BBC (UK) A wild and chilling theory about what happened to MH370, by Robert Cottrell
What if the MH370 flew north and landed safely on a Russian airstrip in Kazakhstan? Of course it’s a wild theory. It’s also a great yarn, with just enough data points to sound plausible.
Le Monde (France): Un an après, l’improbable disparition du MH370, by Florency de Changy
Mais si l’avion n’est pas au fond de l’océan Indien, où est-il ? Pour certains, il ne s’agit plus d’affiner des calculs déjà suraffinés, mais bien de remettre en cause la démarche tout entière. Se peut-il qu’une partie des données Inmarsat aient été trafiquées ? C’est la thèse du journaliste américain Jeff Wise qui vient de publier un livre numérique The Plane That Was not There (« L’avion qui n’était pas là »). Il propose un scénario dans lequel les « vraies fausses » informations d’Inmarsat ne sont là que pour faire diversion, alors que les vrais coupables sont les deux Ukrainiens et le Russe qui étaient assis à l’avant de l’avion et dont les passeports sont les seuls à ne pas avoir été vérifiés par leurs autorités nationales respectives. Le Groupe indépendant a immédiatement exclu Jeff Wise.
Das Bild (Germany): Das Sind die Theorien
Der amerikanische Wissenschaftsautor und Pilot Jeff Wise, der das Drama um MH370 seit Monaten für den US-Nachrichtensender CNN begleitet, glaubt sogar: Rebellen könnten die Maschine nach Zentralasien entführt haben – um die Boeing eines Tages für ihre Zwecke einzusetzen. Wise zu BILD: „Die Idee, MH 370 könnte nach Kasachstan verschleppt worden sein, ist nicht neu.”
Il Post (Italy): La teoria di Jeff Wise sul volo MH370, di Andrea Fiorello
Un anno dopo la scomparsa nel cielo dell’Asia del volo Malaysia Airlines MH370 – di cui non si hanno notizie dalle 2,40 del 3 marzo 2014, quando i radar persero le tracce dell’aereo circa due ore dopo il decollo da Kuala Lumpur con destinazione Pechino – il giornalista americano Jeff Wise ha pubblicato sul New York Magazine un lungo articolo che racconta la sua personale storia di “esperto” del volo MH370 e gli sviluppi delle teorie su cosa sia successo all’aereo, che lo hanno portato di recente a un’ipotesi che racconta come incredibile e convincente insieme.
RT (Russia): ‘True story!’ MSM spins theory that Putin hijacked MH370 and landed it in Kazakhstan, by Nebojsa Malic
Judging by his observations about MH17 and Russia, Wise has clearly fallen victim to what psychologists call confirmation bias – a tendency to see and interpret information in a way that confirms one’s preconceptions. However, almost the entire mainstream press in the West suffers from this when it comes to Russia – prompting several commentators to dub the phenomenon ‘Putin Derangement Syndrome.’ Witness the recent announcement by a “Pentagon think-tank” that Vladimir Putin is supposedly autistic, dutifully reported as fact. Now it seems Jeff Wise’s fantasy is due for the same treatment.
Daily Mail (UK): Vladimir Putin ordered Russian special forces to steal MH370 and secretly landed it at huge space port in Kazakhstan, claims expert
Jeff Wise, a U.S. science writer who spearheaded CNN’s coverage of the Boeing 777-200E, has based his outlandish theory on pings that the plane gave off for seven hours after it went missing… However Wise admits in New York Magazine that he does not know why Vladimir Putin would want to steal a plane full of people and that his idea is somewhat ‘crazy’.
Associated Press: Alien abduction? Stolen by Russia? MH370 theories keep coming, by Jane Wardell
The Independent Group (IG), comprised of around a dozen satellite, data, maths and aviation experts, expelled Wise this week following articles linked to his book.
“It’s a bunch of garbage,” said New Zealand-based IG member Duncan Steel.
Maclean’s (Canada): Inside the search for Flight MH370, by Chris Sorenson
Of course, because nothing to do with MH370 is ever simple, one of the Independent Group’s members, science writer and CNN aviation analyst Jeff Wise, recently wrote an article for New York magazine that laid out an alternative scenario, where MH370 might have flown north and landed at a remote runway in Kazakhstan. He called it his pet theory on MH370 and claims it fits the available data as well as any other.
News Corp Australia: Expert Jeff Wise links Vladimir Putin to MH370 disaster, by James Law
Now, a far-out theory from one of CNN’s chief commentators on the aviation disaster, science journalist Jeff Wise, has been circulated worldwide — and has more credibility than you might think.
WAToday (Australia): MH370 flew to Kazakhstan: Jeff Wise outlines new theory, by Michael Koziol
Others who have examined the hypothesis regard it as fanciful. Aviation expert Sylvia Wrigley, who wrote her own book on MH370, said no aircraft had previously been tracked using Inmarsat’s BFO data. “The idea that it was even possible was a major revelation, even to Inmarsat,” she wrote. Therefore, the notion that hijackers would deliberately falsify the data in order to lead investigators on a wild goose chase was “crazy” and “inconceivably sophisticated”, she said.
