The unsettling oddness was there from the first moment, on March 8, when Malaysia Airlines announced that a plane from Kuala Lumpur bound for Beijing, Flight 370, had disappeared over the South China Sea in the middle of the night. There had been no bad weather, no distress call, no wreckage, no eyewitness accounts of a fireball in the sky—just a plane that said good-bye to one air-traffic controller and, two minutes later, failed to say hello to the next. And the crash, if it was a crash, got stranger from there.
My yearlong detour to Planet MH370 began two days later, when I got an email from an editor at Slate asking if I’d write about the incident. I’m a private pilot and science writer, and I wrote about the last big mysterious crash, of Air France 447 in 2009. My story ran on the 12th. The following morning, I was invited to go on CNN. Soon, I was on-air up to six times a day as part of its nonstop MH370 coverage.
There was no intro course on how to be a cable-news expert. The Town Car would show up to take me to the studio, I’d sign in with reception, a guest-greeter would take me to makeup, I’d hang out in the greenroom, the sound guy would rig me with a mike and an earpiece, a producer would lead me onto the set, I’d plug in and sit in the seat, a producer would tell me what camera to look at during the introduction, we’d come back from break, the anchor would read the introduction to the story and then ask me a question or maybe two, I’d answer, then we’d go to break, I would unplug, wipe off my makeup, and take the car 43 blocks back uptown. Then a couple of hours later, I’d do it again. I was spending 18 hours a day doing six minutes of talking.
As time went by, CNN winnowed its expert pool down to a dozen or so regulars who earned the on-air title “CNN aviation analysts”: airline pilots, ex-government honchos, aviation lawyers, and me. We were paid by the week, with the length of our contracts dependent on how long the story seemed likely to play out. The first couple were seven-day, the next few were 14-day, and the last one was a month. We’d appear solo, or in pairs, or in larger groups for panel discussions—whatever it took to vary the rhythm of perpetual chatter.1
I soon realized the germ of every TV-news segment is: “Officials say X.” The validity of the story derives from the authority of the source. The expert, such as myself, is on hand to add dimension or clarity. Truth flowed one way: from the official source, through the anchor, past the expert, and onward into the great sea of viewerdom.
What made MH370 challenging to cover was, first, that the event was unprecedented and technically complex and, second, that the officials were remarkably untrustworthy. For instance, the search started over the South China Sea, naturally enough, but soon after, Malaysia opened up a new search area in the Andaman Sea, 400 miles away. Why? Rumors swirled that military radar had seen the plane pull a 180. The Malaysian government explicitly denied it, but after a week of letting other countries search the South China Sea, the officials admitted that they’d known about the U-turn from day one.
Of course, nothing turned up in the Andaman Sea, either. But in London, scientists for a British company called Inmarsat that provides telecommunications between ships and aircraft realized its database contained records of transmissions between MH370 and one of its satellites for the seven hours after the plane’s main communication system shut down. Seven hours! Maybe it wasn’t a crash after all—if it were, it would have been the slowest in history.
These electronic “handshakes” or “pings” contained no actual information, but by analyzing the delay between the transmission and reception of the signal— called the burst timing offset, or BTO—Inmarsat could tell how far the plane had been from the satellite and thereby plot an arc along which the plane must have been at the moment of the final ping.Fig. 3 That arc stretched some 6,000 miles, but if the plane was traveling at normal airliner speeds, it would most likely have wound up around the ends of the arc—either in Kazakhstan and China in the north or the Indian Ocean in the south. My money was on Central Asia. But CNN quoted unnamed U.S.-government sources saying that the plane had probably gone south, so that became the dominant view.
Other views were circulating, too, however.Fig. 5 A Canadian pilot named Chris Goodfellow went viral with his theory that MH370 suffered a fire that knocked out its communications gear and diverted from its planned route in order to attempt an emergency landing. Keith Ledgerwood, another pilot, proposed that hijackers had taken the plane and avoided detection by ducking into the radar shadow of another airliner. Amateur investigators pored over satellite images, insisting that wisps of cloud or patches of shrubbery were the lost plane. Courtney Love, posting on her Facebook time line a picture of the shimmering blue sea, wrote: “I’m no expert but up close this does look like a plane and an oil slick.”
Then: breaking news! On March 24, the Malaysian prime minister, Najib Razak, announced that a new kind of mathematical analysis proved that the plane had in fact gone south. This new math involved another aspect of the handshakes called the burst frequency offset, or BFO, a measure of changes in the signal’s wavelength, which is partly determined by the relative motion of the airplane and the satellite. That the whole southern arc lay over the Indian Ocean meant that all the passengers and crew would certainly be dead by now. This was the first time in history that the families of missing passengers had been asked to accept that their loved ones were dead because a secret math equation said so. Fig. 7 Not all took it well. In Beijing, outraged next-of-kin marched to the Malaysian Embassy, where they hurled water bottles and faced down paramilitary soldiers in riot gear.
Guided by Inmarsat’s calculations, Australia, which was coordinating the investigation, moved the search area 685 miles to the northeast, to a 123,000-square-mile patch of ocean west of Perth. Ships and planes found much debris on the surface, provoking a frenzy of BREAKING NEWS banners, but all turned out to be junk. Adding to the drama was a ticking clock. The plane’s two black boxes had an ultrasonic sound beacon that sent out acoustic signals through the water. (Confusingly, these also were referred to as “pings,” though of a completely different nature. These new pings suddenly became the important ones.) If searchers could spot plane debris, they’d be able to figure out where the plane had most likely gone down, then trawl with underwater microphones to listen for the pings. The problem was that the pingers had a battery life of only 30 days.
On April 4, with only a few days’ pinger life remaining, an Australian ship lowered a special microphone called a towed pinger locator into the water.Fig. 8 Miraculously, the ship detected four pings. Search officials were jubilant, as was the CNN greenroom. Everyone was ready for an upbeat ending.
The only Debbie Downer was me. I pointed out that the pings were at the wrong frequency and too far apart to have been generated by stationary black boxes. For the next two weeks, I was the odd man out on Don Lemon’s six-guest panel blocks, gleefully savaged on-air by my co-experts.
The Australians lowered an underwater robotFig. 9 to scan the seabed for the source of the pings. There was nothing. Of course, by the rules of TV news, the game wasn’t over until an official said so. But things were stretching thin. One night, an underwater-search veteran taking part in a Don Lemon panel agreed with me that the so-called acoustic-ping detections had to be false. Backstage after the show, he and another aviation analyst nearly came to blows. “You don’t know what you’re talking about! I’ve done extensive research!” the analyst shouted. “There’s nothing else those pings could be!”
Soon after, the story ended the way most news stories do: We just stopped talking about it. A month later, long after the caravan had moved on, a U.S. Navy officer said publicly that the pings had not come from MH370. The saga fizzled out with as much satisfying closure as the final episode of Lost.
Once the surface search was called off, it was the rabble’s turn. In late March, New Zealand–based space scientist Duncan Steel began posting a series of essays on Inmarsat orbital mechanics on his website.Fig. 10 The comments section quickly grew into a busy forum in which technically sophisticated MH370 obsessives answered one another’s questions and pitched ideas. The open platform attracted a varied crew, from the mostly intelligent and often helpful to the deranged and abusive. Eventually, Steel declared that he was sick of all the insults and shut down his comments section. The party migrated over to my blog, jeffwise.net.
Meanwhile, a core of engineers and scientists had split off via group email and included me. We called ourselves the Independent Group,11 or IG. If you found yourself wondering how a satellite with geosynchronous orbit responds to a shortage of hydrazine, all you had to do was ask.12 The IG’s first big break came in late May, when the Malaysians finally released the raw Inmarsat data. By combining the data with other reliable information, we were able to put together a time line of the plane’s final hours: Forty minutes after the plane took off from Kuala Lumpur, MH370 went electronically dark. For about an hour after that, the plane was tracked on radar following a zigzag course and traveling fast. Then it disappeared from military radar. Three minutes later, the communications system logged back onto the satellite. This was a major revelation. It hadn’t stayed connected, as we’d always assumed. This event corresponded with the first satellite ping. Over the course of the next six hours, the plane generated six more handshakes as it moved away from the satellite.
