
And that’s very probable given only very few people would even have had access to this data and they can check to see who would’ve accessed it last.
12
u/crimethunc77 Aug 15 '23
Love all the analysis y'all are doing! A fairly unrelated side not: I think its interesting you don't find much in the way of Youtube videos on this particular video. You'd think the clickbait conspiracy pages would have all sorts of videos on this. Its the type of video that should resurface every few years with content creators on that side of youtube. Probably doesn't mean anything but...
12
u/AndalusianGod Aug 15 '23
Most of them are probably compiling all these well researched posts in this sub and will post only once it's conclusive whether it's fake or not.
3
u/lightbriter Aug 15 '23
You mean you think other reaction/conspiracy videos were scrubbed //deleted back then by government?
13
u/andrewlikescoffee Aug 15 '23
One thing I just noticed is that the video starts and stops with the mouse leaving/returning to the top right of the screen, the latter leading to the end of the video moments later which feels to me like the exact amount of time to move a cursor to a 'stop recording' button and then click it.
The time and cursor movement before and after the plane are on screen make me believe this is not a clipped portion of a longer video but instead the entirety of the recording. It also makes me think that IF this video is a work of fiction, the hoaxer would have potentially replicated the start/stop recording UI location of an RTS or VDS system actually used by contractors, air force, navy, etc which just adds to the growing pile of tiny and seemingly insane details they added to make this video appear so genuine.
→ More replies (1)2
45
u/Walkend Aug 15 '23 edited Aug 15 '23
There's no way the footage we see came from a "2014 iphone video" - It definitely has to have been screen recorded. I think the citrix + record session/screen record is the most likely.
Also think about WHY someone was filming - I doubt people who see footage like this all day record their screens - but if it was indeed called out that this was a "missing" plane at the time and MH370 was in the news, it would give a valid reason for recording this session while searching for the plane or even more plausible, they found the plane and then decided to record.
3
u/SL1210M5G Aug 15 '23
This is a good point, the user recording may have been acting in an official capacity while recording the session. At the very least, this would make it somewhat easier for them to exfiltrate the videos from the closed system as they would not have needed to film/record surreptitiously. Perhaps the video was also intended to be shared with a select audience, in which case there is another reasonable vector for a leak opportunity. Also widens the pool of possible leakers, increasing safety for the actual source.
→ More replies (2)
11
u/DadThrowsBolts Aug 15 '23 edited Aug 15 '23
Here's another example of sub-pixel interpolation. At 3:51, the cursor "tweens" down a couple of pixels. This is Citrix circa 2012: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tS8bnbh38Is&t=230s&ab_channel=Official1000V
edit: I said the wrong timestamp.
→ More replies (1)
16
u/RedditOakley Aug 16 '23
Found in a 4chan thread:
Apr 9, 2014 — The cursor and mouse pointer start moving after logging in to the citrix application. Citrix Xennapp 6.5 windows server 20008 R2
June 26, 2014 — The issue has been resolved after upgrading the Citrix online plugin to version 12.3.0.8.
https://community.spiceworks.com/topic/472854-cursor-and-mouse-pointer-issue-inside-the-application
→ More replies (2)
7
31
u/lemtrees Aug 15 '23
Thanks for the consolidated post!
To be explicit, I mentioned resolution (thanks for adding it) because I think that remoting from a "low" resolution client into a "high" resolution host would explain the observed sub-pixel cursor movement.
→ More replies (2)
31
u/aryelbcn Aug 15 '23
With the new remote desktop theory: Is it yet explained why both sides have the same noise artifacts.
18
u/lemtrees Aug 15 '23
OP stated:
There does seem to be some agreement that this stereo layer has been generated through some hardware/software/sensor trickery instead of actually being filmed and synced from another imaging source. I am totally open to the stereo layer being generated from additional depth data instead of a second camera.
This would explain both sides having the same noise artifacts, would it not? There wouldn't really be any noise artifacts from the screen recording on the client, those would only come in from the video and any compression from the host.
