When the official explanation and independent observations do not line up, how do we investigate a claim without dismissing it too quickly or believing it too easily?
The Maui fires were a devastating tragedy. Some say the official explanation is the explanation, and anything else is a conspiracy theory. Others say the official explanation doesn't make sense. Neither way of thinking is complete. My conversation with programmer Steve Favis about the Maui fires raised a different question:
How should we investigate extraordinary explanations for an event, when some of the evidence appears to be inconsistent with the official ? That requires separating questions that can easily become collapsed into convenient conclusions.
Start With the Discrepancy, Not a Conspiracy
The discrepancy that started me to think about this was the official statement regarding the sequence of the fires - which fire started first, and where.
Before my conversation with Steve, I researched when and where the Maui fires began. The official account is quite specific. In October 2024, Honolulu Civil Beat reported on the long-awaited origin and cause investigation by Maui County and the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives under the headline “Lahaina Fire Cause Revealed: Maui Blames Fallen Power Line.”
The article reports that the first (and only fire) was a fallen Hawaiian Electric power line ignited dry grass on the morning of August 8, producing smoldering material that later flared up in high winds.
Maui Fire Chief Brad Ventura said investigators ruled out the possibility of two separate fires, stating, “This in fact was one fire.”**1 Ventura said the hypothesis was “overwhelmingly supported by the data.”
During my research, however, I found satellite-based fire information and mapping that showed fire activity elsewhere on Maui, and before the Lahaina fire. **2
The two chronologies did not agree.
That was the discrepancy that interested me.
I began by asking:
What burned first, where, and when?
Steve had independently focused on the sequence of the fires too. His analysis went further. He examined satellite positions and reported finding satellites passing near the locations of major fires at times corresponding to their starts. Steve offered a possible explanation for something I thought needed explaining.
A Contradiction Doesn't Tell Us What Happened
The fire-detection chronology I looked at showed fire activity outside Lahaina before the Lahaina fire. That observation doesn't tell us what caused either fire. It tell us: The fire-satellite chronology and the official chronology presented to the public do not put the fires in the same places and order.
That leaves the question: Why not? Why don't the chronologies agree? We cannot reasonably jump from, something doesn't fit, to, I know what caused it. A discrepancy gives us a question to investigate further.
Could a Directed-Energy Weapon (a Laser) Do It?
As common conspiracy theory is that lasers on Chinese satellites caused the fires at Maui. Claims about directed-energy weapons (lasers) can collapse several questions into one. Let's separate them:
- Is it physically possible to have a laser in space, powerful enough to start a fire on the ground?
- Can we know whether a particular satellite could or does carry such a laser?
-
Did a particular laser-equipped satellite cause these fires?
Is It Physically Possible?
Steve calculated how much energy would be required, what kind of equipment could produce and store it, how much the energy-storage system would weigh, and whether an existing launch system could put that mass into orbit. He calculated the amount of stored energy required and the mass of the capacitors needed to supply it, then compared that mass with existing launch capabilities.
His calculation showed that the required energy-storage system was within the payload capacity of existing rockets.
The answer to the question, could a system capable of delivering enough energy to ignite something on the ground be placed in orbit is, according to Steve's calculations, is yes.
That does not establish that such a system was used over Maui to start the fires. It establishes that the proposed mechanism cannot be eliminated on the grounds that putting a sufficiently powerful laser system into orbit is physically impossible.
Capability is not evidence of use.
Capability tells us whether the proposed mechanism is physically possible and deserves further investigation.
Can We Know What a Satellite Carries?
Sometimes.
Lasers aboard satellites aren't hypothetical technology. NASA publicly identifies its LCRD laser-communications payload aboard STPSat-6 and describes it transmitting laser beams between space and Earth. Information about satellite missions, functions, and payloads is publicly available, as spacecraft are subject to registration and regulatory systems.
Publicly available information may not provide a complete inventory of everything aboard a spacecraft. We shouldn't assume that every capability of a military or foreign satellite is publicly disclosed.
Did a Particular Satellite Start One or More of the Maui Fires?
We can break this into things we can investigate:
Which satellites were overhead at the relevant times?
What do we know about those satellites and their payloads?
Satellite Overhead: What Does That Prove?
