New MH370 Hydroacoustic Data!

[00:00:01]Every team, every topic, everywhere.

[00:00:04]This is Believe.

[00:00:07][music] [music] Breaking news. We have new evidence in the search for MH370.

[00:00:23]Specifically, new hydro acoustic data from a network of hydrophones in the southern Indian Ocean that were recording on the day that MH370 disappeared. This is different from but complimentary to the hydro acoustic data collected by the CTBTO network that I've discussed in earlier episodes. This data is from a French hydro acoustic array, a group of hydrophones that had been deployed just a few months before MH370's disappearance. The data was analyzed and submitted to French and Australian official investigators, but it was never released to the public until now.

[00:01:03]This data essentially gives us a whole another window into the question of whether MH370 made a noise when it crashed into the ocean surface and if so where did that happen? This is what I'm going to be talking about right now.

[00:01:33]Hi everybody, Jeff Wise back with you for another episode of Finding MA370, the only podcast in the world where we go deep into every aspect of the world's greatest aviation mystery with the help of subject matter experts from around the world. Just a heads up, at the end of the episode, I'm going to discuss your answers to the survey question from last episode. Where should Ocean Infiniti look for MA370 during its upcoming search? I'm also going to thank the very special group of people who support the podcast, including some who are doing so in a new and exciting way.

[00:02:08]So, stick around for that. Now, on to the main topic, hydrophone data.

[00:02:14]As you'll recall back in episode six of this season, we talked about a paper from a UK scientist named Usama Kadri, who analyzed various plane crashes that had been detected by a hydrophone network maintained by the comprehensive testban treaty organization, CTBTO.

[00:02:34]Be hearing that acronym a lot. This is essentially an array of underwater microphones that are designed to pick up the sound of nuclear explosions that might be made by countries that are trying to develop the atomic bomb. Join the the club of the exclusive club of countries that have nuclear weapons.

[00:02:53]Everybody wants to be in that club. Of course, in listening for that, they hear all sorts of other things.

[00:03:01]Kadri looked at historic examples of plane crashes and he found that the CTBTO was able to detect them from thousands of kilometers away and he argued in that paper that they should have been able to detect MH370 as well.

[00:03:18]The fact that they couldn't was interesting. Cadre said he found one sound that seemed the most likely but it didn't seem to be in the right place.

[00:03:27]maybe if they had better data they could find clarity on that issue.

[00:03:32]Godre's at work got a lot of attention in the press when it came out. I was h more than happy to talk about it but but after I put out that episode that was number six uh of this season the the whole paper got criticized uh and so to address the controversy I brought on one of those critics. I interviewed hydro acoustic researcher David Delasto. He explained why he didn't think that Cadre's claimed detection was correct and why he thought that if the CTBTO network did detect MH370 that meant that the searchers had been looking in the wrong place and that the plane crashed in a totally different part of the Indian Ocean.

[00:04:16]Now I think that I probably do agree with uh Dr. Kadri that if the airplane crashed much like the F-35 did, it could have made a loud enough sound to be heard. Uh, and it could have made >> that's really that's really important.

[00:04:31]Um, I I think this the state of play as I see it from your perspective. I think Alec actually disagrees, but I I feel like your position is, and definitely correct me if I'm wrong, but if it was a high-speed impact, it would have been detected. If it was a low-speed impact, it probably wouldn't have been detected.

[00:04:51]And I guess in terms of if it was detected, it was a high-speed impact.

[00:04:56]>> Okay, >> I would say that. And if it wasn't detected, well, I can say if it was detected, it wasn't on the seventh arc.

[00:05:03]If the satellite data comes into question, uh, or becomes unreliable, >> right?

[00:05:10]>> There was a sound that was made right here. It's not like it was made along some 6,000 mi arc. It was made at this spot right here. Right.

[00:05:18]>> I think that Alec and I are in agreement that there was a sound and it was made right there. And >> right, he just thinks it was probably an earthquake or something.

[00:05:26]>> Well, yeah. He doesn't doubt the satellite. He doesn't doubt the rocket scientists. I don't know. I'm a skeptic.

[00:05:31]So >> So as of 2025, that's where the matter stood. If the plane did indeed go into the southern Indian Ocean, it didn't seem to have made any detectable sound in doing so. or if it did so it was really far away from the seventh arc and so the searches were looking in the wrong place.

