UPDATED 12/12/16: Just to underline the extraordinary implausibility of Blaine Alan Gibson’s finds, I’ve taken the extra step of putting in bold the three (3) separate occasions when Gibson hit the jackpot with a one-in-a-million stroke of luck. See if you can spot them below. My personal favorite is the one with the ATV.
On December 8, 2016, the Twitter account voice370 (@cryfortruth) Tweeted the following:
Another piece of potential debris washed up the shore and found by B.A. Gibson on the same beach where NOK Jiang found a piece yesterday. pic.twitter.com/PdXCkYX4oI
— voice370 (@cryfortruth) December 9, 2016
In a Facebook post the same day, Grace Subathirai Nathan (one of the NOK on the current debris-finding expedition to Madagascar) posted about the same find:
Another piece of debris found earlier today. This time by private citizen Blaine Alan Gibson while he was with two French journalists Pierre Chabert and Renaud Fessaguet.
He walked past the spot on the beach where next of kin Jiang Hui found a piece yesterday and nothing was there then 30 mins later on the way back the waves washed the piece on debris to the shore.
This just goes to show that debris can be there one minute and gone the next and vice versa.
She included some of the images that were also in the Tweet, among them this one:
I’ve already written in the comment section of the preceding post that I find it quite extraordinary that a purported piece of MH370 apparently washed up on the shore within half an hour of Blaine’s passing by the spot. The ocean is vast, the number of pieces of MH370 necessarily limited. The odds of finding a piece of the plane on any given stretch of sand is very small; the odds of finding something that washed ashore within the last half hour must be infinitesmal.
One would also would not expect a newly washed-ashore piece of debris to be free of biofouling, as I’ve discussed before. Something that just came out of the ocean, if free of biofouling, must have spent time ashore, gotten picked clean, then washed back out to sea, only to come ashore again within a few days. Truly miraculous.
I’ve voiced suspicions in the past about Gibson’s self-financed investigation. He said that he found his first piece of MH370 debris, so-called “No Step,” 20 minutes after starting his first beach search. Though it was found on a sand bar that is awash at high tide, it, too, was remarkably free of biofouling. Since then, he has found more than half of the pieces of suspected debris. All have have been completely innocent of marine life. His finds have excited remarkably little enthusiasm among the authorities; the Malaysians waited six months to retrieve one batch, and then only made that effort after their inaction was the subject of unflattering news stories.
Gibson is clearly an eccentric; before he found “No Step” he was bouncing around the Indian Ocean littoral, investigating crackpot theories and making himself known to the authorities and next-of-kin. In the past he has, he says, tried to find the Ark of the Covenant. A recent article in the Guardian had this bit:
Blaine Gibson, a lawyer turned investigator who arrived on Madagascar six months ago, said he has seen debris from the plane used to fan a kitchen fire by a nine-year-old girl on the island.
“It was light and it was solid and it was part of the plane,” said Gibson, 59. “When I put the word out around the village, another guy turned up with another piece he had been using as a washing board for clothes.”
Are we to believe that he walked up on a girl fanning a fire and, lo and behold, she happened to be fanning it with a piece of MH370? Instead of any of a billion suitable small, light, flat objects that exist in the world? What’s more, I am troubled by Gibson’s suggestion that the residents of this region are so materially impoverished that they would eagerly size on any scrap of material that comes their way and put it to immediate use—to incorporate into a shelter, to burn for fuel, to fan a fire with, or to use as a washboard. In fact I find this idea rather bonkers.
Some people feel that it is unacceptable to question Blaine Alan Gibson; they say that he has inspired and given hope to the next-of-kin. As I’ve said before, I feel that if we are going to solve this mystery, we have to put every piece of evidence under intense scrutiny, regardless of however someone may or may not feel emotionally about that scrutiny.
Indeed, I find the fact that Gibson and his associates try to aggressively silence questions about his finds even more arousing of suspicion.
UPDATE 12/11/16: A couple of points I’d like to add to the above:
— In September, Gibson enlisted the aid of Australian aviation journalist Geoffrey Thomas in claiming that two pieces of debris that he’d found likely came from the electronics bay, showed evidence of fire damage, and therefore supported the hypothesis that the plane had come to grief due to an accidental fire. This theory, while favored by some, is very much at odds with other evidence in the case. Australian authorities responded by saying that “contrary to speculation there is no evidence the item was exposed to heat or fire.”