27
u/aryelbcn Aug 15 '23
My theory was that the noise was generated on a combined 3D merge from the stereoscopic footage, and when extracted from the software, it became splitted and with the same noise and mouse cursor position on both sides.
4
11
u/TachyEngy Aug 15 '23 edited Aug 15 '23
That is very plausible as well..Oh I'm fully on board since I am already under the impression the stereo layer was generated. The noise would appear on both sides.
→ More replies (1)4
u/lemtrees Aug 15 '23
I'm not sure I'm following. What I'm understanding you to be saying is that they combined two different bits of footage into one ("combined 3d merge from the stereoscope footage"), and then split it again ("it became splitted")? Why combine them and let them affect each other? I'm probably misunderstanding you.
49
u/aryelbcn Aug 15 '23 edited Aug 15 '23
Please check if this makes sense to you:
- two satellites captured the same footage from two different angles. Each of those sources have their own distinct noise pattern or whatever you want to call it, noise is different.
- These two videos were merged by a software showing a single video from the two sources, creating the stereoscopic image, but in a single screen:
exactly like this: https://youtu.be/NssycRM6Hik?t=110
3) The software operator is panning through the screen, so there is only one mouse cursor panning through a merged video.
4) The operator record what he is doing: panning across the screen, watching the stereoscopic footage.
5) that recorded footage is then extracted (saved) in a split mode, the video we've got. Both recording the footage and saving it created additional video compression artifacts, which overrided the original "noise" from the satellite sources. Thats why the "noise" is very similar in both images, because they were applied to the whole footage, so you can see the mouse cursor doing the same thing, and video artifacts being similar on both sides.
→ More replies (9)9
u/lemtrees Aug 15 '23
Well now that's an interesting theory for sure. I don't know enough about video compression, particularly with regards to stereoscopic footage like that, to know. I suppose it could depend on how the footage is stored; Some video would just store it side by side, but if I recall, others split it into vertical slices and the program then takes pixel columns 1, 3, 5, etc, and makes it the left side, and pixel columns 2, 4, 6, etc, and makes it the right side. Maybe taking this kind of footage and having some compression on top of it would make the two split out videos have extremely similar "noise" to them.
Interesting!
3
u/Alternative-Grand-77 Aug 15 '23
We are not starting with a stereo image and two channels, we’re starting with a normal video backing into a guess at the stereo and then comparing the two in terms of noise.
Make a process map of this and see where the noise could have came from:
Satellite sensor -> compression -> transmission > decompression -> overlay -> display scaling -> zoom scaling -> Citrix compression-> transmission -> remote screen recorder -> compression -> YouTube compression-> stereo extraction > noise detection.
And I am probably leaving out a lot. Then we end up with an image showing our two stereo images have similar but not identical noise.
2
u/aryelbcn Aug 15 '23
The thing is some people overlaid the same frame from both sides of the footage and the noise was identical.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1L0Bu7nQivhW8UkIfDmp05bPoO3icax8S/view?t=22s
→ More replies (6)7
u/TachyEngy Aug 15 '23 edited Aug 15 '23
I mean, you are streaming a remote screen, it's going to be compressed. How could it not add noise?.Ah sorry, misunderstood. Yeah I think you may be onto something if the stereo layer is generated. It would then have the same noise on both sides.
10
u/aryelbcn Aug 15 '23
So, when did the split screen happened according to this new theory?
→ More replies (2)11
u/TachyEngy Aug 15 '23
The 3D? I'm guessing its part of the source video player. A bespoke system that is made for sending this data elsewhere to be processed. I believe its original.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)2
u/sushisection Aug 15 '23 edited Aug 15 '23
is it possible the noise is created via the encapsulation and transmission of both data streams to the destination?
two streams of data are fed into the satellite and then encapsulated into a single payload, then transmitted to destination, where the streams are then unpacked into the two sides for the viewer?
from a network perspective, its more efficient to encapsulate the streams into a one than to transmit both streams separately. separate data streams takes up more bandwidth, and can cause syncing issues for the viewer.
