The episode delves into the Fire Festival disaster, uncovering the power of confidence and branding, the collision of marketing with reality, the unraveling of the fantasy, the chaos behind the scenes, the stark contrast between fantasy and reality on arrival day, and the aftermath with legal consequences. The key takeaways are the clash between confidence and reality, and the struggle between optimism and realism.

Most people remember the Challenger disaster as a tragic accident.

This episode breaks down why it wasn’t.

In January 1986, the Space Shuttle Challenger exploded 73 seconds after launch, killing all seven people aboard. But the failure didn’t start in the sky. It started in conference rooms, late-night calls, and a system that made it easier to say yes than to stop everything.

In this episode of Explained in Plain Sight, JC walks through what really happened. The pressure NASA was under, the engineers who raised concerns, the decisions made the night before launch, and the warning signs that were ignored.

We also spend time with the crew of Challenger as people, not symbols, and examine how the investigation exposed a culture where public reassurance mattered more than reality.

This isn’t a story about rockets.
 It’s a story about how disasters happen when no one wants to be the problem.

Most people think they already know the McDonald’s hot coffee case. It’s been repeated for decades as the ultimate example of a “frivolous lawsuit.”

That version is almost entirely wrong.

In this episode of Explained in Plain Sight, JC slows the story all the way down. From a McDonald’s parking lot in Albuquerque to a courtroom in Bernalillo County, we break down what actually happened, who Stella Liebeck was, what McDonald’s already knew, and why the jury made the decisions it did.

We also dig into how the media turned a serious injury into a cultural joke, how that narrative stuck, and why this case is still taught very differently in law schools than it’s remembered in pop culture.

This isn’t a story about coffee.
 It’s a story about accountability, narrative control, and how easily the truth gets buried when a punchline is more convenient.

The Stanford Prison Experiment is usually taught as a simple lesson: give people power, and they’ll abuse it.

But that version leaves out a lot.

In this episode of Explained in Plain Sight, we slow the story all the way down. We look at why Philip Zimbardo wanted this experiment so badly, how it was approved, who the participants really were, and how a “simulation” became psychologically real in less than a week.

We break down the day-by-day escalation, the punishments guards created, the breakdown of Prisoner 8612, the performance of authority by the infamous “John Wayne” guard, and the moment Christina Maslach walked in and refused to accept what everyone else had normalized.

We also examine the immediate aftermath, the decades-long defense of the experiment, and why Zimbardo later compared Stanford to Abu Ghraib — plus what that comparison gets right and very wrong.

This isn’t a story about people suddenly snapping.
 It’s a story about permission, systems protecting themselves, and how harm continues when authority isn’t challenged.

The murder of Kitty Genovese is one of the most referenced cases in true crime history, often summarized as “thirty-eight people watched and did nothing.” But that version leaves out context, nuance, and critical details.

In this episode, we slow the story down. We look at who Kitty Genovese actually was, what happened the night she was killed, and how a single headline helped turn a complicated event into a cultural myth. By examining witness accounts, media framing, and what gets lost in repetition, this episode challenges the version of the story most people think they know.