The above graph is taken from the DSTG book “Bayesian Methods in the Search for MH370, ” page 90. It shows the probability distribution of MH370’s endpoint in the southern Indian Ocean based on analysis of the different autopilot modes available to whoever was in charge of the plane during its final six hours. It was published earlier this year and so represents contemporary understanding of these issues. As you can see, the DSTG estimated that the probability that the plane hit the 7th arc north of 34 degrees south longitude is effectively zero.
I interviewed Neil Gordon, lead author of the paper, on August 11. At that time, he told me that experts within the official search had already determined that the BFO values at 0:19 indicated that the plane was in a steep descent, on the order of 15,000 feet per minute.
Such a rate of descent would necessarily indicate that the plane could not have hit the ocean very far from the 7th arc. Nevertheless, Fugro Equator, which was still conducting its broad towfish scan of the search area at the time, spent most of its time searching the area on the inside edge of the search zone in the main area, between 37.5 and 35 degrees south latitude, about 25 nautical miles inside the 7th arc. At no point between the time of our interview and the end of the towfish scan in October did Equator scan anywhere north of 34 degrees south.
Shortly thereafter, the ATSB hosted a meeting of the experts it had consulted in the course of the investigation, and the result of their discussion was published on December 20 of this year as “MH370 – First Principles Review.” This document confirms what Gordon told me, that the group believed that the BFO data meant that the plane had to have been in a steep dive at the time of the final ping. What’s more, the report specified that this implied that the plane could not have flown more than 25 nautical miles from the 7th arc, and indeed most likely impacted the sea within 15 nautical miles.
By the analysis presented above, a conclusion is fairly obvious: the plane must have come to rest somewhere south of 34 degrees south, within 25 nautical miles of the seventh arc. Since this area has already been thoroughly scanned, then the implication is that the plane did not come to rest on the Indian Ocean seabed where the Inmarsat signals indicate it should have.
I would suggest that at this point the search should have been considered completed.
Nevertheless, the “First Principles Review” states on page 15 that the experts’ renewed analysis of the 777 autopilot dynamics indicates that the plane could have crossed the 7th arc “up to 33°S in latitude along the 7th arc.”
Then in the Conclusions section on page 23 the authors describe “a remaining area of high probability between latitudes 32.5°S and 36°S along the 7th arc,” while the accompanying illustration depicts a northern limit at 32.25 degrees south.
In other words, without any explanation, the northern limit of the aircraft’s possible impact point has moved from 34 degrees south in the Bayesian Methods paper in early 2016 to 33 degrees south on page 15 in the “First Principles Review” released at the end of the year. Then eight pages later within the same report the northern limit has moved, again without explanation, a half a degree further north. And half a page later it has moved a quarter of a degree further still.
Is the ATSB sincere in moving the northern limit in this way? If so, I wonder why they did not further search out this area when they had the chance, instead of continuing to scan an area that they apparently had already concluded the plane could not plausibly have reached.
I should point out at this point that the area between 34 south and 35.5 south has been scanned to a total widtch of 37 nautical miles, and the area between 32.5 and 34 has been searched to a total width 23 nautical miles. Thus even if the ATSB’s new northern limits are correct, they still should have found the plane.
As a result of the above I would suggest that:
a) Even though most recent report describes “the need to search an additional area representing approximately 25,000 km²,” the conduct of the ATSB’s search does not suggest that they earnestly believe that the plane could lie in this area. If they did, they could have searched out the highest-probability portions of this area with the time and resources at their disposal. Indeed, they could be searching it right now, as I write this. Obviously they are not.
b) The ATSB knew, in issuing the report, that Malaysia and China would not agree to search the newly suggested area, because it fails to meet the agreed-upon criteria for an extension (“credible new information… that can be used to identify the specific location of the aircraft”). Thus mooting this area would allow them to claim that there remained areas of significant probability that they had been forced to leave unsearched. This, in effect, would allow them to claim that their analysis had been correct but that they had fallen victim to bad luck.
c) The ATSB’s sophisticated mathematical analysis of the Inmarsat data, combined with debris drift analysis and other factors, allowed them to define an area of the southern Indian Ocean in which the plane could plausibly have come to rest. A long, exhaustive and expensive search has determined that it is not there.
d) The ATSB did not fall victim to bad luck. On the contrary, they have demonstrated with great robustness that the Inmarsat data is not compatible with the physical facts of the case.
e) Something is wrong with the Inmarsat data.