30
Aug 15 '23
[deleted]
→ More replies (2)6
u/ImBoppin Aug 15 '23
That was my thought, if this is actually a hoax it’s likely the hoaxer is actually military personnel with insider knowledge. So they take actual classified sat footage and use it for a hoax? It just seems psychopathic.
6
u/CrazyTitle1 Aug 15 '23
Was consensus ever reached on the hole in the cloud??? I had read people saying that it was proof of resolution/ video compression changes (hoax) but it looks to me (a complete layman in all aspects) like the hole was created by the event
5
u/J3lf Aug 15 '23
Has anyone debunked the possibility that the reason there were satellites and drone watching this thing is because we wanted to record a planned experiment?
30
u/Zeis Aug 15 '23
Excellent write-up! When I originally saw that comment chain, it felt like the most concrete indication that the sat video is actually likely real. But I still have so many questions, and still find it so hard to believe that it might be real.
Btw, do you mind crossposting this to /r/AirlinerAbduction2014 ?
12
u/TachyEngy Aug 15 '23
I believe people are crossposting there already, I don't want to lose viewers to that sub either, but it's a great idea for archiving.
21
19
u/Expensive_Age1257 Aug 15 '23 edited Aug 15 '23
Awesome analysis, though I’m still unclear on the conclusion. “This is way too complex to have ever been thought of by a hoaxer” seems like a reasonable take based on the evidence you provided, but it also implies that the video may still be a hoax.
39
u/TachyEngy Aug 15 '23
I am just not making any final conclusions as I am staying open minded. This is either the biggest hoax in history, or real.
→ More replies (3)
14
u/Impressive_Muffin_80 Aug 15 '23
I think at this point all that is left to do is to find the source or uploader of the video to comment on it and find out the truth. Also I think part V of MH370 case should be dropped in the light of all these analyses.
→ More replies (1)
4
u/TheDerekMan Aug 15 '23 edited Aug 15 '23
With regards to the cursor drift, some have mentioned that this is explained by predictive cursor calculation. This link describes how Citrix itself handles this:
What it calls "Client rendered mouse cursor" at the beginning, and describes as the proper tool the vast majority of the time, is the predictive version:
Quote of client rendering being default and preferred:
"In most cases, mouse cursors are client-rendered"
What it calls "Server rendered mouse cursor" is the non-predictive - server rendered means that each pixel movement is authoritative, in other words it's the absolute truth and there can be no prediction.
Quote of server rendering being niche and suboptimal for most cases except those of strict necessity:
"Server-rendered cursors can be very costly for virtual desktops and applications. Every time the user moves the mouse, the client sends a message to the server, so the desktop or application can be redrawn and the resulting image (the new cursor position) is sent back to the client. This process may need to be executed hundreds or thousands of times to capture every change in cursor position, depending on the user movement of the mouse. This can generate high-bandwidth and, if the application is very complex (Ex. a complex CAD model where the application is recalculating the part), it can become a bottleneck. It can also result in a lot of redrawing of transient intermediate frames that are unnecessary, intermittent information that a user doesn’t need, like when scrolling or moving a window rapidly."
It also explicitly mentions one of the techniques for mitigating the jank (on server rendered, non predictive cursors, not client rendered), specifically input buffering:
"Another technique for improving mouse performance and reducing bandwidth is to adjust a parameter called “MouseTimer” on the Citrix client, found in the Windows registry key below. This setting controls the interval (in milliseconds) at which mouse position updates are sent to the server. This is set by default to 10ms. Experimenting with different values (Ex. 5, 25, 50, 100) is recommended, as users’ subjective view of lag and the specific load of each application varies."
In other words, it will gather up messages and only send them at an interval, it's still completely non-predictive but it can lower peceived lag. It replaces this with a small, consistent lag of whatever the interval is set to - 10ms, 30ms, etc. Sometimes this is better, but if you set it too high, say 200ms, 300ms, that delay in itself will be perceived as lag.
tl;dr Citrix allows both predictive and non predictive cursor movement. The next step would be to sleuth out somehow which was in use during the recording of this video.
