Above is a graphic made by Caleb Lambert (@CaleLambert), based on an original by Tim Sharpe. It offers a nice visual summary of the five pieces of known or suspected MH370 debris.
Meanwhile, an impressive piece of visual sleuthing has been spotlighted by Ben Sandlands, who’s written up a post about Twitter user @aussie500 and her identification of the likely spot in the cabin from whence the Rodrigues debris came. Below is an image I grabbed from a tweet by Edward Baker (@Edward_767):
While this discovery seems to bring us one step closer to understanding the significance of this find, Edward also raises another observation about the piece that does the opposite. Examining the images posted on Facebook by the Marouk Ebony hotel, he noticed that the images of one side of the piece don’t match those of the other:
He superimposed them, having adjusted the images so that the size of the square holes match:
It’s quite odd. The two sides don’t seem to match very well at all. Perhaps this is due to some trick of perspective or lens distortion? Observations and insights welcome.
UPDATE 4-8-16: This video clarifies the issue quite neatly. Thank you Michael Helms and @Gearo.
It looks like 2 pieces, not 2 photos of one piece. I sent an email to Mr. Vitry asking for clarification.
Littlefoot,
By the time when I finished replying your previous post, it turned out that Jeff closed comments. Anyway, reposting it here.
“What kinds of flaws did you make out? His location and timing revisions (event taking place further east and therefore earlier) or his conclusions re: the most likely origins of the sound?”
I already pointed out this many times. The two selected events at HA01 and RCS have similar characteristics. Furthermore, bearing recorded by HA01 and bearing derived from the delays in arrival time to HA01 and RCS are approximately equal. But what is common with the signal at Scott Reef? Nothing except duration. Can you explain why the peak amplitude at Scott Reef is x8 higher than at HA01? Simple: it has nothing to do with HA01 and RCS signals.
Also, can you tell me why in the first paper it was stated that HA08 did not reveal this event, while the second paper says that HA08 supports the geological event near Maldives?
Finally note that Scott Reef station records for 15 minutes per hour, thus 75% of events are missing. And the most interesting part is missing.
And indeed Dr Duncan carefully made a provisional note that the event at Scott Reef might be irrelevant. And of course, the crowd does not read these notes.
@am2 I was composing this answer on the other discussion thread but found the thread was closed when I came to post it. this is quite serendipitous as it fits quite nicely here.
As I was looking through some old photographs at the weekend I found one of myself as a child stood on a rocky beach in south africa and it struck me again just how unlikely it is that large chunks of debris would be to be found on that type of shore line.
If you put “Mozambique shore” into google images you get image after image of flat sandy beach where chunks of debris would be a)easy to spot and b)reasonably likely to maintain their physical integrity.
Do the same for South Africa and you get a mixture of images from rocky outcrops and cliffs meeting directly with the sea to long white sandy beaches sometimes flanked and punctuated by rocks. Have a look on google earth and follow the coastline from CT eastwards and you can see the diversity quite clearly.
In fact, the beach at Mossell bay is itself flanked by rocks.
This means two things to me, firstly that the length of coast on which items are likely to land is reduced to the non-rocky areas. Secondly that any items that are found west of Durban are reasonably likely to have spent at least some time being bashed against shore-line rocks before coming to rest on a sandy beach.
All this lends itself to an increased likelihood of smaller pieces being found in SA than elsewhere. In fact, I now think that if a larger piece is found on this coastline, I would consider it to be highly suspicious.
Your original question asked about the chances items would be identified. I suspect that the smaller the pieces (unless they carry helpful RR logos) the lower the chance is that someone might recognise them as being from an aircraft.
You also asked what the chances are someone would reuse the pieces rather than hand them in. Smaller pieces are less likely to be of construction value so potentially that reduces the reuse.
I think it’s fairly obvious that these are two different pieces. No lense perspective can distort the overall shape that much.
Thanks ALSM for reaching out for clarfication. There must be a sensible explanation.
Littlefoot,
“isn’t it fairly obvious that the sat data can’t be any good if the plane crashed at the location of the Curtin boom?”
