In the wake of last week’s reports by the Australian Transport Safety Board, several mainstream journalists have published articles urging officials to resume searching the seabed in order to find the plane’s wreckage and thereby solve the mystery. The unanimity of the swelling chorus gives the impression that all reasonable people agree.
However, MH370 is a highly technical mystery, and a proper understanding of what may and may not have happened to it is impossible without a grasp of the science behind the evidence in hand. Simply put, the data that we have now gathere collectively weighs heavily against the idea that the plane flew into the southern Indian Ocean. The Australian authorities apparently understand this evidence better than the journalists, which is why they are declining to press forward.
Since I have covered this material in depth elsewhere in this blog, here I will just present a bullet-point list of why MH370 does not now appear to have flown into the southern Indian Ocean.
1– The absence of wreckage in the ATSB search zone. Using Inmarsat data and detailed knowledge of 777 aeronautics and avionics, Australia’s Defense Science and Technology Group were able to generate a robust statistical model of where the plane might have flown, assuming that it turned south after disappearing from Malaysian primary radar. A measure of their confidence in this model is the fact that the Malaysian, Chinese and Australian governments then spent some $150 million searching this vast, deep abyss. Yet no sign of the plane was there. Remarkably, many commentators shrug off this absence of no big deal. It is a big deal. If the plane had turned south, it should have been there. Indeed, in order to come up with a scenario in which the plane turned south but then arrived outside the search area one must presumed a series of bizarre and statistically improbable turns and descents. I liken this to opening a lock without knowing the combination: physically possible, but statistically equivalent to impossible. I wrote more about this topic in the post “Further Clarity on MH370 Flight Modeling.“
2– The reboot of the SDU. During the first hour or so of flight MH370, a piece of equipment called the Satellite Data Unit, or SDU, was turned off. Then, at 18:25, it came back on and reconnected with an Inmarsat satellite. It was only because of this re-logon that investigators were able to obtain the seven “pings” that told them everything they know about the last six hours of the flight. As I wrote in my post The SDU Re-logon: A Small Detail That Tells Us So Much About the Fate of MH370, the SDU essentially cannot come back on either accidentally or as a result of some other plausible course of action by the pilot. The fact that it was turned off, then on suggests that whoever took the plane had a sophisticated knowledge of the aircraft’s electrical systems and tampered with the system that generated the signal that ultimately led investigators to assume that the plane went south. Obviously, then, this assumption needs to be interrogated.
3– Final observed turn was to the north. At 18:22, MH370 appeared for the last time as a blip on a military radar screen. Three minutes later, it transmitted a ping that allowed investigators to place it on an arc. By integrating these two pieces of information, it is possible to determine that during that interval MH370 turned to the northwest. I discuss this in more detail here: How MH370 Got Away. The fact that the plane was turning to the north fits better with a northern than a southern route.
4– Debris inconsistencies. On July 31, 2015, the first piece of MH370 debris was discovered on the French island of La Réunion. For many, this erased any doubt that the plane had ended up in the southern Indian Ocean. When French officials examined it, however, they encountered an inexplicable anomaly. The fact that every surface had been populated by barnacles indicated that the piece had drifted somehow wholly submerged. Yet when they tested it in a flotation tank, it floated quite high in the water (as seen above; this image is of an actual 777 flaperon cut to the same size). No one has suggested a natural means by which this could have happened; as I wrote in How the MH370 Flaperon Floated, the obvious explanation is that it spent months artificially tethered under the water. Later, other anomalies emerged. Chemical tests conducted on a barnacle shell from the flaperon found that it grew most of its life in water cooler than that experienced by real objects floating to Réunion. And many of the other pieces that turned up were so devoid of marine biofouling that experts said they couldn’t have been afloat for more than a few weeks.
5– Drift studies inconsistent with any single crash point. As I discussed in “Nowhere to Look for MH370″ and “Update on MH370 Drift Modeling Enigma,” an arm of the Australian government called the CSIRO has done considerable work trying to figure out how debris might have drifted from somewhere in the southern Indian Ocean to the shores of Africa and the islands of the western Indian Ocean. To make a long story short, there is no point from which debris would be expected to arrive at the spots where it was found in the correct time interval.