The final handshake wasn’t completed. This led to speculation that MH370 had run out of fuel and lost power, causing the plane to lose its connection to the satellite. An emergency power system would have come on, providing enough electricity for the satcom to start reconnecting before the plane crashed. Where exactly it would have gone down down was still unknown—the speed of the plane, its direction, and how fast it was climbing were all sources of uncertainty.
The MH370 obsessives continued attacking the problem. Since I was the proprietor of the major web forum, it fell on me to protect the fragile cocoon of civility that nurtured the conversation. A single troll could easily derail everything. The worst offenders were the ones who seemed intelligent but soon revealed themselves as Believers. They’d seized on a few pieces of faulty data and convinced themselves that they’d discovered the truth. One was sure the plane had been hit by lightning and then floated in the South China Sea, transmitting to the satellite on battery power. When I kicked him out, he came back under aliases. I wound up banning anyone who used the word “lightning.”
By October, officials from the Australian Transport Safety Board had begun an ambitiously scaled scan of the ocean bottom, and, in a surprising turn, it would include the area suspected by the IG.13 For those who’d been a part of the months-long effort, it was a thrilling denouement. The authorities, perhaps only coincidentally, had landed on the same conclusion as had a bunch of randos from the internet. Now everyone was in agreement about where to look.
While jubilation rang through the email threads, I nursed a guilty secret: I wasn’t really in agreement. For one, I was bothered by the lack of plane debris. And then there was the data. To fit both the BTO and BFO data well, the plane would need to have flown slowly, likely in a curving path. But the more plausible autopilot settings and known performance constraints would have kept the plane flying faster and more nearly straight south. I began to suspect that the problem was with the BFO numbers—that they hadn’t been generated in the way we believed.14 If that were the case, perhaps the flight had gone north after all.
For a long time, I resisted even considering the possibility that someone might have tampered with the data. That would require an almost inconceivably sophisticated hijack operation, one so complicated and technically demanding that it would almost certainly need state-level backing. This was true conspiracy-theory material.
And yet, once I started looking for evidence, I found it. One of the commenters on my blog had learned that the compartment on 777s called the electronics-and-equipment bay, or E/E bay, can be accessed via a hatch in the front of the first-class cabin.15 If perpetrators got in there, a long shot, they would have access to equipment that could be used to change the BFO value of its satellite transmissions. They could even take over the flight controls.16
I realized that I already had a clue that hijackers had been in the E/E bay. Remember the satcom system disconnected and then rebooted three minutes after the plane left military radar behind. I spent a great deal of time trying to figure out how a person could physically turn the satcom off and on. The only way, apart from turning off half the entire electrical system, would be to go into the E/E bay and pull three particular circuit breakers. It is a maneuver that only a sophisticated operator would know how to execute, and the only reason I could think for wanting to do this was so that Inmarsat would find the records and misinterpret them. They turned on the satcom in order to provide a false trail of bread crumbs leading away from the plane’s true route.
It’s not possible to spoof the BFO data on just any plane. The plane must be of a certain make and model, 17equipped with a certain make and model of satellite-communications equipment,18 and flying a certain kind of route19 in a region covered by a certain kind of Inmarsat satellite.20 If you put all the conditions together, it seemed unlikely that any aircraft would satisfy them. Yet MH370 did.
I imagine everyone who comes up with a new theory, even a complicated one, must experience one particularly delicious moment, like a perfect chord change, when disorder gives way to order. This was that moment for me. Once I threw out the troublesome BFO data, all the inexplicable coincidences and mismatched data went away. The answer became wonderfully simple. The plane must have gone north.
Using the BTO data set alone, I was able to chart the plane’s speed and general path, which happened to fall along national borders.Fig. 21 Flying along borders, a military navigator told me, is a good way to avoid being spotted on radar. A Russian intelligence plane nearly collided with a Swedish airliner while doing it over the Baltic Sea in December. If I was right, it would have wound up in Kazakhstan, just as search officials recognized early on.
There aren’t a lot of places to land a plane as big as the 777, but, as luck would have it, I found one: a place just past the last handshake ring called Baikonur Cosmodrome.Fig. 22 Baikonur is leased from Kazakhstan by Russia. A long runway there called Yubileyniy was built for a Russian version of the Space Shuttle. If the final Inmarsat ping rang at the start of MH370’s descent, it would have set up nicely for an approach to Yubileyniy’s runway 24.
Whether the plane went to Baikonur or elsewhere in Kazakhstan, my suspicion fell on Russia. With technically advanced satellite, avionics, and aircraft-manufacturing industries, Russia was a paranoid fantasist’s dream.24 (The Russians, or at least Russian-backed militia, were also suspected in the downing of Malaysia Flight 17 in July.) Why, exactly, would Putin want to steal a Malaysian passenger plane? I had no idea. Maybe he wanted to demonstrate to the United States, which had imposed the first punitive sanctions on Russia the day before, that he could hurt the West and its allies anywhere in the world. Maybe what he was really after were the secrets of one of the plane’s passengers.25 Maybe there was something strategically crucial in the hold. Or maybe he wanted the plane to show up unexpectedly somewhere someday, packed with explosives. There’s no way to know. That’s the thing about MH370 theory-making: It’s hard to come up with a plausible motive for an act that has no apparent beneficiaries.
As it happened, there were three ethnically Russian men aboard MH370, two of them Ukrainian-passport holders from Odessa.26 Could any of these men, I wondered, be special forces or covert operatives? As I looked at the few pictures available on the internet, they definitely struck me as the sort who might battle Liam Neeson in midair.
About the two Ukrainians, almost nothing was available online.Fig. 27 I was able to find out a great deal about the Russian,Fig. 28 who was sitting in first class about 15 feet from the E/E-bay hatch.Fig. 29 He ran a lumber company in Irkutsk, and his hobby was technical diving under the ice of Lake Baikal.30 I hired Russian speakers from Columbia University to make calls to Odessa and Irkutsk, then hired researchers on the ground.
The more I discovered, the more coherent the story seemed to me.32 I found a peculiar euphoria in thinking about my theory, which I thought about all the time. One of the diagnostic questions used to determine whether you’re an alcoholic is whether your drinking has interfered with your work. By that measure, I definitely had a problem. Once the CNN checks stopped coming, I entered a long period of intense activity that earned me not a cent. Instead, I was forking out my own money for translators and researchers and satellite photos. And yet I was happy.
Still, it occurred to me that, for all the passion I had for my theory, I might be the only person in the world who felt this way. Neurobiologist Robert A. Burton points out in his book On Being Certain that the sensation of being sure about one’s beliefs is an emotional response separate from the processing of those beliefs. It’s something that the brain does subconsciously to protect itself from wasting unnecessary processing power on problems for which you’ve already found a solution that’s good enough. “ ‘That’s right’ is a feeling you get so that you can move on,” Burton told me. It’s a kind of subconscious laziness. Just as it’s harder to go for a run than to plop onto the sofa, it’s harder to reexamine one’s assumptions than it is to embrace certainty. At one end of the spectrum of skeptics are scientists, who by disposition or training resist the easy path; at the other end are conspiracy theorists, who’ll leap effortlessly into the sweet bosom of certainty. So where did that put me?
Propounding some new detail of my scenario to my wife over dinner one night, I noticed a certain glassiness in her expression. “You don’t seem entirely convinced,” I suggested.
She shrugged.
“Okay,” I said. “What do you think is the percentage chance that I’m right?”
“I don’t know,” she said. “Five percent?”33
Springtime came to the southern ocean, and search vessels began their methodical cruise along the area jointly identified by the IG and the ATSB, dragging behind it a sonar rig that imaged the seabed in photographic detail. Within the IG, spirits were high. The discovery of the plane would be the triumphant final act of a remarkable underdog story.
By December, when the ships had still not found a thing, I felt it was finally time to go public. In six sequentially linked pages that readers could only get to by clicking through—to avoid anyone reading the part where I suggest Putin masterminded the hijack without first hearing how I got there—I laid out my argument. I called it “The Spoof.”
I got a respectful hearing but no converts among the IG. A few sites wrote summaries of my post. The International Business Times headlined its story “MH370: Russia’s Grand Plan to Provoke World War III, Says Independent Investigator” and linked directly to the Putin part. Somehow, the airing of my theory helped quell my obsession. My gut still tells me I’m right, but my brain knows better than to trust my gut.