??? I don’t understand this. Which location are you referring to? I am referring to the area around 100E, 28.5S. It is consistent with sat data; it is inconsistent with someone’s assumptions.
“Is that location on the 7th arc?”
Indeed.
“Would the plane have to have gone South – as the BFOs seem to suggest – in order to arrive at a location West of the Maldives?”
I am not talking about Maldives. Yes, South.
Optical illusion? … @AirInvestigate:
https://twitter.com/airinvestigate/status/716804327776591872
Wow! That is awesome sleuthing on Annette’s part!
Interesting that yet again, it comes from the right hand side of the aircraft. Also it is directly adjacent to an emergency exit.
Arguably, this new object confirms the controlled flight input theory: the aircraft comes in low and slow, swells moving to the left catch the right wing/engine (flaperon, flap fairing, engine cowling lost); aircraft rolls to the right as did ET961 (right horizontal stabilizer lost); violent cartwheel motion ensues, hammering forward end of fuselage into water surface; right galley emergency exit hatch implodes causing loss of Rodregues object.
Fuselage as a whole remains more or less intact, but imploded emergency exit guarantees rapid sinking. Very little interior debris is lost.
Hello all,
Long time reader but first time contributor.
If you look at the photo that’s been taken end-on (https://goo.gl/aTMauk) you can clearly see that the piece is quite significantly curved and nowhere near flat. That would seem (to me at least) to account for some of the differences between the image.
Without having an accurate idea of the true shape of the object it seems somewhat hasty to dismiss the idea it’s one piece as certain parts, from certain angles, will be much closer to the camera than others. It also appears to vary in thickness dramatically…
The piece is not planar. One of the views on the facebook page show an edge on view that indicates this. Also, the part is suspended over a step in some images, not a flat surface.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1039643776106435&set=pcb.1039524829451663&type=3&theater
The side with the bracket (colours are not the same in all images including those above) is bent away from the side with the hinges, hence appears reduced in size.
IMHO
@Olexandr, thanks for re-posting your views on the second paper from Dr. Duncan
@All: I made a silly mistake in my comment on the previous thread re: the timing of the Maldive sighting. It happened at 6:15am local time which is 1:15 UTC, and NOT 00:15 UTC as I erroneously wrote. But this doesn’t change my point, which is that the Curtin boom – whatever this was – cannot have been caused by the plane sighted over Kudahuvadhoo. It’s not only unlikely as I said previously. It’s impossible.
Paul,
“I realise that the supposed “sound of plane imploding as it hits seabed” isn’t yours, but I hope that you realise how odd it sounds.”
No, I don’t. In fact I suggested the same long time ago, and I was happy that specialists in acoustic have same opinion. I have explained the reasons many times.
Re: “Until recently, collapse depths of submarines were <300m and even now rated/test depth ~500m. So a/c would go pop long long before it gets anywhere near the sea bed."
This is nonsense. Submarines are designed to withstand pressure from outside, while aircrafts – from inside. Also note that atmospheric pressure is equal to the increment of pressure each 10m water depth. Aircraft is not high-pressure O2 cylinder… Finally, you assumed that the aircraft was intact, which is very unlikely.
"I cannot believe that this could be done with enough speed to make any significant underwater noise."
My estimations are up to 8.5 m/s "nose down" terminal speed at x10 mass due to trapped water. That is quite huge energy.
Note also that seabed and surface impacts cannot be compared based on impact energy only.
can someone explain a little better what this article is about?
@Olexandr, what am I missing here? The most likely location where the sound from the Curtin boom originated from is West from the Maldives and not on the 7th arc! Even in his first paper Dr. Duncan never suggested otherwise. If you have another interpretation I suggest that you contact Dr. Duncan and ask him personally. I heard that he is very accomodating. He said himself from the very beginning that this event isn’t compatible with the BTOs. He also said if there was cause enough to doubt the sat data that would be a good reason to revisit the boom. That doesn’t sound like a statement from someone who is the mouthpiece of the ATSB.
I agree that these two images do not match. I’ve put the orange backed image you posted above into photoshop and created a mask from the smaller LH image and overlayed it on the larger RH image.