La Press (Canada): Et Si L’Avion S’Était Posé… Au Kazakhstan?, par Philippe Mercure
Les gens qui défendent des théories du complot cherchent habituellement à vous persuader à tout prix qu’ils détiennent la vérité. Jeff Wise est un autre type de personnage. Le pilote et journaliste scientifique américain a été l’un de ceux qui ont le plus commenté la disparition de l’avion MH370 depuis un an. Et il vient de lancer une thèse particulièrement controversée, celle voulant que l’avion ait été dérouté par des Russes, qui l’auraient fait atterrir… au Kazakhstan. La théorie, on s’en doute, a été accueillie avec beaucoup de scepticisme, incluant par son propre auteur.
« Il y a des matins où je me réveille et je me dis que c’est ce qui est arrivé. Et il y a d’autres matins où je juge que c’est complètement fou… et que je le suis aussi. »
GQ: The Vanishing, by Sean Flynn
The specifics are very technical, and there are problems matching parts of it to the available data. “The fuel model,” Wise says, for instance, “doesn’t really allow it.” The route would have traversed militarized and tightly monitored airspace, and the motive is completely unclear, except Vladimir Putin is an irrational thug. But it’s a reasoned, good-faith exercise, and Wise argues Kazakhstan is more probable than any other terrestrial landing and no more improbable than a crash into the ocean. “You either think the debris must have washed up by now or you think it evaded all those northern radars,” he says. “Which seems more impossible to you?”
I like the title from Daily Mail 😀
@Jeff: Does your theory still require an assumption the perps had no idea BTOs were being recorded? If so,
1. how do you square that with your perps having attended the AF447 post-mortem conferences, where surely that data capture would have been a hot topic?
2. why “spoof” a BFO that is nearly the mirror image (from 3F1’s perspective) of the true path you’re trying to HIDE? Why not instead feed BFO values that would send searchers off at some random angle?
@Brock
Why leave a false trail, risk detection over land?
It’s a fine story & it has served to keep the topic ‘trending’, that’s what we do in this era.
TEx
It’s a story worth a movie, looking at the junk Hollywood is producing these days this scenario would be a nice refreshment.
@Brock – there are two convenient aspects of the spoof to the SIO.
The first is that even though a spoof might be possible, it may still be difficult. It would be far easier to spoof a straight line, in the other direction, than a valid flight path. Spoofing a flight path would risk discovery, for example, if it crossed near an actual flight and yet went undetected. It would require possible adjustments for weather, for example. By far, the easiest path to *reliably* spoof would be due south in this case. (Maybe due east if it was over the Pacific, or circular in the Atlantic.) The calculations don’t need to be right here – we almost instinctively assumed a straight path anyway and made the data fit. But the data needs to not take us too close to any witnesses who could report the absence of a flight.
The other reason, of course, is that this particular spot in the SIO is probably the least likely spot on earth to be “cleared” of a plane. This search could go for a hundred years without proving the plane isn’t in the SIO. So, better to spoof a flight to the SIO than somewhere that might have more ocean traffic or satellite oversight.
That it mirrors Kazakhstan may not matter, since Kazakhstan is, as Jeff suggests, the best landing site and the SIO is the best vanishing site, and only by coincidence are the paths mirrors.
An interesting angle for the media to pursue, if they could shake off their intellectual laziness: does BFO interprertation – under MH370 conditions – really constitute “hard science” as some call it? If it doesn’t then we are in the SIO under questionable pretext.
12 months later it becomes a useful exercize to reassess the picture without the BFO as Jeff has done. It takes us back to two scenarios, north and south. One ends up in the drink for no apparent reason and one ends up at an airstrip? Then remember there is no wreckage – nothing. The media’s first role nowadays is to guard their credibility, engage readers second, and investigate comes way down the list. I’m glad Victor is tunneling into this issue at present.
Good article on MH370 here:
http://www.macleans.ca/news/world/search-for-mh370/
@airlandseaman, That’s one of the articles here! You just have to click through to the jump. Loved your quotes in there.
Roundtable discussion on MH370 Thursday at 19:30UTC http://www.stream.aljazeera.com/
Blocked in the US. Use a proxy server if you are in the US.http://hola.org/
Shipping containers? That was one of the early explanations for some of those objects in the early days.
https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/world/a/26527922/australia-pm-suggests-mh370-search-could-be-scaled-back/
Hi Jeff,
I’ve been a close follower of Mh370 since day 1, and as far as I’m concerned your voice has had the most cut through and clarity of any throughout. Of course, as you acknowledge, in many ways your theory is bonkers. But your research is important. You are one of the few who seems able to consider technical data, human factors and geopolitical realities all together. And one of the few doing true investigative journalism from all of these angles. What I would like to suggest is: why not China? In terms of avoiding radar this is a far easier option. They would have no qualms doing away with a few hundred of their own citizens if necessary. And they have been remarkably quiet, so it seems to me, on the international front regarding this whole situation. The second question for you: isn’t it more likely that the data has been tampered with at the Inmarsat end? For your scenario to hold water it seems likely, if not necessary, that there be some kind of state spy at Inmarsat. Would it not be easier to mess with things at that end? Have you investigated Inmarsat staff at all? I am a mere distant observer and have not thought either of these questions through – maybe you already have good reasons to discount them. But I thought they were worth suggesting. Cheers!