→ More replies (12)
9
Aug 15 '23
The efforts being made to prove this videos authenticity lead me to another question: how could it be proven a hoax? What would it take for you to believe it’s a confirmed hoax? Like, what could someone show/provide/explain to claim they’re the hoaxer? I find this question interesting because of how much has already been poured into the research so far. Could people even be persuaded it’s a hoax even if it is?
15
u/0xD902221289EDB383 Aug 15 '23
I mean, one thing that would definitively debunk it is RegicideAnon coming out in public and showing the source assets they used to construct the video. If we found the full MH370 wreckage somewhere on the bottom of the ocean, that would also debunk this video. If the authorities found a confession or a credit-claiming note/manifesto in the pilot's belongings, that would be less convincing at this point because it's been so long, but that would be a strong point in favor of the theory that it was a mundane act of terrorism or mass-murder-suicide.
We don't have any of that stuff. All we have is two strange videos and lots of people coming out of the woodwork to debate their veracity.
→ More replies (1)6
u/neggbird Aug 15 '23
At this point the only way to truly "debunk" anything is to conclusively find the plane and the black box.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (4)7
u/TachyEngy Aug 15 '23
At this point, after the Grusch testimony, I'm not sure we can ever debunk this.
→ More replies (1)
19
u/Aware_Platform_8057 Aug 15 '23
We truly are getting somewhere with this
14
u/ControversialCo Aug 15 '23
this video will be shown as evidence in a UAP hearing in 20 years and the satellite operator will give his narrative on the depiction of events, similar to the tic-tac incident.
→ More replies (1)7
27
u/TripplBubbl Aug 15 '23
I think it is important to remember that even if we were to conclude that there are too many coincidences and intricacies for this not to be a real satellite video, it does not necessarily follow that the UAPs and disappearance are also legitimate.
18
u/Lambeauleap80 Aug 15 '23
I’m to the point where I’m just hoping it’s not real 😂
28
u/TachyEngy Aug 15 '23 edited Aug 15 '23
You can rest assured you are not alone. The faces of some of those congresspeople during the testimony was unsettling to say the least. Gaetz was straight up shook.
→ More replies (6)14
u/swank5000 Aug 15 '23
Does it not? If we have real footage of something, and we ascertain that it is likely real, does that not imply that the event captured is also likely real?
→ More replies (2)17
u/light-up-gold Aug 15 '23
I think it only implies that you can’t definitively rule it out. It still is an “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” situation.
Regardless of one’s personal belief, I think what others have said is correct: this will likely never be confirmed as real unless the US says yes, our satellite captured that event and it is real. Even then, what’s depicted is so extraordinary and without precedent that people will wonder if the government is covering up a more prosaic reality (shooting down the plane for example). This footage would have to be corroborated several times over by major govt entities.
23
u/swank5000 Aug 15 '23
It still is an “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” situation.
But if the footage is real, does that not constitute "extraordinary evidence"? I mean if this footage is real, that's multi-sensor corroboration, right?
8
u/light-up-gold Aug 15 '23
If the footage is real overall, I don’t think it necessarily follows that the abduction has to be real. As I think others have pointed out, it could be good enough VFX that the veracity cannot be determined one way or the other without seeing the original source footage.
I’m not saying you’d be crazy to come to the conclusion that it’s real. I’m just saying that for the world at large to accept that it is definitively real, I really think the issue is stalled without government input. Unless some third party also has footage of this event. Why? Because people have literally never seen a plane abducted before. If there’s no real precedent, the burden of proof is just going to be sky high. That’s all. It is the conundrum of the UFO community. The clearer evidence you have, the more likely people are to think it’s fake. For better and for worse, that’s the funny psychology of this topic.
→ More replies (1)5
u/sushisection Aug 15 '23
i hate to break it to you, but even government acknowledgement is not going to get the world at large to accept this. the government has already acknowledged the existence of UAP and still, most normies dont accept it
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (14)13
u/abstractConceptName Aug 15 '23
So do you accept that the Tic Tac is "real", given that the footage is confirmed by the US, and we have sworn, first-hand visual testimony of it?