This is quite hard to do (I’m not a PS pro) but from this activity I can conceive that the left hand side of the two pieces could be made to line up, whilst the the top horizontal line remains consistent. This would be base on tilting the base of the image towards us around an axis running along the top horizontal line in the image. Using this rotation perspective could be giving the effect of the lack of overall length despite the squares lining up. Note that the difference in the “bend” position on the left hand edge is around half that of the difference between the bottom left corners (10mm vs 20mm on the screen res I’m looking at). This would potentially be consistent with a visual shift due to perspective.
Interestingly also, when I enlarge the mask to represent the tilt, the bright dot that is in line with the v shaped nick on the smaller piece now lines up with what would be the back side of the rivet line that is shown holding a short brown strut on the face of the larger piece.
But…clearly the right hand edge doesn’t fit!
A possibility is that the “larger” photo of the piece was taken. The piece was dropped or damaged in transit. Then the “smaller” photo was taken.
Any way of checking the date/time/location stamps on the pictures @Jeff?
@Crobbie, Thanks so much for your very useful insight. As to your question, these images all come from Facebook, which I’m informed strips out metadata.
@Trond, there is some doubt if the pictures from the Rodrigues debris show both sides of the same piece or two different pieces. If the pictures show two different pieces it would be a little puzzling since only one piece has been reported.
However, it doesn’t seem to be clear if the shape of the piece is planar or curved, or if the pictures even create the illusion that the grey pavement background is part of the piece.
We need better pictures, but I’m sure there is a sensible explanation 🙂
@Jeff, another thing to check would be whether either of the 2 long main cracks in the face of the left hand image bisect any of the scrapes and scratch marks that are present on the surface.
If this is the case it would suggest that these two cracks were made after the scrape marks and might support the possibility of damage in transit/post discovery.
Furthermore, can we see if the large green-coloured surface in the LH/smaller image has similar biofouling to the rest of the item? If the piece had been damaged or dropped I would expect it to be cleaner than the rest of the piece as it would have become exposed after the piece was removed from the water.
@Jeff, another thing I just noticed as I looked back at the images is that there are no pieces present on the small piece that stick out beyond the bounds of the large bit.
While this doesn’t support the dropped/broken idea it does mean it doesn’t rule it out.
If there had been pieces of the smaller item that (once enlarged to allow for perspective) stuck out beyond the perimeter of the other, it would rule out the broken/dropped idea.
@Brock McEwen
Brock, I’m not sure now. I understood that Curtin were saying the event occurred at 01:30. I had an email from Alec Duncan last September, in which he told me that if the event had occurred somewhere along the 7th arc, then it would have occurred about half an hour after the longest the ATSB thought the aircraft could have stayed airborne.
So when is the event thought to have occurred? 00:25 or 01:30?
@Brandon mark Sherril
I have drawn a mask around that stone too and the outline does not seem consistent with the outline of the larger part. Looking particularly at the corner section – on the “part” it looks rounded. Looking at the picture Jeff posted at the top of his previous article, the corner was squared off to two points.
I’m also fairly sure that in the image Jeff posted in “Suspect MH370 Interior Fragment Found” I can see grout from between the paving slabs bleeding over onto the top surface of the paving stone. Look particularly along the top edge of the stone where it meets the “part”.
@All
Re the Rodrigues interior panel:
The discovery if this interior panel is not necessarily inconsistent with the controlled ditching scenario.
As the plane sinks, there is going to be air trapped somewhere in the fuselage. At a certain depth the pressure on the hull will be great enough to cause it to inplode and fracture. When this happens, parts from the interior could be released.
I know it’s a rather loose analogy, but RMS Titanic sank nose-first. As a result, air became trapped in the stern section. The wreck is in two main sections on the seabed; a relatively intact forward section (waterlogged before it slipped beneath the surface, and a highly mangled stern section lying about half a mile from the bow section, mangled at depth when it imploded.
@Warren
Yes, you could have something there!
@Richard: I support your take; likely a trick of camera distances and angles, exacerbated by an extremely irregular shape.
@Rob: the June Curtin analysis was from only a single recorder (Leeuwin). All they knew was the direction it came from, and that it arrived at 01:30. What they didn’t know was how far away the event took place.
