Speaker 1: Malagion three times zero contacted to zero dismal Niners.
Speaker 2: Breaking news tonight, a Malaysia Airlines flight with two hundred
Speaker 2: and thirty nine people on board, including four Americans, has
Speaker 2: gone missing.
Speaker 1: I remembered the line from the into scripture of the
Speaker 1: Batabadgitavish new.
Speaker 3: He was trying to.
Speaker 1: Persuade the prince that he should do his duty, and
Speaker 1: we impressed him.
Speaker 3: Takes on multi armed form and says now I am
Speaker 3: become death, the destroyer of worlds.
Speaker 1: Thank you everybody for being here with me tonight. Tonight
Speaker 1: we are going to go straight into the evidence and
Speaker 1: then I will address questions at the end. So please
Speaker 1: hold your questions to the end. Tonight, on the anniversary
Speaker 1: of Malaysian Airlines Flight three seven zero, I have updated
Speaker 1: the list of all evidence in the case of my
Speaker 1: investigation for the last year and a half in collaboration
Speaker 1: with MH three seventy X, the organization that I started
Speaker 1: to research the MH three seven zero videos. The only
Speaker 1: thing I want to say before we begin, so this
Speaker 1: is one clear is I am not scamming anyone or
Speaker 1: promote vading this idea because it's popular or for it
Speaker 1: to make money. For me, I one hundred percent believe
Speaker 1: the videos are real. Anyone claiming anything to the contrary
Speaker 1: should be considered a bad faith actor. The weight of
Speaker 1: evidence that the videos are authentic is overwhelming, beyond really
Speaker 1: any reasonable doubt. So the plan here is to go
Speaker 1: through that evidence right now with you guys, and hopefully
Speaker 1: convince the more people. So in the description of wherever
Speaker 1: you're watching or listening to this, you can find a
Speaker 1: link to this document. Right here there we go, and
Speaker 1: this document is the updated evidence link, and we start
Speaker 1: straight away with the videos. If you're watching this in
Speaker 1: video format, you can watch the videos right now on
Speaker 1: the screen. There are two leaked military videos that first
Speaker 1: appeared on a tiny YouTube channel in twenty fourteen and
Speaker 1: only gained popularity in August of twenty twenty three on
Speaker 1: the subreddit UFOs. That's where I found the videos. That's
Speaker 1: where this all began. The first video archive satellite video
Speaker 1: called satellite video Airliner and UFOs. There's an archive link.
Speaker 1: It's from a YouTube channel called regicided on. In the description,
Speaker 1: it says received March twelve, twenty fourteen, uploaded May nineteenth,
Speaker 1: twenty fourteen. At least that was the published date, and
Speaker 1: then it says source protected in the metadata of this video.
Speaker 1: Even though it doesn't say MH three seven is there
Speaker 1: anywhere in the description. In the metadata, it actually does
Speaker 1: say both flight three seven zero and Malaysia Airlines. So
Speaker 1: we know one hundred percent this video is connected to
Speaker 1: MH three seven zero just based on the timeline alone. Now,
Speaker 1: the second video that came out after this is a
Speaker 1: drone video, and this one says UAV captures Airliner and UFOs.
Speaker 1: This is also the oldest version is also from regicideed on,
Speaker 1: but this video is uploaded a few weeks later. In
Speaker 1: the description, it says receive June fifth, twenty fourteen, uploaded
Speaker 1: or published June twelfth, twenty fourteen, so there's a lag
Speaker 1: between they received it and when they uploaded it. According
Speaker 1: to the story of the videos, video shows airliner being
Speaker 1: followed by three unidentified spherical objects for a short time,
Speaker 1: then Airliner and ORBS vanish. This appears to be alt
Speaker 1: angle to previously submitted sat footage, and then there was
Speaker 1: a link there to the satooage, which now does not
Speaker 1: exist on the internet anymore. So. I also it's important
Speaker 1: to point out here as well that regicided a non
Speaker 1: made a Twitter account three days after the video is published.
Speaker 1: The first video first videos published May nineteenth, May twenty second,
Speaker 1: regicided a no On makes a Twitter account. We found
Speaker 1: the Twitter account and their posts, and on May twenty
Speaker 1: second they say please spread this video before it's pulled,
Speaker 1: with presumably a link to the video, and they tag
Speaker 1: a bunch of people and they tag MH three seven
Speaker 1: zero in there as well, and then you can see
Speaker 1: June thirteenth, one day after they published it, or possibly
Speaker 1: the same day based on time zones alt angle of
Speaker 1: the airliner abductions received with a link. So if somebody
Speaker 1: was faking this, it's pretty odd like it was regisied
Speaker 1: and On involved on this. If regisided On is not
Speaker 1: involved in these videos being produced as fakes, then it's
Speaker 1: hard to understand how they could be fake at all,
Speaker 1: given the story of regisied On being the first person
Speaker 1: to have them on the internet. As far as we
Speaker 1: can tell, and the story registered On is telling here
Speaker 1: is pretty clear source protected, please spread this before it's pulled,
Speaker 1: And just to be clear, there's also alternate sources, but
Speaker 1: they all post state regisied and On. But important to
Speaker 1: point out the Vimeo link if you translated into English,
Speaker 1: says that regicided No was arguing for the validity of
Speaker 1: the videos with the other people. So it seems like
Speaker 1: everything goes back to registered on. Now details about these videos?
Speaker 1: Why are these videos so important? Well, right away, the
Speaker 1: evidence is absolutely overwhelming. In the bottom left corner, we
Speaker 1: can see it, says NROL twenty two. This was the
Speaker 1: first launch of the space based infrared system known as SIBBERS.
Speaker 1: We've probably heard about it, talked about it on Joe
Speaker 1: Rogan in two thousand and six, and we can clearly
Speaker 1: see coordinates after the satellite designation. Now spoiler, we've determined
Speaker 1: that this is a relay satellite because of its millennial orbit,
Speaker 1: and that's exactly what we need because that first video
Speaker 1: we saw is not simply a satellite video. It's something
Speaker 1: that we're going to find out is called whammy footage
Speaker 1: that takes fuse data from multiple sensors through relay satellites
Speaker 1: and beams it to ground based computers so it can
Speaker 1: produce basically a Google Video playback of the entire planet,
Speaker 1: this ultimate DVR of the entire world. Now there's a
Speaker 1: link in here to Sibber's video in this document where
Speaker 1: you can actually watch how these satellites are scanning the
Speaker 1: whole planet and then imagine how they would take that
Speaker 1: censor data and send it to ground based computers to
Speaker 1: produce essentially the video that you're seeing here of three
Speaker 1: seven zero. Their coordinates the coordinates are the absolute smoking gun,
Speaker 1: absolute undeniable smoking gun. The coordinates indicate the Nicobar Islands
Speaker 1: a straight shot from the last military radar points straight shot.
Speaker 1: You can see from the image here where I superimpose
Speaker 1: the radar the satellite coordinates over this image from a
Speaker 1: blog that had the actual picture from the Light Hotel
Speaker 1: of Malaysian military radar ploted over a Google Earth map.
Speaker 1: You can see how close it is. There's no chance
Speaker 1: of this being a coincidence. The fact that they have
Speaker 1: it here in a straight line means that what happened
Speaker 1: is the plane kept going It kept going straight, and
Speaker 1: then what we see happen in those videos is what
Speaker 1: happened into the plane. The coordinates are not tracking the
Speaker 1: plane because they don't change as the plane moves. They
Speaker 1: only change when the person moves the screen the Whammy footage.
Speaker 1: That's how the system works. They can just move it around.
Speaker 1: But when they move it around, it changes the coordinates.
Speaker 1: So the actual coordinates of the plane, the coordance in
Speaker 1: the video are not the plane. It's just somewhere nearby.
Speaker 1: It could be a huge area from what we looked up.
Speaker 1: It could be anywhere. It could be even one hundred
Speaker 1: kilometers or more. Also very important to point out that
Speaker 1: the satellite video is a screen recording of a window. Again,
Speaker 1: absolute smoking gun, undeniable proof. We can see the cursor
Speaker 1: come on the screen from off the screen. If you're
Speaker 1: on a computer, you've ever used the computer before, you
Speaker 1: would know this indicates that somebody has a window open,
Speaker 1: no question, undeniable. The cursor goes off the screen on
Speaker 1: multiple sides. This is a window on a much larger screen.
Speaker 1: They're recording the actual window. When they move the perspective around,
Speaker 1: they're moving the perspective around in the window. The screen
Speaker 1: recording is recording the window. You can tell you can
Speaker 1: watch them move it around. They're using like a middle
Speaker 1: mouse to cold down click and then move around the perspective,
Speaker 1: but they're still within the window with the cursor. This
Speaker 1: is impossible to fake. Far far too detailed. There's more
Speaker 1: details to come here as well, but I just wanted
Speaker 1: to point that out again. The satellite video is six
Speaker 1: frames per second. This is consistent with all the capabilities
Speaker 1: of WHAMMY technology, which when I've researched it recently, is
Speaker 1: anywhere between two and ten frames per second. So the
Speaker 1: satellite video being six frames per second is exactly within
Speaker 1: that capability for spot military spy capabilities. Six frames per
Speaker 1: second that you're seeing if you're watching this on your
Speaker 1: screen right now, and then here you can see as
Speaker 1: well that we found online researching it. That's exactly consistent
Speaker 1: with what we're seeing here. High scene coverage, high resolution,
Speaker 1: low frame rate, an example of WAMI sensor which is
Speaker 1: probably not as becau as the military on There're two hurts,
Speaker 1: one hundred and fifty megapixels seen, coverage at least ten
Speaker 1: kilometers squared. My guess is it's much bigger than that.
Speaker 1: Wammy fuses data from multiple sources and relaze it. Now,
Speaker 1: I also want to point out that the clouds in
Speaker 1: that video move and evolve. Hold on, and there's actually
Speaker 1: a moment where the smoke is displacing the orbs. So
Speaker 1: if you click on the link, I've actually uploaded a
Speaker 1: clip of it, and you can see here that you
Speaker 1: can see or the the orb is displaced by the smoke.
Speaker 1: Here you can see the accurate fluid dynamics slowed it
Speaker 1: down and played it over multiple times. It's easier to
Speaker 1: see in the color amp or changed version, but if
Speaker 1: you look at the original you will be able to
Speaker 1: see it in the original as well. We've checked this.
Speaker 1: There may be other times where it happens. This is
Speaker 1: the most noticeable time. This detail would require a level
Speaker 1: of visual effects that is hard to imagine would be
Speaker 1: being used. Okay, now this zapp accurately illuminates the clouds
Speaker 1: in three dimensions. This is another detail that is undeniable.
Speaker 1: You can even see the light reflect off the nearby cloud.
Speaker 1: You can see it reflecting off the cloud. Naturally, anyone
Speaker 1: who's done visual effects would know that how difficult this
Speaker 1: would be to pull off, and to pull it off perfectly.
Speaker 1: The way that we see it in two videos from
Speaker 1: two different angles just adds a level of depth that
Speaker 1: shows it. This cannot be a picture that we're looking at.
Speaker 1: This is not two dimension what we're looking at. What
Speaker 1: we're looking at has depth that means it's three dimension.
Speaker 1: This rules out so many visual effects arguments, including most
Speaker 1: of the debunk attempts that have been attempted on these videos,
Speaker 1: do not consider the fact that this must be a
Speaker 1: three dimensional environment. Factually speaking, must be Satellite USA two
Speaker 1: two nine was at the right location at the right
Speaker 1: time with his sister satellite right overhead, and there's a
Speaker 1: link here you can actually watch the recreated flight path.
Speaker 1: We searched through it and search where satellites were and
Speaker 1: found that there's one right at the right time to
Speaker 1: be beaming data to be able to produce what we've
Speaker 1: got going on in the video. The drone is a
Speaker 1: General Atomics MQ variant. It's either m Q nine, MQ
Speaker 1: one c MQ twenty. Avenger actually came up, which I
Speaker 1: believe is controlled by the Navy. Very difficult to tell.
Speaker 1: They all look almost identical. The thermal drone camera has
Speaker 1: similar capabilities to a Westcam MX twenty. There's a link
Speaker 1: here as well if you want to watch and see
Speaker 1: you can tell it's got the same high resolution, smooth
Speaker 1: motion capabilities. When you're watching the drone video, there's actually
Speaker 1: accurate camera shake as the drone As the camera operator
Speaker 1: zooms in, you can see it in the beginning of
Speaker 1: the video, and input delay real input delay from the
Speaker 1: camera operator as well. So just a couple more details
Speaker 1: to point out. You can see that the thermal is
Speaker 1: a literal perfect overlay on just actually MH three seven zero.
Speaker 1: It's a real picture of the missing plane, so pretty
Speaker 1: much a perfect match. As I say, both videos are nighttime,
Speaker 1: proven proven by the fact that there are no shadows
Speaker 1: anywhere or directional lighting anywhere on any of the clouds.
Speaker 1: Extremely important to point that out. There are no shadows
Speaker 1: anywhere in the video, and there's no directional lighting anywhere
Speaker 1: in any of the clouds. It's nighttime in the videos.
Speaker 1: A lot of people try to claim that it's daytime,
Speaker 1: and I'm just I want to say that our capabilities
Speaker 1: allow nighttime to look like daytime, especially in the computer
Speaker 1: generated DVR playback. The proximity of the drone and the
Speaker 1: multiple sensors recording the plane indicates that this was a
Speaker 1: military operation. Everybody keeps asking why was it recording. The
Speaker 1: answer to that is so simple, because it's an operation.
Speaker 1: It's the only reason why they were re recording in
Speaker 1: those videos, the only one. It's an operation. Let that
Speaker 1: sink in because I found the leaker of the videos.
Speaker 1: I found the leaker of the videos. Let me just
Speaker 1: let that sink in everybody who's listening right now. I
Speaker 1: found the leaker of the videos just through hard ass
Speaker 1: work myself in twenty twenty three October of twenty twenty three.
Speaker 1: That date is important. Remember that in October of twenty
Speaker 1: twenty three, I went public saying I found the leaker.
Speaker 1: It has to be this guy. He checks all the boxes.
Speaker 1: He was on one of the a wax that night
Speaker 1: during the operation. Has to be. He must have had
Speaker 1: an emotional reaction to see that and leak those videos
Speaker 1: like quickly to Regisi Nonsen, like he leaked them like
Speaker 1: a years later. He leaked at four days after. According
Speaker 1: to regisided On, he cropped the HUD data in the drone,
Speaker 1: and he cropped a satellite video the way he was
Speaker 1: tracking the plane so that we couldn't see the drone
Speaker 1: or potentially other assets that were in the area. There's
Speaker 1: probably more. He might have thought he was looking at
Speaker 1: UFOs or aliens like a lot of people do when
Speaker 1: they're looking at that, only to be later revealed to
Speaker 1: him that it was actually our technology. This is just hypothetical,
Speaker 1: but it matches the psychological profile of what might have
Speaker 1: happened for this week now. He was assigned the VPU
Speaker 1: two Wizard Special Projects Squadron in February of twenty fourteen.
