MH370 Debunker Debate

Video Transcript

Let's keep it the way this is. This has to work for now. I appreciate you coming on. Honestly, I really do. Thank you for coming on. >> Oh, yeah, man. No problem. I just got a message from somebody that was like, "Oh, I'm trying to defend you in this live stream, blah, blah, blah." And I was working and I just got up from a quick nap and I was like, "Oh, okay. Let's see what's going on." I saw you talking about me, so I was like, "Hey, I'll just jump in the chat." Uh, so what can I Well, let's start with uh what's your background? Like, I heard that you're a debunker. I don't I don't know anything about you, I guess. >> Yeah, that's fine. Like, I' I'm a skeptic. I'm a debunker. I've been spending a lot of time debunking UFO videos specifically like videos that are circling on the internet and I I go in there and I say, "Look, look, this is actually a thing on the ground from from a plane. This is actually Starink." I do that a lot, but I've I I don't think I've ever done a specific video about you where I would like sit down and go into maybe I've done it done a lot of videos at this point, but I do I am I would consider myself fairly um informed about some of the points that you're making and I have my takes on it and I'm just curious. I think it would be a good conversation to have about like just me firing some of these points at you and then you can kind of rebute them and explain it to me. Maybe I can learn something here. So >> yeah, I want to ask though before that like what's your view on aliens? What do you think the what do you think the deal is with the UFO stuff? I mean it's your you obviously you spent a lot of time talking about it. What do you think your what's you think's going on with it? >> So I think aliens are like 99.999% real out in space somewhere. It's a big place. There are stuff out there. I do not deny the existence of aliens, but I do somewhat deny the existence of them here on Earth. I do not believe that they've I mean they may have visited Earth, but they would be probably smart enough to cloak themselves and we just wouldn't see it. I don't The idea that an alien craft crashes somewhere in the desert and we retrieve it is like comical to me. You know that like that advanced technology that protrudes like billions of light years or thousands of light years, whatever it is, through space and then comes here and then crashes like an old pickup truck in the desert. Like that's ridiculous. Like you know, it makes no sense to me. So that's >> what if it was a civilization was on this planet a long time ago, you know, and we just don't know about it. Maybe it was just buried. >> But yeah, I kind of agree with you on a lot of that stuff. I think that if aliens exist, they're going to be way more technically advanced than we are and they're just going to be invisible and they're going to be able to teleport or they're going to be able to have warp drives or something, you know? And why would you give a about Earth? You know, we were made to live on this planet. They probably weren't, but >> Okay, let's go ahead. >> Let's go ahead. Yeah, let's talk about let's talk about your your subject which is obviously Malaysia airflight. And I love the subject. I find it very fascinating. I mentioned it a few times. You probably won't know, but my dad used to be a pilot. He's used to be a commercial pilot his whole life, 40 years. And I've spoke to him uh about this as well. Um you know, he doesn't talk about things like that very much, but he had an interesting take. He said this stuff sometimes happens, right? Like pilots make decisions uh where they are, you know, they come from a point of depression or just being very unsatisfied with their life. We've seen it with the Euro Wings flight, for example, where the I'm sure you're familiar, the pilot crashed that plane into the Alps intentionally because he somehow passed the the medical tests. Yeah. So, it happens. So, when I showed this to my dad, he was like probably one of those cases, the pilot made that decision. And then following on from that, as the most obvious piece of evidence, I mean, they found they retrieved the the pieces that had the serial number of that plane on it, as far as I'm aware. So, what do you what's your take on that? >> Just on those two right off the bat, I that was my thought, too. First of all, I remember back in 2014, uh my first thought was, oh, it was going to be pilot suicide. Like when when a plane went down, like we knew the German wing situation. I looked into that actually cuz that's a situation where the pilot locked out the co-pilot >> and he crashed the plane in under 10 minutes. >> So, it was really fast. The reason why I looked into that was I was trying to look into figure out could they have broken in to the door of the of the cockpit in MH370, knowing that the plane was supposedly still in the air for eight hours. >> Yeah. And really, if you look into it though, this situation has never happened. And it's never happened since either. Just to point that out, there no planes have ever disappeared like this. Like for a plane to just literally disappear. Well, we don't know what happened. In fact, the official report does not say that the pilot did it. That's just a narrative that's out there. The official report actually, if you look at several reports that are out there, one of them specifically says they don't think it's something that the pilot could have done. So, I would say at least the experts that have reviewed it, and I've spoken to several of them are mixed on the idea that the pilot could have pulled this off, at least in like by themselves, but they do all agree that the plane was under manual control. And so, this leaves this gray vague area about, okay, well, what potentially did happen to the plane? >> Um, sorry, what was the second part? >> The the debris. The debris that was retrieved and found that happened. Yeah, the debris is probably that's the most interesting thing because if you just look at it from a physics perspective where the debris was found, distance from the debris to where the search area was, it's thousands of kilometers and it's west. If you just go look at the ocean currents, they flow to the east. It's not a stretch to say that the vast majority of the debris should have washed ashore in Western Australia. And nobody was looking in Africa because nobody thought debris would ever show up in Africa. >> And that's why a random guy named Blaine Gibson finds the debris in Africa. And actually, this was kind of a a shock in the media because nobody was thinking the debris should be showing up there, right? >> And it wasn't just one piece. Every single piece of debris that was found, there's about three that are so supposedly confirmed. One, the Reunion Island piece you're talking about, the flap, >> that's the only one that they matched with the serial number. And it was not a unique number related to that specific part on that plane. That was just a part number for a flap. But they said, "Okay, well, it's a 74 777 or 7 uh 77 flap. It's got to be that plane." I think it is. In fact, I argue the videos you see are the only thing that can explain the debris showing up in Africa because that plane needs to go into the water somewhere not in the search zone, >> someone much further to the west, somewhere either in the middle of the Indian Ocean or near to Africa for that debris to show up in those locations in just over like a year. >> It wasn't like a super It's not like five years later we find it in Africa. It's like, oh, like a year later, like wait, how did this get here so fast? >> So, so this is the thing. If you actually go to the other theories, basically none of the theories can explain that debris. Jeff Weise thinks the plane went to Russia. >> He thinks that some Russian guy hijacked it, flew it to Russia secretly. Like he can't explain the bre. That's why he goes after Bla Gibson in the Netflix documentary. >> Uh Florence Dangi thinks that the plane was shot down in the South China Sea and they just picked up all the debris. Like she can't she needs that to be fake as well. Even the people that think the plane went down the South Indian Ocean where they've been searching, if you just do the math in terms of like how far debris can actually flow without the without the wind like pushing it, which is what the models assume, there's no way it got that far in that time, especially going against the currents. And then to my original point, and I'll let you just jump in, >> is