Experts from all over the world have converged in Perth, Australia, to meet Seabed Constructor, the exploration vessel tasked with finding the wreckage of MH370, after its first stint in the search area. Technical experts and government officials are having meetings and dinners, touring the ship, and doing photo ops. Everything glitters and spirits are high.
Lost in this excited hubub is the fact that the latest search effort has already invalidated the expert analysis that got it launched in the first place.
In a 2016 document entitled “MH370–First Principles Review,” the ATSB explained that, given the absence of wreckage in the orginal 120,000 sq km search, MH370 most likely wound up somewhere near the 7th arc between 33 degrees and 36 degrees south. A subsequent document by the CSIRO entitled “The search for MH370 and ocean surface drift–Part III” narrowed the target area considerably. “We think it is possible to identify a most-likely location of the aircraft, with unprecedented precision and certainty,” it stated. “This location is 35.6°S, 92.8°E. Other nearby (within about 50km essentially parallel to the 7th arc) locations east of the 7th arc are also certainly possible, as are (with lower likelihood) a range of locations on the western side of the 7th arc, near 34.7°S 92.6°E and 35.3°S 91.8°E.”
The wording is important, because as the original search area was winding down, Australia, China and Malaysia said that it would only be extended if “credible new information” came to light. The CSIRO’s language sounded like an attempt to make the case that this condition had been met. And indeed, the three specified points were all included the “Primary Search Area” that Seabed Constructor recently focused its efforts on.
However, that area has now been searched. And once again, the plane was not where it was supposed to be. The CSIRO’s “unprecedented precision and certainty” was a mirage.
How is that, time and time again, officials heading up the search for MH370 exude great confidence and then come up empty handed? How can we account for four years of relentless failure?
The answer, it seems to me, is quite simple. Investigators have resolutely failed to grapple with the single most salient clue: The fact that the Satellite Data Unit (SDU) was rebooted. This electronic component is the part of the 777’s sat com system that generated the Inmarsat data that has been the basis of the entire search. There is no known way that it could accidentally turn off and back on again.
If one has no idea how the SDU turned on, then one can have no confidence in the integrity of the data that it generated.
The ATSB has never publicly expressed a theory about what could have caused the reboot, except to say that most likely the power had been turned off and back on again. There was always the possibility that, behind the scenes, they had figured out a way that this could plausibly happen other than being deliberately tampered with.
Just today, however, I received confirmation that the ATSB is in fact befuddled. Mike Exner is a stalwart of the Independent Group who is currently visiting Perth, where he has had dinner with employees of Ocean Infinity and Fugro, as well as members of the ATSB and the DSTG. In response to my assertion that investigators “had never stopped to ask how on earth the SDU… came to be turned back on,” Exner tweeted that “Everyone is well aware of the question. We have all asked ourselves and others how it happened.” However, Mike writes, “no one has the answer.”
One might forgive the expenditure of vast wealth and manpower based on data of dubious provenance if there was other evidence that independently supported it. But the contrary is the case: debris collected in the western Indian Ocean shows no signs of having drifted from the search zone, as I wrote in my previous post. It is increasingly clear that the plane did not go where the Inmarsat data suggests it did. The fishiness of the Inmarsat data, and the fishiness of the SDU reboot that created it, are all of a piece.
Soon, Seabed Constructor will return to the search area; some weeks or months after that, it will leave again, empty handed. When it does, people all over the world will ask: How could they have failed yet again?
The answer will be simple. It is this: Investigators never established the provenance of the evidence that they based their search on.
I mean that your critics use the Russia angle as an excuse to denounce the rest of your arguments. They know full well a lot of people will find the Russian theory difficult to absorb so take advantage of that. Whilst I wouldn’t want you to abandon your thinking on the Russia theory I would like to see more work in regards to the debris & ISAT Data. These are the areas that your critics know are their weaknesses.
@Jeff Wise
“You’re presuming that a suicidal pilot decides to make his plane go electronically dark, then fly for six hours at cruise speed out into the middle of the remotest, four-mile deep ocean. Why would it ever occur to him that anyone would ever have the slightest clue where to look for it? That being the case, how could it possibly matter whether the seabed in this area was smooth or rugged?” (J.W. 28 Feb 2018)
“The question isn’t just why JORN didn’t detect MH370, but why a pilot who supposedly wishes to disappear forever would fly into what may or may not have been the JORN coverage area.” (J.W. 03 Mar 2018)
Jeff, you’re arguing both sides of the same issue & making my point for me. I believe the Pilot’s plan was purposefully double redundant. He was hoping to crash the plane in the SIO completely undetected, but in the event it was somehow spotted or tracked, then he would ensure the MH370 wreckage along with the CVR/FDR evidence would be as difficult as possible to locate & recover by crashing it precisely at Broken Ridge.
@ Scott O. and others
Thanks again.