@buyerninety
Yes there are two holes in the RR-piece like in the left wing outboard flap piece: a small hole on one side and a bigger hole on the opposite side at the same position.
Some massive objects must have penetrated those pieces with high velocity there to go right through.
Considering the quite many other blade-like cuts in the skin of a lot of debris you would think possibly an engine disintergrated shooting comprossor blades and/or turbine blades around.
I don’t think this will happen with an unpowered engine only driven by windmilling even not at high speed dives. The engines would rather sheer off and never reach RPM high enough to cause seperation of blades just by centrifugial forces.
On impact on land of water the engines mostly seperate (not always; Hudson ditch f.i. only one engine seperated) but don’t cause engine blades flying around as far as I know of.
For something like that to happen there must be severe damage to the fan blades due to something entering the engine under power (goose or severe hail f.i. happened before) or structural failure must occure (compressor disk disintegrating in flight happened before) or the engine partialy exploded from an internal or external cause.
Like you mention the RR-piece shows these holes as the left wing outboard trailing edge does.
Quite some other pieces show skin piercing blade-like cuts. Lot of force is needed to do that.
All this kind of damage can only be caused by massive small objects hitting those pieces with very high velocity IMO.
So IMO this MH370 damage could not have been caused by a wind milling engine disintegrating in a dive or some bird or something else entering the fan blades.
If this damages is due to engine blades and parts seperating, one of the engines must have endured an explosion still under power somewhere during its flight.
Or the explosion was primarily from the outside and shrapnel damaged an engine and with it quite some parts which were found to date.
Anyway those holes and cuts in a lot of debris are not yet explained sufficiently but IMO could hold an important clue to what happened during the flight of MH370.
@buyerninety
The picture told 777.. not 767. Thanks.
Flap lay out is almost the same (to show what I wanted to show) so I won’t post another photo if you don’t mind ( If you mind I will post 😉
@TBill: We can be quite sure the sim data is from FS9 and not FSX. For instance, the list of variables under [Sim.Vars] is shorter for FSX than FS9.
@buyerninety @Ge Rijn
The picture isn’t reversed it matches what you would see from one of the Dana Bay beaches.
https://www.google.co.za/maps/place/Mossel+Bay/@-34.2052048,22.0473256,3a,75y,193h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sSau8uR1ANs5uAOB_feSEhQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DSau8uR1ANs5uAOB_feSEhQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dsearch.TACTILE.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D392%26h%3D106%26yaw%3D193.24818%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x1dd668ec1592f89d:0xcb40195135c4d682!8m2!3d-34.1747356!4d22.0834066!6m1!1e1
@All @Victor @Freddie
It is potentially important, that Victor’s McMurdo path matches what Freddie had heard was supposed to happen.
Freddie heard 2nd hand of planned negotiations during Andamans loiter with turn South for possible landing in Java (Jakarta seems to me) for political asylum in Indonesia. Freddie has been saying elements of this for a while now, so I do not feel Freddie has tried to conform to Victor’s path after the fact.
Victor has used the 7th arc and sim studies NZPG waypoint to mathmetically deduce a path that I am thinking matches Freddie’s story. In Victor’s path, MH370 hits Cocos at about 22:20 with just enough fuel to make it over to Jakarta. Mathematically Victor must also have a holding pattern (loiter) in the Andamans as per Freddie’s story.
@Victor
I have been playing around with True Track and Mag headings after Car Nicobar, and so far I am not seeing a huge difference over the McMurdo waypoint. For example if you get started on the path and set heading to 168.5 True Track seems to be close to the great circle for quite a distance before it splits off. I am fudging the True Track by deleting the mag headings control file, which is a trick for making mag headings = true headings in FS9, and using no wind.
@sinux @buyerninety
Thanks but this is not convincing enough IMO.
It’s just the angle you take the picture from.
Inspite of @buyerninety’s remark that the girl is handling her object with her right hand she also has it in her left hand like the boy holding the piece with his left hand.
Two left handed persons in one picture is possible ofcourse but makes it even more questionable.
I’ve tried to read the letters on the bottle but resolution is to low (for me at least).
I’ve asked @airlandseaman but he didn’t respond yet. Guess he’s not convinced either.
It’s important for it could mean the difference between a left and a right wing piece if the taper is what it seems to be.
Two left wing flap pieces and two right wing flap pieces (Pemba and Flaperon) would point more to a ~level entry into the water IMO.