— More on Gibson’s background from SeattleMet:
For the next 25 years, Gibson lived a life that could be described as unconventionally adventurous. After a short stint at Seafirst, he moved to Olympia and worked for three years in the office of Washington state senator Ray Moore. Then he joined the U.S. Department of State. But he didn’t last long there either; in the late ’80s he could see that the Soviet Union was on the verge of collapse and decided to capitalize on it. For 10 years he lived off and on in the newly capitalist Russia, serving as a consultant to new business owners and fattening a bank account that would later fund his globe-trotting.
When I interviewed him after the “No Step” find, he told me that he speaks fluent Russian.
— Based on the total quantity of debris found in the last year and a half, one observes that the pieces turn up quite infrequently. Yet Gibson has now twice found debris with a camera crew present. In June he found three pieces while accompanied by a crew from the France 2 TV show “Complément d’enquête.” From the same SeattleMet piece:
In the first week of June he did, in fact, go to Madagascar. And on June 6 he led a French television news crew to a thin strip of land off the island’s east coast. They rode quads along the beach, and at the north end he signaled for the party to stop. The camera crew had a good reason to follow him: He is, to this day, still the only person to find a piece of Flight 370 while actually looking for it. And he’d done enough research to have a good idea where he might find more. But come on, it was still a one-in-a-million find. There’s no way he’d actually uncover another.
Right?With the cameras trained on him, Gibson dismounted and started walking. And as he got closer to the object that had caught his eye, he could see that it was gray fiberglass. It was almost a clone of No Step. Later, he found a handful of other pieces, one of which looked exactly like the housing for a seat-back TV monitor. He couldn’t be sure, but he had a pretty good idea they came from Flight 370.
To recap, Blaine and a TV crew rode in ATVs along the beach until he signaled them to stop, got out, and pointed to a piece of MH370 debris. Holy. Shit.
— This is the piece that NOK Jiang Hui found the day before Blaine discovered his on the same beach. Again, pretty clean:
— Note: I’ve take out a paragraph in the original in which I said that the location of the debris in the sand appears to be way too far from the water to have washed up there within the last half hour. Several commenters pointed out that the piece appears to straddle the wet/dry line demarcating the high water mark, and I concede that point.
UPDATE 12/12/16: There’s a story in Der Spiegel today about a tree trunk that washed up in New Zealand. The remarkable size and density of these organisms is so striking that this entirely natural phenomenon struck those who came upon it as something fantastical and alien.
I bring this up to emphasize how extraordinary it is that all the debris recovered by Blaine Alan Gibson, and indeed all of the suspected pieces of MH370 debris save two, have been recovered in a nearly pristine state. Yes, objects which spend some time ashore can become picked clean in time. But many of the pieces of debris recovered so far have been found within hours of being deposited. As I’ve previously written in some detail, such pieces would be expected to be colonized by a variety of marine organisms. If you look at galleries of objects which have washed ashore after having spent a similar amount of time at sea, such as tsunami debris collected in the US Northwest and Hawaii, it collectively looks very, very different from MH370 debris. Don’t take my word for it; there are links to such image galleries at the end of the piece linked above.
@Ge Rijn, Interesting question! I haven’t heard anything about it one way or the other.
@Milhouse, I think it’s important to stop and think carefully here. I will agree with you that I’ve written a piece that Blaine Alan Gibson will not like. But is that a “hit piece”? I have not attacked his character or personality, but rather have laid out some pieces of evidence suggesting that he may have planted evidence.
You write, “Since none of us has the where with all, or the will, to accompany Gibson, None of us can fairly accuse him.” What you’re saying, essentially, is that we must accept his findings uncritically. I simply don’t think this is so. In fact I disagree with in quite strongly.
Nothing in this case, or indeed in life in general need to be accepted uncritically. Even if it means raises questions that cause social awkwardness.
@JeffWise:
“…but rather have laid out some pieces of evidence suggesting that he may have planted evidence…”
I too have a suspicion that the bits of MH370 have been planted to support the SIO narrative that the plane crashed in a place it is never likely to be found.