Last month, the Malaysian government declared that the aircraft is considered to have crashed and all those aboard are presumed dead. Malaysia’s transport minister told a local television station that a key factor in the decision was the fact that the search mission for the aircraft failed to achieve its objective. Meanwhile, new theories are still being hatched. One, by French writer Marc Dugain, states that the plane was shot down by the U.S. because it was headed toward the military bases on the islands of Diego Garcia as a flying bomb.34
The search failed to deliver the airplane, but it has accomplished some other things: It occupied several thousand hours of worldwide airtime; it filled my wallet and then drained it; it torpedoed the idea that the application of rationality to plane disasters would inevitably yield ever-safer air travel. And it left behind a faint, lingering itch in the back of my mind, which I believe will quite likely never go away.
*This article appears in the February 23, 2015 issue of New York Magazine.
@falken – the special edits in the “MH370 Data Communication Logs Update v2.pdf” document might show where they tried to make “fit” extraneous data …
@myron – such edits in whole document makes NO SENSE though … if they wanted to curiously highlight the new two 0x10 events (THE update) when plane was powered-on at airport, then, ok, “this is quite effective way” (only those 2 left prefixed as “0x” all other SU Type values are in update simply “Ox” – isnt this crazy too???) uffff
@CosmicAcademy:
“So anybody believes that SOP is so very much different in Asia/Malaysia March 8th 2014? Under command of an australian vice admiral? Who likes fairy tales and who likes answers?” ”
Now you’re pushing a big button Cosmic.
What do we do when the FACTS (ahem, the inconvenient ones) tell us that the person in charge of Malaysia’s air defense infrastructure is an Anglo (from a ‘Five Eyes’ country, no less) and not a Malaysian? Because more than a few of us (clearly) feel at home with cultural stereotypes and “lazy” just works so well to describe those Asians. Though, they do seem to be a little browner than the ones we’re used to.
“Although i dont understand why Mr. Milner referred to this unbelievable Georesonance company, he was right in his IBTime statement to seek for legal action against criminal intentions in these spin stories, used by different governments.”
Couldn’t agree more.
“The other major player with financial struggles was MAS. Now we dont know, whether someone wanted to hurt MAS, but they sure dont appear to have recovered. Their struggles seem to have worsened.”
Two MAS planes suffer disaster within four months and if you look at MALAYSIA (which owns MAS) as the target, AirAsia (which is domiciled in Malaysia) makes three.
If two of your children died or disappeared under strange circumstances within months of each other, and then their cousin (also living in your house) also died a few months later — and an anonymous someone told you before hand that the cousin would die — would a reasonable person say it was ALL “an accident” — or open their eyes and start looking around?
MALAYSIAN ownership is what all three airplanes had in common. ‘Landlord’ specifically said an AirAsia plane would suffer a disaster two weeks BEFORE the fact and warned Chinese folks to stay away from Malaysian airlines. If all of that is NOT a message, then what is it? And is it only about money?
@falken @Peter Norton
I, too, am intrigued by the timing of the two calls (and had asked about them even before the March 8 Factual Information report was released). The first call resets the timing interval and captures the very start of the Southern leg (with some even suggesting that it came DURING the FMT). The second call (4.5 hours later!) resets the timing interval, such that the subsequent handshake captures the plane running on one engine. So each is key in solidifying the breadcrumb trail. Would investigators have arrived at the hypoxic/AP theory anyway? Most certainly. But in a story that has hinged so heavily on confirmation bias, they play a crucial role.
For those looking for insight into the use of disinformation to establish the early narrative, check out the CCTV footage of the Boris Nemtsov assassination (http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2015/02/analyzing-cctv-footage-that-seemed-to.html). The driver GETS OUT of the truck to speak face to face with Nemtsov’s girlfriend. The best – and perhaps only – eyewitness to the murder, mere seconds after the shooting. Why take this HUGE risk? Because the reward – coaching the witness and establishing the early narrative – outweighed it.
So could the call have come from one of the perps, either on the plane or from the ground? In order to solidify the bread crumb trail? Or, as others have suggested, as some sort of code or signal (“you’re clear” or “initiate Phase 2”)? For those inclined toward the “Shah did it” theory, could the 18:39 call be a final Hail Mary from Hamid in business class, having banged away at the cockpit door for an hour, and starting to feel light-headed? Either way, the March 8 report does little to dissuade this line of thinking. Once again, it’s strongly implied that the calls came from MAS Operations (Urgency Code = Q10, Country Code = 60). But this part of the report stops short of explicitly saying the call came from MASOC. Why?
Turning to the eerie conversation between KLATCC and MASOC. I am not a psychologist. But I do work at a firm with a large Operations unit. I would echo what others here have suggested, and add a little context of my own. The graveyard shift of an Operations department is staffed with new hires. It’s just the way it is. I’d be willing to bet that the MAS Ops person who answered the call from KL was very young and very inexperienced. Perhaps with as little as a few days or weeks on the job. And with strict instructions to call in the cavalry (senior management) if anything goes sideways. I’d go further, and suggest that this person was the most senior person in the room (at the time). If there were someone more experienced, the phone would have passed to them. Right quick. It’s Ops 101. My guess is the cavalry had been notified, but had not yet arrived.
So who called the plane two minutes after the “eerie” call ended? This mumbling kid? Hmmm…
i get the feeling the perps must have known that the MASOC is staffed with lightly experienced personal.. But also seems to be a setup (or cover) to pass the blame to MAS..
quick edit to my last post: Perps must have know the **Time** when MASOC staffed with lightly experienced personal.
@Nihonmama
Cosmic A.said: “Although i don’t understand why Mr. Milner referred to this unbelievable Georesonance company….”
GeoR. is primarily a mineral exploration survey company headquartered in the Ukraine (Au. website is mktg branch). They provided a much more detailed Press Release March 7th, 2015, giving new information and insight about why they went public last April.
http://georesonance.com/20150307%20Press%20Release.pdf
Have read Mr. Wise’s blogs, articles and e-single, I think that he has very likely either nailed it or is so close to what actually happened that he’s practically dancing around on top of it.
The most compelling parts of the argument for me are:
1. All indicators point to human intervention
2. The lack of any debris to date
3. Two Boeing 777s were lost by the same airline within four months of each other. The odds of that being coincidental are astronomical.
So I wrote down some questions with the aim of guiding Mr. Wise in developing and investigating his theory further.
If it were my loved ones on that plane, I would do everything I could to find out what happened to them, so maybe asking some more questions might get us there.
Feel free to comment or provide links if the answers are already out there.
Planning
– They would have likely carried out trial runs on that same flight to get to know the routines, aircraft etc. Can you check passenger lists of previous flights? If not the same passengers, then maybe Russian males aged in their 30’s or 40’s traveling in a similar configuration.
– How long ago would they have planned it? Assuming the time between when the sanctions were imposed to executing the hijacking was one or two days, was it something they decided at the last minute? Or was it one of a list of operations they could execute at a moment’s notice?
– Do ‘quick eyed man’s travel plans reflect a last minute unexpected change? It seems like he decided to go back early to surprise his girlfriend?
– Before MH370 and MH17 Putin and Lavrov both made statements in response to imposed sanctions. They both used the word ‘boomerang’. Could ‘boomerang’ be a trigger word for the operations teams to execute their plan? Has the word boomerang been used before in Russian official statements?
– Are there any precedents to Russian forces carrying out any type of similar operations?
Staging
– Are there any restrictions on carrying such items on board? SCUBA masks, tanks, regulators
– If B was in 3K – window seat – would it matter whether 3J was empty or not, assuming he would need to pass it on his way to E/E
– If C & D were sitting in centre left, then they would not have passed B once on board the airplane. Perhaps they picked up regulators in departure lounge/gate, or simply brought their own
Taking over the plane
– How could B in the E/E know the exact moment the captain had signed off from Lumpur ground control in order to initiate the operation?
– What was the window of opportunity for disabling the comms, turning the plane around and taking control of the cabin and flight deck? 2 minutes? Is that enough time to realistically do all that?
– If captain and first officer had suffocated before leaving the flight deck to see what was going on, then how would the hijackers be able to guarantee entry to the flight deck? There would have to be a plan B, but what could that be? Can the flight deck door be opened from the E/E?
Navigating the plane
– If all comms and navigation equipment were turned off, how is it possible for hijackers to fly over the FIR border areas with any sort of precision? If they used GPS would that not risk giving away their position?
