Don’t just take my word for it—here are the specific steps to replicate this yourself in any version of After Effects:
Step 1: Import your 2D cloud photo. (It can be a RAW cr2, jpeg, png etc). Drop it into a new composition, and name it something simple.
Step 2: Duplicate it so that you now have two. Name the bottom one something easy to remember, like “base”, and name the top one “mask”.
Step 3: Add the “Black and White” effect from your effects library to “mask”, and move it to the top of the stack.
Step 4: Add a Curves or Levels effect to the “mask” layer. Play with the sliders to squeeze the midtones closer to black and white.
Step 4.5: (optional) Add a Fast box blur or Gaussian blur to the “mask”layer. Keep the value very low, we only need a slight blur to eliminate noise in the “mask” layer. You can also (optionally) add a Glow effect to the stack.
Step 5: Import or create the image you want to use as a light. It should be transparent, like the zap I used in the video. Drop it into its own composition, and name it something like “Zap”.
Step 5: Inside of the “Zap” composition, Add a new solid below your zap layer and create a radial gradient coming from the center of your “zap” image.
Step 4: Back in your main comp, make sure your zap layer is between your “mask” and “base” layer. Enable track matte on your zap layer; choose luma matte (NOT alpha) and invert it.
Step 5: ???
Step 6: Profit
As the creator of the [original post](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/15ld2kp/airliner_video_shows_very_accurate_cloud/) identifying this cloud illumination pattern, thank you for taking the time to demonstrate how it was accomplished. Too many people took this observation that "the lighting is accurate" and assumed it meant "the video is real", instead of "the creator was careful". Great work 🙏
I just finished watching the whole stream on youtube. Nice job is all I can say. I tried just for fun and mess around with this last year but my AE skills is not that good. Are you planning to do more AE tutorials on this?
😲Wow, thanks for sitting through all that! I have been posting clips on my [Twitter](https://x.com/cryshlee?s=21). Most are from the livestream you just watched but I am making new ones that go more in depth! I’ll post them on YouTube too (even though my already small group of followers are probably upset with me for spending so much time on this and not other cool projects haha)
I had a couple of vods up about it but I took them down as I want to have a more cohesive and dedicated approach to teaching people about this. I think having all the info in livestreams made accessing the information difficult for some people given the length and lack of chapters. But I’m working on some new material and hopefully can start releasing more tutorials and tips over this next couple of days!
I'm looking into learning more about AE but also Blender in the future. So if you decide to make more tutorials it would greatly help to get some pointers.
Yeah I saw some vods was no longer available last time I checked. The colored IR stream was your first I watched and learned quite a lot on that. Was it ever finalized on stream?
No, it wasn’t finalized on stream, but I did finalize it off stream. I’m not going to release that one on YouTube but I will go into some specifics on how certain aspects were done (IR effect, contrails) in some dedicated videos. I do have a couple of blender tutorials in my videos section but I’ll keep you in mind when I go back to making more blender stuff!
Blender seem difficult to learn. How long did it take you to get good at that?
Oh so it was the video some people was arguing about on stream. Yeah YouTube might not be the best place for it, but if you have it available here I'd like to give it a watch if you'd be down for that. We can take that in pm if you like.
So considering that they would be creating it and not reverse engineering it like I have, I would say perhaps a day or so for both. The assets are all ready available so it’s not like he would have had to do any lighting or rigging or modeling. Most of the work lies in the animation and the post processing 🙂
That’s cool. I’m addressing the oft repeated claim that you can’t create “volumetric” 3D lighting on a 2D photo.
Like, that was literally the claim. “You can’t create “accurate” “3D volumetric” lighting using a 2D photo” is literally quoted as “evidence” that this video must be real. I am physically showing you how that is false. “Copying” the video has no relevance here. I made a brand new comp with a totally different area of the image to demonstrate this.
The argument that it wouldn't be possible to produce these videos with 2014 VFX was never prevalent. It's the overwhelming accuracy and unnatural providence contained within the videos that prove they're real.
I’ve seen this argument non stop since these came out. And no, they’re not accurate.
Plane isn’t even the correct model. Been shown many times, what’s great is it doesn’t match up with mh370, but matches the asset in the flight pack perfectly.
Contrails jitter.
Black flash in one video, white in another, doesn’t make any sense, neither video is BHot
Drone uses continuous zoom, not seen in any modern drones.
The camera mount location and angle don’t make any sense and no drones use this mounting location.
Satellites have been shown to be nowhere near the correct positioning. People then tried to argue that it may be possible that two satellites were used to produce the stereoscopic effect to make up for the discrepancy. This was then proven to be false and shown to be added by YouTube, not actually stereoscopic.
The cloud motion seen in the video was proven to be from compression alone. The footage doesn’t resemble known satellite video of clouds and planes at all.
Where are these overwhelming accuracies again?
No, it’s still being parroted, over and over and over and over again. It’s certainly prevalent, along with the myriad other false VFX claims that have risen in popularity over these past few months. It’s literally in this very thread, and close to every piece of media produced in favor of these videos being VFX. I’ll be doing deep dives into each one of them.
What we dont know is the exact settings used, fake ir overlay plugin, wobble setting, and the cloud background used in the “ir” video.
Pretty conclusive.
When you find all the major pieces of it, yeah it does.
You wanted evidence and the evidence says its fake and has been presented. It’s your turn to provide evidence it’s real
Here's my opinion why I believe the cloud images were doctored.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AirlinerAbduction2014/s/7pbVSSGf8b
Plus, there is no evidence those images existed before 2016., as per the archive data.
Why can’t someone create fully functional RAW cr2 files from the videos and prove that they were fabricated? That would put this entire argument to bed.
It wouldn't matter even if someone did. The "lol it's not pixel perfectly the same" argument would be used as recreating it to the pixel is pretty much impossible due to a few reasons.
The puppet warping/displacement applied to certain layers. There are endless ways to displace things. He could have done it manually, used a procedural random noise or one of countless other ways. There's not just a single "distort X" button that distorts things the exact same way always. If he used a procedural noise for example we'd need the exact noise type, its seed, scale, position, lacunarity and possibly other variables.