J
Hi Jeff, what sort of data/information are the the authorities withholding & which can help towards proving your theory?
@Jeff,
You are aware that Bild Zeitung claims your theory is about the pro-Russian rebels who might’ve abducted the plane in order to use it later for their purposes.
As I said yesterday: Die Bild Zeitung is the most powerful tabloid in Germany. It’s an institution. German Nobel Prize winner Heinrich Böll has even written a novel about their shenanigans in the 70ies.The writer Günther Wallraf went undercover as an intern in order to unmask their kind of journalism – and wrote a well known book report about his experiences.You go up with them and you go down with them. Which is good for you insofar as everybody in Germany reads it at least sometimes – but most won’t admit this secret vice 😉
And while they have the power to drive German presidents (Christian Wulff) or national soccer coaches into resignation, they are not known for being necessarily truthful. Oh well, at least they never ran with the UFO crowd – and lately their track record hasn’t been so bad. It was good that Christian Wulff resigned, because he was spectacularly incompetent as a President. However the national soccer coach Joachim Löw escaped the clutches of Bild Zeitung by winning the Soccer World Championship with the German nation team in Rio last year. Now, that’s what I call a powerful answer.Even Bild Zeitung couldn’t argue with that.
@ALSM,
yes, good quotes from you in the Canadian article. We should keep in mind that the North-vs-South distinction was only possible because Inmarsat treated the aging Satellite as being geostationary while in reality it was not anymore.
Since when has the satellite ceased to be geostationary, btw?
According to Gerry Soejatman there have been a few factions who started to experiment with spoofed BFOs a couple of years ago. What did they hope to accomplish by that? Creating confusion? Not all satellites ceased to be truly geostationary…
Science and INMARSAT
@Matt Perth
“does BFO interpretation – under MH370 conditions – really constitute “hard science” as some call it?”
Well, Matty, science and this investigation seem to me to be two very different things. Its not only because of the unforgivable ping-show about the data recorders, and because of the dramatic neglect of IT related aspects in the data evaluation, that amounts to a scientific blunder in itself, no, its already the abscence of any methodological approach and an atmosphere that would suit a third world dictatorship in the relationship between public, science, press and investigation that makes any idea of valuable science look ridiculous. There is no access to the important documents, there is no free discussion of among the scientific community, the lack of information is apalling. ITs just not possible to do science here. MAybe this is owed to the fact, that we are in a pre-stage of the investigation that is still dominated by the ideas of SAR operations, which dont usually need science but honest people who care.
Especially the exclusive reliance on INMARSAT data cannot be called science in the first place.
When i first looked at the data, i was pretty much amazed about the neat series of figures. “Oh, well”, i thought, “someone draws a line on a map and tells his employee ‘give me the BFO and BTO figures for that’ …” And when i saw the logon 18:25h, i was done with them. Couldnt really understand how a scientist like Duncan Steel could spend absolution to them, like he did, first thing he saw them. Believe me, the likelihood that there is something wrong about these data is very high. INMARSAT is not known for focusing on safety issues. They neglect their software as was shown with missing of crucial updates for decades. Their authentifying process seems to be weak, etc. ITs obvious that the data could not be immediately trusted. If we had a medical case here, the doctor who uses such data would be sued. In science you dont want to use such a small and probably woundable data base. You want some other confirmation. You want to see at least one image, that shows the plane during its flight to the SIO, or you want to see at least one life vest, one litle piece of debris. The less confirmation you have, the less you can speak about “science”. In the philosophy of science a hypothesis can be strong or weaker. A very weak hypothesis can even be deemed “unscientific”.
Now people will come and say: “There are the radar data. The plane was last seen near the first ping ring. So there must have been an FMT.” I tell you: There must not have been a FMT at all. For the time being its just free fantasy. This part of the narrative is definitely no science at all. Its the hope, that a misleading and corrupt government provides somehow “valuable” radar sightings, patched from different sources, giving us nothing but a mobile phone image and having missed the due ICAO protocol and there own protocol for identification of the shown radar blip. I dont mind anybody using these radar data or, against all odds, trust the malaysian government, but its not about science then. Its about common sense, speculation and fantasy. Its clear: Nobody observed anything, that would support this FMT-“construct”.
So we have a lot of strategies here on the basis of common sense, gut feelings, but you should not mix that up with being science. I was amazed when INMARSAT claimed in a somehow arrogant way, that “they had earthbraking new science” with those BFOs analysis. Apart from Doppler-phenomens well understood in science since decades, there performance turns out to be a disaster mildly said.
@Brock,
Good questions from you at 2:55 pm. I asked myself the same: If the perps used the crash of AF447 as a blueprint and were clever enough to anticipate that BFOs could be used for determinating the direction of the plane, how could they not know about Inmarsat taking and stashing the BTOs? And since it took Inmarsat a while to come up with their math which made use of the BFOs and the fact that the satellite was not geostationary anymore, the Northern direction and Kazakhstan as a possible destination was still very much on the table the first two weeks of the search.
The Southern direction was only favored because it was generally assumed that mh370 couldn’t possibly have escaped mainland radar detection if it really flew North.