However, Blaine seems to attract journalists like fleas to a wandering mongrel, so there is a strong possibility he is bring used as a useful dupe, and someone else in his entourage is doing the evidence tampering. This is also seen by the way the MSM are so keen to finger ZS as the suicidal pilot when it is Hamid, with his lack of solid background information, who seems the more likely candidate for the lone actor scenario.
This sort of subterfuge is often seen during cover operations and the techniques started to be developed at least a couple of hundred years ago. The methods used were perfected at the start of the 20th century by Sargent Pepper, of the British secret Service, and although the technology has changed the underlying principles remain the same.
@Jeff Wise Let’s set aside the article and agree to politely disagree. In the end, I believe that Blaine has seen what he says he has seen, and heard what he has heard. Whether he can make a logical story out of it is a different matter.
@Ge Rijn
For the record, in future, when I ask someone else a question, kindly do not
reply to me with what you ‘think’ their answer will be.
In regard to what has been found, Blaine Gibson or otherwise, which you seem
to be having some difficulty accounting (for) in your recent posts to other
posters, you may find this webpage helpful;
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1Kghrk3iwRInii5qBTG8hfQZ0WmE
@Cofee
Don’t bother answering my question to you.
@Boris Tabaksplatt
I think you’re making a good point.
It’s also possible someone else in his entourage is doing evidence tampering.
F.i. often journalist were around him when he did his findings. Also this time.
A malafide journalist fabricating a sellable story?
Anayway the circumstances around this latest finds make them suspisious.
Same spot on the same beach, within 30 minutes washing ashore when he walks by a day after another piece was found on that same spot.
Even (or especially) Blaine Gibson should be suspisious and understand the doubts it raises.
If he doesn’t understand and only feels attacked at least his objectivity is questionable IMO.
Desinformation campaigns and asymmetrical warfare and an army of trolls
If we look in the McLAren report about the state sponsored doping of Russia and how its denial is done, it looks quite similar to what we would expect if there was some russian involvement in the disappearance of MH370.
Russia is fighting hard for its interests and is well using all means of clandestine warfare our times offer them, cluding warfare on the internet.
I woulde not hesitate to suspect Blaine Gibson as part of these efforts.
San Diego Gibson,
Who dared to tread,
Les îles fantômes
And entertained the plane
That Never Flew
I feel sorry for Blaine Gibson. Clearly the guy just wants to help. I don’t really think he’s into planting debris and the like, just my opinion. Certainly, if its all an act, Blaine has all the potential to become a Hollywood a-lister.
But Kazakhstan remains a possibility though so Jeff is right to keep at it. (A weird connection in Najib’s niece being married to a Kazakhstani. Sorry don’t remember who found that on here, but great catch!)
@Sajid UK – nephew of the (ex-)president of Kazakhstan married Najib’s daughter
@MH
Wow, that’s an even closer family tie! Sorry to ask a dumb Googleisyourfriend-type question but I thought there’s only ever been one president of Kazakhstan (the current one)?
Thanks!
@Barry Williams
“The other is fuel about half burnt by the time it reached Betax”
You had me stumped but you mean BEDAX, right?
As far as military radar around IGARI you might want to check out a recent Reddit thread considering if MH370 approached FL450. Bottom line for me anyways, we are apparently working with sanitized/massaged radar data from MY. We do not have true actual raw radar data, that if available, could be used to check some of low altitude/high altitude perceptions and eyewitness reports.
@MH
Certainly the family connection adds to the murkiness and could possibly provide another angle to the mystery. Didn’t Najib’s mother-in-law die in the MH17 crash? (Again, apologies if I’m getting the people mixed up… but you get the general idea)!
The way I see it, at the end of the day no-one will be able to conclusively prove or disprove the authenticity of BG’s lucky finds.
What this boils down to is, this is just one more layer of uncertainty in an affair that is mostly notable for the extreme amount of ‘fog’ surrounding everything. Frankly, JW’s post (I hope he won’t find this offensive), whilst it raises a fair point, in a way actually adds on another layer of this fog. It seems, whatever happens, instead of answers being found, more questions are raised.
BG may or may not himself be planting these things, someone may or may not be dropping easter eggs just before he visits a particular beach spot, etc. We have no way of knowing or reliably finding out.
