On January 31, Seabed Constructor vanished from the ship-tracking websites that various observers had been monitoring. This set up a minor international tizzy, with a number of outlets publishing headlines such as “MH370 mystery deepens as search vessel vanishes off radar for three days sending conspiracy theorists into a frenzy.”
The ship had been acting strangely in the hours leading up to its disappearance, sailing around in a big circle and then steaming in a beeline towards southwestern part of the search area, where it had started its work weeks before. It was in the midst of this beeline run that its AIS tracking system was apparently turned off. (This disappearance had nothing to do with radar, but whatever.)
Seabed Constructor reappeared a few days later, this time heading for a scheduled resupply stop in Perth. Ocean Infinity offered no explanation for what had happened. Some of the more imaginative independent MH370 researchers speculated that the ship had surreptiously been plundering shipwrecks found during the first seabed search.
On February 8, the notoriously unreliable Australian aviation journalist Geoffrey Thomas wrote a story in Perth Now claiming that the explanation was that the searchers had found found some interesting “geological formations” and “had returned to revisit those points of interest discovered on its first sweep and turned off its satellite tracking system so as not to give the relatives false hopes.”
Coming from Thomas, this almost certainly had to be untrue. Sure enough, more evidence has now emerged, and it appears that some kind of equipment fault was to blame.
The eighth search update released this morning by the Malaysian government reveals that “Earlier during the underwater search operation, an ROV was damaged and a decision was made to ‘wet store’ the ROV to minimize disruption to search operations.” Probably whoever wrote this meant AUV, autonomous underwater vehicle, rather than ROV, remotely operated vehicle, since ROVs are used to hone in on a target once it’s been identified. So far the search has found no targets.
Most likely, what happened is that at the end of January one of the AUVs went rogue, Seabed Constructor sailed around trying to find it, realized that it was probably at the southwestern corner of the search area, sailed down to go look for it–and while doing so realized that its bizarre behavior was being watched and so shut off the AIS to avoid further embarrassment.
Yesterday Richard Cole tweeted that Seabed Constructor had apparently deployed seven AUVS at the southern end of the southern leg of the secondary search zone, then dashed down to where the AUV lay on the seabed and deployed its ROV to retrieve it. “Probably the most complex search configuration we have seen so far,” he observed.
Earlier this morning Seabed Constructor finished its ROV work and hurried northward to gather up the AUVs, which were nearing the end of their endurance.
I’m guessing that the AUVs have a feature whereby if they lose communications with the mother ship they go to a predesignated point and rest on the seabed to conserve energy until they can be recovered.
I love the euphemism “wet store,” by the way. This is a major advancement in nautical terminology. If it had been around in 1912 then the White Star Line could have just said that the Titanic had been put in wet storage.
In other news, the latest report says that Seabed Constructor has now scanned 24,000 sq km. That doesn’t mean it’s 1,000 sq km from finishing the designated search area, though, because it still has to do the “southern leg” segments of the secondary and tertiary zones. These are not large however and should not take more than a few days.
In other news today:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-13/mh370-australia-asked-to-lead-recovery-effort-if-wreckage-found/9544284
@Jeff
But today’s MY search update says that an ‘ROV’ was damaged and wet-stored, no an ‘AUV’. So perhaps the mystery in not quite resolved?
@Richard Cole, I’m definitely reading between the lines and could have it wrong. But the fact that SC was heading to the start point when it vanished, and then returned to that same spot to deploy the ROV (as you so awesomely deduced in your tweet) seems more than coincidental. Maybe someone will leak confirmation or float an alternative story…
@PS9
Ref your question to me. I just serendipitously rediscovered the link where I
obtained that information. Cheers
http://mh370.radiantphysics.com/2017/08/02/seabed-explorer-ocean-infinity-offers-to-search-for-mh370/#comment-5792
@sharkcaver
Thanks for the link.