Why the fake Southern path in Jeff’s scenario is the mirror image of the real Northern route could be understood better if we knew in detail how exactly the perps of Jeff’s hypothesis might’ve distorted the BFOs. That this faked mirror path ended in a remote location of the SIO would then have to be treated as a side effect which suited the perps just fine. But it is a head scratcher.
@CosmicAcademy
I disagree with your last comment. The science behind the calculations based on the satellite data is sound. If the satellite data were not correct for some reason (because they were spoofed or Inmarsat made them up or their instruments are defect) the science behind the calculation would still be sound. But the results would not be correct because they worked with corrupted numbers.
It is age old question in science: Can you be sure that an experimental set up wasn’t faulty or fraudulent. Theoretical physicists have to trust CERN that their famous Large Hadron Collider works as it should. If it doesn’t for some reasons all calculations based on those faulty measurements have to be thrown out of the window. But that doesn’t make the science behind those calculations faulty.
We have to decide if we trust Inmarsat that they told the truth and that their data were not the result of faulty or defect instruments. I think we don’t have to worry about the second possibility, since the reasonable accurateness of their instruments could be checked by looking at data from other planes. So, if we want to throw out Inmarsat’s data, we have to show that they could’ve been spoofed or that Inmarsat can’t be trusted. Or – as Victor is trying atm – that everybody involved in the calculations, including the IG, made a big mistake. But that argument would still be based on the same science.
Said it before, say it again – any electronic trace left behind was always going to get the full forensic treatment. Doppler in use everywhere.
Jeff: A belated congrats on the book, and I dig the courageous mix of reviews! Would you mind signing a copy or me and drop shipping it to my CA address? I can think of no better memento of the late night hours that I have spent here, much to my wife’s frustration (i.e., lots of feigned hair pulling).
And now I have concomitantly explained why have been away and will likely remain on the fringes of the discussion for the time being, pending substantial new developments. Lordy, the hours and reams of text that have gone into this thing. Meanwhile, I am impressed by the persistence and tenacity of the crew here at jeffwise.net. Good for you, good for the NOK, good for everyone.
I miss all of you.
I’ll be back…
Randxoxo
Yes, Matty, you’re right re: forensic treatment. Before making any predictions of the plane’s location it has to be established that the numbers Inmarsat came up with can be trusted, because it’s unlikely that they are fraudulent or that their instruments are off. As I said the instruments are probably ok because this has been checked by looking at data from other planes. However the possibility of fraudulent or distorted data (distorted upstream by the perps or downstream by people working for Inmarsat) might not have been investigated diligently enough.
While it is fairly easy to see why hijackers might have a motive to create a false electronic trail, we have to question if it is even possible to fake the pings upstream from Inmarsat.And if it is reasonable to assume that the perps were sophisticated enough to do so.
However, if we contemplate the possibility that Inmarsat knowingly came up with false data, we have to establish a strong motive, since discovery of such a fraud could be ruinous for the company.
@Rand,
Good to see you!! Yes, please come back, if your wife is ok with that once in a while. Your philosophical comments are missed here.
Littlefoot – At the Hadron collider there is rigid monitoring of all apparatus. With MH370 there was almost none.
@Matty,yes. That’s why physicists generally trust the LHC’s results. Although there have been faulty measurements in the past and it has been widely reported a couple of years ago that the fundaments of physics needed re-evaluation, since there might’ve been particles moving faster than speed of light. Turned out that an instrument was decalibrated and physic books don’t have to be rewritten just yet. 🙂
But while Inmarsat instruments might not live up to CERN standard, I would exlude faulty instruments here, since that could and has been checked by looking at the data produced by other planes.
@Rand, Thanks so much, and great to have you back. I’d happily send you an autographed book but so far it’s only an e-book–let’s see what happens!
@c4c, I think that Boeing, Inmarsat, and Honeywell could collectively get together and rule in or rule out the possibility of the spoofing hack I describe. In fact if and when the final report comes out — assuming the plane hasn’t been found — I wouldn’t be surprised if the topic gets addressed. But before then, given that the investigation is ongoing, I don’t have much hope that anything will be forthcoming soon.
I contacted a representative of the Ukrainian government to see if they’d be interested in researching the backgrounds of Chustrak and Deineka, but he never got back to me.
@CosmicAcademy: re: science & Inmarsat: thank you. Just: thank you.
