Five weeks into the search for missing Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, more than $30 million has been spent scouring great swatches of the southern Indian Ocean. Yet searchers have still not found a single piece of physical evidence such as wreckage or human remains. Last week, Australian authorities said they were confident that a series of acoustic pings detected 1,000 miles northwest of Perth had come from the aircraft’s black boxes, and that wreckage would soon be found. But repeated searches by a robotic submarine have so far failed to find the source of the pings, which experts say could have come from marine animals or even from the searching ships themselves. Prime Minister Tony Abbott admitted that if wreckage wasn’t located within a week or two “we stop, we regroup, we reconsider.”
There remains only one publically available piece of evidence linking the plane to the southern Indian Ocean: a report issued by the Malaysian government on March 25 that described a new analysis carried out by the U.K.-based satellite operator Inmarsat. The report said that Inmarsat had developed an “innovative technique” to establish that the plane had most likely taken a southerly heading after vanishing. Yet independent experts who have analyzed the report say that it is riddled with inconsistencies and that the data it presents to justify its conclusion appears to have been fudged.
Some background: For the first few days after MH370 disappeared, no one had any idea what might have happened to the plane after it left Malaysian radar coverage around 2:30 a.m., local time, on March 8, 2014. Then, a week later, Inmarsat reported that its engineers had noticed that in the hours after the plane’s disappearance, the plane had continued to exchange data-less electronic handshakes, or “pings,” with a geostationary satellite over the Indian Ocean. In all, a total of eight pings were exchanged.
Each ping conveyed only a tiny amount of data: the time it was received, the distance the airplane was from the satellite at that instant, and the relative velocity between the airplane and the satellite. Taken together, these tiny pieces of information made it possible to narrow down the range of possible routes that the plane might have taken. If the plane was presumed to have traveled to the south at a steady 450 knots, for instance, then Inmarsat could trace a curving route that wound up deep in the Indian Ocean southwest of Perth, Australia. Accordingly, ships and planes began to scour that part of the ocean, and when satellite imagery revealed a scattering of debris in the area, the Australian prime minister declared in front of parliament that it represented “new and credible information” about the fate of the airplane.
The problem with this kind of analysis is that, taken by themselves, the ping data are ambiguous. Given a presumed starting point, any reconstructed route could have headed off in either direction. A plane following the speed and heading to arrive at the southern search area could have also headed to the north and wound up in Kazakhstan. Why, then, were investigators scouring the south and not the north?
The March 25 report stated that Inmarsat had used a new kind of mathematical analysis to rule out a northern route. Without being very precise in its description, it implied that the analysis might have depended on a small but telling wobble of the Inmarsat satellite’s orbit. Accompanying the written report was an appendix, called Annex I, that consisted of three diagrams, the second of which was titled “MH370 measured data against predicted tracks” and appeared to sum up the case against the northern route in one compelling image. (See the chart at the top of the post.) One line on the graph showed the predicted Doppler shift for a plane traveling along a northern route; another line showed the predicted Doppler shift for a plane flying along a southern route. A third line, showing the actual data received by Inmarsat, matched the southern route almost perfectly, and looked markedly different from the northern route. Case closed.
The report did not explicitly enumerate the three data points for each ping, but around the world, enthusiasts from a variety of disciplines threw themselves into reverse-engineering that original data out of the charts and diagrams in the report. With this information in hand, they believed, it would be possible to construct any number of possible routes and check the assertion that the plane must have flown to the south.
Unfortunately, it soon became clear that Inmarsat had presented its data in a way that made this goal impossible: “There simply isn’t enough information in the report to reconstruct the original data,” says Scott Morgan, the former commander of the US Air Force Rescue Coordination Center. “We don’t know what their assumptions are going into this.”
Another expert who tried to understand Inmarsat’s report was Mike Exner, CEO of the remote sensing company Radiometrics Inc. He mathematically processed the “Burst Frequency Offset” values on Page 2 of Annex 1 and was able to derive figures for relative velocity between the aircraft and the satellite. He found, however, that no matter how he tried, he could not get his values to match those implied by the possible routes shown on Page 3 of the annex. “They look like cartoons to me,” says Exner.
Even more significantly, I haven’t found anybody who has independently analyzed the Inmarsat report and has been able to figure out what kind of northern route could yield the values shown on Page 2 of the annex. According to the March 25 report, Inmarsat teased out the small differences predicted to exist between the Doppler shift values between the northern and southern routes. This difference, presumably caused by the slight wobble in the satellite’s orbit that I mentioned above, should be tiny—according to Exner’s analysis, no more than a few percent of the total velocity value. And yet Page 2 of the annex shows a radically different set of values between the northern and southern routes. “Neither the northern or southern predicted routes make any sense,” says Exner.