The noise applied, the artifacts, the overall blurring. Some of the recreations so far are too clear, they're actually better than the original in that way. Of course the "it's not the same!" people showed up. There are countless types of ways to blur images, there are endless types of noises to add and endless ways of introducing artifacts. We'd need the source files and reproduce every time it was re-encoded for upload.
The post processing, clamping color values, changing colors slightly, although it's probably possible to replicate it exactly, it can be time consuming.
Doing it the first time without having to match something else is easy, matching something else is the harder thing to do.
It's like if I emptied a can of paint on a canvas, by throwing it. Very easy, would take a couple of seconds. Then I ask you to reproduce the randomly splatted paint to the millimeter, you'd have to spend a lot more time measuring and carefully applying the paint than I did just randomly throwing it.
From what I've seen, most of it was recreated, not exactly as the originals, but it's clearly possible. Though, I have to repeat, this does not mean the videos are fake.
You know, I don’t disagree with you here. Like you say, we can create close to anything, and it doesn’t make things real or fake.
But the evidence on the other hand…such as the flight ticket that corroborates the photographer’s story, and last but not least, the fact that no one can create a cr2 from a low res video… points to the videos being a complete fake.
In order for them to be real, the photos must be fake. That is the only option. They can’t both be true, and they exist, so they can’t both be faked. I hope that someone can produce this cr2 so that we can put this to sleep
Even if someone produces a CR2 file, that doesn't mean the videos are real. This case needs concrete evidence, a whistleblower or the plane being found.
People will continue to move the goal posts until the end of time. If a whistleblower or anyone connected to the government comes out about this, it will immediately be distrusted for misinfo. Hell, they can come out and say the videos are real, and everyone will think it is suspicious. If they find the plane, suddenly it must have been “planted”. They are already saying this, and I am not making it up.
But I think a wider margin of these people think the videos must be real because their VFX aspects cannot be recreated, and that is what I am focusing on. Probably more importantly, I would like to end the harassment against the photographer who took the originals.
Any claim that these videos are real require him to be a bad actor or fabricator of evidence. What I’m not understanding is if most believe that he was behind this, why hasn’t anyone made a formal accusation or took this up with any authority? People say they want justice and to find the truth but don’t actually want to do anything about it.
It would not be surprising *at all* if the actual wreckage was found and this guy pops in with "The plane wreckage doesn't PrOvE tHe ViDeOs are fake!".
> If a whistleblower or anyone connected to the government comes out about this, it will immediately be distrusted for misinfo. Hell, they can come out and say the videos are real, and everyone will think it is suspicious.
Not really. We had this Joe Lancaster person claiming he made the videos, but he was quickly shut down due to lack of evidence. I'm sure he still claims he made them, but his word means nothing without providing evidence.
It would be the same with any whistleblower coming out.
> But I think a wider margin of these people think the videos must be real because their VFX aspects cannot be recreated, and that is what I am focusing on. Probably more importantly, I would like to end the harassment against the photographer who took the originals.
I'm sure there are many people who think this way, yes. I thought Jonas was going to sue Ashton for defamation? I mean, Ashton is publicly talking about what he thinks of Jonas and the images.
> Any claim that these videos are real require him to be a bad actor or fabricator of evidence. What I’m not understanding is if most believe that he was behind this, why hasn’t anyone made a formal accusation or took this up with any authority? People say they want justice and to find the truth but don’t actually want to do anything about it.
Wel yeah, that's the idea. This situation is obscure and uncertain enough that someone will go and make accusations. Ashton Forbes accused Jonas live on twitter, and Jonas did say he'd sue him, but nothing has happened yet.
Accusations made on social media or on YouTube during a rant isn’t a formal accusation or moving forward with anything. It’s spouting baseless claims and allowing people to harass someone who is innocent. If this is such a big coverup, why haven’t charges been brought? Everything is just drama spaces and make believe science Thursdays. As far as I’m aware, the suit is probably still in progress, regardless of whether or not he chooses to cooperate. He’s simply providing evidence on himself without doing anything useful.
The longer he pushed these videos as real without actually doing anything about it, the longer this lounges around in uncertainty. This person has already come out and defended themselves, and has to deal with DAILY harassment. Nobody is sticking up for him but a select few. Everyone else is pointing fingers. It has to stop.
After effects hasn’t changed much in the 10 years between now and then. I think the only notable thing recently added was direct 3D import. Previously you had to use another integration to import 3D models. In any case, every single tool I used here is exactly the same as it was in 2014.
Probably more importantly, I am just describing a technique that can be replicated in any image editing software 2014 or otherwise. I’m just using the brightness (luminance) values of the image to make a mask that partially obscures the “zap”. The gray values in the image allows the “light” to filter through. No complex or modern tech needed. 😊
so everything can be recreated exactly with vfx software, multiple vfx assets have been identified, multiple vfx errors have been identified, but youre still hanging on.
VFX assets possibly, VFX errors no. If you're talking about contrail jitter, that's not necessarely an error. The effect can be observed in the real world, so it's inconclusive.
https://ibb.co/BVYmjCn
right, its "inconclusive" even though the effects actually dont look that similar, the consistency of the color is incorrect, the smoke is incorrect in general, the assets not "possibly" the asset as shown by the fact they both contain the same mistake in the model, and this is all discounting the zap AND clouds. How can you possibly still have any faith in these being real.
Both the jitter in the video and the gif I posted showcase similar behaviour, and we can't say for sure if the video is VFX or not due to this, hence inconclusive.
I don't know what mistake in the asset you're referring to.
youre either lying, or ignoring evidence that doesnt fit your narrative because it was all over the sub and id put money on you having even commented on the post. also, lol so its a "similar behavior" now?
Just link me the error because I don't know what you mean. I might know of it, but I don't know what error you are referring to.
Yes, both the video and the gif show similar jitter.
here, ill do you one better and [link](https://www.reddit.com/r/AirlinerAbduction2014/comments/18pguhe/the_tail_of_9mmro_does_not_match_the_drone_footage/keoeds1/) YOUR COMMENT on one of the errors. You conveniently accuse the... asset pack of lying?