it was none was found in Australia. >> We should have found at least the bulk of the debris in Australia. And then lastly, where is the plane exactly? Cuz a couple pieces, even if you take all those pieces, 20, that's like taking my finger and being like, "Oh yeah, we found you." >> I can just cut my finger off you. In fact, all those pieces, if you add them up, that doesn't even mean the plane crashed. >> That's how little debris we found. >> So, so, so what are you implying then? What do you think it is? Like, I mean, you you kind of tease that you think some of the debris might be off the plane. Is that right? Like, would you say >> I think all of it is. I think the rolls there's a Rolls-Royce engine cowling found in South Africa. >> Look at how far you you probably think of the Reunion Island piece of debris, the flap, because it's the biggest piece, >> which is definitely a significant one >> because it shows kind of the general direction which the debris went. >> And I mean, if you look at where Diego Garcia is, a military base, it's I mean, it's a perfect match for the the flow of the debris. But the piece that really can't be explained is a Rolls-Royce engine, big RR on it. giant giant piece of uh an engine like that, you know, the engine of an engine >> and it's found in South Africa >> that is super far away >> like in the wrong direction of the ocean currents. How did that get down there and what what other Rolls-Royce engine cowling could that be? It's got to be from MH370. Has to be. >> Yeah. >> So, to me, the logical conclusion is that plane went into the water closer to Africa. And here's some more evidence that supports that theory. A fire suppression bottle washes the shore in the Maldes. It had to be empty for it to walk ashore. The fire suppression bottle looks like a one of those cartoon bombs from the when I was a little kid. It looks so unusual. It's completely unique. Perfect match to a Boeing trip 7 fire suppression bottle. >> Why does that get rejected? Why does that just get ignored? Why did the defense minister say when asked about it say no that's not related? What do you mean it's not related? That's like finding the debris in Africa say no that's not related either. a random Bowie trip 7 fire suppression bottle found in the exact place where this plane disappeared just two weeks ago and has a serial number on it. We're not going to look into that. You literal visible serial number you can just see in the pictures because islanders took photos of it. >> So that that suppression bottle with the serial number was able to be traced to back to that plane like clearly >> they never looked into it and to this day they just basically threw that evidence away >> because I mean more evidence back. Go ahead though. >> There are there are other plane crashes as well. So if there are debris like flush, I wouldn't say that automatically it has to be of this plane. So okay. So let's assume for a second that you're implying that this debris is from this plane. How does that can you explain how that links to the teleportation theory that you're you're obviously representing and and standing for? >> And I wish it wasn't teleportation because it would be a way easier to convince people that they're just annihilating the plane. In fact, sometimes I think that maybe it is just annihilation. Maybe they have antimatter. Maybe that's what's going on and just antimatter is the plane. But no, just physics means that we have to cons we have conservation in physics. So if those are real, those videos are somehow real, which they are because it's just military footage, then that means that plane has to be somewhere else. One piece, many pieces, doesn't matter. That mass and energy has to be somewhere else. >> So it can be time dilated. So that means it can disappear here and there can be a delay and it can reappear over here. It can be instantaneous. But but that is physically possible. Is do we have the way to engineer it? A lot of people could argue no. Of course, it's way super advanced. But maybe maybe we are seeing it or some version of it in those videos. That means that plane can be anywhere else. And now that's kind of like cheating. That's like me saying, "Okay, they can just zap the plane and now it can just be anywhere. It can be in the Andromeda galaxy. It can be on the moon." I don't I don't feel comfortable with that explanation. Mostly because of the way the orbs spin around the plane. M >> when they're spinning around the plane, they're first spinning around it in a spherical motion, which to me looks like they're mapping it. I don't know if that's what they're doing, but they change and then they start going vertical around the plane, perfectly vertical around the plane. >> And then the last moments they converge just like if I was going to pinch something, >> but in this case, the electromagnetic pinch. And in the other video, right when the same zap appears, you can see the like reflection of the tail of the plane >> sticking out of the what people think as a VFX effect, whatever, and it means it's going backwards a little bit. >> Now, the crazy part is if you actually take uh electrical engineering principles, the right-hand rule in electrical engineering, and you assume those are balls of energy spinning around the plane, you just apply the right hand rule, the the vector of the force. Basically, the right hand was like taking three right angles. The vector of the force would send that plane backwards. And the oddest part is you have coordinates in that Gorgon stair footage. The footage that we thought was satellite that's called satellite video. There's coordinates in it. >> And from the coordinates, you can actually map the direction of the plane. The real direction of the plane that somebody was tracking >> and that means that plane going backwards is going to the west. >> So we know that coordinates is the Nicabar Islands. the real location of the plane like 20 minutes after the last radar and that or last military radar and if it's going to the west then it can easily be somewhere in the Maldes and Maldes is the west over there. So that's the theory is that there's some kind of teleportation. Maybe it's uh like a thermonuclear weapon is my most I guess recent theory. You could say it's a thermonuclear weapon that a clean fusion bomb that manipulates spaceime and it can teleport an object from one place to the next. >> All right. >> Does the plane come out in one piece on the other side? >> There's no way I can know that without seeing the videos on the other side. But I'll tell you, I'm very confident there's videos on the other side just like those videos of a plane reappearing. >> But then you mentioned that you think the the plane hit the water. So how does that make sense? So you think the plane was teleported and then hit the water after? >> That's what you said earlier. You said I think that's where the plane hit the water and that's >> Okay, I'll I'll clarify. Yeah. Uh either the plane crashed right there, came out in a million pieces and just there you go. There's your debris experiment failed or it came out in one piece, right? and then it crashed because the pilot was a zombie person or whatever happens when you teleport somebody. Or maybe they come out and he's still just flying. >> Maybe the plane just comes out the exact same speed as it came in and the pilot doesn't even realize. All of a sudden the pilot's just in a different location and they're like, "Whoa, okay." And they just keep flying and the plane is in trouble. This plane is smoking. You can see the smoke coming out of it and actually it's wrapping around the hull of the plane from the bottom. Mhm. I >> actually spoke to another expert that realized that that smoke is coming out of the AC exhaust ports underneath the plane on the Boeing trip 7 >> and it's wrapping around the hulls here. And the reason why that plane we can even see that plane because it's a drone recording it from above >> is because it's actually really low to the water. It's only like 1 to 5,000 ft. We can see the cumulus clouds that are super low. They like barely even show up on a uh weather radar. >> So this plane's flying low. So if it comes on the other side really low too, I mean boom might happen. You know, maybe it can recover. I don't know, man. >> Fair enough. Let's talk about the footage, right? We talked about the two pieces of footage. Uh, one is that that alleged drone footage and the other one is the Gogen stair footage, right? These are the two things. Maybe let's