If I can debunk this? Oh where to start?
First of all, the author of the video considers comparing images from Google Sky, WikiSky and WWT to be "research". This may be true if you understand what you are looking at, and are able to distinguish between actual objects and artifacts, however, the author of the video appears to be unable to make this crucial distinction. I don't know what expertise "Oriokami" has in interpreting infrared images, but his analysis appears to be suspect in several aspects.
The coordinates given in the video are 13h 48m 0s, -8o, 24' 25". The coordinates given in the description of the video are slightly different, 13h 47m 55.0s, -8d 29m 47.3s.
If I go to those coordinates in Google Sky and select infrared, I do in fact see a blacked out rectangle in the infrared data. It appears to be occluding something that is very bright in infrared, and fairly large.
OK so far, but where does Oriokami get the idea that this is in fact a planet or a brown dwarf, or that the imagery is somehow being censored? From the parts of the object that I can see, it appears to be very bright in infrared, so bright that I can see diffraction spikes. I also see what appear to be colored 'tails' trailing off down and to the right.
So, I'm somewhat interested now, and I go to the source for the imagery, which, according to google, is the IRAS data at Caltech. Using the NASA/IPAC Infrared Science Archive, I plugged in the coordinates (their syntax is "13h47m55.0s -8d29m47.3s"), selected a 5-degree image size, selected 'All' bands and all overlays (point source, faint source, and coordinate grid). Here is a screenshot of the resulting page.
Right away, it appears that the imagery set that most closely matches the Google Sky imagery is the 60-micron data. Regardless, I download all four data sets: 12 Micron, 25 Micron, 60 Micron and 100 Micron.
Please note two things: 1) there is no 'missing' data in these images and 2) the 'objects' correspond with known infrared point sources (red circles).
So what could be going on with Google Sky? My suspicion is that Google Sky excluded the region in question because it was so bright in infrared. I don't know if this was a conscious decision on someone's part, or if it happened automatically. I suspect that Google Sky used a 'stitching algorithm' that detected the overly bright infrared object and excluded it as an imaging artifact.
The Google Sky imagery is also colorized (which I found Oriokami's explanation of how that works to be very entertaining, wrong, but entertaining). The colorized data is apparently sourced from the University of Ontario, where they colored the different infrared bands. It has nothing to do with his rather inventive description of the intensity of the infrared being colored with green as the most intense.
Oriokami does not give any indication that he attempted to contact Microsoft, WikiSky, Caltech, or Google, to get their input on what the rectangle was, or why (if "the government" was censoring the data) they left bits of it there in Google sky to begin with, since it is publicly available on Caltech's servers. If these fictional government censors (and remember, Google pulled out of China rather than be censored by the Chinese government) had told Google to exclude some of the data, why would they leave half of the 'object' visible?
I conclude that the 'missing' data is not censored, just missing from Google Sky.
Now, on to Oriokami's analysis…
He states (at 1:42) that "a small black panel has been placed over the object".
Right away he is in trouble. He has apparently assumed that the data covers 100% of the sky, which Caltech says is not the case. Second, he has failed to follow up to the source of the data (as I have done) which clearly shows that the data is not missing, but rather is publicly available. Third, he has blamed the 'black panel' on some sort of censorship rather than on mundane causes such as an automatic exclusion based on the very bright infrared source causing an error in the stitching algorithm used by Google.
He also says (at 1:59) that there are two bright lines radiating from the object, that they had been partially camouflaged, and that they are 'heat waves' (referring specifically to MS WWT). Unfortunately for Oriokami, he has identified the star HR5178 as a 'heat wave'.
The rest of his analysis gets progressively worse. I was particularly entertained by his analysis of the 'blue beams' in an infrared image as x-rays.
As bikenbeer2000 said, a waste of time.