In the weeks since MH370 debris began washing up in the Western Indian Ocean, I’ve struggled to understand the condition in which they were found. Particularly baffling were the three that washed ashore in Mozambique and South Africa, which were almost completely clean and free of marine fouling. I’ve talked to a number of marine biologists who study organisms that grow on floating debris, and they told me that given their pristine appearance these pieces couldn’t have floated for more than a few weeks.
Some observers have suggested that perhaps the objects had failed to pick up significant fouling because they drifted through waters that were too cold or low in nutrients, but further examination showed that this could not be the explanation.
One commenter on this blog suggested that the pieces were too shallow, or too small, to permit the growth of Lepas barnacles. This, too, is an unsuitable explanation, since Lepas can grow on bits of floating debris that are as small as a few centimeters across. The photograph above shows a small but vibrant community growing on a piece of pumice spewed from a volcano in Tonga; the largest Lepas (goose barnacle) in the image is 23 mm long.
In acknowledging the very obvious problem that this lack of biofouling presents, David Griffin of the Australian government’s science agency, CSIRO, has written (referring to the first Mozambique piece) that “this item is not heavily encrusted with sea life, so it has probably spent a significant length of time either weathering in the sun and/or washing back and forth in the sand at this or some other location. The time at sea is therefore possibly much less than the 716 days that have elapsed since 14 March 2014, and the path taken may have been two or more distinct segments.”
The idea then, is that these pieces washed across the Indian Ocean, were deposited on a beach, were picked over my crabs and other predators, bleached in the sun and scoured by wind and sand, the were washed back out to sea, then came ashore again within less than two weeks and were discovered.
One problem with this scenario is that while we might just about imagine a sequence of events happening to one piece, it seems incredible to imagine it happening to three pieces independently, in different locations and at different times. (To be fair to Dr Griffin, he proposed this idea at a time when only once piece had yet been found.)
Another problem with Dr Griffin’s idea is that no major storms took place in the two weeks preceding the discovery of each of the pieces in Mozambique and South Africa. Indeed, the region has been experiencing a drought.
In short, there is not plausible sequence of events by which the three pieces found in Africa could have arrived there by natural means.
What about the piece which turned up on Rodrigues Island? As I wrote in my blog post, the size of the barnacles blatantly contradict the possibility that the object was afloat for two years. And given that Rodrigues is surrounded by a reef, hundreds of miles from the nearest land, the idea that it might have washed ashore somewhere, gotten re-floated, and then came ashore again to be discovered is close to inconceivable.
Taken separately, these objects defy explanation. Taken together, however, they present a unified picture. Though discovered weeks and months apart, in locations separated by thousands of miles, they are all of a piece: they are all wrong. They do not look–at all!–like they should.
There is only one reasonable conclusion to draw from the condition of these pieces. Since natural means could not have delivered them to the locations where they were discovered, they must have been put there deliberately. They were planted.
In fact, we can go even further than that. Whoever put these pieces on the shores where they were discovered wasn’t even trying very hard. It would only have taken a little bit of imagination and a small amount of effort to put these pieces in the ocean for a few months to pick up a healthy suite of full-sized Lepas. This clearly was attempted in the case of the Rodrigues piece, but no effort at all was expended on the African pieces.
Why? Were they being lazy, or simply overconfident? Or did they know that it wouldn’t matter?
Perhaps the events of last July influenced their decision. After the flaperon was discovered on Réunion Island, it was whisked away by French authorities, given a cursory examination, and then hidden away. The public were never told what the investigators found, or didn’t find. No one seriously questioned whether the flaperon could really have come from a crash in the Southern Indian Ocean. (Well, almost no one.)
Six months later, the failure of the seabed search was looming. The Australian government had already begun saying that it might not find the plane, and preparing the public for the decision to call off the search. The narrative that the plane had nonetheless flown south to some unknown point in the southern Indian Ocean needed bolstering. Given how little inquiry had been directed at the Réunion piece, whoever planted the most recent four pieces might reasonably have assumed that the public would accept the new pieces uncritically, no matter how lackadaisical their preparation.