Given the discrepancies and inaccuracies, it has proven impossible for independent observers to validate Inmarsat’s assertion that it can rule out a northern route for the airplane. “It’s really impossible to reproduce what the Inmarsat folks claim,” says Hans Kruse, a professor of telecommunications systems at Ohio University.
This is not to say that Inmarsat’s conclusions are necessarily incorrect. (In the past I have made the case that the northern route might be possible, but I’m not trying to beat that drum here.) Its engineers are widely regarded as top-drawer, paragons of meticulousness in an industry that is obsessive about attention to detail. But their work has been presented to the public by authorities whose inconsistency and lack of transparency have time and again undermined public confidence. It’s worrying that the report appears to have been composed in such a way as to make it impossible for anyone to independently assess its validity—especially given that its ostensible purpose was to explain to the world Inmarsat’s momentous conclusions. What frustrated, grieving family members need from the authorities is clarity and trustworthiness, not a smokescreen.
Inmarsat has not replied to my request for a clarification of their methods. This week, the Wall Street Journal reported that in recent days experts had “recalibrated data” in part by using “arcane new calculations reflecting changes in the operating temperatures of an Inmarsat satellite as well as the communications equipment aboard the Boeing when the two systems exchanged so-called digital handshakes.” But again, not enough information has been provided for the public to assess the validity of these methods.
It would be nice if Inmarsat would throw open its spreadsheets and help resolve the issue right now, but that could be too much to expect. Inmarsat may be bound by confidentiality agreements with its customers, not to mention U.S. laws that restrict the release of information about sensitive technologies. The Malaysian authorities, however, can release what they want to—and they seem to be shifting their stance toward openness. After long resisting pressure to release the air traffic control transcript, they eventually relented. Now acting transport minister Hishammuddin Hussein says that if and when the black boxes are found, their data will be released to the public.
With the search for surface debris winding down, the mystery of MH370 is looking more impenetrable by the moment. If the effort to find the plane using an underwater robot comes up empty, then there should be a long and sustained call for the Malaysian authorities to reveal their data and explain exactly how they came to their conclusions.
Because at that point, it will be all we’ve got.
This is a cross-posting of an article that was published on Slate.com on April 18, 2014. You can read the original here.
Would the search leaders and experts be willing to embrace that kind of shitstorm?
I really wish, someone would go looking in the Bay of Bengal, just to make sure.
Gene: Indeed, the new chart presenting the satellite elevation data does resemble the original BFO chart. It’s title, however, includes a spelling error, and it otherwise looks like it was locally produced. Perhaps the chart was thrown together in a moment to provide for a more publicly palatable form of tabular data. To me it only looks like rather old table scraps served up with the intent of appeasing the surviving families and the general public, while lamely bolstering a search gone bad.
Littlefoot,
Since this firm apparently sat on this data for a month trying to get interest focused into the Bay of Bengal, it sure sounds bad. Talk about a pr dilemma .Almost like a coverup….now the firm is going public to get some attention.because they were ignored. This story just won’t end.
Well according to cnn reporting. The Australians have outright dismissed. Geo resonance ……
Is a Reason for not wanting to find this plane a liability issue?
If I were Georesonance and the company had the funds and confidence, I would take the chance and search myself.
Guys, please read the comment section of
http://www.duncansteel.com/archives/743#comments
They’re trying to make sense of the new information given to the relatives today.
Could someone try to make sense of Don’s comment, who sees further evidence of the plane having been diverted.
And even more interesting, Richard considers, that the plane was flying circles at around 18:29, or according to Duncan was at least doing some tight turns over Malacca Strait before it was, at least officially lost from screen.
What was going on inside this plane??? A disaster seems to be the unlikeliest explanation.
As to GeoResonance: Some expert would have to analyze, if they can even do, what they’re claiming. If it’s technically possible to locate a plane this way, one should give the Bay of Bengal a look, and if it’s only for excluding possibilities (or maybe finding another long lost plane 😉 ). I can understand, that the officially involved guys dismiss this claim, because it would cast doubt on everything, they’ve done so far. And I have grave doubts myself. I cannot imagine, that Inmarsat’s claims are totally false. We then would have to believe, that the seven handshakes are just made up for some dark reason. But if the plane isn’t found anytime soon, the wildest conspiray theories will grow out of GeoResonance’s claims. So it’s better to make damn sure, that the plane isn’t in the Bay of Bengal.
