Alleged Flight MH370 UFO Teleportation Videos [Hoax]

(I have no evidence it was a "scam" - do you?)

You could try to argue that the person that sold it to him didn't know what was inside the rar file or something.

They'd have to prove that someone else sent them the rar file and scammed them first. Which isnt likely the case.

It is possible that the 3k never was spent, and ashton created the rar file too. But in that case it's not a scam, it's just an obnoxious prank.

I really don't care, but scammers should go to jail. If someone sold him something under false pretenses and he can track em down I hope they do.

Im sure he didn't pay with bitcoin, can't be too hard.

Should those who promoted the "scam" not be equally liable?

What do you mean by promoted the scam? maybe give me some kind of real life example of a court case that you're comparing this to maybe to get your answer.

unless it is an American who left his actual address in the email correspondence, that isnt going to happen. and even in that case the chance he goes to jail is virtually nil.

Where does ashton live? Fraud involving $1k or more can be charged as grand theft, which may result in up to one year in county jail for a misdemeanor or 16 months to three years for a felony in some states.

I can hope! I hate scammers, especially ufo ones! Someone actually defrauding someone for 3k is a good one to make an example of IMO.
 
Last edited:
Where does ashton live? Fraud involving $1k or more can be charged as grand theft, which may result in up to one year in county jail for a misdemeanor or 16 months to three years for a felony in some states.
The question is, what are Ashton Forbes's revenue streams? If it turned out that he made more money off the hoax than he spent, the damage he suffered is nil.
And given Ashton's earlier statement, "I can no longer claim that the videos are authentic due to this evidence", the seller could easily create legal doubt on whether Forbes was deceived in the first place, or if Forbes wasn't misdirecting the public for his own personal gain.
 
The fact that the victim made money from a video about the incident does not negate the illegality of the original act.
No, but it determines the amount of damage, and you were referencing that in your post.
Selling someone something under false pretensess is clear and direct fraud regardless any subsequent events. The fact that the victim made money from a video about the incident does not negate the illegality of the original act.

In legal terms, fraud involves intentional deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain. Whether the victim later finds a way to recoup their losses or even profit from the situation does not change the nature of the initial act.
Your legal claims are unsourced and misleading.
Victim reliance. Even when there is a material false statement and the intention to deceive can be proved, it does not meet the legal test for fraud unless there is a victim who relied on the false statement.

Fraud constitutes more than the false pretense, what the buyer did and thought does matter.

The intention of teaching someone a lesson by deceptive means doesn't change the nature of the act under the law.
Straw man. Nobody claimed that.

So, in either scenario, you would likely still be legally liable for committing fraud. The subsequent actions of the victim do not absolve you of this.
I'm unclear as to which two scenarios you are referring to, or whether they meet the legal tests for fraud. You're doing little more than to claim what you wish was true. Why should we believe you?
 
No, but it determines the amount of damage, and you were referencing that in your post.

Your legal claims are unsourced and misleading.
Victim reliance. Even when there is a material false statement and the intention to deceive can be proved, it does not meet the legal test for fraud unless there is a victim who relied on the false statement.

Fraud constitutes more than the false pretense, what the buyer did and thought does matter.

There is a difference between bank fraud and consumer fraud. Deceiving someone with an investment is much more of a grey area than selling someone a box with a brick in it, which is what the rar file essentially is.

Straw man. Nobody claimed that.

My mistake I thought the quote below was you atempting to argue that.

the seller could easily create legal doubt on whether Forbes was deceived in the first place, or if Forbes wasn't misdirecting the public for his own personal gain.

Forbes was doing nothing illegal (that I am aware of) and we're talking about a specific case of being sold something he is told is something it is not.

You're doing little more than to claim what you wish was true. Why should we believe you?

There are a lot of states in this country, and a lot of reasons the person could not face charges so Im just giving examples of how it is possible a case could be made. Im not asking you to believe me, im saying that there's enough reason for me to believe that a case of clear fraud has been comited, and likely some 20-30 year old on the internet did it without knowing the liability of the crime and hopefully ashton is able to track them down and my asumptions in this case are right.

For all I know the person who sold him the rar is in Afghanistan.
 
Last edited:
I think you're fooling yourself.
I don't think fool myself is a good choice of words. I did say I could hope.
But your reason for that belief does not connect to actual legal practice.

