As readers of this blog or my Kindle Single (or, now, New York magazine) know, I’m intrigued by the possibility that MH370 might have been hijacked and flown north to the Yubileyniy Aerodrome within the Baikonur Cosmodrome. If so, it would have come to rest on the specially-milled concrete at approximately an hour and a half before sunrise on Sunday, March 8. And then what? If it stayed where it was, it would have been easy to spot by land-imaging satellites overhead. To avoid detection, it would have to have either refueled and taken off again, or found some kind of shelter.
As it happens, the Kazakh steppe is a terrible place to hide a 210-foot long, 60-foot-high airplane. The flat, desert plain is sparsely populated and almost featureless, so that anything large and unusual is apt to stand out. There is no natural canopy of trees to shelter under. Though there are large buildings at the cosmodrome where space vehicles are serviced, there are no large structures near Yubileyniy.
After I began developing my “Spoof” hypthesis I spent days scouring first Google Earth, then free commercial satellite imagery looking for any hint that a plane could have been stashed in the vicinity. The pickings were slim. The Yubileyniy complex was built in the ‘80s as the landing site for the Buran space plane, and after the program was cancelled in 1989 it has largely sat disused. Occasionally the runway is used by planes carrying inbound VIPs and cosmonauts, but otherwise nothing has really happened there in decades. An overview of the area is depicted above.
The dark, fishhook-shaped line is the rail line connecting the airstrip to the rest of the Baikonur complex. Alongside it is a road from which a series of driveways lead off to the north. One of them leads to an isolated six-story building that stands surrounded by debris, berms, and trenches. I came to think of the area as Yubileyniy North. Here’s what it looked like in 2006 (click on images to enlarge):
As you can see, the area is desert, where vehicle tracks persist for many years. The six-story building casts a dark, short shadow to the northwest — the sun is nearly overhead. The road from the airstrip comes up from the bottom of the frame and curves to the right. Here and there rectangular patches of debris suggest where buildings once stood. Essentially, it’s a ruin. Here’s the same area, six years later:
Not much has changed. The sun is lower in the sky, so the six-story building’s shadow is longer. But nothing seems to have changed at all. The entire area of Yubileyniy is like this—the place seems have been left to slowly crumble in the desert sun for decades. There’s nowhere to stash a 777. On the other hand, the most recent imagery viewable here in Google Earth comes from 2012. Perhaps something has happened since then? I didn’t know anything about what kind of imagery is available from commercial sources, but I set out to learn. Before long I came upon a company called Terraserver, which lets you view high-resolution satellite imagery for free. I used it to scope around the general area of the Yubileyniy complex, and here’s what I found in an image of Yubileyniy North from October 31, 2013:
Suddenly, things are happening. A number of trucks are lined up in the parking lot in the upper-right part of the image. The six-story building is being disassembled. And what looks like a large rectangle of dirt has been bulldozed to the left of the building. The image resolution is so good that you can make out what I take to be the stripes left by the bulldozer blade as it worked back and forth horizontally. At the northern end of the rectangle is a berm which casts a shadow to the north. At the far northeastern corner lies what appears to be a trench with a well-defined corner on the upper right, with treadmarks leading out of it toward the southeast. I’m not sure what this dirt rectangle represents — are they building a pile of dirt, or a hole? — but what really gets my attention is the size of the thing. To give you a sense of scale, I’ve superimposed an equivalently proportioned 777 silhouette onto the image:
This struck me as interesting, to say the least. Naturally, I wondered what happened next. Fortunately, Terraserver had one more image that I could browse for free. This next one was taken on April 26, 2014:
Holy cow. All traces of both the building and the dirt rectangle have been erased. Various debris piles have been swept away, too. At first I thought that maybe the image had been digitally scrubbed, but if you look closely you can easily make out individual pieces of junk in between the cleared areas. So my interpretation is that the site was actually cleared and swept up.
So here’s the situation: nothing happens at Yubileyniy for decades; then, four months before MH370 disappears, the Russians start building a 777-sized something-or-other a mile and a half from a giant disused airstrip. Then, a month after the plane disappears, the area looks like it’s been erased.