I think my (one and only) speculation theory fits nicely, here:
(from “What we Know”, Oct.3 4:57pm)
***
@JS: pure speculation, and thus not worth the pixels it darkens, but here goes:
–MH370 shot down shortly after 17:21 UTC in Gulf of Thailand (war games gone wrong)
–after initial panic (during which fragments of the TRUTH are glimpsed), cover-up begins to find its stride. US issues statements which direct search to Bay of Bengal; when coast is clear, mess is cleaned up. Western media played like fiddle to set up Malaysian govt as suspect in eyes of Western public. Malaysia paid to endorse “turned west” radar, then clam up
–some Pentagon bigwig pops over to Inmarsat HQ, puts an arm around its CEO’s shoulders, and explains what happens next
–“MH370″ (either remnants pulled from GoT, or a suitably modified twin) is sunk in the SIO at s38
–after a few days, either a) Oz balks at cost of getting to s38, and is allowed to fabricate reasons for searching closer to port and/or surveying much more drillable/minable terrain, or b) the s38 site must be vacated for whatever reason (evidence needs to be aged / adjusted)
–demand for raw Inmarsat data was under-anticipated. Several weeks required to develop believable raw data
–April-August: bogus reasons for moving search are gradually retracted, to a schedule which perhaps permits bathy surveying of the more economically lucrative portions of the 7th arc
-when s38 is ready to be (re)discovered, and/or when costs are an order of magnitude lower, search moves back to s38
This explains…
-why jets were never scrambled
-zero debris in SIO
-zero radar hits reported by every other nation (including Malaysia – until they changed their story Mar.12, after intense “consultation” with US agencies)
-Chinese satellite images of 3 large pieces of debris near IGARI, taken Mar.9
-alacrity with which US/Oz took over (& paid for) the search
-intense secrecy and anonymity of JIT overlords
-depth and breadth of conspiracy theory fodder fed like red meat to the tin hat crowd
-why they moved the search so far NE, for reasons which fall apart upon scrutiny
-prime-ministerial confidence in authenticity of acoustic pings whose frequency was inconsistent with that of an FDR
-delay in – and redacted/spliced character of – the Inmarsat data release
-ATSB’s refusal to release unclassified data they claim to have (i.e. fuel performance model and assumptions)
–Mike McKay’s eyewitness account
Just one scenario. I am far from married to it.
But as I’ve said many times, speculation is counter-productive – we need to get past this silly pet theory-measuring contest, and press authorities for the transparency they promised, and which passengers’ families deserve.
***
If I were to update this speculation from Oct.3 to Mar.6, it would be to remove the faked wreckage (if I have the event right, Bayes is now telling me the perps think they have a tight enough grip on the narrative not to bother planting physical evidence) – and to add:
-the Mar.16 death of Inmarsat “key operator” Stuart Fairbairn
-regular appearance of “independent evidence which MAY corroborate Inmarsat data!” – all of which disintegrate on scrutiny
…to the list of “things explained”.
@Brock – I’ll go along with your speculation. It answers the right questions. It’s on the table as far as I’m concerned, though obviously the table is quite crowded.
@Cosmic – your post gave me an idea. I’ve previously raised questions about how the BTOs were calculated prior to being logged.
You have me thinking about a far more obvious question that was never asked. If BTOs represent round trip times, and the sent and receive times are all logged already…
Why log BTOs at all?
If they could be derived from other data in the log, the story that “we added them after AF447” falls on its face.
Brock that’s a huge conspiracy which would have to involve many countries, if this was actually possible we would have much bigger problem than a missing plane…
This new piece by John Fiorentino is worth a read:
“The acoustic information recorded in April was obtained under the provisions of the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 and is CLASSIFIED AS RESTRICTED INFORMATION (CAPS mine) as defined in Part 1 Section 3 of the Act.
So, are we to believe that the ATSB is ignorant of it’s own authority, or is something else going on here? Just who is running the show regarding the Australian Investigation into MH370? Just what is the true role of the JACC?”
http://t.co/frsP3rTcb5
It is mind boggling how much ignorance I see expressed here about Inmarsat. The history of that company is important. Like Intelsat, chartered by the UN to get satellite communications up and going to serve the world, Inmarsat was chartered by the UN in the late 70’s for the primary purpose of promoting “safety of life at sea”. The charter was later amended to include aeronautical safety services, and eventually expanded to include land mobile and thin route fixed/portable satellite services. Safety has been the cornerstone of Inmarsat’s existence.
Primarily due to the competition brought on by Skylink Corporation and American Mobile Satellite Corporation in the 80’s, the UN spun off the Inmarsat (and Intelsat) monopolies and Inmarsat became a private company, now competing with the likes of Iridium, a mobile satellite communications company that was started by Motorola to compete with AMSC, after Motorola failed to convince the FCC that there was no need for mobile satellite systems (since they were going to cover the world with cellular). I founded both Skylink Corporation and AMSC, so I have some first-hand knowledge about this.
In the 80’s, I was involved in a long legal battle over global L band spectrum allocations and FCC licenses. It brought me into close contact with the people at Inmarsat, both on a technical and legal level. They were formidable opposition on the spectrum allocation battle front. I’ll never forget the shuttle diplomacy at the ‘87 WARC in Geneva. We ultimately prevailed and got an FCC license to build, launch and operate the first domestic MSS in the western hemisphere (launched in 1995). But while all the legal and regulatory crap was going on, Inmarsat helped us demonstrate to the FCC and investors how our service would work. They gave us access to their GES in New England and allowed us to transmit via their 1st generation satellite to prove to the world that we had a viable system concept. They were our economic and regulatory competition, but they helped us on a technical level because they supported the safety services we wanted to establish in North America. OK. They may have had a number of reasons for helping us, but they were honest and sincere about promoting safety services then, as they are today. Safety is in their DNA.
I just want to summarize by saying: I know Inmarsat well. I understand the BTO and BFO data on a detailed technical level. The Inmarsat people that brought this data to the table are all heroes. Those that say this data is not hard evidence have simply failed to keep up with forensic scientific methods. It is by far the most important evidence we have. (You can’t see DNA, but it still puts criminals behind bars.) It is solid forensic evidence. Competent people all over the planet who have dug deep into this data all agree to within a narrow range of margin that that MH370 is in the SIO, near 37.7S.
