About

About 4Orbs

Most people arrive here wanting to know whether any of this is credible. That's the right question to ask about a site covering MH370, classified propulsion programmes and suppressed physics, so here's how the work is done, where it's weakest, and what to do when you find something wrong.

Scope

What this site is

4Orbs began as an archive of Ashton Forbes' investigation into the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, and it still is one. 781 videos are indexed, transcribed and searchable, with 900 distinct theories extracted from them and cross-referenced against 1,287 sources.

The research section does something different. Those pages take a thread Forbes has opened and test it against material he didn't produce: FOIA releases, patent filings, SEC filings, court records, and the published physics literature. Sometimes that strengthens the case. Sometimes it doesn't, and the page says so.

The single-source problem, stated plainly

A site built around one investigator's work inherits that investigator's blind spots. It's the most reasonable objection anyone raises about this project, and pretending otherwise would be worse than the problem.

The answer isn't that Forbes is always right. It's that the archive and the research are held to different standards. The archive records what he said, attributed to him. The research verifies against independent primary sources, and where a claim can't be traced past a single origin, the page says that too. Several research pages exist specifically to test a claim that turned out to be weaker than it first looked.

Standards

How claims are graded

Nothing here is presented as simply true or false. Every substantive claim carries a confidence level, and the bands mean specific things: whether the evidence is documentary or inferential, whether independent sources converge, and whether a more ordinary explanation has been ruled out. A claim resting on one person's testimony is graded differently from one resting on a court record, even when both point the same way.

Claims are also tagged by how mainstream science currently treats the underlying physics, which is a separate axis from how well-evidenced the claim is. Speculative physics with good documentation and well-established physics with thin documentation are different problems, and collapsing them into one score would hide both.

The full definitions, including what each band requires and how evidence types are weighted, are on the methodology page.

Read the methodology

Authorship

Who writes it

4Orbs is published as an organisation rather than under a byline. The research deep dives and the Science 101 guides are AI-drafted and human-directed: a person sets the question, picks the sources and approves what ships, and an AI system does the drafting against a documented process. Every citation is resolved before it's published, and a separate fact-check pass reviews the draft without having written it.

That's disclosed because you should be able to weigh it. It doesn't lower the standard a claim has to meet, and it does mean the failure modes are worth knowing about. The methodology page explains what the disclosure changes and what it doesn't.

How this is written

Accountability

When we get it wrong

There's a public corrections log, and it currently lists 28 entries. It's generated from the pages themselves rather than maintained by hand, because a correction log kept by hand fails quietly and always in the flattering direction. Corrections are separated from currency updates, so a claim that was wrong when written is distinguished from one that was accurate and then overtaken by events.

Errors get fixed at the source and the log entry ships in the same change as the fix. If you've found one, the fastest way to get it corrected is to send the page URL and what's wrong with it.

Corrections log Report an error