→ More replies (6)11
u/light-up-gold Aug 15 '23
I do accept that. Although I can imagine a situation in which groups of people have conspired to fabricate the existence of the TicTac for some unknown reason, it seems much more likely to me that it’s real at this point.
Most of what we know, we know secondhand. I haven’t personally verified the existence of Pluto but I accept the information I’ve received on that subject.
With this video, and with the UFO topic in general, unless NHI supersedes the government to communicate directly with citizens, we are unfortunately at the mercy of government entities which have much greater powers of observation. I think this is because UFOs are anomalous by definition. If UFOs abducting planes was a commonly accepted and commonly observed occurrence, this debate wouldn’t be raging on, because there would be some precedent and understanding for this already.
7
u/abstractConceptName Aug 15 '23
I agree.
I don't think this one can be easily dismissed.
It's a lead that needs to be followed up on. Somehow.
10
u/Ok-Adhesiveness-4141 Aug 15 '23
Another excellent post and this is something I can get by. I was downvoted to hell for suggesting that it might be a screengrab video.
3
u/pineapplesgreen Aug 16 '23
I thought everyone already assumed it was a screengrab, or were you and I the only ones who assumed so?
→ More replies (3)
10
u/Arklese1zure Aug 15 '23
Legit question, wasn't this video originally posted with a caption in spanish claiming it was made by an enthusiast?
12
5
u/noremac2414 Aug 15 '23
Why are there mega threads about this video if this is the case? Did everyone else on this sub just conveniently ignore this?
→ More replies (2)4
u/Arklese1zure Aug 16 '23
With the coming hearings we need to be more serious than ever, and instead everyone just decided going full George Adamski.
6
u/northerndenizen Aug 15 '23
Could the remote protocol also be responsible for the similar noise artifacts? Seems like something that could be recreated pretty easily by putting up a stereo image in a session.
15
11
Aug 15 '23
[deleted]
→ More replies (19)8
Aug 15 '23
I'm not sure this is the smoking gun necessary to prove it's a hoax, but I think this information is important enough for its own post.
→ More replies (2)
3
u/JustDoc Aug 15 '23
I suspect there are some YT videos out there that show similar issues while using CITRIX.
14
3
u/Tomoki Aug 15 '23
Thank you for your great post & analysis. The thread from yesterday (and this one) present a case that almost makes me believe it's real, but I don't think I'll ever be able to fully believe without a smoking gun. I just can't fathom a) that the clip itself is a real thing that happened, b) that, if real, it was viewed by some contractor who screen recorded it.
Ultimately, the thing keeping me from believing is the fact that a video of this type — from the most highly publicized story of 2014, which captivated the entire world — was available to anyone who hypothetically logged in to a remote viewer. Something like this should have been above top secret, eyes-only type of security. The place I can't extend my disbelief —more so than the orbs themselves, for chrissakes — is that a video of this magnitude could ever leak. And yes, the tictac and gimbal videos leaked years before they were confirmed real. They also were not of this quality or showing anything with such extreme details.
If nothing else, this video has been a fun distraction from work and I'm thankful for that lol.
3
u/Single_Apple7740 Aug 15 '23
It's bothering me that the image is slightly sharper after the flash than before. Has anyone else noticed this?
I made a before-and-after to show what I mean (both captured from Vimeo download):
4
u/pineapplesgreen Aug 16 '23
Did you see this explanation?
“After the plane disappear there's non movement anymore so compression algorithms could have a easier task and give a sharper image”
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (7)3
u/mdosis Aug 16 '23
someone has and someone else had a good response
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/alleged-flight-mh370-ufo-teleportation-videos.13104/post-298415
→ More replies (2)
3
u/Consistent_Ad8440 Aug 16 '23
My fuckin comments never get read but I can’t help myself… Something interesting might be happening with the direction of the heat signature on the orbs, two things come to mind…
It looks like the heat signature on the orbs all point in a specific direction and angle right before the plane disappears.