Maybe they were right. Past experience has shown that people have a remarkable ability to squint their eyes and avoid seeing the obvious ramifications of evidence plunked down in front of them. A good example was the seabed search that took place after acoustic pings were detected back in the spring of 2014. The frequency of pings was wrong, and the physical distribution of the pings indicated that they could not possibly have come from stationary wreckage. So it was clear from the data that the pings were not coming from black boxes. But numerous experts twisted themselves into knots explaining how the deep-sea hydroaccoustic environment was very weird, with salinity gradients and underwater valleys that channeled sound, and so on. I was on a panel on CNN one day when famed science communicator Bill Nye explained that the sound waves probably were refracted by passing through water masses of varying densities, and refraction causes frequencies to change. When you have to start changing the laws of physics to justify your interpretation of the data, it might be time to start looking for a new interpretation.
I’m not saying that people’s attempts thus far to explain the condition of the MH370 debris through non-nefarious means is misguided. Far from it–as the saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and when presented with evidence like the MH370 debris which invites such an uncomfortable (some will no doubt say outlandish) conclusion, it’s necessary to carefully rule out simpler explanations. However, once that has been done, we must not avert our eyes and say, “Well, I just can’t accept that conclusion, it’s not reasonable, there must be some explanation you’re missing,” or come up with a Nyeism that posits as explanation some phenomenon previously unknown to science.
If the MH370 investigation has taught us anything, is that restricting the discussion to “acceptable” explanations is a fatal trap. Early in the mystery, Duncan Steel hosted a discussion on his web site for people to exchange views and information. He had a rule, however: it was forbidden to discuss any scenarios which posited that the plane had been diverted intentionally, as he felt that this was disrespectful to the people on board. Of course, we now know that the plane was certainly diverted by someone on board, so effectively what Steel was outlawing was the discussion of any scenario that might possible be correct.
This mindset is alive and well. Recently on a discussion forum, one of the participants flatly stated that she was not interested in hearing about any theories that involve a hijacking. The ATSB has shown itself to be equally narrowminded. It has on multiple occasions declared that its interpretation of the Inmarsat data is unassailable. First it said that there was 100 percent chance that the plane was in the first 60,000 square km search area. When it turned out not to be, they drew a 120,000 sq km search area and declared that there was a 100 percent chance it was inside there. Come June, they will find (as we know now because of the condition of the African debris) that it is not there, either. Yet their recurring failure has not shaken their faith in their “reasonable” belief about what happened to the plane.
So maybe whoever planted the debris in Mozambique, South Africa, and Rodrigues weren’t lazy–maybe their understanding of human psychology simply allowed them to take the minimum steps necessary. Whether their calculation was accurate or not will now become apparent.
@all, Mike Exner (@airlandseaman) made what I felt was an important comment just before I closed the last comment thread, so I want to bring it over here. He wrote:
Another bit from the former thread:
“per voice recordings — I wonder if the pilots alertness/sloppiness was impacted by either a drugging or alcohol? possibly given to them from a 3rd party?”
I would not give too much attention to the “sloppiness”. After takeoff once established on autopilot nothing exiting requiring a high state of alertness is planned to happen, therefore the attention level and the sharpness is decaying to a low acceptable level. We could observe this kind of unproblematic slopiness in the radio procedures on many flights.
The observed behaviour gives no clue to some hypoxia either. Hypoxia could possibly develop with an increase of cabin altitude above 14.000 feet. Some of the warning systems in the jet would have gone haywire long before those symptoms would have affected both pilots.
Drugging of the crew while let them remain at the controls does not make much sense imho.
There is a saying since centuries: Flying duty comes with lots of boredom, sometimes interrupted by moments of horror. Pilots need to preserve their energy and sharpness for those moments of horror. Unfortunately the crew of MH370 could not cope with whatever situation they faced.
Who would plant this debris and why? Where did they get it from, how was it damaged? Are you suggesting the plane is being dismantled in an underground bunker in Kazakhstan then pieces smashed up and dropped by Russian planes before they buzz US Navy ships as a distraction?
What exactly would this achieve, except to increase sales of your book perhaps?