start with the drone footage. Let's go through that a little bit and some of the allegations um there. So, obviously, we have quite a few people um alleging that the footage we see is CGI. All going back to I think the initial vis video of the coro crew, right, who made some, in my opinion, some valid points, but feel free to rebute that in a minute. Let's go through some of them. Like for example, the drone that we see on the left hand side clearly has polygonal shapes to it. We can see that it has it's not a round shape as you would find it on a real drone. In the footage, you see polygonal edges to the the head, the hood or whatever it is of the drone. What is your take on that? Why would you see that? And and by the way, just sorry before you you jump in, not only that, also the heat map, the heat map, the alleged heat map of this front of the drone that we see in the drone footage matches exactly where the seams go of this particular drone model that has been found in 3D libraries. Why does that match and why is there polit polygonal edges to that? The polygonal edges claim, I'm just going to say, is not true. I haven't seen any evidence of that. Uh, I think I have seen that claim, but I haven't seen any evidence that actually supports the claim. Um, with respect to the model, why does the model, why does a model of a drone match a model, a real drone? I mean, because they're the same thing. Somebody did a good job matching a drone. I mean, why do I see a heat signature, little red heat signature exactly where the drone opens up where there's computer parts right there that are going to heat up in real life? Somebody was just paid so much attention to detail, they were like, "Hey, I'm going to add this little red heat signature right here on the drone." Or or why do we see the wing actually shake? Why did someone go to the effort of making the wing shake to have real turbulence and increase when the drone goes underneath the wake of the real MH370? Why, in fact, when they the operator zooms in, you can see the operators manually controlling the camera. Some of those, excuse me, a lot of those cameras are actually automatic, but they're doing it manually here. And you can you can clearly tell that. How come the shake increases when the operator zooms in just like real life? It's almost like it's a real video and the camera shakes a bunch and why the operator even lose tracking of the plane because he's manually tracking it and the plane goes off the view for a second as well. Actually indicates the video might be cropped because he does such a good job that he zooms in while the plane goes off the screen >> and it comes back and now it's zoomed in even more. Meaning the operator is actually still able to track that plane even though what we're seeing didn't have the plane on it. >> So there's some pretty crazy details. Somebody can't made up all those details of a real plane. And here's another one cuz you like you like details of the videos. When they zoom in on the plane, you can see the front door of the plane. You can see the back door of the plane and the heat signatures. And amazingly, all six air conditioning distribution manifolds where the they pump air through the cabin of the plane. There's six of them exactly. And you can see all six of them >> on the heat signature because it has a different temperature than the rest of the skin of the plane. >> That's incredible. Was the person who faked the video a Boeing 77 expert >> and they love thermal imagery? >> Well, I would argue that uh the the doors and things like that probably emanate from the video because what that filter that is alleged to be have used here, which is an after effects filter, um that it amplifies the geometry of the model. That's basically what it does. So, if you would have doors on that model, which you obviously would have, those would be amplified. Same with the drone where you see the heat signature exactly mirroring where the where the object of the 3D model kind of meets, right? So that's kind of the implication, I guess. But I hear your points. Uh it's it's fair, you know. Um well, let me just say like something this incredible I'm not I'm not a crazy person. I came out of nowhere. The reason why I came out of nowhere is because I'm just a normal person just happen to figure this out. And I understand that something this incredible you're never ever going to convince everybody. Even if the government came out and admit it was real, a huge percentage of people, maybe even a lot of your followers still wouldn't believe it. Maybe they especially wouldn't believe it if the government came out and said it wasn't real. >> The reason why it's so easy me for me to defend that because I know those videos are real. So it's like trying to for me to try to get you to like me saying, "Hey, that video of you, that's fake, man." And you being like, "Ah, how am I going to defend this to this guy?" Right? Like there's a lot of easy ways I can do that, like all the things I just pointed out. But at the end of the day, it's going to be up to you. I mean, you know, did somebody fake two perfectly in sync military videos and two different angles, meaning it requires a three-dimensional render because you can see these orbs spinning around the >> So, here's the thing. So, I work a little bit in special effects, so I know how this stuff works. That's not that challenging, okay? Like to do two renders that have the same timing. It's not super challenging. It follows the same timeline. There are certain events that have to happen in the timeline at certain moments. It's not incredible incredibly hard to do factually like to to have two videos like one is that Gorgon stair video right where you have a backdrop where you filming over an existing huge image and we'll get to that in a second we'll talk about that and then to have the other video of the drone and syncing the two events of the object floating around it and then the moment where it disappears sinking that not that hard to do if you come from a corridor crew do it then >> well look I no let me be clear I was promised by Julian Dory in person that he was going to have a major VFX studio recreate the videos. While I was sitting right next to Julian Dory, he said this to my face. >> He said they were going to do it and weeks later nothing happened and I kept wondering what. Then I went on Danny Jones and I knew what they had planned a little trap for me or whatever and they had this pre-recorded video and I was already ready with all these stupid things that he brought up. >> And then you know why they delayed their video again? because I refuted all the points in the Danny Jones video and they knew they were gonna look stupid. >> So they redid the entire video and even after all of that, they couldn't even recreate five seconds of even one of the two of the videos. >> So don't come at me with how easy it is to make the videos with I worked in VFX. Get the hell out of here, man. I'm telling you the videos are real. >> It's all good. It's all good. It's just And also I'm also pointing at other things like for example, you say you're you know the video is real. It's not like you heavily assume the video is real. You think and you know the video is real. You also said you know the video is military footage. Like how do you know it if you look that stuff up? Actually there is no tangible credible 100% conver convinced evidence that this is military footage. This is an assumption. Yet you say it is. >> What is your criteria? What would you take? This is a great question. What would it take you to believe that video is military footage? >> Like the stuff that Jeremy Corell puts out for example. We know it's military footage because it has certain characteristica of military footage. And again, coming back to that drone footage, this is something you can address as well, but usually footage from drones is filmed with cameras that are mounted under the front of the drone. It's like a small ball-shaped camera. It's mounted under the wing. It's highly unusual and the reason is obvious because in the footage you see the snout of the the drone and the part of the wing, which makes no sense because if you want clear military footage of some potentially adversary force military base that you're recording, you know, with the drone like that, you don't want to have a third of your screen obstructed with the So, I mean, I'm sure you have an answer to that, but feel free to address. >> Given that same given that same argument, why would someone fake