MH370: Triumph of the Weird

Well, here we are in cold-case land, scratching our heads. Some $150 million has been spent and no plane. Where does that leave us?

For one thing, with radically altered probabilities of what might have happened.

Imagine that we dial the clock back to August, 2015. You’re Warren Truss and this the story that your data is telling you:

Based on this default story, you’ve concluded that there’s a 97 percent chance that the aircraft hit the ocean within a 120,000 sq km box. What about the other 3 percent? Let’s imagine there’s a 2 percent chance that it’s somewhere else in the SIO, and a small but finite chance — let’s say 1 percent — that, for unkonwn and uncalculable reasons, the plane didn’t go into the SIO at all.

Time goes by. You search out all but the 1 percent of the search box that your sonar equipment can’t image (e.g. seabed crevasses), throw up your hands, and call it off.

So this is how things now stand: Of the orginal 100 percent, 96 percent has been scanned and ruled out. Here’s how remaining probabilities now stack up:

Of course, these are all very rough numbers. The point being, no matter how you slice it, the scenario that was once nearly a dead certainty (flying into the SIO search box) is now less than an even bet, and outcomes that once barely merited an asterisk are now not only possible but probable.

The most probable category, according to this rough calculation, would be scenarios of the second variety. But if the data is valid, how could the default story be wrong? How could the plane have wound up somewhere in the SIO outside the search box? To square that circle, you have to choose one of the assumptions above and bend it. For instance, one might imagine that the 18:40 BFO value was not caused by the plane flying south, but by a plane that descended–perhaps, say, for a descent into Car Nicobar–and then changed plans and flew instead to, say, Antarctica. Or maybe the plane didn’t fly straight and fast, but flew slowly in a curve toward the Cocos Islands, creating a pattern of ping rings that only happened to look similar to those generated by a plane flying fast and straight.

Such eventualities are so unlikely that, back when the search box was being drawn, it was easy to simply discard them. But now that the most reasonable options are off the table, this very geographically dispersed (and hence impractical to search) population of possible endpoints collectively adds up to “very likely.”

Then again, it’s also now significantly more plausible that the plane didn’t go south at all, or that if it did it wound up in the search box but then fell into an unscannable crevasse.

Whatever happened to MH370, it wasn’t the default story told by the data, but rather something that in the summer of 2015 would have been discarded as hopelessly implausible.

215 thoughts on “MH370: Triumph of the Weird”

  1. Lately I have been reviewing the official stories of the 3 flights on 9/11. When compared to evidence, there are too many inconsistencies to rule out scenarios that previously were considered extremely hard to believe and blasphemous to utter. Not anymore. Before I didn’t know about the spoofing techniques discussed in Operation Northwoods and how similar Northwoods was to 9/11. At least with 9/11 we now understand the motives, or we think we do. But what about MH370? What’ was the motive? Was there something on the plane that HAD to be recovered? What was worth more than 239 lives and a $60m airplane and $150m search boondoggle?

  2. But you are talking about ‘where’ is MH370? Nownthe search will continue with “why?” and “how?”

  3. @Jeff

    I think the 97% prior that you assign to the “search box” is far too high, and has always been far too high. That is a drum I have been beating for a long while as you know. The ISAT data cannot be used to predict where the plane went. It can only be used to say where it did not go.

    Relative to your query “Where does that leave us?”.

    It leaves us at the end of the story. The book is closed. No one has choreographed a sequel.

    As I mentioned in a private email recently, the comments of Chester were gracious and vague. My spin on the tripartite position is “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me”. I see no possibility of a resumption of the search based on any analytics similar to those used to justify the original search. We don’t have anything else.

  4. Jeff said “But now that the most reasonable options are off the table”…

    In my next post, in 20 to 24 hours, I will endeavour to present a
    reasonable theory outlining why and how MH370 continued to and past
    Penang Island to the region about IGOGU.

