Ashton Forbes challenges the MH370 official narrative, arguing that missing black boxes and absent SOSA acoustic detections refute a rogue flight into the South Indian Ocean. He proposes a lithium-ion battery fire caused depressurization, forcing pilots to attempt a low-altitude emergency landing near Penang rather than suicide, supported by witness accounts of glowing orange smoke and a recovered fire suppression device in the Maldives. While Corridor Crew's Nico Perringer claims the alleged satellite footage is fake VFX using 1990s stock clips, Forbes counters with technical discrepancies in parallax and lighting, asserting the videos prove a classified event where survival was impossible due to toxic smoke and lack of swimming skills among passengers. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, WAV2VEC2_ASR_BASE_960H, sat-12l-sm, script v26.04.01, and large-v3-turbo
Time
Text
Healthcare IT Background00:03:32
All right, Ashton Forbes.
Thanks for coming, man.
Hey, Danny.
Nice to meet you.
Nice to be here.
Yeah, yeah.
I'm excited to talk to you today.
Like I said, I listened to Julian's podcast that he recorded with you last week.
It was really well done.
He was very skeptical, as people should be when they're going through this stuff.
I'm excited to go through it with you here.
But for people who aren't or may not be familiar with this missing flight, Malaysia 370, that disappeared in 2014, what is the official.
Narrative of what happened to that plane that disappeared, and how did you get interested in it?
And maybe even before we go into that, like let's talk about your background.
Where did you come from?
What do you do for a living?
And how long have you been like an investigator?
Yeah, I've only really been an investigator for about three months.
So, you know, what I like to say is I'm nobody special, I am just passionately curious, which is an Albert Einstein quote.
And I've always been interested in plane crashes, mysterious plane incidents, just because I have a fear of flying.
My background is actually in healthcare IT.
I'm an analyst, consultant, database architect, whatever you want to call it.
But maybe that analytical mindset has kind of led me to be a good person that would actually be able to dig into this investigation and figure out what really happened.
I think what we're dealing with here is potentially the biggest, largest verifiable conspiracy of all time.
The official story of this plane makes very little sense.
They have this plane going dark 40 minutes after it takes off, it flies over Malaysia.
The government doesn't send any jets to track it.
This plane goes into the Andaman Sea.
They lose track of it.
They just let it drift off into somewhere where we don't know where it went.
And then the official story says this plane turns into the South Indian Ocean.
This entire narrative is built on these Immerstadt pings, which weren't released right away.
They waited weeks and weeks and weeks to release them to the public.
You know, you'd think if we're trying to get to the bottom of mystery to find out where this plane went, you'd make that data available right away.
So this narrative got built that, well, this pilot must have taken control of the plane, must have flown it rogue.
Output transcript Out into the South Indian Ocean, and then supposedly crashes it along what they call the seventh arc, which is the last ping that the satellite got from the plane.
And this ping is somewhere down near Australia.
Now, the problem is we looked over there and we didn't find anything.
So, as we'll dig into here today, we're going to present an alternative theory, a theory that is supported by more evidence than any other theory to date, one that will present a fire scenario, an emergency event where this pilot isn't somebody to be vilified, they're potentially a hero.
Who's trying to save the plane in a doomed situation?
And then it's going to get a lot crazier than that.
So, your background's in healthcare IT.
What specifically do you do?
Are you like you're running the computers that this healthcare company works on and operates on, the software programs, or like what exactly is entailed in that job?
I can't speak much about my job because I don't have a media clearance to speak about exactly what I do.
What I can say is I do have a government clearance that is top secret, as I'm told, related to what I do.
Doesn't have anything to do with UAPs, doesn't have anything to do with advanced technology or anything that we're going to see in these videos.
But like I said, my job I would consider to be like a database architect.
And I've done this job for over 18 years now at this point.
Did you go to school for this kind of stuff?
I'm a business major, actually.
Oh, really?
So I was a marketing and finance and international business major.
Reddit Confrontations and Bans00:09:49
I was always interested in economics, but I did love science.
It's just that the math side of it gets to be a lot for me.
So I've followed physics and the kind of advanced physics concepts and experiments that have been put out there.
especially over the last five, six years that I got interested in the UAP field since the DoD Navy footage that was released.
What do they call it?
The gimbal and the go fast, et cetera.
So like 2017?
Yeah, around 2017 is when I started to realize that, huh, maybe there's something to that in general.
And I started looking into the physics behind it, which is going to become very relevant when we start digging into the videos today.
All right, I'm going to keep this short and sweet.
This is my first time ever asking the YouTube audience for help, but with the YouTube algorithm constantly changing and evolving, I'm left with no choice.
These podcasts are only getting shown to a very small percentage of our YouTube subscribers.
And the only way to fix that is if people are subscribing on the videos.
That being said, if you are enjoying these podcasts and you want to help me create more of them and make them better, I ask you to please hit the subscribe button below.
I would not be able to do this if it wasn't for every single one of you.
And that's the bottom line.
Thank you for watching and supporting the show.
Hit the subscribe button if you enjoy it.
Now, back to the show.
And so, when you.
For the last 18 years, you've been working for this company.
You've just sort of been like paying attention to this stuff as a hobby, looking at it on Twitter.
And like, are you have you always been pretty active on Twitter and Reddit?
I was actually not active at all on Twitter for the most part.
My Twitter account dates back to when I used to play like video games and stuff like that in 2014.
And it was pretty much went dark until I started looking at these videos a few months ago.
And my job situation like, I've worked on not necessarily at the exact same company for that 18 years, but in the same field, I would say, in various aspects.
And then with respect to Reddit, you know, I used to have a Reddit account when Reddit first kind of originated.
And I think that the like how social media has morphed so much now to a point where it used to be a thing where you could go there and find the news like two days before you see it on TV.
Whereas now you go there and it's like, I don't know the exact opposite of that, but most of it, like you go there and you're not being educated in terms of what's coming on the news anymore.
You're being told what to think.
So I ended up deleting my Reddit account several years ago and I created a new one.
just for this case to kind of help get the information out there.
And that's why people will see my account and they'll see, oh, it says it was created in 2020.
It says your name is additional ad.
Well, it's because somebody else used my email account.
I have a very common email account name.
And so like some bot or something used it.
And as far as I can tell, you can't change your name.
So my account is relatively new, but it shows like it's been out there since 2020.
And you said you got, you had to deal with some sort of suppression on there.
Yeah.
So like this case originated on Reddit.
And it originated from social media.
Around August 7th, August 8th, depending on what your time zone is, these videos reemerged.
They had been posted several times before, most recently in January, and they've been proven to date back to 2014 on the internet archives.
I actually remember seeing one of the videos back in 2014 when I was just interested in looking into the situation, not as an investigator or anything like that.
So when I saw the second video and I realized that they're both in sync on Reddit, me, like many other people, hundreds, if not thousands of other people from the community, started digging into them.
finding out like, well, you know, can we verify certain aspects of these?
So for over, I would say, 11 days or so, that was every single post on the UFO subreddit was about these videos.
People trying to debunk them, people trying to authenticate them.
And that's when I started to like save all of those threads and started posting them on Twitter because I thought this information was pertinent and I didn't see anybody else really posting it on Twitter.
And so eventually it got suppressed.
There was a debunk that came out.
Yes, a one day old account posted a an image from a software claiming that this effect that we're going to see in our videos supposedly came from this low quality 90s video game and that got bot upvoted to the top of red.
It had all these awards given to it.
The comments were extremely suspicious in the thread mentioning, oh thank god we don't have to talk about this anymore.
The account was one day old, it's called ICY Slide, which actually stands for it's a play on words which can just mean Intelligence Community Forum Sliding, And so it's a very suspect account.
It didn't answer any questions at all.
This thread was actually used to shut down the conversation on Reddit entirely.
So the moderators of that subreddit banned all discussion of it and they pushed it to a new subreddit that was called Airliner Abduction 2014, which is a really weird name for a subreddit related to an MH370 case.
They moved it from the UFO subreddit to its own subreddit.
Exactly.
And the people that run that subreddit are not people who are trying to solve the case, they are people who are trying to get it to go away.
As far as I can tell, they're people that are related to.
Debunk forums that are out there that are trying to prove that it might not be real.
And so I created my own subreddit.
It was called MH370X, which is the name of the organization I started on Twitter as well to try to solve the mystery of the case here.
And the same day that I revealed my identity, and I knew that when I would reveal my full identity, that there would be attacks, I didn't realize they would just ban my whole subreddit the same exact day without any warning, without really any justified cause.
I think that they said I violated the moderator code of conduct, which is like, Pretty hard to believe on Reddit where like people just get banned for posting on certain subreddits from other subreddits with no rational reason whatsoever.
You violated the moderator code of conduct.
Did they say what part of it, how you violated it?
Not only did they not say when I appealed, first of all, they didn't respond to my first appeal for over seven days.
And then they told me to like put in a new appeal.
So I put in a new appeal and I get a response the next day saying, yeah, we're not going to unban your subreddit, but we can't give you a reason why.
It's like, why can't you give a reason why?
That's absurd, right?
But can you still post on Reddit?
Yeah, so I can, but they've been banning me as well.
I would get bans for three days for harassment, where I've never harassed anybody before.
Why would they ban you for harassment?
I think it's for messaging the moderators in general.
The moderators of those various subreddits hate me with a passion of a thousand sons.
I think it's due to the fact that when I first started posting on that airliner abduction subreddit, I wanted to get real information out there because I saw so much misinformation being posted on the subreddit.
I could realize that, in my opinion, That their goal was to make it so that the case never got solved, that nobody was putting real information out there.
So I started posting my information.
I'm the number one contributor of that subreddit.
I have the top post on that subreddit.
They ended up banning me from the subreddit.
And they started putting tags on my content because other people started posting my content there.
And they started putting potential scammer tags on anything that was related to me.
Right now, they actually have a ban on my name on that subreddit.
If you post anything with my name in it, your content automatically gets removed.
So this just goes to show you that.
The level of suppression that's currently out there.
Because what it comes down to is if you have somebody out there telling the truth and really trying to solve the case, it's the exact opposite of what they're trying to do out there.
So they claim they banned you for sending messages to the moderators of these subreddits.
What kind of messages were you sending them?
Were you sending them, was it like very polite or was it a little bit harsh?
Yeah, originally it was pretty polite, you know, in terms of like, why are you letting people harass me?
Because there's people constantly harassing me on those forums and I would report them and nothing would happen.
And, you know, then their response is, well, you need to, you know, Let people criticize you and stuff like that.
And that's in much harsher terms, is the way they would phrase it very flippantly as well.
And so, when they started posting the potential scammer stuff, that's when I just straight up said, Hey, if you don't remove this, I'm going to send you a cease and desist.
I'm going to find out who you guys are.
This is defamation.
You know, this is not cool that you're doing this to me.
Because, you know, I'm not a public figure.
I mean, maybe I am now.
I don't know how that really works.
But I think that the idea where you can just like try to tag people with this stuff is like stuff like that's inappropriate.
So, I actually did send a cease and desist to Reddit.
And then the same day they received it, they removed that tag entirely.
And so they claim that that's me like threatening them.
I guess, like, if, you know, defaming somebody and telling us, like, letting them know that, like, being defamed is not cool as a threat, then, you know, maybe they're right.
But in my opinion, it's just a matter of, like, defending my good name and my reputation.
Okay.
Yeah.
So, all right.
So you got deep into this thing on Reddit, obviously, got into some confrontations with the people that were monitoring these subreddits.
And from there, that's kind of when this thing spiraled and you started to.
How did you start to really get attention on social media for the stuff that you were looking into regarding this case?
Yeah, so I'd say probably about three or four days into the case, when some of the users had recognized that what we were looking at in the satellite video was potentially a Citrix session logged in to the actual spy satellite database, was when I had also been looking at it and I realized that, well, this video is not taken by a camera.
It's not like cameras behind them, like we have going on here in the studio.
It's not like a camera phone staring at it as well.
And that's why I realized, like, wow, this is actually somebody who got caught.
Like, you're not going to be able to hide this information.
Trusting Mainstream Media00:06:23
Can you define what a Citrix session is?
Yeah.
So, most companies, as far as every company I've ever worked for, and I think all big companies for the most part, like if you log into your laptop or whatever, you usually log into a Citrix session to access their database.
Their database is in a remote location.
And when you're logging into that, you have to tunnel into it.
That's what these Citrix sessions allow you to do.
Like, what's that program people use to remotely access other people?
Team Viewer, something like that?
It could be similar to that, yeah.
But in this case, usually it's like you have a business that has a big centralized database and you want to have people log into it.
And usually what that means is that your computer is just like a window into the house, right?
Okay.
And that's probably the best analogy for it.
Even when I went to school, you would log into a Citrix session on whatever computers were available, and now you're logged into your school's network.
Okay, I understand now.
So it's like that.
And so when we saw that, I realized, wow, because I knew that most people would try to debunk these videos with prosaic explanations.
Oh, it looks like a balloon or whatever.
But once you've proven that the base videos are real because this person was logged into a Citrix session, now it pretty much eliminates any situation where someone says, that doesn't look right.
Because now you've proven that, oh, the base footage at minimum is real at this point, potentially even more than that.
So that's when I really started to get, I guess, activist about it and become a citizen journalist and start writing about it and say, okay, So, the jump off for you was when you saw these two videos.
Yeah.
And then, you know, when I had enough information to realize that, oh, this might not be, you know, fake anymore.
And so I actually made a post on Twitter, and that's the platform I chose to use initially, in part because I knew Elon Musk had taken it back over.
I'd read the Twitter files.
I knew that the government might be more disconnected from it than they were before.
I'm certain that if we were under old Twitter leadership, my account would have been banned a long time ago.
Likely.
Like I'm 100% sure.
Yeah.
So, you know, and actually, I trusted the media to take this kind of over from me.
There's all my posts out there.
You can read them.
I think it was August 14th, the day I made the post about begging the media to take this story.
I figured there'd be journalists out there that would report it.
The TV stations would report it.
And nobody did.
Nobody still has reached out to me to this day, right now.
No TV stations, none of the news channels, nothing, nothing mainstream, no newspaper publications have ever talked about these videos.
There were a couple articles posted one in the Daily Star and one in the Daily Mail.
Could be wrong.
Or it may have been the Sun.
But as far as I know, only two articles have been written at all ever about it.
Neither of those people reached out to me either.
Nobody has ever reached out to me other than alternative media, which I think is odd because mainstream media will report on a lot of fake stuff.
The one article, the thing I like to talk about is the Las Vegas alien sighting from the kid and his family.
Like that got so much reporting, right?
And they just made this kid look like silly, right?
So they're not afraid to go and just, you know, ridicule somebody.
But when it comes to me, when I have all this evidence lined up, right, they're too afraid to even bring it up, which to me adds a level of credibility.
It tells me that.
These videos probably are classified information, and that either they are being told not to look into it because of that, or there might be people telling them, Hey, don't look into this.
This is fake, blah, blah, blah, when it's potentially not.
I can only speculate, but what I do know is that I can't really trust the mainstream media and those channels to report on it fairly, which is why I'm here talking to people like you as opposed to going to any of them.
And you will not see me on any of those as well.
So on August 14th, I decided, I told my followers, if they don't want to report on it, we'll be the ones to do it.
And I said that we would get disclosure on our timetables and we wouldn't let anybody else set the narrative, which I think to this date, I have lived up to that promise.
Have you gotten any sort of pushback or like flack from the company you work for?
Because I'm sure people there have seen you in the media or on podcasts and stuff like that.
What do they say about you doing all this stuff?
Are they cool with it?
Yeah.
I mean, right away, when I dug into this early on, I made sure I was covered from all my company.
That's why I said the thing about not having a media release.
But as long as I'm doing it on my own time, It's totally fine.
I've talked to all my bosses.
I've let my company know hey, if you get weird calls from people, you know, go to the authorities.
Like people might try to troll, whatever they might try to do, get me in trouble or something.
So I haven't got any pushback on that.
You know, as long as I'm using my own time off and what have you, you know, I'm just coming to you here today as an independent person, not related to my company in any way, shape, or form.
And some people in my company know, like they've seen, you know, and they've reached out to me, like, oh, I didn't realize that was you, blah, blah, blah.
Right.
And it's like, yeah, it's kind of fun, whatever.
But I understand the reality of the situation is that.
Because of the magnitude of what we're dealing with and this conspiracy, and then what we'll see from these videos and the technology potentially, there's a good portion of people in all of America that will not be able to accept them to be real.
And so that's why you don't see me going into Starbucks being like, guys, guys, I'm H370.
And I don't do the same thing with people at my company, right?
You know, people want to talk to me about it.
Sure, we can talk about it in private.
But I'm not out there trying to force people to believe any certain thing.
Like, I just want to present the evidence and have people come to their own terms of what they think it means.
Right.
Now, I watched the documentary on Netflix about this whole.
Thing.
And I think that came out maybe a year ago in 2022.
Is that right?
I think it was actually like March of 2023.
It wasn't even that long ago.
People try to tie it to this, but they're not tied at all.
These videos came out or they reemerged four or five months later.
It's interesting that at no point in that documentary did they mention any of these videos.
Have you talked to anybody involved in producing that documentary or any of the investigators that were part of it?
Yeah, I think every single investigator I've talked to probably firsthand directly.
So Jeff Wise, the woman Cindy who claims she saw debris from the satellite picture.
She's the lady in Florida.
Yep.
Yep.
I've talked to her on a space on Twitter one time.
Jeff Wise, I've gone back and forth with on Twitter several times.
Florence DeChangy, I've chatted with a number of times as well.
My opinion is that the only one I really find credible is probably Florence DeChangy, interestingly enough.
Why is she the only one that you think is credible?
Well, Jeff has been doing a podcast himself related to the developments recently, and I've kind of followed along with it.
Lithium Battery Explosion Theory00:09:10
I think he's a very intelligent guy, and I believe he's a pilot and knows a lot of technical information, but I think that he falls victim to it.
To the same levels of propaganda that I've seen from mainstream media and potentially even from places like Reddit as well.
For him in particular, my opinion is that back in 2014, 2016, everything was about how bad Russia is and probably still is to this day, but going all the way back to Crimea, et cetera.
And so that in his mind, he just thinks that Russia has to be somehow involved with this.
And I think that takes away a little bit from his credibility.
And I saw him talk about the videos actually one time as well.
And like many people who can't come to terms with the evidence, they lead to ridicule.
Like, oh, it's just so silly that this could be possible.
But when you dig into the evidence, it's like, no, this is actually the most plausible scenario.
It uses more evidence than any other theory to date.
It doesn't discount almost any evidence except for some Immerstadt pings after a very specific time.
So for him, you know, I think he's a smart guy.
I hope he kind of comes around because the commonality all these people have, I think, is that they realize there's something wrong with the official story.
It doesn't add up.
Now, Jeff Wise, he's the one who came up with the theory that the Russians on the plane, the three Russians, potentially hijacked it, going through the computer, the panel in the floor in the first class cabin, and then somehow connected their computer to it and then routed the plane remotely through their computer to Kazakhstan, or something like that.
Yeah, and I can't really speak for him and his theory, but my understanding is that yes, he thinks the plane somehow got to Russia and the main problem with that is there would have been a number of radars that would have caught it right, not basically radars that are people that are going to cover up for Russia either.
So that's the biggest issue with this theory, in my opinion.
Plus, there's been a lot of speculation of whether or not you can actually uh, remote control a plane.
I looked into it a lot.
I can't tell one way or another.
I think that I saw the debunks that said you can't.
But if we're talking about the technology that we're going to be talking about here in these videos, which are potentially what I like to call, refer to as teleportation, if the government has that kind of capability, then remote controlling a plane seems like small peanuts in comparison.
So there may be some merit to some of those ideas.
But if we're talking about passengers taking over the plane, I'm not looking at the Russians on board.
I'm looking at the two fake Iranian passengers that were on stolen passports that had changed their appearance to look more like the people in the passports that they were using.
That seems like a much more plausible hijacking scenario to me.
So I think a lot of his stuff breaks down.
So, can you explain what that is, real quick?
What's the story with the two Iranians with the fake passports?
Yeah.
So, there were two Iranians that were using stolen passports where they had, like, there was a press conference where the real guy shows up with his real passport, going, I wasn't on that plane, right?
And they've got pictures of these guys in the airports.
And they can tell that, like, they actually look a little bit like the real guy.
Like, they had changed their facial appearance to, you know, look more like them.
They had cloned these guys' passports.
No, they had stolen them.
Like they had gotten stolen passports and then they had bought those stolen passports.
They were spending thousands, if not tens of thousands of dollars on the stolen passports and the tickets.
The cover story here is that from the official narrative, these guys were Iranian refugees in Kuala Lumpur who were trying to get to Amsterdam.
Now, the problem with that is there's a direct flight from Kuala Lumpur to Amsterdam.
So, this idea that you're going from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing, going through another country, not just another country, but China, to get to Amsterdam, doesn't really add up.
The issue here is that I don't have a good way to connect this to the plane unless you believe in this hijacking scenario, in which case, in a post 9 11 world, I can't understand how these guys aren't.
Suspects number one and two, right?
Because in a hijacking scenario, it's like I'm looking for the fake passengers first, right?
The people who are on stolen passports that are with Iran.
That's a red flag.
Iran actually hijacked an RQ 170 spy drone in 2011, as well as three years before this.
They hacked it and landed it, and then they made their own versions of it.
It looks like just like an advanced drone that's like a triangle almost that can fly for very long periods of time, autonomous vehicle.
And I've actually seen the versions that I ran made as well, and they look very similar to the RQ 170.
So, if there is an espionage angle to what's at play here, definitely need to be looking into those two guys for sure.
They got dismissed as not being part of it within like three days of the plane going missing.
And that's why I barely even remembered it.
I had to go dig back to the old kind of like early news articles about it to even remember these guys were out there.
Yeah.
Now, I remember you and Julian talking about it.
For full disclosure, Julian's podcast with you has not come out yet.
It'll probably be about another week.
I listened to just the audio of it he sent me, and you guys were getting into some of the arguments in regards to how possible it would be for this plane to be hijacked and get through the pilot door.
What specifically was the theory you guys were picking apart there?
Well, I think the issue is if somebody hijacks the plane, are they going to be able to keep everybody out?
And how are they going to disable everybody?
Right?
So there are two major thoughts here and complications.
First, you got to depressurize the plane and make everybody pass out.
First, to be clear, you don't think it was hijacked.
No, I think there's no chance that it was hijacked.
I think what we're dealing with is an emergency situation related to the lithium ion batteries fire that came about.
And I think that when it comes to the pilot's suicide angle, there's nothing within the entire flight path that indicates that.
When somebody is suiciding a plane, and I think the best example would be the German Wings guy from 2015.
I actually looked into this since that podcast.
He locks out the co pilot.
And they actually changed the policies after that so that you can't have just one person in the cockpit anymore.
He crashed that plane within 10 minutes.