Speaker 1: They do black operations. Okay, so we've already nailed the
Speaker 1: guy like right place, right time, right squadron. Right. That
Speaker 1: should be enough already. But there's more. He was an
Speaker 1: aviator lieutenant commander on the P eight Poseidon and locking
Speaker 1: Martin ethan EP three e aries two spy planes. These
Speaker 1: planes fuse collected intelligence for battlefield situational awareness. His role
Speaker 1: was to relay that battlefield situational awareness aka video and
Speaker 1: stuff to upper command. Lynn's lawyer was quoted saying the
Speaker 1: investigation into him began April second, twenty fourteen. That's a
Speaker 1: month after the plane disappeared. That's three two to three
Speaker 1: weeks after registered and unclaimed to oversee the videos. In
Speaker 1: May of twenty fourteen, Lynn accidentally left two flight manifests
Speaker 1: in his flight suit from a deployment that included search
Speaker 1: and rescue code names. So two months after Image three
Speaker 1: seven zero disappears, he gets caught with flight manifest He's
Speaker 1: not supposed to have that have search and rescue code
Speaker 1: names on them. What other It could only be M
Speaker 1: seventeen hadn't even happened yet at that point, That can
Speaker 1: only be MH three seven zero. Defense argued the classified
Speaker 1: information in question was available on the internet. I couldn't
Speaker 1: even believe I read this in an open news article.
Speaker 1: The Defense argued the classified information in question was available
Speaker 1: on the internet. And he was a Navy liaison to
Speaker 1: US Congress, meaning he was privy to the Navy's black
Speaker 1: program portfolio, all the black projects they had to get
Speaker 1: approved for Congress. Quietly, that was his job. So he
Speaker 1: was almost certainly exposed to this technology. What he leaked
Speaker 1: was so big it triggered a national security alert at
Speaker 1: the highest levels. Okay, so the reason why they were
Speaker 1: trying to come down on him as a spy. They
Speaker 1: were trying to come down on him as a spi
Speaker 1: because he triggered this you're alert. So they were trying
Speaker 1: to say that he was a spy. But the problem
Speaker 1: was they had to admit there was no evidence did
Speaker 1: he ever exchanged any information with anyone from China? So
Speaker 1: what does that mean? If we add that up, that
Speaker 1: means he leaked something on the internet. Right, if you
Speaker 1: didn't leak anything to our adversary, who do you leak
Speaker 1: it to? Oh, the public? It had to have been
Speaker 1: leaked to the In fact, the defense admitted it. The
Speaker 1: defense admitted it. The defense admitted they leaked it to
Speaker 1: the public. Right here, he got abused. They forced him
Speaker 1: into pre trial detainment under questionable circumstances, and he got
Speaker 1: abused by the goon squad, held in pre trial detainment
Speaker 1: for over three hundred days. Why because the military was
Speaker 1: afraid that he was going to commit gray mail. Where
Speaker 1: the defendant says I'm just gonna blurt out national security
Speaker 1: information to CNA or during the trial, or you just
Speaker 1: charged me for less scary stuff, he must add something
Speaker 1: real serious that he didn't want people to know about, like, hmm,
Speaker 1: I leaked the H three seven zero videos. The United
Speaker 1: States government took the plane with some orbs. The judge
Speaker 1: said he had a dangerous pattern of disclosure of classified information,
Speaker 1: but didn't point to any disclosures of classified information to
Speaker 1: support that argument. It's weird, almost like there was only
Speaker 1: one big thing and that couldn't really show that took
Speaker 1: a plea deal, got a nine year sentence after the
Speaker 1: plea deal, after they threw away the espionage charges after that,
Speaker 1: still got nine years with three years suspended because he
Speaker 1: worked with the NCIS and the FBI, probably to clean
Speaker 1: up the leak of the H three seven zero videos
Speaker 1: and make sure that it never went public. That would
Speaker 1: be my guess for why he got three years shaved off.
Speaker 1: He appealed in his twenty nineteen appeal, stating that his
Speaker 1: sentence was too harsh, and the judge specifically argued that
Speaker 1: what he did was extremely serious. I've never seen a
Speaker 1: case like this ever that you could even compare to.
Speaker 1: I dare anyone out there to find one that is
Speaker 1: as odd as this. It can only point to something
Speaker 1: like the MH three seven zero videos. When I foyaed
Speaker 1: the NCIS, they rejected my foya in total to be
Speaker 1: kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy.
Speaker 1: In total, they won't give me anything about it. But
Speaker 1: someone got in touch with Lynn's lawyer, Larry Younger, and
Speaker 1: they proved it by posting a voicemail from Younger too
Speaker 1: them trying to get back in touch with them for
Speaker 1: having missed their phone call. And the same day they
Speaker 1: posted the voicemail They posted that they had the conversation
Speaker 1: with Younger and asked about satellite video kind of covertly,
Speaker 1: and that Larry Younger said that the FED set brought
Speaker 1: satellite video into the case. If that statement can be corroborated,
Speaker 1: game over. He's the guy, why, because no one on
Speaker 1: this planet even knew we had satellite video unless you
Speaker 1: were already in black operations or you have been following me.
Speaker 1: I'm the guy that's been promoting that we have the
Speaker 1: satellite video capability through the research that I make three
Speaker 1: seventy X is done. There is nobody else that's been
Speaker 1: saying that we even predate the claims that were made
Speaker 1: in the November UFO hearing where it was finally admitted
Speaker 1: by Tim Galladett and Michael Schellenberger that the government has
Speaker 1: satellite video of UFOs, which would imply that we have
Speaker 1: salite video capabilities. So the first time it's ever publicly
Speaker 1: been stated, and we already proved it before that. So
Speaker 1: the fact that there's satellite video being brought into Edward
Speaker 1: Lynn's case proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that
Speaker 1: he must be the guy. But there's one more thing
Speaker 1: that's not on here. I revealed his name in October
Speaker 1: of twenty twenty three, publicly started saying his name on
Speaker 1: all the podcasts that he was the guy that leaked
Speaker 1: the videos and hopes that he would reach out to
Speaker 1: me and talk to me and do the right thing
Speaker 1: and say that he was the guy that leaked it
Speaker 1: and come forward and be a whistleblower. And in response,
Speaker 1: not only did he not reach out to me, and
Speaker 1: I know he got the message because I reached out
Speaker 1: to the law firm that represented him in October. He
Speaker 1: legally changed his name December twenty ninth, twenty twenty three,
Speaker 1: two two and a half months after I started publicly
Speaker 1: saying his name on podcast Instead of reaching out to me,
Speaker 1: he filed for a name change request from Edward Sea
Speaker 1: Lynn to Edward James Soriah. And it's interesting because when
Speaker 1: I reached out to his company and left a message
Speaker 1: that I'm sure got to him that he was my
Speaker 1: heroes what I wanted them to say. They all knew
Speaker 1: him as Edward Lynn, meaning he was not ashamed of
Speaker 1: being Edward Lynn. Everybody knows him as Edward Lynn is
Speaker 1: Eddie Lynn, So why would he put a name change request?
Speaker 1: And after he'd already got on our prison, he'd been working,
Speaker 1: had already started his own company. Everything's going fine, there's
Speaker 1: no reason to change your name. And then all of
Speaker 1: a sudden, the guy says, you leaked these crazy videos,
Speaker 1: and it's saying Edward Sea Lynn leaked H three seven
Speaker 1: zero videos, and now all of a sudden changes his name.
Speaker 1: Lawyer won't respond phone calls or voicemail messages. I want.
Speaker 1: All I'm asking for is confirmation of the statement he's
Speaker 1: already made to somebody else. Edward Lynn won't respond. Family
Speaker 1: members won't respond. This is the behavior of guilty people,
Speaker 1: beyond any shadow of a doubt. Beyond any shadow of
Speaker 1: a doubt. This is not a joke. This is not
Speaker 1: a game. What I'm telling you right now is one
Speaker 1: real how to proceed. I don't know. We're in unsharded territories.
Speaker 1: I'm doing my best here as just a normal random
Speaker 1: guy that came across this information. Is clearly uncovered something
Speaker 1: just absolutely huge huge. So now the story of MH
Speaker 1: three seven zero. So this is a combination of what
Speaker 1: I think happened to the plane, and then some of
Speaker 1: the arguments for some the other planes are on the
Speaker 1: plane So there are two lengths here to the flight
Speaker 1: path video and flight path explain our video if you
Speaker 1: want to see both the flight path and understand it visually.
Speaker 1: And then my short explainer video is a little bit outdated,
Speaker 1: but still pretty accurate in terms of what I think happened.
Speaker 1: So first most important part is the plane didn't crash
Speaker 1: in the South Indian Ocean. No debris field found. Plane
Speaker 1: would have exploded. That thousands of pieces, whether or not
Speaker 1: I had fuel in there or not, hidden in the
Speaker 1: ocean from the sky. It's a massive, massive plane of
Speaker 1: Bowing triple seven. We did the most expensive search in
Speaker 1: history and didn't find anything above or below water. Let
Speaker 1: me make that clear. The search didn't find anything. Nothing. Ever,
Speaker 1: in eleven years, no black boxes were found, despite that
Speaker 1: they can produce signal below signal depths of twenty thousand feet.
Speaker 1: There's no problem that it wasn't below the signal depths
Speaker 1: of the black boxes. They found nothing. Ever, none of
Speaker 1: the four redundant emergency transponder beacons activated. They only activate
Speaker 1: on crash. None of them activated. The argument people make is, oh, well,
Speaker 1: it was like a They must the pilot must have
Speaker 1: just decided to like somehow perfectly land the plane on
Speaker 1: the ocean without triggering the ELTs. It's like it's just
Speaker 1: a continual like more and more excuses they have to
Speaker 1: be made for this, like tortured logic to try to
Speaker 1: continue to believe that somehow this plane went down to
Speaker 1: the South Indian Ocean. SOCAS system, the sound surveillance system
Speaker 1: by the Navy would have heard it, just like they
Speaker 1: heard the titan sub pop where the Navy said nothing
Speaker 1: for five days when the sub popped off the next
Speaker 1: of the Titanic, so that system one thousand percent so
Speaker 1: system would have heard Malaysian airlines crashing into the ocean.
Speaker 1: Doesn't matter where it literally anywhere on the planet, they
Speaker 1: would have heard it. It's a system they've had since
Speaker 1: like the fifties. There's a Cardiff University scientist I think
Speaker 1: paper that found no strong candidate signal acoustic detections. They
Speaker 1: even compared other historical situations, did the math for the
Speaker 1: mass of the plane under different speeds going into the ocean,
Speaker 1: and under all of those circumstances, both hydroacoustic systems within
Speaker 1: range should have heard the plane hit in the ocean.
Speaker 1: Neither of them did. The only acoustic dection when they
Speaker 1: tried to torture themselves into was over almost an hour
Speaker 1: after the plane would have ran out of fuel, which guys,
Speaker 1: planes don't fly without fuel, so can't possibly be that
Speaker 1: one either right off the bat, So no acoustic detection
Speaker 1: that so we have absolute scientific proof that the plane
Speaker 1: didn't crash in the South Indian Ocean. There's scientific proof.
Speaker 1: It's just a matter of people don't want to accept it.
Speaker 1: That's the reality of the situation, even after just no
Speaker 1: results after eleven years. Scientific proof that they're wrong doesn't matter,
Speaker 1: just people refuse to admit that they couldn't possibly that
Speaker 1: they've been lied to. I also want to point out
Speaker 1: that in the location where the plane supposedly was lost
Speaker 1: from radar, there's still five radars in range. This isn't
Speaker 1: a joke either. This is from the Royal Aeronautical Society
Speaker 1: twenty nineteen report. You can find on YouTube. Five radars
Speaker 1: in range. Still what I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
Speaker 1: So we're just gonna pretend like the plane was lost
Speaker 1: from radar when there's no way it possibly could have
Speaker 1: been lost from radar where they're claiming it does not
Speaker 1: feel like a very very very important fact, undeniable fact.
Speaker 1: Look at all the radars in range there. The excuse
Speaker 1: is India and Thailand just haven't said anything, and we're
Speaker 1: just gonna ignore that they haven't said anything. And Indonesia
Speaker 1: just says they were just off that night. Sorry, they
Speaker 1: were just off. I'm not kidding. That's their literal excuse.
Speaker 1: What Okay. So there's multiple radars as well that would
Speaker 1: have seen the plane, like Jorn this gingerly operational radar
Speaker 1: network in Australia, Diego, Garcia, Coco Islands, Pine Gap. I mean,
Speaker 1: these have radar systems. They are going to see rit
Speaker 1: planes for like thousands of miles. They're called over the horizon.
Speaker 1: There's also no witnesses that saw the plane, even though
Speaker 1: they claimed the plane crashed in the morning hours on
Speaker 1: an active shipping route in the South Indian Ocean. So
Speaker 1: there's no witnesses either. And now there's one more fact
Speaker 1: I want to point out as well. A lot of
Speaker 1: people say, well, the ocean is really big. Realize, like
Speaker 1: they've at people, it's not a situation where they don't
Speaker 1: think they know where it is. They think they know
Speaker 1: exactly where the plane is. It is just not there.
Speaker 1: This isn't a situation where the plane could be anywhere.
Speaker 1: It's not. They're like, oh, we have these satellite pings.
Speaker 1: If you believe these satellite pings are real, then we
Speaker 1: know almost exactly where the plane is. We just have
Speaker 1: to search this arc. And they've been searching that arc
Speaker 1: for eleven years and found nothing. So there's nowhere else
Speaker 1: for the plane to go. The arc is where the
Speaker 1: plane runs out of fuel. That's it. Game over. Nowhere
Speaker 1: else for it to be. Let that sink thing. I
Speaker 1: want to say it one more time. It's super important.
Speaker 1: There's nowhere else for the plane to be. For when
Speaker 1: people say the ocean is really big, you say they've
Speaker 1: searched everywhere the plane could possibly be. There is nowhere
Speaker 1: else for it to be. The only conclusion that can
Speaker 1: be made is that the plane never went in the
Speaker 1: South Indian Ocean, and the evidence that led us to
Speaker 1: that conclusion must be phony only conclusion that can be made.
Speaker 1: I don't want to make a conclusion like that, but
Speaker 1: we must make it because the evidence of it is overwhelming.
Speaker 1: I also want to point out that nineteen families of
Speaker 1: the victims signed a statement saying that they could call
Speaker 1: the victim's phones for up to four days after the
Speaker 1: plane disappeared, which is not contrary to the one guy
Speaker 1: that they got to go on every major station and
Speaker 1: make up the lie that that happens. They literally just
Speaker 1: got the same exact guy to go on every single
Speaker 1: mainstream media news. If you don't believe me, go check.
Speaker 1: I couldn't believe it when I saw Jeff kit Kagan
Speaker 1: is his name. Every single one had the same guy
Speaker 1: come on and say, yeah, phones still ring all the
Speaker 1: time when there's no power, when they're on the bottom
Speaker 1: of the ocean or whatever. I couldn't believe they had
Speaker 1: the same guy. And they have the link that I
Speaker 1: posted in this clip is the actual video of the
Speaker 1: guy calling. For like a second or two, you can
Speaker 1: actually see a video of the guy calling crazy man. Okay,
Speaker 1: So the plane didn't crash inside to the ocean. We
Speaker 1: just we have to conclude that, regardless of what we
Speaker 1: want to believe about MH three seven zero, we have
Speaker 1: to conclude the plane didn't crash in the South Indian Ocean.
Speaker 1: There's just no evidence that it did none at all.
Speaker 1: And then people will say, well, but what about the debris,
Speaker 1: didn't they didn't somebody find some debris, not the official search.
Speaker 1: Random people in twenty fifteen, about a year after the
Speaker 1: plane disappeared, started finding debris and saying, wait, is this
Speaker 1: from MHS three seven zero and where were they? Were
Speaker 1: they in Australia where all the drift models showed that
Speaker 1: the debris should wash ashore in western Australia. No, they
Speaker 1: were in Africa, Africa. So people start searching around Africa.