If it was very far away (the probability zone stretched to Saudi Arabia), then the event was “too early” (relative to conventional wisdom on fuel endurance).
If it was very close (the 7th Arc), then the event was “too late” – or around 01:00 UTC – which, yes, is about a half hour later than the 00:30 UTC (or so) the ATSB would have estimated, given presumed flameout at roughly 00:16.
The Scott Reef event – if the same event – triangulated to an intermediate distance (just west of Maldives) and time (00:25 UTC).
@Oleksandr: you seem as determined to reconcile the ISAT data to the Curtin Boom as you are the towelette to MH370. It is encouraging that you concede the only way for this to be true is if MH370 made a huge sound at least a half hour AFTER impact with the water. Let’s just all make our own assessment of the likelihood of such a sequence, and move on.
@Brock,
If the triangulation you mention places the event just West of the Maldives, is it possible there is any other geological survey equipment, say on land nearby, that might have picked it up also?
We can access the station data in real time here in the UK, for local stations (not that we get many tremors) so perhaps there is something not dissimilar around that location.
I don’t know if a land station would pick up a sea event though.
@Brock, I agree with you assessment of the Curtin boom and it’s incompatibility with the sat data. May I just add that even Dr. Duncan’s early June 2014 estimate was based on two recordings and not just one. And his earliest point-of-origin estimation from June was even further Northwest from the Maldives than the later amended estimation from September, 2014. The most likely point-of-origin was never placed anywhere near the 7th arc. The BTOs cannot be reconciled with the boom, even if it was caused by an implosion below the surface rather than a sound generated by a plane crashing onto the surface of the ocean.
@littlefoot: yes, Leeuwin has, I believe, three stations – but relative to the distances involved, the spacing was so tight as to make triangulation almost useless.
#Susie: while Diego Garcia was roughly 20 times closer to this Event – and does have two or more of the same stations Leeuwin does (plus perhaps one or more which are not publicized) – I was told by someone I contacted that
a) they heard nothing, and
b) this was just bad luck (A was on the wrong side of the atoll, & B was on the fritz, or something)
…and so nothing to get suspicious about.
(One wonders how many nukes have been successfully tested – undetected – in the Arabian Sea…)
@Brock, yes, I saw that the micros were very close together which makes triangulation a bit of guess work. Do you know why Dr. Duncan’s original point-of-origin estimation was even further Northwest of the Maldives than the corrected estimation from September 2014?
@littlefoot: I’m in a minor bind; in requesting Alec’s original point estimate back in June/’14, I pledged “never to over-emphasize – nor CAUSE to be over-emphasized” – the point estimate, because I understood the risk that folks would put a pin on their maps, when in fact the variance was so large as to render even the “best” estimate fairly improbable.
While I see no reason to be secretive now, I do ask that you please respect his original decision not to publish it, and take it, as I do, with a grain of salt. It was 5.93S, 77.22E (& 00:39:11) – slightly SOUTHEAST of (and later than) where they eventually triangulated.
This came as no big surprise to me at the time – it was roughly where the long thin sliver was at its fattest.
I’m guessing your “further NW” original best estimate is deduced from the Nature article’s graphic, which did a poor job of labelling. They tried to point a line at the entire REGION – and label it the “original estimate” – when it looks to most readers (including me, at first read) like it’s pointing at a very specific point ON it. Very unclear.
Dr. Duncan also confirm that the probability waned as one moved further from the distribution’s centre – so you are correct: long before Scott Reef weighted in, Alec was giving me the distinct impression that a 7th Arc impact was a very long shot REGARDLESS of timing/noisemaking considerations.
@Brock, thanks a lot. That is good enough for me and hopefully for everybody else who’s interested, since you have been in direct contact with Dr. Duncan.
It’s difficult indeed to extract the correct information from the various published articles.
Brock, thank you so much for elaborating on the contacts you had with DG and so forth. I appreciate it.
I’m of no use whatsoever, but am following with interest nonetheless.
@Brock – Has the detection equipment recorded the location of other known a/c impacts into water? For example, Silk Air 185 and/or Egypt Air?