Thanks, Mike. You continue to be the voice of reason. I appreciate your patience and your generosity in sharing your knowledge with the rest of us.
@alsm
[Factual inaccuracy redacted. DennisW, you don’t understand this material so please stop attempting to propogate your misunderstanding. Final warning.]
DennisW:
You can disagree all you want to on the analysis. I’m happy to defend that too. But the thrust of my comments was on the disgusting, ignorant disinformation and misinformation about the integrity of Inmarsat and its people. I am pleased to see you agree there is “…nothing wrong with the Inmarsat data.”
@airlandseaman:
“It is by far the most important evidence we have. (You can’t see DNA, but it still puts criminals behind bars.)”
The Inmarsat data is what we have, very true. But if you want to compare Inmarsat’s data to DNA evidence, please be advised: there have been numerous wrongful convictions (in the US) based on unvalidated or improper forensic science – including DNA ANALYSIS.
http://bit.ly/1BUtIMD
Behind all science and scientific inquiry are HUMAN BEINGS – all of whom are capable of making mistakes — or worse — that lead to false ‘positives’.
So if the US judicial system is willing to review forensic evidence (including DNA), because the conclusions of such evidence are not always unassailable, and because people’s LIVES hang in the balance, Inmarsat’s data should be subject to the same level of scrutiny. For the 239 lives presumably lost on MH370, and for their families, who go on living but suffer in limbo, while games are being played with the truth.
alsm I also agree the data is 100% believable but isn’t the SIO theory based on fixed altitude(and/or speed and/or heading)?!
I see you are the one who has the most knowledge about pings here so is there something else to it? Can you please clear that up for me.
CNN was going to broadcast a special on the disappearance of MH370, on Tuesday, which was preempted by the Israeli prime minister’s speech before Congress. Jeff said it was going to air tonight, and that he was going to be on-air in the 10-11 p.m. time slot. Is that still the case?
Personally, I figured CNN would await until Sunday, which will mark exactly one year.
Mike,
Assuming this was directed at me, please note that I’ve never maligned anyone at Inmarsat. I’ve only asked for clarification on a topic that various agencies have seemingly contradicted themselves, and contradicted published protocols on.
My ignorance, if you want to call it that, is based solely on my inability to get information that has been half-published, along with a few footnotes along the lines of “trust us, we know more than you.”
Indeed, those folks know more than I do. But they are still hiding behind their credentials. Scientific method is based on data, not credentials. You cannot judge anyone’s ability to understand data that they’ve never been given.
I’m open to discussion on or off this forum, but again I understand that you’re not interested so I’ll leave it at that, but perhaps the tone is a bit harsh?
This isn’t personal, and Inmarsat should not be immune from any criticism or questioning while we collectively suspect the pilots, the passengers, Boeing, the Russians, the Iranians, the Malaysians, etc.
As we speak, Fugro Equator is completing the 21st pass across the southern zone of the 7th arc, for a combined search width (assuming no “redo” swaths) of 21 x 2 = 42km = 22.7nmi.
If my model – now calibrated to ALSM’s specifications regarding end-flight dynamics and BTO error – is accurate, and the ATSB has searched the centre of the distribution, then the probability density of the [SIO to fuel exhaustion, no pilot intervention thereafter] scenario is now already 98% searched.
Latest attached. Peer review, as always, is welcomed. I’ve simplified one column’s formula so that Excel 2013 is no longer required to view it (should now be backwards compatible to at least 2007):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-r3yuaF2p72dmNncjVnOFYxRU0/view?usp=sharing
@Nate, I’m slated to go on tonight at around 10.10pm, and then back on Sunday during the 6pm hour.
@Jeff, good luck 🙂
Will it be available on youtube eventually. We can’t watch here in Germany.
@Brock,
I’ve always liked your approach, but in fairness, isn’t a probability distribution only applicable if the search was randomly covering search area rather than in swathes?
I think I posted this before, but when the search pattern is influenced by ship capabilities, isn’t the cumulative probability somewhere in between a fully random search (which would now be 98% cumulative) and a pure grid search (with a cumulative = [area searched/total area])
So as much as it looks like a fruitless search, isn’t it a bit lower, in between 45% and 98%? Maybe 70%?
Or do you feel that the search pattern has effectively run from the middle of the normal curve outwards for all practical purposes?
@littlefoot, “Yes, Matty, you’re right re: forensic treatment. Before making any predictions of the plane’s location it has to be established that the numbers Inmarsat came up with can be trusted, because it’s unlikely that they are fraudulent or that their instruments are off. ”
In my view, there’s a much better target for forensic treatment: the purported radar track!
The Inmarsat data has received multiple independent scientific analyses and appears self consistent. This seems To be a strong indication that it is valid and sound.
The one and only radar track publicly availabe is sourced from the Malaysian authorities with questionable trustworthyness, un-corroborated by multiple other countries with radar capabilities along that track, has unexplained gaps, an unexplained “impossibly sharp” corner, unreliable and discarded altitude data, etc.
In my view, the satellite data and path models based on it have a high likelyhood of being good. It is the initial condition (read last radar return time and location), that is resting on very weak foundations.
Any Systems engineer will tell you, no matter how good or accurate your system/algorithm is, if you put garbage in, you’ll get garbage out.
