. >>> i want to bring in a forensic audio expert now paul ginsburg who has worked with the fbi and homelandnt. paul, the ocean shield detected four separate pings. why is the u.s. navy only questioning the last two? >> well, it turns out that the first two pings, the ones that were 2:20 and so on, were really very, very much closer to the stated specifications of the manufacturer of the pinger device. they were, in fact, 33.331 kilohertz instead of 37.5. whereas the other two were far more departed than, you know, from -- from the really what's supposed to be the really stable 37.5 kilohertz. in other words, these were closer and for a longer period of time where they detected and also the pulse repetition rate was very close to a second. >> from what i understand the biggest problem they had because of the way they tow that pinger they were able to get sort of a horizontal pickup on these pings but they weren't then able to get the vertical which would allow them to zero in on exactly where that ping was coming from, is that correct? >> well, it's very difficult. because they have to try t

i spoke with paul ginsburg who worked with the fbi and homeland security department and the cia aboutroversy. >> it ourturns out the malaysia government has a poor history. they changed what they reported as the aircraft's altitude direction, the transcript. they said that the last transmission was, all right, good night. where clearly it wasn't. the release of the transcripts was first withheld, then it was -- then they were released. then the actual communications were released. and, in fact, i looked at those transmissions, and what they released was edited. in fact, there's even a very low voice. neither pilot nor tower in that released audio that they gave us. as far as who has the permission or the authority to withhold or release the information, really, whoever -- i don't care who it comes from, we need the data. and as far as i'm concerned with respect to the malaysian government, i would not buy a used car from them. >> right now, officials are determining the next search phase based on inmarsat satellite data. >>> the incredible california chrome is two-thirds of the way to

paul ginsburg is president of professional audio laboratories. welcome to all of you. this one. if not the flight 370 pings, what were they? >> well, it's hard to tell because what we get is sort of filtered information. we get -- we get information that changes, whether it's the altitude, the heading, the transcri transcript, the composite recordings that they finally gave us and now whether or not we have pings. >> were they man-made hthen? >> we want to be on the ship and observing them and make that decision. it's hard to tell from what we're hearing. it just changes every day. >> it certainly does. david, you say there is certainly much debate about the nature of the pings. why is that? >> in the beginning there was because we didn't have enough evidence and no one on the outside had the actual data to look at. all reading between the lines on what has been released. so i think that is very normal that there would be some debate about what those pings were in the beginning. >> so i guess, jeff, what does this mean in terms of the crazy conspiracy theories that are

during the argument, might adversary -- my adversary, paul clement, ginsburg was interviewing him and said, doesn't it create a skim milk marriage? straight couples get all the benefits underlying gay couples to not get any benefits under the law. isn't that a skim-milk marriage? when she said it, she speaks softly and is short and it was hard to hear her. i turned to pam and said, what did she just say? pam told me and i literally had to hold my arm down. i felt like doing this -- it would really not be good for supreme court protocol. [laughter] if so captures -- it so captures the essence of what this is about. it is and was and in places like ohio where gays cannot marry, it is like a skim-milk marriage. >> how do you view the case now that it is over and you are on to new things as sort of fitting into the broader movement for fighting for lgbt and civil rights in general? >> let me start with civil rights. civil rights in general, i do believe and i think attorney general holder and the president would agree with me, that this is a very important case in the path our country is

during the argument, might adversary -- my adversary, paul clement, ginsburg was interviewing him and said, doesn't it create a skim milk marriage? straight couples get all the benefits underlying gay couples to not get any benefits under the law. isn't that a skim-milk marriage? when she said it, she speaks softly and is short and it was hard to hear her. i turned to pam and said, what did she just say? pam told me and i literally had to hold my arm down. i felt like doing this -- it would really not be good for supreme court protocol. [laughter] if so captures -- it so captures the essence of what this is about. it is and was and in places like ohio where gays cannot marry, it is like a skim-milk marriage. >> how do you view the case now that it is over and you are on to new things as sort of fitting into the broader movement for fighting for lgbt and civil rights in general? >> let me start with civil rights. civil rights in general, i do believe and i think attorney general holder and the president would agree with me, that this is a very important case in the path our country is