  5. @Jeff Wise

    Your quote:

    “Whatever happened to MH370, it wasn’t the default story told by the data, but rather something that in the summer of 2015 would have been discarded as hopelessly implausible”.

    IMO there you mention the turning point: the flaperon find.
    This was the ‘something’ that soon discarded the certainty of the data that defined the search area south of 35S and the attitude in which the plane entered the water: no high speed entry but a horizontal, fairly level low speed entry.

    The fast majority of debris found to date afterwards all are evidence something like this happened IMO.
    This debris also all point to a crash area north of ~32S but not further than ~27S.
    The most recent drifer based data all tell the same. I won’t repeat all discussed before. The ATSB just never adjusted their search area according all this new evidence starting with the flaperon. They adjusted the area only ‘cowerdly’ when it was too late when the search ended.

    The flight at least till 18:22 was a pilot controlled flight. Everyone can agree on this I hope. Most probably the flight was still pilot-controlled at 18:40 with the re-logon.

    There’s no logical reason or evidence the plane turned into a ghost flight after 18:22 or 18:40.
    Therefore IMO we logically have to assume the plane was pilot-controlled till the end.

    All Inmarsat data, drift data and debris finds to date keep pointing to an area not that far north of the discarded current search zone and a relatively low speed, level impact.

    Every other area North of the discarded search area till ~27S is not based on any fitting available data or evidence and therefore still only based on speculation.

    Consencus is still a long way it seems.

  6. @Ge Rijn, You may believe that the plane entered the water a “fairly level low speed entry,” but the people who have examined the wreckage believe it was a high-speed crash with flaps stowed that resulted in a vast quantity of small pieces. There seems to be consensus on this point.
    You are also wrong with the debris being consistent with a crash north of 32 degrees south. As the ATSB points out in their most recent report, a huge aerial search of this area in March/April 2014 effectively rules it out.
    As I write above, in order to make sense of an SIO terminus you have to bend some of the data, but to summon all your data from a cloud of wishful thinking is just garbage.

    @DennisW, You wrote “The ISAT data cannot be used to predict where the plane went.” We’ve been through this. You said that the Inmarsat data could match arbitrary end points on the seventh arc. I said “prove it.” You came back with a route that with a loiter. That doesn’t match the Inmarsat data unless, as I write above, you bend it by positing a statistically unlikely and narratively implausible descent at 18:40.

    “But I don’t think a descent at 18:40 is unlikely!” you might well say. Well, the whole of the piece is that scenarios like this that were once discarded as implausible are now an order of magnitude or two more plausible.

  7. @Jeff

    I do understand the point you are making, and I am quite sympathetic to it, and supportive of it.

    You might recall that the narrative that lead to the current “search box” was based on things like “Occam’s Razor” and “that’s the way pilots like to fly airplanes”. I never considered active piloted flight to be unlikely at all. That’s how I got a path to Christmas Island a long time ago.

    Of course, that attitude garnered me an invitation to “go elsewhere” back in the Duncan days.

    Relative to what happened between 18:25 and 19:40, I have always presented that area as being within a circle labeled with a question mark. I was never able to figure it out. DrB has a reasonable candidate path, and Victor’s lateral offset does work.

    I think at this moment we have to look at the practical realities of the situation we find ourselves in. The search is suspended, and the threshold for resuming it has a high (not well-defined) bar. My sense is that ISAT and drift analytics are not going to be enough.

  8. @Jeff Wise

    Discard an opinion as garbage.. think of it..
    The people who examined the outboard flap only said they believed it was stowed when it seperated. Nothing more. Nothing about the attitude or speed of entry. And this is only their opinion on one piece of debris.

    There is not a ‘fast quantity of small pieces’. Most pieces are among or beyond ~80cm. Trailing edge, engine related, control surface related pieces.
    Only 3 out of ~30 now are cabin related pieces.

    Also pointing to a small debris field IMO. According to @MPat’s and other drift data analysis, ~30 out of ~170 pieces reached shores after 22 months.
    About the amount found to date.