– Did they really think they could get through all those border areas without radar detection? Or did they not care if they were spotted?
Landing
– Is it possible to auto-land the plane without communicating with the outside world?
Baikonur
– The cosmodrome – Russia actually made a reference to this when the West first imposed sanctions. Their statement was something along the lines of ‘The United States can now use a trampoline to reach the International Space Station’(not sure if relevant, but wanted to mention)
– There is what looks like a vast area of sand just outside the Yubileyniy North compound, which would provide ample supplies for filling in a pit or covering up something large
– How could they move the plane from the runway to the Yubileyniy North compound? Is that path wide enough for a 777? And what about the last part, which is off the end of the path?
– The sandy rectangle large enough for a 777, and the surrounding area where the buildings once stood look like they have been cleared of all superstructures, debris, equipment, material, everything. It looks like they took an eraser and just cleared the whole area, making it look like a blank canvas. As if nothing was ever there
– They could have covered the plane in tarpaulin, then sand, then all the debris from the building demolition, then topped it off with more sand. Kind of like mobsters disposing of bodies in the foundations of construction sites.
Passengers & Cargo
– What about the 20 Freescale employees that were on board? What’s the significance of that? Hadn’t they just been working on some top secret stealth technology?
– What about the contents of the cargo hold? Something about lithium ion batteries?
Other possibilities
– What about the Diego Garcia theory? Didn’t islanders near the Maldives hear and see a plane fitting the description flying very low overhead flying due south/south east? (I’m aware this doesn’t tie in with the satellite data, but still feel this story was left unexplained)
– There are also claims of some gas tanks that looked like fire extinguishers washing up on the shores of the Maldives or thereabouts, which were quickly picked up by the army and never heard of again
– What about other passengers on the plane? Agents from other nationalities? Kazakhstan landing is one possibility. What about a China landing? Any Chinese passengers in business class that could be agents? Other suspect passengers?
Thank you for reading.
@Bob
wow, I remember for this GR-thing back in 2014 when it flashed in media, ya, and as always, I quickly scanned net for the technology and spent with this kind of nonsese few minutes, I think… BUT, NEVER realized at that time its based/hq at Ukraine, uhhhh; and I must say, what I know about craziness of situation there, this country is full of scams and mad cults as “scientology” (nothing common with “science” its mad highly manipulative cult) and other crazy cults, really, I personally know one man who has some such issues linked to his family and, ya, I can completelly imagine some pseudoscience company trying to fetch money or any kind publicity for any kind of purpose… grrrrr
thats whats known today – if NASA says something is nonsense, then it simply IS nonsense…
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-exploration-company-georesonance-believes-it-may-have-found-mh370.3558/
http://www.quora.com/What-is-the-technology-GeoResonance-claims-to-have-used-to-find-MH370-and-is-it-real
the original article refering AGAIN such “technology” quickly flashed in my mind as some kind of hidden advertising, but I felt as its nothing worth to comment… uhhh
(this your PDF is somwhat shocking for me, and may be it IS important, who knows)
{post didnt went through at first, so I rewrote it again, sorry}
@Bob
wow, I remember that year ago this GR-thing flashed in media and I of course as always scanned the net for the technology for a while, and may be spent with it few minutes to finally realize its some kind of complete nonsese not worth to tackle with, but NEVER realized at that time its somewhat linked in Ukraine (at that time, with given informations, I was totally supporting them against Russians too, being probably well-spined far earlier by something – everybody supported the Russians-warfare expected at this time, ya?)
despite the fact I didnt realized its something based in Ukraine, it simply was discovered quickly as complete nonsense, because, sorry, if even NASA thinks something is complete nonsense, then it simply IS complete nonsense, IMHO….
whats interresting, and what I didnt realized fully at that time too, is how much crazy THIS thing can be, and how much crazines as a whole is at this coutry (Ukraine) in relation to some manipulative cults and virtual churches and scam criminals or so; I personally hate the MAD “scientology” cult a lot (nothing in common with “science”, its manipulative as hell crap, nothing more, but highly dangerous because very professionally hidden behind “inevitably good” things and reasons and purposes – their main professional skill is simply BIG LIE).
I dont know more about it, how anything may be linked, but its crazy as hell, and this your PDF is somewhat shocking for me too at current time.
(during last year, I discovered lot of things about REAL SAD situation there and switched my point of view – sure, whats important how much of some kind of propaganda affected my mind, thats the real problem, I know it, but I trust myself enough to be as much paranoid as needed, but not more…)
(last original post about such article flashed in my mind as some kind of hidden advertising for this GR thing, nothing else, so I didnt commented on sh*t and may be it IS important, who knows)
here someething found now:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-exploration-company-georesonance-believes-it-may-have-found-mh370.3558/
http://www.quora.com/What-is-the-technology-GeoResonance-claims-to-have-used-to-find-MH370-and-is-it-real
@Nihonmama, @Jeff:
What YOU think about this???
Cheers
@Bird, Thanks very much for your thoughts. I don’t have time at the moment to address them in detail, but a couple of thoughts:
— According to dive-club friends, Brodsky had planned to leave the dive club trip early all along.
— You’re not allowed to bring tanks of pressurized gas on board a commercial flight. So that part of my fictional scenario is unrealistic.
— The seat next to Brodsky was unoccupied, so he would have had clear access to the aisle
— A plane’s comms can go dark, and it can still use its navigational gear — these don’t require the plane to emit signals, only to receive them. So yes, the plane could autoland, too.
@ falken
If you are searching for the truth about GeoResonance., you won’t find much of it on the metabunk or quora sites. A few facts to answer your questions and concerns about GeoR:
> Just because NASA doesn’t know how their technology works, doesn’t prove anything. But NASA is familiar with the extraction of multi spectral imagining from analogue images, which is what they start with. What NASA does not know is how GeoR.further processes those images to find what they are looking for. This process is a trade secret and they hope to keep it that way. They are not interested in academic peer reviews, although a couple of American groups are now trying to replicate what GeoR. does.
> I said their headquarters and nuclear reactor is in the Ukraine. That was previously true, but politically speaking now, they have been in Russia since last year, since they are located in Crimea.
> Are you aware of how GeoR. located this anomaly in the Bay of Bengal? They processed multi spectral satellite images of the 4 early search areas (2.33 million km(2) prior to the SIO search area. The search criteria, first, was finding sites which tested positive for all 3 basic elements of a B777 (al, cu, & ti) found at the same location. From the 2.33 mil km(2), 163 images (42 in Bay of Bengal) were identified. From these sites each was further tested to determine if any also contained the other 4 basic elements used in mfgr of a B777: (chromium, fe, stainless steel, and nickel).
> From these 163 images, only ONE contained ALL 7 basic elements at one location. That was one specific site in northern Bay of Bengal (118 miles south of Bangladesh coast, about 3,000 ft deep). Pictures of those search results are in this CNN article:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/29/world/asia/malaysia-plane-georesonance/
> To see if the anomaly found at this location was there prior to the March 10th, sat images from March 5th were tested. NO ANOMALY was detected at this specific location, indicating that the object had appeared between March 5th and March 10th….. further indicating that this anomaly could very well be MH370. The anomaly location is close to E90°, N20°. This location was passed along to authorities while there were 2 weeks of battery life remaining on the black box. Sadly, that did not happen, and attention since has been only on the SIO.
> GeoR has been accused of seeking publicity. False!!! Their desire was to stay out of the media spotlight, but only went public April 28th after total rejection by JACC and Malaysia authorities. They originally joined the ocean search because of humanitarian concerns for the families and because they knew they had the technology to find the plane when no one else could.
> Some have accused GeoR, falsely, of claiming but not finding the Nazi sunk hospital ship, Armenia. They did locate this ship, but the parties searching for it did not have the $ budget, nor the necessary equipment to positively identify it.
@Bob – “trade secret” is probably key term here; sorry I trust in NASA guys 😉
As always, I might be wrong.
@falken
NASA is not the “all knowing body of science”. As I recall, NASA did not officially offer their opinion. A tv science expert said he had a contact at NASA who said he didn’t think GeoR technology was possible. So much for this person’s all-knowing body of knowledge.
Again, this NASA accusation proves nothing, even if officially was from NASA (which it wasn’t).
GeoR. offered to give the JACC a detailed technology explanation several times, but they were rejected. They were so convinced that the plane could ONLY be in SIO and were (and still are) tone deaf to all alternate credible scenarios.