Still better pictures are needed.
P.S.- When I say Victor’s McMurdo path I should say Victor and Richard Godfrey.
@BrianAnderson, regarding your post of 12/31, which I missed while traveling:
It seems clear to me that you are using Zero Hedge to refute legitimate media. But even if your intention was a comparison, I don’t think using a variation of Godwin’s Law to make that point advances your cause. It’s especially foolish when you look behind the link you provided. The Department of Homeland Security’s LEGAL rationale for including a disclaimer on the Russian hacking report–one that conspiracists, delegitimizers and propagandists are now using to try to discredit legitimate media–has nothing to do with the ultimate conclusions or accuracy of the report. Feel free to Google “DHS disclaimer” to see that for yourself.
Further there’s no need for a flanking attack to draw attention away from your shaky defense of our original dispute: I am familiar with the French flag and the fact that it is called The Tricolor, much like the UK’s flag is called The Union Jack. Each, of course, capitalized and preceded with a capitalized definite article. In contrast, I did not capitalize; I did not add an article of specificity. What I did in describing the Russian flag is not much different than what Wikipedia does:
“The flag of Russia is a TRICOLOR [emphasis mine] flag consisting of three equal horizontal fields: white on the top, blue in the middle and red on the bottom.”
I’m sorry to be pedantic, but if you’re going to accuse others—not me, the legitimate media—of not being trustworthy, your case is better made with precision across the board.
@VictorI, I’m simply a reader of and occasional poster to this blog who who has followed your work here and elsewhere with enormous respect. I would rather not distract from it and your time with a continued back and forth, but for the record: I did not make a comparison between legitimate media and peer-reviewed publications. I made an analogy related to trustworthiness. legitimate media is to a site like Zero Hedge as a peer reviewed paper or journal is to an open source paper or journal.
Excelsior, if we may.
@TBill: You don’t need to remove the magnetic variation to simulate a true track. The HDG REF switch is just below the MFD. Just right click to open the protective cover, and left click to change from NORM to TRU. Then go the MCP, toggle the HDG/TRK switch to TRK, dial in the desired track, then press the selector knob. The plane should travel the true track that is indicated in the Track/Heading window.
@David, You mentioned “temperatures for optimal barnacle survival and growth between 19 and 25 deg C.” Note that in the Patel paper this temperature range actually refers to temperature during which reproduction was found to have taken place in the lab. They were found to survive and grow at temperatures both higher and lower.
If we assume the barnacles are 4-6 months old (based on expert advice) and knowing that they arrived in July/August, I see no basis for thinking that they could have experienced the temperature pattern described by Patrick De Deckker, and there is certainly no basis for narrowing the entry point along the 7th arc 15 months prior.
I would point out again that the Australian boat which washed up on Mayotte had barnacles that were 3.5 cm long, by my rough-and-ready photographic estimation technique (http://jeffwise.net/2015/10/09/the-flaperon-flotation-riddle/). The boat had been drifting capsized across the Indian Ocean for eight months, starting at a latitude of 22 degrees south and ending at 13 degree south.
As you can see in this paper, Lepas anatifera have an extremely wide range: http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2015/05/24/019802.full.pdf
Thus their mere presence on the Réunion debris cannot be used to refine the possible drift path, as suggested by Richard Godfrey.
@TBill
(You are of course refering to my previous post at page 11 middle.)
Actually, I was more thinking that Shah might have tried
PSS in FSX.
Two points to consider;
1.) The FLT files in the sim data.pdf are apparently believed by
VictorI to also be the deleted files in Table 7 of the Data-from
Flight-Simulator-Computer.pdf . VictorI has also previously stated;
“The deleted files on MK25 are from a PSS 777 model which only
runs on FS9″.
The page immediately preceding Table 7 has a heading numbered 6.4.4,
and that heading may refer to the deleted files on the following page.
The heading is;
“6.4.4 Flight Simulator X deleted file analysis”
You can see that if the files were ‘only’ run in FS9, then the heading
wording of ‘Flight Simulator X‘ does not agree with VictorIs viewpoint.