    Aerial search of the area only started weeks after. Still things were spotted but not retrieved.
    And till now Australia and New Sealand refuse to disclose all their photos from this area.
    Several reveiled have been discussed on your blog (remember the flaperon-like piece?).

    The ATSB have shown in their latest publication of drift analyzis the area North of ~32S was a most probable crash area. Altough they kind of bend it in their assumptions between ~35S and ~32S.

    I agree with you; “in order to make sense of an SIO terminus you have to bend some of the data”

  9. Triumph of the weird – or a near-miss? Not “near”, necessarily, in geographic terms but rather in the sense of “very “nearly right”. It only requires one of several key [reasonable and defensible] assumptions to be wrong for the search box to come up empty. No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

  10. @StevanG “there is also another very important technical fact corroborating that area, rate of descent according to BFO is much lower (= more realistic) compared to ATSB proposed area that was searched”
    Steven, thanks for pointing this out, while the BTO’s “fit like a glove” according to Freddie the BFO’s have not been a close fit. Assumptions are needed to fit within tight parameters.

    @DennisW “I never considered active piloted flight to be unlikely at all. That’s how I got a path to Christmas Island a long time ago”
    Don’t give up on Christmas Island, there are a number of points that indicate the plane could be up there, even one you raised a long time ago, your published Tsunami triangulation by a Russian analyst. Not a strong point but none the less helps build a case for a northern water terminus.

    @ Ge Rijn “I agree with you; “in order to make sense of an SIO terminus you have to bend some of the data””
    If you include the Christmas Island area as part of the SIO (ignore this if I have misunderstood you) please explain why you need to bend some of the data. As I mentioned to Steven above the BFO’s need assumptions, assuming some vertical movement late in the flight the BFO’s fit within Dennis’s tolerances.

  11. Triumph of the weird – or a near-miss? Not “near”, necessarily, in geographic terms but rather in the sense of “very nearly right”. It only requires one of several key [reasonable and defensible] assumptions to be wrong for the search box to come up empty. No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

  12. @DennisW

    its not over, but its just starting

    I like your sense of sound judgement, and it appears as if you are right. This search should never have been done in the first place. Not with the scarce data base, not with the non-corroboration of that data base and not so fast and expensive. The Lobbyists of FUGRO and the like did a hell of a god job to squeeze 150m dlrs out of the ATSB and coming up with nothing.

    But because the public and the NoK were framed by questionable business practises, this marks not the end of it.

    We can just start from scratch and dont need to consider strange ideas of bizarre scenarios anymore.

    So what do we need?

    We first need one credible economic expert, who could find the “Cui Bono” and maybe analyse the profit, that was made from the downing of the MAS stock around the time of the disapearance and the consecutive shootdown of MH17

    We need some money to finance the professional background check of the yet unreported russians aboard the flight. I dont think that Blaine Gibson will be the right choice for that?

    We need to find out the names of the MAS personnel on duty that night in MAS Headquarter and send some freelancers in to question them about who might have told them to give false information to HCM ATC

    We need the judgement of professional profilers of the personality of the person, that flew the plane from IGARI to Car Nicobar. Why it would fit or not fit Mr. Shah.

    A team of forensic Psychatrists should once again dwell over Shahs life and make a proability assessment of him going rogue in such a bizarre way.

    Then we need a criminologist to look for the difference of a possible crime and an act of state terrorism.

    We need forensic technicians, who are able to prove how long a piece of wreckage was in the salt water of the SIO, (indepentdent of biofouling). I am quite sure that this analysis would be possible, but i am not sure that the result will be consistent with a crash in the SIO

    I am quite sure that this cost a bargain compared to the expenses already done, but it bears a lot of valuable answers.

  13. Any idea if De deckkers report will be made public? I’ve mentioned this before, but I would be very interested to see the details of his analysis and determine just how much (if any) stock can be made from his raw data (not reading his conclusions). Like any measurement, there is error associated and that equates to water temperature/latitude; just how much error is there, and does this analysis actually give us any information at all?