So I think the big thing here is how long would it take to get into the cockpit?
And the issue is that even if you can't get in there right away, eventually there's going to be a way to get in.
Really?
And so what I found out from digging into it is there's a computer, there's a programmer override where you can punch in a code and you can get in.
Now they can, the person on the inside can disable that temporarily.
Like they can say no, right, on it, which is ideas to prevent people from hijacking and getting in there.
Jeff Wise actually argued that from the electronics bay, you can disable the door or lock essentially.
So, you might have the technical capability, especially if it's a crew, to be able to go in there and disable the door.
Again, that might be something that's going to take a little bit longer, though, right?
And that's why this time frame is so important is that, okay, maybe you can keep people out for 10 minutes, 20 minutes, 30 minutes, or whatever, but eventually people are going to find a way to get through there.
They're going to break down the wall if they have to.
In fact, if you depressurize the plane, I found out there's some panels that will break out.
And they do so intentionally because they want to equalize the pressure between the passengers' area and the crew area.
And that's for a specific purpose, I guess.
But the idea there is if there's panels breaking out, you're going to break through those panels and you're going to get into the cockpit, right?
So I think there are several ways where you'd be able to MacGyver your way into the cockpit, whether or not that door is steel reinforced or what have you.
And that's not even taking into account that you've got 200 people that might be able to, you know, jam one of those carts through it and eventually break it down as well.
So in a scenario where it's a very short period of time, I think that the hijacking scenario and whatever makes sense.
But again, if it's a suicidal pilot scenario, they're just going to crash the plane into the ocean right away.
They're going to do a German wings situation where they're going to crash it into a mountain within 10 minutes.
They're not going to go on a six hour plus joyride with everybody in the back of the plane.
Then you might say, okay, well, you depressurize it.
I think that when people lie, they usually add an element of truth, which is why what I think happened was a lithium ion battery explosion that did depressurize the plane.
Now, in that situation, if you're trying to take out everybody, you want to fly very high.
The higher you are up, the quicker hypoxia is going to take over people.
But we have witnesses that saw the plane flying very low, eight witnesses, in fact, 10 minutes after this happened, which is counterintuitive to that scenario.
Now, in addition to that, the crew oxygen is limited as well.
So, we've looked into the crew oxygen.
I can't find a lot of corroborating evidence because there's not a lot of situations like this that actually happen in real life.
But the ones that I have seen, generally, this oxygen does not last as long as people would imagine it to last, mostly because you have to run it on 100% oxygen when you are in a full depressurization situation.
And that means it's going to drain very quickly.
So, obviously, it depends on how many people are sucking that oxygen in.
But the time estimates that I've found are anywhere from 30 minutes.
To two hours for the crew oxygen, for the crew oxygen, and so I think that's why when you look at the official narratives, they try to claim, Oh, well, maybe this plane was just flying unmanned, right?
That maybe he the guy passed out himself.
Because a big part of the problem is that if you depressurize the plane, you're putting yourself at risk as the pilot.
So I don't think that there's any plausible scenario where this plane is flying for a total of eight hours while you know, 40 minutes in it got depressurized.
You know, either the oxygen is going to run out, now you're going to lose control of the plane, it's going to crash, or the people are going to get in there.
Oxygen Depletion in Depressurization00:04:19
Eventually.
And that's my main argument, I think, against the pilot suicide narrative.
But more so, when we end up looking at why it didn't crash in the South Indian Ocean, you realize that we don't even need to cast doubt on the pilot suicide scenario because there's no evidence the plane crashed in the South Indian Ocean at all.
Right.
Right.
So, yeah.
Sorry to interrupt, but this episode of the podcast is brought to you by Verso.
We all know how important it is to get the right amount of nutrition, exercise, and sleep as we age.
It's something I'm really passionate about and have discussed at length with doctors.
And nutritional scientists on this podcast.
That is why I use Verso.
Verso is a company dedicated to translating scientific breakthroughs into products that hold the potential to increase longevity.
I take cell being every day to help combat aging by increasing my NAD levels with powerful ingredients such as NMN, trans resveratrol, and TMG.
NAD plus is arguably one of the most powerful molecules in the body, but declines with age.
Keeping NAD plus levels high helps guide longevity genes called sirtuins.
Sirtuins are called longevity genes because by activating them, they support overall health.
and slow down aging-related effects by regulating important processes inside of cells.
High NAD plus levels can improve your metabolism, repair damaged DNA, and ramp up energy production in your brain, immune system, and muscles.
Now, you can't take NAD plus as a supplement because it's too big for the cells to absorb.
But NMN directly converts to NAD plus, while resveratrol activates your sirtuins, which increases their attraction for NAD.
These two molecules act synergistically and increase your NAD plus more than just NMN on its own.
Verso also publishes third-party testing from each batch produced to absolutely guarantee you're getting what you pay for.
Head on over to ver.so and use the coupon code DANY.
It's spelled D A N N Y to save 15% off your entire order, or just go to ver.so forward slash DANY.
Back to the show.
So, okay, who is in the documentary?
There's a woman from Florida who says that she found debris, satellite images of debris of this plane in the South China Sea, right?
Yeah, Cindy.
Have you met with her and have you talked with her?
I did talk to her on a space.
It didn't last very long.
Twitter spaces?
Yeah, Twitter spaces.
And I mean, I was surprised how many people I've been connected with, honestly, on all of this stuff.
And why didn't it last long?
You know, I think we don't see eye to eye in terms of what evidence shows.
You know, I looked at her Twitter profile and I looked at those same pictures that they show on the Netflix documentary.
And some of them, the scale is okay, but on some of them, the scale doesn't match at all.
Keep in mind, a lot of those pictures are from over a week after the plane went missing.
So, in order to even believe that to be possible, there were 42 planes and 39 boats from, I think, 13 different countries that were searching.
And initially, they were searching the South China Sea.
So, for them not to find any debris in South Tennessee is just impossible.
If this plane was shot down, which I think is the claim that she makes, there's going to be debris everywhere.
This is the same reason why the plane didn't crash in the South Indian Ocean.
If a 777 crashes into the ocean, there's going to be a huge debris field.
We're going to see it from space the very next day.
We have satellites everywhere, as we'll show later today as well.
So, you know, I think she tries to match up stuff that's.
She uses prosaic explanations.
Oh, these white caps here, these other stuff I'm seeing in the ocean.
You know, if you draw triangles around it or whatever, now it looks like a piece of the plane, right?
And she superimposes pictures of the plane over it, right?
And that's not a very, let's say, you know, scientific way to go about an investigation, right?
Especially when you've had 80 planes and boats that are searching around there in total, you can maybe cover up and have somebody lie or, you know, have like the government lie, but you've got a bunch of independent people now at this point.
All these people would have to be lying and not seeing the debris or collecting it.
Not saying anything about it.
So that story falls apart really quickly.
Yeah.
I'm just really shocked that you guys didn't talk for very long.
I would imagine that she would be someone I'd want to spend a lot of time talking to her and understand her way of thinking and understand how she came to this conclusion, how she found it, exactly how she can prove how long after the flight crashed, did she find these images and when they were taken.
Acoustic Detection Discrepancies00:15:58
Like, I would want to go meet with her and spend a day with her.
Yeah.
And I think the thing there is that when you start to ask those questions, you don't get any good answers, right?
So because it starts to fall apart right away.
So, when I started asking that kind of thing.
But that's the point, right?
You want to get, even if they're not good, that's really important.
Yeah.
That's it.
Yeah.
And that's the kind of questions I begin to ask, you know.
And I, you know, I don't want to say anything mean or rude, you know, about the situation at all.
But what I will say is one of the first things she asked is whether or not I worked in the government.
And I think that's just kind of an odd thing to say in terms of what my credibility was.
And at that point, I hadn't revealed myself, funny enough.
So I have, I have a top secret clearance.
So that's why, I mean, look, Twitter's not a good place to communicate.
It's really not like that.
I would be reaching out to these people.
Independently on my own, if not in person, I probably would do it.
I mean, if I was really taking it seriously, like devoting my life to it, I would absolutely be talking to them on the phone in person, not on Twitter spaces because this just, it's so toxic on there.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And so when she mentioned that and she told me that, you know, what her job was or what have you, you know, the problem there too is that her, that story, it's not just her story, but anybody that believes this plane was, you know, crashed or shot down in the South China Sea, it doesn't match any of the evidence, like none of the evidence.
They've already, we've got radar data showing the plane going back over Malaysia.
We've got the defense minister talking about how they had an unidentified plane, which can only be MH370, that they knew was a civilian airliner, that they knew it wasn't hostile.
We've got these IMRSAT pings, which I don't think that they're all necessarily fake, but I think that there's something screwy that they did with the data there.
What's an IMRSAT ping?
So there are these satellites that are all over the world.
And in these satellites, I have an image that I can actually pull up as well on this.
These satellite pictures, they're pinging these planes every so often.
And while they're pinging these planes, there are two satellites that are in range of our plane.
There's an IOR satellite and there's a POR satellite.
So these are the overlays here that we're seeing in this image.
And when we're looking out over here near Malaysia, you can see there's overlap between the black one and the red one here.
This black one is POR, which is the Pacific Island area.
And then this IOR is the Indian Ocean one, this red one.
You can see that they overlap.
And in Malaysia here, we should be able to ping two of them.
Interestingly enough, 30 minutes before this plane takes off, it stops pinging the POR satellite entirely.
And for the rest of the flight path, the rest of the eight hours, it only pings the IOR satellite.
Why is this important?
Is if you have two different satellites pinging the plane, you can figure out exactly where it is through triangulation.
Right.
Because these pings tell you how far away the plane is from the satellite.
When you only have one, the problem is now you can tell how far away it is, but you can't tell where it is.
So now you have an arc.
And this is why they have these arcs that they have calculated where they think the plane was.
Now they don't use these until the radar data runs out.
So we have this radar data, which is probably pretty accurate in terms of where the plane went, unless you think they manipulated that as well.
And then after that is where we rely on these pings.
And this is where then Jeff Weiss says, oh, it went north.
Because you're looking at an arc and you're saying, okay, I'm going to follow the data and I'm going to say the plane went north.
Most of the other experts say, oh, no, I'm going to follow the data and the plane went south.
And that's how we get to the South Indian Ocean.
Now the problem is there, we looked everywhere, right?
We didn't find a debris field anywhere.
We looked across this seventh arc where we say this plane ran out of gas, didn't find any black boxes down there either.
So we have already a situation where it's like, huh, well, if this plane crashed there, how come we didn't find anything?
This is an active shipping route.
We look at this active shipping route and we don't find a black box.
There's no witnesses that see this plane crash down there.
What is the process of finding a black box in the vastness of the Indian Ocean?
Good question.
So these black boxes are actually rated for like 20,000 feet deep.
So this is no problem for the depth of this location here.
I think I actually posted on Twitter a piece that looks across this arc about the depths.
And it gets pretty deep in some parts, but not deep enough that we wouldn't be able to find a black box.
They have these boats and they put a wire on them with an acoustic device and you just trail them along the water.
And so I kept trying to figure out how far away would you be able to hear this from the surface, right?
The best I can find is there's some articles mentioning one or two kilometers.
So you have to be pretty close, I guess.
But the weird part is.
Wait, the thing the boat is trolling that pings the acoustics is.
How many meters away has to be from the box?
No, that part is like 20,000 feet.
20,000 feet.
Very, very far.
It can be theoretically.
But with respect to like, if you're on the surface, right, the water is really deep.
So it's like, how far?
You'd have to use like some triangulation to figure out like, okay, what's the hypotenuse here and how far can you be?
But some news articles mention, okay, one to two kilometers from the surface from where the box might be on the bottom of the ocean, pretty much.
But I have a hard time believing that because these things were transmitting, I'm going to say, I think it was.
35 megahertz or kilohertz, which is essentially people have told me, especially in the water, the sound carries really well.
And the sound that they make is unique.
Like it's not any organic, it's not similar to any whales or any other sounds that you would hear.
So you should be able to hear it very clearly.
There were a couple instances where they thought they saw it, but there's expert analysis that shows that they should have known right away.
There's no chance that these were the black boxes.
The signal they give off is too unique, too specific.
The other problems with the South Indian Ocean narrative is there's a number of acoustic sound devices that would have heard this plane crashing into the South Indian Ocean.
Mm hmm.
The one that people most commonly know about now is the SOSA system.
This is the one that heard the Titan sub that was going down near the Titanic.
They heard it pop, the Navy did.
And they didn't mention it for five days.
While everybody's sitting there watching the news and they're going, oh, how much oxygen do these guys have left at the bottom of the ocean?
And then five days later, they go, oh, yeah, we heard it.
And you know what?
We're going to send down our guys and go pick up the debris.
And I think they had the debris in under a week.
So it tells you they had pinpointed exactly where this had happened, right?
And they knew exactly where it was.
This SOSA system was declassified years ago, before even the plane crashed into the ocean, supposedly.
And they didn't hear any acoustic sounds from it.
They've never mentioned that they've heard any.
There's also two hydrophone systems.
Western Australia has a hydrophone system, which works fundamentally similar.
And Diego Garcia, a military base in the Indian Ocean, also has a hydrophone system.
That data I know has been made publicly available.
Neither of these heard the plane crash into the ocean.
There's no acoustic detections that match it.
And again, we're talking about a 777 crashing into the ocean.
So.
Definitely, they should have heard something of a crash there.
There were also 19 passengers or victims of the passenger, families of the victims of the passengers, that signed a statement claiming that they could call the cell phones of the victims for up to four days afterwards.
Now, a lot of doubt has been cast on this, claiming, like, oh, yeah, you can still, you know, the phone might ring before it goes to voicemail or you might still connect to the old cell tower.
But we've looked at the cell ranges, they don't go into the South Indian Ocean.
We've looked at the physics of it.
If your phone is under like several feet of water, You're not going to be able to get service.
If your phone is submerged in salt water for like 30 minutes, it's going to die.
I think it's very improbable that you would be able to call these phones and that many of them, 19 of them, for up to four days if they really were at the bottom of the ocean.
In fact, one of them even showed it on live television.
They actually have a video of them calling on live television, a recording of it.
So there's a ton of evidence against it.
In addition to that, these planes have four ELT transponders that are redundant.
That activate only during plane crash, none of them went off as far as we know.
So there's this huge amount of evidence that says okay, as much as people think this plane crashed in South Indian Ocean, we should have had some sign of it, not just some pings that are subjective that may have gone north, may have gone south.
There should have actually been witnesses.
There should have been a black box found.
We should have had acoustic detections that we heard.
We should have heard the ELT transmissions when it crashed into the ocean.
You know, all of this information.
The biggest one is the debris field.
There just can't not be a debris field.
Even the Wagner jet, that Wagner Russian guy whose plane was shot down or whatever, we had satellite pictures of that tiny debris field from a private jet the next day.
So it's like, that's on the land.
In the ocean, the debris is going to start spreading out.
You're going to have this huge debris field.
It's probably going to be miles wide within several days.
There's going to be bodies, luggage, parts of the plane floating everywhere.
The official search found nothing.
I'm going to repeat that.
The official search. didn't find one piece of the plane.
This debris that people think is out there that they found, this happened over a year later.
Some parts of the plane wash up on some islands, on the Reunion Islands.
I think some parts in South Africa, Madagascar.
Yeah.
And a lot of it was found by one guy in the Netflix documentary.
Yeah, that's bizarre.
Yeah, Blaine Gibson.
The Netflix documentary actually tries to cast a bad light on him.
And I think that was very unfair.
I think this is just a normal guy.
I think he really was good hearted personally.
I don't think he has these ties to Russia and he's a spy or anything like that.
That's not the impression I got from watching it, which I think is why our theory is interesting because some of this debris that was found, some of that he found, had burn marks on it.
And the parts that had burn marks on it had this unique honeycomb structure to it that's unique to Boeing planes.
So, this actually is pretty strong evidence that okay, maybe if this is from our plane, that our plane did have a fire happen.
And the debris that was found, this flapper on that they found, this is the main piece that they try to tie to the plane and say this is definitely from MH370.
The media doesn't tell you that there's a unique serial plate on these flapper on, it's missing, right?
And that so, what that means is the serial number they claim they matched was not a unique serial number.
That's just a serial number for that part.
Yes.
Right?
And sure, it could still be from MH370, especially in the scenario that we're going to present for, where maybe it burns off the plane, it falls off the plane, or maybe this plane lands somewhere else and they take the plane apart, throw a couple pieces in the ocean.
I think that's what Jeff Wise actually argues.
Right.
But the crazy thing about that guy is what's his name?
Blaine?
Yeah, Blaine Gibson.
Yeah.
Blaine Gibson is he was similar to you talking to people online who were messaging him, trying to point him in a specific direction, saying that, like, look, if there's debris, you should go here and look.
And he goes exactly where this person on the internet, this random internet person told him to go.
He travels there and within 20 minutes finds pieces of the fucking plane that nobody else had seen.
And nobody else, I mean, this is like on an active beach that, yeah.
Right.
Like this guy needs to play the lottery.
It's insane.
And then he goes somewhere else and finds many more pieces of the plane within what, like hours?
Yeah.
I think he found at least 10 pieces.
And I think overall they claim that there's been like 30 pieces found in general.
And some parts of the issue with the debris, too, is it doesn't have barnacles on a lot of it.
And this tries to get like hand waved with, like, oh, well, maybe it was on the shore for a while in the sun, like, baked the barnacles off.
But from all the barnacle analysis that I've done, which is more than I ever want to do in my life, these barnacles form like really quickly on stuff that's submerged in the water.
Okay.
So it's like, okay, well, if these are clean and they don't have any barnacles on them, like, how long were they really in the water for?
Right.
Like, the idea is kind of like it doesn't really match up with the timeline, especially if this stuff was found 18 months later.
You would imagine it's just completely covered in barnacles, right?
So I grew up.
On the ocean and around a lot of barnacles.
I've had a lot of encounters with barnacles in my life.
Every instance where I've seen barnacles, barnacle growth is on what's that sound?
Steve, is that your mic?
No.
Oh, okay.
I heard somebody breathing.
I heard like a whistling.
Anyway, so in every instance when I've seen barnacles, it's on like pilings, like dock pilings, or on something that's in shallow water away from currents that is stagnant for a long period of time.
I'm not aware of anything that floats through open ocean currents that barnacle growth happens on.
Yeah.
And I, you know, again, I'm not the expert on this, but Jeff Wise actually does like two or three pieces on the barnacle growth, especially the flapper on.
Like, in order for it to get these barnacles on it the way that it does, like he claims, well, it had to been like under the water, not at the surface, and like spinning around, like at a very specific layer in the water, which just seems very implausible to me in general.
Like, Steve, maybe you can find something like this.
Like, where do barnacles grow?
Like, what, how do What do barnacles feed on?
How do they stay alive, and what are the optimal living conditions for barnacles?
And there was another article that came out recently while I was investigating claiming that they had like new barnacle analysis based on these, like, you know, actually the temperature of certain water that claimed, oh, we'll be able to pinpoint the plane from this, which I just kept thinking about, like, this is like really like reading the tea leaves, trying to figure out, like, where are we going to reverse engineer to figure out where the plane went and went gone, right?
But I think the bigger thing that cast out on all that debris.
is that there was another copy of the plane, a lot of people don't know this, purchased by GA Telesis in October of 2013, less than six months before this plane goes missing.
This GA Telesis company has connections to the military.
Guy that started it was like in his 30s, ex-military.
All of a sudden he's in charge of this multi-billion dollar plane purchasing company.
The model that they bought, exact model of MH370, scrapped like a decade or two too early.
So there actually is potentially another plane out there that would have had similar parts.
That could have been put in the water or could have ended up in the water that could have been misconnected to MH370.
Now, again, what I would say is that the theory that we're presenting with fire and this advanced technology that we're gonna be seeing accounts for all the debris.
You know, the little amounts of debris that is out there, if you go look at the CNN picture that exists out there, it's a tiny amount.
It's just like 1% of the plane.
And if you look at all that debris and add it up, it's not like finding a whole plane, it's like finding a tiny bit of it.
Here it is right here.
So let's just look at this picture we've got here.
Okay.
The highly likely is doing a lot of heavy lifting in this picture.
If you look at the three confirmed pieces, this is just a tiny part of the wing.
They take this flap around and they take a picture of it, makes it look like it's gigantic, right?
But relative to the size of the plane, it's nothing, right?
So if you just take these three tiny pieces here, we have not found a plane.
We have definitely not found enough of a plane to say that, oh, yes, we know exactly what happened to it.
So why did this guy find this?
Why do you think this guy found this stuff?
I mean, I think that he is just a good hearted guy that went out there.
And I think that people probably just didn't look at the ocean.
There's debris.
If you go along the beach, you find a ton of junk, right?
All along the shore there.
I think that people just didn't look or know that, oh, we should probably look at this.
Because a lot of the debris, too, is just like a little triangle, right?
It looks like just some trash that might have been there.
But it clearly is part of a Boeing 777, right?
Yeah, a lot of it's like, yeah, it's clearly part of a plane, at least.
And maybe not necessarily Boeing 777, but some of it for sure, right?
And that's where I would say that.
You know, we shouldn't vilify the sky for sure.
I mean, unless we have better evidence than what we know out there.
What is this?
All right.
So I found something for you.
Ocean Debris Misinterpretation00:07:39
While most commonly found in shallow waters, shallower waters, certain species of barnacles can also thrive in deep sea environments, including.
It's so small, I can barely read it.
Including vents and cold seeps.
Yeah, hydrothermal vents.
Yeah, but so it seems that they mostly stick to shallow waters in between the high and low tide areas.
Okay.
But this does say that some.
May form in a deeper depth.
So that it might just be that it has to be, it's got to hang out like near the shore in order for barnacles to pop up.
Right.
It might be a moot point.
And how long after the plane crashed did he find that stuff?
I think it was between a year and 18 months in general, which is pretty, pretty long, right?
I mean, you would expect.
For barnacles, like for that many barnacles to grow?
Yeah.
I don't know.
I mean, we'd have to ask.
We'd have to ask how long it would take barnacle growth to happen.
But yeah, I've kind of, the whole barnacle thing in general, I think I've kind of, You know, I haven't looked into it, I haven't kind of harped on it very much because I think that the debris can be consistent with the event.
And even if it's not, then okay, I'm also not really worried about it, right?
If it is happened to be from another plane, then that opens up the door to any scenario that you want.
Well, if you followed that lead, it might take you somewhere, right?
Like, if you're not, I mean, if you followed, like, who would be responsible for putting that debris there?
Who was the guy who told him to go there?
I'd be like, have you talked to that guy?
No, I have not talked to him.
But again, I would say that that stuff's more for people like Jeff Wise or other people who think the plane was shot down, where they have to explain why was this debris found over here.
For my scenario that I put forth with this fire and this advanced, Technology event that happens in the Nicobar Islands, all that debris is completely consistent with my theories.
Right.
