New York: How an American Obsessed With the MH370 Case May Have a Found a Piece of the Missing Plane

Blaine Alan Gibson, a 58-year old lawyer who lives in Seattle, Washington, has spent much of the past year traveling around the Indian Ocean region trying to solve the mystery what happened to Malaysian Airlines Flight 370. He’s been to the Maldives to talk to villagers who say they saw a large plane fly low overhead the day after the disappearance; visited Réunion Island to interview the local who found the flaperon from MH370; and met with Australian Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss to discuss the ongoing seabed search. He has no professional background in aircraft accident investigation or journalism, and no professional accreditation. He is simply motivated by the desire to know what happened to the airliner. “I do not have a theory,” he emailed me last September. “I am just looking for evidence that may have been prematurely dismissed.”

Last week, Gibson found himself in Mozambique searching for debris on local beaches. On February 27, he says, he hired a boat captain to take him someplace where flotsam from the ocean tended to wash up. The captain chose a sandbar called Paluma a half-dozen miles from the coastal town of Vilankulos. They arrived at around 7 a.m., and after about 20 minutes on the flat, low stretch of sand the boat captain spotted something unusual and handed it to Gibson.

The next morning, Gibson emailed me a description of the object:

The debris appears to be made of a fiberglass composite and has aluminum honeycomb inside. NO STEP is written on one side. It appears to be from an aircraft wing … The piece is torn and broken into a triangular shape, 94 cm long at the base and 60 cm high. The remaining highlock pin has a 10 mm diameter head. The pin itself is about 12 mm long. The bolt holes are spaced about 30 mm apart from center to center of hole. The distance from the edge of the hole with the pin to the intact edge is about 8 mm. At the bottom of the intact edge there is a very thin (1 to 2 mm thick) strip of dried rubber remaining that runs about 30 mm along the edge before it was broken off. The intact edge is only 65 mm long. All the rest is broken.
In a video that Gibson posted to a closed-access Facebook page, the fragment looks quite light and insubstantial, easy enough for one man to pick up and wave around — unlike the flaperon found on Réunion, which required several people to lift. Gibson asked me to keep his find a secret, explaining, “It is too large and metallic to be easily taken out of the country, and needs to have its provenance documented. The procedure with other possible debris discoveries in La Réunion, Thailand, Vietnam, and Malaysia has been to report it to local authorities first. Then the responsible international investigators can come to inspect.”

On Tuesday, Gibson bundled up the piece in cardboard and flew with it to Maputo, the capital of Mozambique, to turn it over to the authorities. Wednesday morning, news articles about the discovery appeared on CNN, the BBC, NBC, and elsewhere. According to these accounts, experts believe that the piece could be part of the composite skin from the horizontal stabilizer – that is, one of the miniature “wings” on either side of the tail — of a 777. And, of course, no other 777 has been lost in the Indian Ocean except for MH370.

On Wednesday afternoon, I managed to reach Gibson by phone in Maputo. He sounded tired but elated, having just gotten off a live interview on Richard Quest’s show on CNN. “I did not expect that this would all hit this early and so fast,” he said. He told me that he and the Australian consul had met earlier that day with the head of civil aviation in Mozambique, who promised that he would do the proper paperwork and then turn the piece over to the Australian Transportation Safety Board, who are overseeing the search for MH370 in the southern Indian Ocean. “It’s in very good hands,” he said.

When he first held the piece, he told me, his immediate reaction was that it was so light and thin, that it was probably from some light aircraft or small plane — “but maybe it’s from MH370.” Only when back on dry land and able to consult with other MH370 researchers did he realize that the lettering looks identical to the “NO STEP” warnings on the wings of 777s, and the alphanumerical code on the head of a rivet indicates that it’s a fastener used in the aerospace industry.

To verify that the part could indeed have floated its way naturally to the beach, he had put it in the ocean and photographed it floating “just absolutely flat as a pancake” at the surface. He was struck by the absence of marine life. “There were a few little things that looked like a little bit of algae or calcification that may have come from something that tried to attach there,” he says. “But the top surface with NO STEP on it was very smooth, and the bottom was a little rougher but still pretty smooth.”