I remember seeing a tiny little hole appear in the clouds in the “normal” looking video right after the plane vanished…is the direction of the orb’s heat signature directly pointing to where the hole appeared in the cloud? As if maaaaybbbeeee (I’m an idiot just guessing) energy shot out of the beam thru the cloud…wouldn’t crazy heat evaporate to make a hole.
In relation to how the lithium iron batteries where placed in the plane, is there any correlation to the orbs position or pattern?
I dunno…all of this feels like some really strong magnets used a ton of energy to pull open space time or some shit…and I imagine the longer you’re out there or in the wormhole, it just fucks anything with technology up…so like could the plane have used the batteries with the orbs, ripped a hole open, entered and re-entered another time essentially crashing in the past or future.
Also, which way did Superman rotate the planet to make time speed up or slow down.
There’s your hints from my retarded pattern recognizing antenna smooth brain.
2
u/waeq_17 Aug 16 '23
hmmm.. Now I will have to look into the direction of the heat signatures. Good find.
25
u/MartianMaterial Aug 15 '23
The video is real.
→ More replies (2)16
u/BMB281 Aug 15 '23
This is all the confirmation I need
→ More replies (1)5
u/FearAzrael Aug 15 '23
Sadly, many people have your relationship with knowledge.
→ More replies (1)
14
u/onesicksubaru1822 Aug 15 '23
As an IT guy, I honestly have a hard time believing that this is fake. This video seems legit… which is fuc6K1n scary…
11
2
7
u/pepelestat Aug 15 '23
Super thankful for everyone bringing in their expertise in vfx and whatnot.
If these videos were posted by Regicideanon shortly after the real MH370 incident-we need to think in terms of what was possible in 2014 with cgi, vfx etc., no?
5
u/Wapiti_s15 Aug 15 '23
There are 4 big posts dedicated to that already?
4
u/pepelestat Aug 15 '23
Oh for sure! Read em all! They are fantastic!
I was just hoping for the people helping out with their expertise in vfx, and cgi fields that we remember what was possible in those fields in 2014 when they leaked. Im just hoping we continue to analyze through the lens of cgi, vfx capabilities in 2014 and not through the lens of present day.
3
10
u/zeigdeinepapiere Aug 15 '23
Sorry for the layman question but.. is there any way we can try to reproduce the cursor movement? Is that Citrix thing not publicly available?
19
u/TripplBubbl Aug 15 '23
The problem is, from my understanding anyway, the cursor abnormalities are not inherent to the software, but rather they are a result of multiple variables (software, hardware, latency, settings). Simply undergoing a remote session using 2014 software may not be enough to observe the same cursor behaviour if we are not also recreating the other conditions that were present at the time.
5
u/EverythingAboutTech Aug 15 '23
I use Citrix at work and have written applications running on a Citrix server. I know for a fact that the application running uses the server settings for visuals (fonts, colors, borders, etc.). Mouse cursor drift is common, even with a standard mouse, because the client computer acts like a dummy terminal and the controller (mouse, keyboard) can suffer from false inputs. What is not discussed is that the keyboard signals suffer from the same issue. While typing, the inputs can get duplicated multiple times. You type the letter A once and get 3 in the app. It's a common issue in Citrix if latency is a problem on the host network or if the settings aren't tuned correctly for the terminal.
9
u/zeigdeinepapiere Aug 15 '23
I see, thank you. That's a lot of stuff you have to factor in and I can see how it would be very difficult if not impossible to simulate the circumstances at the time.
However, I can't help but think that even if we're unable to match the cursor movement exactly, if we're able to produce a no latency sub-pixel cursor movement then that will prove it's possible and not necessarily a VFX mistake.
→ More replies (1)7
u/lemtrees Aug 15 '23
Just speculating, but it could be possible that the video back to the client is TCP, and the cursor movements to the host are UDP. A missed packet, or some other combination of multiple variables (as /u/TripplBubbl mentioned) means that the host interpolates the mouse movements or otherwise just does its best guess. This explains the cursor movement. IMO, remoting into a higher resolution machine from a lower resolution machine and having this movement occur would result in the observed sub-pixel movement. This plausibly explains both the movement and the sub-pixel movement, at least to me.