2)If the deleted files in Table 7 do match the FLT files in the
sim data.pdf , (say if Shah did try to use PSS in FSX), it is
difficult to match which file in Table 7 matches which FLT file in the
sim data.pdf , because files in Table 7 have ‘out of order’ and widely
differing dates. VictorI has previously stated (29th DEC, 12:44 PM) to
Gysbreght that;
“FSX software was uninstalled from the MK25 drive on Feb 20, 2014.”…
“We know that FS9 was installed on MK25 on Dec 23, 2013.”…”We know
that the installation of FS9 was removed on Feb 20, 2014.”…”Hence,
it is logical to conclude that the simulation files were created in
the weeks prior to the disappearance.”
Only a couple of the files in Table 7 are dated 20/2/2014.
If we look at the sim data.pdf, we see the Coords are listed thusly;
10N___is numbered as 5) and described as Coord 3
45S1__is numbered as 4) and described as Coord 4
45S2__is numbered as 3) and described as Coord 5 .
If we take the simplest view of the numbering of the files in
Table 7, that ‘Table 7, row 4‘ is meant to match 45S1 ‘sim data
numbered 4 or Coord 4‘, then we see this does not support VictorIs
assertion that “the simulation files were created in the weeks
prior to the disappearance”, because ‘Table 7, row 4’ has a date
of 11 DEC 2013. Therefore, at best, VictorI can claim that the files
were ‘created’ in the months, not weeks, prior to 08 Mar 2014.
There are other nuances to this matter, such as the dates of the
deleted files in the Table 7 are stated as “Last Accessed” dates –
therefore, those files ‘Creation’ dates would be the same as or earlier
than their individual Accessed date. This tends to suggest that the
files were created using installations of the flight sim software
much earlier than those installation dates that VictorI said above.
As a result, I agree with Jeffs view that the RMP report flight sim
files are of questionable value in our endeavours to understand what
happened to MH370.
@Ge Rijn
Think of how you might hold a book with your left hand but you
manipulate the pages with your right hand. Look at the
little girl again.
Cheers
@TBill, I really must put my foot down when it comes to unsubstantiated hearsay from Freddie about someone overhearing plot details. I’ve had a disagreement with DennisW about whether the term “hearsay” applies to unpublished information supplied by one named journalist to another, but in this case there is no ambiguity: we don’t know who Freddie is, or who his source is, or why anyone should be privy to this supposed inside info. There’s no reason it should figure in anyone’s discussion.
As for VictorI’s McMurdo route, he is certainly free to believe it and promote it if he wishes, but I feel that he is building a large edifice on a small and wobbly base. There is no evidence that the simulator was flown from 10N to 45S on autopilot–rather the contrary, that the 45S locations were achieved by clicking and dragging. What’s more, I would point out that Victor’s McMurdo route indicates to him a terminus on the 7th arc at 26 degrees south, an end point that the ATSB rules out in its “First Principles” report:
@buyerninety: I already explained that the sim data was definitely from FS9, not FSX.
Table 7 describes unsuccessful attempts by investigators to run FSX using the deleted files. The fact that there is a reference to FSX and that MK25 was found disconnected from the computer at the time it was found lead me to believe that Table 7 refers to the FSX installation on MK26, not the FS9 installation on MK25.
@jeffwise: First, the McMurdo route is a theory. We don’t know what was used as the final waypoint in the path to the SIO. Unlike many other theories, this one is easily tested because the predicted crash zone is small.
Secondly, the terminus is 26.9S, not 26S.
Thirdly, I do agree that if the statements by the ATSB about the breadth and efficiency of the surface search are true, then the plane could have not crashed in that area. Obviously, many of us question this statement.
@Ge Rijn
(I don’t mind).
One thing occurred to me – if MH370 impacted the ocean surface
such that the ‘RR’ panel was underneath or above the engine,
then as everything was smashed and compressed together, maybe
the blades could stab through the nacelle exterior panel being
crushed against the interior engine (turbine blades).
Later, Cheers
@buyerninety
The girl could possibly but the boy holding a ~1 meter piece with his left hand? And then together in one picture doing the same like reading a book?
Time will tell.
@buyerninety If you look at the writing on the water bottle in the picture shown here, does that not settle the reversed/not reversed question?
http://www.heraldlive.co.za/news/2016/12/29/albie-morkel-found-clue-missing-flight-mh370-mossel-bay/
The main engine and the fan are both enclosed in solid casings designed to contain any blade shed from compressor, turbine, or fan. Uncontained engine failures almost without exception involve failures of compressor or turbine disks, the fragments of those being too heavy to be contained.
Compared to those casings, the ‘nacelle exterior panel’s are more like egg-shells. They are essentially aerodynamic fairings, not designed to contain any high-energy fragments.