Speaker 1: Sure enough, more people start finding debris from MHS three
Speaker 1: seven zero in Africa, but not not like close to Australia,
Speaker 1: like in like Tanzania, South Africa, way way too far
Speaker 1: away from where they were searching. But it makes sense
Speaker 1: because what did I just say in the previous statement.
Speaker 1: The plane didn't crash in the South Indian Ocean. So
Speaker 1: now that we're seeing debris wash ashore in Africa, we
Speaker 1: should be asking the question, wait, where did the plane
Speaker 1: actually go? Huh? So when you look at the debris
Speaker 1: that they claim to have found as well, the amount
Speaker 1: of debris that was found does not even approve the
Speaker 1: plane crashed. This main cabin interior panel that everybody's probably
Speaker 1: looking at right here is not what CNN is making
Speaker 1: it look to be no piece that was that big.
Speaker 1: The largest piece was the flap, which you can see
Speaker 1: in the middle of your screen. That was the largest
Speaker 1: piece found, the flap, And look at how tiny it
Speaker 1: is compared to the size of the wing. You can
Speaker 1: fly a plane without a flap and land the plane
Speaker 1: without a flap. There was not even enough evidence, enough
Speaker 1: debris found to even remotely claim that the proofs of
Speaker 1: plane crashed. You can just see it with your eyes.
Speaker 1: Only three confirmed pieces, and the confirmed pieces did not
Speaker 1: use unique serial numbers. This is important to point out
Speaker 1: for the conspiracy theorists. This is a factual statement. The
Speaker 1: confirmed pieces did not use unique serial numbers. The unique
Speaker 1: cereal plate was missing from the flat. I'm seriously missing.
Speaker 1: They used part numbers, which I would argue most people
Speaker 1: argue easily could be forged, change messed around with. However,
Speaker 1: I do believe this debris is from MH three to
Speaker 1: seven zero. I do believe that. I just believe that
Speaker 1: the South Indian Ocean narrative cannot possibly be correct. There's
Speaker 1: just no evidence for it. So MH three seven zero
Speaker 1: ended up. Whatever ended up means somewhere closer to Africa,
Speaker 1: not in the South Indian Ocean somewhere closer to Africa. Now,
Speaker 1: there's some really amazing charts here that show the ocean
Speaker 1: currents which cannot be changed, not yet at least, And
Speaker 1: you can see that there's no way that the debris
Speaker 1: can be from the location where they've been searching. The
Speaker 1: ocean currents flow to the east. And you can also
Speaker 1: see how absurd it is to think that our last
Speaker 1: location of the plane is somewhere in the Malacca Straits,
Speaker 1: but that for some reason we're searching about as far
Speaker 1: away as possible from that location in the middle of nowhere.
Speaker 1: Like you couldn't come up with a better story for like,
Speaker 1: just go search in the middle of nowhere, just down
Speaker 1: the block over there, just keep searching. You just search
Speaker 1: in the middle of nowhere instead of the smart places,
Speaker 1: which would be like hmm, does the perpetrator have any
Speaker 1: hideouts nearby? Right? Like does the perpetrator who could have
Speaker 1: pulled this off have any hideouts or what we would
Speaker 1: call military base? That was just vernacular. Oh, I'll look
Speaker 1: at this dot here I put called Diego Garcia. Look
Speaker 1: at the location of the debris relative to the ocean currents,
Speaker 1: relative to the island of Diego or of the Maldives
Speaker 1: in the US military base of Diego, Garcia. Look at
Speaker 1: that location that looks like are I'm not an oceanographer
Speaker 1: or whatever the shit you have to be, but it
Speaker 1: looks like a pretty solid match to where I would
Speaker 1: imagine DeBrito drift from Diego, Garcia to Africa in the year.
Speaker 1: Now there's another this at This model is my favorite
Speaker 1: model that I've ever seen in actual life ever, because
Speaker 1: there's a model out there you can find if you
Speaker 1: guys just google, like there's the most common one you
Speaker 1: find that's got like blue, green, pink and red and
Speaker 1: it looks like spaghetti strings. This was done before they
Speaker 1: found they need debris, and these are the best ones
Speaker 1: because the only models you can believe are ones that
Speaker 1: have no bias in them. And with this model, they
Speaker 1: found right away that all the debris would have washed
Speaker 1: ashore in Western Australia, like all of it, like even
Speaker 1: in two years. It wouldn't have made it to the
Speaker 1: Reunion Islands, not even in two years. And they found
Speaker 1: the debris just a little bit after one year. So
Speaker 1: a little bit after one year, this debris is like
Speaker 1: still near Australia so they found and then they tried
Speaker 1: to like wreckcon this after the fact, which is just
Speaker 1: hilarious is what they do, right when they try to
Speaker 1: lie they said, no, it's it like that. People will
Speaker 1: just literally with no substantiation whatsoever, just claim no, it's
Speaker 1: consistent with my models. No it's not. I can see
Speaker 1: the model right there. It says, right there, no chance
Speaker 1: within the time period we found could that debris have
Speaker 1: washed ashore in the Reunion Islands and that's the closest
Speaker 1: location any debris was found. Not possible. You can see
Speaker 1: it right there. All the debris, the vast, vast majority
Speaker 1: of it, ninety five ninety nine percent of it should
Speaker 1: have been washing ashore in Western Australia. Crazy right, Okay.
Speaker 1: It's also physically impossible for the debris to have drifted,
Speaker 1: just based on the maps I was showing you before,
Speaker 1: from the location to like South Africa. Just physically not possible,
Speaker 1: no matter what you think, no matter which direction you think,
Speaker 1: the ocean currents go, couldn't make it too far away.
Speaker 1: The barnacles on the flap only showed four months of growth,
Speaker 1: but it had to been in the water for over
Speaker 1: a year. And then there was growth on the area
Speaker 1: they claimed was exposed to the air. This is how
Speaker 1: they were arguing that the flat was able to somehow
Speaker 1: defy the laws of physics. They claimed that, oh no,
Speaker 1: it was just it was exposed, so it was like
Speaker 1: blowing like a sail. But there was barnacles along the
Speaker 1: edge that was supposedly out of the water, So that
Speaker 1: doesn't work. That means it had to be underwater. That
Speaker 1: means you can't use that excuse. Their answer to that,
Speaker 1: no answer, They don't say anything. This is another huge
Speaker 1: piece of point on there's actually two pieces that have
Speaker 1: clear one undeniable burn marks on them with the honeycomb
Speaker 1: pattern of a Boeing aircraft. Meaning there's not really any
Speaker 1: other people that have pieces that look like this, and
Speaker 1: it was found in the same time period on you know,
Speaker 1: in the ocean, and you can just see the burn
Speaker 1: marks on it. You can even see the heat damage
Speaker 1: on that in the circle part in the top right.
Speaker 1: You explain that that burn damage without some type of
Speaker 1: fire right, hard to imagine, especially if you're trying to
Speaker 1: claim that it was like us. They flew the plane
Speaker 1: for eight hours and then just smoothly landed into the water.
Speaker 1: Well why am I seeing burn damage on this piece
Speaker 1: of the debris that you're telling me is from the plane.
Speaker 1: And there's another piece as well that I don't have
Speaker 1: a link to on here, but you can find all
Speaker 1: the debris. There's more. This one was just a little
Speaker 1: bit more clear that you know, anybody can just tell
Speaker 1: what fire damage looks like. There was also a Boeing
Speaker 1: Triple seven fire suppression bottle that washed up in the
Speaker 1: Mall Deeps just two weeks March twenty fifth after the
Speaker 1: plane disappeared. Some people have tried to claim this is
Speaker 1: from some other thing. It's a perfect match to a
Speaker 1: Boweing Triple seven fire supresson device, no doubt whatsoever. It
Speaker 1: can only have washed ashore if it's empty, and it
Speaker 1: even has a serial number that you can even see
Speaker 1: on there, or at least a partial serial number. This
Speaker 1: was just ignored and said that it's not connected without
Speaker 1: ever even being looked into. Nobody ever even looked into it,
Speaker 1: which to me would imply a cover up, because why
Speaker 1: would you not look into a piece of evidence because
Speaker 1: you've already decided that you don't want to look into it,
Speaker 1: and you can't look into it now. I also point
Speaker 1: out that I Foyer requested this fire suppression bottle to
Speaker 1: the NSA and the CIA, and by one of them
Speaker 1: I got rejected, or buy both of them, but I
Speaker 1: got one of them. I got rejected in a way
Speaker 1: that they have it. They just they refused to give
Speaker 1: me the evidence. So why would they have evidence about
Speaker 1: a buoyant triple seven fire depression bttle because they know
Speaker 1: it's connected to MH three seven zero, simple as that.
Speaker 1: So what does that lead us to? Fire scenario? Fire scenario?
Speaker 1: This was the underlooked scenario of MH three seven zero
Speaker 1: that ended up being true. And it's a little embarrassing
Speaker 1: that more people didn't go with the scenario because there
Speaker 1: were multiple articles I found out there by multiple different people,
Speaker 1: by multiple experts, claiming that it was almost certainly a fire,
Speaker 1: some of them before it was even revealed that there
Speaker 1: were lithium ion batteries in the cargo with the plane,
Speaker 1: not just a few, but a lot, five hundred pounds
Speaker 1: of them, four hundred and eighty seven to be exact.
Speaker 1: Now in the MH three seven zero, but in the
Speaker 1: drone video we can see a heat signature in the
Speaker 1: belly of the plane. One of the first things people
Speaker 1: pointed out was fire. And the weird part was I
Speaker 1: didn't even consider the fire event back then. I didn't
Speaker 1: even know there were people considering it. So when people
Speaker 1: said fire, I, initially as the lead investigator, I actually
Speaker 1: dismissed it. It wasn't until a couple months later, in
Speaker 1: October of twenty twenty three as well, that I found
Speaker 1: Catherine T's sighting that were supporting the fire event, and
Speaker 1: I went, wait a minute, and started looking into it
Speaker 1: and realized it probably really was a fire. So we
Speaker 1: had four hundred and eighty seven pounds of lifting my
Speaker 1: own batteries assembled that day in a really sketchy way.
Speaker 1: I might add, if you just go look at the
Speaker 1: official report by the ATSB, and they missed two security screenings.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's a recipe for disaster. Two of the
Speaker 1: palettes of batteries that were safely unsafely packaged, clearly just
Speaker 1: looking at the pictures, packaging and cardboard were in the
Speaker 1: forward cargo bay next to the electronics bay. And this
Speaker 1: is basically exactly what happened to UPS Flight six. This
Speaker 1: is what former Director uh Security Director of the FAA,
Speaker 1: Billy Vincent told me in a personal conversation with I
Speaker 1: had with him that he already found the articles where
Speaker 1: he was already implying this before they knew about the batteries,
Speaker 1: and he said, this is pretty much what happened in
Speaker 1: the UPS flight six. When I spoke to him about
Speaker 1: where the batteries were, what have you, he said, I'm
Speaker 1: one hundred percent sure it was a fire. He was
Speaker 1: one hundred percent convinced that was fire. Mike McKay saw
Speaker 1: a witness saw m a street cents You're on fire
Speaker 1: for a few seconds when it got dark. This was
Speaker 1: early in the morning, right at the exact same time
Speaker 1: the plane went dark, which would indicate that the fire
Speaker 1: would cause an electrical fire that damaged the electronics bay.
Speaker 1: There were then fishermen ten minutes later off the coast
Speaker 1: that her that saw the plane flying low going back
Speaker 1: the other way towards Malaysia. And then after the plane
Speaker 1: goes over to Malaysia, goes over Penang and doesn't land
Speaker 1: a Penang for whatever reason. It goes out into the ocean,
Speaker 1: and then Catherine t in the middle of nowhere out
Speaker 1: in the ocean sees the glowing orange plane flying low
Speaker 1: no navigation lights with smoke, dark smoke coming around the
Speaker 1: back of it at around eighteen forty UTC in the
Speaker 1: Nicobar Islands, and she has multiple blog posts over the years.
Speaker 1: She's always stuck by her sighting, her and what she
Speaker 1: claims she saw. And I spoke to her personally as well,
Speaker 1: and absolutely believe that she doesn't a single dishonest thought
Speaker 1: or bone in her. She sounds like a person who's
Speaker 1: just telling it like she saw it. She saw something
Speaker 1: absolutely incredible that night, so she sees the plane in
Speaker 1: that area, and her sighting corroborates the videos because we
Speaker 1: see the smoke coming off the plane in the videos,
Speaker 1: and we see the plane flying low in the videos
Speaker 1: because of the clouds, we can tell it's flying low.
Speaker 1: So it's perfectly consistent with her siting, but not just
Speaker 1: her sighting. Also a only reported in the China Times
Speaker 1: a May Day intercepted from MH three seven zero to
Speaker 1: the US Navy by China of the plane disintegrating and
Speaker 1: attempting an emergency landing. And they even give a time
Speaker 1: the time two forty three am. That's eighteen forty three UTC.
Speaker 1: That's within three minutes of Catherine T's sighting. That's within
Speaker 1: three minutes of when we plotted the plane would be
Speaker 1: near those coordinates, just finding having the plan going straight.
Speaker 1: So we have three sources of corroboration. Two videos military
Speaker 1: videos perfect sync with location of them that we can
Speaker 1: figure out the time Catherine T's sighting of seeing the
Speaker 1: smoke coming out the plane and the glowing the orange
Speaker 1: with the fire. And then we also have an intercepted
Speaker 1: communication that implies the US Navy is responsible. If they
Speaker 1: were communicating with the plane, they're the ones responsible. If
Speaker 1: they're the ones filming the videos, they're the ones responsible.
Speaker 1: I mean, it clearly implicates the United States Navy. And
Speaker 1: here it is. I'm just gonna read it out. In addition,
Speaker 1: the US Embassy in China said that at two forty
Speaker 1: three am, the US military based U Taypo, Thailand, monitored
Speaker 1: emergency SOS signal from Malaysian Airlines flight three seven zero,
Speaker 1: in which the pilot of the plane called that the
Speaker 1: cabin was about to disintegrate and that they wanted to
Speaker 1: make an emergency landing. The US Army in Thailand has
Speaker 1: provided this signal to the Malaysian side. What the actual hell?
Speaker 1: What what the actual hell? It was only a few
Speaker 1: investigators talking about this early on, and no one talks
Speaker 1: about it since you watch anybody's YouTube video about this
Speaker 1: other than mine, and you're not going to hear them
Speaker 1: mention this. I mean, why are we just ignoring the
Speaker 1: fact that there was an intercepted May Day call of
Speaker 1: the plane on fire? What are you kidding me? Do
Speaker 1: I need more evidence that the plane was on fire? Okay,
Speaker 1: you need more? Here's more. What were they saying the
Speaker 1: day the plane disappeared March eighth? When the plane disappears,
Speaker 1: what was the first thing they said? Usually the first
Speaker 1: thing they say is not going to be covered up yet,
Speaker 1: right because they're reacting emotional and they're just trying to
Speaker 1: get information out. Then then they have to start stop
Speaker 1: giving information out and start coming up with a cover story.
Speaker 1: So what did they say? Right away? They say, Soubang
Speaker 1: Air Traffic Control lost contact at two forty a m.
Speaker 1: What you're claiming you lost contact the same time Catherine
Speaker 1: T saw the plane within three minutes of the call.
Speaker 1: Is the time you're saying you lost contact with the plane.