[00:05:53]I did not think and I don't think anybody thought seriously that there that there could be new hydro acoustic data to come along.

[00:06:04]But one of the great things about having a podcast is that people reach out to you with all kinds of interesting ideas and leads. I guess at this point I should drop in the parenthetical comment that hey if you have anything interesting you want to share or say to me or or data or insights I am here hit me up comments uh show pagefindingm370.com I'm very easy to reach anyway this April April 2026 I got an email that started out like this good morning let me start with a brief introduction my name is Robert Parker and I am a retired US Navy sonar technician. I spent the last 20 years of my 30-year career as an asent acoustic intelligence specialist and spending a significant significant amount of time analyzing sonar data and underwater recordings.

[00:06:58]Parker went on to add in his email, "With my background in acoustics and some experience with finding sources of data, I came across a possible source of acoustic data that has likely not been screened for MH370 related data. The Ohas bio has several boys which were mored in the Indian Ocean recording data for whale surveys and seismic events. I reached out to the organization that had the data, but I received no response. with your credentials as a journalist, I thought you may get more traction in trying to get that data for analysis.

[00:07:34]Honestly, my reaction to this was to think, oh great, another rabbit hole to go down. Honestly, I really doubted that whatever this thing was, it was going to have any useful data that no one's heard of. And that seemed like a very far-fetched idea.

[00:07:54]I mean surely if there was anything there we would have heard about it by now would make sense but you know it's kind of my job to track down any and every conceivable lead relating to MA370. So I did some googling I sent some emails and sure enough I found the researcher who ran this network and he sent me the data. He sent me the paper that he had written up. He didn't send me the raw data but he sent me his conclusions and it was it was actually pretty interesting. I'm going to put a link to this paper in the show notes. You can also find it right here.

[00:08:31]I really want to interview the author of the paper, Jean Eve Roy.

[00:08:36]I was also interested in speaking to Robert about his work in the US Navy intelligence. I love talking to people that work in secret sleuthy stuff like that.

[00:08:48]Robert agreed to talk to me.

[00:08:50]This is one of the things that I talked to him about.

[00:08:53]>> I was in the Navy for 30 years. Um I was what uh the last 20 of which I spent at the office of naval intelligence um as what's called an acoustic intelligence specialist or an hacking specialist.

[00:09:03]It's a program that was started back in you know the 1960s 1962 uh in response to the Soviets and the number of submarines they had. And you know we needed recordings of these so we could conduct intelligence on them. Most of the job is going to see to support ships and submarines actually conducting those intelligence operations looking for those recordings to to to find those foreign platforms and make recordings so they can be analyzed and bring them back to ONI. Um, in general, we worked directly for the co of a of a ship or submarine uh when we were on their their their platform and we helped them get in the right place and do the right thing uh as far as getting the intelligence.

[00:09:43]I've I've operated every current system that's in the Navy right now. Um sonar techch as a as a sonar techch. There's tot there's whole mounted sonar systems or sonoies. Um and on the on the that network side that you were talking about the installed the network you're talking about I USS >> integrated under sea surveillance system. I've I've heard this comment from viewers before, which is, listen, the United States has this absolutely vast military. They have satellites overhead. They've got hydrophones everywhere. They know what's happening everywhere. If this happened, they must know what happened to it.

[00:10:24]>> So, I I I have to answer that question without really answering that question because of the the classification obviously. Sure.

[00:10:30]>> And if you think about it this way, um I mentioned that the the program came about in um the 60s.

[00:10:37]>> Mhm.

[00:10:37]>> Um and that that that's the same period that ISS program kind of started. So if you look back into it was called Project Hartwell or Jezebel at the time. Um we wanted to put those sensors in places where our potential adversary, the Soviets, uh would operate so that we could actually see them. Um and if you if you follow the history of you know our adversaries uh the same thing kind of applies today. Um those systems are very expensive to design, build, maintain and then um so you kind of put them where they're going to do the most good, right?

[00:11:14]>> Yeah.

[00:11:15]>> You put them where your adversaries are going to be. And if you look at the Indian Ocean, um look around the Indian Ocean, you can you can count the number of adver ad adversaries or potential adversaries there that have submarines.

[00:11:27]>> Uh and it's not nearly as much as you would say in other oceans.

[00:11:30]>> Yeah. Yeah.