@Gene, why don’t you go and have a look? Is your seasonal business connected to boats by chance? It will kill everybody, if no one checks this out.
The ‘Georesonance’ headlines today folks is not ‘news.’ Remember back : the night(US eastern time) that AU PM Tony Abbot made his comments before AU Parliament was Mar 16. His comments, coming from a PM, distracted attention. Two other news fragments were heard before Abbot spoke : 1) some nation had anonymously shared radar-data with the Malaysian search authority, also, 2) the Indian Navy was given new coordinates for them to search. Knowing that Australia has a navy, and that the US navy has a global presence, any coordinates given to India’s navy had to have been close to their own home waters, right. So this news we heard today from ‘Georesonance’ — who’s spokesperson admits isn’t ‘news,’ but was shared and mostly ignored, had to have been that.
@GWiz, there’s more. Around that time, some Chinese ships wanted to search for wreckage in the Bay of Bengal, but were denied access by India, because they didn’t want Chinese ship snooping around in their backyard; and they claimed, they themselves were doing everything possible to find the plane. So no Chinese ships needed…
@Littlefoot – Alas I don’t have anything to do with boats or watercraft of any sort. However, my work does involve water and hydraulics of a sort. 😀
When it comes to checking that site out in the Bay of Bengal, it seems to me with the GPS coordinates there would be minimal investment and risk to just do a quick check. So why not then?
@ Littlefoot : I wasn’t aware of China wanting to search B of B and India refusing…. Can’t blame India for feeling their own navy was up to the job and didn’t need help from China.
It seems clear the ‘search-bosses’ in KL put a lot more stock and faith in the Inmarsat stuff, and may or may not have given India the actual coordinates which Georesonance provided. Perhaps China wasn’t completely sold on Inmarsat’s conclusion and wanted to consider the Georesonance info as equally valid.
The media now ought to ask the search-authorities if the coordinates given to India was indeed those from Georesonance, and also ought to ask India if those indeed were, how seriously did India consider it / how much effort India extended.
It would be pretty embarrassing for a bunch of people if MH370 was now found in the B of B…
Confirmation bias. We need to prove it is where we say it is. If they’re preparing to spend 54 mil and 6 to 8 months in the current location, where’s the harm in putting a little resource towards other possibilities. I read this morning that they are convinced it’s in the Indian Ocean because of the Inmarsat and other data. Not sure what the latter is? I guess that’s the 54 million dollar question.
If we’re going to the Bay of Bengal, I’m in. I’m not a great swimmer and have never been diving but could drive the boat.
@GWiz, the Chinese wanted to search the Bay of Bengal around March 18/19th, according to WSJ. Interesting, because Inmarsat’s calculations must’ve been out by then, at least internally.
Was it human trafficking, supposed to be covered up by a faked hijack, but the plan did not work out because not everybody on the plane was involved in the plot? Person A diverted the plane, but got overwhelmed by person B. Person B flew the plane back and a big cover-up followed. The scenario sounds fantastic and the simplest explanation would certainly be a failed emergency landing. But then, where did those pings come from? I really wished the plane was found in the Bay of Bengal.
Ok, everytime you think this story couldn’t get any crazier, it does just that! The GeoResonance story is even covered in Germany right now – and they haven’t covered any new developments for quite some time. But this story got a longish online article in a German magazine comparable to ‘Time Magazine’. They explained GeoResonance’s methods well, and said, the company can do, what they’re claiming. It’s technically possible, and GeoResonance’s hint should be treated as a possibility, nothing more, nothing less.
Now, there have been many reports of possible sightings. Most were dead ends. But this is a company with an apparently good track record, they explained their findings well, and if there was no Inmarsat and their ping rings, this would be considered an excellent lead. The plane after all was last ‘seen’ flying very lowly, though not exacly slowly, into a Northwestern direction, which could well have lead to the Bay of Bengal. There was Siva Govindasamy’s Reuters report, which claimed the plane might’ve gone as far as Port Blair of the Andamans. To look for the plane in the Bay, after having received a solid hint, sounds like one of the saner ideas under normal circumstances.Inmarsat on the other hand has been accused of fudging some of their data. Others have uncovered inconsistencies in their provided charts.
And yet, even contemplating, that GeoResonance might be right, and Inmarsat might be wrong, is mindbogglingly outrageous. If the plane is really there, one must assume, that Inmarsat’s people are either a bunch of incapable morons, who were nevertheless clever enough to convince a whole bunch of international morons like experts, secret services and search teams of their false calculations, or they are involved somehow in a multinational swindle, whose purpose somehow eludes me. Perhaps they are trying to prevent the Third World War… who knows?