it to look like that? Why would they fake it? >> Because they didn't know better. They thought the angle looks kind of sweet. Looks kind of real, bro. >> Thought the angle looked kind of >> Yeah, because they're idiots. They are CG artists. They are not like military experts. They mount the camera under the wing because it's probably a hobby project they did they pulled off in a week. Like >> everybody knows they're all underneath the nose, but then you're like also at the same time going, but then they just did it this other way instead. The way that nobody knows. That's a Lightning G4 Lightning pod on an MQ9 Reaper under hardpoint number five. It is a custom loadout. fan. >> Why is it a custom loadout? Because it's a covert operation. It's the CIA probably working with the Air Force because that's Air Force footage that Gorgon stairs made by the Air Force. It the the thing is when you say, "Oh, well, it doesn't look like anything else we've seen." Yes. Because those are all officially declassified surveillance assets. The reason why we only see one particular thing always in grayscale is because they're trying to release the minimum amount of information about our surveillance assets. M >> they're releasing nothing about things like Gorgon stair which we know are real >> and then we know they were real at that time we know nothing about it. So to claim well we haven't seen anything like that. >> No. >> Yeah. Exactly. That's the point. So the question is how do you convince someone? How do you prove someone then? Are you saying that oh I'm only going to believe it if the government comes out and says it real? If that's the case and I'm going to hold you to this >> when I get somebody to whistleblow and say that I've seen Air Force that's Gorgon stair footage. I want you to admit the videos are real. >> And listen, I don't doubt that Gorgon stare technology is real. 100% that's a thing. You know that's def I don't doubt that for a second. Um but you know there are many other aspects especially to the drone footage like when they film it you see the the contrails or cantrails whatever it is off of the plane and you know as Ker crew showed quite you know in my opinion uh clearly that if you film a room that has similar clouds in it you don't see the clouds. This camera doesn't film the clouds like that. So you wouldn't see that tray like that. It's another effect you see here. Again, another thing also is I'm sure you've seen this that part of the footage the plane goes over the reticle. Did you see this? Goes over the reticle of the >> I've seen every debunk. >> I'm sure you've seen this as well. What What are your thoughts on that? Why does it go over a burntin reticle uh that's in the footage? Is a glitch >> the reticle? I mean, it's even in most cases where the person claims you can't see the reticle. If you zoom in, you still can see it. But it's probably just an artifact because it's not like the reticle is painted on these things. It's just digital reticle. So, I don't know what where like the argument is is like they're like, "Oh, do you know what it's supposed to look like?" Cuz you have uh, you know, 10 years operating uh, Lightning G4 cameras by North Gman. No. I mean, people are just making claims up saying, "Oh, this is what it's supposed to look like." But we found plenty of counter examples that show the reticle distorting a bunch of times similar to this. So, end of the day, I don't know. I don't have a perfect answer for you because I don't run these cameras, but I guarantee you it's real. >> Okay. >> Um, you can believe what you want. And here's the thing I would point out is like >> people think, "Oh, well, it's just it's basic CGI." But these are the same people say, "Oh, well, they found cloud photos, real cloud photos of real clouds." Because those are clearly real clouds in those videos. Yes. Like that's one of my favorite things to look at. Like, okay, I'm trying to convince some of the videos are real. You can just see those are real clouds in both videos, right? Like they zoom in. They've got threedimensional volutric to them even though corridor crew said they didn't. Like you can see that. So how did they make real clouds and you're supposedly oh easy to make fake videos? Like oh they took photos of them and these photos match. I love that debunk because that's honestly really good debunk. like you have real clouds that even if you have to you know stretch them a little bit like there should be no matching clouds unless those are actually real clouds from those real photos. Scary part is that's literally what Gorgon stair is. Gorgon stair is cameras that are shooting down with drones all the time and then they feed all those photos through satellite to groundbased computers and they produce Google Earth video playback real time. That's what you're looking at there. And so how did those photos get on the internet? They're not from some dude in Japan. They're made to look similar to that and made to appear to people that they were from that. But if you actually look when the API of the website when those photos were first put on the internet on that website in aerial 0028, it says October 25th, 2014. That's my birthday. That's five months after those videos were already on the internet. And people try to claim they come from before that because the metadata in them says that. But the leader of the debunkers, Mick West, says that metab metadata is easily faked with no traces whatsoever. So you tell me like I will absolutely believe that level of evidence if somebody can show me anywhere on the internet. You're telling me there's photos that were supposedly on the internet and there's no record of them, not on any website, not on any archive. >> There are there are archives of the real Japan photos from that guy. >> The real Japan photos we can find on the internet archives before 2014, >> right? But not these photos for some reason. Just these photos somehow are missing. >> So yes, I am telling people that you have to believe that somebody put those photos on the internet on October 25th, 2014. >> Now >> that besides that, >> that's like the best debunk out there. Honestly, >> I would. It is a big debunk. And to be honest, I see I saw you sending a tweet many years ago when that first came out where you even acknowledged that and you were like, "Okay, fair. I acknowledge that. That's a huge thing." I don't know if you deleted that tweet, but that anyway, that's a whole different story. But I was wrong. >> That's fine. That's because people like to post that >> because yeah, I mean at the time the and the story was I was pressured super hard by Kim.com which in retrospect now I mean I'm not going to go into my details but I don't have a favorable opinion of the guy because he weirdly came out of nowhere >> made a whole specific point about he's not a UFO guy but he wants to be involved to help me out. And then he does a weird 180 out of nowhere. >> And then he's pressing me super hard, calling me up in the morning when I haven't even like 7:00 in the morning, 8 in the morning >> to like tell me I've got to like put out a statement about how the videos are debunked, blah blah blah. Even though he didn't pay anybody, he never do did what he was supposed to do. >> He called you king. >> I felt super uncomfortable about Let me finish. I felt super uncomfortable out the whole day. And I was like, "This doesn't make any sense." Like everything I'm being told. I was in this FaceTime video of this with this guy. Like none of this was making any sense to me. And yes, it felt kind of crazy, but like how could there, you know, all this this not be legit? And I didn't have time to go through all the details of the photos, like where were they on the internet, all that. I didn't have time to do all that. >> So, basically, I put that statement out. And then what I did later on, I was like, wait, okay, there's got to be some way to validate this, right? I was like, let's go find the Torrance. He the guy Jonas was the guy that told me in the video with Kim.com. He was like, because even Kim.com was pressing him in the video being like, "How could is there any way these videos could be fake or anything? How could somebody have access to these photos?" And he was like, "Oh, maybe the old torancets, they used to scrape the entire website and the Torrance." And I was like, "Oh, that's actually pretty smart." When I was listening and thinking, so later that night, I was like, "Okay, we're going to check those torrent. There's got to be a bunch of