[00:11:31]>> So, uh if you if you're asking where the why we don't have recordings from that type of system, that would be the reason because we don't have a potential adversary in that region. the the processing of acoustic data is very robust. Okay. at ONI what is actually it's now the Farragate technical analysis center is the portion of OI that does that um and anytime something happens in the ocean um there are questions that come to ONI you know do you have anything have you seen anything can you look at this data for us so like uh the Air France um that you you've referred to many many times in the >> 247 the question was hey do you guys have did you see this is there any acoustic data that you can share same thing with San Juan anything that syncs in the ocean. Uh that the Aken program, the Aken specialists um especially kind of get involved on the fringes of that, looking for that data and and and trying to help with that data.

[00:12:29]>> So what would happen if it was picked up >> by the military? Would the military stick out their hand and say, "By the way, >> we can give you some >> because that would possibly give away a capability." The the military would not directly say, "Hey, we've got this thing."

[00:12:50]>> But if um if one of the sensors detected something, we'll say um they would be able to tell people where to look. they would be able to tell the right people where to look if that makes sense. So they they they get a call, we've got some data, you probably want to focus your search in this area without revealing the source of that data or how they know.

[00:13:16]>> So I'm going to read between the lines on MA370 and say that the fact that they didn't find the plane in the southern Indian Ocean means that nobody sort of winked and nodded and, you know, stuck their elbow in the ribs and said, "By the way, look here.

[00:13:30]I would say that's probably a fair assessment.

[00:13:34]>> It took me a little while to get a hold of Jean Eve Royer. I finally caught up with him while he was vacationing in the French Alps. He very generously uh agreed to take time from what seemed like a pretty awesome vacation to chat with me. So, thank you for that.

[00:13:52]>> Jeanie, thank you so much for taking the time. Uh you've been you've spent a career doing really fascinating work with hydro acoustics listening to the sounds of the ocean. Yeah.

[00:14:03]>> Yeah, that's correct. Yeah.

[00:14:06]>> And specifically, you've worked with these large networks of hydrophones that are mostly anchored in the sofar channel. So this is a deep layer of water where sound can travel can propagate really far with very little loss.

[00:14:21]>> Yeah, that's great. Yeah. Mhm. And what are some of the things that you're listening for?

[00:14:26]>> Um, initially we we were interested in in a the seismicity, >> small earthquakes that that are not recorded on land because they are too small and the the ocean is too remote. Um, so um and the seismicity tells us about the dynamics of seafloor spreading. Um so that was the the the primary objective and then um since we are recording low frequency um sounds um in this um frequency range we have also all the uh the calls from the large whales >> and what was the time frame during which this network the one we're talking about today is called ohasis bio.

[00:15:13]>> Yeah. Right. Yeah. So it was it was set early 2010.

[00:15:18]>> Okay. and we recovered all the instrument in 2023. So for 13 years we have almost 13 years of continuous recording. U now does this mean that you would sink the hydrophones into the ocean and then and then recover them later to record to recover the data as well?

[00:15:38]>> Yeah, every year because I mean they so all the hydrophones are autonomous. So you get access to the data only if you recover the instrument. So, and then so and in addition we had to change the the battery and and the empty the memories and and so every year I mean there was a maintenance cruise to to maintain the the network.

[00:16:04]>> If you spent a year recording sound that's a lot of data.

[00:16:09]>> It is. Yeah. We've got about two two terabyte of data.

[00:16:14]This was not the only hydrophone network that was operating at the time. There was another one called CTBTO.

[00:16:23]>> Yeah. Right.

[00:16:24]>> Which has also which has already received a lot of attention. A lot of papers have been written about that data. The investigators into the MH370 disappearance actually included multiple studies in their final report.

[00:16:41]Why was Ohas bio not talked about so much?

[00:16:45]>> Um I mean for one the CTBTO is is a real time network so you get the the data directly. So, so that's why the data were investigated right away uh when when when they were looking for the uh for the flight. And uh ours is is just delayed because we usually we we go there in the um in the southern summer so in January, February of every year.

[00:17:14]And so >> the yeah the crash was in March. So we we got the data only on January February 2015.

[00:17:24]So much later.

[00:17:26]>> I see. But you did so the report that you sent to me, the paper that you sent, you had also submitted that to French and Australian >> Yeah.

[00:17:36]>> investigator. Yeah. Yeah.

[00:17:39]>> Um I hadn't seen it and it doesn't seem like it's been published anywhere in the general media that I'm aware of.