Indeed why changing the winning team. Quite concerning. A fresh look by another bureau would be most appreciated for the safety of all.
@Jeff Wise:
I think you called this one correctly.
As you know, Seabed Constructor is being accompanied by Maersk Mariner, which is a high-tech ocean going tug, anchor handler and supply vessel. Both ships are equipped with an ROV, but I can’t think why either crew would be using them until the recovery phase of the operation. Time will tell.
Someone, somewhere else, wondered;
“If MY had an unsold B777 there is so much investigation we could do with it.
Any chance of that at all?”
Supposedly, they had all been sold.
However, if the year on the current Google Earth picture of WMSA’s modern day
aviation equivalent of the ‘Elephants Graveyard’ is correct, as at at least
last month there seems to be two 777’s visible. (See one hull in open and one hull
undercover except tail).
Possibly one or both were slated to be bought by Air Zimbabwe(…by now, unlikely).
Probably one or both have been stripped for engine & internal sellable parts.
I haven’t tried to see if there’s any ground level (Google Earth) views.
https://www.google.com/maps/@3.129024,101.5593106,19z/data=!3m1!1e3
Scott O said:
“There’s a logical inconsistency there you might do well to think about. ”
Nonsense. No logical inconsistency there at all. You’re missing the point again, read more carefully.
The ban was applied by the Australian government to the Australian media. Unless Australian citizens were in the habit of reading foreign media websites (like the one I linked to as an example) they would not know – therefore the cover-up prevented the citizens of Australia knowing who was involved in the scandal, or that there even was a cover-up preventing them knowing.
Scott O said:
“Likewise you’re mention of the Itavia crash. With all information public, and freed of Italian judicial prejudice (something we now know to be fairly common, and proper examination, the vague suggestions of a hushed plots loses it’s conspiratorial cloak:”
What?
You do realise how many years it took for that whole Itavia cover-up to lose its ‘conspiratorial cloak’ and see the light of day in an inquiry? And, according to the investigating judge, it’s still being covered up by the Italian military, government and the other countries involved by delaying/refusing requests for information. Read the articles before you comment.
Scott O said:
“I am all in on the idea that MH370 was neither due to mechanical failure or pilot suicide.”
That would seem a reasonable position, but there are others to play with.
Scott O said:
“.. the more unlikely a plot becomes–or becomes possible to keep quiet.”
As the Itavia event illustrates, if the perps involved are all singing from the same hymn sheet at a high enough level, most anything is possible given near-total control of the information flow. Others outside the core group could be given a slightly different story depending on their need to know.
Scott O said:
“I think we’re much better off thinking simply: a single message sent, a small number of actors involved, deniability and misdirection keep to keeping distance from the act.”
Absolutely. That’s what I’ve been saying.
@BuyerNinety said:
“Also David at same place, appears to have the ‘777 Training Manual’, which I
assume is what is usually meant when discussions occur about the ‘AMM’.”
I’m thinking the ‘Training Manual’ might be meant for the pilots and so doesn’t go into the same depth of technical detail. Whereas maybe the AMM is meant for the guys in the hangar fixing the aircraft.
“Ref your question to me. I just serendipitously rediscovered the link where I
obtained that information.”
Thanks, but I’ve already seen that – it doesn’t have the depth of technical information. The wiring diagram you mentioned might (?) well have come from the AMM.
Boris Tabaksplatt said:
“As you know, Seabed Constructor is being accompanied by Maersk Mariner …”
What, again? … Do you have a source please?
SharkCaver said:
“In other news today:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-13/mh370-australia-asked-to-lead-recovery-effort-if-wreckage-found/9544284”
@all:
Interesting … first the MYG insist on two navy ‘observers’ on board before searching commences (no observers put on board during the first search) then the MY airforce have a squabble with the government and want to put 7 of their pilots on board (to secure the FDR, when found, and from the navy it would seem), and now the MYG are suddenly renewing agreements with the Australian ATSB on what to do when wreckage is found, but only several weeks after the search has commenced when it had a good 8 months before the search started to sort that out.