Well a case of fraud has likely taken place and I defined that at the start, and gave a lot of stipulations and implied it was a long shot. Consumer fraud over 1k afaik is a felony in my state. I just cant find it by googling it im sorry its not something I research but it's something I've experienced.

You do provide some extra what if statements, like what if he made money on his youtube channel out of this then reliance factor kicks in, sure but I don't think that'll be the case.

Stipulations or not though, I still think there's pretty clear case of someone defrauding someone for 3k taking place here so far. And if possible I hope they get em!

Don't defraud people.
 
Last edited:
Fraud involving $1k or more can be charged as grand theft, which may result in up to one year in county jail for a misdemeanor or 16 months to three years for a felony in some states.

I can hope! I hate scammers, especially ufo ones! Someone actually defrauding someone for 3k is a good one to make an example of IMO
i hear you and it is absolutely fraud. but this was one victim, and involved a ufo. not bank fraud or stealing a bunch of old people's money etc. i just doubt any one would get jail time for a one off like this. probation for sure, if perpetrator is also american.
 
So much speculation. I’ve been popping into Ashton’s feed off and on. He thinks he blocked me but I have a second account. He does want to sue, but he has no address. Emails came from a proton.me account (private, secure, email). The scammer is STILL in contact with him and is stringing him along, saying he got spooked but still has the real info. Won’t give the money back because he said Ashton put him in danger by sharing the info.

1702821853754.png

In a weird twist, the scammer says he wants to sue ASHTON.
1702821979277.png


Ashton is convinced the videos are real and this guy is from the Intelligence Community trying to make him look foolish. These videos are his White Whale.
 
In a weird twist, the scammer says he wants to sue ASHTON.
View attachment 64593

I actually was actually just wondering if ashton had no case against the scammers because he was buying classified info. Is attempting to purchase classified information a crime?

iirc after many Grusch discussions here that you're not legally whistleblowing unless you follow certain protocols, surely selling calssified information to someone for 3k isnt that, but would a buyer be breaking any laws trying to purchase them? idk
 
yes. i imagine it is also even worse than knowingly buying stolen goods, but maybe not as bad as attempting to buy a trafficked child sex slave.
Off topic speculation.

If Ashton Forbes is a foreign agent, then "it is unlawful for a foreign agent knowingly to receive classified information from a United States government employee, unless special authorization has been obtained. See 50 U.S.C. § 783(c)." ( via https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm...onal-defense-and-national-security-provisions )

Generally, it's the transmitting of classified information that's punishable, not the receiving; but 18 U.S. Code § 793 (g) would probably expose the buyer via conspiracy charges. The minimum sentence is a fine.

If the zip file had actually contained classified documents, then the act of making it publicly available on the Internet to foreign nationals would've definitely made Forbes liable under 18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information, so he's either stupid, reckless, or knew the file was harmless.
 
Despite the numerous explanations that these two videos are composites made using stock / VFX assets that existed before 2014 the idea that they do in fact contain genuine footage is persistant with some conspiracy promoters (not just Ashton Forbes).

The claim is now that they're a kind of rotoscoped version of reality - a neat dodge of the errors found in compositing.

One reason for this is the coordinate change on mouseover that we see in the "satellite" footage that track the centre of the frame. They correspond to one of two locations (#1 and #2 below) that are roughly in line with investigators estimates of where the plane could have gone (near the Andomen Islands or South Indian Ocean).

coordinates_difference_MH370 copy.jpg


This detail doesn't seem that difficult to achieve given what we know about the assets used to make the films. Choose a path for the plane to fly through the stock cloud images and have the mouseover generate coordinates as the mouse moves. Here's an example. https://docs.mapbox.com/mapbox-gl-js/example/mouse-position/

So is this plausible detail a lucky guess on the part of the hoaxer?
 
One reason for this is the coordinate change on mouseover that we see in the "satellite" footage that track the centre of the frame. They correspond to one of two locations (#1 and #2 below) that are roughly in line with investigators estimates of where the plane could have gone (near the Andomen Islands or South Indian Ocean).
We've discussed the coordinates previously on this thread (use the site search for "coordinates" in "this thread"). The northerly coordinate corresponds to an old estimate; it does not fit the subsequently discovered satellite data, as it is too close to the satellite. This dates the hoax, and puts it at odds with reality. (The southerly coordinate corresponds to nothing.)