What had happened in the meantime? To find out, I had to shell out cash from my own pocket to buy imagery from the main commercial satellite imagery provider, Digital Globe, via one of its resellers—in this case, a company called Apollo Mapping. The cash drain was painful, but at this point I was very far down the rabbit hole. Here’s what Yubileyniy North looked like on December 17, 2013:
The sun is low on the snow-dusted steppe; it’s almost winter. In a month and a half, workers have removed all but the bottom-most floors of the six-story building. You can make out the shadow of a crane projecting to the north from the middle of the remaining structure. A handful of trucks can still be seen in the parking lot. The dirt pile has been extended a few yards to the north; the berm at that end now overlies the what we saw as the sharp corner of the trench in the October image. Beyond the berm lies either a dark strip that could either be a long trench or just a shadow; to my eye the line of brightness at its northern edge implies the lip of a trench, but who knows. Work is clearly continuing. The next image, in black and white, is from three weeks later, January 9, 2014:
Now winter is in full effect. Snow blankets the entire region, and cold has descended: in the four days before this picture was taken, the temperature fluctuated between -15F and +14F. The disruption of the snow cover shows that work is very much underway. The building seems to be down to its last story. Trucks can be seen in the parking lot. I’m not sure what to make of the northern end of the rectangle; two dark strips are visible, perhaps one of them is a trench and the other is the shadow of a berm. Unforunately the resolution is not very good because the image was taken at a fairly low angle. The fact that work is continuing under such harsh conditions suggests a sense of urgency, to my mind; or perhaps these are simply hardy mofos. By the time the next image is taken, nearly two months have passed.
In this black-and-white image, the building has been completely dismantled and the dirt rectangle bulldozed flat. No berm remains at the northern end. Horizontal bulldozer tracks are still visible. The dark dirt is framed with a lighter border, suggesting perhaps a snowy slope. No trucks are visible, suggesting that the work crew has moved on. A color image taken four days later looks almost identical:
This image was taken two days before MH370 disappeared, on March 6. The next one was taken eight days after, on March 16:
When I first saw this picture, my heart leapt. The two scenes, taken just before and after the disappearance, looked so different that I was certain that something significant had occurred in the interim. Perhaps what was a rectangular depression in the March 6 image has now been filled in with sand (along with maybe, oh, who knows, a plane?).
I began pricing out tickets to Kazakhstan and searching the internet for advice on detecting large buried things with metal detectors. I located a Russian from St. Petersburg who’d made a gonzo two-day bike trek across the steppe to reach the Yubileyniy strip and sought his advice on how to get to the area without permission; he told me that he’d camped out at the airstrip overnight without anybody noticing him but then had tried to visit a busier part of the cosmodrome and gotten arrested. After he told them he was just scouting around because he was a huge fan of the Buran project, they let him go. I figured that if I was more careful I had a good chance of making it in and back.
But then I looked more closely, and examined the weather records. It just so happened that during this time interval spring fell on Baikonur like a hammer. On March 6, the temperature had only just peeked above freezing, by the 16th the daily highs had been in the 40s for the better part of a week. The thaw has completely changed the color palette. Everything that was covered in snow, and hence lighter colored, is now sodden and hence darker colored. White plains of snow are now damp brown sand. The darker earth of the rectangle is now drier and lighter-colored. After staring at these images for many hours I concluded that the most likely interpretation is that nothing has changed except for a temperature change.
And so we wind up back at our April 26 image:
By now the desert has returned to its normal dried-out state. The cluttered jumble seen over the winter has been replaced by almost featureless swatches of tan. A vehicle track overlies the northernmost part of the dirt rectangle, its borders now smudged and indeterminate.
I showed some of these images to construction experts and satellite imagery professionals, and received very little encouragement. Most likely, they told me, the work being performed was site remediation: a building was torn down, and construction debris thrown in a trench and covered up. As successive trenches are dug and filled in, a rectangular shape is formed. Simple as that.
And yet: the entire cosmodrome is littered with decades of abandoned equipment and derelict buildings, evincing a constitutional lack of interest in the concept of remediation. There is no commercial or residential activity for miles of Yubileyniy. Why, after decades, did the Russians suddenly need to clear this one lonely spot, in the heart of a frigid winter, finishing just before MH370 disappeared? And why is it that the greater part of the dirt rectangle was already laid out in the Oct 31 image, before the building was substantially demolished?
I don’t know. I tried to reach out to people who might know, but had no luck, and eventually I had to turn my attention to projects that might earn me some money. But I’d love to find out. If any readers have any special insight, I’d love to hear it.
UPDATE 4/3/2106: Since I wrote the above, Google Earth has added a new high-quality image of the site, taken October, 12, 2014. It gives a different impression from the last image–it doesn’t look any longer like the dirt was swept flat, like someone trying to cover their tracks.
@Nihonmama,
Thanks for this heartbreaking Guardian article.
Whatever our individual shortcomings and biases may be – I think our crowd here still cares.
The awfully tight fuel situation is one of the bigger problems of Jeff’s scenario. If the idea was to land the plane safely for whatever reason, the perps would try to avoid a suicidal mission. Unfortunately the last ACARS message told the amount of fuel left in the plane. It was the basis of all fuel calculations.Unless that was open to some fiddling as well – and nothing suggests this atm – we have to accept that the perps made do with what they had. But every scenario has to deal with the fuel situation.
Brock
You deserve credit for taking the time to lay out your thoughts so clearly in your well written paper. For those of us that value our privacy it is quite something to stick your head above the parapet like that, as other members of the IG have done. I often think twice even about posting here in the benign environment of this forum.