And it might seem odd to be doing that this late in the search when the highest probability areas have already been searched and nothing found.
What could account for this type of behaviour by the MYG? I do wonder if someone’s given the MYG a firm hint that something will be found this time (or even that something already has been, perhaps?) hence arrangements are now being put in place for the recovery and handling after the announcement is made.
@PS9 I miss no point.
Whether it’s learned while traveling, picked up via satellite television or short wave radio or on the internet through blogs, social media or more traditional news sites, information does not–as is demonstrated nearly daily on this site–respect national borders or local laws, except in all but a very few, closed societies. A gag order not globally applied is no great barrier to speech at all. It’s not the =habit= of reading foreign news sites (not in itself so unusual) conspirators have to worry about but a targeted tweet from a citizen journalist or a magazine left behind at an AirBnb.
As for Itavia, I have read about it extensively, and if you took the time to read the link I included, you would see that once a proper investigation was undertaken, in this case with the expertise of the British Air Investigation Board, not the Italian judiciary, it was quickly apparent there was no conspiracy whatsoever on the part of Nato or, oddly the French, who were singled out for curious blame or any military at all but rather a bomb left, likely, in the plane’s lavatory. And so the hymn book in this case was never sung from.
There are actors who through history have proven trustworthy enough to admit accidents and bad behavior and when they have not their systems and institutions have done the work of shining a light on improper deeds. In other cases we have adversaries to thank. Or in second tier governments their own incompetence or arrogance is what exposes them.
But rarely do the kinds of conspiracies you are alleging move from theory to fact.
Is MH370 a conspiracy? I believe so, and, it seems, you may, too, along with our blog host and a few others. And that proves my point–it’s not been hidden. There are many questions to be answered, to be sure. But from the families heard from in the most recent roundtable discussion, to the French authorities to Jeff Wise in the pages of New York magazine, people are pulling at the threads of the plot, which before too long will come unravelled.
@PS9
[quote]What could account for this type of behaviour by the MYG? I do wonder if someone’s given the MYG a firm hint that something will be found this time (or even that something already has been, perhaps?) hence arrangements are now being put in place for the recovery and handling after the announcement is made.[/quote]
When I read that report early yesterday afternoon, I had the same thought. Are we on the brink of an announcement??
Probably not. I Remember the early days. The pinger signal being found, the AU PM saying the aircraft will be found soon and the Naval experts who analysed the recorded signal back in Jervois Bay, NSW, stating it could only be from an aircraft black box.
This whole sorry saga is one of being placed on a nice rug, only to have that rug pulled from under ones feet.
God speed to OI
@Boris Tabaksplatt
Re: your posting at the very end of the last @Jeff Wise blog. I thought the whole basis for the OI 25,000 square kilometer search to the northern end of the primary search zone was because all debris was found in Africa, Reunion etc and none in Australia. Such an outcome points to more northerly terminus for 9M-MRO. As such the ISAT data and drift studies are discordant (@Ge Rijn disagrees with me on this but I still think its an issue). If the debris was planted one or two bits should have been placed on the WA coast to make it concordant with the ISAT data. However the risk of detection may have been too great – JORN having being upgraded during this period with much improved ship detection capabilities.
Yes my posting about the lack of 9M-MRO debris in Tasmania was probably a distraction. For debris to be found there would require the IGARI turn and then fly straight over Sumatra for an entry point much further South into the Indian Ocean. We know with reasonable certainty the plane flew up the Malacca Straits so this is not possible with the known fuel reserves.
I note the interesting discussion on French sites reported in this blog about 9M-MRO. The exclusion of mechanical issues and effectively pilot suicide means they are heading down the hijacking path. Effectively this means that you are accepting spoofing of the ISAT data and planting of the debris as being one (and possibly questioning the validity of Capt. Zaharie simulator data).