torrent from the old website when this guy claimed to have uploaded the photos." And we found them. There were there were a bunch. So, we looked at like two or three and none of them had the photos in them. >> None of them had the photos in them. So that's when I was like, "Okay, something's wrong here." And I deleted it. And I figured, okay, well, if there is some other evidence comes out, I'll be able to come back out and say the videos are fake or whatever. You know, it was fine. No evidence ever came out. >> In fact, instead of addressing any of the weird claims that were being made, >> the website owner >> started trolling people on Twitter and then even now still put like a little video of a fly UFO alien guy flying across the image, >> which I mean, that's just kind of odd to me. Why ridicule something like that instead of just addressing it face up? Especially when it's just this weird out of nowhere website that nobody's ever heard of that like this guy nobody's ever heard of and now all a sudden he's like super active on Twitter when he's never posted before. It's like okay I mean you know you take whatever you want. I'm just going to tell you that that is Air Force Gorgon Stair wide area motion imagery increment two and you're looking at six frames per second. That's why it's jerky like that because they had to upgrade it because the first edition sucked ass. And you're looking at it like right before it was publicly announced that it was fully operational. >> And it's being recorded using an MQ9 Reaper with those two pods underneath looking down. And clearly it can see at nighttime. Pretty sweet. It's got this midwave uh I think it's midwave uh infrared, but I don't know for sure. Um and that's part of the reason too why the clouds don't really look like they're moving that much because Gorgon stair it's like a drone circling around. So they have this parallax correction software that they do. So when somebody's watching it, it doesn't look all weird like everything's, you know, wobbly and disordered. So the clouds do move, but they just doesn't look like naturally like you would expect from a certain perspective because it's made to look like it's kind of satellite footage. But it's pretty sweet tracking technology because now they can incorporate it with AI and basically just track anything anywhere all the time and have it permanently recorded. So like you could leave your house and the AI is already tracking you anywhere you go and builds a pattern about you and then you know you go to your thing and it's like hey are you going home today? Here you go. And you know it already does that in your Google like right now. So the clouds do move uh in in a small spot. There's like a few spots where the clouds move and I've seen your your video where you address that actually in your recent live stream. Um and they do move but it looks very much like someone had a filter and funny enough like that's where exactly where the plane passes through as well. exactly where the clouds move is like part of that path of the the plane as well. So now let's talk about that briefly, right? I want to talk about the Gorgon stair thing. Again, I don't doubt that the Gorgon stair technology exists, but like to me obviously the image we're looking at is this particular static image that was later shared as a stock image, right? And you can say, okay, it wasn't online anywhere traceable, whether it was on stock platforms or whether it was on torren at the time when this footage was made. My argument would be that me I work in the creative sector in the w in the wider sense right we were handing around CDs be you know before stock platforms were huge before we all had subscriptions to this kind of stuff here's a CD with stock images 5,000 images of this and that right like they wouldn't be online I think the thinking mistake you're making that I was challenge here is that you're saying it has to be the moment where the the footage appears online this image appears online where the image is created or that's where it's like valid to use that image I think That's wrong. It might have been that the guy got it on a freaking DVD from a friend who's also a designer. Here's a bunch of, you know, and then they use that that image there and then only a few years later someone uploads it to a to a stock platform or the internet or torrent. You know what I mean? Does that make sense to you? >> I mean, I think there's a lot of things that could have happened, but only one thing that really did. And I'd say that for any story that is trying to claim like, oh, you know, somebody faked these videos or what have you. I mean, I don't really care at all. You have to come up with what's the real comprehensive story for who did this? Like, who is the person? What's the mindset of some person that did this? A lot of people are just like, "Oh, it was just some bored kid." But then they're like, "Oh, well, these are actually pretty complicated." And especially if you add the element of like they're either military or made to look like military videos. Now, someone's got to have some knowledge about that. Like you said, there's nothing like these on the internet, so there's nothing to copy. So, some put someone put some original creative thought into this. And the thing I don't like about lazy low IQ debunking is that it doesn't think about these elements at all. I think that when you're a real skeptic, you should also have to come up with your story for how it's fake, why it's fake, who made it, and honestly, the biggest one is where's the damn plane? If those videos aren't real, where's the plane at then? How come I'm able to predict that they're never going to find the plane in the South Indian Ocean? And they search and they still don't find it, even though a bunch of people are like, "You're going to look so dumb and have to apologize when they find the plane." like how can I be so confident about something so big even things like related to the physics we see on that it means if those videos are real we're looking at physics that we clearly don't really understand right now right so how come the Nobel Prize for physics was macroscopic quantum uh tunneling which is essentially what I said is happening to that plane at the larger scale is what they've basically figured out is how to scale that effect up >> um so I don't know basically what what is like so go ahead what is answer for what is your story for like who faked the videos and then bigger thing is that everybody hates me because they think I'm like getting rich off this which I'm not by the way not in any way shape or form. Uh but that's one of the big criticisms that people try to use is like oh he's trying to grift off this to make money he should know that these are fake blah blah blah. So then where is the hoaxer of the videos? Why have they not come out? Especially if they did this for attention >> or something or any kind of motivations like that. Why did they not come out and come and take the thunder away from me? They I mean, at this point, I I'm If I'm lying about this, even if I'm not lying and the videos are fake, if just the videos are fake at all, and if someone were to come out and dunk on me and be like, I made these, here's the proof, blah blah blah, which should be really trivial. >> It should be trivial to prove it. >> How come they're not doing that? They could become famous and then all the left-wing Looney people would be like, "Oh, yeah, they finally debunked Ashton. Oh, Dave Fina's video was right. Look at this. Haha. We should elevate this person who debunked him who's this great VFX artist, right? Like where is that person? Why are they not doing that? They're just they're afraid of being famous and no bad that would ever happen to them. >> Fair point. So that actually taps a little bit into my field of expertise. I want to say like euphology and right with like somehow things like crop circles and stuff. Listen, there's a huge group of people who have been proven to fake footage and they, you know, they didn't come out. Maybe they came out later on their deathbed or something. There's something to people wanting to create something that creates mythicism, right? And I would be the same if Okay, here's here's what I think. Okay, obviously I can't prove this, but I think this footage, both footages have been created by the same studio, the same artists. Might have been two people, but they were clearly synchronized, right? Nobody can doubt that. So, here you have these creative guys, and they create this