I downloaded it the day you released it and was determined to provide feedback as you requested. However I could not in the end bring myself to do that, as I was struggling hugely with your hostility to those conducting the search, and your underlying premise of a “clear pattern of deliberate manipulation” and “a search that is not being conducted in good faith”.
For my part, the unfolding of the search has been pretty much what I would expect from such an endeavour, with ever changing analyses from different contributing groups with different expertise, complex international communications, and the intense pressures of internal and external politics and the ever present media spotlight. I think JACC under Angus Houston made a very decent fist of it.
Somebody had to integrate the available data, make decisions and actually DO something to search for the plane. I think their plan is a good one; if we had the luxury of searching the entire ‘wide search area’ in detail (the grey box on their maps) I think the chances of finding the plane would be high. Given the impossibly large resources required to do that, the only approach is to define priority areas to search first. It may well be that those first areas yield nothing. This is why it makes sense to continue working the data, to adopt different assumptions, to try different analyses, to find other ways of approaching the problem that might improve confidence that other parts of the arc are of interest. We should not dismiss those that are trying to do that. I like, for example, the novelty of the approach that Oleksandr seems to be taking and look forward to finding out more when he releases his report.
A major problem for many people seems to remain the lack of surface debris identified during the early SAR effort, or subsequently washed up on beaches. I have to say that I continue to find this lack of debris unsurprising, and consider it a terrible reason to consider abandoning the concept of a SIO crash. I would love to hear more independent input from oceanographic experts and SAR veterans on the difficulties of executing such searches, and the likely patterns for debris dispersal. Sadly I think it is unlikely that we will find anyone to engage publicly, for fear of being ‘investigated’ (like LANL) by the fearsome Brock McEwan (!)
It would be great to re-establish a more collaborative atmosphere on this forum. There are a lot of well intentioned people with a strong common purpose to shed light on this mystery.
Interesting exchange on Twitter. Read the entire conversation.
https://twitter.com/CaptRahmat/status/571738363474001921
JS – I think you are right, that is a mound in the image and a big one, and not a hole. Just hit me in the face. The berms at each end are like book ends.
Victor – very interesting exchange!
And a bit weird.
I always found it strange that Inmarsat found the need to credit the Malaysian Government as the source of the signal data in their Journal of Navigation paper.
The table containing the signal data they used in their analysis is captioned :
“Table 1. Signalling Message Parameters from Flight MH370 (Malaysian Government,2014)
I took this as an attempt to make it clear that MY was the owner of the data, and had given permission for its use.
And that final image could doesn’t discount the presence of a mound to me. I see a 777 size mound. That could indeed be unusual site remediation?
“We have a new aircraft to worry about. More to come.”
https://twitter.com/tellmemo/status/571828916584767488
@M Pat: thanks for your measured and thoughtful input.
Whenever I say search leaders haven’t been straight with us, most folks think I am accusing folks like Dolan or Houston of being criminal masterminds. Far from it: I put those particular gentlemen into the same category as the heroes out on the boats: these are all stand-up folks, doing their level best under challenging circumstances. Those were my exact words when I first published (on Duncan Steel’s blog) my work proving the search could not have moved on Mar.28 for the reason stated.
In fact, Mr. Dolan greatly HELPED me to prove this, the first of many official deceptions; his direct (good for him) response to my question on the ATSB blog (the search moved “DESPITE” the fuel reassessment, not BECAUSE of it) PROVED the falsehood. Whoever is truly calling the shots on this search (likely the same people who shut down the blog for good a few hours after his response), I suspect it is WELL above those folks’ pay grade.
I can think of a half dozen countries whose embarrassing (in)action on MH370 might require sweeping under the rug. Whoever it is, I think the Aussie AGENCIES have never been more than marionettes. But SOP when investigating a crime is to lean heavily on the little fish, to get them to give up the big fish – sorry if this seems harsh.
Re: surface debris: I recommend you read/contact Curtis Ebbesmeyer, whom Jeff quoted as predicting surface plastics hitting Australian shores by as early as last August. Or yes, please: engage others; I promise to play nice (believe me: this other odious issue is, for me, 100% about FACILITATING the free exchange of ideas).
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/mh370-mystery-australia-joins-regional-trial-of-new-plane-tracking-system/story-e6frg95x-1227243651041
@All
Went to a local bar that I i,m fond tonight. First time in awhile. Wanted to shoot some pool & BS. I, for whatever reason was questioning the patrons about MH370. None knew, while remembering, Oh Yeah….that thing,…them. I didn’t in any way judge them for not knowing or caring. They had their own lives going on with other needs & concerns. I’ve never been to a blog site til now. Never heard of Jeff Wise, but found myself drawn back to the MH370 bar….the why, when & how?. And more importantly…where? Where is she? Stoked the fire place, poured some whiskey & fired up another cigar. Peering into the fire place knowing that this brain trust will find her.
The Australian Article concerning ADS-C
The only ‘news’ in this article is that the frequency of reporting is being increased to 4-5 times per hour.