Speaker 1: And then they had to change that later on they
Speaker 1: had to back away from it and say, no, just kidding,
Speaker 1: we actually We lost contact way earlier than that. We
Speaker 1: lost contact at one thirty, not not two forty. We
Speaker 1: just we just forgot what time it was. You need
Speaker 1: more evidence. Why did they change the time? Why did
Speaker 1: they change the time of the last communication of the plane?
Speaker 1: We know why. So the videos explain why we didn't
Speaker 1: find a burnt up plane. You say, Okay, if it
Speaker 1: was a fire, clearly it's a fire. I mean, that's
Speaker 1: look at how much evidence there is obviously a fire.
Speaker 1: Why do we not find a burnt up plane? This
Speaker 1: is an important point to make for a lot of
Speaker 1: the theories out there. Where's the plane? Well, when you
Speaker 1: watch the videos, you can tell we didn't find a
Speaker 1: burnt up plane somewhere, least somewhere where. Keep in mind,
Speaker 1: the plane's not gonna be able to stand on fire
Speaker 1: for eight hours now. Billy Vincent actually tried to argue
Speaker 1: with me that it could stand on fire for many hours.
Speaker 1: But we've got a may day call. This sounds like
Speaker 1: this was a desperate situation. The videos indicate that this
Speaker 1: plane was about to go down, so you know this
Speaker 1: was on its last legs because of this fire. It
Speaker 1: was not going to last that long. So we searched everywhere.
Speaker 1: The plane would have gone down if it was a fire.
Speaker 1: That's the problem. But the videos come into play, and
Speaker 1: now we're watching something abnormal. Now we're watching something really
Speaker 1: really abnormal, And now we have to throw out all
Speaker 1: of our orthodox thinking. We have to be heterodox thinkers now.
Speaker 1: And we have to remember that energy is neither created
Speaker 1: nor destroyed. And a Boeing Triple seven is an extremely
Speaker 1: massive object, two hundred and thirty nine people on board.
Speaker 1: So if this was being turned into a bomb of
Speaker 1: some sort, we should be seeing a massive mushroom cloud here.
Speaker 1: It can't just be getting annihilated unless there's just completely
Speaker 1: changing the laws of physics. And some people would say, well,
Speaker 1: are you saying it was teleported? Yes, And then they
Speaker 1: would say, well, doesn't that break the laws of physics? No, Actually, surprisingly,
Speaker 1: teleportation does not break the laws of physics. It's just
Speaker 1: not accepted at the moment. Wormholes are what we would
Speaker 1: call teleportation, and a wormhole at the quantum level er
Speaker 1: equals EPR is known as quantum entanglement. And there is
Speaker 1: this notion that quantum entanglement at the quantum level is
Speaker 1: basically little wormholes, and that then the answer would be,
Speaker 1: all we have to do is make a wormhole at
Speaker 1: the large scale, and then if we do that, we
Speaker 1: now achieved what we would call teleportation, which is to
Speaker 1: really actually simplify it faster than light travel from the
Speaker 1: person who's looking at that thing. When you demystify it,
Speaker 1: it's not as magical sounding and a lot more plausible.
Speaker 1: And if you think that that's outlandish, well, you know what,
Speaker 1: it is a little bit outlandish. Not going to lie
Speaker 1: to you. But at the same time, you look at
Speaker 1: how little we've progressed from a propulsion and engineering perspective
Speaker 1: in the last fifty to seventy years, and ask yourself
Speaker 1: why and if that's really the case, and if it
Speaker 1: imagine that if we were actually advancing, where would we
Speaker 1: be and what would we have. I think that everything
Speaker 1: lines up kind of nicely towards Yeah, we've just been
Speaker 1: hiding our progress in those areas. So this was a
Speaker 1: US Navy operation, probably the CIA involved as well. I'm
Speaker 1: not too picky. Blame whichever military organizations you want, but
Speaker 1: this isn't just like a rogue band of people or
Speaker 1: what have you. I've considered those scenarios of rogue you know,
Speaker 1: Wakanda scenarios, what have you. Nah, This is just listen.
Speaker 1: This is the US Military, the US Military Drome, General
Speaker 1: Thomas Jerrome, US Navy. It's over the water. The guy
Speaker 1: who leaked the videos is Navy. I mean everyone's pointing
Speaker 1: to the Navy. So here's a picture that we made
Speaker 1: that shows where the plane would be getting teleported. Now,
Speaker 1: I want to point out this technology we see here.
Speaker 1: This is just me giving you my kind of off
Speaker 1: the wall opinion on this. I don't think this technology
Speaker 1: is I think they figured this technology out and they've
Speaker 1: been advancing it, but I think it has a long
Speaker 1: way to go. And we're not talking about teleporting people
Speaker 1: to Xenu or to the to the Sun or something
Speaker 1: like that. Yet. We're talking about like local short distance teleportation.
Speaker 1: And that's what I think they did here. I think
Speaker 1: they did some sort of a short hop from the
Speaker 1: location where the plane was in the Nicobar Islands west
Speaker 1: somewhere over here near the Maldives, and then they that
Speaker 1: somehow I think, put out the fire, which seems weird,
Speaker 1: but when you actually look at the physics, you realize
Speaker 1: that like this teleportation would be an endothermic event where
Speaker 1: it absorbs energy. And the weird thing about the lithium
Speaker 1: ion batteries is that the only reason why they're unstoppable
Speaker 1: is because they have so much energy packed into them.
Speaker 1: So if somehow that zapp sucks the energy out of
Speaker 1: the batteries, the plane is just fine. I mean, if
Speaker 1: it was fine before it, it's not going to keep
Speaker 1: burning up anymore. So it's like, one of the first
Speaker 1: thoughts I had about this was like, that would be
Speaker 1: like a really weird way to save the plane. Like,
Speaker 1: imagine the weirdest way ever to save the plane is
Speaker 1: like put some orbs on it to like put the
Speaker 1: fire that puts the batteries fire out. Like that would
Speaker 1: almost seem like you set the fire just to put
Speaker 1: it out yourself, you know, like it's way too convenient,
Speaker 1: Like why would you you know, how could you have
Speaker 1: that planned? Don't worry, We're gonna get to that. So
Speaker 1: the motive then, Okay, why would the US do something
Speaker 1: like this, which they did. They did do this shit.
Speaker 1: They did this shit. Nobody believes it, but they did
Speaker 1: this shit. The answer is the free scale semi conductor engineers.
Speaker 1: I mean, if you assume that they did do it,
Speaker 1: then the free scale semi conductor engineers are undeniably the
Speaker 1: reason why you got twenty people on the plane, all
Speaker 1: from the same company. They're all sitting next to each other.
Speaker 1: Some of them even have their family with them, but
Speaker 1: they're going to like a one week trip overseas. Seems
Speaker 1: really bizarre. It breaks policies, all company policies of like
Speaker 1: that have like intellectual property like this would this would
Speaker 1: break the policy that would say you shouldn't allow these
Speaker 1: people to all be on the same flight. And it's shot.
Speaker 1: Nine or eight of them are Chinese nationals and the
Speaker 1: company works has contracts with US Aerospace and defense. They
Speaker 1: also and this was incredible, Like I literally could never
Speaker 1: have imagined there would be this much incriminating evidence that
Speaker 1: points to the semiconductor people being the guy. There's a
Speaker 1: two thousand and five NSA security report about this company
Speaker 1: and a couple other companies, but mainly this company about
Speaker 1: how they were advancing towards room temperature superconductive microchips, which
Speaker 1: guys as nowadays, it's funny how much like the times
Speaker 1: have changed so much in the last twenty years or
Speaker 1: even the last ten years, where now people like when
Speaker 1: I talk about room temperature, super microchips. People are immediately
Speaker 1: thinking like, oh, quantum computers, AI stuff like that. Yes, yes,
Speaker 1: so yes, we know that's the shit, right, that's the
Speaker 1: that's the jam. So we have these people on board
Speaker 1: the plane, okay, and they had just launched a major
Speaker 1: initiative serving the RF power needs for US aerospace and defense.
Speaker 1: So what are the possible narratives so I will not
Speaker 1: get offend it if people are pushing narratives that actually
Speaker 1: fit the evidence, actually don't get in offended at all,
Speaker 1: but that primarily I prefer ones that would prefer this.
Speaker 1: So one is counter espionage. You're preventing defectors from going
Speaker 1: to China with intellectual property. This could be a spy
Speaker 1: or spy kind of situation. In fact, I think that's
Speaker 1: what it is. Could be a show force USA versus
Speaker 1: China versus Russia, some kind of shadow arms race to
Speaker 1: develop ORB technology. Maybe it's the UFO technology, alien technology,
Speaker 1: Atlantean technology. Who knows who cares, but maybe that's going
Speaker 1: on in that case. This is like a who's your
Speaker 1: daddy moment? Like we're so far beyond where you're at,
Speaker 1: Like you got to look over your shoulder every time,
Speaker 1: every time you do anything. This is like a moment
Speaker 1: where you do something like this to tell them like
Speaker 1: we know everything you know, and we know that we
Speaker 1: own you. We own you, bitch. That's basically why you
Speaker 1: would do something like this. It could, though, also be
Speaker 1: a rescue operation. That plane was doomed. Landing in the
Speaker 1: ocean is going to break that plane apart. I don't
Speaker 1: care what some of these people try to claim about
Speaker 1: how it was just perfectly land the plane in the ocean.
Speaker 1: Boeing Triple seven, no bowing triple seven is gonna rip up.
Speaker 1: Do you guys just see that plane Alaska or Canada
Speaker 1: like hit the hit the ice and then flipped over
Speaker 1: and the wings broke off, like the moment one of
Speaker 1: your wings hits anything. It's the wings are gonna crack
Speaker 1: off and that plane's gonna do a barrel roll and
Speaker 1: crack in half. Anyone's saying a otherwise, it just has
Speaker 1: not seen planes in aerodynamics. So this plane was doomed.
Speaker 1: So maybe there was a VIP passenger that called in
Speaker 1: their rescue me button they get out of for jail
Speaker 1: free card. They just said save me. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's pretty weird that they and also the
Speaker 1: fact that it could have put out the fire. It's
Speaker 1: just it seems very organized, like too organized, like way
Speaker 1: too organized. Actually it could also been an experiment. You know.
Speaker 1: If this technology is relatively new and they generally know
Speaker 1: what it does, you know, maybe they thought, Okay, well,
Speaker 1: here's the perfect opportunity to use it. We're gonna kill
Speaker 1: these people anyway, or whatever we plan to do to them,
Speaker 1: you know, might as well zap them with some orbs
Speaker 1: and see if they come out the other side, or
Speaker 1: like hills have eyes type people, or if they you know,
Speaker 1: are okay, or maybe they come back with mustaches from
Speaker 1: the bizarro dimension. Who knows. Maybe it's alien technology and
Speaker 1: we have to text it out before we use it
Speaker 1: on the aliens, or something that we're gonna fight. I
Speaker 1: don't know. Once again, I don't care what the answer is.
Speaker 1: I just want us to admit that we, the United
Speaker 1: States Navy, did this to the plane, because clearly they did.
Speaker 1: Now I want to point out everybody was blaming the
Speaker 1: United States for some reason, United the world ignores this
Speaker 1: like everyone just acts like nobody knows who did it.
Speaker 1: Everyone's blaming the United States except for the United States, everyone, Russia.
Speaker 1: The gru report claims the United States Navy diverted the plane.
Speaker 1: China Times is saying that the US Navy had communications
Speaker 1: with m H three seven zero, clearly implicating the US Navy.
Speaker 1: The Prime Minister of Malaysia Maati, the most respected prime
Speaker 1: minister ever Malaysian's history. Who's prime minister right before this
Speaker 1: happened and after this happened, and he had a guy
Speaker 1: in between his time that came in and said the
Speaker 1: plane win in the South Indi the ocean, and then
Speaker 1: that guy went to prison for being a criminal. And
Speaker 1: then the other prime minister came back again and he
Speaker 1: said that the CIA did it. So Malaysians prime minister
Speaker 1: said the CIA did it because they did do it,
Speaker 1: because they did do it, because they clearly did it.
Speaker 1: Because he's like, of course they've saw the plane. You're
Speaker 1: an idiot if you think the United States government doesn't
Speaker 1: know exactly what happened to MH three seven zero. They
Speaker 1: know exactly what happened. I'm not talking about vaguely. They
Speaker 1: know exactly what happened and why it happened and everything.
Speaker 1: And anybody claiming the United States government doesn't know has
Speaker 1: not been paying attention, has not looked at the Foyer
Speaker 1: request or the stack of Foyer rejections that I have
Speaker 1: from every agency in the United States about MH three
Speaker 1: seven to zero. And if they were not involved, there'd
Speaker 1: be no reason for the level of secrecy involved in
Speaker 1: this plane. Okay. It was also reported that Malaysia was
Speaker 1: given information by the United States on condition that they
Speaker 1: not reveal it, which is probably that we orbed the
Speaker 1: plane away and they can't talk about it. China leaked
Speaker 1: satellite imagery onto the Internet. They leaked satellite imagery on
Speaker 1: in there on March twelfth, four days after the plane
Speaker 1: goes away. They leak imagery on the Internet that looks
Speaker 1: really similar to what we're seeing in the satellite video.
Speaker 1: It just looks like it's further away, like it's not
Speaker 1: as good resolution, and it's a still image as opposed
Speaker 1: to a video, but it looks like three objects spinning
Speaker 1: around something else with low altitude cumulus clouds. Pretty unusual
Speaker 1: that China just leaked these internet images on the Internet
Speaker 1: and had people think like, oh, it's a debris field somewhere,
Speaker 1: and then they searched there was no debris field, So
Speaker 1: what was this what was this all about. It looks
Speaker 1: like this is a message to the United States intelligence
Speaker 1: agencies saying we'd know what you did, we know you're responsible,
Speaker 1: and we can corroborate that. Why Because China hacked the
Speaker 1: Malaysian government of Marsi nine three days prior, and they
Speaker 1: stole the crisis meeting minute notes and classified info about
Speaker 1: M three seven zero. So they stole most likely the
Speaker 1: classified communications between MH three seven zero and the United
Speaker 1: States Navy. United States Navy was in communication with the
Speaker 1: plane and they had they classified those communications, and China
Speaker 1: stole them. And so China knew one that the United
Speaker 1: States Navy was responsible. And this was them saying we
Speaker 1: know what you did. The French father on the Netflix
Speaker 1: documentary was told that there were two American A wax
Speaker 1: spy planes in the area and the mayor Americans know
Speaker 1: what happened. Everybody was saying the Americans did it. Everybody.
Speaker 1: Edward C. Lynn, US Navy Special operator, US Navy implied
Speaker 1: even the US Navy was saying they did it, or
Speaker 1: the US military was saying they did it. I couldn't
Speaker 1: believe this. Here's even a quote confirmed Sibbers provided data
Speaker 1: to the intelligence community to help solve the mystery of
Speaker 1: Malaysian Airlines Flight three seven zero. This is the art
Speaker 1: of what we do, says Colonel Mike Jackson, four hundred
Speaker 1: and sixtieth Operation Group Commander at Buckley, Officials at the
Speaker 1: four underd and fifty of space Wing, that's actually where
Speaker 1: the space wing is confirmed that SIBBERS provided technical data
Speaker 1: to the intelligence community to help solve the mystery of
Speaker 1: Malaysian Airlines Flight three seven zero, which disappeared over the
Speaker 1: Indian Ocean March fourteenth, twenty fourteenth. Who is there any
Speaker 1: about there? Still don't think that the United States knows
Speaker 1: what happened on the plane. Everybody says the United States
Speaker 1: did it, including the United States literally admitting that their
Speaker 1: Sibber system knows what happened to the plane. And we're
Speaker 1: looking at leaked, possibly SIBBERS video of the plane recorded
Speaker 1: by the United States intelligence agencies. I'm actually a little
Speaker 1: bit surprised that it's this hard to convince people at
Speaker 1: this point. Doesn't that like beyond any shadow of a
Speaker 1: possible doubt, like case closed, what else is there to
Speaker 1: even discover? So the cover up? Obviously the United States
Speaker 1: did it, No question so can we show how they proved?