6– No consistent end-of-flight scenario. Frequency data from the 7th and final Inmarsat ping indicate that MH370 was in a steep an accelerating dive. Yet the only way the plane’s wreckage could have escaped detection until now is if it glided beyond the area already searched by sonar. This inconsistency has long been known, and was reiterated in the most recent CSIRO paper. It was compounded by a report issued by the Malaysian government earlier this year called the “Debris Examination Report,” as I discussed in “Reading the Secrets of MH370’s Debris.” There is also puzzlement over how the flaperon could have become physically separated from the plane.
7– Doubts about the provenance of the debris. As I’ve explained in previous posts, there are some glaring red flags in the way that most of the pieces of MH370 were collected.
These seven reasons are all predicated on evidence that has to do with MH370 itself. There is, however, an eighth reason that has to do with a separate event four and a half months later. On July 17, 2014, a missile launcher from Russia’s 53rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade shot down Malaysia Airlines flight MH17, one of only 14 sister ships to MH370. At first many assumed that the shootdown was an accident perpetrated by confused militiamen, but we now know that the operation was coordinated by the GRU (Russian military intelligence), and was subsequently the subject of an intense disinformation campaign by the GRU. As for the motive, we have no idea. Nor do we have any idea why the Russians would want to hijack MH370. But statistically, 100% of Malaysia Airlines 777-200ERs that come to grief in flight and whose cause is known have fallen victim to Russian military intelligence. If we are to let reason be our guide, that should be the first place to look in trying to solve the MH370 mystery, not the last.
@Jeff said;
“…the data points appear not {to} represent a continuous flight but rather a series
of simulations run from a common save point.”
I would forgo the alliteration – ‘series’ can be read as carrying an imputation that
the simulations were connected in some way other than time (unless that was your
meaning?).
Certainly there were a number of simulations that appear to have been run from a
common save point.
@ventus45 said;
“I noticed on an Inmarsat sheet long ago (that I can’t find now), that the Perth GES
looks at both the IOR and POR sats.”
Yes, here’s your reference;
http://mh370forum.com/docs/Honeywell_Multi-Channel_SATCOM_System.pdf
Page 1-15.
“Has anyone done an analysis”…”if the GES log was wrong, and the actual sat the AES
logged on to was the POR?”
The Inmarsat logs show no MH370 log-on to the POR during its flight phase. Given that
Alex Siew believes that log to contain incorrect information, you might ask him that
question next time you see him post.
Cheers
@Billy,
All most everyone does around MH370 these days is propose and shoot holes in theories…..which is valuable in and of itself so shoot away.
Agreed, it is a potentially complicated plan. But seriously, with everything that had to happen to make a hijacking happen, making sure everyone who needed to be was on the flight seems like the least complicated part. I will acknowledge I don’t know what I don’t know so your thoughts may be relevant or they may not be. Part of my post questioned the roles and talents of the Freescale employees. If, as I understand, they commonly traveled together on a rotation to each plant the pattern of travel could have been well established (predictable). It could be that the number 20 wasn’t critical, put perhaps a lesser known (to somebody) quantity of specific individuals was the key and they were very predictable. Perhaps the hijacking waited through multiple trips of these employees until everyone necessary was aboard. It doesn’t seem like a very high hurdle.
This is mostly knowable though isn’t it? Somebody knows if this was a common and well established pattern for them. Somebody knows if them being on this flight was predictable. Somebody also knows what talents they possessed. Someone may also know IF these talents may have been of high value to someone else. Valuable enough to take on a high stakes mission like this. The last known though will probably never be disclosed.
So think about the time frame of this. In the news at that time was that USA was listening to foreign leaders cell calls. Putin had yet to invade Ukraine, but was ramping up operations around the world. Most certainly plans to invade Ukraine were underway. Russian spy ships began showing up off the coast of the USA. Russian planes began buzzing our ships and making runs toward Alaska. All things that had not happened for decades. Clearly a shift had happened in Russia. These things are done for a reason and it is all planned out and executed by order.