What seems indeed notable is how in the general fogginess time and again there are Russian ‘ghosts’ just barely appearing in the distant fog. The ‘other’ plane in Ukraine (how unlikely, this…), the Russians on MH370, now BG and his fairly deeply buried Russian connections. This in the context of things like the London Polo incident (I was in London at the time and knew a guy who had been to the fateful bar just two days after the alleged incident, then suddenly had his hair turning white in one single spot), and the current allegations that Russia tried to influence the US elections. It’s all circumstantial but really, do we have any better?
I was astonished at this piece from Jeff too. On this occasion I agree with Dennis W:
“Jeff’s latest post is a travesty IMO . . and . . I am appalled at the state of the commentary here. The science is gone.”
Perhaps Jeff ought to team up with Mike Chillit, the master cartoonographer. He seems to have succumbed to his own delusions and pseudo scientific BS.
But it gets worse. We now have the Russian connection being woven into the discussion. Talk about fake news. Unfortunately many people in the US are being conned with the continual bombardment of anti-Russian propaganda, Russian hackers, Russia manipulating the election etc etc. Perhaps Jeff has succumbed to all this too. Take some time to get a viewpoint from other than mainstream media, e.g. Zerohedge, and PC Roberts. Oh, wait, I hear that PC Roberts is a Russian plant too.
Come on guys, is it any wonder that the serious researchers have abandoned this blog.
@Sajid UK – “step grandmother” of Najib “AND” H2O died in MH17….
sorry I got a typo with “ex-“president of Kazakhstan.
http://akipress.com/news:556845/
Perhaps there is another explanation for the windspeed. The windspeed is derived from groundspeed and airspeed, and the latter is calculated from the dynamic pressure in the recovered file fragment.
When the altitude is reduced from 37651 ft in point 45S1 to 4000 ft in point 45S2, the airdensity increases by a factor of 3.2225. If groundspeed and windspeed are not changed, true airspeed does not change and dynamic pressure increases by a factor of 3.2225. The recovered dynamic pressure at 45S2 is a factor of 3.2877 greater than that at 45S1, so some other more subtle changes may have occurred between those two condition. For example, the IAS may have been changed from 191.4 kt to 193.3 kt.
Anyway, I’m just guessing, of course.
@Brian Anderson
It gets worse.
The people who claim that Blaine is planting the debris are the same people who told us that Sadam had weapons of mass destruction!
@Gysbreght
I see, so some of the values were are talking about are not from FS2004 input/output but calculated quantities by someone recently. Is that someone you, or did VictorI also show wind speed equal to about 160 kts at 45S?
We could need a spreadsheet we all agreed to to make the calcs.
@MH
Okay, thanks for clearing that up (and thanks for your patience)!
@TBill: No that’s not what I’m suggesting. The dynamic pressure in 45S2 was probably the FS2004 output resulting from changing the altitude. You may be able to reproduce that in your installation.
I had to start a new spreadsheet from a blank page after you demonstrated in a *.FLT file that the VelBodyAxis speed components contain the speed of the airplane relative to earth, irrespective of wind.
But you are right in confirming, as others have observed, that manual changes have been made before saving each point, so these points do not represent a single flight simulation without interruptions.
@TBill, just to be clear:
Except DynPres, all values in my table were calculated by me from the values in the [SimVars.0] sections that RMP recovered from ZS’s HDD.
A point that I would like to add to my post of 3:16 PM is that if the altitude was 38050 ft when it was changed to 4000 ft, that is a more plausible explanation of the slight difference in DynPres than a change of IAS.
@Brian Anderson, Oh, hello, good of you to pop in. Since you’ve been asleep for a couple of weeks, let me bring you up to speed with what’s been going on:
Washington Post: Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-orders-review-of-russian-hacking-during-presidential-campaign/2016/12/09/31d6b300-be2a-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html?utm_term=.10acf3f52e0f
BBC News: Russia hackers: German spy chief Kahl warns of election disruption
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38142968
The Telegraph: Head of MI6: Britain faces ‘fundamental threat to sovereignty from Russian meddling’
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/08/britain-faces-fundamental-threat-sovereignty-russian-meddling/
Yes, it appears that you and the other “serious researchers” in the Independent Group have been scarce around here lately — perhaps because you don’t like being held accountable for the fact that a) your assurances that the plane would be found in the search area were disastrously wrong, and b) you’ve unconscionably been sitting on a treasure trove of secret Malaysian police data that will no doubt prove invaluable to actually researchers once they do finally emerge.