ADS-C updates are sent to the ground using the ACARS service. The change will be implemented as an update to aircraft flight management systems, the Aero Navigation Service Providers are already tooled up to receive ADS-C.
Malaysia to be involved: expect results in 2025, maybe. Their history for the implementation of modernising changes is woefully incomplete. They are already deep in backlog.
TEx
M Pat:
I agree with all you said. To claim that the payload data is Inmarsat’s intellectual property is like claiming the content of your email is the property of your internet service provider. Even the signaling data is not proprietary, as ICAO documents available in the public domain disclose the technical specifications.
It may be that the payload data is inconsequential to the search. However, considering the scant data we have, we need to look closely at ANY data available, including the ACARS data that was transmitted before MH370 went dark.
As both the owner of this data and the lead investigator, Malaysia can choose to release the data. To date, it has chosen to keep this data out of the public’s view. These are the facts, not conjecture.
@ All; Just read Jeff’s book in one breath. Very interesting! Will we ever find out?
Maybe this has been addressed in previous comments, but what puzzles me when I am looking at Google Earth, I wonder how they would get a triple 7 from the runway in Yubileyniy to the spot where we suspect it to be hidden? The soil would be frozen, but still could an airplane be dragged/rolled that far?
Would they have had an airport tractor to do so? Or would they, since it was to be burried, just done it differently? (damage would not matter would it?).
If we would look at newer Terraserver can we see subsided sand around the spot we think the plane is hidden? Would be impossible in my mind to do the job quickly and at the same time compact soil around the plane such it would not sink?
Could be proof of this theory?
Enjoy your conversations 🙂
I believe the dirt rectangle could just be a source of fill dirt for the demolition/remediation project (which definitely happened; the photos tell us that much.) Despite the author’s diligence, I still have difficulty with his conjecture, and see nothing presented here which particularly points in the direction he indicates. I find the notion that malefactors could spoof the BFO values to mislead Inmarsat when the latter’s tracking method had not yet been devised at the time of the flight particularly difficult to swallow. I think that approaching a high-profile site such as Baikonur with a large aircraft would almost certainly draw attention to itself: imagine approaching Cape Canaveral in such a manner and ask yourself what might happen. If your plan was to refuel and continue on, there isn’t an FBO fuel truck you can call out at Yubileniy to top up, so how would that work? If the plan was to end things at Baikonur, there is still the perennial question of plausible motive. Why commandeer the aircraft and fly it and its passengers to Location X to be disposed of (where X could be the SIO, Diego Garcia, Baikonur, or any other location of your choosing?) It just makes no sense without a lot more context; I have heard speculation that the troubled airline might have been paying some sort of protection money to organized crime and run out of funds to continue doing so, and that the disappearance was some sort of mob reprisal . Though this is less farfetched than a lot of the other lunacy I have been hearing (such as the theories that there was some MacGuffin aboard that powerful interests wanted to seize,) it raises its own set of unanswered questions, such as the lack of a plausible perpetrator aboard.
@VictorI
Why would the Malaysians do this. To keep it classified as an accident? Avoid lengthy court battles? Heel the wound as soon as possible.
By Gerry Soejatman today:
“In 2011, I led the Aerospace and Defence Solutions department at one of the local Inmarsat resellers here in Indonesia. I told him that back then I have heard rumours of 2 Indonesian guys who have managed to remote spoof the BFO’s while they worked for Inmarsat during integrity testings of the Inmarsat 3 system. And then in several defence related meetings in 2011, I was also told that the other guys who can spoof the BFOs (remote or through the satcom terminal) are Israelis (using Russian immigrant engineers), the Chinese (using the Israeli expertise) and the Russians too, but obviously my sources didn’t want to go into details. The other interesting thing is that the Israelis do have their own set of satcom engineers dealing with “new innovations” for Inmarsat satcom, through one of the Inmarsat Distribution Partners, so, nothing surprising there if anyone can spoof the BFO.”
https://twitter.com/GerryS/status/572074917249851392
Uhhhh.
I meant “heal” the wound as soon as possible.
Wow, Nihonmama, your twitterlink is mindblowing!
The article connected to it deserves it own link:
http://www.gerryairways.com/index.php/en/mh370-i-hate-conspiracy-theories-but- what-can-we-learn-from-them/
@Jeff, good to know that there are expert who don’t think you’re nuts 😉
Unfortunately my posted link doesn’t seem to work, but you can find it in nihonmama’s twitterlink above.
Let’s try again:
http://www.gerryairways.com/index.php/en/mh370-i-hate-conspiracy-theories-but-what-can-we-learn-from-them/
@Littlefoot:
Thank you. And don’t leave just yet – because there’s more.
Nihonmama
Posted January 29, 2015 at 4:44 PM
@Brock:
“So, this is not just about the search, it’s about a legal strategy to limit liability. Which is pretty interesting, considering that the plane has yet to be found.”