What I’m trying to say is this: A company with a good track record goes public with a logical and reasonable suggestion, where the missing plane might’ve ended up. But their suggestions are called fishy or a sick joke by some,and the international search team isnt willing to investigate further. Instead the search will go on and follow the data and calculations of the company, which has been accused of secrecy, fudging and mistakes.
How crazy is that? I’m not saying, it’s wrong. I can’t bring myself to believe, that everything, Inmarsat has told us, is plain wrong, that the plane actually didn’t end up along one of their ping arcs, that they calculated wrong distances of the plane from the satellite, hell, maybe there weren’t even any pings! No, I’m not ready to believe that. But someone should go and look into the Bay of Bengal anyway! Sometimes I look for my key in the fridge, just to make sure, I’ve looked everywhere…
Their web site reminds me of the Inmarsat report that Malaysia released. It’s full of science-y words, but no actual explanation of their methods, which sound far fetched to put it mildly. And people keep saying that they have a good track record, but if so, where is it? Again, their site is full of descriptions of projects, but no customers. I’m frankly baffled by the amount of coverage this company has gotten. There are literally hundreds of individuals and companies out there saying, “We’ve got it! Look at this fuzzy satellite image!” But this is what happens when the authorities use up their credibility promoting a dead end and we’re left with no plausible explanations. The sleep of reason breeds monsters…
@Jeff, the German magazine, which covered the story, has normally a good track record, when evaluating technical stuff. Some expert would have to look at the soundness of their reasoning and research their background. Maybe even saner journos latched onto it because there’s nothing else to latch on at the moment.
But I do find it ironic, that we are ready to dismiss this, even though their suggested location of the plane would be realistic under normal circumstances, but we are ready to follow Inmarsat (at least to a certain extent), whose soundness of reasoning we have debated and doubted for the better part of the last month.
I sent a mail to the German magazine,asking them about the debth of their background checks.
For those , who want to research this further, there are indeed some troubling aspects to these claims:
http://www.metabunk.org/threads/dubious-claim-exploration-company-georesonance-believes-it-may-have-found-mh370.3558/
Jeff.
Yes, GeoResonance technology does sound too good to be true. Star Trekish. But I believe it is a legit mineral exploration company, and its CEO, David Pope, sounded sober, rational and humble on CNN this morning. Why would they gamble the entire reputation of the company by going public with their claim?
A Bay of Bengal termination does not contradict the Inmarsat arc calculation, which is pretty solid. It only contradicts the highly questionable Doppler analysis which lead everyone down the garden path to Australia.
On the other hand, since the technology is Russian, you would have expected Putin to have taken credit by now !
“The Australian-led search is relying on information from satellite and other data to determine the missing aircraft’s location,” the JACC said.
To stop all the wild speculation, just tell us what the other data is. Jeff is right,the Inmarsat data might very well be a smokescreen so they never have to tell us how they truly know it went South.
@Arthur T – I disagree that a Bay of Bengal termination is not ruled out by the ping radii. Most, if not all, sources put the 00:11 ping in the 2500-2700 nm range. Most sources predict fuel starvation around that time as well, precluding the aircraft from reaching that ring and then subsequently returning to the Bay of Bengal. If you have an alternative theory to reconcile these inconsistencies, I’d like to hear it, respectfully.
This is quite interesting in that we now have two respectable companies presenting theories which are contradictory. They can’t both be right. Though the GR technique sounds far fetched, the B of B termination eliminates all sorts of unlikely scenarios and potentially fits with mechanical failure, suicide or sabotage. More info will definitely be interesting.
As far as I’m aware?? we can scan planets for their likely composition, so scanning this one should be feasible. And it should relatively easy to check as well. 1000 metres is nothing much in sonar terms if the thing is largely intact. You would hope someone gets onto it.
@Arthur T., The Bay of Bengal location doesn’t agree with the final ping ring, as JS has also pointed out. That would be my strongest argument against GeoResonance’s claims. There’s no getting around this, unless we want to accuse Inmarsat of having made up the pings and handshakes.
On the other hand, I find it difficult to believe, that this company just made this claim up out of thin air. As Arthur T. said, they get recognition now, but if they’re wrong, they gambled away their reputation. It has yet to be established, though, if they have any reputation to begin with.Are there any former clients? Even if not all their claims are sound, one has to look at the specific methods and processes, they used to locate the alledged wreckage. It might be comparable to an alternative healer. Not all of his methods might live up to his claims, but some might be quite effective.