Of course there is the possibility of a hijack which went “horribly wrong” and ended up as a ghost flight but the failure of the PSZ excludes this. One suspects however that if it was a hijack as the French observers suggest that at the time of the SDU reboot it was actually going “very well”.
@Jeff
For me that report digs the hole again deeper. Before that report, i was not too concerned about this issue. The report mentions ROV specifically.
The first paragraph mentions AUV specifically with the mention “all available AUVs”.
I would also presume that given the number of communication errors in MYG/ATSB failed search part 1, there is an increased level of QA/QC checks. It is not a granted reporting mistake.
It would have been much neater for OI to communicate the loss of one AUV as opposed to turning off the AIS. Why turning off the AIS in the first place? – safety is a concern if one does that. I think the safety risk for that duration cannot be justified for an event associated with a loss of equipment but i may be wrong. Hope this episode will be further clarified officially and errata made where applicable. I agree it may be benign after all but no excuses for leaving it like that.
http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/radio/local_sydney/audio/201803/ppm-2018-03-13-mh-recovery.mp3
In other news, there’s an ongoing standoff between the UK prime minister and Russia involving an ultimatum that passed tonight at midnight concerning the death of a Russian spy/former double agent on UK soil and his daughter who, as the UK prime minister alleges, have been killed by/with the sanctioning of the Russian government. Apparently they have been killed in a way that echoes the killing of Alexander Litvinenko, another former Russian spy who was killed using Polonium in London in 2006, namely by using a nerve toxin called Novichok that was developed by the Soviets in the 80s. Traces of Novichok have apparently been found in public places including a pub and a pizza parlour. Russia denies the charges.
The reason I’m bringing this up on a MH370 forum is obviously because there have been theories of Russian involvement, most famously by JW. Russia has shot down another Malaysia Airlines plane over Ukraine about four months after the disappearance of MH370.
@ventus45
This report confirms that a final report has already been drafted based on current evidence and the chapter could be closed without conclusions if the plane is not found. Ie no further action planned. I would have thought that at least that a systematic search for debris could be a last resort. Also there are conclusions to be drawn from a detailed structural analysis. That would be disapointing.
@Steve Barratt
RE: “Such an outcome points to more northerly terminus for 9M-MRO. As such the ISAT data and drift studies are discordant (@Ge Rijn disagrees with me on this but I still think its an issue).”
As far as I can see the latest drift-studies and ISAT-data are only discordant with (previous) scenarios where the flight was based on a straight early FMT (~18:40) and no pilot inputs ever after.
Those scenarios have turned out to be not true for the plane was not found in those areas expected.
A farther north-west FMT with a descent (which @VictorI suggested) and an all pilot controlled flight after FMT could well fit the drift-studies.
Considering everything I still believe the latter is the only possibility left.
Planting of debris is completely out of the question to me. This would need an impossible amount of pre-planning, coördination, people, ships etc. keeping silent and undetected.
@HB, I agree that a detailed structural analysis–by which I mean, and think you mean, an analysis of how the mechanical breakage of the debris occurred–is a major gap in our current understanding of the case. Especially with regards to the flaperon. But is there reason to believe that this won’t be in the final Malaysian report, apart from general (well-founded) pessimism?
Mostof the theories have been of the either/or variety. Either it was hijacked, mechanical/electrical failure, pilot, shot down etc.
I am sure this has been voiced before but what if it was a combination, an incident pit event ?
e.g. an electrical fire, causing the pilot to divert but without comms the plane became a target for air defences.
@Ge Rijn, you wrote: “Planting of debris is completely out of the question to me. This would need an impossible amount of pre-planning, coördination, people, ships etc. keeping silent and undetected.”
I’ve long felt that the original sin of the ATSB and the IG is the inability to entertain the possibility that the perpetrators of this deed are smarter than they are.
Hi @all!
I think we should not let people like @Scott-O disguise the truth concerning flight Italia 850 anymore. Obviously there were several assassinations of witnesses following this „incident“.