So I learned a new thing (to me), namely how long a human being can survive in extreme cold. I wouldn’t have thought that possible. So to sum this up, the idea here is, the perp kills all people who don’t have access to pressurised oxygen by depressurising for ca. 15 minutes. During this time, the perp themselves will have to endure temps of ca. minus 60 Fahrenheit, which is low (duh), but survivable especially, I guess, if you don’t plan on living/needing all your body parts for longer than another seven or so hours. It sounds a little crazy but I get the point. Again, sorry if this derailed the conversation.
@ Michael John
You write “There is nothing factual about the disappearance of Mh370. Everything so far is pure speculation. We have debris in the Indian Ocean. But no proof how it got there. We have the ISAT Data But no proof how it came to exist. We have the radar reports in the Malacca Strait that may or may not have been Mh370. The problem is that so much time & money has been spent on the current ISAT theory that nobody wants to accept the possibility that the concept could be flawed.”
This is the best summary of the MH370 situation I have read in a while.
@Joe Nemo, I can’t tell if you’re trolling me or if you think that actually makes sense.
@Micheal John, Thanks, that clarification makes a lot of sense. As far as the debris goes, I don’t know what else I can do; I’ve followed multiple lines of research, all of which have ended up being inconsistent with drift from the eastern SIO, and in response to which my critics have simply stayed mum. The ISAT data, too, has been chewed over endlessly; I feel like all we can do at this point is to go back to the CSIRO report “The search for MH370 and ocean surface drift – Part II,” which states:
The same idea was expressed in somewhat different form in “MH370 – First Principles Review”:
In other words, Australian officials have consistently and emphatically insisted that there is no analytical justification based on the evidence in hand for looking anywhere beyond the first and second seabed searches.
I would think that this would give anyone pause.
@Joe Nemo
“Have a look at the Germanwings Flight 9525 crash site in the French Alps and tell me again you can’t completely obliterate an aircraft.”
It crashed in mountain and caught fire, a bit different situation than crashing into the ocean.
Look for example at AF447 crash, there was a lot of big debris and somewhat higher entry speed wouldn’t make much difference.
The pilot that wanted to hide the plane forever wouldn’t overfly malaysian mainland, there was no way he could be sure that thai and malaysian radar operators wouldn’t notice anyone.
He turned off transponders only to get temporary “invisibility”.
@Havelock
Thanks.
@Jeff
We are indeed at an impasse. We are indeed flogging a long dead horse. I’m intrigued why Australia has been reluctant to be involved in the 2nd search. Is it money? Or so they have some other doubts? In regards to the Flaperon. What really confuses me is that we have had a report from every single but if debris found 61st the French report into the Flaperon hasn’t been made public. Now this is baffling because we have had experts pouring over the pictures. We have had experts give an opinion over seperation, trailing edge damage & bio fouling. So what else could the French report contain that we don’t already know or suspect? My money is what may be inside the Flaperon. My theory is that those gouged or slashes occured at time of separation & anything that is inside the Flaperon may have been protected from external elements & may be better preserved. Could the Flaperon contain fragments from a turbine or fuselage?
What really confuses me is that we have had a report from every single but if debris found 61st the French report into the Flaperon hasn’t been made public.
What that meant to say is:
What really confuses me is that we have had expert analysis & a following report into every single piece of found debris to date. But the Flaperon is still shrouded in mystery.
@Michael John, Two big missing things about the flaperon:
1) The “entre deux eaux” issue. No one can reconcile the float test with the Lepas distribution. CSIRO could easily have explored this issue–they had multiple replicas rigged with instrumentation drifting around in the ocean–and chose to ignore it.
2) Mechanical failure analysis. This is a particularly glaring omission in my book. All sorts of fairy tales have been spun by people purporting to know from looking at photographs how the flaperon sustained its damage and became attached; notably, Larry Vance says it definitely came off during a low-angle ditching and Mike Exner says it definitely came off due to flutter. The discussion that took place on this blog prudently reached no such firm conclusion but interesting questions were raised as to whether there was any simple impact model that could create the observed breakage pattern. I can’t believe that the French wouldn’t carry out this analysis, and find it very interesting that for all the information that has been leaked out from the French investigation, there hasn’t been a whisper about this.
I’m struggling with the flutter. Are we assuming that a single unique event occured that caused this Flaperon to become susceptible to such extreme flutter it would break away? I’m assuming that if both Flaperon were susceptible to the same flutter extremities then we should expect to have seen 2 Flaperon washing ashore?
I’m also looking for examples of how Flutter would have occured in past plane crashes. I have found no evidence of this occurring. Nor have I seen evidence of trailing edge damage akin to that from the Mh370 Flaperon.
Thus my challenge to the IG is to produce an example of this Flutter theory. Whether they produce a model based on physical or computerized tests or even better to come up with examples from past aircraft crashes.
I would also like to see evidence of damage caused to the Flaps on ditching.
I’m sure by comparing the 2 instances we should be able to get a better idea of which was likely to be true in regards to Mh370.
1 thing I have been looking for is examples of landing gear failure. With Flaps at full deployment. I want to examine the wear caused to the Flaps by being dragged along the runway. This may have a similar outcome to a flap being dragged along the oceans surface. I’m still looking for examples.