@StevanG
“Landing in different country and telling your story to authorities is what I’m still sticking to.”
…can you elaborate on your thoughts? Do you think Indonesia could be the place to land, as per Freddie
@VictorI: After my post of January 1, 12:45 PM you’ve been quite silent. Can I take that as agreement?
If not, it is easy to verify. Just pull up to some rate of climb before you release the controls, then make no further inputs and see what happens.
@ScottO,
It is you making the [completely false] accusations. Pedantic, yes. I’m just not interested on your opinions.
@JeffW
OK
@DennisW said:
“That is the only action I can think of that would not be reversible when Shah landed the plane”
That is the major difficulty with any ‘Negotiations’ theory: – what promises/agreements could the hijackers rely on that would/could not be immediately reversed when the aircraft finally landed? The MYG could say anything to get the aircraft on the ground. Any reversal of position afterwards could easily be explained away as a necessary device to secure the safety of the passengers – followed by the standard ‘We will not set a precedent by negotiating with terrorists/activists’.
“I would challenge you, Gesbreght, or anyone else on this forum to point out a single obvious problem. This scenario checks all the boxes. It might not be correct, but there is absolutely nothing you can say to refute it”
Any transfer of funds from Najib’s embezzlement would take time to arrange, especially if the bank involved is (or is claimed to be) in Europe (Switzerland?) and has closed. It would be very easy for Najib to claim ‘We cannot arrange it that quickly’. And meanwhile you run out of fuel – that possible claim would have been obvious beforehand to anyone planning it.
And your fuel is your negotiation time. The MYG would realise that, and would play for time to force your hand. So why make it harder for yourself by losing an hour of negotiating time by choosing a flight to Beijing in the early hours when you could have chosen a daytime flight to Europe – the right direction to begin with, no risk of interception/discovery crossing back over MY, and with more fuel loaded for a longer negotiation time?
To make the MYG keep to any promises/agreements, you’d want them broadcasting via a press conference on national and international news immediately as one of your demands. Daytime would be best for that, otherwise the MY news agencies are likely to be at home/asleep as well as the MYG – more time wasted waiting for them to get there and get organised.
But nontheless, the MYG could still reverse any agreement/promise once the aircraft had landed. That also would have been obvious to anyone during the planning stage, so what would the point be?
And would Zaharie actually go through with the murder of 238 people, or would he give the idea up and land (in Indonesia or wherever) safely as he has every time in the past? The argument that the group would have to show that ‘they’ would go through with it would only work if there was a ‘group’ or organisation that makes future demands. No further demands have been made that we know of.
One other point: the ‘negotiations’ theory presumes that all passengers and cabin crew are alive, at least until the aircraft reaches the ‘loiter’ area and negotiations begin.
Is it likely that the passengers didn’t know they’d turned back? What about the cabin crew? The co-pilot must have known, if still alive – wouldn’t he have told the crew and passengers?
Yet no one other than the co-pilot’s phone tried to make a call or send a text, and no other cell phones seemed to be turned on (were detected) other than the co-pilot’s as they rounded Penang?
If the ISAT data is right, they took about an hour to negotiate before they started south – why cease the loiter and start south that early?
@DennisW said:
“1> If Shah intended to land safely why did he not radio his position or activate an ELT when fuel starvation was obvious. It would have at least given the PAX a fighting chance.
2> The fuel remaining instrumentation on a 777 is quite accurate. It is inconceivable, to me, that he would not have attempted a landing on Christmas Island.”
It’s also inconceivable that an experienced training Captain would allow himself to run out of fuel when his intention was to land, don’t you think?
“The flight he selected was almost the opposite. It “announced” a diversion as early as possible – more than an hour before a flight East. That was the idea, to make sure the Malay government was fully aware that the flight was diverted. He was not attempting evasion.”
Then he was risking being located and shot down as a potential ‘terrorist about to fly into the Petronas Towers’ before he’d escaped radar range, had the MYG chosen to say that. He wouldn’t know what the MYG’s reaction would be to solve their problem of the hijacking. His ‘announcement’ also seemed to go pretty well unnoticed for quite a while.
@Shadynuk said:
“Granted, they have not claimed responsibility, they have not used the airplane for an attack and pieces of the plane have been found in the sea.”