@Matty, most experts seem to think, their methods cant work in a body of water.Maybe, the company itself should just hire one of those yellow submarines and take a look, if they’re certain there’s a plane down there. Any plane or wreckage, not just mh370, would be a success for them.
Hey all, I haven’t posted in many weeks because there hasn’t been much I thought I could add to the discussion, but I have thoroughly enjoyed the activity on this page. Anytime I see some new tidbit, I come here for background and analysis. Keep up the good work.
@luigi- to go back to one of the earliest internet theories, the plane circling would be consistent with waiting for the KLM flight in a variant of Keith Ledgerwood’s theory on how the plane might have entered Indian airspace undetected.
As time goes by it happily becomes more far fetched that the Uighurs stole the plane to weaponize it, but that horror film plot still fits the available public data as well ad anything. I hope/assume there is non public/military data that suggest crashing in the Indian ocean, but it does appear that this mystery has a lot of countries concerned that there radar/intel isn’t as capable as they would like to believe.
Oops . . . that was supposed to be @littlefoot
Also note – CNN reports the following:
“The Australian-led search is relying on information from satellite and other data to determine the missing aircraft’s location,” the JACC said.
Emphasis added. Any ideas?
@ JS –
Pretty much been the issue all along with our little nerd club. What are they going off? If there was acoustic data pertaining to an impact I don’t see why they would have ended up 1000’s of kms away from where they started. If it was Jindalee data I think Abbott would have responded much quicker, remembering there were Australians on that plane. Houston may just be referring to Malaysian radar data with a bit of tact?
@ JS and Littlefoot,
Thanks for correcting me. I thought a north Bay of Bengal termination for the flight was compatable with the zone of the Inmarsat rings, because GeoResonance said it is in the corridor.
For all my criticism of Inmarsat in my posts over the last month, I have never questioned the ring calculations, because they are so simple.
I am not prepared to think that Inmarsat is part of a conspiracy. They are a financially struggling company of engineers with a set of aging communications satellites. They are not looking for trouble or notoriety. They, and their instrumentation are, however, way out of their depth when it comes to Doppler analysis. They are not running stabilized radar satellites designed for object tracking.
There is an issue here which may be relevant, and that is what is called ‘the unconscious manipulation of data’. It is a big problem in modern physics,but seldom discussed, and is of great interest to me. If you know what conclusion you would like your research to reach, you can make very subtle decisions about where to focus, and what to discard, without being aware of it, and be led astray. Even peer review can miss this.
(Robert Smith’s The Expanding Universe, Cambridge Univ Press 1982, about the Great Debate in Astronomy 1900-1930, is very illuminating on this subject, and it’s an amazing story.)
Well… It would appear that Georesonance’s Mr. Pope has somewhat less of a grasp of things than many of us here. He states that he interprets the Inmarsat ping-return-interpretation as “basically a 50/50 proposition” that MH370 either went north or south. But it’s like being pregnant — it couldn’t have gone just a little bit north or a little bit south. If one accepts the Inmarsat stuff at all (and i’m referring now to the handshakes and that 8:19 partial-handshake, not the Doppler interpretation from which Inmarsat determined ‘south’), then the ONLY way both Inmarsat is (partially) correct AND Georesonance has located MH370 (seemingly all in one piece, intact) is if MH370 made it up into western China at altitude, that 8:19 partial-handshake was engine number 1 flaming out, engine # 2 still had some fuel, whoever flying 370 made a 180 course-change, and 370 glided those several hundred miles back down to the Bay of Bengal where it then made a gentle pancake Sullenberger-style landing…intact … and no ELT’s were activated. The Georesonance images are intriguing — they may indeed have identified A plane — but if Inmarsat is only half-correct in their work, then Georesonance has not identified MH370.
The idea that the choice between the two very different scenarios for the terminus of the flight offered up by the ping data could be evaluated without weighing alternative models for the cause of the diversion — their prior probabilities and compatibility with the context and other available evidence — is simply far-fetched. That is how we humans engage with problems. That is what a physician does, or a scientist, or a detective. It’s what the hosts on NPR’s Car Talk radio show would do in response to call-in queries. It’s probably what you do every day at work. Only, in this instance, official discussion of that aspect of the analysis is obviously off-limits. Draw your own conclusions.
@GWiz, that’s a great description, you have given, how GeoResonance findings could be reconciled with Inmarsat’s ping rings, lol! The fact is, it can’t be reconciled. Like Arthur I really can’t see Inmarsat taking part in a big conspiracy. While their doppler shift based conclusion, that the plane went South remains dubious until it gets a full peer review, the ping ring calculations are simple and logical, if their instruments weren’t totally decalibrated. The same cannot be said of GeoResonance’s methods and instruments, because so far they haven’t been reviewed critically.