@Jeff, I guess my statement was more rhetorical, as I agree entirely in re avoiding JORN. It seems people attribute vast knowledge to Shah (Broken Ridge as the ideal hiding place) but then acceptable ignorance (how could he know about JORN and its coverage area).
@Michael John, you don’t need to be a fan of “the whole Russia thing” to at least entertain the possibility that there are peculiarities. From MH370’s Russian and Ukraine nationals about whom we still know very little to MH17 to the questions from 2010 that swirl around the crash of the Poland president’s plane and the to this day refusal of Russia to return crash debris or documentation to, of course, the Gerasimov Doctrine, which is essentially a state-level anarchist’s handbook (and which seems to have been employed in the American presidential elections), there are enough Kremlin tentacles touching seemingly disparate acts to make any investigator wonder.
@CosmicAcademy, to that end and to your comment up thread about “in the orbit of the old Soviet empire,” some days the empire–or at least hopes for its return–do not seem that old.
@ScottO
As I mentioned to Jeff in a private Email. I’m not entirely doubting the fact that Russia could be involved in the planes disappearance I’m sceptical about it being flown there.
I would argue that Russia would more than likely dump the plane in a country like Somalia. Which ironically is close to the 7th ARC. Deniability is the key word here. Also if you want to explore the possibility of debris planting it isn’t a stretch from Somalia to where they have been located. How did the planted debris get there? Any Russian aircraft or ship loitering in the Indian Ocean would cause suspicion.
@Havelock
Bottom line re: depressuring I do not expect the cabin to stay below freezing very long, but it might be cold. I don’t know how long the cabin could hold temperature with the outside cold.
I do not think we have any commercial flight data. I have pointed out previously that apparently cabin temp is not monitored by ACARS or data recorder, so for example Helios incident the is no knowledge of cabin temperature. I feel for the future ACARS needs to measure key life parameters, temp, pressure, and other things like integrity of data recorders, ELT, outflow valve setting, and so on, and alarm if those parameters are out of bounds. ACARS would also alarm if transponder is turned off, and ACARS cannot be switched off without alarm being sent/recorded.
Could the flaperon have remained attached to another part of the wing during its time in the sea and the extra part broke free later ?
This might explain the pattern of the fouling.
@Michael John, Agreed that the Russians tend to use deniability wherever possible–the quasi-governmental hacker groups Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear, the irregulars in Crimea, those operating the BUK in Ukraine, and more recently the mercenaries in Syria, 300 of which were killed by U.S. forces–all likely Kremlin operators in disguise.
But landing a plane in Somalia, for example, would seem to me to give up deniability. Somalia is a failed state of pirates and warlords. Surely they could not manage a hijacking and diversion on their own (a jet aircraft being very different than a ship at sea) and I imagine the plane’s constituent pieces would be far more valuable to locals breaking it up and using it for scrap resulting in many more pieces of it being found than we have. That wouldn’t happen in a hanger in Kazakhstan. Finally, I go back to the World War II British Operation Mincemeat, where intelligence officials planted debris–in the form of a body carrying documents–to convince the Nazis that the invasion of Sicily was actually happening via Greece. They did so with a submarine off the coast of Spain. I don’t see why the Russians couldn’t have done the same with MH370 debris.
Finally, I’d actually question if a place like Somalia wouldn’t have a more significant presence of watchful American military given operations we know of in the Horn of Africa and Yemen, pirate patrols in the Gulf of Aden and its now decades of operation in the Persian Gulf. Would they be aware of an incoming rogue plane? Certainly more so than a stealthy submarine shedding plane parts along known drift currents…
@StevanG
AF447 basically belly-flopped into the Atlantic ocean at 10 degrees nose up angle with a vertical speed of only about 99 Knots.
With MH370 we’re potentially talking about a near vertical high speed dive to impact at speeds approaching Mach 1 (666 Knots).
Due to the incompressibility of water, MH370 impacting the ocean at that speed is effectively no different than Germanwings Flight 9525 crashing full speed into a rocky mountainside.
@PSother
I agree with you about biofouling pattern. Possibility that flaperon remained attached to the underside of a larger section of wing debris for most of its voyage across the ocean was my thought also.
@All
Given how many aircraft stowaways have survived relatively long flights in the unpressurized wheel wells at altitudes of 35K+, I find it difficult to believe that a nefarious Pilot couldn’t easily withstand the hour or so of frigid discomfort it would take to kill off the passengers in an intentional decompression scenario, especially given availability of oxygen, heaters, extra clothing, emergency blankets, etc, in the cockpit.
@JoeNemo
With all due respect your evaluation of how Mh370 doesn’t match real terms events.
The German wings flight produced a copius amount of debris. Despite extensive satellite imagery & public interest Mh370 has so far failed to match that. We are talking a massive amount of floating debris. Modern aircraft are made of lightweight composite materials. Not to mention things inside the plane. Not everything would have sunk or disintegrated on impact. The lack of debris washing ashore would IMHO a very admittedly amateur opinion point toward a more lower velocity impact.
David said:
“Is that what you meant?”