@jeffwise
yeah, whole Panama Papers case looks like quite well orchestrated thing too, simply, as yet another bombs falling down on anybody trying to foul the taxes no matter who, at whatever side… that’s fair (BTW, anybody here affected?); sure that in Russia such bad things happen the same as anywhere in the world (expecting more than average, in fact); the same can be said about good things, though; notice quite heavy hit of Ukrainian authorities too; not wishing them anything worse than they experience already, not to nobody else; in relation to Malaysia, yes, son of Najib Razak catched too, but who knows who is who where and why?? I dont know more than you, still only feel, all the time, that past 2 years were somewhat transcendent and somewhat healing too, but its not all, yet; meanwhile, lets try to throw out your embedded hate and listen and feel this guy too… there is nothing unsolvable, no clodwar-mindest, absolutelly, in fact, both sides are trying to say the same thing, but difference is about perception how each side is listened and respected, historically, IMHO and I also really feel something like mutual cognitive-behavioral therapy going through mass media, who are in fact the real enemy of deep investigations, because these days, everything must be done ASAP not matter of quality… or not??
https://www.rt.com/shows/sophieco/154364-lavrov-ukraine-standoff-sophieco/
@ ROB:
Maybe not: turns out the “#4” door is in the middle of the “section 43” section of the fuselage. Presumably, the fuselage would separate at the section joints.
Also, there are no true emergency exits per se on a B777; all eight doors are regular doors that open to the outside. The ones on the right are service doors, the ones on the left are for passenger embarkation.
So the question is, would the #4 door fail before the fuselage as a whole would fail?
@DennisW
nothing so bad against ABS, but autocompletion IS real (d)evil
Brock,
“the June Curtin analysis was from only a single recorder (Leeuwin).”
No. They used two stations HA01 (Cape Leeuwin) and RCS station. HA01 has capability to detect bearing because it consists of the array of sensors. The two stations allow to draw a line (more accurately curve) of potential source locations, subject to assumed sound speed model. That is what Dr Duncan did, ATSB did, and I did – all results are similar. Also bearing detected by HA01 was in agreement with the bearing derived based on the delay in the arrival time to HA01 and RCS stations based on Duncan’s paper.
Later Curtin added Scott Reef station into their analysis. Generally this gives two triangulation solutions. But one of them can be discarded because it falls on Australian mainland (my results). But in addition Curtin used bearing data at HA01 to improve accuracy. Thus they came to a single location near Maldives. I came to the location near Omani-Yemeni border. I tried to discuss this issue with Dr Duncan, but no luck. I suspect the issue is that they used bearing data at HA01, but I did not.
Anyhow, the fundamental issue with their second analysis is the relevance of the selected Scott Reef event to the event recorded by RCS and HA01.
Here is a link that shows the section breakout:
http://i.imgur.com/tOwAAVo.png
And here is a very cool structural schematic of a 777:
http://i.imgur.com/O12Fhsf.jpg
@falken, I disagree. There is a war going on — a new kind of war, a “hybrid” in the battlefield is part informational and part real shooting-and-killing. If my hunch is right, then the passengers and crew of MH370 were killed in this battle, and this comment thread is another corner of the battlefield. And wittingly or not, you and I and everyone here are in it.
It appears to be a compilation of several opinions riffing on a 777 aircraft disintegration.
Reminds me of 50,000 people locked in an auditorium watching a continuous video loop of WTC 7 COLLAPSING INTO ITSELF.
Or something just as obvious?
Brock,
“Alec was giving me the distinct impression that a 7th Arc impact was a very long shot REGARDLESS of timing/noisemaking considerations.”
My impression was totally different. On contrary, he admitted that they originally thought about seabed impact, but the main reason to discard 100E (intersection of “HA01-RCS-curve” with the 7th arc) was the inconsistency with Scott Reef data. I asked him twice why they think Scott Reef event has anything to do with HA01 and RCS event. No answer.
@Warren
Door first or fuselage first? That would be a difficult call to make. If door #4 is in the middle of section 43, that puts it ahead of the wing,so possibly less vulnerable than if further aft. And it’s difficult to envisage how the door would fail before the fuselage.
You confirm door#4 is on the RH side?