It is unlucky for the hoaxer that the satcom evidence proved the coordinates false.

[Edit:] I'd hope that nobody considers coordinates that the hoaxer could've taken from any newspaper at the time to be proof of anything.
 
Last edited:
Take a step back and consider what was being proposed. The theory from Forbes was that the US government had detected that a plane carrying important personnel, taking off from Malaysia, which had a fire on board, so they quickly dispatched some advanced technology that used spinning orbs to teleport the plane to a safe location, filming it from a drone and two satellites. Unable to reveal the technology to the world, the passengers were put in witness protection.
This sequence of events does not explain why the aircraft turned its transponder off right as it was due to be handed over to the next air traffic control center, and deviated off course at an acute angle. If the aircraft was able to rendezvous with the hypothetical spinning orbs above the Indian Ocean, it could've more easily set down at a suitable airport—as is the recommended procedure.

The spinning orbs would've been unnecessary, the "coverup" would not be needed, simply landing the plane would've been preferable in every way.
 
The minimum sentence is a fine.
(c) Penalties for violation Any person who violates any provision of this section shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000, or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or by both such fine and such imprisonment, and shall, moreover, be thereafter ineligible to hold any office, or place of honor, profit, or trust created by the Co
 
Let's get the context straight, @deirdre.

50 U.S.C. § 783​

If Ashton Forbes is a foreign agent, then "it is unlawful for a foreign agent knowingly to receive classified information from a United States government employee, unless special authorization has been obtained. See 50 U.S.C. § 783(c)." ( via https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm...onal-defense-and-national-security-provisions )
(c) Penalties for violation
Any person who violates any provision of this section shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000, or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or by both such fine and such imprisonment, and shall, moreover, be thereafter ineligible to hold any office, or place of honor, profit, or trust created by the Co[nstitution or laws of the United States.]
§783 applies to government employees and foreign agents. We don't know that Ashton Forbes is either of these.

18 U.S. Code § 793​

Generally, it's the transmitting of classified information that's punishable, not the receiving; but 18 U.S. Code § 793 (g) would probably expose the buyer via conspiracy charges. The minimum sentence is a fine.
(f) .... Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(g) ... each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense ...
 
Last edited:
Off topic speculation.

If Ashton Forbes is a foreign agent, then "it is unlawful for a foreign agent knowingly to receive classified information from a United States government employee, unless special authorization has been obtained. See 50 U.S.C. § 783(c)." ( via https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm...onal-defense-and-national-security-provisions )

Generally, it's the transmitting of classified information that's punishable, not the receiving; but 18 U.S. Code § 793 (g) would probably expose the buyer via conspiracy charges. The minimum sentence is a fine.

If the zip file had actually contained classified documents, then the act of making it publicly available on the Internet to foreign nationals would've definitely made Forbes liable under 18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information, so he's either stupid, reckless, or knew the file was harmless.
Just for reference, Ashton is an American citizen and we have no idea who the scammer is or where they are from. It's a bit of a stretch at the moment to speculate about Ashton working as a foreign agent, as there's not really any indicators he worked or interacted with anyone from a foreign nation, or importantly, on behalf of a foreign government or corporate entity. While there are some interesting bits with the writing that make me curious if they're not American, there's no indicators they're working on behalf of a foreign government or corporate entity.
A conspiracy claim would be really hard to hold up here as Ashton did not solicit the information, it was randomly presented to him unprompted, and the actual initiator has self-admitted as doing it in attempt to in some form act against him.

Also under 793, making it publicly available at all would make it liable, although under "or publishes", it covers "unauthorized persons" not foreign nationals. This is also shoddier but targeted solicitation of classified material can also be liable under this though the wording does not match it exactly (they used it this way with Assange).
 
It's a bit of a stretch at the moment to speculate about Ashton working as a foreign agent, as there's not really any indicators he worked or interacted with anyone from a foreign nation
I was mostly mentioning it for completeness's sake. I'd say there's an outside chance he might get paid by Russia as a disinfo agent, but as you say, there are no indicators—but then there wouldn't be, so we can't entirely rule it out either.

A conspiracy claim would be really hard to hold up here as Ashton did not solicit the information, it was randomly presented to him unprompted, and the actual initiator has self-admitted as doing it in attempt to in some form act against him.
I'm not really motivated to dig deeper into the law, but since the offense is "transmission", saying "I'll pay you $3000 if you transmit this classified document to me" means that he's an active participant to the planning and execution of the transmission. Is that not enough for "conspiracy" to apply?
 