  14. Let’s say ALL low percentage alternative possibilities were to be thoroughly examined, somehow, over the next decade, including search of crevasses, and all of those possibilities also discarded. What then? How does a large aircraft vanish so completely? Is that even plausible?

    No, someone/s knows what happened. Vanishing acts have a reason.

  15. I still have a gut feel that the aircraft was damaged. BFO values are also affected by the velocity of the aircraft. If depressurized then there may have been significant drag.

  16. @TBill

    I am currently trying to work out plausible routes (and altitudes) west of Sumatra. I think the route around Indonesian airspace is quite straightforward and does by no means require a loiter. Regardless of what Indonesian officials said or whether or not their radar was turned off, it makes sense to think that MH370 did not want to pass through Indonesian airspace, otherwise it could have done so long ago.

    I hope to give a sustained argument soon.

    Btw, McMurdo comes with navigational waypoint NOBEY, so it does not have to be end of route point. If there were a group (at least 2) of hijackers, and just one wanted to make the plane disappear, all they had to do was enter “NOBEY” (hence no pilot inputs and uncontrolled dive).

  17. If MH370 was really coming down at the rate of descent that the ATSB believes, how far from the 7th arc could it possibly be? 2-3 nautical miles? I’m curious why after the high priority search box was declared a miss, they didn’t just do a straight shot along the 7th arc, all the way up to Christmas Island and back.

    What would it entail to do a full search of the 7th arc between the northern end of the search box (near broken ridge) all the way up to Christmas island?

    Wouldn’t a search width of 2-3 nautical miles along the 7th arc be likely to contain at least one piece of the aircraft? Based on the claimed rate of descent, it was likely to be breaking apart in mid-air, no? So pieces could easily have been sheering off as it crossed the 7th arc.

    Does anyone have a sense of how long it would take to do a search of just the 7th arc, given the narrow width I’m suggesting?

  18. @Nederland
    We do not know what waypoints were loaded into MH370 data base. There is an issue with AutoPilot data base size, so that why rare waypoints for MAS flights might be excluded. Of course almost every lat/long can be added as a waypoint eg; 12S94 so that is one obvious alternate option.

    Interesting question would be if anyone uploaded a custom Route#2 into the FMC before the fight.

    RE: Indonesian radar at Sabang, Mick Gilbert is suggesting that the most of the military radars would be off on the weekends. I agree with you seems like PIC would disguise the FMT from Indonesian radar even if he thought it could be off for the weekend.

    Clearly the McMurdo path from 1090E (on the home simulator) went around Indonesian air space. But maybe the earlier take-off time to Jeddah was such that a go-around was needed (whereas the home simulator case is suggested by Victor to be simulating the KLIA to Jeddah route).

    In any case we have that 8-March-2014 was (1) weekend, (2) moonless, and (3) possibly a date of political significance in MY.

  19. @Big Mac

    I think the ATSB gives the variance from 7th arc to actual position as 5 nm, that may have to do with the fact that the BTO changes slightly with assumed altitude. And then some uncertainty about when exactly the plane crashed after the 7th arc.

  20. just to share an idea:

    With the analysis not getting ahead under what should be normal ditching or high speed entries, I have though perhaps the debris we are seeing has been through some heavy machinery to break up 9M-MRO. The force of disassembly claw could have produced the scraping and unnatural damages seen on the flaperon.

  21. @MH

    Interesting videos. Presumably if the intended alleged “9/11” style mission (@Sad Jim) on 9M-MRO failed for some reason plan “B” would have been activated. Make it look like an accident. However greater effort would have been made to retain the integrity of parts than just simply a scrap job on the plane.

    The French report on the flaperon would help here. Maybe it would open up a can of worms. Too much to handle.