I think the main reason, why their claim developed so much traction, is the simplicity of it. As I said above, the Bay of Bengal would be such a plausible last resting place of the plane under normal circumstances; and it would be largely compatible with most theories. Because of that plausibility and simplicity we are increasingly open to accept more outlandish claims. With Inmarsat it’s the other way round. The ping ring calculations are solid and simple, but they lead to the strange conclusion, that the plane has flown on for hours, made some strange turns, and ended up either in the middle of nowhere in the Southern Indian Ocean or might’ve even landed in Asia. These strange outcomes together with the fact, that so far not one shred of the plane has turned up,makes us very receptive to the idea, that none of this happened and the plane is simply in the Bay of Bengal.
As to those additional infos, which led to the conclusion, that the plane went South: In the wake of GeoResonance’s claims, CBS apparently contacted Inmarsat’s spokesman Chris McLaughlin. He apparently admitted, the fact that no country admitted to have spotted the plane on any radar screen, was very important in the development of the Southern route theory:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/malaysia-airlines-flight-370-georesonance-wreckage-of-a-commercial-airliner-found/
@Luigi Warren, I completely agree with your last statement. But what promted you to make it, or to whom are you responding?
@ Littlefoot –
That line from Mclaughlin is a bit startling. I think I’m on the record back there as suspecting that the southern push was based mainly on probability, and that they were dead keen to confirm it as the terminus because there were nasty implications if it wasn’t. That’s where the curve fitting from Inmarsat comes in. The temptation was too great. They put a line through the northern arc very early.
Just had a proper look at McLaughlin’s actual words – “One of the primary factors in that decision, according to McLaughlin, was the fact that not a single nation along the northern corridor — which includes the Bangladeshi coast — reported picking the plane up on domestic radar.” He sort of implies here that MH370 had to pick it’s way through the whole gauntlet. Nothing like that in reality. IF….it did go north, and someone is holding out here, it will be India.
I thought I’d post this video to give a bit of context to the India-Pakistan thing. Do you trust these guys with much?? Enjoy, whoever hasn’t seen it. You wish you could trust their radar as much as their gate closing prowess.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9y2qtaopbE
@littlefoot – yes, I remember that comment. If it were accurate, it provides at least weak support for the southern vs northern route.
However, the “and other data” comment I quoted above was used in the context of the current search area vs. the Bay of Bengal area. To my knowledge, the B of B area would also not require a radar appearance on anyone’s screens, and so that fact would not support the current search location over the B of B location.
Though I’m skeptical of just about everything being published at this point, the comment seems to leave only four possibilities.
1) there’s meaningful other data, besides the non-appearance factor, that supports the current search area but not the B of B area.
2) they’re just babbling about other data, when there isn’t any (or none immediately relevant)
3) the other data is indeed the lack of appearance, and they’ve mistakenly interpreted it as ruling out the B of B, or
4) I’ve mistakenly assumed that the B of B location is outside known radar ranges.
@Matty, I wouldn’t go as fas as implying the Southern route was mainly chosen because it’s more convenient and less threatening. That would be terrible. But the Southern route might’ve been deemed more likely because of legitimate probability calculations. After long (and on his side reluctant) conversations with my husband, I will try to explain roughly, how Inmarsat MIGHT have arrived at their conclusion, that the Southern route is more likely:
While theoretically there shouldn’t be any North/South sensibilities in Inmarsat’s Doppler data, those sensibilities could’ve shown up in their data nonetheless, when they looked at a great number of flights with similar routes. If you throw a dice a thousand times, theoretically all six numbers should be distributed evenly. If this is not the case and the even numbers show up significantly more often than the odd numbers, you have to conclude, that either you don’t have a perfect dice, or something in the way you throw the dice isn’t perfectly random. In this case, it doesn’t make sense anymore to predict 50:50 chances for even or odd numbers. You have to adjust and refine your predictions. You don’t have to determine if there’s something wrong with the dice or with the throwing process. You simply adjust your predictions according to the trend of the big numbers. You might end up predicting a 70:30 chance for getting an even number.