He knows that sounds odd: after two years in the ocean, a piece of floating debris should be encrusted with growth. But having spent the last year steeped in the oddness of the case, he’s learned to expect the unexpected. “I’m open to anything,” he says. Even the timing of the discovery was eyebrow-raising: Just a few days before the second anniversary of the MH370’s disappearance.

The yearlong plunge into the case is just the latest rabbit hole for the California-bred Gibson, who is fluent in six languages. In the past he has traveled to remote Siberia to investigate the Tunguska meteor, to Central America to figure out why the Maya disappeared, and to Ethiopia in search of the Lost Ark. So he knows not only about unraveling weird mysteries, but also the skepticism that such efforts can engender. “I can tell you this about that piece: it is absolutely authentically there,” he says. “There is no way that that was planted there by any shenanigans. I rode with those guys on the boat there, and they didn’t carry anything there. It was a completely natural find. It was just freak luck or destiny, whatever you want to call it.”

This piece originally appeared on the New York magazine web site on March 3, 2016.

356 thoughts on “New York: How an American Obsessed With the MH370 Case May Have a Found a Piece of the Missing Plane”

  1. @Oleksandr: To be honest, I really can’t follow your logic, or even understand what you are suggesting. But perhaps others here can, so there is no need to explain it again.

  2. @Susie
    wow, thanks for info!! at least this is proof that I totally dislike any consipracy theories targeted against any “bad” governments, because I didnt knew this journalist yet… fact is, his article on RT is posted in “Op-Edge” section which is very often filled by quite controversial opinions – they are free to allow somebody weird to expose something there and I can imagine its also perfect way to destroy itself, unintentionally(?) :-))
    There is disclaimer after each such article “The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.”; it seems that this guy really hates US, so then I understand more his motives… okok, well 🙂 BTW nor Putin nor Russia officialy thinks that 911 was inside job… (but again, between 10/2012-08/2014, there was on RT whole section in SHOWS named “The TruthSeeker” which was full of absolutelly stupid documents, profesional commented docudramas etc… it was all so funny and absurd, so it was obvious its planted for some reason at least for somebody (conspiracy lovers?) … believe me, it was sooo funny, bettetr than Hollywood action movies, really :-))

  3. @Susie
    .. but then in 08/2014 whole this show vanished without a trace from their menu and cloned videos was purged from youtube, almost all of them

  4. Think about this….
    The original search the ships were listening for a sound-a ping.
    Then found out the pings were not valid.
    But did they ever search that same area with the devices they are now using to get an image???

  5. @oleksandrrr Expand on your “Show” comment. Nice to see SC still trying to censor everybody. I leaf through the comments these days. I actually hate myself every time I google #MH370 @jeffwise put an end to this maddness.

  6. http://www.watoday.com.au/world/mh370-mystery-new-item-possibly-found-on-reunion-island-20160306-gnc0uk.html

    Johnny Begue finds it on nearly the same spot as the flaperon?

    StevanG/IR1907/Dennis – true you will find stuff on the beach with no barnacles on it, but much of that started out on a beach, or a nearby boat, and may have only washed around for a matter of days. If it has traveled any great distance over time you should see it. The honeycomb should be a mess, be it either ally corrosion or evidence of present/past colonization of a myriad of lifeforms. Anything below the waterline with attachment points has something attached to it in my experience. Smooth rocks can remain clean, but any little pit or crevasse will host something.

  7. @Matty

    I see a lot of flotsam. I have house right on the Pacific ocean. You don’t see barnacles or algae on this stuff unless it is very fresh. In fact, I cannot recall seeing any barnacles at all (perhaps the water is too cold off the NorCal coast).

    “Science progresses one funeral at a time.” Max Planck

    What Max meant by this remark is that intellectual sunk cost is very difficult to overcome. It is a formidable barrier to new ideas. Time to open up, and invite some new thinking into the mix.