[00:17:48]No, because because uh yeah they it didn't bring any any new information I mean relative to the CTBTO investigations I mean CTBTO data investigations and also the Australian had the local network of Perth uh which they use also u right so that's the reason why it was it was it was not published >> I mean I wouldn't say that it doesn't add any information. I mean, it's a whole another data set that essentially it it matches, I would say, what the CTBTO network detected, which is nothing that is identifiable as MH370.

[00:18:33]>> Yeah. Yeah, that's correct. Yeah.

[00:18:36]>> But that itself is is data. I mean, you've got more it's a dup it's a it's a duplication. You know, scientists love to duplicate their findings.

[00:18:44]>> Yeah. Yeah. Right. Yeah.

[00:18:48]I just want to jump in here and say that I think this point really bears clarification.

[00:18:54]Jean isn't saying that his findings didn't reveal anything new. I emailed him later and he clarified that what he meant is this. He said, quote, "After I sent my report to the Australians with the data, they doublech checked my locations with the CTBTO records and as far as I recall, they ruled out all the events I pointed out, i.e. He confirmed that they were either earthquakes or ice quakes.

[00:19:20]So that to the extent that the Ohas bio data over overlapped with the CTBTO data, it confirmed that they were not hearing MH370.

[00:19:34]So by nothing new, quote unquote nothing new, what he means is that like the earlier analysis of the CTBO data, his data found nothing that could be interpreted as a plane hitting the ocean in the time frame of MH370s running out of fuel at the seventh arc. Now the a researcher in the UK named Usama Kadri got a lot of attention for a paper he published in 2024 I believe in which he in which he made the case that if the plane had hit the ocean surface it should have made a loud enough sound that it that that the sound energy would have entered the so far channel and should have been detected. Do you have an opinion on that?

[00:20:16]No, no, no. Uh, yeah, it's hard to say.

[00:20:20]Either either the plane u I mean not landed but um or either it went it went straight into the water. Uh so that could produce some noise. No, I don't. In fact, the problem is that we we don't know what we are looking for >> in term of of of waves. If if because there is another uh theory that the um if if the plane managed to to land uh on the sea that the um um it could have sunk and imploded in underwater and that and that would have produced a lot of noise. Um >> interesting. But u no in fact >> well it might not tell us what happened to the plane but it does allow us to maybe rule out certain things as you say like probably if the plane had sunk through the sofar channel which is quite deep. It's I think more than a kilometer deep. The pressure is very intense. It could have imploded even say glass bottles or something like that.

[00:21:31]Um yeah, but I mean to make a loud sound I mean intuitively you need a large volume of uh of of self implosion. Um >> okay.

[00:21:49]>> Uh have you heard about this um Argentinian submarine that sank south of the Atlantic? And >> yes, that was one of the that was one of the examples that Usamic Kadri cited the ARRA San Juan. It was detected and I think that that detection helped to locate the sub.

[00:22:10]>> Exactly.

[00:22:11]>> Of course, that's something that probably did implode if not in the sofar channel than closer to >> No, no. It's uh in fact you don't need to to implode into the sofa channel because more or less any sounds produced in the in the water column will be trapped by the sofa channel.

[00:22:29]>> Oh, I see.

[00:22:30]>> Um is because the sofa channel is is is more or less the the seawater depths. I mean it goes from the surface down to 3,000 m about uh depending on the latitude of course but then so it so it's not a a narrow layer. It's it's really the whole water column and then >> and then the waves the the fact that the the waves are are propading um propagating very far is is because the sound waves uh just be because it's a low uh sound velocity zone. So the waves uh don't don't bounce on the surface nor on the on the sea bottom and they and they just travel within the the sofa channel without any reflection. That's the reason why the the sounds propagate without attenuating um over very long distances especially low frequency sound >> right >> and powerful enough of course.

[00:23:39]So there's the possibility that the plane ditched sort of gently touched down on the surface in a way that would not generate a lot of uh sound energy.

[00:23:49]Maybe that would be hard to detect. On the other hand, if the plane impacted at high speed at high angle, there have been cases where planes according to Kadri have been detected when they make that kind of highly energetic impact >> or uh as another um acoustic expert I talked to indicated that as you said, if there was some kind of something of sufficiently large volume inside the plane that would implode as it descended that might create enough sound energy.

[00:24:23]>> Yeah. Yeah.