Would Putin be worried about being listened too when making his plans? How about this, and more importantly, would he ALSO like to know how to listen to Western European leaders cell calls? Would not that be vital intel as you planned and implemented a very risky invasion. When you began invading Ukraine, wouldn’t you want to know what Germany’s leader was talking about? How about this, Putin is also a business man. Wouldn’t he love to be able to listen to what government and foreign companies were saying about various business interests? How valuable would that be?
IF, the way the NSA listened to those calls was through a back door in the hardware, and IF it is probable one or more of these Freescale employees knew that back door THEN we have a very, very good motive to kidnap them. Why such a complicated plan? Simple, you don’t want your enemy to know what you just did. The NSA (or whoever ran this) would notice if one or more of their undercover agents went missing, but if they went missing and probably died in a plane crash the red flags wouldn’t be raised and nobody would be the wiser….hopefully. Think Russia cares about killing 300 innocent people? You can answer that with the news too….look at Ukraine, Syria and elsewhere.
YES, it is a risky, high stakes, somewhat complicated plan….but so was invading Ukraine. Russian leadership does not shy away from risky ventures.
As to MH17, not really so complicated. Shoot down a plane at X altitude at X speed and the debris field somewhat predictable. In the Ukraine battle, Russia had overwhelming ability to take control of the ground were it landed……and did for the most part if I recall correctly.
@buyerninety
Thanks for the ref.
It is not the same document that I saw before, but it has the same information.
@All
Note Table 1-3 on Page 1-15 of http://mh370forum.com/docs/Honeywell_Multi-Channel_SATCOM_System.pdf
The salient details are:
GES ID 205 = Perth POR terminal
GES ID 305 = Perth IOR terminal
@buyerninety
I haven’t seen anything from Alex Siew in a long time. He was on Reddit wasn’t he ?
All the dis-info roads leading nowhere the whole scenario says screams covered up it is more then ever Mr Wise evident that there are Too many twists turns that say only human intervention involvement
@Karl Lukas, The fog of misinformation is wholly in keeping with “deza” SOP also seen in the case of MH17.
hi blake – cool. yeah that’s a better argument for it but seems like there’s just too many ‘IF’s and things out of their control still IMO. Maybe I just need a higher sense of certainty. thx for explaining your reasoning tho
Mr Wise I would agree.Also might I add that what has always been a red flag and possibly goes to your theory Is the official paper trail regarding info on MH370 from our own Govt.That, any info regarding MH370 is held and deemed too sensitive to National Security to release, which speaks volumes in itself.So in theory There Are individuals that do know what actually happened ie the DNI or POTUS but that info, cannot and probably will not, ever be shared.So, the truth is there,the reality of what happened theoretically is known, but perhaps it is so important to National security,that it Must be kept hidden
@Karl Lucas
If the Malaysian Airforce shot at the plane before 18:22 but failed to bring it down only damaging it without knowing for sure what their results were till the first sat-call at 18:40 (which was proof it was still in the air, maybe the call was even only made to verify this as was the 23:13 call). And they decided to keep all secret afterwards for they knew they shot their own airliner but failed to bring it down (in time).
Keeping things secret till the point there was no turning back without serious political consequenses and embarrassment.
@Jeff Wise
I got a second warning from Firefox that your blog-site is not safely secured
(from Holland).
That’s why double posts from me can appear for I ignore the message and post again.
Maybe something to look at.
@Billy
There is no certainty to any of this. Everyone is speculating albeit based on evidence of this or that. Much of that evidence is based on one-off never done before analysis. There is a lot of IF’s in every model of what happened. Here’s the first and biggest, IF the plane went south! Everyone believes they know it went south, but this too really is a unknown. It is assumed it went south based on conclusions people have drawn, non of which are certain.
@ Jeff
Here’s a nice article that discusses the implications of cyber ops.
It has some great links.
http://www.newsweek.com/was-uss-john-s-mccain-sabotaged-hackers-654597
Having read the summary, I don’t think it’s suitable for non-mathematicians, unfortunately.
Could you maybe express in a few lines what your personal opinion is on my earlier posting?
You say:
So you say that it’s conceivable, but very improbable.