Btw have you ever heard of the „Ramstein air show disaster? Do you know the pilots involved?
@Michael, That is absurd.
@ Jeff, I don’t think so. Just one week after Rammstein Air Show Disaster the pilots had to give testimony to an board of inquiry in the case of Itavia 870. And that was just the peak of an unbelievable series of accidents that befall witnesses.
@Jeff Wise
The only very remote possibility in this scenario would be one ship sailed into the SIO packed with selected original 9M-MRO debris and dumping it into the ocean between ~27S and ~35S somewhere along the 7th arc within a few months after the accident with the intend to fake a crash area in the SIO.
But there are no indications/data supporting such a scenario in any way. All data, proof and indications point to a flight and ending into the SIO along the 7th arc.
There is absolutely not one bit of conclusive proof you (or someone else) can come with to support a planting-scenario.
@Ge Rijn, It truly astonishes me that someone who has stuck around this discussion could know so little about the case. You clearly have no clue about how the spoof theory works. Why don’t you go read “The Plane That Wasn’t There” then come back and we’ll talk.
The all point of a spoof is to make the data look genuine…. Whilst it’s not.
Planting debris isn’t difficult either. Anyone who thinks that the drift currents only run from the SIO need to open their eyes & do a bit more open minded thinking.
@Jeff
Yes there are. Incomplete analysis could be one of them. Unexplained inconsistencies also. I can predict there will be many reissues depending on the stakeholders williness to push fior answers. There are hard pieces of evidence and it is expected to have an icao compliant report to explain every crack and scratches and how it all fit together including biofouling inconsistency. This should at least clarify the debris issues and possibly confirm the EoF scenario. I think it is possible to confirm whether the plane was all along with a person in command which would confirm a hijack scenario which itself coukd question the area searched. There is also a lot of work in elaborating possible scenarios which so far has not been done. There arent millions of scenarios that fit the data. Note that the current OI search will bring data on the table regardless of its success that requires explanations too. I believe there is still a lot of work to do in addition to the search. But as it is if the plane is not found the NOKs will be on their own with an inconclusive report.
Also, there are other pieces of evidence out there not searched. A systematic search for debris could be undertaken to bring more data on the table. Not done on the basis of confidence on the SIO search.
The above obviously assumes that MYG does not know what has happened. If it knows there would be no desire to get more data.
It is not pessimism, we know that most of the above has not been done and will not be done.
Ventus45 said (in a different place):
“The only logical reason I can think of, given the early history of the first few days, is that they (Malaysia) know what happened, and why, and thus, where it is, or most likely is, and thus, no need for a clairvoyant at all. Further, since that is not where OI proposed to look, and are looking, they know that OI will not find it.”
Interesting. Similar but slightly opposite to my scenario: – mine was that they have been told it will be found on this search (but not precisely where), hence they wanted to contract with OI in an attempt to control what happens when wreckage ( = data) is found (OI might have gone ahead and searched without contract anyway; they set off from Durban before the contract was signed); and hence putting the observers on board and the renewal of the ATSB agreement for dealing with the wreckage. Although the observers and ATSB agreement could be a smokescreen to show willing.
But if – in your scenario – nothing was found in the contracted search area, what would there be to prevent OI continuing to search wherever they wanted after the 90-day contract had ended? That would certainly scupper the plan.
One point.
IF Malaysia has rigged this new search to make sire they are around when it’s found (at least I think that is what PS9 is suggesting) then wouldn’t it make more sense that the aircraft would have been found in the area where Malaysia stands to lose the least amount of money? The longer the search rags on the more they tend to lose if Mh370 is found.
IF a rogue state is involved (My theory is that would be Indonesia) they would want Mh370 to be as far away from the true location as possible. Russia might be more stupid than I thought by the way. I gave them the benefit of the doubt that they wouldn’t implicate themselves in a crime. After the nerve agent attack in the UK with that nerve agent allegedly having Russia’s finger prints all over it I’m reassessing my opinion of them. But yeah. Indonesia. Plenty of question marks there for me.