But what I'm trying to say is that's so strange to me that people only want to investigate the evidence that corresponds to or supports their own theory.
Like you say, Jeff Wise should look into it because that supports his theory.
But if I'm looking into it, I want to go down every possible scenario of how this theory can be supported, how that theory can be supported.
Do one of those true crime yarn diagrams and figure out.
Every possible hole in this whole thing, right?
And like, instead of saying, for example, that theory, or if I was to really research those parts of that plane and found this out, well, that wouldn't support my theory, so I'm not going to go there, right?
And that's not what I'm doing.
I mean, as you just saw, I listed out the barnacle stuff and the other scenarios, and I've looked at the Netflix documentary.
I think the Netflix documentary does the best job of kind of litigating that.
And I read Jeff Wise's piece on the barnacle growth stuff.
But like, the plane, though, like the guy who sent Blaine there, I really want to talk to that guy.
Yeah, me too.
It's an interesting follow up for sure.
Yeah.
Okay, so where were we?
We were just kind of going into the debris side, but I think it might be a good time to look at the videos.
I don't know.
What do you think?
Can I?
I need a bathroom break.
Yeah, yeah.
Yeah, go ahead.
Sure.
Take five.
That was a good answer.
Like, fuck, man.
Who the fuck?
It's weird.
That guy's got some answers, bro.
He could.
Honestly, I was perfectly honest about my opinion on him.
Like, he just doesn't seem like.
People call him Indiana Jones.
People have tried to cast him.
Doubt on him.
And I remember when I first watched the documentary before I even dug into this, I thought, just doesn't seem like a spy, right?
Like, this is just some like 50, 60 year old guy who's living in the orange orange, but he could be a useful idiot.
Yeah, definitely could be.
Yeah.
But again, like, you know, and I looked into all that, those angles early on, and, you know, it works either way with my theory.
It's like, if it's fake, fine.
If it's not fake, fine.
And it's like, to your point, it's like, what am I going to find out, right?
If I find out that, okay, he did plant it, Great, right?
It doesn't change anything about the theory anymore.
But if he did plant it, why did he plant it?
And who's responsible for him planting it?
And if you can find out that this agent or this officer somehow got him in touch with somebody that made him able to plant it, that goes back to the whole theory.
Like, that goes, who's doing the cover up?
Yeah, yeah.
Now you can reverse engineer your theory, right?
That's a good point.
I may have to make a note of that because, yeah, I mean, to me, it's like what I think really happened is.
US government throws a couple pieces of debris in the ocean if you're going down that route.
And they don't care where it washes up, right?
Okay, wherever it washes up.
And then, yeah, sure, maybe they contact them and say, go look in the reunion island.
But the cover story is pretty easy there, where it's like, oh, you just follow the whatever water flows and that's where you should go look, right?
That's how I think they came to that.
So it would be very, very difficult to prove anything.
I imagine there's, I just don't think there's going to be able to find like, you know, proof that, you know, there was something nefarious going on there.
All right.
That's why I think like going into the leaker and stuff is much better line.
But again, even that's going to be like all this stuff, I think they're going to have roadblock me no matter what I dig into.
Yeah, but like trying to dig into, really dig into who was a part of the cover up, every aspect of every cover up, because that plane thing reeks of high to high heaven, the parts of it.
And if you could figure out who was responsible for not only who the guy was who pointed him to Madagascar and Reunion Island, but who fucking cross examined the motherfucker who DM'd him and where he got that information, right?
Yeah.
I may have to reach out to him and see because I think that, yeah, maybe there's whoever pointed him in that direction.
Well, you're now heading towards the direction of who might be responsible for the cover up in general.
And that can fucking rework, re fucking develop your entire story.
Yeah, got it.
I mean, I don't know.
That's just how I think.
No, I think that's fair for sure.
So, yeah, that may be something we look into.
So, would you want to dig into the videos here?
What were you thinking?
Yeah, yeah.
So, okay.
The videos, we kind of talked about the videos a little bit in the beginning.
You recently talked about, I think on Twitter, maybe a day or two ago, there's a guy who you suspect is responsible for leaking these classified videos of these planes.
And you submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the U.S. government and it was denied.
Yeah.
Can you explain that?
Yeah.
And I think one good point to bring up too is that like just as we haven't even looked at the videos yet, it goes to show that you don't even really need the videos to kind of expose this conspiracy and this cover up is that the official narrative breaks down without even looking at the videos.
But when you start to look at the videos, you can glean a lot more evidence of what may have happened with this plane.
And that's what really starts to corroborate a lot of the stuff that we've kind of uncovered here.
So when I was looking at these videos, again, one of the first things I noticed is it's not being filmed by a camera.
They're using an actual screen recording.
Right.
They are the assets that we see are going to be U.S. military assets.
We see an MQ 1C Grey Eagle produced by General Atomics.
And then we're looking at what we think is the Cibber system, which is a U.S. system produced by Lockheed Martin, taking satellite data that's shooting down and potentially producing a 3D battlefield space.
So this means that potentially the person that would have leaked these videos is going to be U.S. military personnel.
So it's a Cibber system, meaning they're remote.
Desktoping in the remote accessing whatever computers have this data on them.
Satellite Video Analysis00:14:32
So you could essentially be in your living room, remoting into this thing and record it.
The only way to get it, I mean, you wouldn't take a fucking camcorder and hold it against your computer screen.
You would just do a screen record on your PC and that would be filming it.
And when we look at the Cibber system, this is pretty amazing.
With the busy fall season already in swing, you might be looking for some wholesome, convenient meals for those jam packed days.
Factor, America's number one ready to eat meal kit, can help you fuel up fast with chef prepared, dietitian approved, ready to eat meals delivered straight to your door.
It's a great way to save time, eat well, and stay on track with your healthy lifestyle.
If you're like me and you're far too busy to always make sure you're eating well, that's where Factor comes in clutch.
You can skip that extra trip to the grocery store, as well as all the prepping, shopping, and cleaning, and still get all the flavor and nutritional quality that you need.
Factor's fresh, never frozen meals are ready to go in just two minutes.
All you have to do is heat and enjoy so you can get back to crushing your goals.
Round up your meals and replenish your snack supply with an assortment of 45 plus add ons, including breakfast items like their delicious apple cinnamon pancakes.
Bacon and cheddar egg bites, and potato bacon and egg breakfast skillets.
Or for an easy wellness boost, try refreshing beverage options like cold pressed juices, shakes, and smoothies.
Head on over to factormeals.com forward slash DJP50 and use code DJP50 to get 50% off.
That's code DJP50 at factormeals.com forward slash DJP50 to get 50% off.
Back to the show.
You can tell.
Yeah, turn the volume up a little bit on it.
Oh, you want some.
I mean, listen.
This part right here, I think, is the most telling.
So these satellites.
Can you full screen it?
Yes.
Okay, cool.
On the far satellites here, these are your geostationary satellites.
These are going to be your satellites that don't move, that are 40,000 kilometers away.
Early on, I thought that the video could be from one of these, and then people pointed out how far away it is.
It's like straight down.
You need the Hubble telescope.
They actually do have Hubble telescopes, presumably, on these.
They're classified, but that's what people claim.
But they're going to be looking straight down.
Our videos are looking at an angle.
And here you can see these millennia orbit satellites.
These are these oblong ones as well.
This is actually what we think the relay satellite they've logged into is NROL 22 is a command satellite, most likely.
And due to having this orbit, They sit around certain areas of the planet where they have very good angles on the other satellites to be able to communicate this data back and forth.
The third kind of satellite is going to be a low Earth orbit satellite.
These ones that are not really pictured on here, but they're going to be very close to the Earth here.
They circle around the Earth every 90 minutes.
That's wild.
So, how fast are they traveling?
Very fast.
I don't have the exact speed of the Earth.
That would be roughly guessing 25,000, 30,000 miles per hour.
Yeah, I don't know off the top of my head, but yeah, it's like over thousands of miles per hour.
They're going fast.
Right.
And but they're they're so low to the earth that they can get potentially really good resolution.
But you'd have to like get it fast because that is like, yeah, insane.
And so that's why you need the Cibber system, right?
So what's happening here is these are all scanning all the time.
And when they're scanning, they're building a computer program using all this data, right?
And this explains, yeah, I said this earlier.
I said, if you want to induce schizophrenia in anybody, just get them stoned and show them this video.
Yeah.
Yeah.
This is why, like I was saying, that when I walk around, I go and just wave up.
To the satellites, because this also indicates you might have real-time video 3d playback, right like.
This person didn't need to record this in real time.
They just log in later on and be like okay, pull up this location.
As long as you have a satellite there, that's like the one of these low earth orbit ones, you're gonna have extremely good data mapping of what's going on, right?
So what this cyber system is doing as well is that it's useful for tracking missiles boats, right planes, intelligence and battlefield awareness.
The last one is very relevant for what we're gonna see in our videos, because I think that what we're looking at is a much bigger field of view And that they've cropped it so that they're only looking at the plane.
And essentially, what this person is trying to do here is look at this again.
Jesus.
You know, the person is trying to show us what happened to MH370 without giving away other information that might be other assets that might be available.
They actually even crop out the drone.
We don't see the drone in the first video either.
And they release the satellite video first.
Now, look at this part.
We never forget who we're working for.
I'm locking Martin.
That's beautiful.
That's ominous, right?
We never forget who we're looking for.
By the way, satellites.
And low Earth orbit seemed to travel at 17,500 miles per hour.
17,500 miles per hour.
So they're moving.
And we have just a replay here, which I guess now is probably a good time to show it.
How fast does the Earth spin, Stephen?
I think it's like 1,000 miles per hour.
Gosh, I thought it was three, but I'll look it up.
So we actually have, we went ahead and found a satellite that was right in the right area.
So we looked at like every satellite that's out there.
We find these twin satellites called the Naval Ocean Surveillance Satellites.
Who found this?
We had a satellite expert that was with the organization I started, MH370X.
And they were using amateur trajectories to recreate every possible satellite.
And when we came across this, this is where actually initially I thought it was in South Indian Ocean.
We were actually going on all this ping data thinking, oh, it must have crashed in the South Indian Ocean.
The problem was the time made no sense.
We can see here it's like 1830.
These satellites are looking over the South Indian Ocean here.
But this plane is crashing or supposedly at like 8 a.m., which is like four hours after this.
And we checked, okay, if it comes back around, will it be there?
It's never in the right location.
And then we said, okay, well, what if the coordinates don't have a minus sign?
Because we are suspecting they must be a hidden minus sign that we couldn't see in these coordinates from the satellite video.
Well, if they don't, and we just simplify the situation, then it's in the Nicobar Islands.
Then the location of our videos is actually in the exact location where the official narrative says this plane turned into the South Indian Ocean.
And when you look at this here, you can look down and say, oh, well, 1840, right about now, we're looking right down at it.
And then we think that our 3D battlefield space is actually like multiple times wider than this.
We just took an estimate of 1,000 kilometers.
It could potentially be like 4,000 kilometers.
Remember that Sibbers picture we looked at, how wide those scans were?
Yeah.
This could be much wider than this bubble that we see here.
So these two satellites got a ping around this time?
Or these coordinates match up with the video you're seeing?
Yeah, these coordinates are the videos.
And we think this time right here, 1840, is not only corroborated by these satellites being here in the right location, there's a witness on a boat, like right where my mouse cursor is down here.
And she sees the plane glowing orange at around 1840 UTC, the same time that these satellites.
Are up here.
And as she mentioned in the documentary on Netflix, she is not.
She is not.
Yeah.
And she sees this plane glowing orange.
The reason why a plane would glow orange is that the halon gas from the fire extinguishing devices releases bromine, which is a halogen.
If you look at a picture of what she said her recreation of the plane looked like, it looks just like a halogen lamp.
So this was the first indication that we might be dealing with a fire scenario where these people are battling this fire for an hour before it gets to this location from when it goes dark.
And now we've got corroboration of this satellite here in the same spot as well.
Okay, so let's talk about this lady for a second.
Yeah, she, she, how did you discover her?
She wasn't on the Netflix documentary.
Where did you first learn about her?
Yeah, so I started digging into witnesses after we found these satellites.
And I said, okay, well, this is the location.
This seems to be the time.
What else is out there?
So then I dig around and I find the witness, Catherine T. Turns out she's got a very well documented sighting.
From my notes here, there were two blog posts at least, as well as some forum that she answered a bunch of questions on.
Every, all of the official investigators have talked to her.
And They were able to recreate her sighting based on the automatic GPS.
All the official investigators talked to her, but yet she was never mentioned in the documentary.
And they just dismiss her sighting for whatever reason.
I can't tell.
This is the official flight path as well at this point.
So, like, the idea that she didn't see the plane for some reason is absurd.
Like, she had to have seen the plane.
So, I actually got in touch with her.
I did an interview with her just over the phone where I was talking to her, asking questions.
Did you record it?
I did not record it.
No, but I did.
I wrote down the questions, the answers.
You know, at the time I didn't really feel like it, I wasn't a podcaster at that point.
Like now, I probably would have had her on video, right?
Um, but I did ask her some questions.
She did not see the plane disappear, she did not see the orbs in the plane in the video that we're going to show.
She actually went into the boat, probably at the wrong possible time to miss the main event of our videos, which is a little bit suspicious.
But she says that she went to put the kettle on.
British people tell me that's a thing that British people do, uh, when they're making tea.
What time was this again?
The time that she told me was 1840 UTC.
If you go look at that satellite picture we were just looking at.
That's the same time the satellite was looking right over the plane.
Now, what is that?
What time is that in my granddaddy?
That's 2 40 a.m. Malaysian time.
So she's having tea and crumb nights at 2 in the morning.
Well, she's on watch, right, on the boat.
So, when you're on these boats as well, you lose track of time.
Right, right, right, right.
So, she had to recreate the time based on the GPS because, like, you lose track of what day it is, the time is.
She just knows it's pitch black.
The moon is not up.
And we checked that as well.
Moon's not up.
Sun's not up.
No moon.
No moon, no sun.
She's a glowing orange plane with no lights on it.
I mean, I would probably wonder about, like, what am I seeing here, right?
And she didn't know what she was seeing at first.
At first, she thinks it's a missile.
Then she sees the side of it and she realizes, oh, no, that's a passenger plane, right?
Or at that time, she didn't necessarily say it was a passenger plane, but she knew it was a plane.
She said that she felt pressured by the experts to change her time when the experts had talked to her to like fit their various narratives, supposedly.
She got pressured by the experts.
That's a direct quote from her when I talked to her personally, which I was.
I gotta turn it back on.
Oh, dude.
There's a button.
Is it the case with all technology?
I haven't been showing a lot of videos, but I think the ones I've shown have been pretty good, right?
Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.
We're doing great, man.
We're cooking.
Oh, ready.
Are we rolling?
We are.
That was fucking spooky.
That was the first time we've ever lost.
Power in our entire building mid podcast.
Oh, what a coincidence.
You know, there's just so many coincidences that keep happening in this case.
Oh, my God, that was crazy.
So now we're back up.
We're running on generator power and we don't have any AC.
So if me and Ashton start to get a little shiny, it's just because we don't have any AC in here and we're sweating our asses off.
So, okay, what were you just talking about?
We're talking about Kate.
Yeah, the witness was right there in the Nicobar Islands.
When we have our satellite looking down, the plane, everybody agrees the plane was here at this point.
She sees this glowing orange plane consistent with potentially the crew battling a fire for about an hour, hour and 20 minutes.
She actually sees this plane flying low.
She says she sees two other planes that are at cruising altitude with lights on, but the glowing plane was at a low altitude.
The recreation of this plane puts it around 10,000 feet, maybe a little bit lower.
For people that may hear the giant diesel generator going in the background, I can faintly hear it, but I apologize if it's really ruining your podcast experience right now.
But this is the only way I'm going to record this right now.
We have a diesel generator keeping us alive.
Yeah.
Anyways, sorry to interrupt.
Oh, yeah, no problem.
So she sees this plane flying low and she actually sees it descend from the beginning of her sighting to the end of her sighting, which is estimated to be five or ten minutes.
Okay.
The direction of travel is consistent with where the plane would have been coming from, as well as potentially our videos as well.
When we look at these videos in a few minutes, you're going to see this plane is making a counterclockwise rotation, which is consistent with the direction of travel that was recreated from her automatic GPS as well.
So, again, actually, what she sees also, not only the glowing orange plane, but she sees these.
Black smoke coming out of the back of this plane, which would be consistent with lithium ion battery fires, that they have this very dark smoke that comes from them as well.
We think that this.
But it's pitch black, no moon or nothing, so you can see the dark smoke?
Yeah, well, I think that generally, even at night, if their plane is glowing to some degree, you're going to see this smoke, right?
Kind of just like the silhouette potentially of it.
So you would probably see the contrast between the sky or something like that, even with the stars out.
So, you know, how dark it is, you could probably argue, you know, how can you tell?
But I think the matter is that you can see like thickness as opposed to like exhaust.
Which would be, you know, just very transparent, right?
And so, yeah, she can see parts of that.
I actually asked her, you know, I took a picture of the thermal from the thermal video and I overlaid over the plane.
And I said, is this what you saw?
And she responded back, well, it wasn't green.
And I laughed because it made it realize that she hadn't been following the case at all, at least my case.
She hadn't seen the green video.
She had no idea that it was even a thermal video, right?
And so she's like, oh, it was orange.
And I'm like, oh, okay, well, what about just the shape?
Oh, well, the shape matches, right.
Which would indicate that, yeah, she did end up seeing MH370.
She didn't see any fire, though, which is interesting because in the thermal as well, we see a heat signature near these exhaust ports where the AC units are.
Right.
But we don't see like active fire in the plane and the thermal.
It looks very consistent with other thermal plane images and videos that are on the internet.
And part of that reason would be that the fires contained in these cargo bays that are built to maintain fire, to withstand fires from up to, I think, 1700 degrees Fahrenheit or 900 degrees Celsius.
So you would imagine that what's happening here, and if you've seen these lithium ion battery fires, is that they ignite, they explode, and then they're raging.
And you put them out, and then they come back up again.
So most likely these crew are like, Fighting this fire with every fire suppression device available.
They can deploy manual ones and go in there and fight them.
But this is a very desperate situation where it's just going to keep lighting up.
You need to get on the ground.
And what is the biggest criticism towards Kate?
Honestly, I'm not really sure the biggest criticism.
In the last podcast I was on, they criticized whether or not you could see the cockpit window.
Julian?
Yeah.
But I would argue that you see a plane flying, you can see the cockpit.
It's not a matter of she's seeing the pilots in the cockpit.
It's just a matter of like she can see the front of the plane, right?
So it might be a little bit of a misrepresentation.
So, what was so you were claiming that she claimed she could see the cockpit from how far away, roughly?
She didn't really tell me exactly, right?
Did you have any speculation as to how far the plane would have been?
Not really.
What I can say is that the plane went from the east around her boat to the north and then came around the back of her boat as it went north to south.
Recreating Plane Sighting Trajectory00:08:00
And this is part of it in her original reporting of when this happened.
So, I imagine what would have happened here is that.
She's on her boat.
She's looking to the east, sees this plane, she sees it come to the side while it's flying to the north, and then it comes back and turns kind of towards her, most likely, and goes around behind the boat, the back of the boat.
And that's where she probably looks up and she can see the cockpit area of it, probably make out the shape of it and see the windows, I imagine.
So you're estimating it would have been what, within 1,000 feet of her?
The recreation says it got potentially as low as 2,000 feet, which is pretty low.
And it's going to actually be consistent with our videos where we see these cumulus clouds.
That only formed between 1,000 and 5,000 feet.
Oh, so there was, okay, there were clouds that night.
It wasn't perfectly clear.
She doesn't remember the clouds either, but she didn't know whether or not there could be.
And it was nighttime, so maybe she couldn't make them out very well.
It's, again, really hard to tell.
So, what exactly did she, I'm trying to understand, like, why, what exactly did she say that she saw in the cockpit?
Oh, she didn't really say that she saw anything in general, but she did say that she saw some illumination, which to me indicates that these batteries, half of them were in the front.
Cargo bays and half of them are in the back.
Okay.
Now, if this fire would have made the electronics go out and made the plane go dark, then I would argue from talking to people who are pilots and engineers that the most likely area would have been the front because that's where a lot of the electronics bays are.
So if there's an explosion that happens there, that's the most likely spot to disable a lot of electronics.
And if that's the case and there's a fire even in those cargo bays that they're battling and it's breaking containment, then I could imagine there being illumination.
This is just deduction and somewhat speculative.
But that's kind of the impression I got from talking to Kate is that, huh, maybe that there was some illumination that allowed her to see the cockpit more clearly.
Otherwise, I would imagine in the nighttime, you're not going to really be able to make anything out.
I think the biggest thing against her sighting is that they didn't have the radio on.
So she didn't hear any SOS calls and she didn't think to go check the radio.
In my mind, like you see this plane coming down, right?
I'm going to go to the radio and be like, okay, is there an SOS for this, right?
Yeah.
Uh, but you know, it's the middle of the night, she's probably exhausted.
She was in an emotional situation where she was in a fight with her husband at the time.
Um, so I guess I can understand, like, I don't want to put myself in someone else's shoes and like really criticize their actions too much.
But if I had to, that's what I would say.
It seemed like the weirdest thing in general.
She didn't see any other boats in the area, but what you said is if their lights weren't on, she probably wouldn't have been able to see them because it's pitch black.
So we can't really rule out that there was no boats in the area.
Was she anchored?
No, they're not anchored.
So this boat actually starts to drift.
Well, these boats, they have to have navigation lights on them at night.
Yeah, I mean, so her boat, yeah.
But if we're talking about some operation that's going down, right?
Oh, you're talking about a black op or something?
Yeah, like if there's some other boat, like, so what I was trying to figure out is when we look at these videos, we see these orbs.
And one of these orbs actually skims across the water and shoots up through the cloud.
And so when we look at that, I kept wondering, well, can we figure out where this was deployed from?
Was it deployed from a boat?
Is it deployed from a plane?
You know, where is it getting deployed from?
So that's why I asked her about, did you see any other boats?
But she didn't see any other boats.
So at least they didn't have lights on if they were in the area or there weren't any.
She didn't hear any SOS calls.
She went and put that kettle on and she comes back out.
The plane's gone.
So all she sees after that is this orange halo that she described as like an oil rig in the sky.
I don't know.
That's kind of a weird comparison.
But I think what she's saying there is they show like a weird shape.
Now, at that point, it's not looking like a plane anymore.
Now she just sees this orange, maybe afterglow potentially, which is pretty unusual.
But maybe it's a situation where this plane disappears and now you've got the Halon gas still just kind of spreading out throughout the atmosphere.
That's again pretty speculative, but that's just from her sighting.
So, wait, wait, I got a question.
Yeah.
So, this plane was 2,000 feet away from her and that's how she could see kind of the cockpit ish area.
That's the altitude.
So, 2,000 feet above her?
We don't really know exactly how far away, right?