Speaker 1: Can we prove the lie? Yeah, we improved the lie
Speaker 1: as well. Oh this isn't the thing, okay, So there's
Speaker 1: some interesting facts about the plane, about the cover up here.
Speaker 1: So the satellite coordinat it could only be the nick
Speaker 1: of our islands because the videos pre date the whole
Speaker 1: South Indian Ocean narrative. The videos say they were received
Speaker 1: March twelfth March twelve, twenty fourteen, but the South Indian
Speaker 1: Ocean narrative was not even developed March thirteenth till March thirteenth,
Speaker 1: And when and who pushed that? Unnamed US officials aka
Speaker 1: intelligence officials started leaking information to the media on March
Speaker 1: thirteenth that Mia Street seven and zero flew into the
Speaker 1: South Indian Ocean. Now, not only are we implicating the
Speaker 1: US military, but they're the ones who spread the fake
Speaker 1: story that the plane winning the South Indian Ocean. They're
Speaker 1: the ones who sent us the wrong location. Why are
Speaker 1: we believing the people that literally everybody said was responsible.
Speaker 1: It's like going to the killer and asking where the
Speaker 1: bodies are at. There's not going to send you to
Speaker 1: the real location. The real locations dieve Garcia by the way,
Speaker 1: we're going to get to it in a minute. That's
Speaker 1: where the plane went. So the White House was calling
Speaker 1: Malaysia every day. Again, there's no reason for the White
Speaker 1: House to be calling Malaysia every day. You leave that
Speaker 1: to your state department. There was one adult American on
Speaker 1: board the plane. Would why would the White House be
Speaker 1: calling every day? And you'd think, oh, because they care
Speaker 1: so much? Then why was that? President Obama's first press
Speaker 1: conference about MGHS three seven zero wasn't until ten days
Speaker 1: later on March seventeenth. I think it was March seventeenth,
Speaker 1: maybe March nineteenth. He waited ten days to talk about
Speaker 1: MH three seven zero. Why because he had to wait
Speaker 1: till the cover story was built. Why didn't Why didn't
Speaker 1: Obama talk about the missing plane the next day? He
Speaker 1: was like, I would have expected a press conference literally
Speaker 1: on March eighth about the plane disappearing. Instead he waited
Speaker 1: ten days to even discuss it. And then after that
Speaker 1: he went to Malaysia for the first time any president
Speaker 1: has gone to Malaysian over fifty years. Obama goes to
Speaker 1: Malaysia the next month in April, and he gets a
Speaker 1: couple sound bites about MH three seven zero, but barely
Speaker 1: discusses it and never discusses MH three seven zero publicly
Speaker 1: ever again, Go check it. I couldn't believe it, I
Speaker 1: asked AI. I looked to myself. President Obama never discussed
Speaker 1: MH three seven zero ever again after he visited Malaysia
Speaker 1: in August in April, at least not in any public way,
Speaker 1: in any serious way. I mean, if you couldn't ask
Speaker 1: for a perfect lineup to incriminate the United States, and
Speaker 1: they're exacting exactly how you would act if you were
Speaker 1: the person who was the person who perpetuated the crime,
Speaker 1: perpetrated to the crime, and then was covering it up,
Speaker 1: also pointing out that Rolls Royce was silent even though
Speaker 1: they have two engines that transmit data independently, and that
Speaker 1: these engine data should have been transmitting, but that data
Speaker 1: has never been revealed publicly. Why because the data would
Speaker 1: show what really happened to the plane and they couldn't
Speaker 1: allow that to happen. There were Cope Tiger and Cobra
Speaker 1: gold exercises that had just begun and ended that were
Speaker 1: happening in the exact area, and Cope Tiger's operations that
Speaker 1: year with search and rescue, which corroborates the search and
Speaker 1: rescue code names from Edward c Lynn's flight manifests that
Speaker 1: he was caught with. So actually the literal cope tiger
Speaker 1: themed that year with search and rescue. So there's no
Speaker 1: way all of the US Navy assets would have been
Speaker 1: in the area because there was military exercises going on
Speaker 1: right there in the area where we had the coordinates happening,
Speaker 1: So the assets were there. You've got the right time
Speaker 1: for it to happen. And this also proves as well,
Speaker 1: the US knows what happened. You're not going to have
Speaker 1: a rogue bowing Triple seven flying past US military exercises
Speaker 1: and I'm not see it makes no sense they as
Speaker 1: Matthias Chang said, it's like flying into the heart of
Speaker 1: the storm. You're going to like the exact wrong way
Speaker 1: to take a plane. The Minister of Defense admitted that
Speaker 1: he was in contact with the US about spy satellites
Speaker 1: in the region. If you don't believe me, well.
Speaker 3: Regions he received data from.
Speaker 1: So yes, they were in touch with the United States,
Speaker 1: and yes they had received data from Rolls Royce which
Speaker 1: has never been made publicly available. Once again, all I'm
Speaker 1: doing is showing the receipts from the publicly available press conferences.
Speaker 1: You can find them out there now. The Minister of
Speaker 1: Defense also said that they knew the plane was not hostile,
Speaker 1: which means they had communications with the plane that they
Speaker 1: have not revealed. This is so important because I've just
Speaker 1: told you that there was United States military communications with
Speaker 1: the plane, that they must have been classified, and that
Speaker 1: China probably stole those communications. Well, we have the military,
Speaker 1: the number one official in Malaysia related to the case.
Speaker 1: The Minister of Defense literally admits they knew the plane
Speaker 1: was not hostile. This is only possible if they had
Speaker 1: communications with the plane that they have not revealed. Otherwise,
Speaker 1: if you did not have communications with the plane, you
Speaker 1: could never rule out a pilot rogue pilot or a
Speaker 1: hijacking scenario. Those both require communications to confirm. So let's
Speaker 1: listen to him in his own words.
Speaker 2: Don send digits up. If you have conceded earlier that
Speaker 2: you knew very early in the morning the plane was missing,
Speaker 2: there was four and a half hours time in which to.
Speaker 4: Resort commercial it was from our airspace. We're not at
Speaker 4: war with anybody.
Speaker 1: If it doesn't answer, go up.
Speaker 2: In hindsight, would you agree that we wouldn't be in
Speaker 2: the situation we are now, which is.
Speaker 4: I don't so, I don't think that speculatives. Even if
Speaker 4: we send it back, Are you going to say that
Speaker 4: we're going to shoot it down?
Speaker 1: No, Jesus said that, not me.
Speaker 4: I'm asking you.
Speaker 1: Why is he asking? So?
Speaker 4: If you're not going to it's not going to shoot
Speaker 4: it down, what's the point of sending it.
Speaker 2: Up to see where it's going?
Speaker 4: Well, to see that going you need a fight for that,
Speaker 4: apparently with you, But military procedures.
Speaker 1: The radars are all off.
Speaker 4: Apparently it should it down. You'll be the first to say,
Speaker 4: how can you shoot down a commercial airline with fourteen nationals?
Speaker 4: Half of them Chinese have been a worst position? Probably?
Speaker 2: Why shoot it down there? If it's not hostile?
Speaker 4: But the Americans would?
Speaker 1: Why that weird statement at the end about what the
Speaker 1: Americans would do? Creepiest thing I've ever heard. I've never
Speaker 1: seen a more guilty person ever in my life. It's
Speaker 1: not incompetence. It was maliciousness, absolute maliciousness. Why not send
Speaker 1: up the plane? He says, Right at the beginning, they
Speaker 1: knew it was a commercial airliner and not hostile. How
Speaker 1: do you know that the ACR system wasn't turned on,
Speaker 1: it was not on flight radar, but you knew it
Speaker 1: was a commercial plane and it wasn't hostile. Why that's incredible.
Speaker 1: He's either Misscleo the psychic or they had communications with
Speaker 1: the plane. It's a very simple fact that can't be denied.
Speaker 1: And it's one of the things that you won't see
Speaker 1: any of the other investigators bring up because they can't
Speaker 1: really deal with evidence that goes against their preconceived notions
Speaker 1: about what they think happened to the plane, even when
Speaker 1: it's undeniable. There's no other interpretation. There's no other interpretation
Speaker 1: from what he's saying. Their interpretation is basically everything they'd
Speaker 1: disagree with is a lie or fake or whatever they
Speaker 1: needed to be bizarre. Okay, now there's even more stuff
Speaker 1: that implicates the United States. I can't believe how much
Speaker 1: there is. Uh. There's a clip of Florence to Changing,
Speaker 1: who did a lot of on the boots on the
Speaker 1: ground research shout out to her. Nephew of the pilot
Speaker 1: was told that his uncle was collateral damage. Now, the
Speaker 1: only situation that people I've ever heard people use the
Speaker 1: word collateral damage is when the government is killing people.
Speaker 1: Is there any other situation when people are referred to
Speaker 1: as collateral damage. I'm pretty sure it's only when the
Speaker 1: government is killing people. So this would imply it was
Speaker 1: a government operation that happened to the plane. The former
Speaker 1: head of Indonesian Police was told quote unquote what really
Speaker 1: happened to MHD seven zero, which implies there's a real story,
Speaker 1: and then there's a story that's being told to the public.
Speaker 1: So once again, these are like people who are officials
Speaker 1: that were in the know, just telling the truth, and
Speaker 1: nobody wants to believe them when they tell the truth.
Speaker 1: They only want to believe the fictional story that's being
Speaker 1: told in the media. And then just to add this
Speaker 1: on there, weirdly, there's two Iranian fake passengers who are
Speaker 1: using stolen passports, traveling together and change their appearance to
Speaker 1: look like the people in the passports, and they were
Speaker 1: just dismissed in one day after the plane disappeared. As well.
Speaker 1: They were just refugees, like going to they were trying
Speaker 1: to go to Amsterdam, but they were going to Beijing
Speaker 1: for reasons of you know whatever. What we're just gonna
Speaker 1: gloss over that a plane disappeared and there's like two
Speaker 1: people from a let's say, adversarial country to the United
Speaker 1: States that are fake passengers on stolen passports. Okay, I
Speaker 1: guess we'll just we'll ignore that. If they were operatives,
Speaker 1: they would be exactly what we'd be looking for. I'll
Speaker 1: just leave it at that. Now, where'd the plane go?
Speaker 1: It went to Diego Garcia. Why to go to Diego Garcia.
Speaker 1: It's the only place for the plane to go. It's
Speaker 1: the only place. Everybody was saying, including Mark du Gain
Speaker 1: who's a famous author and got a lot of heat
Speaker 1: for it, and some people claim that he was told
Speaker 1: to like stop looking into it. Catherine t the witness,
Speaker 1: she also and I think it was her twenty eighteen
Speaker 1: blog posts I have a link to above, says I
Speaker 1: think she said. She now agrees the plane went to
Speaker 1: Diego Garcia, and every other conspiracy theory out there was
Speaker 1: saying the plane was remote controlled there or whatever. I
Speaker 1: think it was Field McConnell's saying that. And why because
Speaker 1: Diego Garcia is like a NASA landing strip, perfect location.
Speaker 1: There's got to be underground stuff there. There was a
Speaker 1: Maldives sighting at a small island in the early early
Speaker 1: morning hours, where a bunch of islanders saw the plane
Speaker 1: and the red and white strip of Malayian Airlines flying
Speaker 1: south towards the Garcia. The pilot had Diego Garcia in
Speaker 1: a simulator for some weird reason, even though it's not
Speaker 1: open to commercial aircrafts. And then there was a no
Speaker 1: departures from Diego Garcia for seventy two hours after March eighth,
Speaker 1: which is pretty damned suspicious. Wait, so there's just gonna
Speaker 1: be no departures for three days after the plane lands there,
Speaker 1: which is probably what happened. I mean, that's pretty convenient,
Speaker 1: pretty incriminating. Oh and in case you wanted the logs, well,
Speaker 1: the flight logs were just all destroyed by water damage
Speaker 1: in July of twenty fourteen. If you don't believe me,
Speaker 1: go look it up. I absolutely can't. You could not
Speaker 1: make this story up. The Diego Garcia flight logs were
Speaker 1: destroyed by water damage in July of twenty fourteen, just
Speaker 1: a few months after m three seven zero. What a coincidence?
Speaker 1: What ah? Too bad? Would have been convenient to have
Speaker 1: those flight logs, but they were just too shame twenty fourteen.
Speaker 1: We didn't have computers in twenty fourteen. Guys, it was
Speaker 1: the Stone Ages in twenty fourteen. You know, everything was
Speaker 1: still on paper in twenty fourteen. I know that I
Speaker 1: worked on paper. It has underground facilities with black vault
Speaker 1: Foyer request showing that it may be a CIA black
Speaker 1: site AKA that has like prisoners on there. There was
Speaker 1: a message from Philip Wood posted on four Chan saying
Speaker 1: that he's held captive. But there's just a black picture.
Speaker 1: But the EXIF data in the picture has coordinates placing
Speaker 1: it in Diego, Garcia, where they think that they have
Speaker 1: these CIA black site prisons. Which is like, Man, if
Speaker 1: you were coming up with a story about where the
Speaker 1: plane went, you couldn't be more on the nose. Well,
Speaker 1: it went to a military black the US military operation
Speaker 1: went to a U secret US military base. It's more
Speaker 1: secret than Area fifty one that no one's allowed to
Speaker 1: go to that. If you wash ashore there, like some
Speaker 1: refugees did a few years ago, you're not allowed to leave. Ever,
Speaker 1: they were stranded there for three years, like they finally
Speaker 1: were legally forced to allow them to leave. And if
Speaker 1: you go work at Diego Garcia. You have to take
Speaker 1: like a two year deal and you're not allowed to
Speaker 1: communicate with anyone outside your life for two years, like
Speaker 1: you can't have communications outside the base. There were actually
Speaker 1: a weird situation where there were photos on Facebook that
Speaker 1: look vaguely similar to the crew. This was in like
Speaker 1: twenty twenty or twenty twenty one. So for the people
Speaker 1: that want to know what happened to the people, I
Speaker 1: don't know. They're probably not alive. If they are, then
Speaker 1: maybe they're living on Diego Garcia. That's if you want
Speaker 1: to dream and be very optimistic. My view is that everybody,
Speaker 1: if not clo if almost everybody, if not everybody, succumbed
Speaker 1: to the smoke from the fire because people don't realize
Speaker 1: how dangerous. Maybe even the US government didn't realize how
Speaker 1: dangerous lithium ion battery smoke was back then. It's one
Speaker 1: inhalation and game over. Like that's how dangerous and toxic
Speaker 1: that smoke is. So I personally don't think that anybody
Speaker 1: could have survived even to the get to the point
Speaker 1: where the plane was being zapped, except for like the pilot,
Speaker 1: because the pilot has the special hood that's like the
Speaker 1: the one that can last for like several hours, compared
Speaker 1: to like, you're the shitty thing that comes from the
Speaker 1: sky that you're just you're done. If that's all you've got,
Speaker 1: the thing that comes from the top of the plane, Okay,
Speaker 1: we've only got a few more things to go through here. Also,
Speaker 1: just want to point out that there is this ground
Speaker 1: based electric optical deep space surveillance system that's got a
Speaker 1: site at Diego Garcia. So they've got some pretty advanced
Speaker 1: stuff in Diego Garcia that they're covering up there. Maybe
Speaker 1: not anymore now that it's been exposed, but they did.
