Alright, now I have a list of potential owners for that plane. Only two companies.
Second question: Do either of the two companies own a plane that looks like that one?
Well, I checked them out, and Voyaguer Airways seems own three different models of aircraft. One of them, the CRJ-200, seems to be a match for our UN aircraft in the video. So it seems this plane, based on the evidence so far, belongs to Voyageur Airways.
They're a charter company. Alright, but where is their headquarters location?
1500 Airport Road, North Bay, ON P1B 8G2 Canada
So what is the conclusion supported by the evidence so far?
This UN aircraft is a charter CRJ-200, owned by Voyageur Airways. The aircraft is currently parked at their headquarters in North Bay, Ontario, at the airport, which makes sense for a charter company. That is probably the airport where that plane lives, since the company is headquartered in that area and contracts with the UN for charter services.
C-FXLH. Which is a CRJ-200 registered to the company mentioned above. This mystery appears to be solved. That plane lived there before the truckers ever arrived and, if UN troops are in Ontario, it's hard to use that plane as evidence of it.
I was correct. That specific aircraft is a CRJ-200 that the company uses for the United Nations charters. And it is parked at the headquarters of the company that owns it, which is headquartered in North Bay, Ontario.
As far as the evidence shows, there is absolutely nothing suspicious about a UN aircraft sitting at the HQ of the company that owns it. They were there long before the truckers showed up.
I'm sure it's possible to wring a conspiracy out of this somehow, but it has plenty of reasons to be there that don't involve ferrying in undercover UN troops.
BTW, please remember this next time you accuse me of not researching your sources.
It can't be that something boring and routine got spotlighted and debunked as anything interesting. Everything that seems important to me MUST be important, and if it doesn't appear important, it's probably because THEY are hiding something about it. Not because someone found a pattern in something that was not a pattern and made a bad assumption.
Do I have that correct?
And to be clear, you're the one who says that I'm not researching. How did I find such an obvious clue as a tail number in a video like that before you said anything? In your own source?
My initial analysis was done without a tail number because the video was too dark. I wasn't even aware there was a video with a tail number, and you were. You could always have proven who owned this thing just with a quick search.
Did you not see the tail number and realize that you can just look that up to see who owns the plane? Did you not watch the video? Or did you not make the connection about the importance of this evidence until I pointed it out after doing your own research?
One of us dug deeper into that source than the other, and all you posted was the link. At this point, you trying to mock me about the depth of my investigation feels like you trying to save face for downvoting me and then posting a resource to both me and the OP that you thought was going to counter me, but actually just proved my theory.
The underserved superiority you've demonstrated to me since the beginning needs to be reigned in, man. It's never panning out, and research doesn't need to be an intelligence contest.
Predicting that a human trafficking sting is going to occur during the Superbowl in one of the country's largest cities when it happens every year in many large cities (and is easily researchable) isn't exactly demonstrating the prowess you're hoping it would.
Well if a cop isnt properly and legal in uniform, which includes a badge, name tag and badge number....then he's not a cop, and if hes not legally a cop, then can he legally arrest you? Maybe thats why they are throwing people in vans and driving them out of town and releasing them.
I did some research into this.
First question: Who might have a UN plane parked in Canada?
Well, let's see if the UN has any companies it works with from Canada. I took a look at the page listing their Canadian contractors..
https://www.un.org/Depts/ptd/fr/contract-awards/343?field_date_3_value%5Bvalue%5D%5Byear%5D=2016&field_date_3_value_1%5Bvalue%5D%5Bmonth%5D=12&field_text_20_2_value=&field_country_tid_selective=1036&field_text_75_2_value=&field_commodity_group_ca_tid_selective=All&items_per_page=10
Alright, now I have a list of potential owners for that plane. Only two companies.
Second question: Do either of the two companies own a plane that looks like that one?
Well, I checked them out, and Voyaguer Airways seems own three different models of aircraft. One of them, the CRJ-200, seems to be a match for our UN aircraft in the video. So it seems this plane, based on the evidence so far, belongs to Voyageur Airways.
https://www.planespotters.net/airline/Voyageur-Airways
Third question: Why is a UN plane owned by Voyageur Airways in North Bay, Canada?
Well, let's look and see who Voyageur Airways actually is.
https://airways.voyav.com/
They're a charter company. Alright, but where is their headquarters location?
So what is the conclusion supported by the evidence so far?
This UN aircraft is a charter CRJ-200, owned by Voyageur Airways. The aircraft is currently parked at their headquarters in North Bay, Ontario, at the airport, which makes sense for a charter company. That is probably the airport where that plane lives, since the company is headquartered in that area and contracts with the UN for charter services.