And the reason you cite for this improbability is that “the plane would have to be ascending or descending at each ping”.
Yet this very behaviour (manoeuvres + variations in heading and v/h speed) is perfectly compatible – in fact even absolutely required – for a radar-evasive, manually-piloted flight to the north.
Accordingly, this runs counter to your argument.
The way I see it, the boys over at inmarsat CAN’T be wrong. The’re livelihood depends on it, so they’re gonna stick to their guns. As will a lot of other people. If we,re relying on facts,well the facts say 9m-mro is not in the SIO because it’s been searched.
Spoofing/Hacking….
Could the boffins comment on this, as I’m totally perturbed on the spate of collisions involving US warships. It’s inconceivable to me that this could be occurring right now. Three instances that I’m aware of and all baffling. From “The Australain”.
The collision on Monday between a Liberian tanker and a US warship, the latest in a series of incidents in Asia, has provoked questions about possible Chinese involvement.
A former Royal Navy officer said that the movements of the Guang Zhou Wan, a Chinese vessel, could be significant in explaining the fatal crash off Singapore that left at least one sailor dead. A further nine are missing.
Tracking data indicates that the tanker that collided with USS John S. McCain was followed by the Chinese vessel, which appeared to steer out of the way before the incident.
“You get the impression that fleet forces command are going to be looking at wider potential problems — hacking, crew training, how they are navigating, validating of ship-watch standards,” said the former British officer, who declined to be identified.
The US navy did not rule out sabotage, including cyberattacks, when it launched an investigation into the second fatal crash this year involving a Pacific fleet ship. However, it said there was no specific evidence of foul play.
The former commander said that there was a possibility that the steering on the US ship or the tanker could have been hacked and that the Chinese vessel may have played a part in this.
A video published by Vessel Finder, a website that tracks commercial ships, appears to show the moment of the collision. The Chinese vessel can be seen moving clear just before the Liberian-flagged Alnic MC tanker makes an almost 90-degree turn to the left. It is not possible to see the position of the US destroyer because warships do not show up on the websites that track commercial vessels.
The movement of Alnic MC could be interpreted in different ways. It was possible the tanker was driven off course because it struck the US ship; that it steered off course to avoid the ship; or that the move was more deliberate to hit the ship, the officer said.
“If you watch the Chinese vessel’s track from the start, she is trailing Alnic MC all the way in, right on tail and then even before Alnic MC makes the turn, the Chinese ship is off to starboard and moves off to the north and is well clear by the time the incident takes place.”
A second former senior military officer had a different view after seeing the footage. He said he thought it more likely that “the US warship made a mess of crossing a shipping lane. It would have taken immense co-ordination to arrange a collision.”
The Times
Reuters: Cyber threats prompt return of radio for ship navigation:
” … Last year, South Korea said hundreds of fishing vessels had returned early to port after their GPS signals were jammed by hackers from North Korea, which denied responsibility.
In June this year, a ship in the Black Sea reported to the U.S. Coast Guard Navigation Center that its GPS system had been disrupted and that over 20 ships in the same area had been similarly affected.”
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-shipping-gps-cyber-idUSKBN1AN0HT
@Tex
“The way I see it, the boys over at inmarsat CAN’T be wrong. The’re livelihood depends on it…”
For a brief few seconds I though you were being realistic. The overwhelming preponderance of the evidence suggest the aircraft is in the SIO, both the Inmarsat satellite data and the debris findings and drift studies tell us this. Apparently the ATSB made a mistake in selecting the limited SIO area to be searched at least in part due to their questionable assumption of a ghost flight.
If you want to say, as @Drake says, we do not have 100% certainty of this, that is correct. It’s probably only 99+% certainty, so there is a chance of an alternate truth. But a crash location other than SIO is a very small chance.
@Jeff Wise:
I’ll venture a wild guess and say you’ll find this interesting:
http://mh370.radiantphysics.com/2017/08/15/ocean-infinity-ceo-discusses-mh370-search-offer/#comment-6133
Malaysian diplomat Zahid Raza, who had helped Blaine Gibson transfer MH370 debris from Madagascar to Malaysia, was murdered today in Mada.