Steve began with NORAD tracking data containing tens of thousands of objects. His engineering calculation indicated that a laser capable of producing the required energy would require a substantial payload. That provided a criterion for eliminating smaller objects from consideration. Steve described using size to narrow a catalog of roughly 68,000 objects, eliminating things such as the thousands of smaller Starlink satellites.
He focused his search on satellites registered to the People's Republic of China. In that search, Steve reported finding three satellites over three Maui fire locations, at three separate and relevant times.
To Steve, that was significant enough to suggest that the satellites and fires might be related. That does not establish that those satellites caused the fires. What Steve's analysis claims is more specific: After narrowing the objects based on the physical requirements of the proposed mechanism, and then examining PRC satellites, he found three satellite / fire correlations at three different locations and times.
Being in the right place at the right time and having sufficient payload capacity doesn't establish that a satellite caused a fire. We might ask, how often do satellites meeting those criteria pass those locations when fires don't occur? That, however wouldn't prove they did not cause the fires at this time.
Other Possibilities
Even if a satellite were found in the right place at the right time and were capable of carrying the required equipment, an intentional attack or fire start would be only one possible explanation. Other possible explanation might include:
An accidental activation.
Equipment malfunction.
Testing or calibration.
A military exercise.
A compromised system.
Either way, the primary next question to answer is where any or all of those satelliets responsible for starting the fire, either by accident or intention.
We have not established evidence for any of those explanations. They are possibilities that emerge once we stop deciding in advance what the explanation must be.
If the evidence eventually pointed toward military activity, an incomplete official explanation wouldn't mean officials were concealing a deliberate attack. There could be other reasons information wasn't disclosed, including national security, classified capabilities, an accident, or an ongoing investigation.
None of that establishes what happened in Maui. It illustrates why the investigation shouldn't begin with:
Who did it?
It should begin with:
What happened?
Then:
What mechanisms could produce what we observed?
What About the Physical Damage?
Another argument raised in the discussion involved reports of unusual melting and fire behavior. Steve pointed to melted materials and argued that some of the damage patterns were difficult to reconcile with conventional wildfires.
A useful question is, what temperatures and conditions are required to produce what we're seeing? If melted metal is going to be evidence of an unusual energy source, the argument needs to be quantitative. What alloy was it? At what temperature does it melt? Was it fully liquefied or merely deformed? How long was it exposed? Were comparable effects observed in conventional urban fires?
The extraordinary appearance of something is not enough.
Neither should it be ignored. Measure it.
What About Blue Objects?
One claim commonly associated with theories about the Maui fires being started by satellites is that blue objects survived while surrounding objects burned. Steve brought this up when I asked him a different question:
Wouldn't the atmosphere interfere with a laser traveling from space to the ground?
His answer was yes. He said particles in the atmosphere would scatter the energy, producing an uneven pattern, rather than a precise beam. He described it as a “shotgun laser” rather than a “sniper laser” and sugggested that surviving blue objects are one of the things he believed could be explained if lasers caused the fire.
We didn't investigate the blue-object claim further. If color matters, would the wavelength of the proposed laser interact with blue materials in a way that predicts what was observed? We didn't establish that.
I don't consider the surviving blue objects evidence for a directed-energy weapon based on what we discussed. This is something I still need to do.
Apply the Same Standard to the Official Explanation
When doing an investigation such as this, skepticism shouldn't operate in one direction.
People often demand overwhelming evidence for an alternative explanation, while treating the official explanation as though it requires none. An official account is an explanation of what happened, and it should be evaluated against the observations.
If officials say a particular ignition produced a particular sequence of events, then the timestamps, fire progression, weather conditions, satellite detections, witness reports, and physical damage should all fit that explanation. If they don't, asking questions isn't conspiratorial - it what we do in an investigation.
At the same time, finding a flaw in the official explanation doesn't validate whichever alternative theory is popular. One explanation being wrong doesn't make another right. The same questions should apply to both:
What evidence supports it?
What evidence contradicts it?
What would show it is wrong?
Why the Official Account Appears Incomplete
There is a possibility that gets lost when everything is divided into truth versus conspiracy. Governments and institutions sometimes withhold information for reasons other than an elaborate conspiracy:
National security.
Intelligence.
Military operations.
Diplomatic concerns.
Avoiding public panic.
Legal liability.
Not knowing what happened or how.