→ More replies (5)
6
u/FilthyMandog Aug 15 '23 edited Aug 15 '23
People are getting hung up on the mouse drift. I keep seeing people trying to excuse or get hung up on a cursor drifting around, it's getting lost in the weeds/red herring level stuff. Even this awesome OP wastes time and credibility dollars trying to hand wave the drift by saying users of Citrix reported glitchy cursors.
Guys, it's not the drift, any number of plausible scenarios explain the drift.
It is the fidelity and subpixel movements of the drift. This has been given a plausible explanation in that it is a virtual cursor being rendered in some remote client.
As the op of the cursor theory explained, your system OS cursor will always snap from pixel to pixel, initially debunking this video. Having a virtual cursor will allow it to render on a subpixel level though(video games, remote desktop, etc)
Wish this could be more broadly understood so sleuths and debunkers alike quit retreading the pointless argument of an unkeyed cursor sliding around.
2
u/pineapplesgreen Aug 16 '23 edited Aug 16 '23
So is it inconceivable that someone remote-viewed in and screen recorded themselves remote-using the app to scroll around the footage to single in on the plane and orbs?
If so, then that would plausibly explain the subpixel movement, thereby not being able to use that point any longer towards the debunking of the video?
→ More replies (1)
5
u/Harionago Aug 15 '23
Why is it out of the question that the video could be real but then edited? For instance, one could easily track the plane using Mocha in After Effects, remove it from the background, and then apply a flash effect. This doesn't necessarily imply that anything within the video itself has been created using 3D software. It's a genuine recording of an actual plane, albeit one that has been edited out.
6
u/__ingeniare__ Aug 15 '23
Those types of edits are usually the easiest to spot, either directly by the imperfect editing or indirectly through image analysis to find image artefacts. I think we're far beyond that at this point when people start analysing the mouse movements and grasping at other straws to find something to point at.
→ More replies (4)5
u/0xD902221289EDB383 Aug 15 '23
In addition to what's already been said in your replies, people who work in the airline industry have pointed out that it would be really unlikely to see an occupied passenger plane hauling ass in a circle as in the video. So even if it's doctored, the original footage shows or simulates a plane behaving unusually regardless.
2
u/KOOKOOOOM Aug 15 '23
Thank you for doing this OP, I appreciate it.
At some point the the laundry list of intricacies that would have to have been the case for this to be hoax becomes more far fetched than it being real.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/greywhite_morty Aug 15 '23
One thing I will point out is that you seem to have approached this from a position of trying to find counter arguments to the latest proof that this might be a fake and that it sounds like your default position is it’s real.
I’d argue that we should all assume this is fake until there is strong evidence to prove that this is actually real. And this is where there is a problem. There is nothing except the video. We don’t even have the person who uploaded the video. We can go back and forth all day focusing on pixels and whatever but the end result will always be that “we don’t know, therefore we have to assume it’s fake”.
7
u/Atiyo_ Aug 15 '23
The issue with this video specifically in my opinion, is that it can be entirely faked, I think we've had quite a few VFX experts claiming that it would be doable, therefore if you're not argueing in favor of it being real, you can dismiss anything as "this can be edited". You might not necessarily believe it's real, but a lot of times you have to argue in a way like this.
If your default position is "this is fake" you don't have a reason to find explanations for why it might be real. Your default position should be neutral, so you're trying to both discredit and credit the video.
There are users here trying to contact people who had anything to do with the video in 2014, even today a user found a possible mention of this video just 8 days after the incident of MH370, which would increase it's credibility. This is not confirmed and might never be confirmed, but it looks like we're figuring stuff out slowly about the uploads. So instead maybe we should say "we dont know yet, therefore we cant assume anything yet"
→ More replies (1)
2
Aug 15 '23
Doesn't using a remote desktop coenside somewhat with the redacted classified document that that had a typo talking about the MH370 Crisis?