@Peter Norton, Yes, interesting… I would say, though, having been to Antananarivo, that it’s a fairly dangerous place, and it’s not unlikely that someone could get shot for non-nefarious reasons. Also, I think that this diplomat’s role in the transfer of debris seems somewhat marginal.
@Jeff Wise: Well, you once suspected Blaine Gibson of planting debis:
http://jeffwise.net/2016/12/10/is-blaine-alan-gibson-planting-mh370-debris/
If you are right and Blaine is a conspirator in the debris-planting-conspiracy you allude to in point #4 of your article, then a co-conspirator has just been murdered.
@Peter Norton, I see what you’re getting at, but I don’t really think it’s the case that the murdered Malaysian would necessarily be a co-conspirator. Whether or not Gibson was part of a nefarious plot, the diplomat simply received what was handed over to him. His complicity would not be required.
It’s not even necessary that Raza participated in a nefarious (debris planting) plot with Gibson. Maybe he just “received what was handed over to him”, yet knew about the debris plot and thus was a loose end, which needed to be cut.
I have no opinion on it, I’m just saying that it fits perfectly into your article about Gibson:
http://jeffwise.net/2016/12/10/is-blaine-alan-gibson-planting-mh370-debris/
… regardless of whether Raza just knew about the plot or participated in it.
Jeff: Why do you continue to promote and spread such libelous crap about Blaine? It is a distraction, both dangerous and hurtful. Have you no decency at all? Surely you must know it is all BS. Is someone paying you to discredit and defame him? Seriously, I want to know. Why are you doing it? Is it just to fabricate click bait, or is someone paying you to undermine the effort to find MH370?
Everyone else: I’ve gotten to know Blaine quite well over the last 2 years and consider him a good friend. We spent the last two days together catching up on 370 issues and our total eclipse experiences. I want everyone here to know, Blaine is the real deal. He is a little eccentric, which makes him an easy target for trolls here and elsewhere, but he is totally genuine and honest. All of the debris he has found is real. Nothing has been planted. He has a good heart and is dedicated to helping the NOK find the FDR and CVR. Please don’t help Jeff spread his Fake News any further. It is causing a lot of pain and distress for the many people that know Blaine. Think about it.
@ALSM @Jeff Wise
I think it’s acceptable that anyone of any importance in the ‘MH370-sage’ gets questioned and investigated fiercefully.
Blaine Gibson with his extra-ordinarry finds and Russian background not excluded ofcourse especially with Jeff’s Russian views that often show old-time Russian paranoia/indoctrination in the view of people (like me) outside the U.S.A.
Blaine Gibson’s finds were extra-ordinairy there’s no question about that. He could expect those finds and circumstances would be questioned. I did also. They seemed to good to be true.
But we all know he did a relentless effort all over the world in his searching over the past years. And not a bit of evidence has been brought forward that can accuse him of faul play.
it all boils down to what you believe happened, I believe it was a chaotic event with many unknown variables so none of your 7 reasons are valid in that case
1. ATSB failed with their assumptions (easy)
2. might just be a mistake
3. at that point it was a logical path if you wanted to go around Sumatra
4. who knows, might be anything
5. there are lot of drift studies consistent with northern part of SIO
6. well, it’s a mystery ain’t it
7. maybe, but not a single proof of planting
@alsm, Let’s talk about this. You say that Blaine is “totally genuine and honest.” Yet he has made several claims about the debris that frankly I think the average person would find hard to swallow. Let’s look at just one. An article about him in the Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/05/mh370-search-families-of-passengers-to-comb-madagascar-beaches-for-clues?CMP=share_btn_tw) included this:
These are both extraordinary claims, but the one about the girl fanning the fire especially so. Can Blaine shed some further light on this tale? Can he tell us which piece was involved, what village the girl was in when he spotted her, perhaps even what her name was?
As a former lawyer he’s definitely familiar with the concept of evidence.
I would also like to ask about Blaine’s recent travels to visit with members of the Independent Group. From Twitter, I know that he’s also flown to visit Victor Iannello in Virginia and Don Thompson in Ireland. This is interesting! I asked Don what purpose lay behind Blaine’s “listening tour” but he declined to comment. Perhaps you could shed some light?