footage. You know, it turned out great, and it got to fool a lot of people, but I think ultimately it was just a joke. It wasn't even intended to be a big piece of footage. They played with it. They had fun with it. I understand. I think you made some good points tonight to be honest. Like for example, the wobble of the drone's wing and stuff. I never saw that. I never noticed it and I will look into that. Right. Like this is this is these are good points that I appreciate um that that add to the story. But that's my theory. I think it's a bunch of creatives who knocked this out probably in a ridiculously short amount of time. It turned out way better than they anticipated. And here they are with this footage and it went viral. And now what they do is they don't want to come forward. They lean back and they appreciate that they created Ashton Forbes who is now 100% on board with this and defends their little CGI thing forever. And it's the most beautiful art piece in many ways, right? If you look at it from that way, here you have a guy who exists and not exists but who defends it on every single stream. Imagine you're the guy who artificially created this. How satisfying that must be that you created this infinite loop. That's what I think is going on here. But it's an opinion. I don't know. >> Well, that's SL. So, wait, they had made this and they waited for nine years for Ashen Forbes. Look videos. Someone took the chat. It was after the long con, the super long con. >> It's a coincidence that I made a video. >> Nothing happened for nine years and then and then it happened. Suddenly it exploded and now they're like, "Oh, this is awesome." They thought >> it was just a joke, man. It was just a joke about a real missing plane that still to this day we've never found. They didn't decide at some point to be like, "Hey, man, that was me that faked those that joke those joke videos that are obviously of MH370." But the funny part is we didn't realize those videos were MH370 until 2023. Nobody ever connected those videos to MH370, even though it's like pretty obvious in retrospect. There's all this metadata related to them. We tag we connected Reicside's Twitter account that he made right after that to those like actually if somebody faked them it has to be Reicside, right? >> Like you agree? >> Yeah. No, I agree. Yeah. Yeah. Probably. Yeah. >> So Reicside would have to be the faker of those videos. So where where is Reicside then? And how come Reicide when we read Regisside's Twitter account, it says, "Watch these videos before they're deleted." Why are they building it up, >> right? >> Like people have got to check this out. Especially if you're telling me it's a long con. They were waiting for someone to take the bait on that. I don't I don't buy sorry I don't buy that that's that guy. I don't think that's the guy. It might not be the guy. It might be. Who knows? I don't I'm not >> basically no way that person could be the guy. But that's another layer to the problem of if you're coming up with a story about who faked it. Okay. Well, how come how did Reicide and get involved in this? And pretty quickly you realize that can't be what's going on here. It's got to be real leaked videos and somebody leaked these. I mean, it's never happened as far as I know. Maybe it has. We never noticed. We almost didn't notice on these videos. And the reason why we didn't notice is because they only release those plain videos. Uh those ones that are like, you know, grayscale. They never really show us. They only declassify stuff they're not afraid is going to hurt, you know, national security. I've seen a lot of fakes, too, man. I'm going to be honest. I've seen a lot of fakes. And in almost all those cases, either it looks like garbage. I've never seen two different angles before of any fakes. And then also, uh, they usually come out. Usually they come out like even case some of those crop circles, they'll be like, "Oh, this was an Nvidia marketing stunt." And I I think I've fallen for one or two, but usually I'm pretty skeptical about the crop circle stuff out there. Um, but uh, yeah. So, for me, like I don't care what people believe, man. I, like I said before, I get it. Not everybody's going to believe what have you. And it's a lot to ask anyway. You know, the reason why I say people should even care cuz most conspiracy stuff out there, like people come at me 911 stuff, and I honestly shoot it down. I shoot it down pretty harshly, really harshly, actually. Um, and I say, why? Why does it matter? even if it's some kind of cover up or what have you by the government. So what you're like, well, we got to get justice or whatever. I mean, it's it's 20 years ago and we're never going to get it anyway. So what does it change? You think? Why spend all that mental effort on it? >> The the reason to spend the mental effort isn't just we should get the truth for the families, which we should. They're still grieving to this day because they still don't know the truth because the United States ran an operation on it and they're never going to tell the truth about it. Number one. But the other reason is because look at what the hell we're looking at in those videos. I told you the laws of physics require conservation. >> So, we're watching plasma balls spinning around the plane. Those plasma balls are fusion reactors. >> And this plane is being teleported or annihilated in some kind of super weapon. >> So, clearly they've got an understanding of physics in the black world that we don't really have right now. And it's not like a little jump. It's such a huge jump that people see it and it looks either like aliens or it looks like, you know, it's got to be VFX because we just mind can't comprehend something that we're seeing. So if they've got something like that, that's the reason why we should care because that's not something that's something even if they can't admit the videos are real. That's still something we can figure out. >> That means we can figure out unification of physics. >> That means we can figure out maybe infinite energy. Go ahead. >> Sorry. Why do you think the the government would choose a or whatever whoever's behind it, the military would choose a commercial flight? I mean, it's a flight with passengers on it. Surely if they would test revolutionary technology like that, you would do it with like, you know, playing in the desert. >> Yeah. Why? >> That's the part that sickens me. It's like, why the hell are you using something like this? So, just shoot with a missile or something. Jesus. But, uh, it's got to be the CIA, by the way. So, I looked into like, you know, is it the military? How does this work? Cuz I don't really know. I don't really believe conspiracies before this. But the CIA would have had to target this and they would have probably had to get some kind of weird terrorist designation target. Now, interestingly enough, Obama, right during that exact same period in that era, there were some CIA leaks. They were called the drone papers. You should look them up. Turned out we were drone striking people like crazy by just designating them terrorists. And then we had like a 90% innocent ratio in terms of like the terrorists that we took out versus just random innocent people. It's it's pretty sick in retrospect, not going to lie. So, it kind of feels like they got a little loosey goosey with uh going after terrorist targets. And my guess in this situation is the Freescale Semiconductor Engineers. Now, at the time, this would have seemed insane, and it still is pretty insane. But there were 20 engineers on this plane from Freecale Semiconductors, an American company that made microchips, and eight of them were Chinese nationals, 12 were Malaysian nationals, and they're flying to Beijing. There shouldn't be this many people from one company. And they weren't like just random, you know, low-level people. They were like the engineers and significant people. This is according to the company themselves. So, at the time we thought, okay, that was the that was actually the conspiracy theorist main thing, Target. They were like, it's got to be these people. But they they kind of had this fake conspiracy about like, well, these four people on the plane were like these patent holders. We looked into that. None of that was true. Those people like weren't even on the plane. I don't know how that gained hold, but those 20 people were actually have to be related to this. I mean, the plane disappears. You got these 20 engineers on it. That's a significant percentage of the passengers. 