The Uighurs *did* claim responsibility the next day (March 9th) for the hijacking, they also said the aircraft wouldn’t be found. It was reported their claim was ignored as not being credible because they did not provide any details of how the hijacking occurred.
http://www.seventharc.net/2016/10/14/mh370-terror-claim/
@TBill@all
I find it difficult to digest that you could drop out of the sky unannounced at a foreign airport in a diverted 777, and expect someone to listen to your story. Could be a generational disconnect going on here relative to StevanG and I.
Likewise the notion of planted debris. Never mind that there is no reason to plant debris because no one with any authority now considers or ever considered that the aircraft did not terminate in the ocean. The fact that forensic experts who have had a chance to touch and breathe on the debris have not expressed any doubts relative to its authenticity or that the condition of the parts is anything but consistent with a crash speaks volumes.
Likewise the notion of people beating the simulator data found on Shah’s toy to death in an effort to dismiss it. What is the point with that? The coordinates are there. Does it matter whether the coordinates are the result of dragging and dropping or the result of a continuous simulated flight that terminated there? Does it matter how the toy behaved at the end of the flight? I just don’t see it as anything but a result of denial relative to how that data impacts previously held beliefs.
Likewise, the notion that the ISAT had to be spoofed since the aircraft was not found where the geeks predicted it would be found. The problem is not with the ISAT data. The problem lies with the geeks, their assumptions, and the decision to spend a lot of money based on data that was clearly ambiguous from the get-go.
Instead of convergence, we are witnessing a random walk.
@Middelton
“His ‘announcement’ also seemed to go pretty well unnoticed for quite a while.”
You don’t know that. You are gobbling up the story line put out for you without questioning it.
I believe the Malay authorities where well aware of what was going on at IGARI. The actions of the authorities during the initial phases of the search are very telling in this regard.
@DennisW, The problem with your theory is threefold:
1) There is no evidence for it (e.g. no mention of negotiations in secret RMP report that describes flight sim data in detail)
2) The things it predicts didn’t occur (no debris observed from air, or washed up early in western IO)
3) It doesn’t make the slightest bit of sense
You spend so much time lamenting the foolishness of others, while meanwhile flogging this Mariah-Carey-on-New-Year’s-Eve of a theory–I have to conclude that you are engaged in some kind of performance art.
@Jeff
Do you honestly believe that if negotiations took place that it would aired in the RMP report? You have mentioned this before, but I decided to just cut you some slack on that absurdity.
The place where I believe that aircraft terminated would deposit debris consistent with the time and place in which it was found, and it is also consistent with the barnacle data which you are now retreating from.
Relative to making sense, it is completely consistent with everything we know about the diversion – the debris, the ISAT data, the sim data, and why that particular flight was selected (which looms large in the grand scheme of things). It truly is a slam dunk, IMO.
I missed Mariah’s debacle since Ami and I don’t have broadcast television at either the ranch or the beach. My understanding is she was gracious about it. Not a big fan of her in any case.
BTW, I don’t have any feeling relative to the foolishness of others. I don’t even think about it consciously. At the end of the day nothing we do here is going to make the slightest difference.
@Gysbreght: Never take my silence as agreement. I’ve stated what I believe are the facts, and I am allowing you to have the last word.
@ Middleton, Yes, you are correct. Thank you. I had forgotten about that statement. (by the China Martyrs Brigades leader 9-3-2014),
I am not a big fan of ‘the Uyghurs did it’. I had posed that question more to hear how Jeff W eliminates them since he believes in a Northern route. He did not really answer other than to re-state his theory about the Russians.
This whole mystery is like trying to assemble a puzzle when you have only a few of the pieces, no picture to follow and a bunch of false pieces that look at lot like the others.
I have been to China many times (on the business side, not political) and I think that if the Chinese uncovered a plot against them they are quite capable to crush it ruthlessly and leave little evidence.
I tend to look at this more from the motivation angle rather than the data – because the data is very inconclusive and may have been compromised.
@DennisW said, “At the end of the day nothing we do here is going to make the slightest difference.”
We certainly won’t make a difference with the current search team. Once the DSTG report was written, the fate was already sealed. If Boeing takes a lead in the search, perhaps things will be different. That’s not a prediction. Just a hope.