Understandable at this point. The ATSB’s reputation(s) are on the line and a whole lot of $$$$ has been dispensed.
Malaysia Airlines (MAS) has blamed the software that it used to track its aircraft for its erroneous report to air traffic controllers that MH370 was flying over Cambodian airspace about an hour after it went missing.
I was just wondering. Did MH370 fly over Cambodian airspace? Did they know the aircraft was flying north? Was this covered up only later?
@Bob Det,
I have done mustispectral imaging (both passive and active) of the sea from the air looking for submerged objects. The ability to identify anything with any passive imaging technique is virtually nonexistent below 50-100 m depth, even for very large objects. GeoResonance’s claims are technically not possible. They are either technically incompetent or publicity-seeking shysters or both.
@ Dr Bobby Ulich
I have the highest regard and respect for your expertise, but regarding GeoR technology capabilities which are deeper than 100 m, your assessment is totally wrong. What you do not know is the highly technical and elaborate methods which they use to further process those images. The multispectral images are subjected to radiochemical processing along with a research nuclear reactor IR-100.
Look, I do not plan to get into a technology debate with you about this, and this may be my last posting on this subject. I have no direct ties to this company, but I am limited to how much I can share about their technology and why they are still very sure that this is MH370. This proprietary knowledge was created over decades, and it’s no wonder gifted scientist, like you and others, are not familiar with the technology, which was developed during the old Soviet Union.
I know you are well meaning in objecting to their technology, based on your present knowledge and experience. But as someone recently commented here: “What you don’t know is what you don’t know”. They do have a team of about 30 physicists, scientists, and mathematicians (several with PhD’s)
So they are not “technically incompetent nor publicity-seeking shysters”, as you falsely accused them of.
They already have numerous ocean (& land) mineral mining clients who have successfully used their services and in ocean areas deeper than 1,000 meters.
They did try in vain to pass the MH370 information along to the authorities without all this publicity before April 28th.
(http://georesonance.com/20150307%20Press%20Release.pdf).
This anomaly, at one specific GPS location, could have been easily verified as true or false a long time ago, were it not for all the misinformed experts who told Malaysia and the Australians that GeoR technology was impossible. That is really sad.
One final point, and I think I said this earlier, but GeoR. is quite happy that you and most other scientific experts do not know how they can do this. I just wish people would cut them a little slack until they have more definitive knowledge about their technology capabilities (yea or nay).
But, obviously, if GeoResonance is right about their location in the northern Bay of Bengal, a whole lot of people who have invested so heavily the past year in the SIO search and the 7th arc, will be embarrassed about finding the plane in a location no one else (so far) believes possible.
> Maybe after June 1st someone will have the courage to send one ship with an ROV to see what’s actually down there.
@Bob Det,
I don’t have a dog in this fight, but I’m not convinced you don’t either. What is an IR-100? Something tells me that it isn’t a household word.
If GeoR had indeed found something, the best investment they could possibly make is a sonar image of the BoB site. At this point, anybody who pulls up a plane resembling a 777 will acquire vast amounts of PR riches. That alone suggests that nobody really knows where MH370 actually is.
At the same time, the lack of even a cursory interest by the ATSB is arrogant.
Remember, it cuts both ways. Secrets cost a lot to keep. Secrets revealed pay a lot.
@Bod Det: They are not “sure that it is MH370”. They said, it could be any of hundreds of planes that crashed in that ocean. Anyway, did they (or anybody else) have a look, what’s really at this location? If not, why not?
@Greg Long
GeoR is more sure now than a year ago. You raise a good question that it could be some other missing plane. But they eliminated that possibility by processing the image of the site taken on March 5, 2014. Nothing but silt was observed at this location. No other missing planes between March 5th and 10th.
I wish I could answer your questions, but I am not free to comment further about what has been done, so far, to verify this anomaly. But after all, it is not GeoR responsibility to check it out. It is the ATSB/Malaysian’s.
A case can be made for the plane being in the Bay and not over land further north. An AP route north from VATLA on W111 to waypoint DOPID; then southeast on P646 (at a slow speed) would fit with GeoR location south of Bangladesh.
One interesting observation about this route. If you look closely at the images of the minerals detected in the CNN article, the nose appears to be pointing straight south, which would correlate with crashing along P646.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/29/world/asia/malaysia-plane-georesonance/
The big objection many have is that a Bay of Bengal location does not fit the 6th/7th arcs. These appear to be outlier arcs from the first 5, and some now seem to be questioning the accuracy of the data supporting 6&7.
One question I have is, how would a drastic turn back and change of direction during the last hour (such as W111 to P646) affect the final 7th arc location? In this case the plane would be flying toward the satellite and also southeast.
Bob Det,
You say: “What you do not know is the highly technical and elaborate methods which they use to further process those images. The multispectral images are subjected to radiochemical processing”
What images? If you mean optical, I would lean to agree with Bobby due to impossibility to get these images. What does it mean “radiochemical processing”?
@OIeksandr
I will not get into a specific and detailed explanation of GeoResonance’s very complicated technology, and the various procedures they go through when processing mulitspectral satellite images.
As stated on their home page:
(http://georesonance.com/)
they “… combine over 20 technologies and patented know-hows into one methodology.”
You can get some general information from their marketing division website in Australia. But it will probably not answer all your questions. If you were a serious client searching for some element, I’m sure they would gladly give you a more detailed overview of their methodology and capability.
Click on some of the links on the site, like “Remote Sensing”.
They also now have more specific information about their search results in 2005 for the sunken ship “Armenia”, “Special Projects” link.
Just for the record, I am not a spokesman for GeoResonance; nor do I have any affiliation with this company. However, I do have a source close to the company. It’s simply appalling the malicious things that have been said about them by internet trolls, and even some highly respected individuals in the scientific community.
I only brought this issue up because Andrew Milne mentioned GeoR in his recent, widely circulated article. Prompting some on this site to attack their credibility.
I think I have said all I want to say about this subject.
I seriously doubt if I have changed many minds about GeoResonance.
OK!!! That’s fine, we’ll wait for the “Press Conference”.
@OIeksandr
Google Alert sent me this link last October about GeoResonance. A 3-way deal for degassing coal layers and extracting methane gas in China.
http://sk.ru/news/b/news/archive/2014/10/15/skolkovo_1920_s-novas-sk-signs-major-deal-with-georesonance-and-china_1920_s-fortuna-technology.aspx
may be OT, but at least some good news:
http://rt.com/news/244797-russia-us-new-space-station/
I trust in NASA guys … and Roskosmos guys too 😉 …they both must know where the lost plane is!
@all
Here (linked article below is the GeoResonance press realease from earlier this month which asks once again “why not check out what we found?” Hmmm…methinks they have a point; in the old days before everyone became enthralled by this whiz bang application of new technology we would have checked out every single lead and interviewed every single witness. Looks like it may actually come to that; the press release begins with this (excerpt immediately below)
V/R, Phil
“The 8th of March 2015 marks the one-year anniversary of the largest aviation mystery the world has experienced. The disappearance of MH370 has been most tragic, and the heartache of the families involved cannot be overstated. The GeoResonance team gives all relatives and friends of those lost our very best wishes.
Leading to the anniversary, two TV networks and three newspapers have requested interviews with the directors of GeoResonance. The GeoResonance team has declined, as we feel that our participation in media events will not affect the course of the current search for MH370. Instead, the GeoResonance team have agreed to put together a press release, to share our opinions on the matter.
DECISIONS THAT MAKE US HUMANS
We invite everyone to answer the following question:
What would you do if you had a proven technology that had registered the signature of a submerged aircraft after the disappearance of MH370, with less than 20 days remaining until the black box shuts down? And what if your discovery contradicted the official opinion?
Would you choose to ignore your discovery, trying to avoid unwanted attention of media trolls? Or would you try to contact authorities as soon as possible, while the black box signal was still alive?
For us, the GeoResonance team, the answer was clear. We contacted authorities not once but twice, and, after being continually ignored by the Joint Agency Coordination Centre (JACC) and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB), we resorted to desperate measures – we went public.