The way that she described the images, and I think I have a couple of them that I can pull up.
Okay.
You know, I think this is one from when it's like probably from the east side.
This is this one.
This right here is her most accurate recreation.
I don't think I can full screen this.
But when you look at this picture here, you can see this is what she says she saw she looked like.
And this is actually pretty similar to what she described to me.
She sees this orange glow and she sees this like kind of hazy effect.
She said it was about 5 or 10% outside of the plane.
I don't know how you kind of calculate percentages.
But so this is kind of what she's looking at.
And again, you can kind of see, even in this picture, you see this.
Like light coming out of the cockpit, there's like a dot, like a dot, right?
Yeah, so you're not going to see much.
This is pretty far away, right?
Um, but it's close enough that you know you can make out that it's a plane.
That's pretty close, that's like a plane coming in for a landing or something.
That's what she thought was happening theoretically.
She thought that this plane might be trying to land in the ocean, which is interesting because we found an intercepted SOS communication.
But real quick, here's a halogen lamp, looks pretty damn similar to me.
I wish this was bigger.
Hmm, I could maybe I can zoom in.
Was there more to your question, Steve?
Uh, yeah, I was just going to say if it was that close.
If it was close enough that you could see even like the nose or the cockpit or the fire coming off of it, that it would probably make a sound and wouldn't that have woken up?
Oh, yeah.
Interestingly enough, she didn't see any fire.
She says that she didn't see any fire.
She saw that smoke and she said she didn't hear any abnormal sounds.
I asked her as well, like, you know, do you hear any sounds from this?
And that part I'm not sure about.
I've thought about it a lot, you know, but when you see planes in the sky, like they kind of have to go over you and then you kind of hear the sound later, right?
Because it's so far away.
The sound waves have to travel to you.
So, not sure one way or another on that.
My guess would be that this plane never got super close to the boat.
But again, just a guess.
And it's hard dealing with witnesses, too, especially when it's that long ago, almost 10 years ago, and people's memories change.
Yep.
So, that's why you really need corroborating accounts from different people.
And I think that's how people were able to discredit her, right?
Is that witnesses in general, memory is very unreliable, right?
Even right afterwards, right?
But some of the stuff that she says here is very specific, right?
Like this orange glowing plane, it's like, you know, how are you misremembering an orange glowing plane, right?
So, some of it I find very credible.
Other parts of it, I think, okay, you know, it may not be as accurate.
But they, you know, the stuff like the recreation of the GPS and the travel, I think is probably very similar to what it really would have been, just because there we're looking at hard data, right?
It's not something that you can, it's not a matter of remembering it or not.
You're talking about the GPS on the videos?
No, the GPS of actually her boat.
Her boat's actually doing automatic GPS as well.
Got it.
That's how they're able to, like, recreate the travel of her sighting.
I don't think I have an image of that, unfortunately, but yeah.
So, you know, her sighting in general is pretty big because here's another flight path here.
And this was actually from Victor of the Independent Group.
He was actually able to confirm that our satellite was in the right location.
That's what this blue line is going across the top.
This is actually the Independent Group's official travel of the plane, which is the same as what we expect, except for you get to this part on 1830, 1840.
And look, they retimed her sighting to 1853.
They were trying to change the time here.
You can see there's even a point for the video coordinates.
which again indicates that we have this large field of view around the coordinates.
And then here they just say, oh, it made this turn and just goes straight out into the Indian Ocean, right?
My counter argument is the videos that we're going to see end right here where Kate T is within probably less than five minutes of this sighting at 1840 UTC, one way or another.
And then instead of this plane going down to the South Indian Ocean, it does whatever it does in our videos.
You know, going into the official narrative as well, this Malaysian Minister of Defense, you watched it earlier with this interview with this guy.
Thermal Image Heat Signatures00:15:49
Mm-hmm.
This is the most sketchy interview that I've ever seen.
Yeah.
I mean, the lady was definitely hostile.
She was definitely trying to come at him.
Oh, yeah.
I mean, I would be interested in the responses, you know?
He was on the defense, clearly, from the jump.
Like, he wouldn't answer whether or not that, even what time he heard the plane disappear.
So he won't even answer the question of what time this plane went missing.
So later on in this interview, I think I snipped it about five minutes in, he admits that they knew the plane.
Was power's back, yeah.
Oh, yeah, yeah.
You can switch it up.
Will we lose power again?
Yeah, for like a minute while I switch it out.
Okay, turn the generator off.
We got we're gonna have three cuts, Steve.
Yeah, all right.
No, that's fine.
I appreciate it, man.
All right, I'm gonna kill the recording.
Yeah, I'm gonna look for the spot anyway.
Let's go into the um, the lithium ion battery fires.
Yeah, so what evidence.
What was the evidence that pointed out to you that there were lithium-ion battery fires?
How did you know that there were lithium-ion batteries and this many batteries on the plane in the first place?
Yeah, well, it became public knowledge afterwards.
People looked into the manifests.
I think even Florence Changy was one person that really dug into the manifests.
And the thing that stuck out to me right away from this investigation, 221 kilograms of lithium-ion batteries.
So we looked through the ATSB report, which is the Australian Safety Transmit Bureau, and we found that these lithium-ion batteries were put together that same day.
They have to package them and what have you and put them on the plane.
They look like they were not packaged safely at all.
They almost look like improvised explosive devices when you look at pictures of them.
They like put them between some ceramic and they're kind of planted together.
They were not scanned twice.
So back in 2014, we did not know the dangers of lithium ion batteries as well.
Now, if you go to the post office, they ask you about it.
You go on an airplane, they always ask you if there's any in your checked bags.
If you Google the FAA's website, About lithium ion batteries, you actually find an image that shows that they're happening over once per week in domestic flights, even after they've outlawed them in the cargo bays of passenger planes.
Right.
At least, as you know, in terms of cargo, at least.
And they did that in 2015, the year after this incident happened.
So, right away, I was honed in on this, but it wasn't until we went through that evidence that we just talked about with KT, with the videos showing smoke coming out of the back of them, which we'll show in a minute.
So, wait, so what's the rules for bringing lithium ion batteries on an airplane?
Yeah, you can't have them in your check bags as far as you can have it.
You have to bring them up above, right?
In your actual, like, you have a gear, et cetera.
Yeah.
I've traveled with loads of camera gear before.
And I don't remember ever having to take the camera batteries out of the Pelican cases before checking them.
Yeah, so I'm a videographer, and so I've traveled on planes quite a bit, and the rule is you have to, if it's a lithium-ion battery, it's got to be in the cabin.
So a check bag, I'm sorry, not a check, you got to bring it with you.
Carry on.
Carry on, yeah, and it has to be under 90 watt hours if it's over 90 watt hours.
So if it's a really big battery, essentially, they won't let you carry it on.
Okay, got it.
And it's in the cabin so they can extinguish it if it ignites.
Yeah.
And there was a video just last week where that had happened.
And you see these people pouring water on it desperately because these lithium ion batteries, they're like trick candles.
Right.
Where you put it out, they just keep lighting back up.
Yeah.
These missed two security screenings.
So that was a big red flag for me as well.
These cargo compartments are designed to withstand these high heats.
But again, you're not going to be able to keep this fire out forever.
So I imagine what would have happened here is you've got all your crew trying to keep it out.
We have a source that I have corroborated, looked into their history that has actually testified about the dangers of these.
They actually tried to get.
The government to take them more seriously back in like 2012 and 2013, that is willing to testify that you could keep this fire under bay for over an hour and that, yes, the plane would potentially glow orange.
So, the theory here is this lithium ion battery fire could potentially escape from the cargo compartment as well if it's not being effectively managed.
The fire suppression devices cannot keep it under bay, which is these Halon fire suppression devices.
We see a heat signature in our thermal that's right near where the landing gear is, that's a very oblong kind of heat signature that kind of changes.
This is actually right where there are two AC exhaust ports.
So the thought is you've got this smoke and heat traveling throughout the plane and it's getting poured out through these exhaust ports right near where the landing gear are.
Well, also in the other thermal images of airplanes, though, it's hot in the same spot.
Yeah, well, that part, we don't really have any thermal images of planes like in the sky.
I have one.
We found one earlier, remember?
Oh, yeah.
Yeah, let's pull that up and take a look as well.
And it could be that, yes, that might be a spot where they're at, right?
But I have not seen any images from the sky.
We've seen ones that are potentially on the ground from taking off.
Which is quite a bit different because what happens as well is that the landing gear heats up when you take off from all the friction.
And so, one of the theories too is if the thermal lithium ion batteries were too close to the landing gear and this was 100 degrees that night, they might have heated up and caused an issue.
Now, as well with the pictures like what we're looking at here, it's also like impossible to film with a thermal camera at 30,000 feet.
Yeah, we just don't have anything really comparable, right?
Where you have like another drone footage in this thermalized.
Color here.
Okay, so we're looking at a split screen side by side.
One is regular, the other one is thermal of a plane getting ready to take off.
Yeah, and so again, these are situations we're not going to be super comparable because when you're at thousands of feet in the air, the temperature difference is quite significant.
But let's look at it anyway.
And the other part too is we don't know the custom heat signatures that were set on the videos.
But again, you can see that this heat signature right where the landing gear are here.
It's very important.
Well, it's the whole back.
If we can pause it, Steve, a little bit further back, it'll play.
Yeah, let it go.
It's going to show the full screen.
So now it's showing the full screen of the thermal view of this airplane taking off right now.
And you can see like the sky is dark blue at the top.
The road before the runway is red, meaning that's the hottest part.
And you can, what you're saying is you can change the colors to a certain extent.
Yeah.
And so the fact that we see the plane is the same temperature as the ground there.
It's hot on the bottom.
It's, yeah, but it's not that hot, right?
The temperatures we're dealing with are, the fire that temperature that we see coming out of our plane is the same temperature as the engine inside the engine, not just the outside of the engine.
All right, pause it right there.
But the inside.
So, right there, the engines look about to be the same temperature as like the back half, the back bottom half of the airplane.
Yeah.
So, do you think that's accurate?
I mean, I'm sure this picture is accurate, but I don't think it matches to ours, unfortunately.
Okay.
Now, maybe similar.
And when we look at our thermal video, we'll be able to see some differences is that we don't see a heat signature around the engine.
We actually only see the heat signature in the location where these jet engines are producing the highest amount of temperature.
So, we'll compare this here in a minute to the thermals that we're looking at.
The back half of both of these turbines seems to be the hottest part.
The front is not so much.
The front is colder.
Yeah, for sure.
And you're saying from the thermal images of the Image 370 flight, the engines are not bright hot like this?
No, only specifically in the spot where you see the very hot air coming from them.
And it has to do with the way those engines operate, where it's not like lighting a candle and seeing it go up.
It's like they actually focus in on a specific point.
I'm not an engineer, but that's how it was described to me.
Steven, can you try to find any kind of thermal photos of airplanes that are clearer than this?
I know there's some on Google we found, but I know there's some on Google images.
And so, and actually, I'll just pull up an image while we're, if we're going to compare as well.
Okay.
Because we can take a look.
I think I have it.
Oh, well, looky there.
That was a fast find.
Oh, look at that.
Yeah, yeah.
And actually, that's one of the pictures that I've used before as well.
That one's taking off as well, right there.
Where the reason why you have that jet that's so far, that heat signature there, is because it's so low to the ground.
On a plane video that's going to be in the sky, you're not going to have that very elongated heat signature anymore.
It almost looks like it's.
Fucking like illustrated, it looks so perfect.
It is so look, yeah.
It doesn't, yeah, it barely even looks real on this.
No, it doesn't.
It looks like a fucking someone drew it.
But you see that there's no heat signature there with the landing gear, is right?
And there's no heat signature of this heat point out of the exhaust ports here.
Are there any more, Steve?
But I found a photographer that had like a we found as well.
Yeah, there's a photographer who did a whole you gotta zoom out so you can see your whole.
Although maybe those are the heat ports there on that particular plane.
Not sure, but it was pretty.
Look at that one, decent detail.
I thought Tyrone Turner, that's the guy.
Yeah, and these are people who are taking pictures while they're taking off.
Oh, son of a bitch.
Yeah, these are on National Geographic's website.
You're going to have to find the Google image.
But if you compare to, if you just go to his website, go to Tyrone Turner Photography.
And he has at least like five photos, I think.
But this will be good to compare with.
Yeah.
There you go.
Photo.
F O T O. Enter.
Scroll down.
There you go.
There we go.
Oh, he's got himself a little thermal camera.
That.
Okay, so I can tell.
Ooh.
Oh, that's cool.
That one's actually probably one of the best to compare to, I'd imagine.
That one's kind of blurry.
It looks like the whole bottom top.
You have to keep in mind that these thermal settings are customized, right?
So you don't know the ranges.
So it's very hard to compare here in general.
And this is one that's taking off as well.
But you can see that that's probably the best.
Look at that right underneath.
Right?
Where you can kind of see this heat coming off the bottom of the plane.
That would probably be the closest comparison that we're going to be able to find to what we see in our video as well.
So the video has like a blue body with the red jets coming out.
And this might have been manipulated, honestly.
Like, I don't know if that's possible.
Post processing or not, but that's the same idea for sure.
Yeah, they all look a little different.
But, I mean, you can definitely see something red hot coming out of the bottom of the plane disconnected from the engines themselves.
And that might be what you were saying.
That might be the heat exhaust.
Yeah.
So, yeah, if you flip over to the image that I have, then you can kind of compare to what ours would look like in flight.
Now, what we've done here is we've superimposed this thermal over a picture of actually MH370 taking off.
Who superimposed it?
Reddit has, the community.
Okay.
So, and this has been kind of resized in any way.
This has simply just been.
Angled to match over.
So, this is the thermal is not of a plane taking off.
It's from our videos in the sky.
But you can see this elongated heat signature at the same location here where you see those landing gear.
And that was exactly, that almost looks identical to what we just looked at from that guy, Tyrone Turner.
In a similar location for sure, but the color settings are going to be a little different, right?
We don't see this engine shooting this hot, like very elongated heat coming off the back of it, right?
But also, the thermal that they took from the thing in flight, it's not going to be using the same amount of power as it uses when it takes off.
When it takes off, the engines exert way more energy.
Yeah, maybe.
I'm not an expert on that.
So I can't say.
Yeah, well, you're redlining them when you're taking off, right?
You're going your full throttle.
And then when you're at cruising altitude, or maybe not even cruising out, maybe like lower altitude, whatever, you can pull back on that throttle a little bit.
Yeah, I'm sure.
Again, I'm not a pilot, so I can't say.
But all I can say here is that whatever heat signature we're seeing here with these color settings is showing a similar level of temperature to the inner part of this engine here.
And this is, again, at an altitude.
So when you're at a higher altitude, of course, it's much cooler.
Than when you're at near the ground as well.
And in addition, in this picture, you can actually see the smoke here coming out of the back of the plane here.
And we can see the heat sinker from this smoke that doesn't line up with the engine.
So, this is another going to be another indication in the thermal as well that we can see the smoke coming out of the back that most likely it's coming from these exhaust ports coming out here.
So, to me, that's some of the strongest evidence for why we're seeing a fire.
But again, there's more.
The altitude is too low in our videos for contrails, contrails only form at 30,000 feet or above.
Which indicates that we're not looking at contrails in our videos.
We can see these cumulus clouds.
What are contrails?
Like, what specifically, how do contrails form?
Yeah, they form because of the atmosphere and the temperature changes in the atmosphere.
Okay.
And honestly, I'm not an expert on contrails either, other than when we Google it, we can find that they do.
Yeah, I got to say, it's so just for people listening, like our back and forth, how we're analyzing this, we're kind of really, like you said in the beginning of this podcast, you've only been looking into this for two or three months.
It's not like you spent 10 years researching this, interviewing people, and you haven't interviewed dozens and dozens of people.
In person and spend hours with them.
You're literally doing this in real time.
And you're going on podcasts like mine and like Julian's.
And you're literally trying to sort through all this in real time and crowdsourcing it with people who are maybe leaving comments or sending you emails or whatever.
So it's important that we try to break this down and analyze it as hard as we can.
Yeah.
And I'm not a pilot or an engineer either, though I do have pilots and engineers giving their opinions and trying to explain these types of things in the most detail they can.
But it's a lot.
We don't have a lot of frame of reference for a lot of this either.
Like we just couldn't find even a Thermal video of something in the sky, either.
So it's very tough to come up with really accurate for sure comparisons.
What we can say is that there's definitely exhaust ports in those locations where we see those heat signatures.
And it does look like there's smoke coming out of the back due to the fact that these contrails would only form at high altitudes.
Have you ever had a conversation with a commercial airline pilot?
Yeah, I think that several people in my DMs have reached out to me.
I've had people in my emails reach out to me as well.
I mean, have you gone like out of your way to be like, find somebody like you doing the outreach to somebody who maybe isn't.
Engaged in Twitter or Reddit.
Because I feel like there's a big difference there.
Yeah, not really, other than maybe Jeff Wise, if you were to count, right?
But I haven't dug into a lot of the technical parts there.
There hasn't been any particular part where I've needed to go and ask that particular information yet.
But if so, it comes up, then yeah, absolutely, I would.
So in addition to this as well, I think I pointed out that from the FAA, there's more than one lithium-ion battery fire per week in United States domestic flights.
And this is not in the cargo bay.
This is up in the passenger area.
So it goes to show these are very common events that seem to happen.
I mean, I hope they don't happen on my plane.
But the fire event is also corroborated by every witness so far.
Is that we've got Kate T who sees this plane glowing orange.
And that's when I went back and looked at all the other witnesses.
And I started to realize that if you look at the flight path, all the witnesses' events actually line up towards a situation where what we're looking at is a lithium ion battery fire.
So I'll go ahead and pull this up real quick.
I think it's right here, plane animation.
So this is going to be a recreation that was created by Chris of the Not So Deep podcast.
This plane takes off again at 1842 UTC.
Last communication is at 1719 UTC.
Where they say goodnight, Malaysian Airlines Flight 370.
And that's right after they exited the Malaysian airspace.
Yeah, this is in this weak point as well, which would maybe point to there being some type of espionage or hijacking scenario at play.
It may also just have been that's the point where these batteries ignited.
We don't know if this was an accidental event or if this was an intentional event, but we do know there are 221 kilograms of lithium ion batteries.
It's almost 500 pounds of them that were potentially unsafely packaged.
So we think that at 1721 UTC, this is when the Batteries explode.
This is when Mike McKay is on an oil rig 300 miles away.
He sees this plane low on the horizon.
And this is in the South China Sea?
Yeah, on an oil rig there.
Visibility from Oil Rig Horizon00:15:18
This is probably at exactly the maximum distance that you'd be able to see this plane in clear skies.
At least according to ChatGPT, the maximum range is about 310 miles.
But there were clouds, we know.
Yes, but it just rained.
So these clouds that we were talking about are rain clouds.
The rain that we were talking about are the clouds that we were talking about in the Nicobar Islands, which is over here on the west.
Where we're talking about the clouds in the videos is not over here.
So, I don't know if there were.
He says it was clear.
If there was rain, there was definitely clouds because rain has to come from clouds.
So, you have to realize I've lived in Singapore.
The rain is kind of like what you have here, where it can come and go very quickly.
So, it's not like necessarily a situation where it's just going to rain all day and be cloudy all day.
Right.
Like maybe in the Midwest or something else.
This rain can come and go.
So, just because it rained earlier doesn't mean necessarily there's going to be clouds.
It's not going to be visible.
Right.
But you agree that rain does come from clouds.
And if it was raining, there's a very high possibility that there were clouds in the area.
Certainly could be.
His sighting is highly credible.
He saw this plane at a low altitude, and really the only question about it is whether or not he saw it crash.
And his sighting in his email, right a day or so later, he says lines up with everything where the plane was.
He saw it on fire for about 10 seconds and then he saw it go away.
He's going to see it low on the horizon because, again, he's looking at probably about the maximum distance you'd be able to see the plane with the curvature of the earth.
It's going to look like it's actually near the water, yes, but it's actually 35,000 feet at cruising altitude.
So, this situation here, that's probably why he thought it crashed, because he's seen it when his perspective looks like it's low to the water.
And he actually corrects this later on, stands by a statement even years later, and says that no, he didn't see it crash.
He was misreported.
Is that he thought it must have crashed due to it being on fire.
But if it can withstand this fire situation.
But he thought it must have crashed, even though this was before he saw the reporting that the plane would just, that this, well, easy for you to say.
Before he saw the reporting that the plane disappeared.
Yeah, in terms of that, like, He would have probably heard about the plane disappearing because that happened like the next day we heard about it, right?
And interesting fact about that as well the time that they initially reported the plane being lost contact, 1840 UTC.
This is the same time of our witness seeing it down here, same time as our videos.
That was changed later on to what we see here where it says 1822 UTC.
And how did you verify that the human eye could see in an airplane on fire from 300 miles away?
I'd use ChatGPT, AI, like a lot of us use these.
ChatGPT said that.
Yes, it did.
Okay.
Steven, we have ChatGPT, right?
Yeah.
Ask ChatGPT how far you can see from 35,000 feet on a clear night.
How far you can see from 35,000 feet.
Or however you want to phrase it.
You kind of have to phrase it however you want.
Yeah.
Now, if you can see one way, you can see the other, right?
Well, on a clear night, we don't know for sure if it was clear.
No, he says it was.
Clear in his sighting.
Yep.
Even though it was raining.
He says it was clear because it had rained earlier.
Because it rained earlier.
And when after it rains, that's generally how your skies get to be the most clear.
Right.
But they may not be, there may be clouds between you and 300 miles.
Well, he didn't report them if so.
So we have to kind of go with what the witnesses report instead of adding our own narratives to the situation.
So, yeah.
So find out if you can see, because like I will verify that you can see the Falcon 9 SpaceX rocket launch from Cape Canaveral, Florida, which is less than 300 miles from where we're sitting right now.
I can, we can watch it.
I can watch from my backyard.
It launches to the east, meaning it's going farther away from where we are now.
But it's also a Falcon 9 rocket, and it has to be a very clear night.
There can't be any clouds.
And I imagine that the flames coming out of the launcher of a Falcon 9 are a lot brighter than a lithium ion battery fire.
Okay, what does it say?
You're going to have to add the altitude to this to make it work.
So I've dug pretty hard into it as well.
Oh, okay, sure.
It says 30,000 to 40,000 feet.
Whenever airliners typically cruise.
Yep.
Too small for me to read.
On a clear night, you might be able to see a commercial airliner's lights from a distance of up to 25 miles away.
Possibly more.
This distance can vary based on the factors mentioned above, which is altitude.
Yep.
So it says 25 miles away?
You have to refine that search.
I had the same issues.
So if you ask it how far away can you see from a plane at 35,000 feet, then you'll get a more accurate answer, which is about 310 miles.
And you can figure this out yourself.
I already Google did this myself the other day using this exact program.
Okay, wait, So you want me to ask it specifically at 35,000 feet.