During my conversation with Steve, one possible explanation raised was that authorities might not want to publicly acknowledge a foreign country's ability to deploy advanced weapons in space.
We did not establish that this occurred.
There's a large middle ground between saying, everything officials say must be true, and every inconsistency proves a conspiracy. Sometimes information is incomplete, organizations protect themselves or information is classified, individuals make errors, or agencies don't communicate to each other. Sometimes an explanation is mundane or badly communicated.
The Cost of Filling in the Missing Pieces
If officials don't know something or don't want to reveal it, the safest communication is for them to say less. Problems arise when missing information is replaced with specific details, and an officual explanation later conflicts with the evidence. When that happens, people don't merely question the event - they no longer trust the institution its official explanation.
Imagine officials saying:
We're still determining how the different fires began and whether they were related.
That leaves uncertainty. Specificity creates claims that can be checked. If later evidence doesn't fit those claims, people will reasonably ask:
Why were you so certain?
This is a way institutional trust can collapse - not because people want to believe conspiracy theories - specific factual claims can be checked. If the details don't survive that comparison, the discrepancy becomes something that needs to be explained.
Alternative Explanations Matter
One thing I tried to do was generate other explanations.
What if the satellites had nothing to do with the fires? What if someone started a fire from the ground and timed to coincide with a satellite passing overhead or blamed it on that? Could that have been possible?
What if a satellite wirth laser capabilities had been hacked?
What if there had been military training or testing involving a laser?
Steve considered some of these possibilities more plausible. The purpose of generating alternative explanations wasn't to decide which one sounds best. It was to ask: What evidence would distinguish them? Once we favor an explanation, it's easy to start noticing evidence that supports it, while overlooking evidence that might point somewhere else.
Instead of asking:
Which explanation sounds the most convincing?
ask:
What evidence would support one explanation, while weakening another?
Then look for evidence.
See for Yourself
You don't have to believe Steve's analysis nor dismiss it.
You can test it.
Maybe you find something that initially looked significant turns out not to be. Maybe you discover new information. That's one of the benefits of making an analysis availaibe for other to reproduce. Replication doesn't tell us whether someone else got it right - it gives othes a starting point from which they may see something the original investigator didn't.
Some fruitful discoveries began that way—not by starting over - reproducing someone else's work and then asking: What else does this show us?
That's the value of asking questions we can investigate.
Here are places to start:
1. Reproduce the Satellite Analysis
Steve encourages programmers to run his analysis. The code Steve used is in the show notes. This allows independent analysts to reproduce the satellite positions.
If the satellite positions can't be reproduced, that's important. If they can, then that portion of Steve's analysis becomes reproducible and we move to the next question.
2. Were Those Satellites Normally There?
Finding satellites in relevant positions at the times of the fires raises thequestion: Why were they there? Where they simply following their normal orbital paths? Do they continue to follow the same paths today?
During our conversation, I asked Steve: “Can you tell by the orbit, was it intentional to be over Maui or just a coincidence?”
Steve answered: “I think it was intentional because there was a fire.”
That's Steve's conclusion. It isn't something we established. The satellite positions are an observation. Whether the satellites were there because of the fires is an inference. We can examine their trajectories before and after the fires. Did they follow the same path every few days, weeks, or months? Do those satellites make the same passes over Maui today?
If they routinely follow the same trajectories, their presence during the fires may or may not become less unusual. If their positions or trajectories were unusual at those particular times, that gives us something to investigate. If they don't change then the primary queston that remains is, do they carry lasers, and if so for what purpose?
Then there's another question:
What were those satellites there to do?
I asked, “You don't really know what else the Chinese satellite could be used for, because in terms of payload, they don't have to disclose that part, right?”
Steve answered: “No.”
We can investigate what is publicly known about the satellites. We might find limited informaiton on their missions and why were they placed in those particular orbits. We did not establish those things during our conversation.
There is also another limitation to his original analysis.
I asked: “Did you check for non-Chinese satellites that could have started the fires in the same area?”
Steve responded: “That's a really good question. I only looked at PRC satellites...”
That gives us another test:
Run the analysis without selecting a country first. If satellites from multiple countries with sufficient payload capacity routinely occupied comparable positions over Maui, the presence of the Chinese satellites becomes less informative.