    Still with the “not in SIO” probability increasing an order of magnitude (~1% to ~25% @Jeff Wise) the unthinkable may have become possible.

  22. @SteveBarratt

    It seems MAS has been dumping/storing their B777 fleet so scraping the 9M-MRO would make sense as it was involved in an accident.

  23. @MH

    I understand Christoph Mueller, former CEO of MAS made the decision to retire B777 fleet after the twin disasters of 9M-MRO and 9M-MRD. Nothing to do with the reliability of the B777 which is a great aircraft. Rather a perception that need to be addressed.

    That’s the other thing with the ongoing accumulation of data. The possibility of a Boeing failure is receding though not completely evaporated. Therefore Boeing is wasting its time getting involved (I agree 100% with @DennisW on this)

    If 9M-MRO was hijacked and landed I highly doobt MAS was involved in scraping/dismantling it.

  24. It is very strange to see some people still puddling about in the swamp of dodgy data trying to make a narrative based on this official story.

    What a waste of money that would have been better directed to the families of the victims.

    The pieces of plane, allegedly indicate that it hit at high speed, what if the plane was blown apart at high altitude. These pieces, if they are actually from MH370, not scrap from a decommissioned plane of the same model from a boneyard, fell over a wide area at high speed from high altitude.

    The plane was shot down or captured and either discarded at some point or will be used for another false flag.

    Something was being tested, a laser weapon, someone or people needed to be silenced or something was on the plane that needed to be destroyed or recaptured.

  25. @Gloria

    Considering your kind of opinions are still spilled without being banned as utter disinformation nonsense, reflects IMO the impasse the search is in.

    Next time you put the UFO-abduction-scenario on the table instead of a laser-weapon?

    You keep pouring in opinions like a disrupting troll discrediting the value of this blog IMO.
    But I’m not the moderator ofcourse.

    Maybe Jeff turns out right with this topic and it’s becoming:

    A triumph of the weird..

  26. @all
    Re: Magnetic Heading
    So, a few days ago ALSB told me the magnetic tables in MH370 were probably for 2005, which appears to have been a somewhat standard industry choice for a while. So I am now running Flight Sim FS2004 with 2005 magnetic headings (apparently FS2004 had 1993 vintage Magnetic tables). So this gives me a little straighter mag path than the orig FS2004 which veered almost 4 degrees from 10N to 30S at the 95 East.

  27. @TBill

    As discussed before in length a magnetic heading would not occure after a route discontinuity or a EOR. A TRUE heading would occure.
    Is this still in dispute?

    If not, a magnetic heading would mean no EOR or route discontinuity took place.
    And this would mean there was a pilot in control in case of a magnetic heading.
    Your thoughts please.

  28. @Ge Rijn
    “Is this still in dispute?”
    Yes this is still in “dispute” (Victor agrees with me on that statement, although Victor is leaning towards believing TRUE prevails after discontinuity as per the behavior of the more accurate PMDG777 model). Recall a few threads back, Honeywell told MattM in an email that the AutoPilot system is designed for a discontinuity to use whatever heading type was already pre-selected by the pilot (there is a Mag/True button and that is most always set to Magnetic heading except in polar regions).

    Those with True paths to SIO believe either (1) the Honeywell email to MattM was incorrect, and/or (2) the PIC used an unusual choice of True Heading, for example, to go up the Malacca Straights. PaulS, for example, is now accepting the Malacca Straights radar path and he feels it is consistent with am unusual True Heading choice by the pilot, whereas most feel that MH370 was flying LNAV mode to VAMPI waypoint and N571 flight path.

  29. @Jeff Wise @Tbill

    Jeff Wise thanks. I think your action limits things in more reasonable perspectives.
    And you allready have a very wide tolerance with possible scenarios and opinions.
    Pushing your own opinions to the limit. But with arguments!