@Michael John, I would not underestimate the intelligence, cunning and strategic maneuvering of the Russian government and its intelligence agencies.
You presume that being implicated in a crime is never desired.
But imagine if you want to send a signal to a group of people who might do or say things that would be against Russian government interests. Wouldn’t it be effective to reach out across national borders, silence a former critic, making it clear you were involved while still knowing any retribution would be minimal given the inability of law enforcement to breach Kremlin walls?
The Russians could have struck Sergei Skirpal in any number of ways, if he were the true target himself. A car accident, a fall, a “heart attack,” a mugging gone bad.
But the perpetrators chose a unique and single origin nerve agent with no antidote or cure and a high terror quotient as their weapon of choice.
Seems to me that there’d be no better way to scare into silence a bunch of people already venal enough to sell out their country for profit.
@PS9
I assume you are addressing that (your post March 14, 2018 at 5:39 PM) to me ?
OI’s “motives” are the big unknown here, we don’t even know who they are really. The idea that they have taken this on as a “showcase” exercise to demonstrate their brilliance, for securing future commercial work, and thus financial gains, just doesn’t wash with me.
There has to be a deeper (no pun intended) reason for their creation “out of the blue”, and their own secrecy on the matter. Come to think of it, it is a bit like the creation of the JACC “out of the blue” too.
After the 90 days ?
Well, let’s go back a bit.
The first thing that jumped out at me, from the girl from Geosciences Australia (who had been seconded to the ATSB to be the Fugro data co-ordinator) presentation at the ESRI conference, (previously referenced) was that in the video, she specifically said that the original 60,000 square kilometre zone was “determined by money limits” (totally opposite to what all the politicians were saying at the time, ie, that money was no object”), and she repeated it with reference to the expansion to 120,000 square kilometres.
The second thing that jumped out at me, was the stunning number, and size, of the “data holidays” that the towfish had left. I was stunned that the ATSB and the Australia Government could say that they were so confident – to 95 percent – that the aircraft was not in the area searched. When I loooked at those slides, and at those “data holidays” (i.e. holes in the data) I (subjectively – by eye) put the figure at only about 80 percent !! It is so obvious, to even an “untrained eye”, that I began to “smell a rat”.
The third thing that disturbed me, was the perfunctory way she dealt with her proposal, her strategy, to “most efficiently” go back to “tidy up” these holes, i.e. complete them with AUV’s, in terms of “postman’s dilemma”. The “infill strategy” may well be valid from a practical standpoint, and I am not criticising her as such, in fact I am grateful that she came out and put this information in the public domain, but the issue here, the elephant, is that there are gapeing holes in the Fugro towfidsh search data, and the ATSB and Australian Government as a whole have deliberately said otherwise.
Now quite obviously, the question that must be raised is, why wasn’t the Harmony AUV detailed to go and look at all of them, and/or even get others in to help ?. The answer I think is, that it would have taken another year for them to do it, cost a big extra bunch of money, and BOTH were utterly against the “political imperative”, and that was to “wrap it up”.
There is another “disturbing” element to this, given these revelations, and it is the reported discontent within the ATSB itself, sufficient for the Chief Commissioner (Greg Hood) to have allegedly felt it necessary to “read the riot act” to his own staff. That matter has never been resolved.
Going back even further, there were grave technical misgivings about the efficacy of the towfish search by the “unsuccessful tenderers” (and others). I can clearly remember the then Chief Commissioner of the ATSB, Martin Dolan, explaining to the Senate Estimates Committee, in his typical manner, that he had selected Fugro’s proposal, as “the best value for money for the Commonwealth”, not, “the Rolls Royce Solution”. Again, this “mioney” thing keeps cropping up.