EDIT: thanks to u/zeitreise
Go to the 14 minute point in this video to see the tail number of the aircraft:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YA3Uwms5HW8
C-FXLH. Which is a CRJ-200 registered to the company mentioned above. This mystery appears to be solved. That plane lived there before the truckers ever arrived and, if UN troops are in Ontario, it's hard to use that plane as evidence of it.
Thank you much for the thorough effort.
14 minutes in, I have a shot of the tail number.
C-FXLH. Blurry, but I can make it out.
So does that belong to the company I tracked down?
https://www.planespotters.net/airline/Voyageur-Airways
Yep.
I was correct. That specific aircraft is a CRJ-200 that the company uses for the United Nations charters. And it is parked at the headquarters of the company that owns it, which is headquartered in North Bay, Ontario.
As far as the evidence shows, there is absolutely nothing suspicious about a UN aircraft sitting at the HQ of the company that owns it. They were there long before the truckers showed up.
I'm sure it's possible to wring a conspiracy out of this somehow, but it has plenty of reasons to be there that don't involve ferrying in undercover UN troops.
BTW, please remember this next time you accuse me of not researching your sources.
Uh...
Alright. Sure.
It can't be that something boring and routine got spotlighted and debunked as anything interesting. Everything that seems important to me MUST be important, and if it doesn't appear important, it's probably because THEY are hiding something about it. Not because someone found a pattern in something that was not a pattern and made a bad assumption.
Do I have that correct?
And to be clear, you're the one who says that I'm not researching. How did I find such an obvious clue as a tail number in a video like that before you said anything? In your own source?
My initial analysis was done without a tail number because the video was too dark. I wasn't even aware there was a video with a tail number, and you were. You could always have proven who owned this thing just with a quick search.
Did you not see the tail number and realize that you can just look that up to see who owns the plane? Did you not watch the video? Or did you not make the connection about the importance of this evidence until I pointed it out after doing your own research?
One of us dug deeper into that source than the other, and all you posted was the link. At this point, you trying to mock me about the depth of my investigation feels like you trying to save face for downvoting me and then posting a resource to both me and the OP that you thought was going to counter me, but actually just proved my theory.
The underserved superiority you've demonstrated to me since the beginning needs to be reigned in, man. It's never panning out, and research doesn't need to be an intelligence contest.
Because at a certain point, after finding nothing, and digging, and finding nothing, and digging, you are no longer really digging for truth.
You're digging in hopes that the people waiting for you at the top get bored and leave, because otherwise, they might know you were wrong.
And it's not always easy to know when you've crossed the line from suspicious to desperate.
You predicted that a human trafficking sting would happen in LA around the Super Bowl?
2022 https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/02/nearly-500-people-arrested-california-human-trafficking-sting-operation/
2021 https://www.wfla.com/news/hillsborough-county/dozens-arrested-in-super-bowl-human-trafficking-sting-sheriff-says/
2016 https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2615991-superbowl-50-human-trafficking-sting-unveils-dozens-ofvictims-and-suspects
Yeah, the Superbowl is a major time for human traffickers to get work done, and they do stings all over the country every year over Superbowl weekend.
Atlanta, 2019 https://www.11alive.com/article/sports/nfl/superbowl/fbi-over-100-arrested-in-metro-atlanta-super-bowl-child-sex-trafficking-sting-several-children-recovered/85-949c965c-9fb2-4b03-9714-0690aaa53774
Multiple others: https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/28607449/the-super-bowl-remains-target-human-trafficking
Predicting that a human trafficking sting is going to occur during the Superbowl in one of the country's largest cities when it happens every year in many large cities (and is easily researchable) isn't exactly demonstrating the prowess you're hoping it would.
If the "Cops" spoke... you'd quickly find out they aren't Canadian.
A New Jersey accent would be easy to pick out.
A British accent would be loud and clear.
If they don't even speak English... that would be a clue.
and they probably can't spik engrish
IdK in canada but here you have every right to know the cops name and badge number.
I recall sometime over the last few years, the riot police in the UK were shown to have obscured their id and names, with duct tape.
Well if a cop isnt properly and legal in uniform, which includes a badge, name tag and badge number....then he's not a cop, and if hes not legally a cop, then can he legally arrest you? Maybe thats why they are throwing people in vans and driving them out of town and releasing them.
Any legal people know the law on police identification.Does an emergency remove that law,is it a national or state specific law?
Full blown invasion of foreign troops.