I don’t think so, but then I’m not sure which question you were trying to answer.
The ‘where-is-it?’ debate has mostly centred around two possibilities (choose your favourite scenario):
a) A conscious but completely irrational pilot (whoever) intentionally flew it all the way to the SIO, then gently and lovingly put it on the ocean in a career-topping Sully-style ditching … (or) … accidentally fell asleep on the way / forgot to watch his fuel and it ran out, leaving no option but to push the nose down and spiral into the ocean. Careless, must have been a rank beginner.
b) Ghost ship – it went to the SIO by accident, continuing on the last course set before the crew succumbed to smoke/hypoxia/burns/hijackers (choose your scenario). So why would the crew have set 180M (or whatever southerly heading) as their last heading? And why would they have entered a new flight plan instead of choosing an already-programmed diversion airport/route from the ALT page? Because it looks like either a new flight plan was entered; or there was a decoy aircraft, as DennisW suggests.
There is a third, but this is rarely discussed, perhaps due to implications that people don’t like to think about:
c) The person filling the role of pilot (whoever) entered a flight plan and then exited the aircraft at altitude. The autopilot dutifully (albeit non-professionally?) flew the aircraft into the ocean. This could fit with option (d) quite well and seems to be feasible, but as others have said, people generally don’t like looking at elephants in the room and will do whatever they can to camouflage one as something else so they don’t have to notice it.
That’s if MH370 *is* in the SIO. It may not be. According to the MY airforce early reports, it was last seen on radar in the region of Port Blair, heading NW-ish into the Indian FIR. That couldn’t have been seen on MY’s radar. Then later the LIDO image was produced to match the ISAT data.
TBill said:
“Also the recent MH370-Captio.net scenario in (a) camp says IFE was turned on at 18:25 perhaps as a service for the PAX.”
Depending on your favourite scenario:
(1) then how would the nasty perp(s) stop the passengers using IFE to contact home?
Especially as the SDU was also re-enabled then so satcomms were available. And would the nasty perp(s) want the passengers to see the map showing the diversion towards Christmas Island / into the SIO?
Or (2) why didn’t the crew use email to contact MAS, if that was the only form of communication available? According to the ISAT data, there was no satcomm communication (emails, etc.) from the IFE system, only a logon.
Jeff Wise said:
“I can’t believe that the French wouldn’t carry out this analysis, and find it very interesting that for all the information that has been leaked out from the French investigation, there hasn’t been a whisper about this.”
It’s likely they have, but perhaps the results don’t match the official story? Is France going to release information that contradicts the MYG’s version of events and the ISAT data? The way the flaperon actually floated/flipped was also kept quiet, until the Australian experiments released video.
Perhaps also the reason why the MYG radar data, ATC transcripts and airport terminal CCTV were ‘classified’ rather than being released?
Question for all of you – have you guys scoured the Malay-Chinese-Ukrainian-French blogospheres and/or comment sections of MH370 news articles in these other languages? It seems to me that there are plenty of folks out there that know a lot of pertinent information, and someone more than likely has spilled some it.
@PS9
Not sure…we’d have to get someone who favors that theory (making IFE available to passengers after 1825) to answer those questions. I am not expert enough on IFE to know if certain functions can be turned off.
@PS9, Worth noting that the ATSB didn’t release its biofouling analysis until the final report, where they buried it in the appendix. Not a single media outlet has reported on it, presumably it doesn’t fit with the official narrative.
Perhaps once the day comes that the 25,000 sq km has been searched and there no longer is an official narrative…
PS Malaysia is now saying that the “90 days” term in the search contract refers specifically to days spent actively searching, not the duration of the search period. This seems quite odd to me–I wonder if anyone who’s familiar with salvage would be able to comment. To be honest, I don’t understand why they put a time period on it at all; if OI wants to spend five years searching, and will do so on their own dime, it’s no skin off Malaysia’s nose. But at any rate the net effect is that Malaysia is not saying that the search could stretch until June, rather than April 10 if the contract ended 90 days after the start of the search. Up until now the consensus has been that once fall starts the sea will become too consistently rough to deploy AUVs; what’s more, at the rate they’re going they’ll be able to go well beyond the 25,000 sq km defined area by the end of March.
As I previously commented, the ATSB and CSIRO have said that there is no analytical reason to search beyond this 25,000 sq km, but OI have indicated that they will do so anyway. Maybe they’ll just keep going as long as they can until the weather turns bad.
It’s an interesting point. 1 discussed at length here & elsewhere. As we all know the area along the 7th ARC that Drift analysis has indicated is the most likely place for Mh370 to be has already been searched with no plane found. As Jeff points out extending this search further up the 7th ARC is not allegedly compatible with drift analysis although the drift analysis could be slightly erroneous so extending the search further would be prudent.
What intrests me is what happens when they run out of scope for area’s indicated by the ISAT Data that are compatible with drift (I believe there may be scraggly possibilities further up towards Christmas Island although this would mean altering the current thinking on the ISAT Data). So when the ideas have run out what does it mean? It’s 1 thing Mh370 not being in areas that the are attributed to the ISAT Data But it’s a completely different kettle of fish when the aircraft isn’t in an area compatible with drift models.