  8. @Matty

    Don’t interpret my remarks as wishing anything bad to happen to IG members, and others who piled on along the way.

  9. I think that this whole case is starting to get to people. Nobody trusts anybody and with good reasons no doubt. There have been so many lies and false and redacted statements by Malaysia and the news media, particularly CNN.

    As for Blaine finding this debris, this is a guy who has spent the last year travelling around that whole region, looking, interviewing people (maldives) and trying to find answers for the families, because he cares and sees that nobody else seems to be helping find answers for the families. I tip my hat to the guy for doing his own investigations on his own dime yet. Why are people so quick to judge from their armchairs that he is anything but legitimate? You can bet that he took many photos and documented everything, after all he is a lawyer and knows that. He took it right to the authorities and wasn’t trying to hide anything. I think the reason he didn’t want it to get out yet was for the families sake, he wanted it identified and confirmed first. He has been in contact with many people involved and wants to be cautious. Did you watch his interview on Channel Asia, he says exactly that.

    I can understand why so many people are skeptical, with lack of real evidence just leaves everything wide open for conspiracy theories running amuck!!! Until the plane is found no one will know exactly what happened, unless Malaysia is really hiding something and as time goes on I believe they are. They wouldn’t know the truth if it him in the #$%s.

    So before you condemn Blaine and that Johnny guy, why not wait until the debris is either ruled in or ruled out. I hope that the reunion find is given to the French BEA as the flaperon was and maybe included in the report that is due soon, wishful thinking on my part.

    Anyhow just my 2 cents on the subject. But in my opinion, I commend Blaine for actually going out and doing something, if I could afford it, I would to. The families have been going through hell and living a nightmare that never ends. Think about how you would feel if one of your family members or a good friend or partner had been on that plane.

  10. Well, Dennis, what you find at your home isn’t relevant. The theater where this drama plays out is the Indian Ocean All the other stuff fished out of the IO or beached at some IO shore or beach (and there have been a lot of flotsam pictures around lately) had barnacles, algae, you name it, if it was for a prolonged time in the water. If the barnacles had come off, then you could clearly see where they had been attached.
    It’s not just the missing barnacles, it’s the overall appearance of the debris which just isn’t credible. Matty said it well: after two years every little crevasse should show signs of marine life population – even if it has dried up, died and fallen off you can still see the traces. And you don’t have any shining paint. It’s matted and dimmed.

  11. @Bugsy

    you said:

    “Anyhow just my 2 cents on the subject. But in my opinion, I commend Blaine for actually going out and doing something, if I could afford it, I would to. The families have been going through hell and living a nightmare that never ends.”

    I could certainly afford it, but when you realize that more than 800 people a year are killed in California due to drunk driving it takes the edge off. We are looking at way more than 4X here when impaired drivers are added to the mix. I hate to be callous relative to the NOK, but they are absolutely a non-issue for me. I am more interested in the problem itself. I think people citing the NOK in their motives are being insincere when you look at all the other ways people are dying on this planet. Just my $0.02.

  12. Dennis – A lot of stuff on the beach is plain old litter, and there is more below the sand that pops out regularly and it has no interesting story to tell most of the time. Stuff that made it’s way across from Japan would be a better guide, but in any case we have the flaperon. Somewhere around your parts(lucky you) will be a pier and below the waterline the pylons will be covered with life.

  13. @Matty

    My beach house is in a very affluent zip code. Virtually no litter. It is all stuff that has drifted in from the sea.

    No matter. Neither of us is qualified to speculate. We may as well be talking about particle physics. Let’s wait for the experts to weigh in.

  14. @Dennis, I didn’t say you are irrelevant 😉
    However the Pacific shores are somewhat irrelevant. But even there will be marine life after a long drift.
    Matty explained it well, though, why everyday debris might be misleading. Only pieces which have been in the water for a long time can be used for comparison.