Re negotiations:
One might not expect an embarrassing terrorist act to be revealed in the RMP report, but certainly there would be fallout from such a horrific tactic, the pattern of which might be visible to us—coconspirators arrested (the political extortion scenario requires coconspirators), political opposition contained, perhaps new laws designed to scare off repeat offenses. None of this needs to be made obvious by the government or even in-country media; families and friends of the disappeared would alert some outside news source. We would somehow know something of some fall out. Just as we have learned in recent history of other such punishments from dissidents in societies far less open than Malaysia. But here, to date, there doesn’t appear to be any such pattern. That is almost as curious as the lack of physical evidence itself. And in fact, I’ve only seen reports of increased liberality in the Malaysian government thanks to social media, demographic shifts in the electorate and closer than comfortable elections of late. (Of course someone could interpret that as a response to a terror act, so…)
And speaking of shifts, this pivot, as reported by Bloomberg. Why would Malaysia seek closer ties with the United States now?
“According to a July 2014 Pew Research Center study of global opinion toward the U.S. and China (taken during the first month of the MH370 controversy), Malaysia was one of two Asian countries where the population viewed China as its chief ally — and one of three that recognized the U.S. as its chief threat. Bilateral relations with China were so close in 2013 that a Malaysian official announced that Malaysia was willing to collaborate with China on developing natural resources in the South China Sea — a blatant break with other countries in the region.
“That spirit of cooperation is now gone…”
“Over the last year, the Malaysian government has also made an effort to build closer ties with the United States. It even invited U.S. spy planes to use bases on Malaysian territory — an invitation that likely infuriated China. Though MH370’s disappearance isn’t solely responsible for this important diplomatic hedge, it certainly played a key role in widening a gap that barely existed on March 7, 2014.”
We have 3 hijack plans or claims via email/testimony:
(1) China Martyr Brigades on 9-March
(2) Al Qaeda plot that presumably did not materialize
(3) Anonymous email to news outlet claiming a MY political motive to MH370 (I lost my media reference on this last one)
@ScottO: The FBI investigation of the 1MDB corruption gives the US tremendous leverage over the Najib regime. Unfortunately, the strategic importance of Malaysia to the US to fight Islamic terrorism and the expansion of Chinese influence in the region gives the US little appetite to expose Malaysian corruption. Right now, it seems Malaysia and the US need each other. That’s also why it’s unlikely that the US will disclose all it knows relative to MH370. Perhaps the Trump administration will pursue a different course.
@TBill: Here is the story that discusses a negotiation with Malaysian authorities. Unfortunately, it is hard to assign much credibility to a single email sent to a news organization. That doesn’t necessarily mean the email is incorrect.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2603075/Co-pilot-missing-flight-MH370-desperate-call-mobile-phone-AFTER-aircraft-lost-normal-communication-ground.html
***
An email received by the Mail recently suggested that the aircraft had been hijacked and that the pilots had been ordered to fly around Malaysian and Indonesian air space while negotiations were carried out.
Those negotiations, said the email – from a source in Malaysia which could not be verified – demanded the dropping of a jail sentence imposed on Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim.
The hijackers, said the email, gave government negotiators five hours to meet their demands or the plane would be destroyed.
***
@DennisW: “stick it to the govt.”
I feel you quoted me a bit out of context so I just wanted to restate the essentials: in effect, Z’s suicide must have been his priority. The logic would be one of a workplace shooting but with the difference that Z saw the opportunity to get away with his revenge without it being possible to prove for certain it was him — at the same time as it would be “obvious” to those at whom he was aiming. Lame maybe, “silly” yes. But it works.
Speaking of which: Z’s medical record was released to the NoK if I remember correctly. It hasn’t been leaked to anyone here? Not that Z necessarily would have confessed his worst worries to a doctor, for fear of losing his job, but there might be more general remarks on his physical status that could give some hints (but not knowingly so as it appears).
@ScottO
It’s refreshing to hear your perspectives. The trolling here (both regular and high level) can be quite wearying. Please hang around and contribute more often.
I am truly thankful I don’t have to sing live broadcasted on Times Square in a bathing suit. Yet. Ha ha ha ha ha.
@ScottO:
Interesting if it is true or have likeness of truth. Not everything in the papers is in a simple sense of course. Do you have a link?
@Johan
Sorry if I misquoted you. It seems there are two main lines of thought on the choice of flight – one based on stealth and the other as shaming the establishment. I have a hard time with both since he could have disappeared with no fuss at all on a flight West. Likewise, a Northern diversion would have been better based on a flight West. Shaming the government or “sticking it to the man” seems like an emotional fallback rather than something a serious person would do. Just trying to get the pieces to fit, and there are a lot of pieces.