Speaker 1: Now the Inmersat pings, the only the most theories are
Speaker 1: based on this idea that the plane flew in the
Speaker 1: South Indian Ocean, and it's all based on ten rows
Speaker 1: from Inmersat that were never corroborated by anybody. And when
Speaker 1: I say corroborated I mean by like a different I
Speaker 1: don't mean corroborated by like we both looked through the
Speaker 1: same shitty data and came to the same shitty conclusion.
Speaker 1: I mean like somebody else has data that corroborates your data.
Speaker 1: That's how data works. If you don't understand that concept,
Speaker 1: then like they, I guess you're not an expert. I
Speaker 1: guess I'm a database expert, because this is actually my
Speaker 1: real job that I've have twenty years of experience on
Speaker 1: is databases like this. Now, I could fake these ten
Speaker 1: rows on an Xcel spreadsheet in five minutes. If you
Speaker 1: gave me what I needed to know, I could fake
Speaker 1: it in about five minutes. It's actually just straight up
Speaker 1: trivial to fake these ten rows in XCEL spreadsheet, and
Speaker 1: these ten rows in this XL spreadsheet here represent I
Speaker 1: think six hours five five hours of flight time, five
Speaker 1: hours of flight time. This is all we've got. This
Speaker 1: is the only reason why everyone who thinks the plane
Speaker 1: one in the South Indian Ocean, this is the only
Speaker 1: evidence they have. This what you see highlighted in green
Speaker 1: right there, and you can see quite clearly if you
Speaker 1: were to look at the whole data set, there's a
Speaker 1: massive deviation when it gets to this area in green.
Speaker 1: When it gets this area and green, all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: the way that the satellite's pinion changes entirely. It goes
Speaker 1: from pinging like sporadically like every like fifteen to twenty
Speaker 1: five minutes to only pinging every hour on the hour
Speaker 1: like or not every hour on the hour, but every hour,
Speaker 1: like exactly one hour from the last hour plus a
Speaker 1: couple seconds. It's like, why is it so different? All
Speaker 1: of a sudden I asked the investigators who literally came
Speaker 1: up with the model and reviewed this. They couldn't answer
Speaker 1: the question. They couldn't answer that basic, basic question about
Speaker 1: data that anybody that hasn't done any database work ever,
Speaker 1: or with any relational databases, which are basically excels price,
Speaker 1: you should be able to answer super simple question. That's
Speaker 1: how easy it is to lie to people. Ten rows
Speaker 1: on an Excel spreadsheet that my seven year old nephew
Speaker 1: could fake. It took the US government like ten weeks
Speaker 1: to fake this. They didn't release this data until May
Speaker 1: twenty seventh, twenty fourteen. The MAA Street seven zero videos
Speaker 1: had already been on the internet for over a week.
Speaker 1: They had already been published on the internet on YouTube.
Speaker 1: People were watching them for a week and this hadn't
Speaker 1: even been released yet. So we're thinking somebody couldn't fake
Speaker 1: ten rows on spreadsheet, but they faked two magic two
Speaker 1: videos and perfect synchronization of the US military telling the
Speaker 1: perfect story of what really happened tom A Street seven
Speaker 1: zero is incredible to me how people who call themselves
Speaker 1: skeptics don't apply to skepticism to the people who are
Speaker 1: presenting that they want to believe. Skeptics should look at
Speaker 1: this and go this doesn't make any sense. What happened here?
Speaker 1: Why is this data all of a sudden change here
Speaker 1: at the exact moment where right above this you see
Speaker 1: what time does this say right before the green right
Speaker 1: before this data changes, What time does it say? Eighteen
Speaker 1: forty UTC. Wow, that's the exact same time Sue Bang
Speaker 1: Air Traffic Control lost contact with the plane the same
Speaker 1: day the plane disappeared. That is one hell of a coincidence.
Speaker 1: Chat the exact same moment that Sue Bang air Traffic
Speaker 1: Control says they lost contact with the plane, the same
Speaker 1: moment we're seeing the plane in two videos filmed by
Speaker 1: the US military, All of a sudden that that same
Speaker 1: time the data changes in the satellite data For the
Speaker 1: people saying yatzi, yes, YATSI, why I formally called out
Speaker 1: Inersat for fraud Absolutely no question. This data is fraudulent, fake, spoofed.
Speaker 1: Whatever did to it to make it? I don't know
Speaker 1: what they did. That's not a mystrey seven zero. If
Speaker 1: it is, then the methodology that was used to determine
Speaker 1: the win in the south the ocean, and then that's
Speaker 1: flawed or fake whatever. Something about this is fake clearly,
Speaker 1: and it looks to me like somebody just fudged ten
Speaker 1: rows on an Xcel spreadsheet. That's my professional opinion as
Speaker 1: somebody that's worked on databases for twenty years. I can
Speaker 1: write SQL data and update statements, and I can write
Speaker 1: multi table queries that are relatively extensive. Okay, Now, the
Speaker 1: rogue pilot theory the number one theory at the moment,
Speaker 1: and this was not the number one theory at the
Speaker 1: time the plane disappeared. The rogue pilot theory was considered
Speaker 1: like three percent or less. Basically, nobody thought that it
Speaker 1: was possible because there was nothing indicating it. It's not
Speaker 1: like they didn't leave any notes. There was no manifesto,
Speaker 1: nothing to indicate that they did it or anything like that. Nothing.
Speaker 1: There was no evidence for it. He had eighteen thousand
Speaker 1: flight hours and everyone stood up for him, including officials,
Speaker 1: the wife, co workers. Everybody said he was an awesome guy.
Speaker 1: He would never do it. Florence d' Changy even got
Speaker 1: access to his medical records. His family was so adamant
Speaker 1: they gave his medical records to Florence to Changy to
Speaker 1: prove that his mental psych screening was all perfect. The
Speaker 1: flight path contra indicates a suicide route. A suicide route
Speaker 1: is not going to go back to the nearest airport.
Speaker 1: Suicide route's going to go in a random ass direction
Speaker 1: because you don't care. You're also not like a lot
Speaker 1: of people have argued that the plane was going between
Speaker 1: radar zones. That's not how that works at all. But
Speaker 1: if you were a suicide of pilot, you don't care
Speaker 1: about radar zones. If somebody comes up and shoots on
Speaker 1: your plane, you don't care because you're gonna take the
Speaker 1: plane down anyway in a suicidal pilot scenario. I also
Speaker 1: want to point out real quickly as well that the
Speaker 1: are argument that people make that like the pilot was
Speaker 1: avoiding radar doesn't actually make any sense at all. So
Speaker 1: when when people like mentor pilot, I think is the
Speaker 1: biggest one who promoted this misinformation, and he should apologize
Speaker 1: honestly for being so horribly wrong in his analysis. I mean,
Speaker 1: I think he's probably in normal situations a decent guy.
Speaker 1: But his MA Streets of Misserve video is complete garbage.
Speaker 1: And he promoted this myth that like the pilot turned
Speaker 1: off the system to avoid radar. But here's the thing.
Speaker 1: You can't avoid radar that way. Radar is gonna see
Speaker 1: you anyway. And if your argument is, oh, well, they
Speaker 1: weren't in your zone, well you're telling me that they
Speaker 1: turned themselves off from flight radar. So yes, if I
Speaker 1: see an unidentified object on radar, you're gonna report it.
Speaker 1: In fact, that's the only thing you're looking for if
Speaker 1: you're looking at the radar is you're looking for unidentified
Speaker 1: objects that are not on the flight tracker. And the
Speaker 1: whole argument being made is that the plane went dark
Speaker 1: off the flight tracker. So you've got a plane on
Speaker 1: your radar off the flight tracker. You don't give a
Speaker 1: shit if it's technically in Malaysia's zone. If you're Thailand,
Speaker 1: we don't care about that. You're seeing an unidentified object
Speaker 1: on your radar. It might be coming for you, it
Speaker 1: might be coming from one of your buildings or your towns.
Speaker 1: So that argument is really dumb, and it's contraindicated by
Speaker 1: itself if you were trying to avoid radar, you wouldn't
Speaker 1: turn off the A car system. You would leave it on.
Speaker 1: You would leave the ACR system on. So it looks
Speaker 1: like you're just having an emergency event when you're actually
Speaker 1: hijacking the plane. The last thing you want to do
Speaker 1: is bring attention to yourself by turning the system off
Speaker 1: that's tracking you. If you do that, then everybody's gonna
Speaker 1: be looking for you on your radars, and they're gonna
Speaker 1: see you because spoil alert. Civilian airliners don't have stealth capabilities.
Speaker 1: That's a good clip. Okay. The German Wings pilot in
Speaker 1: twenty fifteen who uh took that plane down. He locked
Speaker 1: the co pilot out and he didn't go on a
Speaker 1: joy ride for eight hours. He crashed the plane in
Speaker 1: under ten minutes. He basically just flew it directly into
Speaker 1: a mountain. That's what you do when you're a suicidal pilot.
Speaker 1: You cannot lock people out of the cockpit for eight hours.
Speaker 1: This myth where he's gonna like go super high, knock
Speaker 1: everybody out and all this bullshit. No, not in a
Speaker 1: boweing triple seven. And what's gonna happen is someone going
Speaker 1: to break through one of the panels, or they're gonna
Speaker 1: get through the door or whatever, they're gonna get to you.
Speaker 1: That's what happens in a high tension situation, where all
Speaker 1: of a sudden you're locking people out and doing some
Speaker 1: crazy shit to the plane. So that's not what happened
Speaker 1: with MH three seven zero. Now the simulator data. Now,
Speaker 1: Jeff Wise, I believe, in New York Magazine was the
Speaker 1: first one to promote the misinformation that I still hear
Speaker 1: spread out of there all the day. So do your
Speaker 1: best to fight this misinformation that the simulator route was
Speaker 1: being practiced by the pilot. This is couldn't be more fake,
Speaker 1: could not be more fake. Jeff Wise spread it because
Speaker 1: he's the biggest source of misinformation about m A three
Speaker 1: seven zero. That's not being me being mean. That's just
Speaker 1: a factual statement. Jeff Wise has to live with the
Speaker 1: decisions that he's made in his life, and writing that
Speaker 1: article that claimed that the pilot was practicing the simulator
Speaker 1: data was super fake. It was wrong. He should feel
Speaker 1: bad for doing it, and he should apologize for doing it,
Speaker 1: because here you go, this is an actual route of
Speaker 1: the simulator data over the top of various real flights
Speaker 1: of one to five to zero that was from Jetta
Speaker 1: or from qual Import to Jedta. You can see it's
Speaker 1: a direct match. He was actually scheduled to fly this
Speaker 1: route February fourth, two days before he was practicedor two
Speaker 1: days after he was practicing it. So no, he was
Speaker 1: not practicing the simulator data the route that was all fake.
Speaker 1: He was literally just practicing the route that he was
Speaker 1: scheduled to fly. This is not this is not the
Speaker 1: route MHS three seven zero took that we're looking at
Speaker 1: here either. This is also not the route MHE three
Speaker 1: seven zero took. I just want to point that out too,
Speaker 1: because this is just probably the biggest point I should
Speaker 1: point out from this year is that Jeff Wise literally
Speaker 1: just made up a complete fiction where a non matching
Speaker 1: route he claimed matched what happened to M three seven
Speaker 1: zero not even remotely close, complete fiction, completely just from
Speaker 1: whole cloth. Jeff Wise invented a completely fake narrative that
Speaker 1: did contraindicated by reality, and the FBI and officials corrected it.
Speaker 1: And yet people still to this day, ten years later,
Speaker 1: still believe that the misinformation that Jeff Wise intentionally spread
Speaker 1: about M ah three seven zero. Honestly, Jeff Wise is
Speaker 1: the last person on the planet that should ever, ever,
Speaker 1: ever talk to anybody else about misinformation. Like literally, he's
Speaker 1: the worst offender. Okay, So there you go, And just
Speaker 1: here's a direct quote from the officials, just in case
Speaker 1: anybody really is still trying to spread this myth. So
Speaker 1: the people that are out there pushing this shit that
Speaker 1: the pilot did it, you gotta just start coming to
Speaker 1: accept reality. There's no evidence the pilot did it. We
Speaker 1: have examined the pilot and the first officer, and we
Speaker 1: are quite satisfied with their background, their training, and their
Speaker 1: mental health. We are not of the opinion that it
Speaker 1: could have been an event committed by the pilot. Simple
Speaker 1: as that. Now, let me just add hoc real and
Speaker 1: point out that a lot for a lot of people,
Speaker 1: the problem is they don't have an inner monologue. They
Speaker 1: don't have the ability to think for themselves. And for
Speaker 1: those people, they need there to be a normal explanation
Speaker 1: for what happened in this plane. There must be in
Speaker 1: their minds, because in their reality, their reality is so
Speaker 1: plain and fake that there is no room for an
Speaker 1: extraordinary thing to occur. There's no room for a narrative
Speaker 1: outside what they're told to believe to happen. And so
Speaker 1: for those people, they have to ignore all of this
Speaker 1: because they need there to be some plane Jane explanation
Speaker 1: for where this plane went. But there is not. There
Speaker 1: is not one of those explanations. It is, in fact,
Speaker 1: we've ruled them out all out tonight conclusively. The plane
Speaker 1: didn't go to the South Indian Ocean, didn't crash in
Speaker 1: the ocean at all. The debris contry indicates the entire
Speaker 1: search effort. The debris doesn't even prove the plane crashed.
Speaker 1: We have no evidence for the plane even crashing, no
Speaker 1: conclusive evidence. And this is what the family members were
Speaker 1: also saying. At some point, people have to go back
Speaker 1: and go like, why am I believing the things that
Speaker 1: I'm choosing to believe. All that I did was come
Speaker 1: into this whole situation with no biases. I had no biases.
Speaker 1: I had an open mind, although I didn't I didn't
Speaker 1: believe that we had magic orbs or any of that.
Speaker 1: But I came in with no biases, and it took
Speaker 1: a look at a fresh look at all the evidence
Speaker 1: with you know, an unbiased perspective, and the story that
Speaker 1: you're hearing tonight is what I concluded based on the evidence,
Speaker 1: all the evidence that's out there, not just like a
Speaker 1: cherry picking of the evidence like you see in a
Speaker 1: lot of these YouTube videos, but the total totality of
Speaker 1: the evidence, even evidence that people don't want to believe. Now,
Speaker 1: some of the other scenarios, like to shoot down and
Speaker 1: the emergency event scenarios that I here discuss some cases,
Speaker 1: the problem with those is the same problem with the
Speaker 1: fire emergency event without the orbs, where's the plane? Where's
Speaker 1: the debris field? If a plane was shot down in
Speaker 1: the sky, the debris is gonna shatter over tens of miles.
Speaker 1: People are gonna be picking it up in their backyards.