[00:24:25]Yeah. That's that's the true possibility of of generating I mean sound powerful enough to be detected far away and the the other problem we which we had on the OSB data is that uh so the hydrophones are further west relative to to the the CTBO station of of Australia >> and then at the very time at the very time of the of the crash. There was a big um a lot of noise in the data due to seismic exploration.

[00:25:04]Um, so I don't know if you I mean I have some figures in my in my report where you see all the seismic shots and they are very powerful and they it's very hard to to detect anything behind it or and >> so if if one of these shocks was going off at the moment that the plane impacted the surface, >> it could mask.

[00:25:31]>> Although would it be possible that Because these things occurred at different locations, the sounds would arrive at different times at the different uh hydrophones and so it it might coincide at one hydrophone but not at another.

[00:25:55]>> Yeah, that's possible. But but but but the the distance between hydrophones are in the order of thousand kilometer. So I mean the delay would be about I mean half an hour only or >> so I don't think it would um I mean in fact uh on most of the hydrophones we had this seismic shots uh uh I mean you yeah you you could spot them right away almost and even on the I think on the CTBTO station of Diego Garcia Yeah, they were also obscured by these seismic shots.

[00:26:37]>> Right. Right.

[00:26:38]>> But >> another problem is that your hydrophone that was closest to the presumed impact site would did what did it did not come back up when you gave it the signal. Is that >> it went up? Uh and then but the the captain uh goofed and then uh and then the instrument went into the propellers of the ship and just sank.

[00:27:02]>> Oh no.

[00:27:03]>> So so it was really a mishap. Yeah.

[00:27:08]Yeah.

[00:27:11]>> Yeah. It was the first time this this this captain was was recovering such instruments and he felt he he knew everything and but he goofed completely.

[00:27:23]>> Oh my god. He ran it over and chopped it up with a propeller.

[00:27:26]>> Yeah. Yeah. So yeah, all the all the boy was was chopped off in bits and pieces.

[00:27:33]There were plenty scattered on the on the on the sea surface and the bed and the instrument just sank.

[00:27:41]>> That is really really >> So we we know more or less where it is, but it's 4,000 deep.

[00:27:48]>> Oh my god.

[00:27:48]>> 4,000 m deep. So, and also the instrument I don't I don't think would would have um I mean could stand such pressure.

[00:27:59]>> The data is dead.

[00:28:02]Yeah, more more likely. And it's unlikely that we'll get any submersible to dive to to pick it up on on the seafloor.

[00:28:11]>> H >> um you must have been very excited when you realized that in in Mar you probably realized right away that your instruments might be useful in helping to solve this mystery.

[00:28:26]>> Yeah. And in fact I I was contacted by the the the French office called BBA.

[00:28:33]It's a bureau of accident. I mean they always investigate all the catastrophe. I mean airplane catastrophe or >> the BA don't denies >> and then they so they um they contacted me because at the time they were looking for the black boxes.

[00:28:51]>> Yeah. And but the trouble is that the black boxes they their emission is 37 kHz.

[00:28:59]So and we are recording only between zero and 120 Hz. So there was no way we could we could >> So they were hoping that you would be able to detect the acoustic pings sent by the black boxes. It's a hydro it's it's an ultrasound.

[00:29:16]>> Yeah. It's Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's above human hearing frequency whereas the things you listen to are below human hearing.

[00:29:23]>> Oh yeah, exactly.

[00:29:25]>> Also, I think that these pingers only travel they're only detectable at several kilometers at most.

[00:29:33]>> Yeah, they are not that powerful. Yeah, that's the second difficulty. So, um >> Right.

[00:29:40]>> So, I couldn't help >> Yeah. Well, it's I mean it it absolutely blew me away. One of the listeners to my podcast asked me about your network and and asked if the data would be available. I reached out to you and you very generously shared the paper. It's fascinating to me that 12 years after the plane disappeared, we have a new data set essentially because your because your data came to light which >> Yeah. Well, in fact, as soon as we recovered the the data, I I looked into them and that's when I produced my report and send the the information to the Australian um and the French authorities and in fact they I also sent the data and they I mean recomputed and reanalyzeed the data and uh didn't find anything new relative to to what was known from the CTPTO stations.

[00:30:42]>> Right. Right.

[00:30:44]>> So >> interesting. Again, I would argue that not finding something is in itself a kind of finding. I mean, we have a more robust understanding of what was detected uh or what was detectable at the time. So, it it confirms what we already suspected, but in a way that I think is is has some scientific usefulness.