  15. Dennis – by litter I mean stuff that has bobbed along a shoreline, beaching and moving on. I’ve seen objects disappear and reappear along a stretch often in the past – such bits won’t have barnacles.

    I’d love to hear from experts, but why haven’t we? I have an uneasy suspicion that the marine guys might not have a central place in this tent??

  16. @Matty

    I too am curious about the lack of input. I attribute it to the French, for whom I have a very low regard in any case. Maybe the next FI will have some revelations.

  17. @Dennis said: I hate to be callous relative to the NOK, but they are absolutely a non-issue for me. I am more interested in the problem itself. I think people citing the NOK in their motives are being insincere .

    Wow is all I can say, would you be thinking that way if you had family on that damn plane, unbelievably cold IMO. Thats your choice man, but no wonder this world has gone to hell. Nobody cares about the people anymore, its all about the $$$ and status. How can you claim to know why other people do things they do and not being sincere, very cynical aren’t you?

    There’s a word for people like that, but its not appropriate to say here, so I won’t. I have spoken to family members and they are going through hell. But when there is people like you and those who are keeping the truth from families, its no wonder the world is the way it is. Nobody trusts anybody anymore because they simply don’t care. Very shallow thinking, but each to their own. Hope you never have to go through what they have been going through.

  18. While there are many incredible circumstances here with the two recent finds and many possibilities for how they came to be on those beaches, here is my tuppence-worth on 2 possibilities:
    a) that one or both items have actually drifted from 9M-MRO (whether it can be proven or not). Given the drift modelling we have seen, I don’t believe this would strengthen the case for the current search area being correct and the search extended. On the contrary, my non-expert reading of these models indicates the debris could’ve come from many areas including N Indian Ocean in the 2 years.
    b) that one or both items have been planted and do in fact come from 777s. In this case there is no apparent motive or planter. As many have said, the fairly pristine condition of both and the timing of both finds seems highly suspicious. I’m no lawyer but can’t think of any way this could help the NOK, or if some state has done this sans barnacles then it surely can’t be to reinforce that the current search area is correct. So, could this be a bad joke? or a sign from a whistle-blower? or another big distraction?

    Just wanted to make it clear I am not casting any blame on anyone.

  19. @bugsy

    That was certainly an emotional response. What about my fellow 800 Californians killed in DUI accidents?

    No matter, you do what you can do. I’ve lost colleagues in Viet Nam to aircraft incidents so I have some feeling for it, and I’ve lost people while doing chest compressions. You simply have to move on. Worrying about the NOK has absolutely no value relative to solving this problem.

  20. Apparently the 767 and the 777 have similar composition for the possible part discovered in Mozambigue. Is it possible that close inspection will not be able to rule out it being a 767 part?

    In any event, Malaysia Transport Minister Liow Tiong Lai quoted today:

    The three-member Malaysian team – comprising investigators and personnel from DCA and Malaysia Airlines – is now in Mozambique with their Australian counterparts following news of the discovery of the aircraft part early this week, he told reporters after opening the new RM7 million Kepong MCA building, in Kuala Lumpur today.

    Liow had earlier described the find as highly possible to belong to a Boeing 777, the same model of the ill-fated plane which went missing two years ago.

    He said the part would be sent to Australia for inspection, but that it would remain under Malaysia’s custody.

    https://www.malaysiakini.com/news/332968

  21. @Dennis said That was certainly an emotional response. What about my fellow 800 Californians killed in DUI accidents?

    Emotional maybe, if you have spoken to family members grieving this tragedy, 239 people gone all at once missing and not being found or knowing what happened to them, is a whole hell of a lot different that DUI’s, its still a sad situation but at least the families know what happened to their loved ones and have some closure.

    My point is that these families don’t have closure, they don’t know what happened to their loved ones and they may never know.

  22. @Bugsy

    Yeah, I know all that. So what? I am trying to solve a problem not be a grief counselor.

    You think it is better to know that some drunk killed your daughter rather than having her disappear on an airliner?

    Get real, and stop being a whacko. I have little patience for it.