Speaker 1: There's no way you could cover up a debris a
Speaker 1: Boeing Triple seven and two hundred and thirty nine people
Speaker 1: exploding over somewhere. There'd be people YouTube videos of plane
Speaker 1: blowing up in the sky. Even emergency events don't make
Speaker 1: any sense if it was some kind of fire. We
Speaker 1: need the videos to be real because we can't otherwise
Speaker 1: explain where the plane went up, where the plane went down,
Speaker 1: where is it? Then plane was on fire, it can't
Speaker 1: fly forever where to go. And there's other variations on
Speaker 1: these theories as well. People have claimed that they've seen
Speaker 1: debris in the water when they're not. They're just you know,
Speaker 1: there's that mind I forget what that psychology term is,
Speaker 1: where they just imagine seeing stuff when they're not seeing it.
Speaker 1: So there are no real legitimate other competing theories. It
Speaker 1: had to be a state sponsored operation and all the
Speaker 1: states involved, including the United States. We're blaming the United
Speaker 1: States saying that they know now quickly the science. Okay,
Speaker 1: I readid the science just simplified it. Just let's just
Speaker 1: simplify it. Zero point energy number one. That's the number
Speaker 1: one discovery that we can conclude from the videos. Zero
Speaker 1: point energy is real. It's the missing link in physics.
Speaker 1: It explains mass, inertia, gravity, dark energy, and dark matter,
Speaker 1: just all the things that we don't understand. It turns
Speaker 1: out explains them all. Some examples, if you want to read,
Speaker 1: would be plank ether hypothesis by fried Wart Winterberg. A
Speaker 1: beautiful theory. And the beauty of the zero point energy
Speaker 1: in the ether hypothesis is that this theory in science
Speaker 1: sits directly on top of our current perspective of physics
Speaker 1: and cosmology. And when I say that, I mean that
Speaker 1: you can add this vacuum energy in and it doesn't
Speaker 1: change anything about our reality at all. So physics still works.
Speaker 1: We don't have to rewrite everything. Bravo sweet. And then
Speaker 1: of course the OG, the final boss, the King of
Speaker 1: gatekeep disclosure hal put off in space time metric engineering,
Speaker 1: that's one of the DRDs. And then gravity is a
Speaker 1: zero point fluctuation force. These are two of my favorite
Speaker 1: papers ever that explain how you can manipulate space time
Speaker 1: and why gravity is not a fundamental force but in
Speaker 1: fact just an induced pressure effect based on relative energy
Speaker 1: densities of zero point energy, meaning the energy densities are
Speaker 1: like the way the peaks and the valleys of the
Speaker 1: amount of energy in space time. Okay, space time engineering.
Speaker 1: So some of the best papers about space time engineering
Speaker 1: traversible wormholes, stargates and negative Energy by Eric W. Davis
Speaker 1: this is one of the duds. And warp Drives, Dark
Speaker 1: Energy Manipulation of Extra Dimensions by also Eric W. Davis.
Speaker 1: These papers basically explain how we can produce negative energy
Speaker 1: and make warp drives and wormholes, and how you can
Speaker 1: survive a wormhole, and they actually corroborate what we see
Speaker 1: in the videos in terms of a release of photons
Speaker 1: happening and like this umbra effect that we see occur
Speaker 1: in the videos. So those are extremely important to understand
Speaker 1: how warp drives are not just fiction. That like the
Speaker 1: number one physicists that works with the government on Black
Speaker 1: Projects is writing papers explaining exactly how to produce negative energy,
Speaker 1: while all the mainstream academics are going negative energy is
Speaker 1: an exotic substance. Meanwhile, this guy's going, no, it's a
Speaker 1: pressure effect, and here's how we can make a negative
Speaker 1: pressure effect. It's a negative energy and this is how
Speaker 1: we then can make warp drive. Well, that's quite the
Speaker 1: shift between academia and the Black Project physicists. Maybe we
Speaker 1: should go with the Black Project physicists on this one.
Speaker 1: And then my favorite guy, Salvator Pais, US Navy engineer,
Speaker 1: says that I'm probably gonna get myself killed if I
Speaker 1: keep pushing this, But you know what, we don't care.
Speaker 1: Salvator Paise, his patents are one hundred percent real, one
Speaker 1: thousand percent real. He deserves the credit for his patents,
Speaker 1: specifically in this case, high energy electromagnetic field generator. This
Speaker 1: is how we can produce electromagnetic field intensities that are
Speaker 1: not believed to be possible under normal circumstances. The way
Speaker 1: this is possible is via the ether. If you add
Speaker 1: in the ether, if you say that space time is
Speaker 1: not empty, then it opens the door to now achieving
Speaker 1: energy densities that are beyond what conventional physics thought was possible.
Speaker 1: And this allows us to get to points where we
Speaker 1: can get up towards the Swinger limit where now spacetime
Speaker 1: reality breaks down, aka, we produce a wormhole. Simple right.
Speaker 1: And then his other patent, my favorite one actually is
Speaker 1: the gravity high frequency gravitational Waves Generator, where we learn
Speaker 1: that there is a relationship between high frequencies and manipulating gravity,
Speaker 1: manipulating the zero point energy, and that once we do this,
Speaker 1: it opens the door to everything you see in Star Trek,
Speaker 1: warp drives, wormholes. You know. It also points out that
Speaker 1: quantum effects at the macroscopic scale are what we're doing,
Speaker 1: and we're achieving it via superconductivity. If you listen to
Speaker 1: Salvage for Payise, it's all about cold plasmas, non equilibrium plasmas,
Speaker 1: and the way that we are breaking through the ultra
Speaker 1: violet catastrophe. Where we would say that you can't amplify
Speaker 1: energy beyond this limit, is that we are breaking equilibrium
Speaker 1: that only applies for equilibrium thermodynamics. This is why Salvator
Speaker 1: Paies quotes Eliah Pregagene. Why because Elia Pregagene did his
Speaker 1: work on non equilibrium thermodynamics. If you break something into
Speaker 1: a non equilibrium thermon state and then stabilize it in
Speaker 1: that form, you can go beyond what we think is possible.
Speaker 1: Right now, Now, how do you do that? I'm gonna
Speaker 1: tell you exactly how to do that. You create your
Speaker 1: non equilibrium cold plasma ball manipulated of bi magnetic fields,
Speaker 1: and you pull the electrons from the ions. So you
Speaker 1: have your electrons all combined over here, and we see
Speaker 1: them as the yellow little shape you shape in there,
Speaker 1: the fusion shape, and you separate them and then you
Speaker 1: get them stuck that way, and now you've got a
Speaker 1: huge energy density ball. That's how you do it. And
Speaker 1: then you take those huge energy density balls and you
Speaker 1: jam them together just like you would a couple of magnets.
Speaker 1: And what happens, well, if you get too much energy,
Speaker 1: too much force, apparently you rip through space time. Now,
Speaker 1: if you want more papers about those concepts as opposed
Speaker 1: to me just explaining it to you, I recommend the
Speaker 1: following four papers on non equilibrium plasmas. Vortex motion can
Speaker 1: be used to stabilize ball the plasma. As I mentioned,
Speaker 1: this is mentioned in multiple papers, so you can read.
Speaker 1: There's several EVO papers by Ken Shoulders on exotic vacuum objects,
Speaker 1: which are these cold plasmas. My favorite one is probably
Speaker 1: permittivity transitions, which discusses how the plasma basically manipulates space
Speaker 1: time and how you're manipulating the permiability and primitivity of
Speaker 1: space time, which is how we can start to do
Speaker 1: impossible things that are we would call free energy force,
Speaker 1: free time harmonic plasmoids by Jack the Chamkin. We actually
Speaker 1: just found out that he replied to somebody on Reddit
Speaker 1: last year. He's like eighty five, eighty six, maybe even
Speaker 1: eighty seven. Now he wrote a paper. This paper is
Speaker 1: all about how to stabilize your plasma ball using vortex's
Speaker 1: That's basically what this this pulp paper is basically about
Speaker 1: how to make a ball plasma and make it stabilized
Speaker 1: crazy and then of course ball lightning study by once
Speaker 1: again Eric W. Davis shows up again. This ball lightning
Speaker 1: study has a normal ass name like ball lightning study.
Speaker 1: It's actually all about uh like coherent stabilized plasmas and
Speaker 1: how to extract energy from them, like their applications of
Speaker 1: the plasmas wild. They always give them weird names because
Speaker 1: then nobody will ever look at them than I did.
Speaker 1: And then cold fusion. Okay, so cold fusion? Why are
Speaker 1: Why is cold fusion related? Because the heat signatures of
Speaker 1: the orbs that that that yellow shape, that tesla shape
Speaker 1: that we see, that's that's a fusion. Go look at
Speaker 1: the Department of Energies website and fusion. You see that
Speaker 1: exact same heat signature. It's a very distinct heat signature
Speaker 1: of fusion, the hotter parts of the electrons the colder
Speaker 1: parts of the ions. And then read Salvatorpius is plasma
Speaker 1: a confusion pression or plasma compression fusion device. Where his
Speaker 1: equations seven eighty nine talk about amplifying energy, and this
Speaker 1: is where I mentioned the ultraviolet catastrophe that says, well,
Speaker 1: you can't really amplify it beyond a certain degree. And
Speaker 1: what salvat or pais is saying here is yes you can,
Speaker 1: and this is the thing that would get me killed.
Speaker 1: And I'm just gonna say is that we can amplify
Speaker 1: energy beyond what the ultraviolet catastrophe thinks, and we do
Speaker 1: it by conditioning the vacuum conditional possibilities. How do we
Speaker 1: get around it. We change the conditions, we change the
Speaker 1: permeability and primitivity of free space, and then we can
Speaker 1: amplify energy infinitely, infinite energy. Free energy is one hundred
Speaker 1: percent possible and real, but it also is probably gonna
Speaker 1: lead to the end of the world. Spoiler alert. Okay,
Speaker 1: I'm not gonna go through all this. Oh maybe through
Speaker 1: attleb this so the debunk stuff, people who say the
Speaker 1: videos are fake, whatever, I do separate stuff going through
Speaker 1: all the debunk stuff. But I just want to point
Speaker 1: out we had one hundred and fifty thousand dollars bounty.
Speaker 1: No one ever came forward with any evidence that they
Speaker 1: made the videos. You would have to have better VFX
Speaker 1: skills than people who did, Like top Gun Maverick. There's
Speaker 1: a really funny comment on redd early on about like
Speaker 1: all the requirements that somebody would have had just to
Speaker 1: like get the engineering of the planes scaled down correctly.
Speaker 1: Like even just doing that is like a movie magic
Speaker 1: that people have to do. Lead editor of Marvel's Studios
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Ford, early on, I think it was with Total
Speaker 1: Disclosure podcast he was friends with Jeffrey Ford. Jeffrey Ford
Speaker 1: reviewed it said it would take like four to six
Speaker 1: months with today's level of technology. And this is again
Speaker 1: pointing out that you have to have a storyboard, like
Speaker 1: you're presenting this narrative of a fire on board the
Speaker 1: plane and all this stuff in the videos, Like this
Speaker 1: isn't a situation where you just are like, oh, I'm
Speaker 1: just going to add a goofy looking UFO to this video. No,
Speaker 1: this is like a whole thing. To make these videos,
Speaker 1: you'd have to have better understanding of physics than most
Speaker 1: PhDs do. And then just as a joke, you'd have
Speaker 1: to understand now not to use low quality nineties video
Speaker 1: game effects or how you'd have to know how to
Speaker 1: turn a two dimensional cloud picture. One of the big
Speaker 1: debunks is that there's a cloud. They claim that there's
Speaker 1: cloud pictures, but the problem is that the videos predate
Speaker 1: the pictures, so they have a big issue with that.
Speaker 1: There's no actual evidence the pictures predate the videos. In fact,
Speaker 1: there's the evidence says that they posted the videos by
Speaker 1: like two years. And it doesn't matter anyway, because you
Speaker 1: can't use two dimensional cloud pictures to make a three
Speaker 1: dimensional environment, which we've already proven is required for the videos,
Speaker 1: so it's undeniable the videos are real. All the de
Speaker 1: bunk attempts to date have fallen woefully short. This includes
Speaker 1: the VFX comparison where people have claimed that this nineties
Speaker 1: video game. If you think there's a nineties video game
Speaker 1: effect in the videos, I showed at the beginning of
Speaker 1: this like, I don't really know what to tell you,
Speaker 1: but I will go ahead and show you here that
Speaker 1: we took an exact overlay of that effect into the video,
Speaker 1: like frame by frame, and you can see it right
Speaker 1: here on your screen, full screen, and very clearly you
Speaker 1: can see whoever told you these things were the same
Speaker 1: lie to you. The only frame that's similar is this one,
Speaker 1: and it's clearly not a perfect match. In fact, the
Speaker 1: middle isn't even close to the same. The middle in
Speaker 1: this graphic is some kind of weird plasma ball with
Speaker 1: things sticking out of it, and the background is like
Speaker 1: a morphous black blob. They so they got like one
Speaker 1: partial match on one edge and then claimed the whole
Speaker 1: thing matches. But then the next frame it's not even
Speaker 1: This frame is not even close the same, and the
Speaker 1: next frame after that again not even remotely similar. In fact,
Speaker 1: that's it. And then the problem is there's even more
Speaker 1: frames now in the visual effect that there's no frames
Speaker 1: left in the actual in the real video. So the
Speaker 1: number of frames in the graphic seven, but the total
Speaker 1: number of frames in the video is only four, so
Speaker 1: they have three extra frames also, So this stock effect
Speaker 1: was conclusively not used in this video. No one changed
Speaker 1: it all around to get it to match. That's not
Speaker 1: how stock effects work. The point of the stock effect
Speaker 1: is you put the stock effect in there and that's over.
Speaker 1: And we can prove that too, because this stock effect
Speaker 1: was used in major motion pictures and it was never edited.
Speaker 1: It was used in Anchorman, it was used in Starship Troopers,
Speaker 1: it was used in Eastbounding Down. It was using majors.
Speaker 1: None of them ever changed it. Eastbound and Down made
Speaker 1: a goal, it angled it slightly. That was it. So
Speaker 1: it's one hundred percent proven. That's not in the videos.
Speaker 1: Any other debunks that are worth addressing two more things
Speaker 1: I'll show real quick. One is the clip of the
Speaker 1: Clouds movie, just because so many people are insistent that
Speaker 1: the clouds still move. Oh wait, that didn't work. So
Speaker 1: if you're now, if you're just listening to this, I'm
Speaker 1: showing a video that was made that speeds up the clouds.
Speaker 1: It speeds up the video and shows a portion of it.
Speaker 1: There's even a longer version where people went through different
Speaker 1: segments and show that all the different segments show evolving clouds.
Speaker 1: You just have to speed it up to see it
Speaker 1: because the clouds aren't moving very much. There probably wasn't
Speaker 1: very much win that night, and but you can see
Speaker 1: the evolution of the clouds, which is not Some people
Speaker 1: try to claim it's some kind of like displacement map.
Speaker 1: I don't think they know what displacement maps are, because
Speaker 1: this is not displacement that we're looking at. We're looking
Speaker 1: at evolving. Evolving means changes and doesn't go back. Displacement
Speaker 1: map is just a distortion effect, and this is not
Speaker 1: a distortion effect. You're seeing something change and not go
Speaker 1: back to where it was before. So that's it's significant
Speaker 1: to point out those facts as well. Then you can
Speaker 1: see it quite clearly there. And then I just want
Speaker 1: to point out for people because for the cloud thing
Speaker 1: as well, because a lot of people got hung up
Speaker 1: on the cloud song, which admittedly you know, they they
Speaker 1: tried their hardest to make the videos go away and
Speaker 1: it was pretty extensive. But we do have confirmation that
Speaker 1: the photographer who claimed to take photos he did. He
Speaker 1: was on a flight to Japan. I mean he got
Speaker 1: he at least has a ticket for it. The problem
Speaker 1: is the pictures that they were claiming were used in
Speaker 1: the Sili video were not taken from that from that flight.