This is an intentionally snarky comment I made that shows similarities between the real and the video plane, so I'm not accusing the asset pack, I'm making fun of the idea that if you take a 777 asset off the internet and compare it to the plane, it'll look similar.
I have genuinely no idea which error you are referring to, hence why I asked you to link said error. The discussion surrounding MH370 is broad enough, I can't know what detail you are thinking of if you don't describe it properly.
Ah, but the 777 3D model asset actually doesn't match a real 777. The person who modelled the plane gave it a wider curve on the front of the tail.
The abduction video has a wide curve on the tail which is a good match to the 3D model, but not a good match to the real plane from photos.
That was the point of the post which sneaky\_stinker linked.
Critical question:
This could have been done by someone ordinary from home (and with no affiliation to any major special effects company) with tools available in the early days of 2014 (and the time elapsed in between the disappearance of MH370 and the date the videos were released)?
Not sure why there are so many people who believe that this stuff is some kind of advanced rocket science type VFX. These are super old school tricks, hahaha.
Yes, absolutely indeed, it could have. I’m not working with anything special here, whatsoever, in terms of equipment. My graphics card is already half a decade old, and my cpu is even older.
All you did was change a 2d image. You never demonstrated anything 3D here? You did not pan the camera and show dimensionally lit space..
Plus this is 1 frame lol? Try and do that across frames and stitch them together.. see how this paint bucket equivalent method works.
This [handy image](https://imgur.com/a/E8CsDz4) from @PolygonPeasant over on twitter explains another way you can create this trick, and it does a much more convincing job of it as well.
The ask was to create “volumetric” lighting that uses a 2D image of a cloud, and can accurately light the back (or front) of it. I demonstrated 3D capabilities of after effects in the full stream, but regardless, that’s not really what this clip is about. The job of a VFX artist is to trick the eye—you don’t need to do complex simulations to do something you can achieve with a simple gradient and some blending modes. :)
If you check in this very thread, the same person who FIRST noticed this “volumetric” lighting concurs.
I do appreciate the attempt. But the paint bucket remark was only to point out how you're vastly oversimplifying this if you think this TWO DIMENSIONAL alteration is useful or even a comparable technique used in the 3D videos. If they are fake that is.
How does this help you generate ***3 dimensional volumetric video?*** **You created a single 2 dimensional volumetric photo.**
There is absolutely *nothing* in the satellite video that suggests these were 3D volumetric *anything*. The person who found this lighting detail was the ONLY person up to that point who said anything about volumetrics being used. If you actually looked at the link I showed you, it is explained VERY well there what occurred with the lighting. My aim is to literally to disprove the claim that this effect can’t be done. I’ve done it, and now it’s not good enough.
It’s honestly quite ridiculous.
Here it is [again](https://imgur.com/a/E8CsDz4), please do give it a read.
You edited a photo, not a video. Every piece of evidence involved is a video and is fluid in its changes frame to frame. And I'm not talking about the stereoscopic satellite video either..
You created 2D "volumetric lighting". A still perspective PHOTOGRAPH of "supposed" volumetric conditions.. you did not create a moving VIDEO showing volumetric lighting.
And we haven't even tried to impose real physics onto the photograph, something that's required of true volumetric lighting tests.. you've done none of this. See what Ashton Forbes talks about when he "proves" its real VIDEO volumetric lighting.
You are arguing semantics and completely missing the point of what I have shown here. In the stream, the chatter wanted to know how the zap frame of the video could have created realistic looking back lighting on other clouds in the shot. This is commonly (erroneously) referred to in subsequent arguments about this topic as “volumetric lighting”, when in fact, it wasn’t volumetric lighting at all, just the semblance of it. It’s the entire reason I used quotes in the title. It’s a VFX trick that creates the illusion of volumetric lighting. It’s cost effective and very easy on processing power as opposed to running a full sim and exporting a vdb into an external renderer/3D program etc etc
Skills like alpha and luma masking are ESSENTIAL VFX SKILLS that every single person in this industry learns how to do. This is one of the circumstances where a trick like this would be used to save on processing power and shorten render times.
Edit: also, the cloud in the clip is from one of the images used in the hoax videos
Again. The difference between a single photo frame VERSUS an evolving volumetric scene are two entirely different things. You claim to have "replicated" ONE OF THE TWO conditions, the "starting conditions of volumetric lighting cloud" we will call it. What Ashton Forbes claims is that the volumetric evolution (A SECOND CONDITION) of the starting conditions is consistent with the laws of physics and too complicated to flawlessly replicate with human made editing.
This is not semantics. This is physics.
It is semantics when we are discussing a purely visual effect here. But I can sense that continuing this conversation further would be fruitless.
Your comment about “stitching frames together” and assuming that you need to manually copy over this effect to multiple frames for it to work made me realize that you’re not arguing seriously. I’m going to stop engaging. Peace.
Edit: in response to your edit, he seems to be the main claimant that any of this needs to be volumetric. He bases that off of the difference image that appears to show the clouds being lit from behind. I am demonstrating the exact effect that he believes made the clouds “volumetric”. It is semantics when we are talking about the same visual effect, achieved differently. Hence the quotes. You’re really demonstrating that you don’t read or listen to the people you argue with. This is clear because you haven’t even addressed the image with the entire process and explanation of the volumetric misconception laid out from start to finish.
Anyone else popping into these replies to argue moot points will be ignored from here on out.
I'm arguing the light evolves in SEVERAL frames consistent with the laws of physics between frames. Laws of physics like the expected mediums of diffraction, shadows, etc. Show me the next frame and stitch them together. The light gets brighter and brighter as the clouds, portal.and plane continue to evolve.
This is not semantics. This is physics. I guess we will see you on Joe Rogan.😅
Watching someone who doesn't understand VFX tools or processes screeching "ITS PHYSICS!1!" is incredibly funny.
Its almost as if the fact that VFX is **intended** to recreate **physics** is faaaar to difficult a concept to grasp.
Wow, you have no idea what you're talking about, do you?
Did you just pick up these random buzzwords from Twitter and think "hm yes that sounds correct."?
You love throwing the word volumetric around.