10% of the P 10%. So now if I'm just running the numbers now I've got my Obama percentages where I can now target this plane. But the here's here's how I would convince you. Look at Nvidia. Nvidia had 95% market share in China. They're the main chip manufacturer for China. Do you know what their market share is today? Zero. 0% in China. United States has pulled Nvidia entirely out of China. Nvidia is are they the number one highest market cap company in the country? They they're in like the top 10. They're way up$5 trillion dollars is what they're worth right now. >> There is literally and this is you can look this up. There are tariffs right now >> over microchips between United States and China. There have been under under Biden there were as well. So my argument is I I can't justify this. I think this is part of the reason why they're covering it up. I think it's a black eye in terms of what we did. But it may have been a situation where China was going to steal those engineers or that technology or maybe they brought something in their with them as well, you know, flash drives. I don't know. Um, that's got to be the target though. I can't come up with any better reason why you're going after this plane. And I don't it doesn't if if I'm right and it's teleportation, then they might not even be dead. But I don't like to say that because I don't like to give people false hope. Even if you know there's a slight chance that it's possibly real, I I think it's extremely unlikely anyone would have survived even up until that point because of like I mentioned the smoke coming out of the plane. There's got to be a fire on board. And the reason why you see the temperature change in the walls of the Boeing trip 7 is because the temperature is uh different from the air conditioning there. So it's possibly hotter, I think. Uh so that means that the smoke is possibly circulating throughout the plane >> and you're just not going to survive for uh I think it was an hour that's required >> for those passengers. from from when the fire starts going off and when we see them in that video. >> So So would you say that like because obviously in the public eye at least for for whether it's right or wrong, the vast majority of experts, aviation experts and scientists and so disagree with with your take. Do you think they're just not well enough informed about it? They haven't read into it enough or why why do you think >> I mean if you look at your situation, you didn't really read into it enough either. You did a pretty good job though. I'm not gonna hate. Um, I'm not trying to be personal about it, but yeah, a lot of people don't. Um, and the I guess talking to the investigators is the biggest most disappointing part because these are people that have produced no results for like, you know, at the time nine or 10 years. They never found anything. A random guy found pieces of the plane. None of the investigators even suspected it were there. None of them found anything. So, and they all have books and they're all so confident, too. I kind of expected, you know, more of them to be at least open to the idea of like, hey, maybe it was a United States operation. Maybe these videos are weird video leaks regardless of what we're seeing on them. But it was honestly only Florence De Changi. Florence De Changi was the only one who even entertained a conversation with me about it. And she was like, you know, I I've kind of told her I wouldn't talk about our conversations, but I'll just speak kind of vaguely about it, you know. Um, and I don't think I don't think she would mind is uh you know, she said a lot of this the evidence that you're saying like the kind of how our conversation went points out, you know, synchronizes a lot with the evidence that she found in her book. And she kept telling me to read her book. Her book is the most detailed when it comes to the evidence for sure and includes several other things that you're not going to see in any YouTube video or even on the Netflix documentary that are pretty questionable that you know if you're really looking at everything, >> not just trying to like cherrypick certain pieces of them, but looking at everything and trying to come up with a story >> really makes you wonder. And the funny part is she didn't she I don't think she thinks the videos are real even still now. Mhm. >> I mean, she I think still thinks that they they shot down the plane, but it's a >> close close theory that matches with her extremely detailed evidence. >> I'll give her some credit and say a couple of the the great things I found from her were some of the um direct statements from the family members that were like informed and had, you know, very odd uh communications. Um one was that the nephew of the uncle of the pilot was told that his uncle was collateral damage, which is a really oddly specific thing to say. And then uh one of the I think police chiefs, it was the Indonesian one might may have the wrong country or maybe the Malaysian one was apparently told that like he knows what really happened to the plane and so implying that there was some kind of coverup going on. The documentary or the interview I would recommend people watch is the interview with the defense minister. the defense minister did an interview seven weeks after I think it was called four four corners for something and I mean if you just watch that and you can realize this guy is clearly being uh uh obiscating on answers being uh evasive in his responses it's it almost feels like a Saturday Night Live skit. I think anybody that watches that can realize that there's clearly something going on from us. They know more than they're saying >> and and from there you can make it what you will in terms of like scientists disagree and I don't even think a lot of scientists necessarily disagree. >> I think that a lot of the physicists are afraid to talk about it because people don't want to be wrong later on. And I think that's part of the reason why the UFO people like do do you not think it's weird that Jeremy Corbel still to this day has never said anything publicly about those videos? Neither is George Knap. Ross Kohart said one thing and he said everything wrong. He said everything wrong. >> He pointed at the clouds. He he made a fair point about the clouds. I think that like even Ross Colt, >> let's be honest, Ross Colart, I would argue his his standards are not the highest. Speaking of egg UFO videos and stuff like that, you know, like even people are talking to psionic aliens all the time and he and why is he poo pooing these videos if he's talking to people that believe in psionic communications, insectoids and like that? But let me point out this. Isn't it kind of weird how he claimed that, oh, I have insider sources that tell me that's not satellite footage and then two days later it turns out he's right. It's not. It's Gorgon stare drone footage. Isn't it weird that he didn't respond to that ever? Like, and don't you think it's weird that if you have a secret source that's like, "Yeah, I know that's not that footage. How do they know that? Do they know that because they know what it really is?" So, should I tell you tell me should I try knowing assuming that I'm right and I those videos are real. What should I think about Ross Khart? Because he just had a source that told him, "Nope, that's not satellite footage." And he was right. It wasn't satellite footage. It was something else. >> So, why didn't he say that? Why didn't he come out and say, "No, Ashen, it's not satellite footage. Turns out it's actually a drone from above." Oh, because either being fed like, you know, specific information and not the truth, or he's being told the truth and he's covering it up. One or the other. I mean to be honest with you, I think Ross Cold had made a point based on the image that he saw and he saw these clouds are not moving, these clouds are not evolving. I hear your point about different uh satellites having like an algorithm that renders out that movement. That's fine. Look, I'm not a military expert, so I give you credit for that. But at the same time, you said in the previous stream, we looked at it earlier on this stream actually, where you said like there's no argument to be made about the Gorgon stair footage being static images. And that's just a wild statement to make to be honest to me because there's a lot of arguments to be made that this is mostly static footage that briefly moves in specific spots that again you spoke about me cherrypicking things that feels