TODAY (50 minutes ago) in the NYT:
Australia Says Hunt for Missing MH370 Jet May Be Called Off Soon
http://t.co/zyj4aE6OyS
#Kabuki
It’s incredible: We make mental acrobatics in order to justify the idea of spoofed BFOs – and Gerry Soetjaman just says casually “oh well, we talked already 2011 about the possibility of BFO spoofs”, and counts at least 3 factions who might be able to do it! Maybe Matty was right, when he said the Russians could do it while sipping a Martiny- though in my experience it would be a couple of vodkas for lubrication – which might’ve skewed the BFOs a bit, lol!
@Littlefoot:
“at least 3 factions who might be able to do it!”
And note who he mentioned first.
@All
Gerry Soejatman has known and commented on the BFO numerous times in the past 10-11 months. Never ONCE has he mentioned anything in regard to this matter (insofar as his own ‘personal’ experience/knowledge). Funny that he has just now felt the need for said revelation.
This is just Gerry being Gerry. Persisting onward with his agenda-driven defense of Zaharie by way of chronic convolution. It’s a habit he can’t seem to break.
Anything that aids in further muddying the issue at hand (that of Malaysia and Zaharie) is fair game, as we see in great resolution on this very blog.
So Gerry (Mr. Mandala), why just now do you come forth with this information?
Spencer – For the majority of the last 11 months you risked ridicule by even mentioning the word spoof. The sat engineers on this blog – most of them – didn’t take us seriously when JS and I sarted playing with it ages ago and with some justification as I have already declared that I could fit my sat knowledge on a postage stamp. But when they line up to say something is basically impossible they must be joking. Then it became doable slowly. Jeff has broken some ice here. In the absence of wreckage expect to hear a lot more about spoofing.
@Spencer,
I’ve never called out a poster before here, but your response is just catty.
This isn’t about being right or wrong. Gerry’s article deserves to be discussed on a technical level, since it’s a technical and article.It doesn’t have anything to do with Zaharie being guilty or not.And he responded to Jeff just now because he just read the New York Magazine article.
Nihonmama – regarding the search – an interesting junction. If everyone pitches in it’s all very easy but we are about to see how much the various govts care about this plane. It will be highly indicative of the whole picture. I guessed right that the the Oz govt with budget issues will want out after this current search period. Next year is an election year.
@littlefoot
Gerry has been discussing MH370 and potential spoofing on another forum for the past 11+ months. He has engaged in numerous discussions about BFO/BTO and has never hinted at his having ANY knowledge heretofore.
I have communicated privately with Gerry numerous times about MH370, and about AES/SAT issues.
Gerry has ALWAYS been steadfast in that there existed NO reason he could possibly think of for a perp to re-power the AES. It made no sense to him whatsoever…this was his common refrain to this matter. I will gladly post his commentary on the matter, but perhaps he would like to post here and clear up the issue.
@Spencer,
Gerry didn’t say in his article, that it was done this way. He said simply it’s possible. Also people can change their minds. I have changened my mind, too. I was in your camp for quite a while. And if the plane has gone South after all, I’d still say the pilot-suicide theory – while it has problems – is the most likely. But I can clearly remember that it was a little thing – something a spokesperson from Inmarsat said in the BBC documentary, combined with the absence of an underwater sound in the serch area – which made me change my mind from one day to another.
So, let’s not speculate why Gerry talks now about possible spoofing methods. Let’s find out if it can be done the way he says.
@littlefoot: In December, Rand reported having interviewed someone connected to the Maldives sightings who said that the actual times reported encompassed a TWO HOUR RANGE (surprisingly common for multiple eye-witness accounts – particularly in the less deadline-intensive parts of the world) – not the 1:15 UTC initially reported.
We should try to find out whatever details we can about the actual times given by these eyewitnesses.
@Brock,
It crossed my mind, too, that the timing of the observation isn’t ironclad. But if you want to connect the alledged Maldive sighting with the Curtin boom, the witnesses must’ve seen it earlier than 6:15. And that’s not possible, since sunrise at Kudahuvadhoo was at 6:16 on March 8 2014. They might’ve heard something, but they certainly couldn’t have seen a plane in the colors of MAS. Even a sighting around 6:15 raises the question how much of a color scheme they could’ve seen .
So, IMO it’s not possible to connect the Curtin boom with the noisy plane of the Maldive witnesses. It’s not possible that both events are connected with mh 370.
@Matty:
It’s ACT II. And (sadly) given all that’s transpired, very predictable. Wanna make a bet on ACT III?
In the meantime, Ben Sandilands’ latest:
Australia is keen to quit MH370 search soon, but why?
http://t.co/y8bk4WuDx3
@Spencer:
I second @littlefoot.
Your attack on Gerry is really below the belt. He’s an aviation insider in Indonesia. Perhaps he needed someone else to risk stepping forward with a theory that involved spoofing before he felt comfortable talking about what he knew.