Are there TWO “Dr Griffin”s at CISRO – one David, one Paul?
edit sp. CSIRO
@Paul Smithson, thanks for catching that. I’ve changed to fix.
I’m beginning to fear for your mental stability. You honestly think it’s more likely that this is some massive conspiracy as opposed to your analysis of marine life being flawed?
Your paranoia and conspiratorial tendencies are clouding your judgment.
Mike Extner,
Re: “You deliberately take words out of context to create false impressions. You do this for the sole purpose of creating controversy where there is none.”
Nonsense. I asked you why you thought it was impossible to insert delay programmatically, because initially you stated it was impossible. Then you changed you formulation to improbable. This is your problem, not mine.
Anyhow, I am not going to waste my time to respond your silly accusations.
@RetiredF4
It seems to me that one of a commercial airline pilot’s main concerns/preoccupations is about running out of fuel.
Then there are the pressures exerted by the airlines iro cost savings, particularly fuel cost savings.
Then there are the personality clashes to add on. One wonders how anybody can put up with the job, really.
Jeff, I am on-board with this. You very adequately explained my concerns. I have also been wondering why all of these pieces have markings, when more than 90% of the plane is ‘unmarked’? Dosen’t add up. There is just 1 other possibility/explanation: Could MH370 be much closer to where these parts are washing up….not in the search area near Australia?
That being said…I agree with you. If it smells like fish, it is probably fish.
@David Garza, If you read more of my website you’ll find that I’m not suggesting that a massive conspiracy took place, but rather a tightly focused military operation.
This is a stretch but lets say some local found these pieces many months ago, cleaned them and used them as some sort of decoration. Then word gets out that tourists are looking for MH370 debris. (Haven’t most of the finds been by tourists? That’s odd.) These locals approach tourists and say there is a nearby beach where all sorts of debris accumulates and would sell the tourist a map with its location. The local tells the tourist to start looking early the following day. Late that night the piece gets planted.
People keep stuff for all sorts of reasons. ALSM is still waiting for someone to knock on his front door and ask if he has a 1984 vintage experimental Inmarsat LMSS terminal that he would like to sell.
@ALSM, is it possible that a SEU caused FPGA programming errors, this creating incorrect BTO values?
Good analysis, @jeffwise.
Sometimes, covering up 1 lie requires a 1,000 new ones. It was probably not hard for this (or these) entity (or entities) to convince themselves to plant these items. Don’t need to ascribe a purely malicious intent (although that’s also possible). They were likely intent on covering up what they believed to be events with the possibility of unleashing even greater horror among the international community-at-large.
Jeff, I suggest pulling the analysis through further. If you ascribe a willing conspirator to this situation, there aren’t that many logically consistent alternatives left that fit the verifiable / known raw data. Even if you assume a relative lack of sophistication on part of the “planters” in regards to their understanding of marine growth, this must’ve required a coordinated and thoughtful operation. These were not fly-by-night operators. They just didn’t think much about Lepas’ growth patterns – that’s all.
To be clear, I do not include the Inmarsat dataset that has been shared with into this category of “verifiable” data. I would treat it as a vector in the broader analysis – one that can be (and should be) pursued to its logical conclusions; but not as a fact.
I do not want to speculate, and unfortunately, that’s exactly what any conclusions I draw at this point would imply. I have – in an earlier post – alluded to what likely occurred to this plane. However, it’s best for this group to arrive there independently.
Following jeff’s thought process over the past several months, I’m confident he will get this group there, or anywhere else that’s the absolute truth.
Best Regards,
Adiyogi
This article is a big step in the right direction. We can put a lot to the side and narrow our focus to fewer details. Kind of like a Sudoku. Once you have figured out a few, a lot more will be easier to solve.
@airlandseaman: Mike, please read the work of Ruben Santamarta, where EVERY satcom he tested had severe security vulnerabilities. Unfortunately, he did not test Honeywell satcoms, so we have to extrapolate. Also, Gerry Soejatman has said that BFO spoofing was known years ago for Inmarsat terminals. Gerry has proven to be honest and knowledgeable on many matters.