Jeff: You did not answer the main questions. Instead, you tried to divert attention to irrelevant details about 9 year olds…an all too familiar tactic these days. No one cares if kids were playing with some of the debris. It is a side bar at best; a normal thing for kids to do.
What we want to know is: Why are you trying to discredit Blaine? Why are you making up pure crap about him? Is someone paying you to do this, or are you just making up these ridiculous troll stories to attract attention to yourself and this blog?
Blaine stopped by to meet Don and Victor (for the first time) and to share information about MH370. He was here in Boulder for the Eclipse and to meet with me for a couple of days (second time here) to share MH370 information and total eclipse experiences. What else would you expect from likeminded people who share an interest in helping to find the 370 crash site? Your inference that there was anything nefarious or unusual about that is just another crude attempt by you to sew doubt and stir controversy where there is none. I’m waiting for an apology.
I’m with these guys:
Ge Rijn: “…not a bit of evidence has been brought forward that can accuse him of faul [sic] play.”
StevanG: “…not a single proof of planting…”
I would like to see others here step up and help set the record straight, like me, Ge Rijn and StevanG. No one has planted any debris. There are no Russian spies in the IG. Blaine is not a Russian spy. It’s time for Jeff to explain his true motives for his baseless defamatory assertions about other people.
@alsm, You were wrong about the plane being in the SIO search area. Why should anyone listen to you about anything?
Jeff:
More diversion. Please answer the questions. Why are you attacking Blaine? You do not have a single shread of evidence to support your claims of planted debris or Russian connections.
PS: It IS in the SIO, close to the 7th arc. You have no evidence to the contrary.
@alsm, You wrote, “you do not have a single shred of evidence…” The piece to which you are commenting offers seven pieces of evidence, all of which you have failed to acknowledge or deal with. The barnacle distribution on the flaperon, in particular, is a smoking gun that lays the question of planting to rest. But rather deal with the evidence, you have long promoted an idea which is patently self-contradictory: that the plane was in a steep vertical dive at the time of the seventh ping arc, yet somehow managed to find its maneuver far from the ping-arc (else it would have been found in the seabed search area.)
It seems to me that for a long time now you, and the rest of the IG, have switched from trying to figure out what happened to the plane to fighting a rearguard action to defend your untenable assertions.
I find it very interesting that you’re now defending Blaine Alan Gibson, not by addressing the questions I’ve raised, but by accusing me of “attacking” him. To be clear, I’ve never attacked him. I’ve simply pointed out implausibilities in his testimony. Rather than respond productively to the questions I have raised, he has accused me of waging a vendetta against him. He has even claimed that he has received death threats (which, again, I find implausible, and which he has provided no evidence of.) I find it curious that you are now parroting his line.
And by the way, as far as I can recall, I have never publicly accused the IG of harboring Russian spies. Is that something you came up with yourself?
Jeff:
More diversion. No answers.
You have been attacking Blaine relentlessly since “No Step”. It comes across as an obsession with you. And you have accused him and at least one IG member of being a Russian spy. Nonsense. Moreover, some of your followers, feasting on your pot of poisonous disinformation have made threats. Not a joke.
It is clear you are unwilling to explain why you are trying to discredit Blaine. I’ll leave it to others to decide what is driving your disinformation campaign. Regardless of why you are doing it, know that it is causing a great deal of concern and pain to many people. None of it is true. Blaine and all the other private individuals that have turned in debris have made an enormous contribution to the search for MH370. Your attempts to discredit these people for some unknown commercial reason are despicable.
Re your “seven pieces of evidence”: What a joke. The errors in that piece are so numerous that it is a waste of time to address them again. All of them have been discussed and shown to be flawed. The plane did fly south to the 7th arc. Based on the drift analysis, it is probably slightly north-east of the IG’s original estimate. It will be found there eventually.
@airlandseaman: Who did I accuse of being a Russian spy?