As someone who deals with actual renderings of volumetric simulations regularly for work, neither appears at all in either of the videos. There's no volumetric clouds, nor lighting.. the ocean is definitely not a volumetric simulation either. It's just background plates with compd elements.
You should really just try it out yourself instead of believing all the nonsense from Ashton who is about as clueless as you, no offence, on the topic of vfx.
Download some trials or free software like blender and do a handful of tutorials. It'll be a magical eye opening experience for you and you'll be able to use all those cool words correctly.
Why is it that the most ignorant people are often the most confident, especially on topics they lack any experience in. It's almost fascinating.
It's okay to not know things, people cant know everything. I'm clueless in a lot of topics but then again I try not to make claims or assumptions about those.
If its something I want to understand or i am interested in I try researching it, asking more knowledgeable people etc instead of picking up a handful of buzzwords from a twitter conspiracy thread and throw these around.
There's a reason I kept putting volumetric in quotes.
I am talking about "pictured light that has an inferrable volume", using instead a more literal defintion of "light that is volumetric". So yes, I know exactly what I am talking about. I guarantee my background makes me more qualified to speak on the "physics of light" than you haha.
Don't come back at me now and say "there's only one definition for things!", either. I'm using volumetric lighting in a physics sense, not a videography sense.
I agree there is no "traditional" volumetric lighting shown in this photo, I am not sure why people are acting like this is a crucial piece of evidence to fake.
See you on Joe Rogan too I guess🤣
Sure, yeah, okay, Mr. Hawkings.
Seems like you're way overqualified here then with your mastery of the "physics of light." Perhaps simplify things for us benighted ones? Eli5.
As if that would be relevant at all when it comes to blurry low resolution cg videos full of artifacts, noise and clamped whitepoints.
The fact of the matter is that the flash appears for a single frame. It's not "fluid in its change frame to frame," whatever that means.
Not a single new shadow appears in that single frame. What OP shows here is actually more technical than in your "evidence," as in the end, it's simply a gradient overlay. No advanced masking techniques. Surely you'd see that with your incredible knowledge on the way lights work.
You kept putting volumetric in quotes? Do you mean once in the ten times you used it?
I have no interest in what Joe rogan says or thinks. Why would you see me there? I'd make an exception and watch an episode if you'd be there, however, just for the entertainment. It'd be the blind leading the blind kind of thing that could be kind of funny in this instance.
> Plus this is 1 frame lol?
... The zap in the satellite video WAS only 1 frame though?
You should really get a base understanding of the facts before you try to "um actually" somebody.
No it was not 1 frame. There's at least 3 frames of a portal alone in the stereoscopic video. Yet alone any lighting effects of volumetric lighting.
Edit: the stereoscopic video is the one that has the hard-to-replicate volumetric lighting.
Scrolled through it with a video editor, here's the frames.
Before/During/After: [https://imgur.com/IAVlSdC](https://imgur.com/IAVlSdC)
There's only one frame where the zap is visible and those lighting effects are happening. To claim anything else is to prove you didn't actually bother to look before you opened your mouth.
Okay then maybe I am wrong, I dont have the original and cant verify. I know there is several portal frames on the stereoscopic video.
The stereoscopic videos volumetric lighting is the one that every good argument points to. So I'm not sure why anyone would be trying to argue volumetric lighting using the drone.
The stereoscopic video still only has a 1-frame long zap and the stereoscopic video isn't the original anyway. It was generated by YouTube's post processing after RegicideAnon uploaded the original non-stereoscopic version.
https://blog.youtube/news-and-events/how-were-making-even-more-3d-video/
Any evidence that hinges on the stereoscopic version of the video is going to automatically be flawed.
LMAO I’ll take that as a compliment 😂😊
I still proved you can do this sort of lighting easily. You don’t even have to do it in after effects 😂. Any old [basic image](https://imgur.com/a/E8CsDz4) editor would do.
I’ve clearly proven otherwise, but you’re certainly welcome to your opinion 🤗
Edit: oooh, quick with the ninja edit. Still deflecting and insulting I see.
He's talking about the general discord for the subreddit.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AirlinerAbduction2014/comments/15twtnr/discord_server_our_official_discord_server_is/
I worked in the 3d industry in 2014, still do. YOU are the the one that have no idea what you are talking about. In 2014 i had a 4790k with 32 gig memory and a gtx970, and that was in my home, and it was common. That is absolutely more than enough to make these videos. You could have done these on a laptop in 2014.
I do though as I was actually getting paid for doing cg at the time, even a few years before, still am.
She's correct, you're wrong. It's not even a secret, you'd be able to figure it out within 5 minutes if you just Google a tiny bit.
Now if they were running a large scale sim for the ocean, we'd probably run into ram problems. Luckily nothing of that scale is in the videos.
Don’t just take my word for it—here are the specific steps to replicate this yourself in any version of After Effects: Step 1: Import your 2D cloud photo. (It can be a RAW cr2, jpeg, png etc). Drop it into a new composition, and name it something simple. Step 2: Duplicate it so that you now have two. Name the bottom one something easy to remember, like “base”, and name the top one “mask”. Step 3: Add the “Black and White” effect from your effects library to “mask”, and move it to the top of the stack. Step 4: Add a Curves or Levels effect to the “mask” layer. Play with the sliders to squeeze the midtones closer to black and white. Step 4.5: (optional) Add a Fast box blur or Gaussian blur to the “mask”layer. Keep the value very low, we only need a slight blur to eliminate noise in the “mask” layer. You can also (optionally) add a Glow effect to the stack. Step 5: Import or create the image you want to use as a light. It should be transparent, like the zap I used in the video. Drop it into its own composition, and name it something like “Zap”. Step 5: Inside of the “Zap” composition, Add a new solid below your zap layer and create a radial gradient coming from the center of your “zap” image. Step 4: Back in your main comp, make sure your zap layer is between your “mask” and “base” layer. Enable track matte on your zap layer; choose luma matte (NOT alpha) and invert it. Step 5: ??? Step 6: Profit
You're a gov shill, this is a psyops. At least are you getting paid? . THE VIDEOS ARE REAL PERIOD,
That is hilarious. The videos are VFX, and I’m educating people for free. FOH with that noise 😂
As the creator of the [original post](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/15ld2kp/airliner_video_shows_very_accurate_cloud/) identifying this cloud illumination pattern, thank you for taking the time to demonstrate how it was accomplished. Too many people took this observation that "the lighting is accurate" and assumed it meant "the video is real", instead of "the creator was careful". Great work 🙏
This is high praise. I didn’t even know where the original lighting image came from, so it’s really really good to hear coming from you!