And I’ll tell you something: if you are the alter ego of the person I’m thinking of, this nastiness is no surprise. Because not long after 9/11 that person used an online forum, and multiple sock puppets, to character assassinate someone who was accused of a national security-related crime. You’ve been similarly obsessed (or so it seems) with smearing Capt Zaharie in this forum. The difference is, in the former case, the subject of the smears was alive and could defend himself against those vicious attacks (and lies). And he was later proved innocent. But Capt Zaharie (and everyone else on MH370) likely perished months ago. Therefore, he has no recourse. And so now that Gerry has written about a spoof of Inmarsat, (which, if it occurred with MH370, might mean that Capt Zaharie is NOT the prime suspect), you attack Gerry Soejatman.
The subject matter has changed, but the M.O. is exactly the same. And it’s beyond reprehensible.
@Spencer
I have always associated the “repowering” of the AES as an event consistent with a spoofer logging in not a repowering of the AES on MH370. While it might not be absolutely necessary, if the spoofer was using a secondary AES it might have been easier to implement this approach since that is how an AES is designed to operate.
I think it would have been difficult to anticipate that the Inmarsat data would be used the way it was used without some inside help from Inmarsat. Maybe not. If there is a prior history of spoofing, which I was not aware of until now, the inside connection becomes less much less of a necessity.
Matty is right on.
Nobody has ever demonstrated that any of the following are impossible, and all appear more plausible each day:
1. A BTO and/or BFO spoof
2. A BTO and/or BFO misinterpretation, before or after it was logged
3. The corruption of BTO and/or BFO data
4. A flaw or mistaken understanding in the compensation of either BTO or BFOs.
5. An intentional or unintentional misidentification
I’m not sure why Gerry discounts BTO spoofing and allows BFO spoofing, but he has his reasons. The mechanisms are similar if you believe the slotted aloha protocol spec which clearly states that BOTH are compensated by the aircraft’s position. Even if you cling to a novel interpretation of the spec, the BTO can be spoofed to a point, as long as the spoofed location is further away than the actual location.
None of it likely matters, as it looks like Australia is about to pull the plug. The most reasonable interpretation of that stance is “Oops, it’s not going to be where we thought it would be.” Pulling the plug early avoids the uncomfortable question of “How were you so wrong,” in favor of a more defensible “Why did you stop?”
Quitting early can be spun as a fiscally responsible move. Reaching the end of the search empty handed can only be viewed as incompetence.
@Nihonmama
I have no idea what you are going on about. Not the foggiest. Not who, or what, when or where. But whatever.
I’m not attacking Gerry. I’m telling you that we have shared private conversations on this matter. I’m also telling you that his publicly stated position ON THIS MATTER has always been consistent.
As littlefoot says, he could very well have changed his mind on the matter. HOWEVER, it still begs the question: If, as he now claims, he knew this was a possibility since 2011, why is he just now com ing forward with this information????
I would hope that he would explain this discrepancy himself.
Since the topic is potential BTO/BFO misinterpretation, I will reiterate my preliminary findings…
My approach is looking at the problem from a different perspective: what if the FMT is an erroneous conclusion due to an unaccounted change in the signal path? For example, if the communications followed an unexpected path to the GES, through a different satellite (obviously this would require a state sponsor).
The hypothesis would be that during the phase of flight preceding the AES reboot/power cycle, the antenna was somehow reconfigured to aim at another satellite, which would relay to the GES (and likely to another GES elsewhere for monitoring purposes).
As it stands, as the AES rebooted, calculations are consistent with the known northwest track. It is not until the next (much later) data point that the current math indicates a southerly direction, therefore it follows a turn must have occurred in between.
However, if the math is redone using a satellite several degrees east of Inmarsat’s, and one uses a flight path following the last known trajectory (northwest), a nearly identical BTO graph can be derived (with ping rings centred about this other satellite). In other words, the FMT and southern flight path conclusion would be an artifact of the unknown change to the system geometry, rather than an overly complex spoof. The GES would not be aware that the signal was coming from elsewhere.
The BFO graph produced in this scenario is also very similar, but only if the AES was still compensating based on the stationary position of Inmarsat’s satellite.
Seems less complicated than some ideas, and the math can be checked. I would encourage anyone interested to run their own numbers; in the meantime I’ll try to clean up my spreadsheet and post in coming days.
And no, I’m not adamant about any particular theory; merely working the problem from another angle (pun intended); perhaps it leads somewhere, perhaps it doesn’t.
Just a test post to see if I have been banned. My last couple of posts did not go through.
@DennisW, no not banned! Don’t know why that happened.
@Nihonmama
The Sandilands link borders on describing what I have been annoyed with for some time. While my respect for the IG is large, their assumptions relative to the flight dynamics have never been plausible to me. The Inmarsat data, while helpful, is not deterministic. The solution could really be anywhere on the 7th arc without making assumptions. The SIO is the simplest solution, but it has always suffered from a lack of debris and motive. I really doubt the aircraft is in the SIO.