Jeff disputes that one piece of debris was found by a young girl using it to fan the flames of a wood burning stove. Well, here is a photo of her with Blaine at the location where she found it. Her name is Lendra. I held the same piece of debris in my hands last year.
https://goo.gl/BsXt5e
Why so angry though? Isn’t everyone just looking for the truth?
that photo proves nothing, except that the girl was maybe given the piece for the photo.
@Jeff Wise:
explanation why Raza’s death is suspicious:
http://mh370.radiantphysics.com/2017/08/26/slain-diplomat-was-helping-get-mh370-debris-to-malaysia
MH:
Re “that photo proves nothing, except that the girl was maybe given the piece for the photo.”
OMG! So, why do you question the story? Why would anyone make up the story? Several people witnessed the event. This kind of automatic skepticism of all things connected to Blaine is further evidence of how much damage JW has caused in the search effort. Ridiculous. I know a lot more about this piece, but I’m not about to expose more names and places given the trolls here.
Malaysia was happy to receive this piece and analyse it. It is #17 in “SUMMARY OF POSSIBLE MH370 DEBRIS RECOVERED” 2017-04-30
“Identification of Debris (Items 16 and 17 in the “Summary of Possible MH370 Debris Recovered”) recovered from Antsiraka Beach, Madagascar on 12 June 2016
Introduction
Items 16 and 17 were found on 12 June 2016 in Antsiraka Beach, Madagascar. These items were taken to Air Accident Investigation Board (AAIB) Malaysia office in Putrajaya, Federal Territory, Malaysia and stored in the quarantine room before they were removed and brought to Science & Technology Research Institute for Defence (STRIDE) for detailed examination.”
“The MH370 Safety Investigation Team was assisted by the MAB (Malaysia Airlines Berhad) Sdn Bhd, Technical Services Engineer in the part identification process.”
There were no identifying marks on #17, so officially, it is an unidentified piece. But it was recovered on the same beach on the same day, near #16, which was identified as “almost certain” coming from 9M-MRO.
@ALSM said:
“What else would you expect from likeminded people who share an interest in helping to find the 370 crash site?”
To us ‘mere mortals’ (who don’t jet around the world on a whim) the behaviour shown does seem a little bit odd …
One might expect those people to communicate via email and social media, and even to use that good ol’ fashioned thing called the ‘telephone’ if they wanted to have a conversation. The new-fangled Skype (and similar) IP telephony is very cheap, so they tell me.
One wouldn’t expect those people to pay to fly a goodly distance across the Atlantic for a cup of tea and a chat when the phone would serve the same purpose. The USA to Ireland (return) trip – what did that conversation cost? What benefit was there over the telephone? Were there other reasons? Did you also have a photograph taken with Blaine?
“No one has planted any debris.”
That’s either an appeal to false authority and/or simply your own off-the-cuff sweeping opinion without any evidence to back it up. How can you know that for sure? Can you personally vouch for everyone in the entire world? You’ve asked Jeff where his evidence is, where’s *your* ‘evidence’ for that statement? Don’t think I’m defending Jeff here, I’m still waiting for him to reply to a statement I challenged him about several days ago. You simply have no basis for your statements.
Blaine may be just what he claims to be (and I hope he is) but whichever way you look at it, he was either very lucky in finding what he did (and repeatedly lucky, on each occasion he went, it seems … weren’t there any failed trips where he found nothing? One *would* expect that) or there must be so many pieces of the aircraft on the beaches over there that he couldn’t have possibly failed to find a piece even if he went out to search on a dark moonless night wearing sunglasses.
In that situation (and given all of the other ‘coincidences’ connected with MH370) you have to accept there will be questions about that repeated ‘luck’, and rightly so.
If Blaine *was* involved in planting (or if pieces were simply ‘planted’ for Blaine to find, another matter entirely) what ‘evidence’ would you expect there to be of that? What ‘evidence’ would even be possible?
Perhaps the drift times and/or the barnacles growth patterns wouldn’t match, for example?
Or would you expect someone to file a very neat, explanatory story with a news agency somewhere, explaining how the planting was organised and put into effect, together with dates and times and the names of everyone involved? Is that the evidence you’re asking Jeff for?