Correct, which is cruising altitude.
But this already says at 30 to 40,000 feet, so it's already in this answer 25 miles.
Commercial airlines are not accurate.
Typically cruise at altitude around 30 to 40,000 feet at heights.
They can be visible to observers on the ground.
Under clear conditions, though they will appear as small moving lights.
Okay, so that's just saying like directly below it, right?
From 30 to 40,000 feet away.
So we want to add 30 to 40,000 feet.
If a plane is 30,000 feet in the air, how far away can we see it?
Like how.
So if you can see one way, you can see the other.
You agree, right?
So if that's true, then you only need to ask how far from 35,000 feet can you see?
Because if you're at 35,000 feet and you can see 300 miles, then you can see the other way 300 miles as well.
Yes.
And that's the way I asked.
So if you just ask it, how far can you see from a plane at 35,000 feet on a clear night?
Okay.
And you will get to the answer that I think we need.
All right.
Oh, okay.
So like seeing land from a plane, right?
No, no.
He's like saying, he's saying, if you're sitting in an airplane at cruising altitude, looking out of the plane.
Because if you can see Mike McKay, he can see back at you, right?
Well, you have to say, like, Like, could we see a lithium ion battery fire on the ground 300 miles away?
And I don't think he's seen a, you know, I think that's a little too specific, right?
Because what he says is he sees a fire and he sees it low on the horizon, right?
And he only sees it on fire for about five or 10 seconds.
At 40,000 feet, how far can you see?
That's fair, right?
Sure.
Sure.
I mean, I don't know.
Chat GPT is pretty interesting.
I mean, sometimes you get kind of different responses.
So this says 245 miles under clear conditions.
To the horizon.
Now, what I saw when I posted it in there was 310 miles, which is what my reporting states.
But again, this is very far, right?
Again, based on the curvature of the earth.
So, this is saying at 40,000 feet, you can see approximately 245 miles to the horizon under clear conditions.
Yeah.
And keep in mind, Mike McKay is on an elevated oil rig as well.
So, it doesn't seem very unreasonable that you'd be able to see a little bit further.
That is, I mean, that's at the far end of the spectrum, right?
I think we all agree, right?
And even Mike McKay does.
So, he's seen it low on the horizon, which is probably at the maximum distance.
And that's probably why his sighting as well is that.
It's not like he's seeing a huge plane, right?
He's just seeing some fire out there and he's going, Oh, he hears about the situation.
He goes, Huh, that's the same, you know, right location and the same angle as well.
Keep in mind as well that Mike McKay could be looking in any direction.
And it turns out he's looking in the exact right direction of where the plane was relative to him as well.
So his sighting was very credible.
There was a lot of people that actually thought early on.
I went back and looked through a lot of initial reports that.
But why do you think it's very credible?
Because what else is he seeing?
It's the middle of the night, guys.
It's 1 21 in the morning.
This guy's going out on an oil rig to have a cigarette and he sees fire on the horizon.
Right, but like we talked about.
We talked about the same direction of MH370.
Is he just imagining?
Is he seeing a fireball?
Yeah, but like we talked about earlier.
Is he seeing a meteor?
Witness accounts, individual witness accounts, they can get distorted even if it's a day later.
And now we're talking 10 years later and we're asking ChatGPT how far you can see at 40,000 feet.
They say 245 miles.
So we're stretching the human limit of visual acuity saying that somebody can see a fire 300 miles away.
So I wouldn't call that very credible.
Well, uh, I mean, my chat GBT that I'm going by said 310 miles.
Okay.
Still, it's within 50, 60 miles.
In clear distance.
So, to me, it's like a story.
What is the alternative story?
Right?
You have to have an alternative story.
So, he sees a meteor.
What is he seeing?
Is he just making it up?
I mean, he risks his job and he lost his job over this.
Right?
And this corroborates the events that are not just from him, but there's nine people along the coast.
He lost his job because of this?
He lost his job over this.
How did that happen?
That's not really explained.
But ultimately, if you are setting up a conspiracy, you've got to discredit every witness that saw the alternative story.
And that's what happened here.
There were nine people along the coast that also hear loud noises at the exact same time, which would indicate this explosion of the lithium ion battery.
They all reported it.
They're all along the coast of Malaysia and Thailand, which again corroborates his story as well.
So it's much more plausible that you have a lithium ion battery fire scenario.
He sees this fire potentially initially.
Look, I'm on board with you.
I don't think it's impossible that there was a lithium ion battery fire, but I'm just saying, like, I'm all I'm saying is I wouldn't call this one guy's eyewitness accounting from 300 miles away a very, very credible.
Like, I don't think, I mean, that's a subjective statement.
It seems like a little bit of a stretch to me.
Okay.
Yeah.
Well, so he did supposedly see something.
He had a sighting that he reported.
This isn't 10 years later either.
This is like right after it happened.
And a lot of people looked into it.
And one of the initial theories that I found is that people speculate, oh, could it have been a fire related to this?
The reason why they cast doubt on that was several reasons.
Mostly, we didn't know how dangerous lithium ion battery fires were in 2014.
The other thing, too, is they said that, well, it couldn't have been a lithium ion battery fire because the plane would have burnt up.
But as we've seen, these cargo bays are actually resistant and they're set up to actually withstand fires.
And we've seen from videos of lithium ion battery fires, you can actually fight them and you can put it out.
It just keeps coming back up again.
Right.
So, it's not a situation where the fire is just raging out of control, which of course is going to bring down a plane very quickly.
It's a situation where you're battling this fire actively.
Okay.
So, this plane was on fire allegedly from the lithium ion battery fire over the south, trying to see where this guy was on his oil rig.
The thing did a U turn and then did what?
So, yeah, if we switch back over to the video here, this plane does a U turn.
And if you go and Google MH370 Wired, you're going to actually find an article that argues exactly for this scenario, except for it argues for an electrical fire.
As opposed to the Wired Magazine.
Yeah, publication, yes.
And it actually argues that going to Penang would be the correct location to go to an emergency scenario.
If this is a pilot suicide scenario, you're going to crash the plane right away.
If this is a hijacking scenario, you're not going to go to the nearest airport that can accommodate a 777.
It has the longest runway.
The elevation is good for this as well, which is why you potentially wouldn't go back to Kuala Lumpur.
Potentially there's mountains, et cetera, here.
And the situation here is that if you have this lithium ion battery fire and it's depressurized the plane, Then you want to stay low where the passengers can breathe, right?
Yes.
If it's a situation where it's pilot suicide, then you want to be flying very high because you want to make all the passengers pass out.
And there's quite a big difference between how long people will last depending on the altitudes I looked into, interestingly enough.
So, interestingly enough, it goes to Penang.
It turns right back at Penang.
Now, when it gets about a little bit off the coast here at 17 30 UTC, there's eight fishermen on a boat.
Eight of them see this plane flying extremely low, very unusually low.
This would be indicative of the pilot here is not trying to make people go unconscious.
Quite the opposite.
They're trying to give people enough oxygen to be able to breathe.
He's probably going to be looking for an airstrip to land at.
Yeah, and there's other smaller airstrips, but they're not going to be long enough to probably accommodate this and they're not going to be open.
It's going to be a situation where you're desperately trying to land anywhere, right?
So this is actually the appropriate location where they would be going in this emergency scenario.
These fishermen see it flying low.
There's also at this point at 1730, a communication.
There's another.
Pilots, another 777 pilot who's going to Tokyo, I believe.
I could be wrong.
Japan, I believe, is how it's reported.
He didn't want his name to be known.
He hears a communication from either the pilot or the co pilot with some static in the background.
That is, there's not really direct communication on what it is, but just that he reports that he thinks he heard this communication.
So we now have doubt as to whether or not the communications were even out.
And when we watched the Malaysian prime minister, he argues that they didn't know that this was MH370.
But this was an unidentified plane.
But what other plane can it possibly be, right?
You're following this radar plane.
Only one plane's gone missing.
It has to be MH370.
And he argues that they knew it was a commercial airliner and that it wasn't hostile, which I would ask you, Danny if you know that a plane isn't hostile and it's a commercial airline, how can you know that if it's not identified, right?
How do you know it's not hostile?
To me, it has to be you had to have communication with it because otherwise, how do you rule out that it's been hijacked by like terrorists or something or by the Iranian passengers that we were talking about before, right?
That's a good question.
The only way is you must add communication, at least in my mind.
So it gets here to Penang, 1752 UTC, which is just 30 minutes later.
Okay.
And so we imagine they're battling this fire.
For whatever reason, they don't land, but the co pilot's cell phone pings a local cell phone tower, which could be, theoretically, could mean that they were low enough that they were able to ping the cell phone tower.
I imagine at 35,000 feet, it's much more difficult than if you're at like 10,000 feet or below.
And it could be that they were, if you believe the communications were out, you could argue that they were trying to establish communication.
Or you could just believe that this was just a random ping because the phone was on and he was low enough.
It doesn't really add much, but it's just kind of an interesting plot point here.
Whatever reason they don't land here.
Now, this is where it gets interesting.
Because I would argue then.
Can you full screen this, by the way?
Oh, yeah.
I'm sorry.
There we go.
No worries.
The main reason why you probably don't land here is that your landing gear is damaged or you can't be deployed.
And then the next thing you're supposed to do is you're supposed to try to land on your belly on the land.
I actually didn't know that, but I've looked at the.
I actually talked to a pilot who went through the scenarios with me on the internet and on Twitter, on Twitter spaces.
Yeah, on Twitter spaces.
And they said that, oh, well, the next thing, and they showed me the pictures of the actual book, right, that says here's the next thing you're supposed to do.
You're supposed to land on your belly, supposedly.
Now, the issue here is that this, how long have we gone through here?
We've only been in the air for about an hour.
At this point, from 1642 to 1752, this plane has another six hours of fuel in it.
So it's loaded with fuel.
So if you try to land on your belly with the fuel, it's going to blow up, right?
It's not a good recipe there.
Now, the next thing you're supposed to do is you're supposed to try to dump the fuel.
So you can imagine maybe we try to dump the fuel, but the problem is we're on fire here.
So this is like kind of trying to light up a cigarette in a gas station.
You know, this plane's potentially, it seems like very dangerous to try to dump this kerosene fuel everywhere.
Right.
So let's say you can't dump the fuel, it's too risky.
The next thing you're supposed to do is land in the ocean.
Belly Landing Fuel Risks00:04:48
So now this starts to get back to what we were talking about before with KT, right?
So, what I imagine to happen here then is that you have communication and you're setting up a rendezvous point because it's the middle of the night.
This is 1 52 a.m.
The sun is down, the moon is down, there's no light anywhere.
So at this point, you're saying, okay, where are we going to go land where we can get support, right?
I need people in boats nearby to get us.
Right.
If we try to land in the ocean, unless we're pulling a perfect Sully Sullenberger in the Hudson River, Like, we were looking at pictures.
Julian pulled up a picture in the last podcast where it wasn't just a picture, but a video of this plane trying to land right next to the coast and it just rips apart.
Right.
Like, it's not a very safe situation to be trying to land in the ocean.
Most likely, this plane is going to rip apart in the ocean.
So, you need people right there.
And it's pitch black as well.
Like KT mentioned, you couldn't see anything.
So, this plane comes out here.
The last contact is supposedly this time changes multiple times.
As I mentioned initially, if you look at all the reportings from the next day, they say that signal was lost at 1840 UTC.
But the Malaysian military.
Which is when it circles her boat.
Yeah, down over here.
Within about probably five minutes or so.
And the Malaysian defense minister and all the press conferences are saying 1815 UTC on like the days afterwards, or 1822 UTC is when they lose contact.
But I would argue they probably still had contact based on that intercepted communication.
The SOS that we talked about indicates that they probably still had some communication levels with this plane, or maybe they were able to reestablish them.
It's hard to say exactly.
So, what this means is this plane is doomed.
This plane is going to try to land in the water.
It's going to be doomed.
As I mentioned, I lived in Singapore once upon a time.
And so I went to school with a bunch of kids who were from China.
And one of the things that I learned is How old were you when you lived in Singapore?
I was in high school when I lived there.
What made you want to go there to go to high school?
I don't want to get too much into my personal information, but I had reasons to be living in Singapore at that time.
It wasn't like, oh, I'm going to go live in Singapore.
Here we go.
It was like, no, it was family related stuff.
So, you know, my family was living there.
And so that's the reason why I went to school out there.
Yeah.
But why was your.
Why was your family living there?
Yeah, I mean, I don't want to go into the personal stuff related to my family and like what their jobs are in general, but you know.
Well, I mean, you're, I mean, if you, it's important that you lived there and you're using it as context for, you know, giving this video credibility.
So, like, why we should know, you know, what the background is of why you lived there.
Okay.
Yeah.
Fine.
Let's go for it.
So, yeah, you know, my dad lived out there.
He had his job out there.
And so I went to go live with him and stay out there.
And so I spent about two and a half years living out in Singapore, which was a very eye opening experience for me in terms of.
Learning about other cultures and how they lived.
I've actually flown on Malaysian Airlines from Kuala Lumpur before.
Wow.
You know, before actually these events, many years before them.
But so I have experience.
I went to Malaysia.
I've actually gone to Penang as well before, Lungkawi, the same place where that airport is.
I've been there.
I went vacation there one time.
And I had friends from all over the country, all over the world, frankly.
Very few of my friends were actually even from America.
One of them, actually, though, who was from America, actually became a pilot, interestingly enough.
So, you know.
How many years total did you live there?
Two and a half years.
Two and a half years.
Yeah.
So, you know, and then I came back to the United States, and I, as much as I enjoyed my time there overseas, I like America a lot more.
You know, you miss the.
Down home stuff, like honestly, football on Sundays is one of the things I missed a lot.
Does your dad still work there?
No, he's since moved back.
So, is he intelligent?
Many years ago.
He's not at all.
So, one thing I will say is a lot of people are in the military that go there, like a lot of military families.
My family was not one of them.
You know, he was there for his own reasons, his own job, whatever, and he would have to tell you exactly why he wanted to live there, et cetera.
I came along for the ride.
I did not know what to expect when I went to Singapore.
What I will say is a very beautiful country.
It's very much.
More industrialized than I would have imagined when I first went there.
It's probably even better now, frankly.
So, what I'll say though is, I went to an international school, had students of all over the world.
And when we went to swim class, gym class, that's when I learned that mainland Chinese students don't learn how to swim, apparently.
I don't know if it's because they don't have as much lakes there, but it's not like in the West where everybody really learns from a very young age how to swim.
And it was very surprising to me because the pool there was very shallow.
Like, I'm a pretty tall guy, I'm about six feet.
The pool was only like four feet deep.
So it was unusual that only the Western kids were getting in the water.
And I asked and said, Oh, no, apparently, maybe Taiwanese students who are right on the ocean, right?
And you're on an island were much more likely to learn how to swim.
But if you're in mainland Chinese, then it was actually not very common.
So this plane is filled with majority Chinese nationals.
So if this plane does crash into the ocean, a lot of these people also can't probably swim.
Maldives Student Swimming Pool00:15:13
What that means, again, is that this plane is very likely doomed, is that even in a scenario where you do land in the ocean, Maybe you can keep the plane not completely breaking apart.
People that do survive that, many of them are going to end up drowning.
So, no matter how you look at this at this point, this is a very dire situation.
Also, keep in mind, we've got a lithium ion battery fire that's probably been billowing toxic smoke throughout the air conditioning units for an hour and 20 minutes up to.
So, likelihood of survival and a depressurized plane also, it's not looking great for the passengers on this plane, no matter what, at this point.
And this will kind of come into the potential motives that we'll talk about later.
Okay.
So, You know, what we've got here now is we've got a plane that's been on fire that can't land, that couldn't, that potentially when it comes tries to land in the water, it's going to be a disaster.
We are have a witness who says you saw this plane trying to land potentially.
We've got an SOS communication where you saw this plane trying to land.
And then we're going to have some videos that is also going to show this plane descending and potentially with smoke billing out of the back of it.
Okay.
Yeah.
And who did this map again?
This was actually from Chris from the Not So Deep podcast.
Throw a little shout out to him.
He was one of the first.
Chris from the Not So Deep podcast.
Yeah, one of the first that I talked to, and actually the map itself comes from a map that we created from MH370X, but the animations come from him where he added the nice cool plane flying over the top of it.
We have another one that also indicates a little bit of where we think this plane might have gone to.
Okay.
Because there was actually a B77 fire suppression device that washed up in the Maldives weeks after that was not investigated, despite the fact that there's.
Is there photos of that?
Or what is the proof of that?
Oh, yes, there are photos.
Yes, there is.
Exactly matches a B77 fire suppression device from these are the fire suppression devices from the actual B77, and this is what washed up.
Whoa.
And it's a weird looking object.
Who discovered this?
The Islanders on the Maldives.
So I think it was around a couple weeks later, a few weeks later, that this washed up.
Was not investigated.
This actually isn't even the best photo.
There's a more clear photo of this in the daytime when they put it on a log or something.
And you can actually see that there's a serial number on this as well.
So the idea that they didn't look into this is wild.
It turns out the Maldives was intentionally excluded from the search.
Have you ever tried to dig into this angle of it and figure out where that thing could be and try to find out who actually discovered it?
I haven't, but there were people that went to the islands and actually looked into it.
Florence DeChangy was one of them, interestingly enough.
And I talked to her, and her view was, well, it doesn't add up.
So maybe it came from some other boat or something.
But this thing, look how weird this thing looks.
Like, this is exactly this device.
I mean, that's it, right?
How can it not be the device?
Yeah, it looks very similar.
Looks like it.
I can't imagine this coming from anything else.
I mean, yeah, it looks almost identical.
When I was first looking into this situation well before I was an investigator, I remember this reporting on this and going, huh, that looks like one of those cartoon bombs, right?
Where you light it up.
Yeah.
And I just didn't realize, oh, this has to be from it.
But now in retrospect, you look at it and you go, okay, that's got to be one of these devices.
So, I think that that's pretty telling as well.
In fact, there was also a sighting from early in the morning in the Maldives, which is about 6 15 in the morning.
The timing doesn't really match up, but that they claimed to see Malaysian Airlines flying over their small island at 6 15 in the morning, where it was so clear they could see the windows from the passenger plane.
They knew it was a jumbo jet, and you could see the blue and white stripe apparently from it.
Sergio Caldivo, I'm probably butchering his last name, actually went out there and talked to them.
I spoke to Florence DeChangy, who also went out there and talked to them, and she says, well, it couldn't be because it came from the wrong direction.
And that I found some other reporting that said, oh, well, they're trying to connect it to some small 50 seater plane.
But I looked at that plane and it's just red and white.
It doesn't match at all the witnesses' statements there.
So I think that what we're going to find is that you can bring that sighting and that evidence back in when we realize that the plane doesn't have to be coming from the east, it can be coming from the north and that can match with this sighting perfectly.
There were like six or seven different islanders that saw this plane in the early morning.
So there's quite a bit of evidence here that we've got a fire situation going on.
And I think I spoke to the rest.
Oh, yeah.
And so, yeah, again, all these witnesses as well that theoretically see this.
And now I think the big question is okay, well, if it's a fire, why do we have this narrative of it going into the South Indian Ocean?
Like, why did this narrative get developed, right?
Right.
Maybe because the guy was trying to waste all the gas before he landed instead of dumping the fuel, like you said, and igniting the fire.
Maybe he was trying to burn through all the fuel first and probably flying at a low altitude.
This plane's not going to last six hours.
You can't battle the fire for that long.
That's the issue.
And this is part of the reason why people didn't think the fire scenario made any sense.
Because you can't last for six or eight hours.
It's even a miracle they last for one to two hours, potentially even an hour and a half.
And as we can see from our videos and the corroborated events, they're trying to land in the ocean because you got to get this plane on the ground right away.
So that's the big problem is that.
Why wouldn't they be able to last for six hours?
Because the fire, they couldn't keep the fire under control for that long.
The fire is eventually going to break free.
And that's the thing.
And that's why people don't even believe the fire could last, you could fight it for over an hour, which is why I think it's important that I have somebody willing to testify to Congress with me that would say that you can, who has.
Extensive research looking into these types of events.
Now, going back to that documentary on Netflix, when they very clearly show that there were pallets of something that was going into the bottom of the plane that didn't go through security, did they say on the documentary that it was lithium ion batteries or what did they say that it was?
No, the lithium ion batteries have been confirmed.
It's the mangosteens.
It's like 4.5 thousand pounds of mangosteens, which I think Florence Sachangy also cast out in her book and saying that she believed she looked into it extensively.
I've spoken to her as well.
From talking to her firsthand, she thinks that it could have been contraband, but that it's probably not related to whatever happened with the plane.
Like it could have been something like rhino horns or something that, you know, has been put under some other name like that.
What's a mangostein?
Mangosteins are like these, I think it's like a mango plant.
I don't know exactly.
You can look it up.
It's a very weird, oblong looking kind of plant.
The problem with it was that they were out of season.
And so the Malaysian government says, oh, well, they were shipped from this other place 100 kilometers away.
So that's the official narrative is that it was mangostein.
Yeah, mangosteins.
We've dug into it.
We can't find any way to corroborate it being some other thing.
People, I've heard everything from the RQ 170 drone pieces, but that drone's way too big for it to be fitting in these cargo bays.
So.
There could be some other angle to the cargo, but as of date, we haven't been able to successfully corroborate anything that would link to whatever else that might have been.
Okay.
Yeah.
Good question, though, on that part.
Okay.
So you mentioned that the thing that got you interested and the thing that brought you into this case was the videos, right?
The two videos, one from a drone and one from a satellite.
Yep.
Yep.
How important.
To this investigation, are these two videos?
Yeah.
And do you think there's any possibility that they are VFX?
I think that there is no chance that any part of them is fake.
No chance.
And the reason for that is the requirements to fake them, in addition to the narrative to be built.
You know, one of the biggest things that I tell people that want to cast doubt on the videos is okay, well, tell me a story that makes sense for the videos to be fake, right?
And we'll go into the evidence around them.
And maybe I'll just list that out right now.
So, okay, but why do you think that there's no chance, regardless of what the backstory might be?
Well, I think the requirements to fake them will kind of explain that.
And then before we even go into your requirements, I know you have a very long list, dense list of requirements to how it could be faked, but how does that change your narrative or how does that change your hypothesis if the videos are fake?
I think the only thing, interestingly enough, like I didn't imagine to find all this evidence supporting this lithium ion battery fire scenario.
I mean, that has only come up in the last month, potentially.
Right.
And it's almost to the point now where we've been talking about this for almost two hours.
Right.
And there's so much evidence, even without the videos, of the official narrative being fake.
You don't even need to look at the videos to break all of this down, which I think just goes to show how strong of a case this is in general.
But keep in mind, I would never have gotten here without the videos.
Right.
They started the whole thing.
And when it's been an investigation where one leads to the other, and when you're following this investigation, following the clues, and you're slowly building this puzzle piece together.