to me like you're cherryp picking things where you're like here in this little these four pixels it moves briefly and you keep repeating the footage of those few pixels. Clouds evolve. clouds move all the time and I mean the match to the to the reference stock footage is just undeniable. So listen, I'm just going to make my point and then you can have the final word. I think um I think the whole thing crumbles with the evidence. I think the uh the footage of the drone shows clear polygonal polygonal lines. That's a difficult thing to say after a bottle of wine, but that's my opinion. I see the lines there. I see the arguments that were made about digital uh animation and stuff. I see it all. I I agree that it's synchronized, but in my opinion, to be honest with you, in my opinion, the Malaysia air footage, I can't speak about everything outside the the debris that has been found and you know, the the serial numbers not linking to the specific flight. I give you that. But in my opinion, the footage itself, and I look at a lot of UFO or mystery footage, is the most debunked footage that's out there. It's debunked on like four, five, six levels. I see you addressed some of them, but for example, the polygonal lines on the drone footage that I would say is there. You just say they are just not there. So that's fair. You don't see them. I see them. Of course, it's a fair disagreement, but like that's not an argument that debunks or explains that at all. And it's it's pretty significant in the context. So I think it's the most debunked case of all time in terms of the footage. But I'll give you the final word now and you can make your case. Um, and but I really appreciate you coming on >> and then I'll do my final thing because you said okay it's now you said it's 2D it's stock photos right it's undeniable. So is it was this made in 2D or was this made in a three-dimensional virtual environment? How did they make these videos? >> Yeah. So as someone who works in this field a little bit you what you would do is you set up the image a huge image right high resolution as a backdrop right it's like a box right and you're filming into this back backdrop. So you're you're setting up a camera that zooms into because they're high-res images. So you zoom into a part of it. Then you add the plane over it. Now the plane it could be a 3D object. It could be a sprite. It could be something else how they overlay it, right? Because we do see where you point out the clouds moving briefly. That's where the plane passes by when you fast forward it. So I'm almost assuming there's a mask going on there or something. But I don't know. So they're masking this plane over this image. So the plane follows a certain line. We adjust that and then we put the camera after it and you can actually it's been analyzed from what I've seen. You can see the camera adjusting not smoothly with the object all the time. It adjusts three four times along it all following this exact stock image that's in the background like that. It's just >> I think I don't think you're really understanding here me here though. >> Okay. >> So you're explaining the production of one video. I'm telling you there's two videos from two completely different angles and I'm saying that how are you producing this three are you producing a three-dimensional environment? If so, you're not using two-dimensional cloud photos to do that. >> How are you pulling that? Because we've actually shown that the clouds actually match in both videos because you can actually triangulate the position of the drone just off the view of the screen >> and you can actually tell which clouds the drone is looking at >> from above because we have two different angles in there as well. But now you're telling me, "Oh, no. Somebody just used a stock cloud photo to do that." And this is where I just want to point out. This is why it's it's relatively easy for me to point this out because I know both videos are real. So, it's like, okay, there are going to be certain elements that are going to be easy to show that that are not going to be able to be explained from things like 2D stock photos, you know, and yes, the clouds do move and evolve in a way where if you're using stock photos, there should be no movement. That's the point of something that's a literal photo. It can't move, man. And it's not some kind of a somebody tries to say a blur effect, >> but it doesn't move. It doesn't move. The The only place where it moves is in that mouth. 100%. >> Go ahead. >> Let me point this out. It's fine. We can agree to disagree. It's fine. And this is fun. I like you. Honestly, I do. This has been enjoyable. You know what? I actually get super bored of doing all these like people. It feels like people are like afraid to push or in a lot of cases when I interview with people, I won't be specific, feels like they just don't do a lot of research, so they don't want to go against me, you know? I kind of want people to challenge it and people that are intelligent. You're obviously very intelligent. So, I think it's fun. Um, I want to say though, here's what I would I would leave you with and your audiences. I would say like the question we ask is like what if you're wrong? That's a question I should ask myself. I do all the time, especially because I'm I'm uh you know, contrary to many people's opinion, I'm not conspirator person out there. I always wonder like what if I'm wrong? I could get sued by the families. I mean, this is a this hurts me reputationally. It hurts me reputationally even though I'm right because most people don't believe and they all think I'm a scammer and all kinds of other nonsense because that's just how the internet is and I knew that would happen. I don't care. But you know, so the point is like I ask what if I'm wrong about this? How much will this hurt me? What have you and I just figured, you know what, I'm willing to take that. That's a risk I'm now everybody else should also ask what if what if you're wrong about this? That means we've had the truth about this and we've been covering this up and this means really some vile evil evil action that was taken. You can't and however you try to justify whatever it's evil, right? And it also shows that we live in a really dark world. >> A dark world where you could almost argue that we're pretty much all slaves >> because we've got balls of energy that can float around and teleport airplanes. That represents free energy. It represents the Jetsons. It represents Star Trek and somebody's got that and we don't get that. So that's what I tell people is like at a bare minimum, what if you're wrong? Shouldn't that at least mean that we should get an answer from the US government? Shouldn't the US Air Force at least be forced to say if that's really Air Force Gorgon stair wide area motion imagery and not some VFX? at a bare minimum. That's all I ask of people because look at how much we have to gain if those videos are real. >> Yes, it's going to hurt. Yes, it's going to feel bad that we are doing all this horrible stuff and we've been hiding all this, but it'll lead to an amazing future. >> So, that's what I would leave people with. And lastly, I guess I'd say when and if I do get confirmation that's Gorgon Stair, because thousands of people have seen Gorgon Stair footage, Air Force people, they has to have seen that. And they're all clearly very afraid to say anything about it. I would be if I was them. But when I get confirmation from somebody publicly on the record who's willing to put their name on there, >> I'm going to have the apology forms ready. >> Thank you. >> No, I will apologize. I swear to God, I will apologize. Look, it's my take on it. You have your take, but honestly, I'm I'm super surprised and happy with this conversation as well. I think that went super well and was super interesting. I tried to push. Listen, the truth is also you put so much more time into it than I did. So, there will obviously be things that where I'm still learning about it, but I appreciate you coming on spontaneously and that was super fun. I really appreciate it. Ashen Forbes, you >> Thanks so much. I see you next time. Take care. Thank you, bro. So, there you have it. Jesus Christ, we got Ashton Forbes on. What can we say, man? But to be honest, I think that was fun, right? That was fun. That was good having him on. To be honest, I think that was such a fun conversation. I'm not even going to lie. That was so good. Um, I thought he would be much more hostile. Um, but he wasn't. Okay, so that was great.