Remember that this whole saga is shrouded in dodgy, vague statements and even very innocent, everyday data being inexplicably ‘sealed’ (ie. classified, hidden) and involves a government with a less than wholesome reputation for truth, honesty and human rights/democracy. One that removes the ‘licence’ to operate of any media outlet that is critical of it. Other governments have also been less than forthcoming in their transparency once they’ve become involved – even the normally loud French went very quiet after they’d analysed the flaperon. Yet you expect (demand?) ‘evidence’ to be provided to you as if it was a simple Newtonian laboratory experiment?
In such an environment, all of the major (and quite a lot of the minor) players in this saga who are quoted publicly in the media need to have their statements and actions examined and questioned closely, especially if they are very strident in proclaiming (or defending) one particular viewpoint or scenario.
Yes, that includes Jeff. But it also includes many others, including the IG group, the government (and private) agencies, and journalists in the mainstream media – anyone who has a position due to ‘authority’ of some sort, or has a platform that is publicly visible and whose statements are quoted and taken notice of by those who know no better.
In your position of visibility, might that not also include you?
@PS9, Well put. BTW I didn’t realize you were waiting for me to respond to something.
Alsm- I question everything especially anything you put out there. I also suspicious of the turn back scenario – data, radar, etc. I lean of it never happening.
Look at everything from other angles to find out more
@ALSM
I think if you re-read Jeff’s paragraph re Blaine Gibson’s visit to IG members,
there wasn’t any inference advanced that there was anything nefarious or unusual
about that – Jeff actually just enquired about it, and we do thank you for the
brief outline of the activities & reasons for the visit.
@Ventus45
Yes, on Reddit (which I’m not on). Possibly contactable via the link on this webpage;
https://www.reddit.com/user/AlexSiew
@Jeff Wise: There are death threats (see: http://j.mp/2wDcLJ9 ) against Gibson for searching MH370 debris and the person who would have transferred this debris (Mr. Raza) was assassinated and none of that seems suspicious to you and you don’t see any connection ?
@Peter Norton
Interestingly essentially zero coverage of Mr Raza’s death in mainstream media. Seemed like swell organised hit rather than petty crime gone wrong.
Maybe he became aware of the ‘true nature’ of the provenance of the 9M-MRO debris and asked for too much hush money. Purely speculative.
Here are details of the event from Garda security alert.
https://www.garda.com/fr/crisis24/alertes-de-securite/70381
No other security alert on the other security alert sites and no media coverage found.
More details here (sorry you need to google translate) describing the oddness of the case ie a contract.
http://www.seneweb.com/news/Afrique/madagascar-le-consul-de-la-malaisie-tue-_n_225832.html
Is this another coincidence?
With his luck of finding debris wonder if BG even attempted a trip down the WA shoreline? And if not why not ?
@MH
If debris was to be found on the WA coastline then that would clearly indicate MH370 ended in the SIO either around the location already searched or newly proposed.
@Cargo Handler
it ended up in the northern part of the SIO, debris from that part of the 7th arc doesn’t travel to WA coast
@stevenG @cargoHandler
Or it didn’t crash anywhere near the SIO
@StevenG @MH
Precisely. Its re-assuring to know some people can think independently and do not blindly follow whatever the Malaysian government decrees down the wasted rabbit hole of the deep SIO.
@Peter Norton
Other ‘marinetraffic dot com’ maps from Mike Chillit’s twitter, such as this;
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DIV1rBwUwAAYZ2Y.jpg
suggest that the cyan is the representation of the locations of vessels (most likely
fishing ships) which have loitered in that area over a period of time.
I’d hazard a guess that the red areas are areas that the map owner has set in his
‘marinetraffic map options’ as locations which will either automatically trigger
notifications if any vessel transits into those areas, -or- are areas which have been visited within the timeframe by (map owner) previously designated
particular vessels, (vessels which are able to be recognized by their
particular AIS vessel ID). In either case, the red areas appear to be shown on
the map only because the marinetraffic map owner has selected such an option,
and I would suggest the marking of the red areas is a separate and non-relevant
matter to the locational history of the (cyan) fishing ships.
(Unfortunately, ‘marinetraffic dot com’ appears to have no centralized FAQ about
their options.)
Cheers