@All
From Gerry’s article/blog:
I told Jeff that I got these information back in 2011 and had absolutely forgotten about them until I read his article about spoofing. It was only when I saw the 2 Ukrainians sitting below it did I remember all this!
This is complete and total bs. Absolutely forgotten??
11+ months of spoof conjecture and you ‘absolutely forgot’ about this. Yeah right.
@Nihonmama
Oh, never mind.
@littlefoot: Was the Maldives mass-sighting MH370? I’m already on record as extremely pessimistic – for the reasons you cite, as well as the fact that the consistently reported bearing (southbound) doesn’t jive.
Was the Maldives mass-sighting RELATED to MH370? I.e. a different plane, but somehow connected? That is a MUCH broader question, which I am FAR less inclined to dismiss.
Regardless: I think we need a deeper understanding of the distribution of timings on those eyewitness accounts.
Re motive.
We heard possible suicide, cargo, passenger or plane theft, etc. before.
What if the disappearing act itself was the motive? MH370 could have been a rehearsal.
Perps are learning a lot right now for the next planned disappearance.
– need to spoof BFO (or spoof it better, if already spoofed)
– need to throw some debris, where they spoof it
– need to create an oceanic impact sound
-…
Cheers
Will
Spencer et all,
If the perpetrator wanted to go missing in the SIO, then switching the AES again doesn’t make sense.
If you want to take it elsewhere, then you’d want to get people to think you’re somewhere else, then switching the AES again only makes sense if you can spoof something.
But at the moment, we do not know if it was spoofed or not… I’d rather think that it wasn’t spoofed.
As I said in the article, only when I read Jeff’s post did I remember this spoofing thing. Yes, I heard it in 2011, but even back then I thought it was ridiculous. For the case of MH370, it was and still is a ridiculous claim to use spoofing as a method to “I claim to know where it is”…
Anyone who, even after reading the article, and Jeff’s, and is convinced that the airplane was buried somewhere in Baikonur, needs to have his/her head checked. I mentioned that to Jeff and he agrees. If the plane ever made it there, or somewhere near there, it would have been flown elsewhere… and that makes us go back to square one on where the airplane ended up if it went north.
The current plausible answer remains that the aircraft is most likely to have gone south. As crazy as his theory is, I have to give it to Jeff for his research (and even he thinks it’s crazy).
The search in the southern Indian Ocean should continue… Anyone who think I am saying the search should be made elsewhere, given the current information as of today, should have his/her head checked.
Anything else, even if it came from me… are just theories.
I believe spoofing the BFO is possible. All the previous spoof talk here were about spoofing the AES ID and even the BTO which I don’t believe is spoof-able (but JS has something there, and if it’s true, it’s beyond what I know/belief). For MH370 to have the BFO spoofed, is possible, but unlikely.
The article is mainly aimed at exposing the risks on the security of the equipment. Jeff gave the idea, I built on it based on what I know, and yes, from 2011, and yes, it didn’t come across my mind over the past 12 months sans 1 week so I didn’t look into it until last weekend, because on it’s own it sounded ridiculous, and to use it to say “I know where it is” is equally ludicrous. And yes, I did have to dig my old files and navigate through the various NDAs signed.
Remember, the article is about “What can we learn from these conspiracy theories” and not about MH370 not being in SIO.
What issue do I want to raise from the article? Simple, our satcom equipment on these aircraft are not safe. That’s the main point. The guys in the aircraft connectivity industry understand the point I was making. (As far as I remember, Jeff agrees, but I’ll let him say it if/when he wants to).
So let me reiterate… the article is not about MH370 not being in the southern Indian Ocean, and not about who dunnit. I hope it is clear.
Gerry
@GerryS, Just want to confirm that your account of our conversations are correct. I’m a bit more disposed than you are to suspect that a spoofing actually occurred, but I agree that the SIO search should certainly continue, and that its very unlikely that the “dirt rectangle” at Yubileyniy is the burial spot of MH370. As an aside, I’m finding that many people (including some technically very sophisticated individuals) have a very hard time distinguishing between the concept of “hypothesis” and “belief.” Since I put forth my ‘Spoof’ hypothesis I have many times been described as saying that I believe the plane went north. Let me state emphatically: I do not believe the plane went north. What I do believe is that the data we have on MH370 is largely compatible with a northern-route hijacking; this does not mean that it is not also compatible with a flight to the south. Hope I’m not being pedantic.
the memory of GerryS
@spencer
The human memory is not so merciless like a computer to always torture us with all the events happened that make no difference in our lives. So nature found a way to be so kind to enable a human being to put stuff in short term memory and important stuff in a long term memory. It is perfectly understandable for me that the spoof stories went into the trash section of the brain of GerryS. I got told hundreds of trash stories, prominently involving israel and jews in the last three years and i cannot recall any bit of them. Now the seating of the Ukrainians under the AES was something that had been a very important issue in the business of Gerry. Its perfectly understandable that he recalls these scenarios from his longterm memory, because his business depends on knowing about those security related issues. So now, there comes Spencer and makes it a personal thing, that he did not remember, what you would wish him to remember. This is a different method of the human mind: to project ones own wishes into other persons, and to take it personal, when the other doesnt fulfill that projection. Spencer, i dont say that you are like a stalker, but you should probably try to avoid post hoc fallacies. Your theories about pilot suicide show, that you dont understand one bit about the human psyche.
