The VFX does not disprove the UAP MH370 plane footage – This is why (TW: physics)

Generate New Template

public (1567) , uap (1561) , disclosure (1383) , ufo (1296) , transparency (1220) , government (1066) , information (1011) , disinformation (943) , ufos (919) , campaign (862) , congress (769) , people (678) , phenomena (648) , national (632) , urge (586) , regarding (565) , issue (565) , unidentified (561) , security (538) , truth (506) , american (506) , support (503) , potential (498) , know (477) , trust (469) , uaps (467) , writing (462) , accountability (461) , time (424) , scientific (410) , intelligence (381) , understanding (370) , act (363) , rep (357) , members (354) , defense (331) , action (314) , efforts (311) , research (310) , committee (309) , objects (302) , related (301) , legislation (297) , house (290) , secrecy (288) , oversight (286) , template (283) , ndaa (282) , concern (280) , being (274) ,

edit: The upvote rate is 39%. If you found this relevant and informative, please upvote.

Disclaimer: I do not have a professional background in physics and am open to being proven incorrect. I’ve written this elsewhere but someone told me to post it as a thread for exposure.

This is a response to this thread:

I will also be citing this post by /u/genflagen here:


Firstly – the VFX is not an exact match. It is a similar match. Other users have overlayed it and pointed out it only KINDA matches parts of the portal. This means it is not that asset.

My claim is that the similarity should not be surprising, but expected. In fact a wormhole should cause something visually similar to other physical phenomena and therefore it is not debunked. There are many things in nature that pyromania looks almost identical to.

Why? Let me explain:

What else is a similar match?

This supernova overlayed with the footage: Credit: /u/genflugan

Drops of paint on paper:

The initial moment a pebble is dropped into water:

If you could slice an in-air explosion in half, you’d see the same physics of force being dispersed. This is a 2D explosion sprite to demonstrate.

Look familiar?

I’m told the VFX is an ignition of fuel from an overhead view. That is an explosion of force (during igniton) against a flat surface, causing the physics of force dispersion to radiate outwards in a similar manner to the above examples. Therefore it looks similar to the above examples.

Why would these be similar?

Physics happens the same between processes. Even though a supernova and a drop of paint on paper are totally different, the physics of how force disperses is exactly the same.

In fact, you could reasonable deduce that in a 2D dimension, a drop of paint (minus splatter due to that being 3D matter bouncing) is exactly how an explosion would look in a 2D universe from above.We’ve never encountered a 2D universe but scientists are able to theorize how things may appear using this logic.

Often, to teach physics, analogies are used as demonstrations. Why? Because even if they’re different setups, they still use the same reoccurring physical properties of the universe.

Video 1You may be familiar with this demo where a teacher placed a heavy object on a tarp and recreates elliptical orbit that occurs between moons, planets, and stars.

Video 2 – Here is a wave demo which shows the radiation of force. Water waves can also be used to explain how sound moves and bounces, even though water and sound are different. Why? Because they’re both the same process of energy radiating.

You may also notice that it looks similar to the VFX shape and the above shapes when the ripples are subtracted.

A Supernova, explosion, paint drop, whatever will generally look the same because they occur using the same physics of how force will move through a medium.

Unsurprisingly eventually a VFX out of countless VFXs showing the same physical phenomenon will look similar to the UAP wormhole.

you think we would know how a wormhole looks like?

You can logically deduce how it may look like. It would look like two blackholes, one on each side of the opening. There would be distortions. However, I’m arguing for the moment captured, which is more likely the initial ‘ignition’ of the hole being made.

If you imagine a body of water to be layered 2D planes or perhaps just one 2D plane folded so as to create a 3D shape, a pebble being suddenly dropped through the water from a higher level in the water would create a similar physics scenario as a wormhole. In this case, the pebble would be the hypothetical bubble of space around the airplane formed which was then thrust through or punched through folded 3D space.

You fold a 2D plane into a 3d shape (like the water has depth) and the wormhole punctures it to create what look like two black holes either end. The initial punch through would be analogous to the above examples.

Figure 1folding a 2D universe

Figure 2 – side view of how the plane (in a bubble) would appear colliding with folded space time. Arrows are directions of force.

side view

figure 3 – overhead view of the same occurrence

Overhead view of figure 2. Look familiar?

The physics would LOOK the same. What we don’t understand is how to do it, but you are puncturing space time and going through it like a pebble puncturing water and going through it.

So similarly it would have the same physics and therefore the same look as inkplots and supernovas, even if it’s a totally different process.

Because the VFX posted as a debunk attempt are not an exact match but look similar, this does not debunk it. Because punching through folded space time should have a similar physical setup to the above, it should cause a similar looking dispersion of force.


Countless attempts at debunking have been also debunked. This seems to be an effective attempt because it’s playing on people’s general lack of physics understanding.

As user /u/wihdinheimo wrote:

Comment source:

This VFX debunk is not a smoking gun and OBJECTIVELY there is more proven bizarrely accurate than anyone anticipated.

As it turns out, multiple radically different occurrences in nature look the same due to physics being the same. It should be emphasized that the pyromaniac asset is again not an exact match, but being a similar physics process, it is literally 100% guaranteed to be similar looking.

However, I could be totally incorrect and someone with better physics understanding than me could explain how I’m right or wrong.

submitted by /u/Gold_DoubleEagle
[link] [comments]  

Read More