Right.
So, the biggest part I think is that when I looked at the videos, the biggest thing I thought is well, the only person I could imagine faking these videos, because we're going to be looking at two military assets that were classified, right, is the US government.
They're the only ones who are going to have the inside knowledge on what that stuff is going to look like.
It would have to either be someone affiliated with them or them directly.
And what we look at the videos is so incredible.
We see three orbs in these videos that are circling the plane in a perfect pattern that we can only understand potentially in 2023 to even be real.
I thought, huh.
If these were a psyop, which is what I think the angle that people aim at there is, what's the story the U.S. government's going to tell with this?
And there's no story that makes any sense.
If you release these videos to the public, and they never did, by the way, you know, the big thing is the hoax would break down the moment you find the plane.
So if you find this plane, then you're going to say, okay, well, these videos make no sense, right?
But we never found the plane.
These videos are going to show the plane disappearing.
Who's implicated if we release this on CNN, right?
You got.
Don Lemon, let's say, and he's lost his job recently, but let's say he's out there and he's showing this in 2018 going, We've uncovered these videos.
You know, here you go, public.
Here's what really happened to the plane.
The general public is not going to say, oh, yes, you know, aliens took the plane away.
No, the common answer is going to say, no, the government made this video to cover up the fact that they're the ones who did something to the plane.
So you think that if this was public knowledge, if mainstream media would have come out with these videos and talked about them, you think that the majority of people would assume that these orbs are government technology.
No, I think that most people would have assumed the videos are fake and that.
The US government would be the only ones who could have created them, and therefore this would implicate the US government in the cover up.
Is that they would say, Oh, I'm not going to believe that.
Even now, when you show people the orbs and evidence, they still say, You know, that can't be real.
Well, then what's the other story?
Well, the US government had to have created it.
Now, why would they create it?
To create a cover story for whatever they really did to the plane.
You know, again, the problem is what's the narrative?
What did they do to the plane if not that?
Right?
It didn't land in the South Indian Ocean.
We went through that evidence, right?
So, what really happened to it?
Do you think there's no possible other.
There's no possible other route of logic other than the fact that the government would have faked it.
Like, have you thought through what the other possibilities could be?
Like, what other people could speculate other than the fact the government tried to fake it?
Like, could it just be somebody on the internet trying to get attention?
Because clearly there's lots of people who make fake videos to get attention.
That's awesome.
Could it be another government faking the video, covering it up?
Like, why?
Have you ruled out any other possibilities of speculation other than the US government faking it?
I've thought about all those angles.
The biggest one is that individuals trying to do it, it's too detailed.
There's no issues or discrepancies anywhere in these videos at all, not even in a single frame of either of them.
So if it's just an individual doing it, this is going to take far too much time and effort, and there would be mistakes involved.
We're talking about either a team of people doing this, a studio of people doing this, or the government itself.
Part of the reason why it has to be the government is there's military classified intel that you would need to know in order to be able to even accurately recreate these.
And that's the same reason why it would be tough for another foreign adversary to create them.
The biggest thing is the timetable.
Timetable window is so small.
So the problem is the very first video that comes out posted by Regicide Anon, who's a UFO uploader account, who's posted other videos.
I'll go ahead and show the images of this just to prove it.
Hoax debunked.
This is his channel?
This is his channel.
Is it still up?
This is, I think we probably found it from the, no, it's been deleted.
So this is an internet archives.
I would argue that most of these videos are fake.
Yes.
Except for when we get to our MH370 ones.
So most of his videos that he uploads are fake, except for the MH3.
Yeah, I mean, let's say not fake, but not as credible.
Let's say it's probably the best way, because I haven't obviously debunked all these other videos.
Okay, let's read through the title.
The other videos that he posted were Ghosts of Drowned Boy Haunts His Brothers, Flying Saucer A Quarter Mile Wide, World War II Archive Footage of Flying Saucer, UFO Sightings, Impossible Maneuvering, and then we have the videos of The drone Malaysia flight and the satellite Malaysia.
When we look at his video here, this is the actual archive of the first video.
It's called Satellite Video, Airliner and UFOs, uploaded by Regicide Anon.
The description says published May 19th, which is about 70 days after the event.
This is when it was published 70 days.
Okay.
But it says received March 12th, 2014.
This is four days after the event.
Source protected.
The other sources would generally say stuff like email submission.
None of them say protected on them.
This is an indicator here that he was actually leaked real footage right after the event.
That the person who saw it had an emotional reaction to the footage, felt like they needed to release it, but that Regicide and I potentially had to be convinced, maybe took weeks to convince them that, hey, you need to publish this, this is real, because we had so little basis to understand the videos to be real.
Right, but like, if I am a person online posting these types of videos, right, I wanna post, I'm posting them to fool the public or to get attention from them, right?
I'm not gonna post it and say, Fake VFX video, I'm gonna post it and I'm gonna put descriptions in there that prove that it's real.
I'm gonna want, I have incentive to make people believe that this is an actual video that's real, it's not fake.
So putting it received date four days after the plane went down, that makes sense because they wanna convince people that it was right after.
So the narrative that you're building right now is that Regicide Anon is somehow in on it, that they are somehow involved in producing it.
That's the speculation, yes.
So that's the problem now is that you have to begin, if you wanna think these videos are fake, you have to begin with Regicide Anon somehow being involved in it.
And now, this is immediately going to be contrary to the previous assertion that perhaps the military had to be involved in it.
And this is part of the reason why we've ruled that narrative out you can't have both be true unless you think Red Decided On is part of the military industrial complex.
But what we just saw from the previous image, he has stuff that says debunked.
He's not doing what you just claimed.
And he also has video of ghosts of boys on the ground.
Digital Corridor VFX Claims00:16:05
Right?
So, this isn't exactly the most credible.
This doesn't scream to me a person who's trying to convince people that stuff is real.
This also doesn't scream to me this is a person who's CGI and stuff themselves.
This is just somebody who's being given videos that they are posting on the internet, right?
What does that mean?
Do you know what that videos sabidos means?
What does that mean in Spanish?
I don't know where we're looking here.
Let's see where it says under videos.
It says videos sabidos and reproducer todo.
It's all in Spanish.
What does sabidos mean?
You know, Steven?
I'll check it out.
That's what the internet is for sabito.
Videos sabitos.
I'm curious what that means because that's clearly highlighted.
Fuck, I can't see.
Yeah, I'm not following her.
S-A-B-I.
S-U-B-I-D-O-S.
Point my mouse where you think we're looking at.
On the top left above the video.
Oh, over here.
These are probably video submissions.
Submissions.
Yeah.
So that means video submissions.
Yeah, these are video submissions.
And some of these say like email submission as well.
So they're not consistent with all of a sudden we have these very high quality videos compared to these other ones here before.
And interestingly enough, it doesn't say anything about MH370 here.
He makes a Twitter account.
Three days after the upload.
Now, if you're somebody who is trying to fake these, this is not how I would say, please spread this before it's pulled.
And then he also tags MH370 for the first time.
He connects it there.
Right.
Right.
I would also argue here that, under my impression, when I look at these videos, I think we're seeing our technology.
That's only because I've dug through all the evidence that we dug through here today.
And we've learned that this was a situation where this plane was doomed.
You know, I don't like to attribute to UFOs or whatever, like, oh, they're going to go save the plane.
No, that's something humans go do.
Right.
But what I'm saying, like from the Twitter post, he's saying, please spread this video.
He's trying to get the video to go viral.
He's trying to get more views on his video on YouTube.
That's how it gets pulled, for sure.
Right.
That's a lot of people say that to get more views on their videos.
Like, you do a lot of people go on podcasts and they do it with like controversial people, Alex Jones, for example, and they'll say, go watch my Alex Jones podcast before the government pulls it down, right?
To get more people to think, oh my God, this is important.
This is urgent.
I need to go watch it now.
Like, that's a tactic people use to get views.
Well, I think that you have to look at the fake video requirements now.
Which is, unless Regicide Anon is involved in it, if he's not involved in it, you have four days because otherwise he has no reason to lie about the received submission.
Hold on, say it one more time.
So, if you think that Regicide Anon is involved in it, then he's lied about it, then you have up to 72 days to create the first video.
72 days, right.
On the satellite.
Which he very easily could have just put received four days later.
It's not, that's easily just, he could have put that.
That's never a reason to lie, right?
In my opinion, to make it go viral.
That's why you would lie.
To make people think that it's real.
You wouldn't put MH370 in the name if you're trying to make it go viral.
You wouldn't leave it ambiguous, right?
Again, we look at the video here and it doesn't say anything about MH370, right?
He doesn't do that until after he uploads it.
Later on, three days later.
Okay.
So to me, it doesn't really add up.
That's a good point.
In terms of trying to catch attention for it, because he's clearly not catching it, trying to catch attention for it in the description of the video.
There's no reference copy to copy this from.
This isn't a situation where there's something else out there and you're trying to make it look like it's not a deep fake situation where you're superimposing something over the top of it.
And that's part of the reason why if you try to say that, oh, well, they use this visual effect, it doesn't work.
Because unless it's a perfect match, then you're saying, oh, well, you're going to modify it to look like that.
Well, this isn't something you copied it from.
This is something that you would have created all originally, right?
If you're saying, what are you saying?
So, a lot of people have tried to argue there's a VFX debunk out there.
Yeah, I've seen it.
The Mick West one, right?
Yeah, this portal is from some low quality, two dimensional video game effect that's very pixelated, that somehow that's been superimposed over our videos.
And we've shown that it doesn't match at all, as a statement of fact.
It does not match on even a single frame.
Really?
And people have argued well, it doesn't need a match.
You can modify it.
Well, that's the problem.
It's an original work.
It's not like you're looking at two things side by side and lining up the pixels, right?
You would have to have originally modified that into being something else.
And if you're going to do that, you're not going to go through that effort.
Hold on.
You're losing me.
What's an original work?
So, this work that we're talking about, the videos that we're watching that we're about to pull up, there's nothing that they could have been copied from.
It's not like you're taking a master painting and you're making a replica of it, right?
If you're doing that, then you're painstakingly matching left to right, right?
In an original work, you're being creative.
You're creating your own thing.
Right.
In that situation, you're not going to take a visual effect and then you're not going to be able to modify it to what we see in our videos because you don't have the frame of reference to modify it like that.
You can only do that after the fact.
Okay.
Well, if I'm trying to make a video of a plane disappearing inside of an explosion, you would use an explosion.
Yes.
I would use an explosion effect.
I wouldn't make the explosion.
That would be the most obvious thing I would do.
Yeah.
And that's the thing.
So, why did they not use an explosion effect?
So, here's the thing.
Let's pull it up and see.
I have the superimposed one right here.
Do you?
So let's look at this together.
Okay.
So, see, this is an explosion effect.
This is not what our video is.
And so, if you were faking it, you would use the explosion effect.
You would have this plane blowing up.
Our video is going to show an endothermic event, a cold one that's absorbing energy.
Because it's black, right?
Yeah, because it's cold in the thermal.
And you can see that here, we can already tell that what we're looking at here is not the same.
Do you?
There's a tool that you can use in.
Adobe Premiere or in Adobe Photoshop, where you can invert the colors and change the illuminance, not only the illuminance, but you can change the balance of the colors, the vibrance of the colors, and you can basically invert something that's black to white, or you can change something, you can even change the color from purple to pink.
Now, tell me a story as to why you're doing that, given the fact that we know this is an original work.
Why are you not just using it like we see on the screen right now?
I don't know.
I'm just saying, I have no idea.
Well, that's the thing, you have to know.
If you want to come up with a scenario that is a counter story.
I'm not trying to come up with a scenario.
I'm just trying to.
Explain something that is entirely possible.
So it's different when you say something is possible versus here's a story that makes sense.
But that's a difference, right?
Because your argument is, oh, they took this and they somehow modified all these.
See all these explosions we see on the side?
These are not obviously in our frame at all.
You would have to delete all this.
Yeah, it's not as simple as changing the color, right?
We're talking about a situation where you have to completely change the effect.
Right.
So you're saying.
The problem is, you don't have the copy to reference it from.
It's not like, oh, I'm going, oh, I'm going to take this and I'm going to turn it into this because you don't have an original reference copy.
This is a unique work of art.
So, okay, so you're saying that this explosion that we're seeing on this video.
Is a real explosion and it's a real explosion that happened in the camera, and it's impossible for any sort of visual effect to be superimposed on top of it or anything like that.
I'm just saying that this effect that we're looking at is not in our videos as a statement of fact.
Okay, okay, gotcha, gotcha.
So if it's something else and there's something else out there that people can find that perfectly matches, then great.
But this one, the frame that they try to get to match is, I believe, like it doesn't, I mean, really doesn't match on any.
I think it's one of these frames where they essentially tried to.
Line it up.
And they try to say that, oh, well, since that's the frame right there, this is the frame where they say this matches.
But we can already tell it doesn't match.
You can see behind here, it's completely different.
So the argument that I make, which is a very simple debunk of the debunk, is how many pixels match?
If you say that these two things are the same, you can already see that the outline doesn't match.
But they say, oh, well, it's too close.
But that's not how it works, right?
Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.
Have you talked to any visual effects artists about this?
Yeah, I have.
Yes.
And they've all said the same thing that this is a real work of art.
And that these are not visual effects.
How much background have you done on these guys and what are their credentials?
Quite a bit.
You can look up Shai Keenan if you want.
She's a very established visual effects artist.
She says that the hardest part about visual effects is Shai Keenan, S H Y K E N A. Shai Keenan?
Okay.
Yeah, on Twitter.
Yep.
And we've got a visual effects lead from Marvel Studios.
I think it was Todd Phillips.
May I say it?
Todd Phillips is the director of.
Oh, no, not Todd Phillips.
That's the hangover.
I have to pull up his name.
I apologize.
I don't have it up in front of me.
But on one of my other podcasts with the Total Disclosure podcast, he went on the record stating that just to do the background research related to everything would take months to figure out the angles and everything you need.
And even using today's technology would take up to six months to be able to produce these videos.
Do you know what it would take to convince you that this is VFX?
Yeah, you'd actually have to do it.
So when it comes to what we see right here on this visual effects, someone actually needs to go and modify every pixel.
And go and make it match and tell me how long it takes to just do the one frame.
Okay.
Have you ever heard of Corridor Digital?
Yeah, yeah.
And they, you know, people have pinged them nonstop.
They did not step up to the plate to try to do this.
You're going to have to have better visual effects skills than the creators of Top Gun Maverick.
They actually posted on Reddit and their post says that whoever would have created this, here it is, we can just read it.
I was the lead VFX artist on Top Gun Maverick.
If this is CGI, whoever made it, frant run their work by over four years.
And did a better job than us, apparently.
And again, this is a movie about planes.
The biggest advantage they had was to cheat the speed of the jets and the scale through different shots and cinematic effect.
So, some of the hardest part here is going to be when you see this plane moving.
They said, even in the Dark Star sequence, the actual speed of the 3D model moving through our environment wasn't anything close to Mach 10.
Whoever made this animation was sure that the speed and the scale is accurate between two cameras, which means that it's animated and scaled to real world speed.
So, they said, I don't know if this video is real.
It could be made using CGI, which would require a considerable amount of effort.
The camera distortion and the rolling shutter would all have had to have been recreated.
The clouds and the lighting look to be correct based on the visible light rays.
So, to me, those are extremely damning comments that make it essentially, you know, you've got somebody who is a lead visual effects artist and one of the biggest blockbusters of the world.
You don't know, though.
It's just a Reddit post.
Well, it can be verified, right?
We could go find that person.
We could talk to them.
Have you, though?
I haven't, but we could.
So, again, everything that I post out there is verifiable.
And that's why it's important.
Now, again, we do have the Marvel VFX expert on record.
You have to have a better understanding of physics than most PhDs.
A lot of the physics that we're seeing here is extremely advanced.
And I've had various PhDs come out to me and reach out to me and claim that, yes, this matches what my theories state.
This matches what you might be able to see.
Salvatore Pius reached out to me to have me set up an interview with him, which to me indicates that he thinks what we're looking at here is potentially authentic.
Otherwise, why is he reaching out to a guy that's investigating something that he thinks might be fake videos?
I thought you said you reached out to him.
Well, I reached out to him, but he responded back within less than a day.
And he's the one who wanted to set up an interview with me.
I didn't ask him for an interview.
Okay.
So, yeah.
All right.
So.
The guys at Corridor Digital, they are working on a video.
They have a series on there.
They have a separate channel with like 14 million subscribers where they do this thing called VFX Artists React to Different Things, like UFO videos.
They did all the Navy videos.
And I talked to them a couple of days ago, and they're actually already working on something like this.
And I told them you were coming in, and I said, Look, this guy, like we talked about, you're kind of like figuring this thing out in real time.
Just started working on it a couple of months ago, and we're trying to get to the bottom of this if this is real or not.
What are your guys' opinions?
And he made a video.
Okay.
Are you open to watching it?
Let's watch it.
Okay.
Yeah.
Do you have it on the.
He sent it to me.
I got it.
Not that long ago.
It was today.
Okay, here it is.
So this is Nico from Corridor Digital.
Sounds good.
Hey, everybody.
My name is Nico Perringer.
You might recognize me from Visual Effects Artist React.
We take a look at visual effects every week on our show on our Corridor Crew YouTube channel.
And we talk about what makes them cool, what makes them not work, all that good stuff.
But I've also personally done visual effects for many years on YouTube since like.
2009, 2010.
And I wanted to take a look at these shots.
Danny asked me to take a look at them and apply my visual effects artist eye.
So, first and foremost, taking a look at these shots, they've been linked to Malaysian Airlines 370.
People have said that this is UFO footage of the airline disappearing.
And one of the things people say that makes them legitimate is how long it would theoretically take to do these visual effects.
So, looking at these shots, in my point of view, these are shots that you could do in a couple of days.
The background is mostly a static image.
That's been just animated over with a 3D model of an airplane and a couple objects orbiting that airplane.
These are not challenging shots to do in visual effects.
All you have to do is basically lay a path out for an object to follow.
In this case, it could be an airplane, and a path for those objects orbiting around it, and a particle emitter for the contrails.
The background is not animated at all.
So, this satellite point of view shot could easily do in a day.
Likewise, the thermal vision shot, which is a little more complicated, you could also theoretically do that in about two days of work, maybe a day of work, especially if you had the airplane model already on hand.
Is he going to actually do the work?
I think it strikes me about this shot that makes it, I guess, higher up.
We might have some commentary in between this.
All right, what'd you say?
So, is this going to actually do the work?
Because just having a guy claim it, and the issue first, right off the bat, is he's talking about using today's technology, right?
But we've already proven these videos go back to 2014.
You'd have to build a 3D rendered environment just to begin to do this work because we have two different cameras from two different angles.
Just to render that using computer processing from 2014 would take several weeks.
But it's.
Right off the bat, we can already dismiss his claims.
Right off the bat, we can already dismiss them.
Yeah.
Let's see how he does.
Okay, keep going.
For higher quality, is that the texture, if this is a VFX shot, which it is, the texture work on the airplane to give us that thermal look looks great.
But here's why I think these are visual effects shots, right?
So, first and foremost, looking at the shot, the satellite feed, there is no movement in the background.
It is just a static image right here.
So, we already established it's a Cibber system, and there actually is movement.
It's actually been proven as well that if you take a 15 second snapshot, you can actually see movement in the clouds as well.
So, have you shown this in a video?
Yeah, we can show it right now.
Okay, let's finish this and we'll show it after.
Already, I'm starting to lose credibility in him because he's already made two false statements, and we're only one minute in.
Okay, let's keep going.
Let's keep a note of that.
You claim that the background is not static.
There is movement that's visible.
Okay, let's keep going.
You can see that the clouds are unchanging, they don't move at all.
If those little white flecks in the background are waves in the ocean, they don't move at all.
If this was being filmed from a high altitude airplane, you would have movement from the airplane.
If it was being filmed from a satellite, you would definitely have movement from the satellite.
And just pause it right there.
Because again, we already established this is the Cibber system, which is actually a computer program that's pulling this data, and that's the reason why we don't see as much general movement.
And that's why we don't see the movement of the satellite either.
So let's keep going.
I just thought of something.
This video is supposed to be six frames a second, right?
Right.
Which means that all of any motion, any clouds, would actually be moving faster than you would typically see with your eyes.
Yes, you're right.
It would not be smooth, it would be jittery.
So the reason why that would be far, you're going to have very little movement there is that the satellite's 1,000 miles away or 1,000 kilometers away.
So if we were to go look outside at clouds that are very far away, we're going to see very little apparent movement of them.
This is about 10 to 100 times further away than that as well.
So, this actually accounts for why you would see so little movement is that the data is coming from satellites that are extremely far away.
Anyway, let's keep going.
Like 20,000 miles an hour.
Motion Blur and Frame Rates00:09:32
And just for reference here, here's footage, real time footage taken today from the International Space Station.
And you can see how fast it's moving.
We can see the clouds going by.
Just to jump to a different point in time.
If you want to pause there, because that's also been brought up as well, is that satellite's much closer to the ground as well.
Which satellite?
That one that they were just looking at there.
The space station's closer to the ground than the Cibber satellite?
Uh, then the satellite, I believe.
Yeah, if I remember correctly, actually, you could even see, I think, the numbers down there.
If I remember correctly, it was like twice as close potentially there as well, which is why there's so much apparent movement from the satellite.
Can you find out how far the space station is from Earth?
Sure.
Okay.
But I want to say that everything is relative.
So when you say it's twice as close, that means that the clouds would theoretically be moving twice as slow, right?
But in the video, it seems to.
It does seem to.
The perspective changes eight times in the video as well.
So, and I will prove that the videos that they've moved, this is none of this is.
Anything new that we haven't already debunked so far, but let's keep going.
Okay.
I'm just trying to figure this out like you are, man.
I want to hear why you think this is bullshit.
No, let's keep going.
Space station, a wider angle.
Like, we can see the movement.
We can see the camera, because satellites don't sit still.
They're moving very, very fast around the Earth in order to be able to stay in orbit.
So, if that's the case, you know, jumping back to this supposed satellite view here, you know, we can see it is completely static.
Nothing is moving.
There's no Parallax.
Are you watching?
The waves are moving.
The clouds aren't even evolving.
It's a static frame.
Now, if you wanted to do the shot in a few days, that's how you would do it.
You'd grab a picture from a satellite point of view, throw it in your background, put your 3D models over it, and animate it and call it a day.
So it really stands out to me that the background doesn't move, because it should.
Especially if it's a satellite or an airplane, we should have parallax.
It is impossible for it to be standing still.
Let's pause it real quick.
Yeah.
The other thing that stands out to me about this shot is that.
Pause it, see?
All right.
I just want to make sure that we're keeping track, all right?
I know you're like searching through your computer right now, but I want to make sure you're listening.
We do have parallax as well.
We have a video that proves there is parallax without any doubt and discrepancy whatsoever.
So, okay.