I suggested it before, lets throw out the radar track altogether and plug in the last known ACARS position as the initial condition. We’d get two limited ranges on the first ping arc after going dark (based on performance characeristics) from which the basic W-FMT-S(or N?) routes would lead to new priority search areas.
Cheers
Will
@JS: think of ALSM’s 50nmi zone (-20/+30nmi) as a rectangle similar to the purple zone in the ATSB’s map. Think of my model as applying “shading” to that rectangle: darker in the central regions, then lightening, and nearly transparent at the border. The bell curve at the far right of the sheet gives you the relative shading as you move from one long border of the rectangle to the other.
Since Fugro has searched the CENTRAL 45.3% of this rectangle, it has already covered (according to that bell curve) 98% of the “colour” representing the likelihood of the plane’s supposed location.
ALSM disagrees with the model’s result, but I have yet to field a dispute regarding its construction or calibration. My guess is that the aggregation of errors (distance to impact, angle to impact, BTO error) combine in such a way that the “uncertainty of the sum” is less than the “sum of the uncertainty” – to a considerable, and perhaps counterintuitive degree.
To illustrate: yes, BTO error increases the total width to be searched before achieving 100% certainty, but since BTO error is as likely to REDUCE the plane’s distance from the measured 7th arc as it is to INCREASE it, the 95% confidence zone moves only fractionally.
@Brock,
Re probability distribution,
If the modelling results of “near vertical spiral dive at time of last ping” and (I think Richard’s) modelling of such a dive showing a very tight focus of a few miles are close to the mark, then the probability distribution would be a very steep bell curve with a high center ON the 7th arc.
Since the search has sofar only been conducted on the OUTSIDE portion of the arc, we can at best expect a less than 50% probability coverage.
Funnily, when starting to write this I was going for near 100%, before it occured to me, that the inside portion hasn’t been searched at all!
Cheers
Will
“The one and only radar track publicly availabe is sourced from the Malaysian authorities with questionable trustworthyness, un-corroborated by multiple other countries with radar capabilities along that track, has unexplained gaps, an unexplained “impossibly sharp” corner, unreliable and discarded altitude data, etc.”
why would they fake their own data if they are not allied with perpetrators? It would make no sense. For me the path looks very logical, it’s the shortest one that takes the plane around Indonesia using official air corridors (as to not make plane suspicious), it’s the path the perpetrator would most likely take so I don’t have any reason to doubt it.
Unreliable and discarded altitude data? When distance increases – precision decreases, and it’s such for every radar. That’s why they got erroneous FL430 reading, the plane was too far from the radar at that point.
@Jeff
Final warning unnecessary. Good luck on your endeavors.
My poser was – does BFO interprertation – under MH370 conditions – really constitute “hard science”
That should be a Yes/No question. What would Einstein say?
Paywalled jeff, so it’s in full
A YEAR after Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 disappeared from the skies the mystery remains as baffling as ever, but the man heading the search says he is now more confident of success.
Australian Transport Safety Bureau chief commissioner Martin Dolan says his optimism that the plane will be found has been boosted by developments over recent months.
This is despite the fact more than 40 per cent of the probable crash area has been scoured without a sign of anything remotely resembling an aircraft debris field.
The searchers classify detections according to three levels, with level three recording a variance to the surrounding area that is likely to be geological but enough of an anomaly to warrant a closer look. More than 100 of these have been examined and eliminated.
Level two involves what appear to be artificial objects and the search team has found 15 or 16 in this category, including shipping containers on the sea floor.
However, there has been no level one detection of the critical aircraft debris field.
But Mr Dolan says the hunt for MH370 has given him confidence that the search fleet is providing a level of resolution and coverage that allows it to detect any artificial objects on the seabed.
He remains confident the plane is close to the seventh arc in the 60,000sq km high-priority search area in the Indian Ocean, defined by an analysis of satellite signals.
“If anything, over the last few months we’ve become a bit firmer in our confidence in that,’’ he told The Australian this week.
“That’s really for two reasons: we’ve continued to analyse the satellite data and basically the assessment hasn’t shifted from what we published in October about the search area.
“So there’s increased confidence in the output of the models that delivered the search area and we are now confident that the equipment, vessels and people we’ve got out there are covering the area very thoroughly.
“So I’m less cautious, more confident but because we’re still dealing with probabilities — and not certainties — we can’t say it’s certain it’s there.’’
MH370 and its 239 passengers and crew took off from Kuala Lumpur International Airport on March 8 last year and lost contact with air-traffic control during the transition between Malaysian and Vietnamese airspace.
The aircraft’s transponder went dark and communications through the Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System largely stopped. But a satellite data unit on the plane continued to communicate, through an Inmarsat satellite over the Indian Ocean, with a ground station in Perth.
The communication was confined to seven electronic acknowledgments or ‘‘handshakes” — two initiated by the plane and five by the ground station — but it was enough to allow technicians to combine the phenomena related to signal travel time and frequency, with assumptions about the plane’s behaviour, to plot a probably crash area.
They were able to meld this with what was known from secondary and primary radar tracks as well as information from two unanswered phone calls to build a picture of its probable journey and further refined this last October.