@jeff: thank you for this post.
We are now achingly close to being in agreement. We both seem to feel that the evidence – upon careful scrutiny – suggests an SIO impact is actually more likely to have been a narrative sold to us than the plane’s actual fate.
The only difference – to my eye – is that – unless you have moved recently – you believe this sales job is a sort of mass-hallucination: from the grassroots right on up to the very top of the anonymous search leadership, we all managed first to fool ourselves – and then, with best intentions, to fool all those around us.
I on the other hand consider plausible the possibility that, if the plane never hit the SIO, that at least some people high up in search leadership KNEW this, and, with intent to deceive, set about to fool those around them. Such people would indeed be helped – greatly – by the tunnel-vision effects you describe.
Evidence of my view is supported, I think, by the results of grassroots audits – from this community, primarily – documenting search decisions which have made no sense. At all.
A good example is the October, 2014 directive to search Indonesian shores. Why issue that statement? This does not fit the “mass hallucination” theory very well, because much more plausible hallucinations were available to them, which showed the arrival of debris on Oz shores to be at least imminent. What the WAY-wrong GEMS study offered was an escape from the impending necessity of officially searching Oz shorelines. This seems to me more like the work of an entity that KNEW what a scouring of Oz shores would have revealed – and needed an “out”.
I remain open to theories involving an “outside evil” who has duped even search leadership with BFOs + debris. And within my own paradigm, I remain open to theories involving an “inside good” which is deceiving us for perceived legitimate reasons.
But my approach – to the chagrin of most – has been to assume the worst, until disproven with hard evidence. So far, we cannot rule out a full-scale deception engineered by search leadership itself – with the goal of concealing its own crime/negligence, or that of a close/strategic ally.
Hence my call for us to band together – regardless of theory or culprit – and demand full accountability.
And hence my exploration of falsified BTO scenarios in the meantime, while waiting for this consensus to emerge.
This would imply a most complicated scenario of conspiracy. If you state this, anything can be possible. The Maldives could not be ruled out also and Diego Garcia comes alive again.
Then I let my fantasy roll on for a while…
The captain was policaly engaged. The day before he took off on MH370 his friend the opposition leader of his country was convicted and sent to jail for 5 years. He expected this beforehand and carefully planned for that case a revenge to hurt America, which he regarded as responsible for the political situation in his country.
So off to Diego Garcia and chrash the plane right on some important buildings there.
He took off. At the right moment send his co pilot outside, locked the door, shut off the transponders and acars, put on his oxigene, depressurised the cabin, killing all aboard except himself, climbed to 43000 to speed the proces and headed west. Above the Malacca straight he spoofed the satcom turned it back on line and headed straight to the Maldives.
There he made a turn south and dived to very low altitude to try avoid the Diego Garcia radar. Villagers on the Maldives saw him passing. But it didn’t work out.
Before coming close to Diego he was detected. Jets were scrammbled and the plane was shot out of the sky in Diego controlled waters.
To avoid discovery, with great speed all the debris was collected and brought ashore at Diego and hidden.
Then they had to wait and figure out what next to do to mislead all those smart experts around the world. Someone came up with the ingenious idea to plant some debris at right times in right places. This is what they did. It was almost perfect..
Very curious how this thread developes further
@Brock, I’m glad you feel that way! I’m all in favor of pulling together. Let me ask you this, though: if this is a conspiracy from the top, surely the authorities are going to resist providing full accountability, no? (As they’ve done quite assiduously so far.)
@Trond, @Adiyogi, Thank you!
@LaurenH, I could just about conceive of that happening once, but three times?
@Ge Rijn, But why go to the Maldives? It’s not on the way from the Malacca Strait to Diego Garcia.
@Jeff
I find my views shifting more toward a moderate approach.
Inmarsat Data
I believe it is valid and not spoofed, but requires a slightly tweaked flight path to the North – something like Oleksandr’s constant thrust approach or SK999’s recent analytics (which I don’t think are North enough).
Debris
Seems to favor a more Northern terminus as well. While certain IG members claim the data does not support this view, lack of WA debris, and a more diverse view of all the available models makes the more Northern location very clear. So I have to discard the IG opinion here.