And I mean, if you want to pull, you want to switch over to my screen real quick?
Let's finish this.
I just want you to pay attention to this.
I don't want you to miss anything.
I'm not missing anything.
All right, because I see you ripping through the computer right now.
So far, nothing's new.
Keep going.
Okay.
We can tell that these clouds, well, they've been taken, they're from daytime.
They have sunlight on them.
You can see the sunlight illuminating them and falling through the cloud.
But Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 disappeared between 1 and 2 a.m.
So it would be nighttime.
Let's pause it right there.
I might say it right there because there's like three false statements right there together.
The plane went dark.
At 1721, which is 1 21 a.m.
According to the official narrative, the plane went missing at 8 in the morning when there was sun on it, which is why early on I thought that this would have happened in the South Indian Ocean.
But as we've talked about already, this is a false color IR that's being taken at night.
There's no cloud, there's no shadows anywhere.
So you claim this happened at what time exactly?
1940 UTC, which is 2 a.m. 240 a.m., which is a nighttime.
So he's making an opinion here, but unfortunately, in this case, not an educated one.
So let's keep going, though.
Well, this is just nighttime photography taken with.
You know, a really sensitive camera.
But there's two issues with that.
One is that if it was nighttime photography, you still have a lot of light on these clouds.
You can see they're getting a directional light source that then falls off.
So it would have to be a full moon with a very sensitive camera.
But the other issue is that if you look at these objects spinning around the plane and the plane itself, there's no motion blur.
Because the thing is, when it's nighttime, when you're trying to film with photons, with light, you need to have the shutter stay open for longer on the camera to let enough photons in to get a bright frame like this.
If you've ever taken a picture at night with your phone and it takes a second to take that picture, it's doing a long exposure.
It's letting in as much light as it can.
So, what that means when you have a shutter that's open for a long time, it means you get a lot of motion blur.
And there is no motion blur on these objects that are moving very fast.
So, if this was taken under the full moon, I mean, we could always check to see if it was a full moon then.
But if this was taken under the full moon, which it's not, there's no camera technology that can do this, even at nighttime under a full moon.
At the very least, if you want it to look like this, you'd have to have the shutter open for so long that none of these objects would show up.
They'd be moving too fast.
They would be faint blurs that you wouldn't even be able to see.
Let's jump over to at the end here when there's a teleportation blast.
So, the other thing here, especially if this is nighttime, this flash here would illuminate the clouds.
It does.
But it does not.
It does illuminate the clouds.
That's another false thing.
Pause, pause, pause, pause.
All right, let's watch.
Stop going through your computer.
I got it.
I just need to make some notes because I want to be able to address all these points because every single thing can be addressed.
Okay.
I just want to make sure you're paying attention to it.
I am.
I am.
All right.
Around it as we see.
You can see the illumination right here.
You can see it.
So that's just a compositing trick where you just select an area of your image and you brighten it.
What is not happening is we're not seeing any new light direction.
We're not seeing shadows being cast in a different direction.
No parts of the cloud that were dark are now taking on light and showing us a different volumetric shape of the cloud.
This is just classic compositing.
We've done it all the time with our fake muzzle flashes when we do gunfights where you just select part of your image and you brighten it up.
Now you could do your own lighting on clouds if you rendered volumetric clouds.
Watched a Marvel film, you've seen an explosion in a modern movie, those CGI explosions, well, those are called volumetrics.
You're even seeing it in Unreal Engine now for the sky and how the sky is rendered.
In 2014, we still had volumetrics.
They're a little more difficult to do, but in this case, there's no volumetrics in action here.
You don't see it from the lighting, you see no parallax shift from the camera, which shouldn't be just completely static in the sky.
It should be moving.
I mean, this is a background photo.
So here's the thing that is the biggest reason this is visual effects.
And this was, I really should have started with this, but then it just kind of be the end of the conversation, which is, The teleportation of the airplane at the end, this shockwave, which looks really cool.
But this is stock footage, and it's stock footage from the 90s.
I can show you the original stock footage element.
Hold on, watch.
Here it is right here.
Yep, let's watch it together.
That's not the same.
It's a really cool stock footage element, pretty obscure.
You haven't seen a lot of it.
But if you line it up over the footage here, which I did, so here's that stock footage frame.
That's one frame.
Just zoom this in a little bit.
And I'm going to switch in my opacity between the stock footage frame and the infrared thermal frame of the UFO video.
Well, if we go back and forth, we see that they perfectly line up.
We see that perfectly line up.
They're definitely not perfect.
The ripples are all in this right same spot.
The burnt in dots here in the same spot.
It's that element.
All right, pause it.
Yeah, pause it.
So, as a statement of fact, those do not match.
And all I have to say to counter is how many pixels match?
Do we want to ask our expert?
Dude, it is fucking exact.
It's not, though.
That's the problem.
It's not an exact match.
That's the issue.
So, how?
Every pixel would have to be in the same spot, and they're not.
Again, all I have to say is how many pixels match.
That's all I have to say.
No, it's not.
Because look, you're compositing an effect into a new video, right?
You're using an effect that was clearly made in the 90s, and you're bringing it onto a video that was.
Produced in 2014, right?
Now he's clearly inverting the colors, right?
So, what's to say there's no expanding of it?
Did he do those dots on there as well?
Yeah, show when he's doing the opacity.
See those two dots?
See the big one and see the little one up top?
Go back to where he's going over there.
We'll go into it later because I actually have the.
Watch, watch.
You see the extra dots, right?
Yep, see them?
Watch.
Now they're going to disappear.
Go back and forth.
They don't.
Look, they're there.
The black dots right there.
Scroll down.
Keep your mouse right near the.
I've got the version of this, so no worries.
Just keep going.
Let's see what else perfectly lined up, right?
It's perfect.
It's not though.
You see that the black actually does not line up, right?
You see how it's not the same on the edges?
How it's like close, but it's not a perfect match?
So, this is the reason that.
So, how are all of those little wave ripples so perfectly matching what's in the video?
All dispersal patterns look the same.
This is like saying that my butthole is your butthole because they're similar, right?
It's not, we don't have the same butthole because of that.
In fact, I have a visual effect of a donut that actually better matches than this does.
And that's the point is that just because shapes are similar, and again, this is one frame, and even on this one frame, it's not a perfect match.
You can even tell in the middle, it's not even close.
You can see there's extra dots that are added there that don't exist in our video either.
So you're saying they what deleted them?
So you're saying the explosion that really happened.
It's not an explosion, it's an endothermic event.
The endothermic event that really happened in 2014 came this close to matching a VFX element produced in the 90s?
Correct.
And the people that found this, how did they even find it?
They had to use something to search for something to try to find something that was similar so that they could actually come up with this debunk.
Okay, let's keep playing it.
Yep.
So I just want to alert it as a statement of fact, these two things do not match.
In terms of being 100% match, you can already see the differences and where they don't match.
Okay, but this guy's a VFX guy who's been doing this his entire life.
And I think he discredited himself pretty hard because he's made, like, I'm counting here eight different factual errors here.
And that's just, we haven't even finished yet.
Okay, let's keep going.
The burnt in dots here in the same spot.
Except for the ones that aren't.
It's that element.
Like, there's no ifs and or buts.
It is that is the exact element that's in the shot, which kind of destroys the whole thing.
But it's not really fun just to do this and call it a day if you want to break it down, right?
Parallax Effect in Footage00:15:41
If we're going to draw some knowledge from this, if we're going to be scrutinizing and skeptical and scientific about the stuff we're looking at, well, let's look at things that we can use to inform ourselves on whether the stuff is real or fake.
So, obviously, the stock footage element here being pasted into the shot is a great indicator that this is visual effects.
But what else might we be looking for?
Well, Let's jump over to this thermal shot, which is a really fascinating shot here.
So a couple things stand out to me on this shot that make me think it's visual effects.
First and foremost, if this was actually thermal footage, there's a couple things that are inaccurate.
For example, when the smoke trails from the plane, the contrails, when they stack up on each other, they start to turn green.
That would imply they're getting hotter just because they've overlapped with each other, which is not how thermals would actually look.
In fact, vapor and smoke and all those things in the air don't show up on thermals at all.
As we saw in the recent Veritasium video that came out, where they compared night vision technologies, they filled a room with fog from a fog machine, and you can't see Derek at all in that fog.
But when looking at it through thermal, you can see him perfectly clear.
So, with that in mind, these contrails should not be showing up as thick as they are in this thermal vision.
Secondly, in the background, the clouds are not quite represented accurately either with thermals.
And the biggest thing that stands out to me with thermal vision is thermal vision isn't noisy like this.
You know, that grain, that noise that you see in footage like this, that's something that happens when you're filming something with very little light and you need to crank the sensitivity on your camera.
You need to boost that signal and it boosts the noise with it.
Well, with thermal, the thermal's not being underexposed here, which would create that noise.
In fact, if you look at other examples of thermal footage, there's none of that kind of grain on it because thermals aren't being underexposed.
You're not trying to boost up light signals.
Even really inexpensive, cheap thermal cameras still don't have that kind of grain.
They might have kind of like a fixed pattern on top of the image that kind of sticks there while this image swims under it, which you can kind of see here.
But there's none of that flickering black and white snow kind of grain in that footage.
Even looking at that UAP footage from the Pentagon, there's grain, but notice how it's kind of like a fixed pattern of grain that kind of sits there as opposed to flickering all over the image.
And the image itself really isn't that flickery, not nearly as flickery as this thermal footage.
These are things that if I were to be critiquing a VFX shot, if I was working on a film and they had given it to me, these are things I would ask them to fix, to improve upon, to make this shot more realistic.
But I don't want to actually rage on the problems here because there's actually some fantastic work here that is so fantastic.
It's engaging people, it's pulling them into the story.
And there's a couple things that this is doing really well that the artists, whoever made these shots, are executing on really well.
And the first thing is the animation.
The animation is perfect.
It's very realistic to how a plane moves.
It's mysterious.
I mean, even this thermal drone shot here the way that the camera zooms in, the way we fly through the contrails of the airplane, the camera shake all the motion is very, very convincing.
And in fact, one thing we've learned when it comes to visual effects is that as long as your motion is convincing, you can get away with almost anything.
Like, having really realistic CG doesn't help if the motion looks fake.
So, good motion is a huge, huge, huge.
I guess, plus for making us buy something as real.
And the animators here did a fantastic job of that motion.
The second thing that these artists did that I really admire is they really nailed the look of degraded footage, right?
Like the satellite footage, like the blue and the grain and the dropped frame rate and the way the mouse clicks and drains around the window and the coordinates update and the feel, the texture, the contrast, all these things in this image are just dialed in to make us feel like it's a satellite image.
And it's really well done.
Same thing with the thermals.
Like, doing fake thermal vision is not super easy to do.
And they really nailed the look here.
There's a couple of issues.
Like, for example, if you look at these clouds down here at the bottom, they're starting to turn green just a little bit, implying that they're actually really hot in the temperature of the airplane, which is not what they should be doing.
This is an effect you would get if you took a regular image of clouds and then mapped a thermal gradient on that footage from darkest things being cold and brightest things being hot.
You'd get that effect.
But also looking at the airplane here, when they zoom in on it, they've done their own custom texture on the airplane to give us that thermal look on the airplane, which is Once again, really well done.
That takes time.
That's artistry.
And the blur, the noise, the little crosshairs, all these things, it really nails the look.
So we shouldn't feel ashamed or anything like that if we look at these shots and we're like, wow, these are really realistic.
I need to investigate.
Because it's fantastic work by these artists.
But there are some clear things that stand out that point to them being fake.
There's a lot, honestly, everything from the contrails not being an accurate representation of contrails to the clouds being.
Clearly lit by sunlight, even though it should be nighttime.
The total lack of motion on the background, the particle emitters getting ahead of the objects when they're moving, the clouds not being illuminated by that bright flash of the airplane, which it brightens the pixels, but it doesn't actually change the direction of the light, which is what should really be happening.
Like all these things add up.
And well, of course, I'm leaving out the biggest one, which is you almost have to ignore because then there's like you can't talk about this.
It's no fun to talk about this.
But the fact that the stock footage, stock footage overlaid, At the end for the teleport.
Like, that's the biggest problem.
I think that matters.
Yes.
If there's stock footage, you can get a UFO shot.
Well, then it's visual effects, right?
You just can't get anything.
I think we're good with this.
Hold on.
But you know, at the end of it all.
Is there a kicker coming?
Like, I want this stuff to be real.
I want to find, like, UFO footage, UAP footage, whatever.
I want to find paranormal footage that I can't explain.
To me, that's thrilling.
Like, I'm there, right?
Yeah.
But if we want to find the stuff, we need to be scientific about it, which is what I'm trying to do here by analyzing this and breaking it down, looking at the visual effects elements here.
And yeah, you know, we actually have a show that we do once in a while on our Corridor Crew channel where we look at UFO footage like this with all the visual effects artists here at the studio.
And we try to break down what visual effects techniques we're noticing, if any.
If you guys want to check it out, you can check out our YouTube channel at Corridor Crew.
I hope to see some of you there.
But yeah, that's it.
Danny, thanks for having me on.
I hope you guys enjoy the rest of your podcast and your discussion.
Look forward to checking it out when it comes out.
Yeah, wow.
So, what is your first initial gut reaction to that?
First reaction is not a thing that he said there is original.
Not a thing.
Every single thing that he's mentioned has already been addressed and debunked.
And he said many false statements, which unfortunately discredit him completely.
I think the biggest thing that he said, though, is that there's perfect animation with zero issues.
So, the first thing that's noticeable is he didn't try to recreate it because he probably wouldn't have been able to.
The parallax, we've proven multiple times.
There is a parallax effect, actually.
We have a video that proves the parallax effect.
So, I'll just go ahead and pull that up.
Okay.
So, because, you know.
You're talking about the background of the clouds moving.
You have a video that shows the clouds moving in the background, even though the drone was flying us.
We do have a snippet that proves that the clouds do move as well.
But we also have a statement that is from somebody who's actually a debunker who actually claims that the clouds do move, yes.
So, here, real quick, you're going to see proof of the stereoscopic effect.
So, I hope the corridor crew is watching.
Yep.
And because I'll go ahead and the sound is a little bit extreme here.
Because I think that they've really discredited themselves pretty hardly with that video right there that he just made, unfortunately.
Again, we've already addressed the fact that this was not nighttime or not daytime, which he falsely thought that we're looking at a false color IR here.
And this is actually nighttime.
Again, there's no shadows anywhere, guys.
Then, how is the directional light, though?
There isn't a specific direction of light.
What we're looking at is a computerized recreation using the Cibber system.
We showed you the videos where it's scanning and pulling satellite data from all over.
So, this is how essentially you don't need to worry about the light effects or anything like that.
The reason why we see higher illumination on the clouds is because there's more IR radiation on the top of the clouds.
You can see the parallax effect very clearly right there.
So, we do see a very clear parallax effect in our videos.
They actually zoom in just to prove that what we're seeing is the parallax effect and the clouds moving here.
There's no doubt about it from both sides.
We are seeing the parallax effect.
Why is it wiggling?
Yeah, I don't understand what's going on.
That was not in the original video.
Right.
He was looking at a different version of the video.
So he probably should have pulled up the regicide of non version, which would have helped make this a lot clearer.
So again, unfortunately for the corridor crew, they did a pretty lazy attempt here.
What?
Now you can see it wiggling pretty clearly here.
And this is somebody who did, I mean.
But now it's not happening.
Because now he stopped doing it.
He's showing it in terms of when you're looking side by side.
You can read the descriptions at the bottom here.
As well.
Okay.
So it's definitely showing that what we're seeing here is a 3D stereoscopic.
So let's skip test that one real quick.
We also have a claim.
Let me just pull here.
I don't know if I actually pulled the video that shows whether there is absolutely cloud movement.
But somebody on Reddit, who's actually somebody who's a debunker, also said that they thought that there was.
I'm just not seeing the cloud movement.
Yeah.
And because you're not seeing the cloud movement again because of the distance.
So here's cloud movement explained.
Clouds do move.
It's not simple as horizontal, vertical movement.
That some might expect from 3D rendered scenes.
The clouds are moving.
There's a hyperlink right there if you want to type that in and pull that up or actually that can as well.
Yeah, just pull it up right there.
That's not a link.
I've got to type it in.
Oh.
That's the downside.
Immigr.com slash A slash, was it O?
OSYSF20.
OSYSF20.
Okay, so we'll pull that up.
And while we're pulling that up, I want to address a few other things that were false as well.
And how come, if the satellite's moving 17,000 miles per hour, you can't see anything?
Again, it's a cyber system, right?
So, a cyber system is pulling the data from the satellites, recreating a 3D rendered environment, similar to how you would fake something, but it's actually just real.
It's not, that's not rendered.
It's not a.
Well, that's why it's six frames per second as well, is that it's a rendered environment from a very big field of view that they're creating there.
And this is how you can pull that data from all those different locations and how you can have one clear image as opposed to trying to track one satellite that's moving very fast.
So, for about a quarter of the time.
So, you're saying it's actually not video footage?
So, yeah, theoretically, that's not direct video footage from a satellite moving.
What they're doing is we just saw the Cibber system scanning, right?
And that's how they're able to piece together a 3D Google playback of the video.
And this explains half of the things that he had issues with.
Another big one is the zap accurately illuminating the background.
This is also from a demo.
Oh, hold on.
You're moving too fast.
Sure.
That link not works.
So, it is rendered and it's not.
So, that IR?
Right.
So, that's another big thing, too, is that the whole issue with the thermals, we're looking at an electro IR camera that had a Thermal layer added over the top by the Raytheon software that's built into the camera.
I'm talking about the satellite.
Yeah.
So, from the camera, yes, it is an IR camera.
And what it's able to do there is send that IR data to a very advanced, sophisticated computer system that can build out the rendered 3D battle map that we would use for battlefield awareness.
And that's why you're not going to be tracking a specific satellite moving around when you're trying on the military, you're trying to track boats and planes.
You need to have that data pulling in nonstop using the SIGINT system, Signals Intelligence, that relays all this information from different assets.
And then, what I can do is you can fly in these planes, these Ares EP32 or EP3 or the Poseidon P8.
These are very advanced signals intelligence aircraft that can pull that data and create a 3D video playback.
And that's what we're theoretically seeing in those videos.
Does that make sense?
So that's my explanation for about a third of the things that he describes in there.
In terms of the backlit, this was just an objectively false statement.
You can see.
You're still saying it's the clouds from the satellite is IR optics, right?
You can see the clouds moving in this one right here.
You can see the clouds wiggle.
In each individual one, you can see that cloud move.
Right, and this isn't even a matter of the 3D stereoscopic.
The other one was proving that we have 3D stereoscopic parallax.
This one's proving you can see the clouds move.
Okay, so the clouds do move.
So, unfortunately, that statement he made was false.
You can see the clouds moving, right?
We just all agree.
I can see a little bit of a yeah, I can definitely see a little change.
I can see the image change, like a little bit of a warp of that part of the clouds in this gif.
So, we can come back to it.
But, like, yeah, this somebody made this gif and reposted it.
This is not the video I just watched.
This is a gif of it.
Yeah, that video.
So, It's not impossible.
This person tried to warp part of it.
Okay, well, now we're stretching.
I'm stretching.
I'm just stressing every single fact the guy made.
Here's another false.
He said that the clouds are not accurately illuminated.
This is proof that they are.
This was, again, made by somebody who's a debunker who doesn't think the video is real.
But they were actually able to prove that that's accurate illumination, backlit and frontlit illumination from the Zap.
We could actually even.
So this is from who took this photo?
This is a color scale change version so that you can see this.
This was posted by somebody who's.
God, I already forgot their name.
But yes, this was somebody who's actually from a lot of those claims that he posted there came from a site called Metabunk.
This is another Metabunker who posted this.
And this is, interestingly enough, you go look up, they think the videos are fake, but they still prove that that claim that was just made is false.
That the zap does accurately illuminate.
You can even tell when you're actually watching it, we could see the zap illuminating.
And actually, that's another piece of evidence for why it's nighttime.
Yeah, but what he's saying, though, is he's saying when the zap happens, the only part that illuminates are the pixels that are already bright.
The brightest in the photo, right?
Like it's like they're upping the brightness on that.
But what he's saying is there's no directional change of light.
So, like parts of the clouds that are already darker, they aren't becoming brighter.
It's just the image is just the entire image is being brightened in that area where the pixels are being.
This is proof that that's not true.
Absolute proof.
How is this?
I don't understand how this is.
Just read what it says backlit.
I know what backlit looks like.
So, it's not the entire image that's being lit up.
It's actually different depending on how far away it is and it's accurate.
So, Okay, this is not lit over here.
Yeah, I understand this now.
Show me where this correlates to the video of the satellite because this is the zap that we're seeing here.
No, no, go back to the satellite and show me that.
Show me how this correlates to it.
You mean like this?
Yes, exactly.
Okay, sure.
We'll take a look.
So I'll just fast forward a little bit.
Make it full screen.
You make it full screen.
Yep, yep, yep.
So and then when he was showing this just a few seconds ago as well, when the zap goes off, you can see the color.
So see that light that see that flash release is tall.
Can you pause it on it?
It's kind of hard to hit it, but yeah, you know what I'm saying.
There you go.
Right there.
So, this is actually accurately illuminating the clouds.
Down here, this is not being illuminated.
This is being backlit, backlit, frontlit.
But the parts, so if there is a blast right there, you can, first of all, can we agree that the clouds are being illuminated by something?
Expert Credibility on Reddit00:06:53
And there's obviously a directional light source going towards the clouds because the top of the clouds is illuminated and the bottom of them is not illuminated.
That's because there's more IR radiation at the top compared to the bottom.
And that doesn't mean a directional light source.
So, again, can we agree there's no shadows anywhere in any one of these videos?
So, if there's no shadows, how is it night?
How is it daytime?
I see shadows.
There's a shadowy side of the cloud on the left, and then it clips what we in the video world called clip, where it hits white and you can see any shadows on the water here.
You can see any shadow from the plane flying past these clouds.
It literally flies in front of the cloud, and there's no shadow, like right here.
I'm saying the cloud itself has a shadow on it.
The cloud's lighter at the top and darker at the bottom.
Right here, it goes right in front of the cloud, and there's no shadow that gets cast onto the cloud.
Yeah, so?
So where's this directional light source coming from?
That's what I'm saying.
Like, how would there be a directional light source if it was at night?
There isn't one.
And there's no moon.
There isn't a directional light source.
And if it's a very, even he even mentioned as well, theoretically, if this was a very low light environment, this even could be just light coming from stars, et cetera.
But I think that the answer is that it's just simply not daytime.
It's nighttime.
Okay.
And then you think that the CGI explosion effect, there's no shot in hell.
That there's no chance.
And also, the effect that he used, the version he used, is actually the version that was the remastered version from 2015.
If you go look at the older version, it's so pixelated that no one would even think that it could possibly be in our videos.
And you're kind of.