I’ve long been puzzled by the IG’s monomania in promoting an obviously erroneous a position on the search for MH370.
You have now supplied me with the answer.
@Brian Anderson
Yes, where did the experts go?
Gibson is the beneficiary or not of some agency sprinkling the fairy dust of bits of a plane (maybe MH 370 or some salvage from a plane boneyard) in the fields of treasure hunting. The parts are generally small, dropped with ease. If the parts are from the actual plane, size is an indication that the plane was shot down.
Malaysian government seems to have moved on but maybe they are not prepared to be a party to a geopolitical game play when they know the plane was shot down.
Is Jeff paid to add to mainstream media Russia-phobia? Since the Russian connection keeps popping up in his articles.
Lets put Russian aggression into context they are protecting and defending their actual borders while the US has expanded its military reach throughout the globe. They want Russia and China to bow down or have a (nuclear) war with them.
For years the US controlled NATO has played their version of Operation Barbarossa. Only the encapsulated US public cannot see the reality here. The public inside and outside the States, who do not get their propaganda from Fox, CNN, Washington Post, NYT etc don’t buy into the BS.
@Jeff W
Nope, not asleep.
When you reference all the anti-Russian propaganda being promoted by Washington Post and other mainstream media sources, most of which just repeat and stream the US view anyhow, you confirm my comment that maybe you too have succumbed to the propaganda.
I don’t recall assuring anyone that the plane would be found in the search area. I think that the IG’s position has always been that, based on our analysis of the only data available, then this area was the most appropriate place to search. More recent work based on debris finds, drift data, the fact that the original search area has proven negative, and a variety of other considerations suggest that the search ought to be moved NE around the arc. That conclusion has been published in various IG member papers.
I have never seen the so-called “treasure trove of secret Malaysian police data”, and I am certainly not unconscionably sitting on it. Victor has already explained his reasons for not sharing whatever he has.
So now I will go and read other commentaries on the turmoil developing in the US, just to get a balanced view, and watch as it does it’s best to self destruct, not from Russian hackers, but from within.
By the way, I met my wife in Moscow. I’m sure the conspiracy theorists could have a field-day with that little snippet of information.
@buyerninety, @Ge Rign @DennisW
Yes, this is my error, and I apologise.
I do have great confidence in the verified pieces, I do not think that they were planted.
Can we please quit the mud-slinging contest?
There are more interesting things to discuss here.
@Brian Anderson,
“Perhaps Jeff ought to team up with Mike Chillit, the master cartoonographer. He seems to have succumbed to his own delusions and pseudo scientific BS.”
Brother, I LOVE this one. Your “suggestion” is SUPER! I wonder how deep people can go into their delusion rabbit hole.
Gysbreght,
“Can we please quit the mud-slinging contest?
There are more interesting things to discuss here.”
Unfortunately these interesting topics were banned or nearly-banned here. Or they have moved to backround as per Jeff’s earlier suggestions. Why? Why has Jeff Wise destroyed his own creation? What was his real purpose? The answer is clear to me now. Look at the title of Jeff’s last paper if you still can’t grasp what is going on.
Sadly, I think we need to find other platform to continue technical discussions if we want to progress.
Just wanted to add in that I couldn’t agree with Brian Anderson enough. I’ve followed this thread from the beginning, and am appalled at the delusional nature of what’s being written here. To suggest that Blaine, or somebody else, is planting debris is outrageous. There is zero evidence for this, despite what Jeff may say. This is not a fictional mystery novel, these are humans we are dealing with–with all of their imperfections and busy lives. Nobody has time and/or reason to plant debris.
This is starting to sound like the 9/11 conspiracy theory boards, and I’m not exaggerating.
I personally am thankful that Jeff has questioned the authenticity of the plane parts that have been discovered. This forum has questioned nearly every facet of this tragedy, why should we not evaluate the current topic as well. Would Mr. Gibson be willing to answer questions from us? I have few. Perhaps he has friends here?
Jeff Wise is getting more heat than he deserves.
We already know some of the facts from the flaperon investigation. Wait for the release.
IMO there is good reason to put difficult questions and doubts on the circumstances of this latest Gibson find.
I think anyone objectively and also scientifically looking at those circumstances are fooling themselves if they deny this.
To put this off as just sheer luck would be naive and unscientific IMO.
Also Blain Gibson should understand this. Maybe he should even worry the most about it.