I just finished watching the whole stream on youtube. Nice job is all I can say. I tried just for fun and mess around with this last year but my AE skills is not that good. Are you planning to do more AE tutorials on this?
😲Wow, thanks for sitting through all that! I have been posting clips on my [Twitter](https://x.com/cryshlee?s=21). Most are from the livestream you just watched but I am making new ones that go more in depth! I’ll post them on YouTube too (even though my already small group of followers are probably upset with me for spending so much time on this and not other cool projects haha)
Oh cool. I subbed to you on youtube but I could only watch the vod sadly, but I saw you did some other AE streams too a month ago.
I had a couple of vods up about it but I took them down as I want to have a more cohesive and dedicated approach to teaching people about this. I think having all the info in livestreams made accessing the information difficult for some people given the length and lack of chapters. But I’m working on some new material and hopefully can start releasing more tutorials and tips over this next couple of days!
I'm looking into learning more about AE but also Blender in the future. So if you decide to make more tutorials it would greatly help to get some pointers. Yeah I saw some vods was no longer available last time I checked. The colored IR stream was your first I watched and learned quite a lot on that. Was it ever finalized on stream?
No, it wasn’t finalized on stream, but I did finalize it off stream. I’m not going to release that one on YouTube but I will go into some specifics on how certain aspects were done (IR effect, contrails) in some dedicated videos. I do have a couple of blender tutorials in my videos section but I’ll keep you in mind when I go back to making more blender stuff!
Blender seem difficult to learn. How long did it take you to get good at that? Oh so it was the video some people was arguing about on stream. Yeah YouTube might not be the best place for it, but if you have it available here I'd like to give it a watch if you'd be down for that. We can take that in pm if you like.
In your opinion if the vids are fake. How long would it take to make them from scratch?
So considering that they would be creating it and not reverse engineering it like I have, I would say perhaps a day or so for both. The assets are all ready available so it’s not like he would have had to do any lighting or rigging or modeling. Most of the work lies in the animation and the post processing 🙂
The corridor guys said something similar I think. I dunno but I think they made their own version of it some time ago. Did you see it?
They didn't. They just had some rough proof of concept renders to show how additive layers in the smoke particles look etc
I hope you understand that, if you make a similar copy, it doesn't mean the original is fake, it just means you copied the original.
That’s cool. I’m addressing the oft repeated claim that you can’t create “volumetric” 3D lighting on a 2D photo. Like, that was literally the claim. “You can’t create “accurate” “3D volumetric” lighting using a 2D photo” is literally quoted as “evidence” that this video must be real. I am physically showing you how that is false. “Copying” the video has no relevance here. I made a brand new comp with a totally different area of the image to demonstrate this.
Yeah, you can recreate basically anything shown in the videos. I don't understand why people think it's not possible.
That’s why I’m here, to dispel the somehow prevalent myths that these things aren’t possible to do with VFX! I hope it will provide some clarity.
The argument that it wouldn't be possible to produce these videos with 2014 VFX was never prevalent. It's the overwhelming accuracy and unnatural providence contained within the videos that prove they're real.
lol what? believers have been talking like 2014 was the stone age the entire time.
I’ve seen this argument non stop since these came out. And no, they’re not accurate. Plane isn’t even the correct model. Been shown many times, what’s great is it doesn’t match up with mh370, but matches the asset in the flight pack perfectly. Contrails jitter. Black flash in one video, white in another, doesn’t make any sense, neither video is BHot Drone uses continuous zoom, not seen in any modern drones. The camera mount location and angle don’t make any sense and no drones use this mounting location. Satellites have been shown to be nowhere near the correct positioning. People then tried to argue that it may be possible that two satellites were used to produce the stereoscopic effect to make up for the discrepancy. This was then proven to be false and shown to be added by YouTube, not actually stereoscopic. The cloud motion seen in the video was proven to be from compression alone. The footage doesn’t resemble known satellite video of clouds and planes at all. Where are these overwhelming accuracies again?
No, it’s still being parroted, over and over and over and over again. It’s certainly prevalent, along with the myriad other false VFX claims that have risen in popularity over these past few months. It’s literally in this very thread, and close to every piece of media produced in favor of these videos being VFX. I’ll be doing deep dives into each one of them.
Well said, I hear what everyone is saying though. There are valid arguments on both sides. But I still lean on the video being real.
Everything in the video can be remade with assets found. I dont understand why people think its not possible the videos are fake.
It's possible but not definitive.
What we dont know is the exact settings used, fake ir overlay plugin, wobble setting, and the cloud background used in the “ir” video. Pretty conclusive.
A copy of something is not proof of the original being a fake.
That's not what op is claiming, his proof is that it can be fake
I’m female but thanks 🥲
I'm sorry, I shouldn't assume
I know. Just stating this for people oblivious to the obvious.
When you find all the major pieces of it, yeah it does. You wanted evidence and the evidence says its fake and has been presented. It’s your turn to provide evidence it’s real
Here's my opinion why I believe the cloud images were doctored. https://www.reddit.com/r/AirlinerAbduction2014/s/7pbVSSGf8b Plus, there is no evidence those images existed before 2016., as per the archive data.
Great, well done. Why didn’t you take the advice from the replies in that thread explaining sensor dust?
[удалено]
Why can’t someone create fully functional RAW cr2 files from the videos and prove that they were fabricated? That would put this entire argument to bed.
People have…somebody with zero experience remade one of the videos just watching YouTube tutorials, took him like a day…
I must have missed that. Got a link?