Jeff,
Yes, it’s a hypothesis, not a belief.
As to spoofing, I believe it’s still hard, but not impossible, but again, that just supports the hypothesis and not the belief.
Being pedantic on this particular issue of “hypothesis” vs “belief” is more than required I think!
The search – I don;t interpret that they will bail out before May but there will be some sounding out going on. Finding a plane is political gold but being stuck with a fruitless and costly search is politically onerous. It would take only modest commitments from a few key players to keep the show alive but those key players don’t seem too engaged. General McInerney(retd) always said it was a sham and they are making him look right.
Maldives – Brock – Yes, the cops there can cart you away for no reason and do. Their info on timings is not that tight maybe. We never did see those people interviewed? It was a shutdown from an authoritarian govt. Maldives are dotted with airstrips of various size and they are used to seeing aircraft including seaplanes.
Is ’emotional last farewell’ fly past of Penang island the key clue to the mystery of missing Malaysia flight MH370?
Theory of Simon Hardy, a senior Boeing 777 captain, has gained support from one of Britain’s top flight safety specialists
Overflying of Penang is ‘perhaps the only clue to the perpetrator’ he says
Captain Hardy spent six months analysing flight data of stricken aircraft
Concludes search in the Indian ocean being conducted is about 100 nautical miles away from the where the aircraft actually is.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2974685/Is-emotional-farewell-fly-past-Penang-island-key-clue-mystery-missing-Malaysia-flight-MH370-British-pilot-s-theory.html
hypothesis and belief
@gerryS @jeffwise
From the view of philosophy of science its plain “insane” to search in the SIO for a plane missing on its flight to Beijing in the opposite direction. Just a most simple question of
a not b
It is very unhealthy for the human mind to go for such ends, which always prove to be wrong. We need very strong evidence to support this “insane” road. And i am struggling from the first day of this search if the INMARSAT data supply us with that undeniable evidence that is needed.
David Soucie once said, that you would not go for data alone. You would expect some second independent confirmation of such evidence. He said that when the ping-show of the Australian government got desperate, but it aplies to the INMARSAT data as well. ITs not good for the soundness of our judgement and our mental health to go that road too long. Because as it stands its more of a belief in the holy grail of data, than a a sound , fact based effort.
The crux of this investigation is, that it was handled as a normal air traffic accident investigation. You go and search for the recorders first, before you assume anything. In this kind of investigation you want to see the plane before coming to any conclusions.
But in this disappearance everything is different. You have to work the other way round. You have to find the cause for the disappearance, before you find the plane, because you dont ever find the plane, before you find the people who did it and find out what their plan was.
So it was premature to search in the SIO, before all other roads were exhausted. I admit, the search looks admirable, but the fingerprint of this event renders it hopeless. I joined the Duncan Steel blog once because he tried to apply scientific standards in a grass roots movement, what i consider truly sound and admirable. But dont forget: Philosophy is science too and i dont find the philosophers here, but mere technicians who are used to believe in numbers rather than to see the complete picture, that inevitably includes the change that happen in our world, in our reality right now. Where someone plays with the threat of a war, that is just unimaginable.
@Jeff: very well said. with the lone caveat that we often see presented in this forum “beliefs in hypothesis’ clothing”, I very much appreciate you making this distinction.
Another distinction I think is worth making is between EVIDENCE and AXIOM. The former is provable fact, the latter is un-provable, but taken on faith.
To illustrate: the (selected) signal data we (eventually) received from Inmarsat is evidence. That this data is LEGITIMATE is an axiom, because it requires abiding faith in both the competence AND trustworthiness of ALL elements of its chain of production and custody. In the face of a monumental lack of corroborating evidence, we should be re-examining that axiom. Jeff has given one hypothesis under which this axiom fails; there are many others.
@CosmicAcadamy: very well said. I agree the scant data has been overvalued, and has had many smart people focusing too much on the “where”, and not enough on the “why”.
While not nearly as “expert” as others, I’ve tried to perform the role of “auditor” of the official story – and have uncovered glaring holes. I think the “why” can be found by digging there.
I get that the FDR has been seen as the pot of gold at the end of the “where” exercise, which will then reveal the “why”. Fair enough; but this, then, is all the more reason to probe further when evidence emerges of foot-dragging by search leadership.