Speaker 1: That's the issue. It seems like they were just inserted
Speaker 1: into an existing set of photos that already existed on
Speaker 1: the internet, and the photographer didn't know because he couldn't
Speaker 1: tell the difference. You couldn't tell his own photos. You're
Speaker 1: not he taken thousands of photos, right, So you just
Speaker 1: insert some photos into an exist and set the photographer
Speaker 1: would never never know, And this is why he couldn't
Speaker 1: even recognize the photos in question on the website. He
Speaker 1: couldn't even recognize the photos. And so what I want
Speaker 1: to point out first of all at two things. One
Speaker 1: is that there is proof that the photos that he
Speaker 1: uploaded from his Japan flight were on the Internet before
Speaker 1: twenty fourteen. I'm trying to figure out how to do
Speaker 1: this now, Okay, this is how you do it now, Okay, sorry,
Speaker 1: here you go. So this picture right here is it
Speaker 1: showing it? What is going on here? Oh? I don't know.
Speaker 1: It says, oh there it is. Okay, Streamyard, get your
Speaker 1: shit together. So this picture right here shows the web
Speaker 1: arc and this is one of the photos from the
Speaker 1: Japan flight that shows it was on the web archive.
Speaker 1: So it shows the photos in question did get archived
Speaker 1: prior to twenty fourteen. And yet none of the photos
Speaker 1: claimed to be used in the m Stree seven zero
Speaker 1: videos are anywhere on the archive prior to videos. In fact,
Speaker 1: the first time the pictures in question were ever seen
Speaker 1: anywhere on the Internet by any of the ar And
Speaker 1: this also proves that the website was being crawled by Google,
Speaker 1: so you can't claim that the website wasn't being crawled.
Speaker 1: This picture right here proves that the photos that Jonas had,
Speaker 1: that the real photos Jonahs had, were already uploaded. The
Speaker 1: real ones, the fake photos in question, the ones that
Speaker 1: were supposedly that we're argued to be used in the
Speaker 1: Mah Street seven zero videos were not uploaded until twenty sixteen.
Speaker 1: This is a super important fact to point out. It's
Speaker 1: not deniable because it's just a factual argument. We can
Speaker 1: just look at the evidence again. You can look at
Speaker 1: the evidence. Evidence doesn't lie here. It is right here,
Speaker 1: you're looking at it. These are the images that were
Speaker 1: supposedly used in ME three seven zero videos. You can
Speaker 1: see at the top of your screen. The first ever
Speaker 1: time they were archived was March twenty fourth, two thousy
Speaker 1: sixty and they were archived multiple times in that period,
Speaker 1: which proves they weren't on the internet before that. They
Speaker 1: didn't just magically get missed for five years. They were there,
Speaker 1: They're just not there in twenty fourteen. They only appeared
Speaker 1: in twenty sixteen. That was the first time, right there.
Speaker 1: So anybody tries to claim that images were used to
Speaker 1: make the videos, you can claim one, no, they weren't.
Speaker 1: There's no possible way two dimensional photograph photos of clouds
Speaker 1: could be used to make the three dimensional environment that
Speaker 1: was required to make these videos. And two, the cloud
Speaker 1: images in question posted the videos by over two years.
Speaker 1: Simple as that, if anyone has any contrary evidence, and
Speaker 1: if you point that out, generally debunkers go into a
Speaker 1: fit because there is no there is no counter there
Speaker 1: is no counter effects. Speak for themselves. Okay, let's do
Speaker 1: some super chats. Guys. Thank you very much for listening
Speaker 1: and I appreciate it, especially everybody listening on audio. Thank
Speaker 1: you guys very much for listening to the All Solid
Speaker 1: Evidence review stream. I hope that you know the world
Speaker 1: comes to understand that these videos are really what happened
Speaker 1: to the plane. I think it will take a while.
Speaker 1: It's obviously a lot to take in, but I think
Speaker 1: that that evidence is overwhelming. If you want to help,
Speaker 1: the best thing you can do is push on the
Speaker 1: United States government to tell the world what they know
Speaker 1: about the missing airliner. They know what to happens to
Speaker 1: the plane. Even if you don't believe the videos are real,
Speaker 1: you have to accept the United States government knows what
Speaker 1: happened to the plane, no question, no doubt. The reason
Speaker 1: why people don't want to accept that is because then
Speaker 1: when they do, they realize that it means the videos
Speaker 1: of must be real. Right. Okay, thank you very much
Speaker 1: for these super chats. I had to time. Mark Scott,
Speaker 1: thank you brother, appreciate you. You've been you're on fire.
Speaker 1: Oh wow, and the huge one knocking down doors with
Speaker 1: hard work. Piece of the families, Yes, and so piece
Speaker 1: to the families. Also, the families probably don't The families
Speaker 1: probably don't believe this or accept this either, admittedly, but
Speaker 1: they never told me to stop, so I would think
Speaker 1: it was my scenario. Even if it was somebody who
Speaker 1: was going the crazy scenario, if it was me, I
Speaker 1: would still be fine with it, because shit, nothing else
Speaker 1: is working, nothing else is working. We haven't found anything
Speaker 1: in the South Indian Ocean. Might as well push on people
Speaker 1: who look at Diego Garcia truth Teller eighty six. Thank you,
Speaker 1: rip Ocean Infinity and Malaysia should pay Ashton thirty five million. Yes,
Speaker 1: since he solved the mystery. Yeah, they apparently just signed
Speaker 1: it today, but they've already been searching and quick update
Speaker 1: they are still searching again. But they aren't going to
Speaker 1: find anything, as I've already told you. And if you've
Speaker 1: reviewed this evidence that you know they're not going to
Speaker 1: find anything in the South Indian Ocean. You know they're not. Yeah,
Speaker 1: And even the people who say, oh, they're going to
Speaker 1: plan something, No, they're not think about all the effort
Speaker 1: it would go through to like plant believable debris at
Speaker 1: this point in the game that doesn't float and all
Speaker 1: all the bodies all it's never gonna happen. They're just
Speaker 1: not gonna find anything. And thank you again for that
Speaker 1: truth Teller, for that other donation, rabbit Hole, thank you
Speaker 1: keep this up. And the CIA is going to bring
Speaker 1: back the dart gun for your ass. Watch Cornhole. Brother. Honestly,
Speaker 1: I don't even care, man, I don't even care. I
Speaker 1: just don't want to live in a world that's a
Speaker 1: lie anymore, you know. I just want them to be
Speaker 1: like one true thing on this world. It seems like
Speaker 1: everything is fake. Academics just big fraud. Media is just
Speaker 1: full of shit, governments just committing black operations and hiding
Speaker 1: civilization technology. I just want one true thing just to
Speaker 1: be pleased on this planet. Lone Wolf, thank you very
Speaker 1: much for that donation. What if the CIA produced all
Speaker 1: this so this was another thing? What if the CI
Speaker 1: did this is like when you think this is like
Speaker 1: what I call hitting on nineteen. You're hitting on nineteen here.
Speaker 1: You're thinking way too much into it, right, You're like,
Speaker 1: how can they be SCIA into a like, think about
Speaker 1: how elaborate. So you made a plan to siop somebody
Speaker 1: into believing the fake plan using fake videos, Like, it's
Speaker 1: just way, way too complicated, and what's the end goal.
Speaker 1: The main reason why this is not true despite the
Speaker 1: logic that I just threw at you, is that who's
Speaker 1: implicated in the video? Oh, the United States military? So
Speaker 1: would the CIA if they're doing this, would they implicate themselves? No,
Speaker 1: that wouldn't be an image of a General Atomics drone.
Speaker 1: That would be an image of some Chinese drone or
Speaker 1: an Iranian drone. If they were sy opping us, They're
Speaker 1: not gonna blame themselves. They're gonna have to be a
Speaker 1: video of China's aapping the plane because then the disinformation is, oh,
Speaker 1: look what China did to it, and look what Iran
Speaker 1: did to it. Now we're gonna go to war with Iran.
Speaker 1: The way the videos play out, it's only blames them.
Speaker 1: And if the CIA did produce it, then the media
Speaker 1: would be like trying to spotlight me. CNN would be
Speaker 1: having me come on and promote this theory or what
Speaker 1: have you, right, because they would want this psyop to
Speaker 1: get out there. In fact, As I mentioned in my
Speaker 1: last dream, no mainstream media has ever even reached out
Speaker 1: to me before, even though I've gone on over one
Speaker 1: hundred podcasts detailed explaining the evidence, the psychology of my
Speaker 1: understanding of the case and the leaker and all this stuff.
Speaker 1: Despite all that fame, if you want to call attention,
Speaker 1: maybe mainstreaming has never reached out. That's what tells me
Speaker 1: the CIA that I'm right over the target, and this
Speaker 1: is a situation with the CIA doesn't want this out
Speaker 1: as opposed to wanted it out. Good question, though, and
Speaker 1: this is honestly, I don't mean to be rude, but
Speaker 1: this is the dumbest argument that I hear out there
Speaker 1: is that we're trying to convince other countries that we
Speaker 1: have technology that we don't have. That's not a thing
Speaker 1: that exists. That's not a thing that exists. I think
Speaker 1: people usually when they make this just fault, terrible, terrible argument,
Speaker 1: usually they try to say that, oh, well, during the
Speaker 1: Manhattan Project, we tried to spread disinfo to like throw
Speaker 1: people off. That's a complete that's sabotage. It's claiming that
Speaker 1: we have magical technology that we don't have that doesn't work.
Speaker 1: If you don't have it, then it just is not
Speaker 1: a threat. And if you're gonna do some elaborate show
Speaker 1: to try to convince people, this isn't how you do it.
Speaker 1: You like leak it covertly to people, not in a
Speaker 1: public display now with a real airliner that's really missing. No,
Speaker 1: we actually just did it. We actually just did that
Speaker 1: to the plane. That's the story that makes sense, not
Speaker 1: the story that it's a reverse orn a who know,
Speaker 1: super sigh up against me like sorry, Like a lot
Speaker 1: of you guys though, you just you go way too down,
Speaker 1: far down the rabbit hole because you need there to
Speaker 1: need to be always be another layer to everything. For
Speaker 1: some people there always needs to be another layer. In
Speaker 1: some cases there can be, but discern critical thinking requires
Speaker 1: you to understand when to stop. That's what critical thinking.
Speaker 1: Is there evidence that there's another layer to it. No,
Speaker 1: if the evidence is just you making it up in
Speaker 1: your head, that a story that's not evidence. Simple as that,
Speaker 1: that's how you did. That's how it works. So thank
Speaker 1: you for those donations though, and again I'm not trying
Speaker 1: to be rude, but I think it's important to educate
Speaker 1: people on that critical thinking works both ways. One is
Speaker 1: don't be too blue pilled, but also don't believe that
Speaker 1: there's always another layer to everything, and everything must be
Speaker 1: a distraction from everything else. Like that's where you just
Speaker 1: your way to. You're doing the same thing the blue
Speaker 1: pill people are doing, just on the opposite spectrum, end
Speaker 1: of the spectrum. Mark Scott, Wow, thank you brother, huge donations.
Speaker 1: Appreciate you man the best. And then lastly, V have
Speaker 1: you heard of thunderstorm General? Yes, I have. I've spoken
Speaker 1: about it several times. It's not doing what we're talking
Speaker 1: about here, It's not anywhere near what we're talking about
Speaker 1: here is basically a more efficient carburetor is what has
Speaker 1: been told to me, but still neat and still could
Speaker 1: be relevant. I do want to talk to Randall Carlson
Speaker 1: about that. Okay, any last questions before we close out tonight,
Speaker 1: guys from the audience. I'm just looking through see if
Speaker 1: I can find any Did I miss anything big that
Speaker 1: people don't know? Where did the plane go and what
Speaker 1: happened to the people. I think I explained where I
Speaker 1: think that the plane went and what happened to people.
Speaker 1: But again, the only people that can tell us to
Speaker 1: answer these questions about why you would do this. Why
Speaker 1: we record this. What actually happened for sure is the
Speaker 1: US military, the people that did it. Those are the
Speaker 1: people we should be asking the questions. I want to
Speaker 1: know they answer those questions too. I want Edward Lynn
Speaker 1: to tell me he probably knows the answer right. Truth
Speaker 1: teller says, if all flights pre water instruction tells you
Speaker 1: your c community is the flotation device where all the
Speaker 1: floating is. This is another good point. There's a thousand
Speaker 1: pounds of flotation devices missing, and that's just some of
Speaker 1: the stuff that floated. It floats. None was ever found.
Speaker 1: The point being we just need to use basic logic,
Speaker 1: basic critical thinking capabilities. Part of the reason why so
Speaker 1: many people are afraid talk to me about m A
Speaker 1: three seven zero to have a contentious conversation is because
Speaker 1: I bring up points like this and they'll just look
Speaker 1: like fools because there is no counterpoints to something like that.
Speaker 1: Counterpoint is the oceans really big? It's absurd. You're gonna
Speaker 1: get destroyed in a live conversation with making arguments like that.
Speaker 1: And then one tact hundred. Thank you very much man.
Speaker 1: You guys have been going on fire. I appreciate you guys.
Speaker 1: Donations you guys. Thank you m A three seventy X.
Speaker 1: You guys are awesome. Yeah, there was another. I deleted
Speaker 1: this from the story because there's it got really weird
Speaker 1: about what plane was where. But there is another plane
Speaker 1: from a Shell company that was disassembled. I can't find
Speaker 1: out which of the two models it possibly was. But
Speaker 1: the reason why I mainly deleted is because I think
Speaker 1: the debris is from m AH three seven zero. I
Speaker 1: just think that they tore the plane apart and threw
Speaker 1: some of it in the water, or when the plane
Speaker 1: was landing at Diegorcia, it was like coming apart and
Speaker 1: someone was falling in you know, the Western Indian Ocean.
Speaker 1: That's what I think hapened. So that's why I got
Speaker 1: read of that. But if you believe the debris was
Speaker 1: fake and that they faked all that debris, not all
Speaker 1: that debris, only a few pieces, then in that scenario,
Speaker 1: there is another plane that got decommissioned like way too early.
Speaker 1: There's actually two other planes, but it's hard to tell
Speaker 1: which one got decommissioned at the right time. So good
Speaker 1: question on that one though as well. That was from
Speaker 1: McLean Okay, but yeah, those are great questions. Actually, guys, Okay, guys,
Speaker 1: I think that's gonna be it for tonight. Thank you
Speaker 1: for joining me on this live stream and on this
Speaker 1: special edition of the Heart Trews Podcast on the m
Speaker 1: A three seven zero eleven year anniversary, reviewing the all
Speaker 1: evidence that shows that the m A three seven zero
Speaker 1: videos are undeniably real. I understand the aversion. I understand
Speaker 1: people don't like me. I understand that people don't want
Speaker 1: this to be real and it's too far out there.
Speaker 1: But I'm sorry, it is real. It just is. I'm
Speaker 1: I'm just a normal guy living my day to day,
Speaker 1: still doing my nine to five and healthcare. It just
Speaker 1: bringing you this information because I think it's important that
Speaker 1: people know the truth. That's it. That's the only reason
Speaker 1: not getting rich and famous off this, not being invited
Speaker 1: on Joe Rogan, just doing it. Hope you guys enjoy it.
Speaker 1: Have a great night, guys, We'll talk soon. Peace out.
Speaker 1: I'm h three seventy X Love you guys.