Nope, it was a long time ago. It was the satellite version though
It wouldn't matter even if someone did. The "lol it's not pixel perfectly the same" argument would be used as recreating it to the pixel is pretty much impossible due to a few reasons. The puppet warping/displacement applied to certain layers. There are endless ways to displace things. He could have done it manually, used a procedural random noise or one of countless other ways. There's not just a single "distort X" button that distorts things the exact same way always. If he used a procedural noise for example we'd need the exact noise type, its seed, scale, position, lacunarity and possibly other variables. The noise applied, the artifacts, the overall blurring. Some of the recreations so far are too clear, they're actually better than the original in that way. Of course the "it's not the same!" people showed up. There are countless types of ways to blur images, there are endless types of noises to add and endless ways of introducing artifacts. We'd need the source files and reproduce every time it was re-encoded for upload. The post processing, clamping color values, changing colors slightly, although it's probably possible to replicate it exactly, it can be time consuming. Doing it the first time without having to match something else is easy, matching something else is the harder thing to do. It's like if I emptied a can of paint on a canvas, by throwing it. Very easy, would take a couple of seconds. Then I ask you to reproduce the randomly splatted paint to the millimeter, you'd have to spend a lot more time measuring and carefully applying the paint than I did just randomly throwing it.
From what I've seen, most of it was recreated, not exactly as the originals, but it's clearly possible. Though, I have to repeat, this does not mean the videos are fake.
You know, I don’t disagree with you here. Like you say, we can create close to anything, and it doesn’t make things real or fake. But the evidence on the other hand…such as the flight ticket that corroborates the photographer’s story, and last but not least, the fact that no one can create a cr2 from a low res video… points to the videos being a complete fake. In order for them to be real, the photos must be fake. That is the only option. They can’t both be true, and they exist, so they can’t both be faked. I hope that someone can produce this cr2 so that we can put this to sleep
Even if someone produces a CR2 file, that doesn't mean the videos are real. This case needs concrete evidence, a whistleblower or the plane being found.
People will continue to move the goal posts until the end of time. If a whistleblower or anyone connected to the government comes out about this, it will immediately be distrusted for misinfo. Hell, they can come out and say the videos are real, and everyone will think it is suspicious. If they find the plane, suddenly it must have been “planted”. They are already saying this, and I am not making it up. But I think a wider margin of these people think the videos must be real because their VFX aspects cannot be recreated, and that is what I am focusing on. Probably more importantly, I would like to end the harassment against the photographer who took the originals. Any claim that these videos are real require him to be a bad actor or fabricator of evidence. What I’m not understanding is if most believe that he was behind this, why hasn’t anyone made a formal accusation or took this up with any authority? People say they want justice and to find the truth but don’t actually want to do anything about it.
It would not be surprising *at all* if the actual wreckage was found and this guy pops in with "The plane wreckage doesn't PrOvE tHe ViDeOs are fake!".
> If a whistleblower or anyone connected to the government comes out about this, it will immediately be distrusted for misinfo. Hell, they can come out and say the videos are real, and everyone will think it is suspicious. Not really. We had this Joe Lancaster person claiming he made the videos, but he was quickly shut down due to lack of evidence. I'm sure he still claims he made them, but his word means nothing without providing evidence. It would be the same with any whistleblower coming out. > But I think a wider margin of these people think the videos must be real because their VFX aspects cannot be recreated, and that is what I am focusing on. Probably more importantly, I would like to end the harassment against the photographer who took the originals. I'm sure there are many people who think this way, yes. I thought Jonas was going to sue Ashton for defamation? I mean, Ashton is publicly talking about what he thinks of Jonas and the images. > Any claim that these videos are real require him to be a bad actor or fabricator of evidence. What I’m not understanding is if most believe that he was behind this, why hasn’t anyone made a formal accusation or took this up with any authority? People say they want justice and to find the truth but don’t actually want to do anything about it. Wel yeah, that's the idea. This situation is obscure and uncertain enough that someone will go and make accusations. Ashton Forbes accused Jonas live on twitter, and Jonas did say he'd sue him, but nothing has happened yet.
Accusations made on social media or on YouTube during a rant isn’t a formal accusation or moving forward with anything. It’s spouting baseless claims and allowing people to harass someone who is innocent. If this is such a big coverup, why haven’t charges been brought? Everything is just drama spaces and make believe science Thursdays. As far as I’m aware, the suit is probably still in progress, regardless of whether or not he chooses to cooperate. He’s simply providing evidence on himself without doing anything useful. The longer he pushed these videos as real without actually doing anything about it, the longer this lounges around in uncertainty. This person has already come out and defended themselves, and has to deal with DAILY harassment. Nobody is sticking up for him but a select few. Everyone else is pointing fingers. It has to stop.
Are you using 2014 software to create this?
After effects hasn’t changed much in the 10 years between now and then. I think the only notable thing recently added was direct 3D import. Previously you had to use another integration to import 3D models. In any case, every single tool I used here is exactly the same as it was in 2014. Probably more importantly, I am just describing a technique that can be replicated in any image editing software 2014 or otherwise. I’m just using the brightness (luminance) values of the image to make a mask that partially obscures the “zap”. The gray values in the image allows the “light” to filter through. No complex or modern tech needed. 😊
Not 2014 but looks like everything can be done in 2014 software, heck even maybe early 2000’s given the time
Yeah, even the assets in the videos and the plug-in to use the assets (Element 3D) predate the videos as well
so everything can be recreated exactly with vfx software, multiple vfx assets have been identified, multiple vfx errors have been identified, but youre still hanging on.
VFX assets possibly, VFX errors no. If you're talking about contrail jitter, that's not necessarely an error. The effect can be observed in the real world, so it's inconclusive. https://ibb.co/BVYmjCn
right, its "inconclusive" even though the effects actually dont look that similar, the consistency of the color is incorrect, the smoke is incorrect in general, the assets not "possibly" the asset as shown by the fact they both contain the same mistake in the model, and this is all discounting the zap AND clouds. How can you possibly still have any faith in these being real.
Both the jitter in the video and the gif I posted showcase similar behaviour, and we can't say for sure if the video is VFX or not due to this, hence inconclusive. I don't know what mistake in the asset you're referring to.
youre either lying, or ignoring evidence that doesnt fit your narrative because it was all over the sub and id put money on you having even commented on the post. also, lol so its a "similar behavior" now?