    With @Gloria this is lacking IMO. Just yelling and disruptive. No thoughtfull arguments to support her (his?) statements.
    Nothing to learn from and thus to contribute IMO.
    If she/he only argumentated her/his views with some kind of facts or evidence I would give it a second thought. But this never happened. I invite her/him to reply accordingly.


    I think this a major problem still to settle.
    It’s about ~3 degrees longitude as you suggested before. That’s about 200 miles in longitude.
    Victor states it’s TRUE magnetic heading after RD or EOR chosen by the AP/FMC.

    Every pilot’s view I read is what you say: magnetic heading is the way to go. TRUE button is only switched in polar regions.

    Then IMO there are only two options.
    Or the TRUE/NORM switch was set to TRUE before FMT or it was left to NORM what means magnetic.
    The latter would mean there was no route discontinuity for this would have changed the heading to TRUE.

    Concluding from this the flight must have been a controlled pilot flight after FMT if it continuid on a magnetic heading.
    Do you follow my thoughts?
    I think it’s so important to clear what happens after an RD/EOR without pilot input.

    IMO it’s the difference between a ghost-flight or a piloted flight after FMT.

  30. @Ge Rijn
    Yes it is controversial. ATSB recently said in their latest First Principles Review that Magnetic (curved path) is by far the more common flight path used by pilots.

    Which begs the question, why the heck did we just spend 3 years searching in an area that essentially amounts to a True Heading straight path end point? I would say one answer to that could be due to waypoint-guided straight paths, whereas any even numbered Lat/Long is an easy waypoint in the AutoPilot eg; 38S90 39S91 etc etc oodles of possible waypoints. But a True or waypoint path seems inconsistent with a ghost flight, so the logic is weak.

    I wish someone would such as Boeing or ATSB could kindly tell us how the AuotPilot works upon discontinuity.

  31. @Edit for above:
    Magnetic is more common than True heading, although waypoint LNAV is most commonly used for long haul distance flights after the flight leaves the airport space.

  32. @Ge Rijn

    “Discard an opinion as garbage.. think of it..
    The people who examined the outboard flap only said they believed it was stowed when it seperated. Nothing more. Nothing about the attitude or speed of entry. And this is only their opinion on one piece of debris.”



    “Malaysia lets private parties search for missing MH370 plane”

    Good. There are rich people who would maybe find this a good opportunity to boost their status/ego/whatever. If they can buy $100+M private jets someone might try to invest money in finding this plane.

  33. @TBill: “I wish someone would such as Boeing or ATSB could kindly tell us how the AuotPilot works upon discontinuity.”

    If you don’t believe Honeywell, why would you believe Boeing or ATSB?

    Honeywell is the manufacturer of the FMS that controls the Autopilot LNAV mode. Flight plan, RD, EOR are irrelevant in any A/P mode other than LNAV.

    By the way, normal operations use LNAV/VNAV from A/P engagement shortly after leaving the runway, not only after “leaving airport space”. How “normal” was MH370 after IGARI?

  34. @Jeff Wise

    The more I read on your blog and think about it the more I think it’s not only about solving the problem with MH370 anymore.

    It’s about finding a common enemy (the Russians to you). Simple and easy. American politics in miniture and frustrated/paranoid minds included.

    It filters through this blog as a poison pushing and trying to infiltrate the minds towards a paranoid and fear-driven mindset aside from facts and data.

    The same paranoïa mindset the American narcisistic, psychopathic president has which you chose by your law to rule and devide your country.

    This paranoïa is not going to help solve the mystery of MH370.
    Russia is not involved period for now. There is no link at all, data, evidence of any kind to support such an assumption.

    After all this time discussing every point of view and still postulate your Kachastan-scenario makes me doubt your objectives.
    You want to find the truth or only confirmation the Russians did it all?
    Narrow minded if so.

    People are people mostly the same everywhere around the world.
    Lets stay to the data and facts.

  35. @Gysbreght
    “If you don’t believe Honeywell, why would you believe Boeing or ATSB?”