  23. I’d like to clarify something. Although I am clearly questioning whether there was human intervention in the recent findings, I did not mean to imply that either Blaine Gibson or Johny Degue were anything but sincere. Blaine in particular is doing exactly what I had hoped more would do–investigate on the scene rather be armchair investigators like most of us. This investigation is not lacking in technical analysis or theories. It’s lacking in facts on the ground.

  24. @VictorI

    Yes. Totally agree. It always comes down to “feet on the street”, even in our modern era. It takes people on the scene to solve problems.

  25. @Dennis

    ditto man, I have little patience for your name calling too, I won’t stoop to your level, bye now

  26. @Bugsy

    you said:

    “there is people like you and those who are keeping the truth from families, its no wonder the world is the way it is”

    All I am trying to do is help. Rhetoric from people like yourself is probably not the answer. Sorry “the world” is not working out for you.

  27. Dennis,

    You wrote: “I think people citing the NOK in their motives are being insincere”.

    So what do think about the interview with Blaine, link to which was posted by Victor yesterday? The same video is available at ChannelNewsAsia web.

  28. @Bugsy

    I’m quite sure DennisW devoted more of his time for solving this case than many of those paid for it.

    What does he feel is completely irrelevant for solving this. Crying&sadness never solved any problem in this world anyway, ever.

  29. @Lauren, the basis of their calculations should take into account how much fuel burn was incurred when the plane allegedly crossed the Malay peninsular. As I noted earlier here, it would have been a quick dash to evade radar and possible RMAF pursuers from either Gong Kedak Terengganu or Butterworth Airforce Base. The fact that fighter jets were not scrambled could also be allusive of the fact that it was not worth it in the eyes of RMAF given MH370’s head start.

    It should be cautioned that my interest in a cross peninsular dash plus SIO detour is purely academic as it doesn’t jive with the available data and as such don’t subscribe to that theory. Despite that, my modelling,after accounting for fuel burn from IGARI to Penang onwards, indicates that the available fuel from Pensng onto SIO trajectory would only carry the plane somewhere between 1000-1300 off the northwestern tip of Australia I.e the NIO between Australia and Java, and no further and as I said that could explain Oz radar silence . Remotely plausible that JORN spotted it and had it shot down by local air defence on grounds of it being a unidentified rogue intruder after consent was given by country of origin of course…but that would be a bit far fetched ….

    Step cruise is not an easy cut and dry thingy with regard to fuel conservation. There are some complex variables at play which defy easy assumption modeling

    “Canuckbirdstrike
    20th Jul 2012, 00:54
    Aircraft FCOMs and FCTMs discuss step climbs in the context of zero or constant wind. A good flight planning system understands the incremental fuel and cost for the step climb and compares it to the fuel savings associated with a potentially better wind profile.

    Bottom line the FCTM and many rules of thumb are poor decision making tools.”

    You may be interested in this

    http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-490969.html

  30. I’m sure that many of us studied the replay on FR24 of the nascent flight, and one thing we know is that there was plenty of traffic around – what we also know is that there are no public reports of other aircraft witnessing anything suggesting the plane was shot down or otherwise met its fate in a fiery manner. Being night time, I think this makes it even more likely that it would have been noticed had something occurred in that regard, in that area (ie over the SCS)
    I don’t know if the aircraft would have had lights at any stage after it disappeared but we can probably rule out its going in a direction where it would be liable to collide with another a/c.
    I think these aspects might bear weight in trying to establish a course of events.
    By the way – I’m not the poster named Susie Crowe, in case there is some confusion.

  31. I should clarify, regarding the direction of travel: I state that only because it did not collide with another AC, not because I think whoever was flying it was necessarily trying to avoid this possibility.

    We only know that it didn’t hit another plane, and wasn’t seen on fire by another plane.

    The playback is still available on YouTube.

  32. @Matty, you said:
    “The agony of the nok is not the ball game, it’s just a reminder.”
    I couldn’t agree more. We need to look at all available information dispassionately and rationally without preconceived ideas.