@PS9. “….but then I’m not sure which question you were trying to answer.”
Gysbreght and I were discussing a non-professional pilot causing the BFOs, ie at end of flight.
You then asked, “Would the autopilot count as a non-professional pilot? That seems to be one of the elephants in the room that nobody wants to consider”.
It transpires that question was about the autopilot flying the last few hours of the long leg south, not end of flight.
Rather than not being considered, that has long been assumed.
Apparently also, you did not mention, it was associated with a parachuting hijacker.
I leave aside an interpretation that that could have been an elephant.
Missing would be the rationale for the first log-on and the practicability (get on board a parachute, integral oxygen supply (if from high altitude), liferaft (if over the sea); know current and projected position and match launch time and trajectory to arrive at a non in-the middle-of-nowhere random destination, slow and de-pressurise before opening a door, if possible, (the MEC hatch too small?)).
Arrange somehow for the aircraft to resume speed/altitude?
Even if somehow feasible, what motive could there have been? If that is ‘not apparent’ why assume a hijacker would go to such pre-planning and pains and not just be a suicide/murderer who would stay on?
Even pluralising the hijacker would not overcome all that.
For my part, there is insufficient information to find cause without the wreckage. Maybe even with it, but hopeless without more than there is now.
Find the wreckage.
@Michael John. If not found there will be a strong case to assume an active pilot. That could increase the area massively, even supposing the analysis done to date is sound otherwise. Unfortunately with that assumption it may well be that any new search would not have a high enough projected probability per square mile to be worthwhile.
Other than that, await developments (new information, new technology).
@Michael John. After my first sentence please add, “at the end.”
@Joe Nemo
The scenario you presented multiple postings ago of a nefarious pilot depressurizing and killing all the passengers is much more plausible. I’m medical and not a pilot but since my discussion with @CosmicAcademy I was surprised to read in Wikipedia and the Lancet that supplemental oxygen was required only above FL330 and pressurized oxygen above FL400. Pressure suits are mandatory at FL600 (but probably needed somewhat lower than that). Pressure suits also address thermal management and generalized tissue swelling that occurs with altitude. Like @CosmicAacademy I would have thought pressurized oxygen would be needed at FL350 for extended periods.
Of course there is huge variability in things such as fitness, age, exercise etc.
Also given those guidelines survival for a fit few in the wheel bay is possible possibly because hypothermia is very protective (up to a point). One would lose consciousness exposed at these temperatures though your oxygen requirements would drop dramatically.
I guess therefore this supports the early reports of 9M-MRO ascending to above FL400 (never confirmed) – it would effectively force the issue.
As I mentioned earlier the copilot could enter the E/E bay and inactivate the electronic (but not mechanical lock). He could also switch off cockpit oxygen and turn 9M-MRO into a ghost flight. And we know its not a ghost flight.
Finally, along the lines of @Scott O we attribute great depth in understanding of Zaharie – chandelle turn at IGARI, ability to switch off then reboot the SDU unit etc etc but unable to switch off his copilots mobile that logged in at Penang. Could have been an oversight.
@MJ
“As we all know the area along the 7th ARC that Drift analysis has indicated is the most likely place for Mh370 to be has already been searched with no plane found.”
What drift analysis? First few suggested the most likely place is just SE of CI…later we got skewed analysis to fit official assumptions.
Csiro. Apparently there are only a few viable places along the 7th ARC Mh370 could be.
& you are correct on that. The drift itself could within reason be attributed to many parts of the Indian Ocean. North, East or South. Working on the assumption that the 7th ARC is the true indicator of where Mh370 is (Not my opinion) they have disregarded all other possibilities & narrowed down the South tracks to find which best fits the ISAT Data. The IG practically denied that the current model as based on a Ghost flight principal. Which is odd because that is very much what it looks like to me. If we decide that the Mh370 was piloted I personally would like to see a portion of the 7th ARC up around Christmas Island investigated before tools are downed.
@Susie Crowe
Posted February 28, 2018 at 11:13 PM
Add to your list:
⁃ The threat by a British agent to Marc Dugain for not getting too close to the truth. (lots of newspaper links on the web about this)
⁃ Cargo manifest: The fact that mangosteens are off season in March, so how can they ship pallets of it to China?
⁃ Hardly anybody believes the suicide theory, because Said does not have the profile
⁃ The repeated and none conform calls from MH370 to ATC just before the plane disappeared. (concealed warning from the flightdeck?)
@PS9 said:
it might be sensible to also allow for a (d):
(d) Aircraft was taken over / diverted to obtain / dispose of someone / something on it; passengers were seen as necessarily expendable. Aircraft and contents were later disposed of.
Adding the above points to Susie’s list and it makes a lot more sense for this added option to be a possibility.
If we believe Immarsat data was spoofed the plane could have gone anywhere.
Was it hijacked to prevent the cargo of “mangosteens” arriving in China? Did the US want to prevent that secret cargo to arrive in China at all cost?