3. Verify and Refine the Fire Chronology
One of the things I investigated before my conversation with Steve was when and where the fires began. I found university research that reconstructed the progression of the Maui fires using satellite fire-detection data. Note, care must be take to notice the sequence. Watch the time lapse carefully. The chronology is important as it was one of the things that caused me to question the news report. The sequence indicated by the satellite data does not match the chronology presented by public officials.
4. Analyze Physical Evidence—If It Still Exists
Physical evidence could help identify differences between an ordinary forest fire and an unusual energy source. If particular metals or materials melted or were damaged in ways that appear unusual, we could identify the materials, determine the temperatures or energy required to produce those effects, and compare them with conditions expected in conventional structure and wildfire environments.
The problem is much of the evidence no longer exists. Years have passed. Buildings have been demolished and rebult.. Debris has been removed. Properties have been cleared. Materials that might once have been available for examination have been hauled away and discarded.
Unless samples were preserved or sufficiently detailed photographs and records exist, some of the most useful physical evidence may now be impossible to examine.
There may be exceptions.
Areas outside reconstructed portions of Lahaina—including undeveloped or wilderness areas affected by the fires—could contain physical evidence that hasn't been disturbed.
That raises another question worth investigating: What physical evidence from the original fires still exists today and where?
5. Try to Disprove It
Consider:
What observation would convince us that the energy-weapon hypothesis is wrong?
The Public May Never Know With Certainty
We often talk as if an investigation will end with certainty. It often doesn't. Historical events are reconstructed from incomplete measurements. Witnesses remember imperfectly. Sensors have limitations. Governments classify information. Documents disappear. People have incentives. Models can be wrong.
Seemingly strong evidence can later acquire a different explanation. That applies to unconventional theories and to official accounts.
The goal shouldn't be to prove what happened beyond any possible doubt.
A realistic goal is:
Which explanation best accounts for the evidence we have, and what evidence, if obtained later, would change our minds?
The Bigger Lesson From Maui
Did a Chinese satellite start one or more of the Maui fires?
We did not establish that. That wasn't where the investigation began for me. Before a conversation with Steve, I independently found university research using satellite fire-detection data to establish when and where fire activity developed. The chronology raised questions for me as it did NOT put the fires in the same order as the presented by officials and their final investigation report.
Steve approached the event from another direction. He examined whether the proposed mechanism was physically possible, used satellite-tracking data to track orbital positions, and reported finding three PRC satellite/fire correlations at three separate locations and times.
Those findings don't tell us what caused the fires. Neither should they be dismissed just because the explanation they might point toward is unconventional.
The goal is: determine which parts of each explanation are supported by evidence, which aren't, and what additional evidence could help us decide among the possibilities that remain.
It helps to look for evidence that could show Steve's explanation is wrong.
It helps to look for evidence that could show the official explanation is wrong.
Try to disprove the explanation you favor.
Don't require the evidence to fit the official explanation or an alternative explanation before you've finished asking questions. That's how we investigate.
The Big Question That Remains
Based solely on the chronology - fire-satellite data and the statements officials made there is a conclusion I think we can reasonably make:
The fire-satellite data does not support the stated chronology that places Lahaina first. It records fire activity outside Lahaina before the Lahaina fire.
This does not tell us what caused either fire.
It means that an explanation that depends on Lahaina being the first fire has a chronology problem that needs to be explained.
Could the satellite fire data have been interpreted incorrectly? Certainly. That would be a reasonable question for investigators to examine. That leaves me with a question:
Why didn't officials investigate other possible explanations? If they did, where is that analysis?
This is how theories such as “satellites in space caused the fires” get started and grow. People find observations that don't fit the explanation they've been given, and they start looking for another. That alternative explanation might be right or wrong.
Steve offered an explanation. We investigated parts of it and found things that support continuing to ask questions.
We did not establish that satellites caused the Maui fires.
Dismissing that explanation doesn't resolve the discrepancy that led us to investigate it. The final investigation concluded that a fallen power line ignited dry grass and “this in fact was one fire.”
Investigators said that conclusion was “overwhelmingly supported by the data.” Since the fire-satellite data show fire activity elsewhere before the fire that the publicly stated chronology places first, perpahs they did not consider that data. They should. Afeter doing so the official chronology may need to be reconciled.
If I were to continue with the investigation,
We might consider potential ignition source or sources.
When Does Skepticism Become an Assumption?
