Everybody's got questions and suspicions, but here's my rather subtle one: If you're editing dramatic video footage for YouTube, why exclude the exciting moment when the engine suddenly quits? Why edit out the suspense of your repeated attempts to restart the engine? Why omit the drama of your repeated radio calls?
I think if you're a YouTube narcissist, you leave everything in that attracts attention and views. Now of course maybe if your ego is especially fragile, you edit out anything that makes you look bad. (Bad in your own opinion, mind you. There were numerous things left in that make him look bad in my opinion, but I digress.) So maybe he thought he sounded panicky on the radio, and maybe he thought he looked inept trying to restart the engine (or maybe he was too dumb to try either of those), but that still leaves the moment the engine quits - why leave that out?
Now you know what they say about assume: it puts U between me and some ass. Which I don't appreciate. But nonetheless I assume that moment is not shown from the cockpit camera because he killed the engine. And if he killed the engine, he probably never tried to restart it, and never made any radio calls.
It's kind of like when your cell phone is turned off all day, on the same day your spouse happens to get murdered. Nobody can triangulate & prove you were at the crime scene... but.........
Okay, but if he’s faking the video and the most believable video would show the part where the engine stops, then why wouldn’t he include that in the fake video?
When you have an engine failure, don't you think the most exciting, watchable, share-able drama would happen inside the cockpit? He has a camera in the cockpit, but he chose to only show footage from takeoff, cruise, and ditch.
If attempts at recovery, contacting ATC, or searching for a safe landing ever occurred, he chose not to include them. Which is very strange for a person who is clearly editing for drama and virality in the rest of the video. Why didn't he include that footage?
A reasonable suspicion therefore is that he didn't include them because he didn't have any footage of them, because he never tried to restart the engine or call for help, because he wanted the drama of the ditch and crash.
Per the comment you're replying to, "...that moment is not shown from the cockpit camera because he killed the engine. And if he killed the engine, he probably never tried to restart it, and never made any radio calls."
Well you're sort of re-stating my point, except in terms of believability instead of interest/drama. In the scenario where he's faking the video, that part is the part that's fake and ruins the believability.
I think if you're a YouTube narcissist, you leave everything in that attracts attention and views. Now of course maybe if your ego is especially fragile, you edit out anything that makes you look bad. (Bad in your own opinion, mind you. There were numerous things left in that make him look bad in my opinion, but I digress.) So maybe he thought he sounded panicky on the radio, and maybe he thought he looked inept trying to restart the engine (or maybe he was too dumb to try either of those), but that still leaves the moment the engine quits - why leave that out?
Now you know what they say about assume: it puts U between me and some ass. Which I don't appreciate. But nonetheless I assume that moment is not shown from the cockpit camera because he killed the engine. And if he killed the engine, he probably never tried to restart it, and never made any radio calls.
It's kind of like when your cell phone is turned off all day, on the same day your spouse happens to get murdered. Nobody can triangulate & prove you were at the crime scene... but.........