If we transfer this simple example to our mystery plane, it could well be, that something inherent to Inmarsat’s satellite, it’s changing position in the sky and the way, the Doppler data are measured and collected, shows a North/South sensibility, if you look at a great number of flights and their Doppler data. Inmarsat’s people hinted at that, when they were interviewed for an article of WSJ. They talked about refining their data by looking at temperature changes in the satellite. They weren’t very specific, but they might have alluded to the fact, that you are not dealing with a theoretical situation, where the Doppler data shouldn’t show any North/South preferences, but with an imperfect system with many variables.If they had enough similar flight routes to compare with, they might legitimately have concluded that certain burst frequency offset patterns hinted more likely to a Southern than a Northern route. As with the dice, they don’t have to explain, why there are North/South sensibilities. They just have to show, that they are significant, if you look at a large number of comparable flights.And that’s where it gets tricky: Those calculations only work if you have large enough numbers of really comparable flights. That’s one of the things, peer reviews would look into. Are the samples large enough and valid?
I’m not saying btw, this is the way, Inmarsat arrived at the conclusion, that the plane most likely went South. I simply tried to show a way, how they might’ve legitimately predicted the Southern route by looking into their large data trove, even if theoretically the Doppler data shouldn’t show any preferences. Now, if no country along the Northern route reported a rogue plane on their primary radar screens, and Inmarsat supplied an analysis based on big numbers, the decision might’ve been made to look exclusively along the Southern arc. Too bad, if it later turns out, that the plane HAS shown up on a radar screen on it’s way North, and/or if Inmarsat’s samples were too small or otherwise defective.That there are apparently inconsistencies in Inmarsat’s BFO charts isn’t exactly confindence inspiring. It can’t be said often enough: Their calculations need peer reviews. Otherwise it’s very hard to explain to the public, why the search teams aren’t checking out claims like those from GeoResonance.
@littlefoot, Matty, JS
Indeed, the lack of reported radar contacts to the north would be a reasonable factor to weigh when “plumping” for a southern terminus. But why not just lay out that reasoning for the public, why the doppler hocus-pocus? Of course, it always helps to have guys wearing white coats with pocket protectors endorse your product. Studies show that 9 out of 10 cats prefer Purina…
Hands up if you really believe that PM-in-waiting Hishammuddin has no theory of the case. He’s completely in the dark, has no firm opinion about the matter, seven weeks of investigation and nothing has crossed his desk that would lead him to favor any particular hypothesis. I know my hand isn’t up.
Inmarsat does not have to be part of a conspiracy to make Georesonance right. It only takes Inmarsat being wrong. There is this data that is out there supporting Inmarsat’s assertions and it appears very conclusive. At least for range finding. Here’s the thing… without having located the plane, Inmarsat hasn’t been proven right yet.
What has been shown is that Malaysian and Thai radar saw something and didn’t respond. Possibly the same for Indonesian radar. Indian radar was apparently off or unmanned in the Andaman and Nicobar islands. Australia may have been looking in a different direction. What I see here are patterns. So if we, here’s that bad word, “assume” that other nations in the region are equivalent in ability and approach when comes to radar, then no matter the scenario the idea that a lack of radar evidence as evidence that the plane did not go somewhere is bullsh*t as far as I am concerned. Also this magical mystery data that is being quoted, if it exists and it is a national secret of some sort isn’t really much of a secret if we’re talking about it here and in the media. Now those nation states that would be curious about this would have their ears perked up by now and probably saying to themselves,” Hey he need to check this out.” Other than detailed technical specifications, how much of a secret is it at this point?
@Luigi, the Doppler charts aren’t necessarily hokus pokus, as I tried to explain in my last loooong comment. They might be perfectly legitimate, but they can’t be explained to the public with one or two sentences and a chart. I’m of the opinion, though, they should’ve tried anyway and trust the journos to explain it. And they needed a peer review, since they might’ve made mistakes.
A physicist who commented at duncansteel.com (not one of the regular commentors) hinted in the same direction as to how Inmarsat might’ve arrived at their conclusions.
I always thought, the ‘no-radar-detection-reports’ were the worst argument for any scenario. Apparently the plane could’ve gone through a wood of radar masts in perfect fighter jet mode, only to be considered normal, friendly and non-threatening. Or so they say…
Tonight is Walpurgisnacht, and I will keep an eye on the witch traffic in my area and their personal air vehicles. Should some of them arrive in charter jets, I will report it here.
If I have read the CBS article correctly, Chris McLaughlin also seem to be saying that they did their Doppler analysis AFTER the decision was made to focus on the southern route. This adds support to my suspicion that there has been an unconscious manipulation of data, or what others are calling (more broadly) conformation bias. It also supports Jeff’s smokescreen hypothesis.
@Arthur, I also find it a little troubling, that Inmarsat came up with their BFO charts, when there was already a bias towards the Southern route.
Was the question simply: ‘What do you guys think, did the plane take the northern or the Southern route?’