The problem is there are scores of possible routes covering a swathe of ocean that needs to be painstakingly searched using towed side scan sonar and an autonomous submersible that can be deployed without a connection to the ship to search a pre-programmed area.
The four ships involved in the search were still combing the area earlier this week but one of them, Go Phoenix, was due to return to port by the weekend.
The other three have just supplied and are expected to stay on task for about a month. They include Fugro Supporter, which is equipped with a HUGIN 45000 autonomous underwater vehicle.
Mr Dolan remains confident that, barring the unexpected, the search team will have swept the high-priority area by the end of May.
“We allowed for weather delays, minor equipment problems, resupply and all the rest of it,’’ he said. “And there’s nothing we’ve seen, despite two cyclones in one week, that we won’t have covered the area by the end of May.’’
The next big development will be an interim accident report by Malaysian authorities due out tomorrow, but Mr Dolan said there was nothing in the document that would affect the search.
“We’ve had access to information related to that so we’re confident that any information that is relevant to the search has already been given to us,’’ he said.
He said the deteriorating weather as winter approached had been factored in and efforts were being concentrated on the search area’s most southerly point.
“We want to eliminate the area where there’s more likely to be bad weather as we head into autumn and winter,’’ he said.
The ATSB has also been revisiting its ocean drift modelling, given the absence of reports of any wreckage being washed ashore.
This lack of wreckage has been used to back some conjecture that the search is being conducted in the wrong area, but Mr Dolan said he was not surprised wreckage had not been washed ashore.
Factors at play included how the aircraft hit the water and whether it survived relatively intact or broke similar to how Air France flight 447 did in the Atlantic after a high-altitude stall.
Mr Dolan said the largely intact scenario meant there may not have been as much debris as many people assumed.
In the case of AF447, he said the French did not find any additional surface wreckage after day 10, but the search for MH370 only switched to the Indian Ocean on day 10 and to the current search area until well after that.
“So put all that together and the fact the air and sea search for surface debris covered an area about half of Australia, I’m not particularly surprised we didn’t find anything,’’ he said.
“We’ve been finalising a re-run of our drift modelling just on the off chance there might still be some surface debris. We’d previously said if any comes ashore it’s most likely to be on the coast of Indonesia.
“We’ve trying very hard to run the numbers on that. With nearly a year gone it’s not an exact science any more and once we’ve finished that if we have to advise any other government to look at its coast we will.
“But we don’t hold out high prosects of there being anything.’’
So what if May arrives and there is still no sign of MH370?
Mr Dolan described this as “hypothetical’’ and said it would be up to the governments involved — Malaysia, China and Australia — to discuss what to do next.
A spokesman for Australia’s Deputy Prime Minister, Warren Truss, emphasised this week that there were no talks under way to call off the search after some media reports suggested this was the case.
A spokesman for Mr Truss said the government remained cautiously optimistic about finding the plane.
“If, however, the plane is not found at the completion of the search (expected around May), then discussions will be had between Australia, Malaysia, China and potentially others on the next steps,’’ he said.
@Matty,
There’s no such thing as hard science “yes or no”. Because in every experimental set up, every thought experiment, every analysis and interpretation of data you have human input and the possibility that somewhere along the line a mistake was made. Einstein would say : “It’s all relative” 😉
Littlefoot – I can think of things that could make it into the “hard science” basket. In this case I’d say no.
@MuOne: good observation: that’s precisely why I include the caveat: “IF the ATSB has searched the centre of the distribution”.
Determining the likelihood that this condition holds is quite complicated (surprise!):
First, Mike Chillit’s maps may or may not be accurate (IG says no – I looked at them hard, and concluded his 7th arc placement was maybe 3nmi too far NW – not huge, but enough to affect this discussion.) I’ve plotted Chillit’s maps against topographical maps that have coordinates – and then aligned this set to the ATSB map – and found the towfish swaths to be materially more “symmetric” around the ATSB’s 7th arc than around Chillit’s (thought his might just mean the ATSB’s is wrong).
Second: the 7th arc itself is not an arc, but a cone – the lower the assumed altitude, the further south (or north, if you’re of Yubileniyan persuasion) the signal data says the plane was. To reflect this subtle aspect, IG publications often show 2 arcs – one at FL350, and one at sea level. My 3nmi error calc above was found by comparing Chillit’s arc to the FL350 arc.
Third: if the plane had an assumed altitude at the exact FL350 arc7 cross-point – and a pre-flameout southward bearing – then SOME southward momentum seems to be a reasonable assumption (Richard Cole did some nice work which I think helps prove this point – though I think an interpretation of his work needs to take into consideration an estimated flameout at 00:16, not 00:19=arc7).
Finally, since the plane does not hit the arc at a perpendicular angle (as viewed from above), the hypothetical corkscrew DIRECTION would matter: if clockwise, the centre of the distribution is driven NORTH of arc7; if counter-clockwise, the centre is driven SOUTH. ATSB seems to know the order of engine flameout, and as a consequence the direction of the hypothesized spin: COUNTER-clockwise, therefore centre moves SOUTH.
But none of this is enough to remove the caveat, so I’m keeping it in.
One aspect that should NOT be added to the above list is the imprecision of the BTO measurement itself, because this is explicitly factored in to the model – adding it to this list would double-count it.