I agree though it could easily turn into the trap of too much conspiracy-thinking and loose objectivity with it.
Still I believe asking these questions and expressing these doubts are important for the inevestigation as whole and particularly for this search-effort of the NoK.
A reality check people.
The provenience of ALL the debris is questionable in my view, going all the way back to square one, the flaperon.
It is interesting that both the flaperon and the flap are starboard wing components. Remember that 9M-MRO had substantial wing tip damage in 2012. See:-
https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=147571
The damage was repaired.
The question is, were either the outboard flap or the flaperon or both replaced at the same time. Even if not directly damaged in the accident, either or both may have been replaced on an “opportunity basis” due to “wear and tear”. We will never know of course, because the maintenance records were “allegedly” destroyed in that mysterious workshop fire.
The flap has been identified to the 9M-MRO “build ship-set” but that does not convince me (in all the circumstances) that the flap was “on-wing” on the 8th March 2014.
The flaperon had no definitive identifying markings that could be indisputably ascribed to 9M-MRO, although the French have indicated they believe it was, but have not released details.
Looking at what we have, in “evidence terms” as in “admissibility” in a court of law, I would say neither “pass the test”, and neither would be accepted as “fact” at law.
None of the rest of the debris, collected by Blain or not, comes anywhere near “evidence” quality.
Until something shows up with serial numbers on it, that can be traced “in time” I will remain more than skeptical of ALL the debris.
@ventus45
Interesting observations regarding provenance of the larger 9M-MRO debris. Essentially what is being inferred is that all debris may have been ‘planted’.
More fog. Was it Carl Von Clausewitz who said “the first thing needed here is a fine piercing mind able to feel for the truth with a measure of its judgment”
I think Jeff has made a good point when showing that Blaine et co. apparently is setting a different standard for truth than the one that is supposed to rule us others. If this is really (supposedly) parts from MH370 found one day, collected and then put on a/the beach day/s later when camera and Blaine and others are on that beach it is bad enough. It is provocative and unfair to everyone involved in the tragedy and the search. If it is knowingly (supposedly) not MH370 debris handled in a similar way it is less provocative, but still challenging our sense of right and wrong. If the idea is to get youth to the beaches looking, it might be tolerable, but he still is walking on very thin ice in relation to the NoK and the police. And is there someone leading his treads? Who made a judgement (if any) that a piece looking like this what concerns material and “biofouling” would be appropriate in the face of NoK, press and investigators? What is it if it is not MH370 but near enough but still not (supposedly) planted? (We can’t really have a world where everything needs to be made up as truth to perhaps come true, and not knowing who is behind — although much could be said of that in the world already.) And being a murder investigation and a tragedy, there is a thin line between good intentions and disaster. If Blaine doesn’t know himself what pieces it is he is purporting, and why, there might be trouble for him ahead, too, of course. Who hired him? What exactly do they expect him to deliver?
When doubts have found their way into the provencance of the pieces, the road is of course open for much more serious doubts. And that we don’t need. The search parties could have sent (more than) “one good man” to Africa a long time ago. At least to ward of accusations of looking under their own street lamp with ships and planes that need getting ventilated anyway and are tax deductable and perform multiple tasks while out there etc.
@Gysbreght. While unsolicited I know, I make a couple of comments on your table nevertheless with the aim of helping clarify the sim data.
In it you appear to have used the incompressible formula to calculate TAS from dynamic pressure whereas at these Mach no’s, using the binomial at the bottom of the URL below, there is an apparent difference in q of about 10% at M=0.613, the 45S1 example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_pressure
A second point is that even so and using the incompressible formula, I get 433 knots groundspeed from the vectors in place of 455.7 at 5N, though I find no differences with the rest.
A third is just in passing. On the ground there is no wind though at 5N, apparently not subject to the transients of the others, there is wind at altitude, whether or not TAS is 433 or 455. Maybe the simulator allows setting of a gradient with nil on the ground.
@SteveBarrett
“Essentially what is being inferred is that all debris may have been ‘planted’.”
More on your point above:
http://tmex1.blogspot.com/2016/12/debris-planting-nuanced.html
@JW
antirussian propaganda is getting really ridiculous and I’m not sure how it’s related to MH370 anyway
This whole thing is getting weirder and weirder. Now we have lots of people suddenly claiming anti-Russian propaganda.