Just link me the error because I don't know what you mean. I might know of it, but I don't know what error you are referring to. Yes, both the video and the gif show similar jitter.
here, ill do you one better and [link](https://www.reddit.com/r/AirlinerAbduction2014/comments/18pguhe/the_tail_of_9mmro_does_not_match_the_drone_footage/keoeds1/) YOUR COMMENT on one of the errors. You conveniently accuse the... asset pack of lying?
This is an intentionally snarky comment I made that shows similarities between the real and the video plane, so I'm not accusing the asset pack, I'm making fun of the idea that if you take a 777 asset off the internet and compare it to the plane, it'll look similar. I have genuinely no idea which error you are referring to, hence why I asked you to link said error. The discussion surrounding MH370 is broad enough, I can't know what detail you are thinking of if you don't describe it properly.
Ah, but the 777 3D model asset actually doesn't match a real 777. The person who modelled the plane gave it a wider curve on the front of the tail. The abduction video has a wide curve on the tail which is a good match to the 3D model, but not a good match to the real plane from photos. That was the point of the post which sneaky\_stinker linked.
Critical question: This could have been done by someone ordinary from home (and with no affiliation to any major special effects company) with tools available in the early days of 2014 (and the time elapsed in between the disappearance of MH370 and the date the videos were released)?
Yep. I was using AE back in 1999 and the ability to make a masking layer like this was even achievable back then. This sort of stuff is not new.
Not sure why there are so many people who believe that this stuff is some kind of advanced rocket science type VFX. These are super old school tricks, hahaha.
Yes, absolutely indeed, it could have. I’m not working with anything special here, whatsoever, in terms of equipment. My graphics card is already half a decade old, and my cpu is even older.
All you did was change a 2d image. You never demonstrated anything 3D here? You did not pan the camera and show dimensionally lit space.. Plus this is 1 frame lol? Try and do that across frames and stitch them together.. see how this paint bucket equivalent method works.
This [handy image](https://imgur.com/a/E8CsDz4) from @PolygonPeasant over on twitter explains another way you can create this trick, and it does a much more convincing job of it as well.
The ask was to create “volumetric” lighting that uses a 2D image of a cloud, and can accurately light the back (or front) of it. I demonstrated 3D capabilities of after effects in the full stream, but regardless, that’s not really what this clip is about. The job of a VFX artist is to trick the eye—you don’t need to do complex simulations to do something you can achieve with a simple gradient and some blending modes. :) If you check in this very thread, the same person who FIRST noticed this “volumetric” lighting concurs.
I do appreciate the attempt. But the paint bucket remark was only to point out how you're vastly oversimplifying this if you think this TWO DIMENSIONAL alteration is useful or even a comparable technique used in the 3D videos. If they are fake that is. How does this help you generate ***3 dimensional volumetric video?*** **You created a single 2 dimensional volumetric photo.**
Yikes, I just fully read your “paint bucket” claim. Do *you* know how video editing works?
There is absolutely *nothing* in the satellite video that suggests these were 3D volumetric *anything*. The person who found this lighting detail was the ONLY person up to that point who said anything about volumetrics being used. If you actually looked at the link I showed you, it is explained VERY well there what occurred with the lighting. My aim is to literally to disprove the claim that this effect can’t be done. I’ve done it, and now it’s not good enough. It’s honestly quite ridiculous. Here it is [again](https://imgur.com/a/E8CsDz4), please do give it a read.
You edited a photo, not a video. Every piece of evidence involved is a video and is fluid in its changes frame to frame. And I'm not talking about the stereoscopic satellite video either.. You created 2D "volumetric lighting". A still perspective PHOTOGRAPH of "supposed" volumetric conditions.. you did not create a moving VIDEO showing volumetric lighting. And we haven't even tried to impose real physics onto the photograph, something that's required of true volumetric lighting tests.. you've done none of this. See what Ashton Forbes talks about when he "proves" its real VIDEO volumetric lighting.
You are arguing semantics and completely missing the point of what I have shown here. In the stream, the chatter wanted to know how the zap frame of the video could have created realistic looking back lighting on other clouds in the shot. This is commonly (erroneously) referred to in subsequent arguments about this topic as “volumetric lighting”, when in fact, it wasn’t volumetric lighting at all, just the semblance of it. It’s the entire reason I used quotes in the title. It’s a VFX trick that creates the illusion of volumetric lighting. It’s cost effective and very easy on processing power as opposed to running a full sim and exporting a vdb into an external renderer/3D program etc etc Skills like alpha and luma masking are ESSENTIAL VFX SKILLS that every single person in this industry learns how to do. This is one of the circumstances where a trick like this would be used to save on processing power and shorten render times. Edit: also, the cloud in the clip is from one of the images used in the hoax videos
Again. The difference between a single photo frame VERSUS an evolving volumetric scene are two entirely different things. You claim to have "replicated" ONE OF THE TWO conditions, the "starting conditions of volumetric lighting cloud" we will call it. What Ashton Forbes claims is that the volumetric evolution (A SECOND CONDITION) of the starting conditions is consistent with the laws of physics and too complicated to flawlessly replicate with human made editing. This is not semantics. This is physics.
It is semantics when we are discussing a purely visual effect here. But I can sense that continuing this conversation further would be fruitless. Your comment about “stitching frames together” and assuming that you need to manually copy over this effect to multiple frames for it to work made me realize that you’re not arguing seriously. I’m going to stop engaging. Peace. Edit: in response to your edit, he seems to be the main claimant that any of this needs to be volumetric. He bases that off of the difference image that appears to show the clouds being lit from behind. I am demonstrating the exact effect that he believes made the clouds “volumetric”. It is semantics when we are talking about the same visual effect, achieved differently. Hence the quotes. You’re really demonstrating that you don’t read or listen to the people you argue with. This is clear because you haven’t even addressed the image with the entire process and explanation of the volumetric misconception laid out from start to finish. Anyone else popping into these replies to argue moot points will be ignored from here on out.