    I do tend to believe Honeywell, but all we have is an informal email. The PMDG777 model is one check on Honeywell, and PMDG is apparently using True Heading after discontinuity. I get the impression those with much greater expertise than me (eg; IG, etc., folks like yourself) tend to feel the system reverts to True Heading.

    As this point I have graduated to the less-official, older PSS777 model, and it is giving me Magnetic heading after discontinuity. I believe Victor has contacted PMDG to ask about the behavior, and I have not heard if he got a response.

  36. @TBill, The only entity with any authority at all on this topic is Honeywell. The PMDG777 model is a fairly sophisticated toy, but that’s what it is–a toy. Its purpose is to entertain, not to provide a microscopically granular recreation of every 777 system.

  37. @TBill. The annual change in magnetic declination is not a lot and the shape of the path is not going to change a great deal on that account. Even if you use 10 year old magvar numbers a magnetic path still bends “a lot” by the time it goes a ways south. I think you’ll find it difficult to identify a fit (tho’ SK999, I think, found one and Dr Bobby found a Mag Track but not Mag HDG one. They are rare as hen’s teeth.

  38. @JeffW
    Did we ever get a report on your trial with Flight Sim 2004? I seem to recall you were going to take a trial flight with your relative’s set-up.

    OK. I did note that my original FS9 Mag heading did not match Victor’s 180S Magnetic path paper. So now I am content to have 2005 update, that seems to better match. I also have 2017 correction tables for FS9.

  39. Well there you have it. As soon as someone says “it wasn’t them” you know you can no longer listen to that person anymore. In truth no actor can be ruled out. If you are sure show me proof. Until then you cancel your own vote the minute you say “it wasn’t them”. And this is why no one says “we didn’t do it. “. Because we might have. One must focus now on why not what or how. All facts so far have been reduced to lies or partial truths at best. Why. That is the the only question left unexplored in the public theatre. Is this not so?

  40. @JeffWise

    I understand your approach to the probabilities. But the 1st thing any pro recovery expert would tell you is that the validity of the now-finished search can never be known because the area was way too big and no actual recovery expert would ever have put his name on it.

    It was a failure of the analytics which led to the absurdly massive search area. The situation was then made far worse by a search team who apparently didn’t know enough to laugh the proposal out of the room before they took to searching it, cashing checks from the Australian taxpayer all the while.

    Thus, to say that any large percentage of any area can be ruled out depends on granting credibility to a firm – Fugro – that set itself up to fail from day one. I don’t grant them that credibility and I don’t accept the notion that we can say that area didn’t contain the black boxes just because Fugro says they searched it, especially when the search criteria specified a resolution of 1x1x2 meters, with only sporadic use of the Phoenix SAS60 which had 10cm resolution.

    If a new search was conducted from the ground up by the right people, the analytics would include not only the official material (with a push for more access/transparency) but also the full encyclopedia of work our community of MH370 researchers has put forth over the last three years. It would result in a search area or areas that guys like Mike Kutzleb or Rob McCallum would actually sign onto.

  41. There’s no need to dehumanize “American politics” or its “psychopathic President”. They are doing just fine, thank you. There is a democracy there at work. You don’t like the results – please get over it; and go participate appropriately. Besides, this ain’t the right forum.

    In terms of Jeff trying to find a convenient enemy, he has done an excellent job laying out his hypothesis. He’s not concluding. He’s alluding, based on a lack of evidence to the contrary. That MH17 was shot down by Russia is a statement of fact at this point. Whether this was the result of merely pure evil, or pure evil combined with geopolitical calculus, is all that remains to be determined.

    Flight MH370 could absolutely have been sabotaged by the Russians. The fact that they did it with MH17 enhances this probability; as does the fact that MH370 hasn’t been found where it was supposed to be.

    Jeff’s analysis is there for all to see. I may not agree with his conclusions, but his methods are genuine, and his suspicions merit careful consideration. Trivializing them just smacks of naivete.


Comments are closed.