A year later, the GeoResonance team firmly believes our decisions were highly moral and ethical. We feel proud of our actions.”
http://www.georesonance.com/20150307%20Press%20Release.pdf
Bob Det,
The issue is not in processing, but in collection of data. The smallest absorption coefficient for clean water is approximately 0.025 m^-1. For 1 km depth the reduction in irradiation would be more than 10^10 times. How can it be detected from space?
Also, their website says a survey takes 7-12 weeks for 1,000 km^2, which is 33×33 km. How could they find an aircraft in the Bay of Bengal so quickly? Again, based on their web, they had projects only in Mongolia and Kazakhstan in 2014.
Finally, if my memory is correct, Myanmar Navy dispatched several patrol ships to the place pointed by GeoR, but found nothing of interest.
@Oleksandr
The issue is …. the numerous extra processes GeoR applies to those multispectral images. As I said in my last post, I am not a spokesman for them nor their technology. The detail specifics of exactly how they do this is a very tightly held secret.
I do not know the reason for the short turn-around time for the MH370 project vs. the time frame for other projects. I do know that this was a rush job since time was a critical factor for finding the plane. This search project also cost them a lot of $ to do and they wanted to keep their finding confidential inside the search country authorities. But felt a moral obligation to go public only after total rejection by incompetent bureaucrats.
The Bangladesh Navy was asked by H20 to check it out shortly after their April 28th press release and TV. The news report was that the Navy “scoured” the Bay of Bengal (whatever that means?).
But if you read GeoR press releases (don’t recall which one), their contact sources inside the Malaysian govt and the ATSB confirmed to them that the Bangladesh Navy DID NOT actually search their location. An area which is very specific, about the size of a couple of football fields. H20 was just doing his normal public relations “stunt” to cover his incompetence, instead of doing the PRUDENT thing to check out every reasonable and credible lead.
that’s actually not quite true. See page 53 of the report:
especially since the timing of the incoming satphone calls could not have been anticipated (provided that MAS was not part of the scheme, of course)
My apologies if I interpret the BFO values incorrectly, but AFAIK they tell you neither the direction nor the speed of the car in your example. They only tell you the net speed by which the car is distancing itself from the office, i.e. the car could take a road straight away from the office (180°) at a very low speed or a diagonal road (e.g. 110°) at a very high speed and still distance itself at the same net speed from the office, thus generating the same BFO values, isn’t it ?
What I don’t fully grasp: How can the coincidental formation of a trend line be almost statistically impossible, yet there is an infinite number of possible paths corresponding to this trendline ?
Well, I think you could change more minds if you could be more open about the technology being used, which you say you can’t.
methinks too ! I don’t think any company would like being branded for life as being the guys who claimed to have found MH370 at a location which then turned out to be wrong. Everybody would say that this technology is bogus (which is said already today). The company would essentially be dead. So either the wanted the free publicity and deemed the risk of their bluff being called as sufficiently low, or they truly believe to have found something. I’d say, too, that it would be worth spending two or three days there to be sure once and for all.
ok, but isn’t there a certain SnR ratio below which you could not distinguish signal from noise, regardless of your technology ?
very poignant, this really calls their claims into question
@ Oleksandr:
Thank you for taking the time to provide a detailed scenario for mechanical failure.
Your scenario is better than I thought would be possible, given the “facts” at hand. Still, here are my comments:
• I particularly like your “fire in the nose landing gear” theory (1a), which had been discussed previously.
• Simultaneous failure of all communication means is explained by (1a), coincidence of disappearance exactly at ATC handover is explained by (1b) (“right wing failure triggered by turn at IGARI”) although extremely unlikely. But none of the three theories 1a/1b/1c can explain both.
• Regarding theory 1c (dinner preparation caused a fire): AFAIK no dinner is prepared at 1:20 a.m.
• To me, the landing gear fire theory (1a) seems the most likely of the three. However almost all experts agree that a fire would be EITHER harmless enough to put it out and/or land … OR severe enough to prevent the plane from flying for another 7(!) hours.
• “They likely concluded it was not possible to land with ~35 tons of kerosene”: why would dumping the fuel not be an option? (especially if onboard instruments display the fire as being located in the nose landing gear bay)
• “They needed to burn fuel first”: if they really couldn’t dump the fuel and needed to burn it, they would fly circles over the intended landing place, not stray far away from it
• A conscious crew would try to land within Malaysia (which they didn’t).
An unconscious crew would not key in several waypoints beyond Malaysia (which they did).
• “The pilots switched on AP, and tried to repair AES”: Since when are pilots repairing the aircraft? And even if they could (Shah seems quite a hands-on talent, judging from his youtube videos): if they really have an emergency situation at hand, that is far down their priority list.
• “So, the crew decided to attempt landing ASAP. After several unsuccessful attempts […]”: “several landing attempts” would have been noticed
• “After the aircraft became unmanned, it flew into the IO”: Their last heading was northwest leaving Penang. If the aircraft became unmanned, it would have continued straight ahead. Why did it turn south all by itself ? (conveniently circumventing Indonesia)
• “My opinion did not change: it did not follow N571”: you think it’s a coincidence ?? or you think the radar image is bogus ?
• “circumventing Indonesia – why would it go there?”: It would not specifically go there, but it would not purposefully avoid any landmasses either, which has taken place.
• AES log on at 18:25, i.e. 3 minutes after disappearance from primary radar:
this suspicious timing is not explained by your theory
• I give you a lot of credit for coming up with this scenario, but the combined likelihood for all of that occurring seems next to zero in my opinion.
• There are multiple instances, where the crew’s reaction you specified is not according to SOP.
.
I am honestly not trying to discredit your work, it just appears so incompatible with what we supposedly know. I agree with all others, though, that it is a good thing, that you keep on pursuing this road.
@ Oleksandr:
Thank you for taking the time to provide a detailed scenario for mechanical failure.
Your arguments are better than I thought would be possible, given the “facts” at hand. Still, here are my comments:
• I particularly like your “fire in the nose landing gear” theory (1a), which had been discussed previously.
• Simultaneous failure of all communication means is explained by (1a), coincidence of disappearance exactly at ATC handover is explained by (1b) (“right wing failure triggered by turn at IGARI”) although extremely unlikely. But none of the three theories 1a/1b/1c can explain both.
• Regarding theory 1c (dinner preparation caused a fire): AFAIK no dinner is prepared at 1:20 a.m.
• To me, the landing gear fire theory (1a) seems the most likely of the three. However almost all experts agree that a fire would be EITHER harmless enough to put it out and/or land … OR severe enough to prevent the plane from flying for another 7(!) hours.
• “They likely concluded it was not possible to land with ~35 tons of kerosene”: why would dumping the fuel not be an option? (especially if onboard instruments display the fire as being located in the nose landing gear bay)
• “They needed to burn fuel first”: if they really couldn’t dump the fuel and needed to burn it, they would fly circles over the intended landing place, not stray far away from it
• A conscious crew would try to land within Malaysia (which they didn’t).
An unconscious crew would not key in several waypoints beyond Malaysia (which they did).
• “The pilots switched on AP, and tried to repair AES”: Since when are pilots repairing the aircraft? And even if they could (Shah seems quite a hands-on talent, judging from his youtube videos): if they really have an emergency situation at hand, that is far down their priority list.
• “So, the crew decided to attempt landing ASAP. After several unsuccessful attempts […]”: “several landing attempts” would have been noticed
• “After the aircraft became unmanned, it flew into the IO”: Their last heading was northwest leaving Penang. If the aircraft became unmanned, it would have continued straight ahead. Why did it turn south all by itself ? (conveniently circumventing Indonesia)
• “My opinion did not change: it did not follow N571”: you think it’s a coincidence ?? or you think the radar image is bogus ?
• “circumventing Indonesia – why would it go there?”: It would not specifically go there, but it would not purposefully avoid any landmasses either, which has taken place.
• AES log on at 18:25, i.e. 3 MINUTES after disappearance from primary radar:
this suspicious timing is not explained by your theory
• I give you a lot of credit for coming up with this scenario, but the combined likelihood for all of that occurring seems next to zero in my opinion.
• There are multiple instances, where the crew’s reaction you specified is not according to SOP.
.