Was it (remote) hijacked by hacking into the planes system and landed in the Gulf of Bengal? One lady passenger saw a plane under water when she flew over it. It is said the Putin knows, but does not want to reveal it as that acknowledges spy satellites?
Was it shot down by a Thai-US military plane task force as they thought it was hijacked and to be crashed in Diego Garcia? That would be a cover-up of a mistake by the US.
Food for thought here: http://www.theweek.co.uk/mh370/58037/mh370-conspiracy-theories-what-happened-to-the-missing-plane
Some of it is plane nonsense others are worth thinking about IMO.
Why not consider these options, discuss them and then discount them one by one in the same professional way as we dicuss (and often disagree and/or discount) this SIO flight-suicide option?
There is so much skills on this forum, we may be able to shed a new light on them?
@Rein, You wrote, “If we believe Immarsat data was spoofed the plane could have gone anywhere.” The possibility of spoofing should not be taken as license to simply discard the Inmarsat; if it was tampered with, it’s still a valuable clue, we just have to handle it in a different way. The question becomes: how was in tampered with, and what clues might have been left by that tampering?
For instance, when we look at how the BTO data is generated, it turns out that it’s easy to generate a value that is larger than the correct one, but not one that is smaller. Thus, if the BTO value was altered, then the plane must have been closer to the subsatellite point than the data would have us believe.
@Michael John, You wrote in an earlier comment, “I would argue that Russia would more than likely dump the plane in a country like Somalia.” This brings up an extremely important point that I haven’t thought to raise before. When thinking about the fate of MH370, it’s tempting to imagine who might have had a motive to take the plane, and build an idea about its fate outward from there. This kind of “motive first” reasoning is, I think, the wrong way to go about it, as it generally requires bulldozing over the evidence at hand. In this case, and endpoint in Somalia contradicts many classes of evidence without having any positive evidence in its favor.
Similarly, people who feel that a suicide pilot took the plane to Broken Ridge or Cocos Island are arguing on the basis of an imagined motive that has no positive evidence and is contradicted by the evidence on multiple points.
The way to solve a crime is to start with the evidence, then try to impartially generate as many hypotheses as possible that can plausibly fit with the evidence. Then collect more evidence and see if you can hone down your list.
Only when contemplating a scenario for which there is evidentiary backing is it worthwhile to contemplate motive. While it is satisfying to know why someone did something, people are inscrutable, and their internal goal states may not even be clear to themselves.
In other words, talk of motive should come last, not first.
@ Jeff, @ Rein,
@Cosmic Academy, in speculating on the hard information we have on MH370 wrote on March 2:
“The only thing we know about, is the MDB fraud, which is in the range of sacrificing hundreds of innocent people for it.”
Sometimes connections are connections, sometimes they are not, so grain of salt here, but:
Some reporting on the U.S. Special Counsel investigation yesterday mentioned the name of the United Arab Emirates’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan. The UAE had invested a great deal of money in 1MDB.
In April of 2017 Zayed announced that he had struck a deal with Malaysia to return more than one billion he invested in 1MDB along with, eventually, additional principle and interest on another 1.7 billion in bonds.
This agreement was reached just three months after the original MH370 search was called off on January 17 of 2017.
Interestingly, five days before the end of the search on January 11, 2017, Zayed met in the Seychelles with Eric Prince, former head of the Blackwater mercenary group, who, since about 2010, has had a home in the U.A.E, where he formed a private militia for the emirs. Zayed was in the Seychelles to broker a now infamous meeting between Prince and a Russian official.
That Russian official was Kirill Dmitriev, chief executive of the Russian Direct Investment Fund, and someone who has been described as Vladimir Putin’s right hand. It turns out the Russians and the UAE have a very close relationship, and, in fact, the Seychelles seem to be something of a playground for the connected wealthy from both countries. Additionally, there seems to be quite a bit of entanglement between their investment funds. Per the journal Foreign Policy in a story earlier this year on countries using sovereign investment vehicles as tools of power: “…policymakers and investors would do well to understand better the interconnective tissue that binds Russia, Arab sovereign wealth funds…”
What does all of this mean? Well, those who imagine a hijacking scenario do it for local political reasons and/or imagine a Russian team doing it for vaguely geopolitical attention getting. These connections make it seem a hijacking with, say, mercenaries, for, say, money owed might be just as likely the reason for a takeover and the tentative agreement to pay back the squandered money might have been enough reason to slip the threat of blackmail and call off a sham search.
@JW,
Jeff, you run a great blog on this MH370 together with all of the “subject” knowledgeable people contributing. I have been reading it almost since day-1 every day.
But when you say:
The way to solve a crime is to start with the evidence, then try to impartially generate as many hypotheses as possible that can plausibly fit with the evidence. Then collect more evidence and see if you can hone down your list.
and ignore evidence that’s on the table, I wonder if you have too much on your mind, or you don’t want to address those points?
Have we discussed the points I raised in my previous post and concluded, with evidence, we can ignore it? Or do you not take me serious? Which is fine by the way…… disappointing but fine.