Maybe JW and others really are onto something? Why come now all of a sudden trying to silence people, when he’s making a really fair point?
Russian state actors most likely shot down a similar plane to MH370. Russia in general is not the most transparent state on earth. The disappearance of MH370 is overall so weird, and has resisted attempts at finding out what really happened for so long, that it is not in the least outlandish to speculate that something ‘weird’ might have gone down. Meaning, f.ex., some ‘state’ involvement.
At this point, I’d like to remind you of BG’s own website/blog. On his website, guy himself actually sets forth a fairly outlandish-seeming theory where the CIA used a decoy plane (…) (!!) to divert attention, and get some drone equipment back to Diego Garcia (!!…). Frankly, to imply that BG is a beacon of objectivity and non-conspiratorialist reason is a bit rich.
For all we know, BeeGee could just be an actor hired to don Indiana Jones headgear (Ghee, look at the pics!), holding plastic into a camera and running a blog to divert attention.
I would like to return to the original question. We had people here claiming to know BG. Please, can you come forward again and give details? Should BG be reading this, why not do an ‘AMA’? Tell us where you went to school, give us some idea regarding your biography.
@Havelock H, I couldn’t agree with you more. In the current climate, I find it chilling that people are coming forward and attempting to portray the CIA, MI6, and the Bundesnachrichtendienst as peddling a wild conspiracy theory.
Indeed, some commenters evidently place greater trust in the Kremlin than in their own national intelligence agencies.
We are in a new era.
It’s a bit of a shit-storm, but at least it’s showing us clearly what side people are on. And yes, I do take this sudden buzz of activity as indication that we’ve hit a sensitive spot.
More to come…
@Dennis
re the blog entry you posted:
1) there could be real debris, BG might just be tempted to ‘find’ more, f.ex. for bragging/his ego, to make money out of NOK or journos, etc. Point 1 doesn’t strictly hold.
2) The data could of course be spoofed in a few different ways. See f.ex. BG’s website and its ‘decoy plane’ theory (before you shred me to pieces, I don’t say I believe this)
3) Strong motive necessary – no – see 1) In addition, no one of the parties mentioned would have had any reason to voice doubt in public yet. Also, yes, to the contrary, there is vey substantial reason to reinforce the notion of a SIO terminus, especially at this point in time. More than 100 million bucks and a long time has been spent on the SIO terminus. First, those people who advocated this idea surely have a strong motive to make sure that no one starts doubting the wisdom of this with hindsight. In addition, now that this area has been thoroughly searched, it is indeed highly convenient to find a bit of debris to silence anyone who might again suggest alternative outcomes to the ‘crash in SIO’ theory.
4) Well, interestingly, no reputable people have made any strong statements on the authenticity of any of the debris found, s.f. ventus45’s post. I would put it as, ‘no one has had enough clear evidence to call bs on the debris so far’. But not more.
@DennisW
Your blog article gives strong arguments against planting of all the debris.
I think this is not reasonable/logical to assume either.
This time though only some debris-finds by Blaine Gibson are questioned about possible planting. Especially by the extra-ordinary, statistically almost impossible circumstances.
The ‘burned piece’ had also some questionable features; the 3 burned spots that still smelled burned.
He or someone else could have a personal or other reason to stage something like this.
IMO this doesn’t affect the credibility of the confirmed or other pieces of debris not found by Gibson and the overall status of Inmarsat and other data.
@Havelock H, @DennisW, To your final point, I find it very interesting that the ATSB and the DSTG have put out extremely detailed explications of their Inmarsat analysis — wonderful work IMO — and yet have said not a word about the biofouling of the debris except to indicate that some biological material has been recovered from some of the pieces. It’s not that they don’t have any information; we know they’ve done extensive analysis, and the French have done more. But we also know that they’ve had trouble making sense of it. I profoundly hope that they shed light on these issues when they issue the final report in coming months.
BTW, there seems to be a strong overlap between people who are pro-Russia, pro-Trump, and opposed to any suggestion that MH370 debris might have been planted. I’ll leave readers to draw their own conclusions.
@DennisW
You seem to think that a crash in the SIO is the “only” ocean option.
I disagree.
If the ISAT is somehow false, ie, spoofed, there is a far more obvious “ocean” crash site, and the drift data support it.