  33. @MH:

    “maybe mh17 was a warning shot to Malaysia in retaliation of using the SIO as cover but being slow in making “amends”. Once mh17 was shot it did give Malaysia certain urgency to resolve that “issue.”

    Well, you may be on to something there, certainly very curious behaviour from the Malaysians! I remember you discussing it once before; I will try and see if I can find your previous post to read more about it!

  34. “People who have handled the part, which is being transported to Malaysia,
    say it appears to be made of fibreglass composite on the outside, with aluminium
    honeycombing on the inside, the official said. “Based on these identifying details, the team has confirmed that the debris does not belong to a B777 9M-MRO aircraft (MH370),” Liow said in a statement on Tuesday.”

    http://www.mh370.gov.my/index.php/en/386-mh370-possible-debris-found-in-mozambique-being-examined

  35. @Olexandr, that is very interesting. Are they saying the debris is most likely from a B777, but the make up tells them it’s most likely not from 9M-MRO for some reason?

  36. @littlefoot, @Oleksandr, Wow, So confusing. This piece seems to say both that the piece is likely from a 777 and that it certainly isn’t. Am I missing something? Can anyone jump in an explain what’s going on here?

  37. @Jeff, I think the announcement means that the debris is from a B777, but that it is not from 9M-MRO for some reason. It’s not quite clear why they think it’s not from the missing plane. Since there are different versions of B777s this debris could be from a slightly different model. Or they are of the opinion that the shape of the debris doesn’t indicate a long ocean drift and therefore it couldn’t have come from mh370. But I think they allude more to the specific make up and material of the debris.
    Before we can conclude anything definite we need more clarity.

  38. @littlefoot, I don’t think so. The language in this one sentence seems clearly to imply that due to the materials used in its construction, the piece could not come from a 777:

    “People who have handled the part, which is being transported to Malaysia, say it appears to be made of fibreglass composite on the outside, with aluminium honeycombing on the inside, the official said. “Based on these identifying details, the team has confirmed that the debris does not belong to a B777 9M-MRO aircraft (MH370),” Liow said in a statement on Tuesday.”

  39. Jeff, that specific sentence “…debris does not belong..” never appears in the Guardian article that is listed as the source at that mh370.gov.my link.

  40. We have to wait for a clearer statement. This is just confusing right now 🙁

  41. The Malaysians know that we tend to “cherry pick” data which supports our theories, so they made it easy by making contradicting statements in the same press release. 🙂

    And as I write this, it’s not yet Tuesday in Kuala Lumpur. So it seems they can’t even get the day correct.

  42. @Victor, that was my first impulse, too: checking if it is Tuesday already in Kuala Lumpur 🙂
    But I’ve encountered this often in press releases. If they come out in the evening they are often dated a day in advance.

  43. The outer layer of the part looks like fiberglass, or Glass Fiber Reinforced Plastic (GFRP); however, on a B777, the structural composite parts are more likely to be Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastic (CFRP), which would likely be darker in color. So maybe this is the basis of what Liow is trying to say. On the other hand, who knows?

  44. @littlefoot: Often times press releases are given to the media before the official release time with the understanding that the release is “embargoed”, i.e., not to be discussed before the official release time. If that happened here, the Malaysians broke their own embargo.

  45. ““Based on these identifying details, the team has confirmed that the debris does not belong to a B777 9M-MRO aircraft (MH370),” Liow said in a statement on Tuesday. ”

    This exact quote was also in a January 26 2016 article, referenced in today’s release. where Liow was discussing Thailand debris.

    http://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2016/01/26/liow-debris-in-thailand-not-from-mh370/

    Perhaps an earlier quote was accidentally included in the newest release?

  46. The PDF file linked from the website, which is where the statement about “fiberglass composite” is mentioned, has a creation date of March 3 (last Thursday), and all the linked articles are from last week, typically March 2. The reference to Tuesday would mean March 1, six days ago.

Comments are closed.