I was mostly mentioning it for completeness's sake. I'd say there's an outside chance he might get paid by Russia as a disinfo agent, but as you say, there are no indicators—but then there wouldn't be, so we can't entirely rule it out either.


I'm not really motivated to dig deeper into the law, but since the offense is "transmission", saying "I'll pay you $3000 if you transmit this classified document to me" means that he's an active participant to the planning and execution of the transmission. Is that not enough for "conspiracy" to apply?
Sounds like accessory: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/accessory :
External Quote:
Accessory before-the-fact

An accessory before-the-fact is someone who did anything to encourage, aid, or assist in any material manner in the commission of a crime, thereby “participating in the design of the crime.” See Johnson v. State, 290 So. 3d 1232 (Miss. 2020).

The basic elements the government must demonstrate to prove that a defendant was an accessory before-the-fact are: (1) someone committed the underlying crime; (2) the defendant advised and agreed, urged the parties, or in some way aided them to commit the offense; and (3) the defendant was not present when the offense was committed. See Evans v. State, 145 So. 3d 674 (Miss. 2014).
bold mine.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, but the law mentions conspiracy.
Conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people to commit an illegal act, along with an intent to achieve the agreement's goal. Most U.S. jurisdictions also require an overt act toward furthering the agreement.

The illegal act would be the transmission of the classified document, and Forbes's overt act would be the payment.
 
I was mostly mentioning it for completeness's sake. I'd say there's an outside chance he might get paid by Russia as a disinfo agent, but as you say, there are no indicators—but then there wouldn't be, so we can't entirely rule it out either.


I'm not really motivated to dig deeper into the law, but since the offense is "transmission", saying "I'll pay you $3000 if you transmit this classified document to me" means that he's an active participant to the planning and execution of the transmission. Is that not enough for "conspiracy" to apply?
In re the second, it would, though the initiator and sole other conspirator doing it as a way to get the other in trouble, could present legal issues in itself. Kind of a grey area since it hasn't been tested that way, I think them being charged separately in that case (if they even charged the receiver) would be more likely.
Yeah, but the law mentions conspiracy.
Conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people to commit an illegal act, along with an intent to achieve the agreement's goal. Most U.S. jurisdictions also require an overt act toward furthering the agreement.

The illegal act would be the transmission of the classified document, and Forbes's overt act would be the payment.
The possible issue with this for example is that he was technically entrapped in that context, just not by law enforcement. If the initiator did it with that malign intent in mind, the overall planning would've solely rested with them, not both. The initiator, unsolicited, contacts and induces Ashton to receive and pay for the documents. This meets 2 of the 4 points laid out by Stitts & James, the arrest point instead being converted to reference reporting it. You can also argue it would not have happened without the inducement by the initiator, since Ashton was (at least not openly) seeking out the classified documents, as far as I'm aware.
 
The possible issue with this for example is that he was technically entrapped in that context, just not by law enforcement. If the initiator did it with that malign intent in mind, the overall planning would've solely rested with them, not both. The initiator, unsolicited, contacts and induces Ashton to receive and pay for the documents. This meets 2 of the 4 points laid out by Stitts & James, the arrest point instead being converted to reference reporting it. You can also argue it would not have happened without the inducement by the initiator, since Ashton was (at least not openly) seeking out the classified documents, as far as I'm aware.
You are arguing that the other conspirator had some responsibility, but that's the point of a conspiracy.
Ashton could simply say that he's not willing to buy classified documents, and not pay anything for them, and then he'd be in the clear. He'd only be "entrapped" if he expected to buy unclassified information, but that didn't happen?
 
The illegal act would be the transmission of the classified document, and Forbes's overt act would be the payment.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798

External Quote:

(a)Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States
I am sure if you try to entrap someone by selling fake classified materials either party likely wont be able to send them to jail for buying them, nor do I think you would for furnishing said documents.

But I also predict ashton wouldn't be able to sue them for fraud either considering he was intending on buying classified documents.

To be honest I would have liked to find out what happened if he did purchase actual classified documents and open then on youtube, that's a pretty interesting question!
 
Last edited:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798

External Quote:

(a)Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States
Wrong subject matter, 798 is about cryptography, intercepting enemy communications, etc.
Section 798 applies to the willful communication of classified information concerning codes or communications intelligence, or related materials, to an unauthorized person.