Maybe I have missed the discussions about my points, in which case I do apologise.
But until we also look at every eventuality that happened and we have conclusively proven it not to be correct or unrelated we don’t adhere to your statement.
Why was Marc Dugain warned by UK agents and not by Russian/Ukraine ones? He must have been seriously scared in that he backed off completely.
What about those mangostenes? Did we get to the bottom of that piece of evidence?
May it sounds trivial, not in my mind though, but why would such an experienced captain make two “not called for and non standard” calls to ATC about flight levels?
He must have had a reason for that. Was the plane at that point hijacked with others on the flightdeck and a gun against his head?
Until we “flog these points and others to death” you are not doing what you just stated.
Keep it up, an excellent piece of investigative journalism!
Maybe Said knew you would start a blog like this and would give us all years of pleasure in discussing his suicide mission. Doubt that though 🙂
That last sentence should read: Zaharie and not Said.
@Rein, My comment about “motive-first” hypotheses was aimed more at @Michael John than at yourself, as unless I am missing something you are not proposing a hypothesis.
One of the layers of effort that goes into solving a mystery like this is separating the wheat from the chaff, evidence-wise. An awful lot of erroneous information has surfaced that has needed to be cleared away. From time to time these things tend to resurface, in much the way you’ve resurfaced them here, but it’s not a productive use of anyone’s time to revisit them over and over again. If you find yourself interested in, say, mangosteens, then I would encourage you to go back and read through previous comments on the matter. If you still feel yourself unsatisfied, then by all means reach out to mangosteen farmers, or Southeast Asian freight forwarders, or retired MAS cargo employees, and see if you can move the ball forward, and come back and let us know what you’ve found.
@JW
Heres a thought. Maybe Mh370 was destined for Somalia for whatever political or military reason that could be however Malaysia grew wise to the plan & brought the aircraft down prematurely. The link between Russia & Somalia:
Monday, March 03, 2014
Russian government said Monday that it was ready to help Somalia’s federal government in the fields of reconstruction, security and development.
The announcement was made by Russia’s new ambassador to Somalia Mr. Valery Orlov after handing over his credential letters to the president of the federal republic of Somalia Hassan Sheik Mahmoud in a ceremony at the Presidential palace in Mogadishu on Monday.
“I am very delighted that the historic relations between Somalia and Russia resumed today Monday 3rd of March 2014—The Russian government is fully committed to taking part in the reconstruction of Somalia” Mr. Valery Orlov told the media after meeting with Somali president”
Curiously when we look into Mh17 being brought down by Russia in Separatist territory could this have been in retaliation for Malaysia bringing down Mh370? Interestingly enough there is a Sepertist Battalion in Eastern Ukraine that calls themselves:
Somalia Battalion (Russian: Батальон «Сомали») is one of the military units of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic in Ukraine which participates in the ongoing War in Donbass against Ukrainian army. The battalion’s full name is 1st Separate Tank Battalion Somalia (previously 1st Separate Tactical Battalion Group Somalia).[1] The battalion took the name “Somalia” because, according to its former commander Mikhail Tolstykh alias Givi, its members are as fearless as Somalis.
So maybe that is your motive.
@Jeff Wise
Re:”motive-first” hypotheses not too good?
I know you are very logical, but I am not sure there is a rule like that. Anyone can develop a hypothesis, but in order to move forward in learning, we need a hypothesis that is testable with the data and observations.
I might even argue we are missing more critical thinking around strategy and motives (although perhaps behind closed doors there has been more thought than we know).
But any motives I am looking for will be consistent with Inmarsat BTO/BFO and other observations until such time as it appears that is not working. I am not interested in motives that “bulldoze” the data, because we have what appears to me to be very good data.
I have no problems if others want to investigate “long shots”, but as you say it just is not interesting to me without a new finding that supports that less likely proposal.
My proposal is not logical I know. But do cover ups exist? Is it really feasible that in this day & age with technology being as good as it is that Malaysia manages to lose not 1 but 2 aircraft in a short space of time. It’s an headache that nobody in their right mind wants to consider. But it’s the reality.
@Michael John:
Do you think that MH370 had the fuel on board it required to reach Somalia?
@Gyesbreght
Seems plausible… At a stretch. Although the logic behind the theory is even more of a stretch. Nothing about Mh370 surprises me anymore.
@Jeff Wise,
You wrote:
“For instance, when we look at how the BTO data is generated, it turns out that it’s easy to generate a value that is larger than the correct one, but not one that is smaller. Thus, if the BTO value was altered, then the plane must have been closer to the subsatellite point than the data would have us believe.”
That is correct only if the BTO was spoofed from the plane, and then only if the equipment doing the spoofing is no faster than the true equipment.
Admittedly, that covers the most plausible scenarios, but there is about 4600us tied up in the circuitry. Even an identical SDU could mislead the search a few km.
On the other hand, if these BTOs were spoofed, the spoof was simple – just add a little delay each hour.
“Sigh”
Who knows. Take Mh17. The idea that Russia was responsible for that shoot down would be an ideal breeding ground for conspiracy thinking. Although it is alleged there is proof through satellite imagery that Russia was responsible.