So I just want to pull this up too, just as a quick match here.
That if you look at this and you actually do like this, you can see that they're not the same.
You can see these extra lines that we have all over the place.
Like these lines is coming over the top.
Yeah, you can easily mask that out.
That's.
But why would you mask it out?
Because you're not comparing to something that already exists, right?
Because you don't want people, because you want to make it look unique.
You don't want to make it look like the stock effect.
So they accidentally made it look perfect?
No, they on purpose.
Wait, what?
So, all these extra dots that we see are like this dot right here, this dot up here.
The actual lining up of the middle effect doesn't even line up.
That does not line up with this effect.
You can actually see the tail of the plane sticking out in this one.
And now, over in this one here, you can see that it's not the same shape.
Right.
But what are the chances that the outer rim of this thing are 99% perfect compared to this endothermic event that happened in the air?
Like, how did they match that?
You can see it doesn't match right here, right?
You can see that this line here doesn't quite match here.
I mean, it's similar.
And again, all dispersal patterns are similar.
This has been compared to an ink drop.
This has been compared to a supernova, and you can do the same thing with any of those effects as well.
So, all supernovas look the same?
They all do actually look pretty much the same.
Again, because it's a dispersion pattern.
And then what's happening is the same thing that we see here.
But the most important part is that what we're seeing is this endothermic event versus an exothermic event.
So, if you, the best part is that this is just like a dishonest attempt here to try to get this.
Dishonest?
Well, why is it dishonest, man?
Like, look, like.
Because it's one frame.
This guy has been doing this his entire life.
He's a visual effects expert.
He has a YouTube channel with freaking tens of millions of views on it.
I mean, he has no incentive to.
And you're going to take a third party word from somebody who knows somebody who's a VFX lead at Marvel on Reddit over this guy who's literally going on video and putting his credibility at risk to talk about why this is real.
He's a VFX expert.
And you're like, your initial reaction is just like, oh, no, oh, no, absolutely not.
No, I think that he made, as I pointed out, he made several objectively false statements before he even got to that point, which then I immediately discredited him.
But yes, I would absolutely gonna believe a Marvel VFX expert over some guy on Twitter who claims to be an expert.
He's the guy, he's some random guy on Twitter who claims to be an expert.
I've never heard of him.
Yes.
So I also wanna claim here that this guy, the guy on Marvel was a random guy on Reddit, bro.
Like it was a.
He literally works for the biggest studios that are out there, man.
Yeah, but you haven't even talked to him.
Have you sat down with him?
Have you discussed it like on a podcast?
Have you had a conversation with him about like breaking this down and him have like, has he done an explanation in depth the same way Nico has?
I don't even think I need to have that because he's speaking about the timeframe it would take to require it.
Did Nico try to even produce the videos?
No, he didn't.
That speaks a lot to whether or not he actually could.
Corridor crew, the disclosure guy, none of them even tried to do it.
Because the reality is they know how much effort it would take.
It would take a huge amount.
And you've got between four and 70 days.
It's gonna take a whole team.
He even admitted that there's no issues anywhere in the videos.
He couldn't even find one.
He made a bunch of statements that none of them really added up.
And this right here, this is one of the worst ones.
I can do the same thing and say, this doesn't match, right?
It's not even close to the same.
You can see the black in the background.
This is not our effect.
Matching it on one single frame is not a debunk.
Even if that matched, even if it did, just hypothetically, I'll humor you, it wouldn't debunk any of the rest of the video.
That's the worst part about this attempt to debunk it.
Is that even if somehow this video effect was in our final zap that we see, it wouldn't debunk the rest of the video.
That's still MH370 in those videos.
It's in the Nicobar Islands on the agreed upon flight path.
Yeah, but they could easily CGI a plane that looks just like it, and they could easily add coordinates underneath it.
That's a subjective statement.
That's not a factual statement.
That's a subjective one.
And if they could do it, why didn't they?
If they could do it so easily, everybody claims they could do it so easily.
No one ever pulls up and does it.
And then when you ask them, they say, oh, well, it would take too much time and effort.
It's not worth my time.
But what, some random people did it?
You know, it's very clear.
The thing that I'm not, that I miss, that I don't really understand here is why you are so quick to dismiss his analysis of this.
If this guy is a legitimate, verified expert, not hiding behind a Twitter handle or a Reddit handle, right?
And he's not, it's not just like some podcaster saying, Oh, I talked to a guy on the phone and he told me it would take between four to six months.
He's the lead at Marvel.
Like this guy is telling you who he is.
Everybody knows who he is.
And he's giving you his analysis having decades of experience in this.
And I don't understand why you give somebody on Reddit more credibility than you give him and why you dismiss him so quick.
I judged him based on the things that he said.
He thought they were contrails.
They're not.
It's smoke.
The reason why it probably gets hotter is because the smoke is stacking up and you're seeing it from an angle where the smoke is lining up.
Right?
I mean, literally, it's not a matter of what I think his credentials are.
And I think that people need to move away from that.
You specifically, just because someone claims to be an expert does not mean everything they say is true.
Judge them based on the things they say.
This is critical thinking 101.
And this is what I think is missing the most from places like Reddit you go look at Reddit and people say, oh, what's at the top?
Who's the expert?
Who's the person that says that?
That's not what matters.
You could be a Joe Schmoff off the street.
And as long as you're saying the truth and making logical sense, then I'm going to believe you.
And you think nothing that he said made logical sense?
Almost nothing.
Yeah, I mean, he was wrong.
Let's run it down.
Pixel Matching Failures00:06:02
Wrong about the parallax, wrong about the clouds moving, wrong about illuminating the flash.
I don't think he was wrong about any of that.
I don't think any of your examples showed that that was wrong.
Okay, well, I mean, look, I've been a judge, you know.
I love the viewers, judge.
My biggest thing on the one frame is all I have to say is how many pixels match, and tell me how long it takes to move all the pixels around to get it to be a perfect match.
Tell me how hard it is to find a stock image that was created in the 90s to perfectly match an endothermic explosion that happened in 2014.
Apparently, hard enough that no one can do it.
You know, I mean, that was not a match.
So we're looking at it in the background right here.
You know, these don't match.
I mean, this is your video.
I was looking at his video where he was pulling the opacity.
Yeah, Nico's is pretty dang accurate.
This one's off.
Yes, exactly.
The reason why it's off is because this is the whole visual effect, not just one frame.
Or because you lined it up different to make it look like it didn't match.
This actually lines up perfectly.
You can see right here is his exact frame.
No, it's not.
It's definitely not.
It's not lined up perfectly.
Nico's is more aligned than that one.
Whatever you guys want.
Can you pull Nico's up again?
Yeah, sure.
Just the one frame where he shows it.
Like, how does that little dot and those Edges of the little wave edges of the explosion, how does it match so fucking perfectly?
How did the people that made this in the 90s know that this is exactly what this explosion was going to look like in 2014?
Yeah, I mean, the first part is I'll pull up the older version, guys, and then you're looking at the remastered version that was from after, that was made after that in 2015 after our videos.
It's actually post dates it.
Here's the earlier version.
Does this look like it?
No, I'm pulling up the.
I'm showing the.
So let's look at the older version and not the remastered one and compare it.
Well, how do you know this was remastered?
Because we Googled it and you should check it out.
2015 version.
It was remastered in 2015 after the dates of our videos.
It was near the middle of the video, too.
He's looking at here.
This is a Mick West phone, by the way.
It's not like this is his original work that.
He found this by the way.
Mick West said that it was found in '98, right?
Yeah, if anyone thinks we're looking at a '90s video game graphic from an obscure video game, then you might just not be able to be reached by the evidence.
That would be my official statement on that.
I think the player's freezing up.
Well, we saw it.
Yeah, take a look at mine here.
I found the old '90s version of it online, actually.
And so you can see here how pixelated this is.
It's a lot harder to compare.
That is not the original.
Yeah, it's definitely not.
You see how less frames there is as well?
This actually, when it got remastered, it was the original.
Frames.
This is a clip maybe from the video game you're talking about.
That's where this comes from.
Yeah.
Yeah.
No, no, no.
Look, it wasn't created.
You understand that, like, it wasn't just a part of the video game.
Somebody built the video game.
It takes the elements to put together to create the graphics in the video game, right?
So that thing was an independent explosion that came from somewhere that was added into the video game.
And this is a re recording of the video game, right?
He found the exact element independent of the video game.
Who is he?
Nico.
Nico didn't find that.
This comes from an Icy Slide account.
Again, we've addressed that part.
That was posted on Reddit.
There was a one day old account.
There was a sock puppet account that got manual approval by the moderators of that account to post it.
Which then the only person who claimed to have found that afterwards was a guy named Mick West on the same day.
He posted on the Metabunk forums.
Obviously, Nico probably spends time on the Metabunk forums, and that's how he found that same exact thing.
So, are you saying that that graphic element was created specifically to match the endothermic explosion in the video?
No, I think that what they did was whoever wanted to discredit the videos ran a program to look for a specific asset.
That they could use to try to discredit that would be similar enough that would fool people just like it fooled you guys to make it look similar enough that you would say there's no way that can't be it, even though I can say from again a factual statement they don't match on even a single frame.
Now, you can say they're close, sure, that's that's a subjective statement.
How close would you say they are?
I would say less than 50 50 percent of the pixels match.
That's just my guess from looking at it, but again, that's why I keep asking how many pixels match.
And the reason why no one answers is because if you had to answer that question, you would have to admit that they don't match, and that's why no one does.
I would say it is impossible for that explosion to match a VFX element that was made 10 years before or eight years before.
And it doesn't match, and that's the thing.
Dude, I mean, it's like so close.
It's like the little elements, the waves, the points line up perfectly.
Like if you were to add that onto an effect, throw some coloring, an invert on it, a warp, scale it down a little bit different, it's going to be not exactly, but it's still all the little details are perfectly accurate.
Like the shape of.
The scale of it.
It's just a circle, man.
It's not some complex shape.
But it's not a circle.
It's not a circle.
It's a circle with a dispersion pattern, and the edges don't actually match.
So it's like.
It's not just a circle, dude.
There's so much more.
Here it is again.
You can see the edge doesn't even line up.
It's close.
And this is actually when you've scaled it down to try to get it to match.
So it's already been falsified to a way to try to make a perfect match.
You can already tell there's extra dots in here that don't exist.
So they deleted these dots.
Why would they know how to delete these dots?
It's an original work.
It's not like you're talking about it.
What dots are deleted?
So, this is the original.
Here's the other one.
You see that?
The dot is still there.
You see these dots over here on the right?
These dots don't exist in the original.
That's because it doesn't quite match because it was in a different line up here as well.
Why is this line?
Why is this line down here, guys?
Come on.
You really think these are the same?
No, I think the center is definitely different, but the edges are perfect.
Yeah, and that's because all it takes is you line it up and you resize it to try to get the edges to match.
And the problem is you can even tell they don't perfectly match.
Right.
They lined it up.
They resized it.
They masked out the interior or inverted it and made it look more dense.
And reshaped it?
I mean, it's a whole new, the center is all new.
I mean, This guy, these people whoever did this, like, look, it's incredible work.
Like, like Nico said, it's in, I mean, the fact that there's the thing, the fact that you that you you talk in such absolutisms as if it's it's absolutely real.
You know what we're doing when you've been looking at it.
Fact vs. Opinion Debate00:13:10
I'm just questioning what you're saying.
Like, you're saying it's absolutely real.
I'm saying Nico's video is very here's that one.
The only point that matches, and it's not even a perfect match, you can see all the extra dots that aren't there.
I mean, people have debunked the hell out of this attempt.
You can see that it's clearly not the same.
So, for everybody watching, you know, judge for yourselves.
You can see that these are not the same matches.
If I'm going to take, if I'm going to.
Go ahead.
If I know nothing about visual effects and I know nothing about video compositing, right?
Sure.
I am going to be more convinced and be likely to believe Nico's breakdown of it over somebody who has only been looking at this for two months.
I mean, okay.
Yeah, I think that that again.
And okay, additionally, I would take, I would be more willing to trust somebody like him over somebody who posted on Reddit that he was a visual effects lead for a Top Gun movie when there's no verifiable evidence of who that person is.
You're not sitting down and talking to them.
Like, I just don't understand why you want to.
Like, it seems like you're, you're, you, you, I feel like you are taking this personal as if it's an attack on you, but no, it's not.
All it is is it's attacking the idea and the theory.
And you seem very, very attached to it and like offended that this guy is attacking and trying to discredit this idea.
I would say you're just projecting your own emotions and insecurity, frankly.
I have absolutely no problem with his post.
I pointed out like five factually incorrect statements he made, and you're still willing to take him on his word.
Because he's been doing this for decades.
And that doesn't mean anything.
It doesn't mean anything that he's been doing VFX for decades?
Not with regards to this.
No.
How long ago has he been investigating these?
Not long enough to realize that it wasn't daytime, not long enough to realize there's a parallax effect, not long enough to realize the clouds move.
I mean, so why should I take the word of somebody who's made several falsehoods that, like, all he had to do is go find this evidence that I found?
You don't have to, but, like, you should be open minded to this kind of stuff.
And when people, when real people come out and try to do breakdowns of it and try to break this down and try to debunk it, you should be very open minded to them and not so defensive about it.
I was open minded.
That's why I addressed every single point.
I didn't dismiss any of this.
You said it's absolutely real footage and there's no chance that it's a VFS.
That's my opinion.
That's my opinion, yes.
And again, it's because he admits as well it's perfect animation with zero issues.
So the rest of his subjective statements, most of them are false.
And again, it's a statement of fact.
It's not contrails.
It's not daytime.
Clouds move.
It's parallax.
The illumination from the zap accurately illuminates the clouds.
These are things that discredit him.
So I think that was a mistake for him to make that video.
But I respect that he's up to it.
He can have his own opinion.
And I would just ask that the viewers.
You know, look at the evidence themselves as opposed to taking someone's credibility.
Do you want to have another VFX guy who has the same experience, if not more than he does, to sit down and analyze this and give their true opinion on it?
I would like, if anyone thinks it's easy to make, why don't they go ahead and make another original in a similar vein without using any assets from our videos?
And I would like them to actually record how they do it and see how long it takes them.
And then we can compare because we've got between four days and 72 days.
And what I would like for people to do who want to debunk it is build a story.
Don't just tell me and give me your expertise, tell me what's the story on how God created the VFX.
Regicide Anon created it?
What computers did he use when he did it?
How long did it take him to do that?
Why was he spending his own effort where nobody else was willing to do so?
Give me another story that makes sense.
I've produced my story here that makes a ton of sense that explains what happened here is that these videos are real.
Yeah, but how stuck are you with your story?
How willing are you to change your story?
Of course, very willing.
I literally, you can watch, if you go read my Twitter, you'll see that I'm one of the most open, honest people about this whole situation.
I'm open about the fact that early on I thought that it was potentially non human intelligence until I dug into the investigation.
I didn't know what the situation was.
How long ago was that you thought it was non human intelligence?
That was like right away, probably in August, early August.
You and I should go listen to my early podcast.
August of this year.
Yeah.
I mean, I've only been investigating this for three months.
If you want to listen to my Investigate Earth podcast, you will hear that my opinions, and I was very scared during that time, have changed significantly in terms of the narrative, but the evidence has stayed pretty much solid.
Now, then, since then, and even then, you know, we thought, okay, is this an emergency event or is this espionage to some degree?
I've always been open in terms of the narratives.
So, like, the reason, like, what I'm trying to get across here is that the way you speak in such absolute terms as if things are objective facts, like what I'm trying to say, what Nico's saying is subjective, but what you're saying is fact.
When I talk to people on this podcast, for example, Tom O'Neill, he was an investigative reporter who spent 20 years looking into the Manson murders.
He spent more time on that story than anybody on earth.
He flew all around the world to have in person interviews recorded on tape in their homes.
For 20 years.
And he put this all together in a book just released a couple years ago.
And he lays out all the evidence, all the interviews, all the different theories, tries to pressure test them against each other.
And at the end of the book, there's no conclusion.
He goes, I don't know what happened.
I don't have an opinion on what happened.
I did the research, and you guys should come up with your own opinions and you guys tell me what you think.
And the book is like, it's one of the number one true crime books in history.
Cool.
The thing is, if he's sitting down here and I say, Tom, what is your opinion?
Like, what is your personal opinion on what you believe actually happened?
I can't pull it out of him.
He goes, I don't know.
He says, I don't know.
All I know is what I found out, where the evidence leads, and you can come to your own opinion.
I think probably one, two, three, or four, these are the only things that could have happened from the investigations that I did.
He never once says that this is an objective fact unless.
It was something like if he's sitting down with someone and they made a claim, he can say, Yes, this person in fact claimed this.
This person in fact claimed this.
This CIA document in fact says this, right?
Like there's nothing, he doesn't speak in these same terms.
It's all kind of open ended and investigative, right?
Yeah.
So, that's can you understand, like, why that's why people want to get turned off to when you're communicating in a way that things are absolute and you want to shut down people like Nico when they're trying to poke holes in the story?
Instead of like using people, using all these people from every single angle, whether they're corroborating you or whether they're going against you, trying to use that all, put it together, find out what fits and figure out what the truth actually is.
That's exactly what I'm doing.
And I'm just giving my opinion in terms of what I think happened.
I've been always 100% clear that anyone's free to believe whatever they want from this narrative perspective.
But the facts will remain the facts.
And what I said, if I say something I'm saying is a factual statement, then I'm making a factual claim.
So when I say that the VFX doesn't match on even a single frame, that's a factual claim.
When I say that I think that it was a fire event, that's an opinion.
You don't think it matched, though, but you're not a VFX expert, right?
You're looking at it from a layman perspective.
You haven't sat down with three or four VFX supervisors from Marvel, right?
You haven't sat down with them and had the conversation with them and gone frame by frame like Nico just did.
I think we just addressed that part.
And I think that I've addressed all the specific claims that he made in there, which were untrue.
So, again, you know, I don't want to take somebody at their word.
Right.
But what I'm saying is you addressed it.
Like, you haven't had these other experts come in and try to pick apart what Nico did.
Like, you're doing it yourself and saying it's your opinion.
You understand?
I understand that part in terms of what I claimed in there.
Like, I think I've adequately addressed everything that he mentioned in there.
So, the key point is that the VFX does not match.
That was his strongest claim that it, as a matter of fact, does not match on a single frame.
I want to make sure I'm saying that again.
As a statement of fact, it does not match on a single frame.
How many pixels match?
If it's not 100%, it's not a match.
And it's a matter of fact that that explosion is not a graphic element that was added.
That is a matter of fact.
That is a fact, you're saying?
That is a fact, yes.
Dude, the thing is, you just don't sound like someone who wants to find the truth.
You sound like someone who's like defending your theory to the death.
You know what I mean?
You can believe whatever you want.
I mean, I'm just telling you, like, what it sounds like.
You don't sound like any investigative journalist I've ever talked to in that sense.
Like, you just sound like.
You sound like it's somebody on Twitter who is fighting and it's my way or the highway.
You understand what I'm saying?
To me, it sounds like it's just an idea.
It's not you, it's just an idea.
You're not attached to it.
I mean, I would counter that because it sounds like to me that you've got invested in this idea that it has to be fake, right?
You told me ahead of time you're extremely skeptical.
You obviously went and found this guy and had him come and try to make this claim because you wanted to be able to prove that.
So I would just say it seems like you're projecting your own insecurities.
For me, I'm not against it whatsoever.
Right.
If you can come back and maybe next time he can go look at it and not make so many factual errors, I'd be happy to listen.
Right.
But like right away, again, I think there were like six to eight factual errors that were made in that video.
And when I judge people, I don't judge people based on their background.
I don't think they were like you haven't proven to me that they were factual though.
We're not going to get past it.
So we can just move past it.
I don't think they were factual errors.
I don't think anything that you showed, I completely disagree with the clouds.
I think they're not moving.
I think that that VFX element matches perfectly.
Um, But evidence speaks for itself, I think, either way.
I agree.
We'll let the people decide.
Sounds good to me.
Let's move on past this to the guy who you think is the man who was the whistleblower behind this.
Yeah.
I mean, and here's another part, too, is that we think we actually found the guy who literally leaked the videos, the ones that you think apparently are faked by somebody and use a 90s visual effect, right?
So that's, I mean, you don't have to get mad at me.
I'm just, I'm just, you sound upset.
I'm not attacking you.
You have to understand, like, this is.
Good that you have people attacking it like this because it's only gonna, you have to get people that are just as credible as he is and just as knowledgeable as he is to show why he's wrong.
And I can't wait for that to happen.
Yeah, I mean, maybe.
I think that the reason why you may detect some level of hostility is we moved past the visual effect thing like two months ago.
Okay.
People are still hung up on that.
Like, I realize we're not gonna be able to reach everybody.
Some people are just too close minded.
They're not gonna be able to accept that what we see is real in these videos.
And I'm not trying to attack you in this particular case, just people in general.
Right, I'm not going to be able to convince everyone.
I'm trying to reach people who want to change the world, who realize there's more to this world than what they're told by experts and what they're told on TV.
Um, and so really, that's my intention here.
Um, so if I am coming off that way, I don't mean to, uh, but it is going to be you know, it's a contentious situation.
One of the things that I've promised is I'm not going to let other people set a false narrative.
I just think like you got to do your best to not get angry at this stuff.
Okay, I think that's really important.
Oh, I agree.
Um, Yeah, I really just need a technical explanation from somebody who does this stuff or has been involved in this stuff, hands on.
I really just want to hear it from the horse's mouth when it comes to this kind of stuff because it's so phenomenal.
And there's in every single online category you could imagine when it comes to conspiracies, you can always find people who just want to find the meaning of life and they want their life to be the Da Vinci Code.
Yeah, that's not me.
I don't want to be famous.
In fact, I would like to go back to being a normal person one day if that's my option.
I think I've been pretty clear about that as well.
The only reason why I picked this up is because I didn't think anybody else would do it.
Man, you're doing a lot of incredible work.
And whether I agree with it or not, I commend you for that.
So thank you for coming down here and doing this.
Tell people where they can find you online and all the work you're doing.
All I want to do is get the evidence out there to a wider audience so that people can come to their own conclusions.
And if you want to follow me, you can follow me either on Twitter, at JustXAshton, or you can follow me on YouTube, also at JustXAshton.
I've been streaming a lot of the work that I've been doing on a nightly basis.
So, people can follow along.
They can follow my thought process in terms of what we're going through as well.
And then you can also now follow me on Instagram.
I'm actually on Instagram now at JustXAshton as well.
I'm not sure how much I'm going to post there.
It's just a lot of work.
I'm not a big fan of social media, but it's important that I think we get the evidence out there.
What I want to do is empower the individuals.
And that's the reason why the all evidence list that we went through today, I posted out there on Twitter as well.
So that when people do come with the arguments, we can come back with the evidence and say, here's what the evidence is.
You know, here's why the official narrative is bunk, essentially.