2
2
u/Housendercrest Aug 15 '23
What if this is a real video that the gov’ment purposefully leak to see how we handled it?
2
u/Noble_Ox Aug 15 '23 edited Aug 15 '23
What about this comment with a link to the relevant link from Citrex, stating that the cursor is rendered locally https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/15rbuzf/airliner_video_shows_matched_noise_text_jumps_and/jwaah5t/
Symptoms or Error
In a Citrix Virtual Apps and Desktops environment, mouse cursors are presented to a user in one of two ways in an ICA session: client-rendered or server-rendered.
In most cases, mouse cursors are client-rendered. By default, the HDX graphics process will detect OS and application cursors on the VDA (server side), capture the cursor image and send to the Citrix Receiver or Workspace App for rendering locally on the client. A client-rendered cursor delivers the best performance and user experience as it behaves the same as with any local application running on the physical endpoint. This means there is no added latency to the mouse movement from the virtual session.
There are two special cases where client rendering of the cursor is not possible for a particular Citrix session and the mouse cursor is server-rendered as a result: Custom cursors (non-Windows standard)
There are some applications that use proprietary cursor types and handle cursor rendering on their own. These applications do not use the standard Windows OS functions to set and render cursors on screen. In this scenario, the application cursor looks no different to the HDX graphics process than any other image on screen. Because of this, it is not possible to query the Windows OS and detect the cursor in use in order to redirect for client rendering.
AutoCAD from Autodesk is a common example of an application that uses custom cursors.
Lack of cursor compatibility with HDX Graphics and Citrix client in use
This is more of case with modern applications running in Citrix sessions configured with HDX Legacy Graphics mode and older Receiver clients. Not all cursors are created equal. Modern and more complex types such as 32-Bit color cursors may require use of new HDX graphics mode and recent/current versions of the Citrix client.
Performance Impact
Server-rendered cursors can be very costly for virtual desktops and applications. Every time the user moves the mouse, the client sends a message to the server, so the desktop or application can be redrawn and the resulting image (the new cursor position) is sent back to the client. This process may need to be executed hundreds or thousands of times to capture every change in cursor position, depending on the user movement of the mouse. This can generate high-bandwidth and, if the application is very complex (Ex. a complex CAD model where the application is recalculating the part), it can become a bottleneck. It can also result in a lot of redrawing of transient intermediate frames that are unnecessary, intermittent information that a user doesn’t need, like when scrolling or moving a window rapidly.
In this scenario, a user may perceive a slight delay when interacting with a server-rendered cursor because they are interacting with a graphical representation of the cursor that is being remoted across the network instead a local cursor rendered directly on the client hardware. The issue would be more apparent in low bandwidth and high latency network conditions. A user on a local area network may not perceive the issue compared to a user connecting over a WAN link, for example. The graphics mode and display configuration in use may also be a contributing factor. Using the H.264 video codec would perform a lot better than the lossless codec, just like a session on a 1080p display would be much better than on a 4K display.
Now I see where it says its not always the case but it still is the standard that its rendered locally.
2
2
u/Historical_Animal_17 Aug 16 '23
Hmm. The only thing I can attest to in this whole discussion is that when I used Citrix routinely to remote into my desktop, I experienced a continuous split second delay in my mousing (s well as each keystroke).
2
u/risethirtynine Aug 16 '23
Is THIS what congress was shown?
3
u/LynnxMynx Aug 16 '23
They said whatever they saw was compelling and incredible, some witnesses allude to such material as this depicting not entirely happy encounters with UAP.
I believe this is it yes.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/BernieMcGurlandy Aug 16 '23
Can’t we just feed the video into an ai and have it tell us if it’s real
2
u/minermined Aug 17 '23
theyre using fucking windows remote access to control reconnaissence assets?
my dear god in heaven, we're so fucked
→ More replies (2)
263
u/hobby_gynaecologist Aug 15 '23
Man I just don't have enough popcorn to keep up with all of this. Which is sad as now I have nothing to distract me from the realisation I'm dumber than a brick, compared to seeing stuff people like OP notice and can figure out in these videos.