I am not as concerned about the lack of biofouling as you are. Parties who actually have the debris have been mute on the subject. History will not treat these parties well if they are obscuring relevant information.
Summarizing
I am not ready to toss the baby with the bathwater just yet. A lot of good work has been done, and the physics are well understood. I could support a tweak to the North. Of course, there needs to be some motive or causality associated with such a flight path. I am struggling with that aspect.
After June/ July, please expect to see whistleblowers show up – likely from Inmarsat first. Unlikely to hear anything from other entities involved here.
Adiyogi
Oh dear. I don’t necessarily follow the official line to the letter with this whole topic however I don’t think it’s been demonstrated adequately, so far, that there is any benefit to anyone from planting these items.
I kind of need more in terms of context and motive (perceived) if this is going to fly for me.
No offence intended, naturally. But could you elaborate at all on these matters, when you have a moment?
Motive is the most elusive part of this puzzle no matter what the physical facts and evidence.
I promise to behave here Jeff & kerb my outlandish ways.
I have 2 questions though.
If Shah wanted to land his plane due to a emergency what would his next plan be?
I know it sounds outlandish but the 1 thing I keep hearing is that if a plane is in trouble you land it.
So serious question. What happens if he couldn’t?
@Susie, Before we can figure out motive, we need to figure out what was done. Another way of putting it: the data needs to inform our theories, rather than our theories constraining what data we’re willing to look at.
Victor:
I’ve been aware of Ruben Santamarta’s work for some time. I’m also familiar with Chris Robert’s work. In fact, I had lunch with Roberts back in May 2015 to discuss this subject. (Shortly thereafter, Robert’s was kicked out of his own company by his BOD for some of his (illegal?) hacking activities.)
While Santamarta’s work suggests that some of the latest broadband capable AES equipment is potentially accessible via a wireless connection (or physical maintenance port), the Classic Aero Honeywell MSC-6000 did not have any wireless capability. The only access for software/firmware modification was via a hardwired connection that terminated in the E-bay. Physical access to the this AES port would be pretty hard to imagine. It certainly could not have been done without notice by the crew and passengers. Even if access was somehow achievable, it remains a far-fetched scenario requiring too many assumptions for me.
That said, I fully agree with you that as the on board technology becomes more and more complex, adding in flight WiFi, etc., the potential for trouble is increasing. The greatest vulnerability is not SatCom hacking. ADS-B spoofing is much easier to implement and potentially much more dangerous. Planes and automobiles are definitely becoming more and more vulnerable, and this is an important topic for another forum. But I don’t think it applies to the specific case of MH370.
@Susie
Yes, I forgot to elaborate on the planting motive (lack of). I don’t get the sense that the ATSB was on the precipice of changing the search area. The current search area is supported by the overwhelming majority of the analytics done to date – SSWG, IG, DSTG,… There is no “grass roots” support to move the search. Dolan still wakes up every day thinking “this could be the day”. Why rock the boat?
@Jeff, below is a response to your article from Blaine Alan Gibson:
“Unfortunately some people on the internet whose “pet theories” are disproven by the new debris evidence are showing the ridiculous audacity to claim it was somehow “planted”, either by us private concerned citizens, or by armies of phantom “Men in Black”. I want to apologize to these armchair theorists if the size, condition, and location of debris found by me, Liam Litter, Neels Kruger, and the Vitrys upset their “pet theories”. But this is not about their “pet theories”. This is about finding the truth for the families and friends of 239 people…whatever that truth may be.”
”This article is a big step in the right direction. We can put a lot to the side and narrow our focus to fewer details. Kind of like a Sudoku. Once you have figured out a few, a lot more will be easier to solve.”
Yeh sure, of course, it must get crazier. No doubt about that. Lets ignore all the evidence and satellite data and stick to Russia,Putin,Diego Garcia, black holes and whatever.
@airlandseaman: First, I never thought a hack to commandeer the aircraft as proposed by Chris Roberts was likely. It would be easily recognized and overridden in the cockpit.