Now that we've established the chronology, we can consider a potential ignition source or sources.
That raises a question:
Why are we comfortable filling an evidence gap with an ordinary, hypothetical explanation, while treating an unusual explanation as incredulous after establishing physical possibility and opportunity?
Suppose someone suggests that an earlier fire was started by a cigarette. We reasonably consider it. A cigarette can start dry vegetation on fire. The cigarette might have been consumed by the fire, leaving us without physical evidence that it was ever there. We still consider it.
Now consider the satellite hypothesis.
Steve calculated that the proposed mechanism was physically feasible. He examined orbital data and reported finding satellites meeting his criteria in relevant positions at the times of three fires.
That doesn't establish that a satellite started any of them. Why should it prevent us from considering it as a possible ignition source? Perhaps part of the resistance is: I've never seen that happen before.
If that were our rule (I've never seen it happen before, therefore I can't believe it happened here), we'd have a difficult time recognizing novel events. Before the first documented occurrence of something, there are no documented occurrences.
There is a legitimate reason to begin with ordinary explanations. If thousands of similar fires have been caused by ordinary terrestrial sources, and none are known to have been caused by satellites, that experience might influence our initial expectations. An initial expectation shouldn't become a conclusion.
At what point does “I've never seen this happen before” stop being reasonable skepticism and become an assumption that prevents us from recognizing something new?
Once a mechanism is physically possible and there are observations giving us a reason to investigate it, the better question isn't, “Has this happened before?” It's, “What evidence would tell us if it happened here?”
Why I Took Steve's Idea Seriously
Someone doesn't have to distrust government, believe in conspiracy theories, or be attracted to unconventional explanations to arrive at Steve's hypothesis. My path was :
The stated chronology doesn't agree with the observed .
↓
Why don't they agree?
↓
If the discrepancy remains, reconsider the causal sequence.
↓
What ignition source or sources could account for what was observed?
↓
A satellite is proposed as one possibility.
↓
Is the proposed mechanism physically possible?
↓
Yes.
↓
Were capable satellites in relevant positions?
↓
Steve's analysis says yes.
↓
Investigate further.
At no point does that require, “I don't trust officials.” I found evidence that doesn't agree with what officials said. We shouldn't assume everyone arrived there that way. Someone who believes satellites caused the fires may have arrived there poorly, starting with a conclusion and searching for evidence to support it. Some simply have noticed that something didn't fit and continued asking questions.
That raises a question:
How much evidence should an unconventional explanation require before we're willing to investigate it—not believe it - just be open to investigating it?
Two Investigations, Two Paths - Steve's path:
Chronology doesn't appear to fit
↓
What else could explain the observed sequence?
↓
Proposes another ignition mechanism (Lasers in space)
↓
Asks whether it is physically possible
↓
Calculates the energy and payload requirements
↓
Determines that the proposed mechanism is physically feasible
↓
Examines orbital data
↓
Discoveres three satellite/fire correlations
↓
Proposes satellite energy as a possible explanation
↓
Leaves us with additional things we can test
Steve did something I have not found in the official investigation: he proposed an ignition mechanism intended to account for the chronology that prompted the investigation in the first place.
That doesn't make his proposed cause correct.
The same standard should apply in both directions.
For the official investigation:
Why doesn't the stated chronology agree with the fire-satellite chronology, and where is the analysis addressing that discrepancy?
Which Do I Find More Credible?
Based on the evidence I've examined, I find Steve's investigative path more responsive to the chronology problem. His hypothesis arose in response to the chronology and led to additional questions that can be tested.
That is not the same as saying: Steve proved satellites caused the fires.
He didn't.
There's an inversion here. The official explanation gives us a familiar mechanism with a chronology problem; Steve gives us an unfamiliar mechanism that is physically feasible, accompanied by orbital correlations, with some questions unanswered.
Which deserves further investigation? Both.
I'd ask both: What evidence would distinguish your explanation from the alternatives?
The point isn't that satellite ignition deserves special credibility. It's that an unconventional explanation shouldn't require proof before we're willing to investigate it, while a conventional explanation is allowed to remain possible without evidence that it occurred.
Maybe Steve is wrong.
Maybe the official explanation is right.
Maybe neither explained everything that happened.
If our goal is to find out, we have to be willing to follow the evidence somewhere we haven't been before.