[00:31:07]>> Yeah. But still I mean we we cannot answer the question what kind of noise we we we were looking for. I mean we had had to be looked for u depending on on on what happened either touchdown or just direct dive or an an implosion after touchdown. I mean that was three hypothesis.

[00:31:30]>> Yeah.

[00:31:32]But it was it, you know, as as I've likened it in the past, it's sort of like the famous the dog that didn't bark in the night. One of the things that's really characteristic and interesting about this case is the shortage of data.

[00:31:44]There's so many aspects about it where we we would normally expect to have much more information about a plane that uh that that flies from A to B and we just don't. We have very little to go on. But Jeanie, I'm so grateful to you for taking the time. You're you're having your vacation. It looks like you're in a wonderful place >> and I hope you're having a wonderful time.

[00:32:05]>> Yeah. Yeah, indeed.

[00:32:07]>> Um I'm very jealous actually. Um but thank you so much and um I appreciate you sharing your your expertise and information.

[00:32:15]>> Yep. You're welcome.

[00:32:18]>> So there you have it. Another data set which might have resolved the mystery of MH370 and there's not any trace of the plane in it.

[00:32:28]Is that evidence that the plane didn't go into southern Indian Ocean or another piece of bad luck in a case that just has a ridiculous amount of bad luck? There's a ton of evidence that should be there but it just isn't. Not least the wreckage on the seafloor.

[00:32:48]Okay, that's enough of that. Let's move on to those topics that I mentioned at the top of the show. First of all, a big shout out to all the people who have stepped up to support the show financially. I am so so grateful to you. We have a new YouTube member, that's Marcus RF7, a new Substack paid subscriber, Tommore [email protected].

[00:33:15]Thank you so much. I really, really am grateful to you for your support. And remember, even if you don't want to become a paid subscriber, you can sign up for free at the Finding MH370 show page, that's finding MH370.com, and get a free newsletter that goes out with each episode. That way, you can make sure that you're getting the latest, hottest stuff about MH370 as it pops. Okay. Finally, one really neat thing that happened with the last episode was that a bunch of people just straight up sent me money, which [laughter] I think is cool. Um, we had um Call of the Wild official sent me uh 20 Canadian dollars and said, "Jeff, I am thrilled to see this news.

[00:34:02]This was about the restart of the search. I am looking forward to your continued thoughts and analysis in light of this new effort. Your content has been thoughtprovoking. The Mind Hunter video is one I've gone back to many times. Wonderful. Thank you so much.

[00:34:14]That's so great to hear. Classic Contrarian sent me $2.79 Canadian cents.

[00:34:20]Said, "You're a legend, bro. Enjoy a nice energizing cup." Oh, on me uh with a Malaysian flag. Thank you so much. Um Jay Spelino sent me $50 and just said thanks. Wow. I'm for Clemp. Lisa Gregory5192 sent me $5 and said I follow your every word. I am so stoked that you guys did that. That's really, really, really, really cool. Thank you. Okay, very, very last thing. Let's talk about the survey question I posted along with the last episode. The question was, "Malaysia says it's giving Ocean Infinity another year to search for the wreckage of MH370. Where should they look?"

[00:35:03]Well, as you can see, just shy of 60% said that they should keep looking or they have been looking close to the seventh arc. I think that's the one I probably would have gone for. Uh, as I've talked about in previous episodes, that's where I think the most solid analytical case could be made. Um, I might have to do an update on that topic uh in a future episode soon. 8% for the South China Sea. That's where French journalist Floros Dashangi thinks it went. I'm skeptical. I think if the US had shot it down there as she proposed, then the wreckage there should have been some wreckage there. 13% for Diego Garcia. That one is baffling to me. I just don't think there's any evidence of that. But to each his own. Uh a whopping 19% one in five saying that none of the above. got all kinds of ideas there laid out in the 71 comments that the survey got. I encourage you to look through and see what ideas people are interested in.

[00:36:03]Okay, really interesting results. Thank you to everyone who played along. I love to hear what you guys think is going on with this case. Keep an eye out for the next survey question and sign up for that newsletter so you know right away when the next episode drops. For now, uh this is Jeff Wise and I'll see you next time.

[00:36:23]If you like the show, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe.

[00:36:28]It really does help the show to grow.

[00:36:30]Thank you for listening.

[00:36:32][cheering]