Santamarta found that access to SDU memory is possible via the CDU using backdoors that he found in every satcom . This requires access to the cockpit, but neither the SDU nor the EE bay.
That’s a pretty strong response from Blaine. Clearly, he hasn’t actually read / understood the context of the analysis. If Blaine is reading this, let me summarize for you –
1) This is a bottom-up analysis, based on observing the raw data, and does not rely on hypotheses or broad assumptions
2) The conclusions of the analysis stand independent of, and don’t necessarily support, any pet theories. I, for one, find myself in broad agreement with the analysis and its conclusions. However, I am not willing to go to Kazakhstan – yet
Adiyogi
@ir907, I’ve written articles linking Russia to both MH17 and MH370, and the comments sections inevitably feature troll after troll comparing the Putin link to black holes and UFOs. Same language, same idea, one after another. Are you one of these guys? If so, maybe you could suggest to your people that they develop new material.
@Hippy Girl, Thanks for relaying the message. Blaine’s welcome to comment here, too, of course, by himself, if he’d like. I’m a little bit surprised that Blaine seems to think I’m accusing him of complicity. When I interviewed him for my New York magazine article, he told me: “I’m very interested in your ideas on Russia and Putin. And if somehow they might have been involved. I’m open to anything. I’d just say that if the plane actually did fly over the Maldives, that says nothing about who was flying it or why. We don’t know. If it went north, it means that this flaperon was a plant. That’s pretty clear.” (Transcribed from our interview)
@DennisW, The Australians have been saying for quite a long time now that they plan to wind down the search in June or July, I consider that common knowledge.
@jeffwise
Read Blaine Gibson’s response.
@Jeff Wise. The story is still not more than a fantasy of mine. But if you ask me serious question I will anwser this.
Straight to Diego Garcia would cause much earlier suspicion there and earlier detection. Any plane heading straight to Diego Garcia would be suspicious very soon. A leg to the Maldives first would not. Its a tourist destination were a lot of big planes go, without worries on Diego Garcia.
Than at the right place and time fake a landing in the Maldives area, dive under the radar and head straight south to Diego.
Its nice to fantasies..
@Jeff,
Thanks a lot for another piece of convincing detective work.
I recommend that all newcomers read Jeff’s previous articles on the subject, which dissect the amount of biofouling on specific debris pieces in great detail. Jeff raises numerous red flags in connection with the newly found debris. Unfortunately none of these problems have been addressed adequately by the investigating authorities so far. That is a pity because they could potentially answer many questions, since they have examined the debris in detail and they were able to take samples of the marine organism, which could well provide some answers. But instead of providing open reports, the investigators seem contend to identify from which part of the missing plane the debris originated. After this has been established the pieces invariably seem to enter into a kind of limbo and aren’t talked about anymore. The French investigators haven’t published an official report on results of the flaperon investigation after more than eight months. It remains to be seen if the new debris fares slightly better.
The questions raised by Jeff deserve to be answered. We can’t know for sure if the debris was really planted. But there are so many red flags that this scenario should be given serious thoughts.
I should add that Jeff only concerned himself with the subject of biofouling, drift patterns and buoyancy. Another can of worms hasn’t even be addressed by him: the statistical anomalies and curious coincidences in connection with the discovery of each piece of debris, which orbit the pieces like a cloud of fruit flies. This has been dissected ad nauseam in the comments section. And let’s be clear on this: nobody who believes that the debris might’ve been planted wants to accuse the finders of any wrongdoing. They simply did the right thing and reported an important piece of evidence. And the pieces are extremely important – no matter if they have been planted or if they drifted unaided to those East African beaches.
@Ge Rijn, Okay, that’s a reasonable answer. Thanks.
@ir907, Is there a different one than the one I responded to? If so perhaps you could direct me to it.
Main engine electrical generators are each 115 KVA = 115 KW more or less
115 KW x 3600s/hour = 414 MJ
Jet fuel has an energy content of 43-45 MJ per kg
So, not powering the electrical generators saves 9-10 kg / engine / hour of aviation fuel
If the plane was completely dark from IGARI waypoint onwards, you could save that amount of fuel for 7 hours, up to 140kg which could keep the airplane airborne for another minute or two
Like you get slightly better gas mileage not running the air conditioning in a car ?