Consider:-
http://auntypru.com/forum/-MH370-time-to-think-of-it-as-a-criminal-act?page=16
Basis:-
http://auntypru.com/forum/-MH370-time-to-think-of-it-as-a-criminal-act?pid=4768#pid4768
In short, if the aircraft actually crashed in the Celebes Basin (very deep, 5,000 metres plus) the debris could quite possibly still be “genuine”, but, if the scenario (or a vaiant of it) in link two has any legs, it would be fair to assume that spoofing ISAT was part of the original hijack plan, to hide the hijack of the aircraft, and where it went (ie, where it was planned to go). Unfortunately, it obviously did not make it to wherever the “intended destination” was.
In that case, contrary to your supposition that it would be an unnecessary risk to “plant” debris in the SIO, it would in fact definitely pay the initial hijackers to both “find” and “clean up the true crash site in secret pronto”, AND to use that collected “real debris”, at least “carefully selected items of it”, to “reinforce” the ISAT SIO terminus, by depositing them on the northern section of the seventh arc.
Obviously, such a scenario has massive implications, that could only be conducted by state actors.
Remember, the search was “driven north-east” by those “fake” CVR and FRD “pings”, Ocean Shield and the US(N)’s TPL were deployed pronto, and suddenly the “Tireless” pops up from the deep, and all just as the JACC was magically created “out of fresh air” etc.
As for your “none of the experts who have examined the debris have expressed any concerns”, in this scenario, why would they ? The real aircraft “did” crash in the sea, just not the SIO, but the Celebes Sea.
@Havelock H
FTR, the theory about the decoy airplane is not Blaine’s theory. That is Ken St. Aubin’s theory.
I wonder if there still could be an insurance/liability log on the fire. Regarding suicide/hijack/malfunction/security/cargo. Although outlandish in many respects, and probably not as damning in money terms to any country or corporation (as a revelation of a cover-up would be), that could p e r h a p s be an explanation to why the plane hasn’t been found where it should have been — to focus on what we know and what doesn’t add up. I am not suggesting the plane is not in the SIO really, but I am trying to figure out what realistically could be the reason why there has been so little debris and the plane remains lost (on top of all the oddities belonging to this case). A clear view on the insurance issue would be valuable. I doubt that the fault lines would go between a ditched plane and an obliterated one just like that, but an established suicide might cost someone a little more, and an established or assumed hypoxia incident and a ghost flight might cost someone else. But I can’t see either of these implying money that would not be available to any insurance company without much damage.
And I hope for the love of god that forensics will put their teeth in Blaine’s portfolio asap. To see if they can tell the difference between the pieces from Noah’s Arc and those from MH370.
@Gysbreght. Please delete, “even so and using the incompressible formula,” from the fifth last line.
@JW
“BTW, there seems to be a strong overlap between people who are pro-Russia, pro-Trump, and opposed to any suggestion that MH370 debris might have been planted. I’ll leave readers to draw their own conclusions.”
the thing is it’s not pro-Russia/Trump, it’s pro-common sense
btw not accusing Russia doesn’t mean you are “pro”-Russian, they have lot of things to improve to become a country where one would enjoy the living however that doesn’t automatically make them responsible for everything that goes wrong around the world
@David,
thank you for your comments, which are most welcome.
Regarding your first point, dynamic pressure is defined as 0.5*airdensity*airspeed-sqared. It is the reference pressure for aerodynamic coëfficients like cL and cD. You are describing impact pressure, defined as the difference between the total pressure in compressible flow and static pressure. A pitot tube measures the total pressure in compressible flow, and impact pressure is the basis for Calibrated Airspeed (CAS), often referred to as Indicated airspeed, as indicated on an airspeed indicator after correcting for pressure errors and instrument error (if any). The IAS in the table is calculated from the dynamic pressure and impact pressure as you indicated.
Your second point is correct. I misread ZVelWorld=585 ft/s, which should have been 535 ft/s. Thank you for spotting the error. The corrected table is here:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/15iky5rj70le7pb/2016-12-10_SimAirspeeds.pdf?dl=0
On your third point, I don’t know the wind at groundlevel for 5N, do you? According to TBill the wind speed and direction must be specified for the altitude the simulator flies at. I gather (but don’t know for sure) that these parameters can vary with altitude and location, as they do in the real world.