Brock,
Re: “you seem as determined to reconcile the ISAT data to the Curtin Boom as you are the towelette to MH370.”
The towellete is in a different category. Who knows…
On contrary, Curtin Boom is consistent with the seabed impact at ~100E at the 7th arc. This location is remarkably interesting from many points of view. Do I need to repeat them?
“It is encouraging that you concede the only way for this to be true is if MH370 made a huge sound at least a half hour AFTER impact with the water.”
One hour and 10 minutes max. Then what? The depths are 4000-5000 m. Do you find this timing unreasonable or inconsistent?
@Warren
As you were. Just remembered aircraft doors and frames are designed to resist pressure from the inside, so door could fail before fuselage, possibly.
Just when you think you’ve got it nailed!
Brock,
And the last thing for today. Based on your response to Littlefoot, I think you are confusing sensors within the array of HA01 station, which are really close to each other, and RCS, which is located relatively far away.
@jeffwise
yeah, I *almost* agree too; since 6/2014
imagine… we, all people, are in global war already for few years;
imagine… the enemies are our own fear, hate, arrogance, stupidity;
imagine… the weapons of mass destruction are media, TV, internet, social networks;
imagine… the final counterstrike is in progress for few months;
imagine… the unity, the end of wars, full stop.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PkcfQtibmU
@Jeff: well, if you haven’t already, on the strength of my remarks, please put me down as “unwitting” – I am literally heading from here out to a costume curling bonspiel with my work-mates. (Though, on reflection, I suppose that’s EXACTLY what I’d say if I was a “battler”…)
All I will say is this: if any of you out there are trying to hide or distort the full, unvarnished truth, you are one of “the bad guys”. Period.
I hate dictatorships as much as anyone else – for all the obvious reasons. But whether Hollywood gossip, spying on allies, torture, regime-making/breaking, or now tax dodging, It frightens me out of my skin when I’m called – as a “patriot” – to get spitting mad at those who would dare blow whistles.
ROB,
“So when is the event thought to have occurred? 00:25 or 01:30?”
Time of the occurrence was estimated based on the distance. When only two stations HA01 and RCS were used, distance along the “solution curve” was arbitrary (exceeding certain minimum). The use of the 3 stations allowed for triangulation, and hence in known distance, and hence the time 00:25. The problem is there many such events recorded by each the station.
@jeff @Falken
This is a hybrid war I agree. But it isn’t the first where information and propaganda have been crucial to the direction the conflict takes. Mein.kampf was probably the best example ever seen.
However, what has changed hugely due to the advent of the Internet is the rapidity with which information can be disseminatedited, the degree to which anyone can expressee an opinion on a relatively large stage and above all the lack of ability for the reader to trace information sources or be sure about the provenance of anything they read.
The internet is a double edged sword in my opinion. In my day job I’ve spent hundreds of hours battling on a health related front. Again there are the propagandistsame and those (us) with the solid science. It becomes a battle of arguments not facts. Arguing takes a lot of time effort and money. Typically the baddiesame have more of all of these. Doesn’t mean we should stop fighting.
Littlefoot,
“what am I missing here? The most likely location where the sound from the Curtin boom originated from is West from the Maldives and not on the 7th arc!”
No, definitely not. What this “most likely” is based on? There is a curve of possible source location based on RCS and HA01. The signals look very similar; on top of it bearing in consistent with HA01 data. These things indicate that the HA01 and RCS recorded acoustic wave originated by the same event.
Then Curtin added one more: Scott Reef. The signal is totally different. There are no data at Scott Reef to conclude that this association is the only possible. How can someone state that the location derived from this information is the most likely?
Re “If you have another interpretation I suggest that you contact Dr. Duncan and ask him personally.”
That is what I did. After I presented my arguments in-depth and began asking questions, Dr Duncan stopped responding to me.
RE passenger entry doors, from the FCOM:
Someone on twitter has identified the debris as part of lavatory sidewall near door #2R in Section 43. There is a similar lavatory with a cabin attendant seat on the outside near door #3L in Section 46.
I wouldn’t think that the section joints are weak points of the fuselage, on the contrary, they may be stronger. Same for the door frames and surrounding structure.