Do the French still have the flaperon? Shouldnt it be sent to Malaysia?
@ALSM
Thanks for sharing your expertise. I have a technical question that still nags at me…
“The AES internal delay is controlled by embedded FPGA code, limited by design requirements to a max of 300 usec, which cannot be changed. If you can’t change the internal delay, you can’t spoof the BTO values.”
If a delay unit were inserted in the signal chain immediately prior to transmission from the HGA, could one not force even a 1 us delay (for example) and still be within the design requirement? (This is not changing any code, per se, it is introducing an additional discrete operation in the chain.)
“Moreover, even if it was possible, the values could only be increased, not decreased, so creating a spoofed path to some arbitrary spot would be impossible by this method.”
By definition, if the value could be increased, the derived path would be farther away from the satellite than the actual path, no? (i.e. this would only work in one direction, namely flight toward the satellite with a derived path away from the satellite.)
Could an explanation for the minimal biofouling on the recently found debris be that these items have been submerged with the main body of the plane and only recently surfaced.
@rossp, Interesting idea, but it has a couple of problems. First, these aircraft parts are buoyant becuase of airtight cells within their interior; at the great depths of the Southern Indian Ocean bottom, they would have been crushing, negating their buoyancy. Second, even if what you propose happened, they still would have had thousands of miles of ocean to cross, which would have taken a year or more.
@Jeff – fair point. However in order to state something so radically different to the official line, I think to come at it with only a series of doubts that the debris could be genuine, without a concise delineation of why that might be a relevant issue, is going to mean that the whole idea meets with less acceptance that it would had you a motive in mind.
I hope that makes sense. You could be totally right about this. But atm it stands in the same place to me as many of the other theories, ie, they are ‘could be’ scenarios, and none has yet seemed a lot better than any others. (sadly)
That’s not really your fault and I appreciate you just feel strongly that the debris is unlikely to be of a genuine provenance – so fair play to you for putting it out there.
I should add, I don’t have any better ones myself, so will shut up now : )
@Trond – If 9M-MRO was “on Fumes” and couldn’t have reached past 40S, what is your maximum range and how did you arrive at this value?
@Erik – re: Flying dark saves fuel – I remember taking a taxi at night, from the airport to the hotel in Bucharest and to save fuel, the driver would shut off the headlights whenever we reached an area with streetlights.
@Jeff
Finally this discussion arrives at the shores of REASON. Congrats.
One petty amendment: The poor biofouling on the pieces is only topped by the poor number of debris found yet. Should be 2 to 3 magnitudes bigger.
@Lauren H
Let me make it clear to you and everyone: I have no technical knowledge whatsoever of everything involved in this case. I just take what others have said and put them forth as challenging statements, and make arguments out of general knowledge I might have, f.ex. seeing connections that anyone could debate about.
@Susie
I strongly disagree with the need to formulate any new theories. The fact that the search has come up empty is by no means a condemnation of the methodology or the data integrity.
Everyone knows the ISAT data can be “messaged” in many different ways using different flight dynamic assumptions. The reality is that the vast majority of possible terminal locations have not yet been searched yet. There is also a finite probability that the debris field has been missed by the sonar search.
In my view this is the time to “stay the course”, and look at other flight dynamic assumptions coupled with a Bayesian view of the debris finds (drift modeling). I would also avoid “falling in love” with the CSIRO drift data. There are other models out there that diverge significantly from the CSIRO results.
Unfortunately “staying the course” is not likely to result in finding the aircraft. The ATSB will abort the search in June or so, and it would take something far more convincing than a new spread sheet to put boats back in the water. The most likely outcome is MH370 will remain a mystery.
@Robert MacFarland:
“I have also been wondering why all of these pieces have markings, when more than 90% of the plane is ‘unmarked’?”
Not only all of these pieces have markings, but they also come all from the RIGHT SIDE of the aircraft:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CfzboNaUkAAkdCV.jpg