I am honestly not trying to discredit your work, it just appears so incompatible with what we supposedly know. I agree with all others, though, that it is a good thing that you keep on pursuing this road.
if any ukrainian company really had technology to see 1000m under water you can bet everything that russian military intelligence would be all over them and bring them in Moscow to design anti-sub hardware
Peter Norton Posted March 28, 2015 at 6:09 PM:
My apologies if I interpret the BFO values incorrectly, but AFAIK they tell you neither the direction nor the speed of the car in your example. They only tell you the net speed by which the car is distancing itself from the office, i.e. the car could take a road straight away from the office (180°) at a very low speed or a diagonal road (e.g. 110°) at a very high speed and still distance itself at the same net speed from the office, thus generating the same BFO values, isn’t it ?
Your interpretation describes the Doppler compensation of the frequency. The BFO is the error in that compensation, which is due to the satellite changing its position relative to its geostationary positition. Since the daily cycle of satellite motion relative to earth is predominantly in latitude, the compensation error reflects the change of airplane latitude.
Bob Det,
The issue about GeoResonance is getting intriguing. Not only it appears to be impossible to collect the needed data by remote sensing methods, but it would be a weird coincidence to find the plane there.
You said:
“To see if the anomaly found at this location was there prior to the March 10th, sat images from March 5th were tested. NO ANOMALY was detected at this specific location, indicating that the object had appeared between March 5th and March 10th….. further indicating that this anomaly could very well be MH370. The anomaly location is close to E90°, N20°. This location was passed along to authorities while there were 2 weeks of battery life remaining on the black box. Sadly, that did not happen, and attention since has been only on the SIO.”
Leaving technical aspects aside, I would like to ask how can this be possible, unless GeoResonance themselves are involved into the disappearance?
– Why did they take high-resolution images of this specific ~10×10 km ‘spot’ in the Bay of Bengal on the 5th of May? (they had projects only in Kazakhstan and Mongolia based on their website; it takes them 7-12 weeks to analyze 1,000 km^2, meaning that during 2 weeks they are able to analyze only 167 to 286 km^2). What’s a coincidence!
– Why did they repeat analysis within 2.5 weeks for this specific area/location?
– Is the involvement of Kazakhstan, Mongolia and China into GeoResonance businesses in 2014 also coincidental?
I guess these questions are sufficient to fuel another conspiracy theory.
Peter Norton,
I’ll try to answer your comments in a sequential order.
BFOs are function of the time (because of the uncorrected satellite position and velocity), location and velocity of the aircraft. In other words BFO is a function of 6 independent variables and time. Yes, there is infinite number of combinations of N samples that can form a line in 7-dimensional space. However, the probability would be equal to zero. To make it different from zero, it is necessary to define a “deviation interval”, where BFO sample is still considered as falling into a trend line (this would correspond to a strip in 2D space and tube in a 3D space, but impossible to imagine in 6D or 7D space). If you define this interval based on the tolerance error in BFO measurement, the probability to obtain a random line is less than (1/40)^7, despite infinite number of combinations.
P.S. Are you Greg Long?
@Olkesandr: sorry for the double posting, didn’t go through at first. I don’t know what happened with the name. Maybe I did a wrong copy/paste ?
Many thanks for the explanation. I might come back to it later on.
Yes, but the “office” is not moving. It’s no my fault as I was only replying to Oleksandr’s car/office example, I did not chose it.
(I think) I am on the same page as you, Gysbreght. There is a Doppler effect induced frequency error due to the airplane movement (which is compensated) and a Doppler effect induced frequency error due to the satellite movement (which is not compensated). The latter is the BFO and stored in the Inmarsat logs.
When you say “the compensation error reflects the change of airplane latitude” do you mean “speed in southern (or northern) direction” (i.e. the southern (or northern) component of the plane’s speed vector) ?
If my interpretation is correct in this regard, I do not understand, however, why Oleksandr used this example:
… because if my interpretation is correct, then BFO doesn’t tell us neither the precise direction nor the precise speed (otherwise we would have found MH370 long ago).
very sharp witted questions. While it is already almost impossible to find MH370’s resting place within 2 days (march 8 – march 10) when they can only analyze a few km² per day out of the entire Indian Ocean (what led them there??), it is EVEN MORE impossible to have accidentally analyzed MH370’s resting place only 3 days PRIOR (march 5), when they can only analyze a few km² per day out of the entire Indian Ocean.
Yes, there is a linear relation between BFO and the north-south component of airplane groundspeed. The east-west component has negligible effect on the BFO.
Ok, if my interpretation is correct, then I do not understand the reason for using this example:
… because if my interpretation is correct, then BFO tells us neither the precise direction nor the precise speed (otherwise we would have found MH370 long ago).
It is not quite so simple. Firstly, you need to know the location of the airplane at least at one time when the BFO is logged (at 18:40 UTC or later). Secondly, you need to consider the accuracy of the logged BFO and BTO values. Thirdly, you need to know the vertical speed of the airplane. Finally, you need to know the trajectory of the airplane after the last full handshake at 0:11 UTC.
Peter,
“Home” indeed does not move in contrast to the satellite. I used this simple example just to demonstrate that the probability for a maneuvering aircraft to leave “in-line” BFOs trace is as small as the probability of finding your car moving in the same direction with the same speed when you drive from your office to your home. You may need to make multiple turns, roads may not be straight, etc.
BFO tells us neither the direction nor the speed, but it gives us a precise relationship that links velocity components and location at the time of samples. And this equation has the same form for all the samples. For any given location {lon, lat, alt} and horizontal components {u,v} of the aircraft’s velocity, it is possible to find such a value of w-component, which will satisfy BFO (the other story whether it has physically meaningful value or not).
If you wish, another example: you have 7 random pairs of values {x,y}, where 0 ≤ x ≤ 1 and 0 ≤ y ≤ 1. What is the probability for all of them to satisfy |ax+by+c| ≤ delta, where a,b,c are known constants and delta is a small tolerance value?
@all
Besides being a useful summary, methinks this latest piece “Flight MH370: Four Off-Radar Routes to the Middle East” (astonisher.com March 9, 2015) by one Bruce Brown, may prove useful to further stimulate thinking. It is here: http://www.astonisher.com/maps/news/mh370_map.html A partial excerpt of Browns concluding thoughts are immediately below–
V/R, Phil
After touching briefly upon the many shortcomings he sees in the investigation, the Brown notes: “taken together, this all says that the MH370 International Search Committee has been looking in precisely the WRONG PLACE. The hard, primary evidence in this case says that Flight MH370 did not crash, and it did not fly southeast toward Australia.” And in concluding, Brown posits–
“IN TERRORIST HANDS RIGHT NOW? — The issue and the urgency here arises not just from the fate of the 239 passengers and crew aboard Flight MH370, but also because it is STILL a very real possibility that Flight MH370 landed somewhere in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Yemen or Somalia — to mention only a few fun places for it to take an unplanned vacation — and that the purpose of this whole misadventure was to hijack the plane for later use as a targeted, flying bomb, as tragically occurred in New York on 9/11/2001. If that is the case, it may fly again soon — to Tel Aviv or Beijing or Moscow — before the aforementioned powers have time to devise a defense.
Israel has already announced heightened airline security in response to the disappearance of Flight MH370, but at presentthere may be no real defense against this kind of terrorist attack, because if the weaponized MH370’s payload is a “dirty bomb,” shooting it down would do absolutely no good — and might simply achieve “air detonation” of the nuclear materials. That’s why it is an extremely important matter of global concern that Flight MH370 be found.
It has been months since Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 vanished without a trace. Given the amount of time and energy that has been sunk in the utterly fruitless search so far, isn’t it about time for thorough examination of all the possible MH370 scenarios?
For instance, how about examining the possible Bay of Bengal crash site identified by GeoResonance? And if Flight MH370 isn’t found in the Bay of Bengal, how about a close examination of the radar track left by Flight SAL68 to see if there was a another plane shadowing the Singapore Airlines plane that peeled off at some point?
And if those inquiries prove fruitless, how about a thorough, on the ground, runway-by-runway search for Flight MH370 in the 127 known runways in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Oman, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Somalia, Uzbekistan and Yemen (see map), as well as any other possible landing spots where Flight MH370 could have landed and be hiding right now?!
And by clicking the Layer Drop down in the upper right hand corner of the map, you can change the underlying map from land to sea view in order to best visualize this truly far flung, global news story.
* * *
MAP NOTE — This Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 Mystery Map from NimbusMaps.com is dynamic and interactive — you can pan with your mouse and zoom with the “+” and “-” on the left side of the map, or pinch zoom on your mobile device.