Or was it more like:’There hasn’t been a single radar sighting along the possible Northern routes. Can you guys find additional support of the Southern routes in your data trove?’
It still doesn’t indicate, that Inmarsat is wrong, but a confirmation bias might seep in.
@littlefoot
“the Doppler charts aren’t necessarily hokus pokus”
And maybe 9 out of 10 cats really *do* prefer Purina.
Actually, I like your proposal: the doppler analysis could be analogous to a chromatographic separation in which the ability to discriminate the signatures of different analytes has to be determined empirically. Still, I think Jeff makes a good case that the evidence presented to bolster the story is weak, and that the analysis is fraught with pitfalls and potential confirmation bias. Playing it up is likely an attempt to offer an impenetrable, scientific-sounding veneer to a conclusion founded on more down-to-earth evidence and logical considerations deemed unsuitable for public consumption.
The situation for the Malaysian leadership could be similar to that faced by the US leadership in the wake of JFK’s assassination. They knew who Lee Harvey Oswald was, the nature of his associations, goals and motives. Only, those were bad truths, truths freighted with embarrassment and peril, and it was deemed best to keep the focus on other, narrower technical issues and leave the waters as muddy as possible. As a result a thousand conspiracy theories were born, and clog up our political discourse to this day. Probably, that’s how things will play out in Malaysia over the months and years to come.
I read the comment section on duncansteel.com re the flight over Malaysia. Of most interest to me were the references to attempt to contact the aircraft via satcom text and/or voice. One poster quoted the NOK committee stating in the address to families that there was a text message from the Malaysia Air operations at 18:03, and a voice call at 23:13 (another post from Haxin in Beijing had an additional voice call at 18:39).
I don’t really have time to properly analyze the implications, but this basically confirms an attempt to contact the aircraft on at least one occasion within the first hour after the diversion at IGARI, as well as at the end of the flight at 23:13, barely 11 minutes before the aircraft went missing.
Questions:
1. Why are there no other reported attempts to contact the aircraft on the flight deck satellite phone? Were there any other attempts?
2. Did the Malaysian military likewise attempt to contact the aircraft, or did only Malaysia Airlines ops center attempt any contact?
3. WHAT WAS CONTAINED IN THE TEXT MESSAGE?
Please let me know if anyone finds a transcript on the meeting between the NOK committee and the family members in Beijing today. I may bother Haxin about it.
On Georesonance: For certain, their credentials are terrible. No customers, no proper biographies, no press interviews, phony sounding technical references, etc. From first reading of Georesonance, I recalled ‘Bioresonance Technology’ (Treatment?) which likewise uses evaluations of subtle magnetic fields in pursuing health diagnoses. Sure enough, this ‘technology’ is central to Georesonance’s approach. BRT is quite popular in holistic/naturpath circles, and it can’t be any more harmful than most pharmaceuticals (gag). I believe the machines are manufactured in Germany (Littlefoot!)
I can’t for the life of me figure out how or even WHY this particular bit of magnetic field woo woo appears to solve every problem, but it apparently does. I wish I had the time to locate the ‘common source’ of Bioresonance technology and Georesonance, as the entire ‘resonance’ angle has a cultish wang to it. Furthermore, I can’t imagine why these guys would face the cameras and lay out their findings. For what, publicity? I don’t see them landing any big contracts with BP or Exxon in the wake of making their ‘revelations,’ so what would be the point? That said, I do hope somebody goes and pokes around their B and B location, as their is a good story in there, regardless of whether Georesonance is nothing more than a new bikini waxing technology or the save-all future of mankind.
Ugh: I meant to state that the last attempt to contact the aircraft was at 23:13 barely 11 minutes before the aircraft was “officially declared missing by Malaysia Airlines operations.”
I see this eventually moving into a scenario where there is a hefty reward promised to anyone able to locate the aircraft. Perhaps Sir Richard Branson will prove able to find it.
@Rand, yes the Georesonance track record is terrible, and I have to apologise, that I made a case for them yesterday even if I thought it’s a long shot. Maybe I redeemed myself a bit by later posting the best debunking site I could find (April 29th, 06:53 PM). I was totally sucked in after ALL relevant media in Germany covered and explained it seemingly well. What has happened to ‘Made in Germany’? Check the metabunk site out; the evidence is growing, that they might be scam artists. Even if they look at their own expense and find some wreckage, it doesn’t prove, that their methods work. They could’ve had prior knowledge about some wreckage down there.
I will have a look out for those guys at the International Annual Witch Meeting, which starts tonight at 12:00 PM ‘Blocksberg Time’.
See you later, guys.
@Luigi, my cats hate Purina! 😉