About This Conversation
This article grew out of my conversation with Steve Favis, a programmer who has analyzed satellite orbital data and argues that Chinese satellites were positioned over locations associated with major Maui fires at relevant times. He has proposed that directed-energy technology deserves investigation as a possible explanation.
Our discussion did not establish, for me personally, that a satellite or directed-energy weapon caused the Maui fires. Nor have I seen evidence that supports the claim there was only one fire - and that it was started by a downed power line.
What interested me was whether such claims can be broken into testable pieces and what evidence is needed before reaching a defensable conclusion.
References
1. Stewart Yerton, “Lahaina Fire Cause Revealed: Maui Blames Fallen Power Line,” Honolulu Civil Beat, October 2, 2024. Reports the findings of the Maui County/ATF origin-and-cause investigation, including Fire Chief Brad Ventura's statements that investigators concluded there was one fire and attributed its ignition to a fallen Hawaiian Electric power line.
Read the Civil Beat article
2. “Multi-resolution monitoring of the 2023 Maui wildfires, implications and needs for satellite-based wildfire disaster monitoring,” International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 2024. Uses MODIS and VIIRS active-fire detections to examine the geographic and temporal development of the August 2023 Maui fires. The study reports the first satellite active-fire detections beginning at 1:45 a.m. on August 8 on the western slopes of Mt. Haleakalā.
Read the research paper
About the Author
Daniel Stih is an aerospace engineer, software engineer, indoor environmental consultant, and author of 12 books. Through engineering, investigations, and interdisciplinary research, he explores how people define problems, interpret evidence, and make conclusions when there's uncertainty. Learn more in Why I Think This Way.
Related posts
Weapons in Space, Lasers on Satellites, 5th Generation Warfare, China, Maui & LA Fires: Steve Favis
Show notes from this post include:
Steve Favis:
http://SteveFavis.com
http://Far-Corp.com
Laser Capabilities and was there a Satellite Flying above Maui at the time of the Fires?
https://www.misterrobots.com/lasers
Steve Favis’s source code to access satellite data using MatLab:
Source code to access satellite data using MatLab Identifying Directed Energy Weapons in Space
A Real-Time Monitoring Guide Tools You Need for Monitoring
Sample Code for Setting Up Satellite Monitoring:
https://www.misterrobots.com/post/ccp-directed-energy-satellite-source-code-using-mathworks-matlab
Space-Track.org
Promotes space flight safety, protection of the space environment and the peaceful use of space worldwide by sharing space situational awareness services and information with U.S. and international satellite owners/operators, academia and other entities. https://www.space-track.org/documentation#lch
https://www.space.com/space-force-1st-targeting-squadron
“New images use AI to provide more detail on Maui fires.”
https://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2023/ai-images-provide-maui-fire-details
Wildfire Monitoring, NASA Fire Information for Resource Management System (FIRMS): https://nasaacres.github.io/maui-wildfires
First fire location: https://firms.modaps.eosdis.nasa.gov/map/#t:tsd;d:2023-08-02..2023-08-08;@-156.50,20.80,10.00z
More ways of Accessing Satellite Data:
Satellites launched by space agencies are freely available (and can be explored below), but are at a lower resolution. Most satellite datasets collected by NASA and European Space Agency satellites are available publicly on the same day the satellite observations are taken. The high-resolution satellites from private companies like Planet, Maxar, and others are typically not freely available. However, many companies have disaster response programs that give free access to high-resolution imagery following disasters.
Planet Disaster Data Program
Planet makes their high-resolution imagery available to the public following select disaster events, including the Maui wildfires.
Maxar Open Data Program
Maxar has made high-resolution post-disaster images from August 9, 2023 openly available for download.
Sentinel-2 SentinelHub Playground
The SentinelHub Playground makes data from the Sentinel-2 satellites available to explore in your web browser. The date of the imagery can be controlled in the calendar icon on the webpage header (highlighted by a red box in the image above). Sentinel-2 images are captured at least every 5 days, at approximately 10:00am local time. The last Sentinel-2 images over Maui were taken on August 8, so the next image should be available on August 13.
NASA Active Fire Data
This website provides the raw geospatial data of active fire detections from the NASA MODIS, VIIRS, and Landsat satellites to generate the map on the NASA Fire Information for Resource Management System linked above. You can access the data by downloading the files or using their API.