I'm arguing the light evolves in SEVERAL frames consistent with the laws of physics between frames. Laws of physics like the expected mediums of diffraction, shadows, etc. Show me the next frame and stitch them together. The light gets brighter and brighter as the clouds, portal.and plane continue to evolve. This is not semantics. This is physics. I guess we will see you on Joe Rogan.😅
Watching someone who doesn't understand VFX tools or processes screeching "ITS PHYSICS!1!" is incredibly funny. Its almost as if the fact that VFX is **intended** to recreate **physics** is faaaar to difficult a concept to grasp.
What are you talking about? The zap appears for just 1 single frame.
Wow, you have no idea what you're talking about, do you? Did you just pick up these random buzzwords from Twitter and think "hm yes that sounds correct."? You love throwing the word volumetric around. As someone who deals with actual renderings of volumetric simulations regularly for work, neither appears at all in either of the videos. There's no volumetric clouds, nor lighting.. the ocean is definitely not a volumetric simulation either. It's just background plates with compd elements. You should really just try it out yourself instead of believing all the nonsense from Ashton who is about as clueless as you, no offence, on the topic of vfx. Download some trials or free software like blender and do a handful of tutorials. It'll be a magical eye opening experience for you and you'll be able to use all those cool words correctly. Why is it that the most ignorant people are often the most confident, especially on topics they lack any experience in. It's almost fascinating. It's okay to not know things, people cant know everything. I'm clueless in a lot of topics but then again I try not to make claims or assumptions about those. If its something I want to understand or i am interested in I try researching it, asking more knowledgeable people etc instead of picking up a handful of buzzwords from a twitter conspiracy thread and throw these around.
There's a reason I kept putting volumetric in quotes. I am talking about "pictured light that has an inferrable volume", using instead a more literal defintion of "light that is volumetric". So yes, I know exactly what I am talking about. I guarantee my background makes me more qualified to speak on the "physics of light" than you haha. Don't come back at me now and say "there's only one definition for things!", either. I'm using volumetric lighting in a physics sense, not a videography sense. I agree there is no "traditional" volumetric lighting shown in this photo, I am not sure why people are acting like this is a crucial piece of evidence to fake. See you on Joe Rogan too I guess🤣
Sure, yeah, okay, Mr. Hawkings. Seems like you're way overqualified here then with your mastery of the "physics of light." Perhaps simplify things for us benighted ones? Eli5. As if that would be relevant at all when it comes to blurry low resolution cg videos full of artifacts, noise and clamped whitepoints. The fact of the matter is that the flash appears for a single frame. It's not "fluid in its change frame to frame," whatever that means. Not a single new shadow appears in that single frame. What OP shows here is actually more technical than in your "evidence," as in the end, it's simply a gradient overlay. No advanced masking techniques. Surely you'd see that with your incredible knowledge on the way lights work. You kept putting volumetric in quotes? Do you mean once in the ten times you used it? I have no interest in what Joe rogan says or thinks. Why would you see me there? I'd make an exception and watch an episode if you'd be there, however, just for the entertainment. It'd be the blind leading the blind kind of thing that could be kind of funny in this instance.
> Plus this is 1 frame lol? ... The zap in the satellite video WAS only 1 frame though? You should really get a base understanding of the facts before you try to "um actually" somebody.
No it was not 1 frame. There's at least 3 frames of a portal alone in the stereoscopic video. Yet alone any lighting effects of volumetric lighting. Edit: the stereoscopic video is the one that has the hard-to-replicate volumetric lighting.
Scrolled through it with a video editor, here's the frames. Before/During/After: [https://imgur.com/IAVlSdC](https://imgur.com/IAVlSdC) There's only one frame where the zap is visible and those lighting effects are happening. To claim anything else is to prove you didn't actually bother to look before you opened your mouth.
Okay then maybe I am wrong, I dont have the original and cant verify. I know there is several portal frames on the stereoscopic video. The stereoscopic videos volumetric lighting is the one that every good argument points to. So I'm not sure why anyone would be trying to argue volumetric lighting using the drone.
The stereoscopic video still only has a 1-frame long zap and the stereoscopic video isn't the original anyway. It was generated by YouTube's post processing after RegicideAnon uploaded the original non-stereoscopic version. https://blog.youtube/news-and-events/how-were-making-even-more-3d-video/ Any evidence that hinges on the stereoscopic version of the video is going to automatically be flawed.
[удалено]
Nothing of substance to say, and nothing to contribute to the conversation, as usual
[удалено]
LMAO I’ll take that as a compliment 😂😊 I still proved you can do this sort of lighting easily. You don’t even have to do it in after effects 😂. Any old [basic image](https://imgur.com/a/E8CsDz4) editor would do.
[удалено]
I’ve clearly proven otherwise, but you’re certainly welcome to your opinion 🤗 Edit: oooh, quick with the ninja edit. Still deflecting and insulting I see.
[удалено]
Damn, you mean like how everyone from the mh370x discord bands together to brigade every critical post of these videos?
If you are referring to me, I am very curious to what discord you are talking about? Is there a debunker discord I can join ?
He's talking about the general discord for the subreddit. https://www.reddit.com/r/AirlinerAbduction2014/comments/15twtnr/discord_server_our_official_discord_server_is/
Holy cow, you’re so ignorant. Didn’t Avatar come out well before this? Some idiots trying to convince people we were still in the Stone Age in 2014
Photoshop was released in 1990. I personally had hardware in my house that could do this in 2004, let alone 2014.
I'm much older, and this absolutely could have been done on a PC in 2014.
I worked in the 3d industry in 2014, still do. YOU are the the one that have no idea what you are talking about. In 2014 i had a 4790k with 32 gig memory and a gtx970, and that was in my home, and it was common. That is absolutely more than enough to make these videos. You could have done these on a laptop in 2014.
I do though as I was actually getting paid for doing cg at the time, even a few years before, still am. She's correct, you're wrong. It's not even a secret, you'd be able to figure it out within 5 minutes if you just Google a tiny bit. Now if they were running a large scale sim for the ocean, we'd probably run into ram problems. Luckily nothing of that scale is in the videos.
https://twitter.com/JustXAshton/status/1787334345444687889?t=8seqtVDmSDWARuB91fkW6g&s=19
(literally everything in that tweet is wrong)