Look at Ethiopia 961. The hijackers stipulated an intended destination that was beyond fuel range of the aircraft. Suppose the same happened with Mh370. Something happened off the coast of Northern Sumatra that led to the FMT. That much seems to be clear. If Russia was capable of bringing down Mh17 would it be capable of doing the same to Mh370? Can we guarantee no other country could? Motive? What motive did Russia or the seperatists have for downing Mh17? Mistaken identity or was that just an excuse? Could Mh370 be victim of something similar? But then what about the ISAT Data? Spoofing? Poor calibration on reboot? Or are we reading too much into it & will the aircraft turn up on the 7th ARC? So many questions. So little answers.
Jeff – “wishful thinking comrade”.
That’s your remark to Sunken Deal when he expressed his view that plane won’t be found in our lifetimes. While I don’t know what evidence you have of Russian trolling here I feel that the mere possibility has infected things and the suspicions can run riot. A while back when you were very intensely on a lead you lost patience with my posts and started vetting/blocking them and I gave up, then stepped away from MH370. About two days later someone??? in Irvine California tried to hack my FB account. I’m assuming it was related to my posting as I lead a particularly unobtrusive life. Not before or since has this ever happened and they would have seen an empty little shed had they succeeded, but accusations ran wild at the time as to who exactly was who in this zoo. My point is trolls don’t need to be active if they are already suspected of being active – the discussion is compromised before it starts.
For what it’s worth, I agree it’s not impossible to fly to Kazakhstan unnoticed(unreported) – radar is not a submarine net – and there are plenty of human factors in the chain in the early hours and the bulk of these countries would not even have a firm response template in place, but I lean to this plane hitting the water(somewhere).
Initial scrutiny of local hydrophones revealed nothing until they went in harder, and lo and behold, right at the right time there was an isolated signature albeit ambiguous – but in entirely the wrong direction. Or do we have a problem with the BTO’s?
I know I didn’t get much traction with this but Shah’s political hero(Anwar) is a scantily cloaked Islamist and always was. And similar to what occurred in Iran in the late 70’s, nominal Muslims(anyone born in that country) are gravitating to organized religion as a vehicle for social-political change and it’s happening at break-neck speed and accelerating. I wouldn’t forget Iran, who sponsor Sunni groups as well as Shia, and hitting the water may not have been the plan either? And I’d be pretty sure nothing did really hit the water in the search area – at high speed.
@Matty – Perth, You called me out on my “comrade” remark and you’re right, that wasn’t fair on my part. I have no reason to believe that Sunken Deal is a Russian troll and I shouldn’t have accused him so casually. I’m quick to call people out when they step out of line so it’s only fair that I should be held accountable too.
JeffWise
If you were vetting Matty – Perth‘s posts, that’s great, and it’s as well
to remember that that came about because he would drop in here, post a
link like in this example;
http://jeffwise.net/2016/11/24/mh370-updates/comment-page-4/#comment-196124
smearing Islam or Iran (usually both), and it would have nothing to do
with MH370 or Malaysia or Shah.
Viewing his last paragraph above, sure enough, there we find the real raison d’être
for his post, and it follows his ‘push the lie’ script.
The reason it gets ‘no traction’, is the same reason why Matty – Perth failed
to be elected in his own country when he stood as a candidate for political
political party ‘Family First’ (which a Deputy Prime Minister of Australia
described as of the “Lunatic Right”) – his particular political and personal biases
are not accepted as fact by the ad nauseam pedalling of them.
No, there is no evidence that Anwar is a cloaked Islamist.
No, there is no evidence that Malaysians are gravitating to religion at
break-neck speed.
No, don’t bother to cite some idiotic article found in the Guardian
(Australia), the Daily Fail, the New Zealand Herald or the Eskimo’s
Fish Wrap rag.
Better if Matty – Perth took the opportunity to make his anti-Islamic views
known to members of, for instance, the Gosnells Mosque, who would surely grant
him their full attention.
Alternatively, if he feels the need for trolling, return to the climate change
or Australian polictical forums. There, presently, his identity is not known.
The JORN issue is simple. He knew all about JORN and deliberately avoided and did not penetrate JORN coverage at all going to the 00utc terminator around 38S 85E.
If my memory is correct, wasn’t there a delay between the loss of the plane and Inmarsat realising that they had logged the transmissions ?
It occurred to me that it might not have been necessary to spoof the transmissions but “merely” to hack Inmarsat and plant the data.
@ventus45, do you know the effective range of JORN? What is reported vs it’s actual operational capability? How could Shah? It’s been suggested that it’s real range on things far smaller than a 777 is as much as 3500 to 4000 miles under the right conditions. That would include, i believe, nearly all of the seventh arc.
@PSother
I am thinking approx. 9-March (next day) was when Inmarsat realized they had handshake signals out another 6 hours. At that point Inmarsat tried to get word to MY through a vendor company that supplies MY. This is discussed in some of the documentaries (perhaps 4 Corners).