@VictorI:
That was interesting to hear, too. It sounds to me like the Malay have their hands full.
@ScottO:
I dare hardly follow that thought through but was the invitation of spy planes induced by anything in particular?
@DennisW:
I might have still forgotten about a couple of the “esentials”: I meant to say that I would guess the choice of direction would have been secondary to the timing of the Court of Appeal’s decision. And that he when thinking it through realised that the Beijing flight served his purpose better as it gave him enough room to execute a drama directed by himself, and recognizable as such by those it was aimed for. A simple disappearance wouldn’t have created enough fuss and wouldn’t have made anyone lay awake wondering if they’d been screwed. It would have been (much more of) a lost flight among others.
As a side note (not really serious but perhaps not completely without meaning or significance): by chosing a plane bound for Beijing and turning it westerly, he may inadvertently (or not) have made a statement as to his cultural orientation, and thus also about in what direction he preferred Malaysia to go.
@DennisW:
I think to a substantial degree that an emotional fallback was what it would have had to be all about, I mean the whole idea. But tailored to himself in a way that had the appearance of reason. It is not necessarily easy to be the seemingly only one to uphold reason if everything and everyone around you make you pay for doing that.
There should have been significant planning documents by ZS if he was going to make a successful disappearance including lack of debris with appropriate biofouling etc. But so far nothing has been announced to the public.
@Jeff Wise. Richard Godfrey’s maps to 25 deg C.
You write, “Note that in the Patel paper this temperature range actually refers to temperature during which reproduction was found to have taken place in the lab. They were found to survive and grow at temperatures both higher and lower.” Yes. Patel mentioned mortality at 34-35/36degC and that is all.
From the Godfrey paper, “For many tracks the last 3 months before beaching in Northern Madagascar, Tanzania or Mozambique was spent entirely in sea water above 25°C. We note less barnacles (or
even no barnacles) on items of MH370 floating debris found in those locations”. This seems to be in the nature of an general observation.
Still, while not about death rates, the maps could be relevant to De Dekker’s efforts on growth, with his like temperature range.
Also you write, “Thus their mere presence on the Réunion debris cannot be used to refine the possible drift path, as suggested by Richard Godfrey”. Though their presence would rule out exposure to waters above 34-36 deg, those waters might be so far away for this not to matter much.
Also there is the effect of seasonal temperature change.
Nevertheless I daresay I would not be the first to observe that an extension of this sort of work could prove useful as a contributor to drift origins. What could emerge from drift analysis, using more precise experimental data, are individual tracks of good geographic and time probability, allowing temperatures to be inserted. Thence the De Dekker results (and those of the French?) might form part of that probability assessment. That though is an ask (funds, time, inclination).
Thank you for the Lepas paper reference.
@David, You wrote, “an extension of this sort of work could prove useful as a contributor to drift origins.” Absolutely! Worth noting again also that De Deckker analyzed a 2.5 cm barnacle, while one of the French secret reports stated that the largest barnacle was 3.9 cm–this would be much more valuable in determining a general area of origin.
When I emailed with De Deckker last month he said he was heading to France to confer with his colleagues. Hopefully some they’ll gain some new insights — though I fear this time we the public will not find out what they are.
@All, FYI, Malaysia has extradition treaties with most of its neighboring countries, including Indonesia. Requesting asylum in Indonesia will simply not fly. Anyone who would hijack an aircraft and have the notion that he could apply for asylum would be very dissapointed with the end result.
@DennisW, As a banker dealing with International wire transfers (and laws associated with payment execution) every single day, I may be able to shed some light on any potential wire payments. MY/MAS inevitably have treasury workstations with the ability to initiate payments from any bank they are using. At the time MH370 dissapeared, Swiss banks would be about to open as well as banks in Luxembourg, Liechtenstein etc. Any urgent wire transfers they would see, would be processed “straight-through”, using the interbank SWIFT network. Basically, if the transfer request was complete and correct, the Swiss bank would process it immediately. None the less, new laws would necessitate the bank to impose checks on payments to tax haven countries, high-risk countries etc. so any payment made would have to survive these checks (or the paying bank goes back to its source for additional information). Once a payment goes through and hits the receivers account, reversal is very difficult. Many banks will not cooperate with a reversal unless the recipient agreed to it (even if the money was obtained by committing a crime). Even with today’s technology though, money transfers take time, depending on the geographical location of the receiving bank.