You can also toggle on and off one or more aspects of the story, and focus on the parts you want.
So here’s how it works. To explore the Flight MH370 mystery from the very beginning, zoom to Kuala Lumpar, and click the “First 2 Hours” layer from the Layer Drop down in the upper right hand corner of the map. Checkpoint Vampi is a must see!
Then you can pan and zoom to the Australian part of the search; or the Bay of Bengal; or Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, etc., selecting the Drop down Layers you want whenever you want.
The whole Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 story is right here, in what we believe to be the best, most up-to-date and complete map ever made of the Flight MH370 saga!
Click here for full page map.
It is not quite so simple. The SATCOM unit in the airplane compensates its frequency for the Doppler shift due to the airplane horizontal velocity relative to a fixed earth-referenced position of the satellite. That Doppler shift compensates only partially for the airplane motion relative to the actual satellite. The resulting error, combined with a number of freqency shifts in the transmission to the ground station that are not affected by the airplane motion, is reflected in the BFO observed in the ground station.
Peter,
Thanks for your comments. With regard to your points:
• I particularly like your “fire in the nose landing gear” theory (1a), which had been discussed previously.
Thanks. I suggested this possibility in response to Don’s question, what event could disable all the communication means at a time. Probably it is not the only possible explanation, but so far it appears to be reasonable.
• Simultaneous failure of all communication means is explained by (1a), coincidence of disappearance exactly at ATC handover is explained by (1b) (“right wing failure triggered by turn at IGARI”) although extremely unlikely. But none of the three theories 1a/1b/1c can explain both.
Right. In case of (1a), it is coincidence. In case of (1b), one would need to look what kind of shortcircuit could disable all the communication means.
• Regarding theory 1c (dinner preparation caused a fire): AFAIK no dinner is prepared at 1:20 a.m.
Is it a rule for MAS? Some airlines do not bother to wake up a passenger at 2:30 a.m. just to ask whether he wants to eat his dinner (or breakfast, whatever they call it). I am skeptical about such an explanation, but 1:20 is the time when I would expect MAS to serve food.
• To me, the landing gear fire theory (1a) seems the most likely of the three. However almost all experts agree that a fire would be EITHER harmless enough to put it out and/or land … OR severe enough to prevent the plane from flying for another 7(!) hours.
I would say the former could take place. A non-catastrophic emergency event. However, it has triggered a chain of other failures, particularly with regard to communication means.
• “They likely concluded it was not possible to land with ~35 tons of kerosene”: why would dumping the fuel not be an option? (especially if onboard instruments display the fire as being located in the nose landing gear bay)
It’s a good question. I need to look in detail how fuel dumping works, and if it did not work, then why. Also, before they could start dumping they would need to find a place suitable for landing, and to notify anybody about the emergency.
• “They needed to burn fuel first”: if they really couldn’t dump the fuel and needed to burn it, they would fly circles over the intended landing place, not stray far away from it
That is exactly my point. They could opt for circling over the Mallaca, particularly at Maimun Saleh or Car Nikobar due to the approaches over water. In case of skidding etc. they would likely end up in water, which improves chances of survival. KLIA and Langkawi are not very suitable due to the orientation of runways. Penang is ok if the approach is from NE, but the aircraft would need to descent over hills / mountains. If landing is performed from SW, they would risk wrecking into a hill in case of the necessity to abort landing. Another explanation is that they did not have full control over the aircraft.
• A conscious crew would try to land within Malaysia (which they didn’t).
An unconscious crew would not key in several waypoints beyond Malaysia (which they did).
Who said they entered several WPs? There are several possible explanations: the pilots entered one of the nearest points (VAMPI); the pilots took a decision to land at Maimun Saleh or Car Nikobar (due to safety reasons, including people on the ground); they could also attempt to burn/dump fuel, but the situation got worse (for example intoxication by smog) and they decided to land ASAP. Wiki says “Currently there is no airlines serving that [Maimun Saleh] airport”, meaning that chances to collide with other aircraft are virtually zero, in contrast to Penang or KLIA.
• “The pilots switched on AP, and tried to repair AES”: Since when are pilots repairing the aircraft? And even if they could (Shah seems quite a hands-on talent, judging from his youtube videos): if they really have an emergency situation at hand, that is far down their priority list.
I guess the first priority would be to stabilize the aircraft. Once they succeeded (presumably by 18:00), they attempted to restore communication. What else would be in a higher priority?
• “So, the crew decided to attempt landing ASAP. After several unsuccessful attempts […]”: “several landing attempts” would have been noticed
This is a good point. Weh Island is relatively small, and if the aircraft was unable to get sufficiently close to it, I think, it still could remain unnoticed.
• “After the aircraft became unmanned, it flew into the IO”: Their last heading was northwest leaving Penang. If the aircraft became unmanned, it would have continued straight ahead. Why did it turn south all by itself ? (conveniently circumventing Indonesia)
As I mentioned, under my version of the “technical failure” scenario the aircraft became unmanned later, presumably by 19:40. It did not turn south by itself indeed; the control was finally lost after a series (or at least one) landing attempts. It could be any other direction. By a chance it was as it was.
• “My opinion did not change: it did not follow N571”: you think it’s a coincidence ?? or you think the radar image is bogus ?
Coincidence of what? What are reasons to believe it followed N571? It flew rather close to VAMPI and MEKAR, and it was heading to NILAM when the radar contact was lost. That is all. There are 2 different images: “Lido hotel”, presumably merged from 2 radars, and ATSB, which presents a straight line. They are different. Which one are you referring to? The only indication that MH370 followed N571 is a minor turn visible in “Lido” image, but it is absent in ATSB’s figure. The former could be an artifact of erroneous merging of the data from different radars by Malaysians; the latter could be schematization by ATSB. If you ask me whether it is a coincidence or not whether it flew via VAMPI and MEKAR, my answer would be I don’t know. MH370 did not fly exactly over VAMPI and MEKAR, but sufficiently close to suspect that it was not coincidental.
• “circumventing Indonesia – why would it go there?”: It would not specifically go there, but it would not purposefully avoid any landmasses either, which has taken place.
Why do you think it did purposefully avoid landmasses? In case of emergency, why would it fly to Sumatra’s mountains?
• AES log on at 18:25, i.e. 3 MINUTES after disappearance from primary radar:
this suspicious timing is not explained by your theory
It is not explained by any other theory, isn’t it? I think it was a coincidence. To do it on purpose, it was required to know what radars were functional, and what were not. This includes Malaysian, Thai, Indonesian and Indian radars. But what could be a purpose of these 3 minutes delay?
• I give you a lot of credit for coming up with this scenario, but the combined likelihood for all of that occurring seems next to zero in my opinion.
Thanks. Do you have more probable scenario, which would explain all the known ‘facts’?
• There are multiple instances, where the crew’s reaction you specified is not according to SOP.
What are these besides landing in Malaysia? The crew reaction could be based on their assessment of current situation rather than planned in advance.
@all
The Duncan Steel Independent Group Analyses for March 2015 are here: http://www.duncansteel.com/archives/date/2015/03
@Olelsandr
GeoResonance Press Release from May 1, 2014 may answer some of your questions.
[Rest of this comment deleted by Jeff Wise. @BobDet, I don’t know who you are but GeoResonance is a con. Don’t post any more about them here.]
Thanks. That needed to be said – at least if I understand the intended meaning correctly. Since my mother’s tongue is not English, I occasionally look up a word in a dictionary, such as the Merriam-Webster online. Is ” a con” (noun) linguistically correct English?
@Gysbreght, sorry, yes, it is a bit slang-ish I suppose; ‘con’ is short for “confidence game,” that is to say a deception.
The fact that GeoResonance is run by Ukrainian-Russians and its current incarnation dates back to 2013 makes me highly suspicious, to say the least. All the same I let Bob Det say his piece for a while but there comes a time when one’s patience wears thin.
Now I see that Scientologists are trying to take advantage of the Germanwings tragedy to push their anti-psych meds crusade…
“Thanks. Do you have more probable scenario, which would explain all the known ‘facts’?”
Intentional divert to take the plane to another airport/country, which has unfortunately gone very wrong.
just imagine in your head what would you do as a pilot if you wanted to reach the first world country (Australia) unchallenged while exposing weakness of malaysian military/government…yes you would choose this same flight path (up to the IO entrance)