I've been linking to this nice, official overview from the start, but apparently neither deirdre nor you took the time to look at it. This wastes everyone's time.

The rest of your post is more speculation that never connects to the legal system.
 
and you didnt waste our time quoting foreign agent legislation? smh.
Do you have evidence that Forbes is not a foreign agent? Why did you quote that paragraph yourself, then??
and how come when Tez speculates you dont reprimand him, as you did to me? hhmmm...
I've learned that @Tezcatlipoca is usually correct on similar issues; that he explains himself readily when I ask; and he did reference "Stitt and James" re: entrapment. In short, I don't think he's speculating at all, and his comments make it clear that he understood my points correctly.
I said, "I'm not really motivated to dig deeper into the law", or I'd have engaged him on some of his claims.
To showcase a difference:
@Tezcatlipoca writes, "he was technically entrapped in that context, just not by law enforcement." This recognizes that, legally, entrapment requires law enforcement to set the trap, and that we're discussing this issue as if, hypothetically, anyone could do it, since the seller is unlikely to be an officer of the law.
tobigtofool (2b2f) writes, "I am sure if you try to entrap someone by selling fake classified materials either party likely wont be able to send them to jail for buying them". Here, we find no indication that 2b2f is aware that the trap must be set by law enforcement. The entirety of his supporting argument is, "I am sure", and that's not helpful.

I objected to your post,
yes. i imagine it is also even worse than knowingly buying stolen goods, but maybe not as bad as attempting to buy a trafficked child sex slave.
, because not only do you apparently not know the penalties for your own crime examples, they're wildly off topic and invite thread derails (entrapment? ;) ). You are obviously speculating here, and it's a sharp contrast to @Tezcatlipoca 's writing style.
 
Do you have evidence that Forbes is not a foreign agent? Why did you quote that paragraph yourself, then??

I've learned that @Tezcatlipoca is usually correct on similar issues; that he explains himself readily when I ask; and he did reference "Stitt and James" re: entrapment. In short, I don't think he's speculating at all, and his comments make it clear that he understood my points correctly.
I said, "I'm not really motivated to dig deeper into the law", or I'd have engaged him on some of his claims.
To showcase a difference:
@Tezcatlipoca writes, "he was technically entrapped in that context, just not by law enforcement." This recognizes that, legally, entrapment requires law enforcement to set the trap, and that we're discussing this issue as if, hypothetically, anyone could do it, since the seller is unlikely to be an officer of the law.
tobigtofool (2b2f) writes, "I am sure if you try to entrap someone by selling fake classified materials either party likely wont be able to send them to jail for buying them". Here, we find no indication that 2b2f is aware that the trap must be set by law enforcement. The entirety of his supporting argument is, "I am sure", and that's not helpful.

I objected to your post,

, because not only do you apparently not know the penalties for your own crime examples, they're wildly off topic and invite thread derails (entrapment? ;) ). It's a sharp contrast to @Tezcatlipoca 's writing style.
This is post #995. Is any of the last 4 pages on-topic?
 
post #903 is Mick on the cloud photo source.
post #914 is Mick on Ashton Forbes's reaction, which is the sub-topic we're discussing now.
Well, that's two. What about the rest? There is about 40 messages per page so 158 or so are off topic (including mine). Not good.
 
Well, that's two. What about the rest? There is about 40 messages per page so 158 or so are off topic (including mine). Not good.
Ashton's turned his claims into a soap opera. We're alas getting tied up in the side plots. Isn't everyone with the faculties to evaluate the evidence in full agreement that this thread has now arrived at the conclusion "beyond all reasonable doubt, hoax", and so effectively is over? If there's any merit in discussing whether Tracy's a slag, that belongs in a new thread - as long as there's new evidence, of course.
 
mouseover generate coordinates as the mouse moves
Erdas Imagine geospatial mapping tool looks like a good candidate to create the background and moving coordinates. It's been around since well before 2014. It allows you to add raster images (or import stock photo such as the cloud image) and generates live coordinates in the bottom left of the screen. Guessing these could be made orange like the "satellite video" using Windows accesability/personalisation options.
Example of it's use here:
Source: https://youtu.be/LURgkQqnOT4?si=hIphEPHRxiWGOCOh&t=52
 
Last edited:
Back
Top