The involved Governments (all three of them) have been way less than truthfull from the get-go.
We know that they never expected the size and number of these data holidays to ever see the light of day “in the media”, (and they haven’t – yet).
So, PS9, to return to your question:-
what would there be to prevent OI continuing to search wherever they wanted after the 90-day contract had ended ?
Answer – absolutely nothing. OI can do what they like after the “contract” ends.
Malaysia seems to think that OI will just simply “sail off into the sunset – with their tail between their legs” and disappear. I very much doubt that.
This is pure conjecture of course, but OI was created “out of the blue”, for a reason, by someone, behind the scenes, with plenty of money, and some real, but not yet known, very important, “skin in the game”.
The only way to figure out what OI will do after the “contract” expires, is to figure out who OI really are to begin with. I just can’t stop my mind from slide back to my early working years, the “cold war” years, and the case of the K-129, the Glomar Explorer, and all that.
Enough, back to the present day.
The new question is:-
“What WILL OI do after the 90 day contract ends ?”
My bet, is that they will accept the “postman’s dilema” on their own dime.
Why do I think that ?
Well, my answer is that there is way too much “intellectual capital” (not to mention frustration) invested in the first 120,000 square kilometres, to allow so many “data holidays” to be “written off”.
The ATSB, and indeed even the IG, can not be happy (under their breaths) that this situation exists.
The irony is, that they could have been correct all along, and it IS THERE, but not found, because of the limitations of the towfish.
The SUPREME IRONY, is that OI will search Open Ridge, which is far more difficult and challenging terrain than any of the”data holidays” in the 120,000 square kilometres.
If OI clearly demonstrate that their technology is brilliant and “up to the task” in Ocean Ridge, then I think we should all resolve to “move heaven and earth” to FORCE the ATSB, to be a good “council worker”, get out the bloody shovels, and go back, a fill in those bloody (data) POTHOLES ! (Aus local pun) It would be “less than credible” for the three governments to continue to stonewall if OI clearly “put the runs on the board” (think cricket).
So, if OI is reading these blogs (I think they probably are) then I would respectfully suggest to Mr Plunkett, that he do precisely that, go fill in those data holes. Then, if that fails, and it is not there, then Oliver, please search my patch, you know where it is.
@Michael, you wrote:
“I think we should not let people like @Scott-O disguise the truth concerning flight Italia 850 anymore. Obviously there were several assassinations of witnesses following this „incident“.
Btw have you ever heard of the „Ramstein air show disaster? Do you know the pilots involved?”
I am not disguising any truth, just presenting information. As I will with the Ramstein disaster, whose connection I fail to see.
First, the Italian judiciary and popular press blamed French jets with the shoot down of 870.
The Ramstein crash was of Italian jets.
The Italian jets were part of Frecce Tricolori, an acrobatic team located in the far northeast of Italy on the Adriatic.
The crash of 870 occurred in the southwest just off the coast of Palermo in the Tyrrhenian Sea–the opposite corner of the country.
I presume you’re referring to the fact that Ivo Nutarelli was in the air near the DC 9 the night it crashed and a victim in Ramstein.
There might be more to it, if eight years didn’t separate the events and if Nutarelli himself didn’t cause the accident in Ramstein. Surely if he needed to be silenced there were better ways to do so than hope he’d die in an air accident in a foreign country nearly a decade after the fact.
I don’t know what my fingers were doing, Open and Ocean Ridge (above) – should of course be BROKEN Ridge.
@ventus45,
you wrote:
“…OI was created “out of the blue”, for a reason, by someone, behind the scenes, with plenty of money, and some real, but not yet known, very important, “skin in the game”.
While Ocean Infinity itself may be newly inducted into the search for MH370, people reputed to be its backers are not new to such underwater searches, as discussed here before. There is a significant tax benefits to be had for investors in the UK who undertake and fail to find salvage. This has led such searches to be used as a hedge by investors–a gamble, if you will.
If you find something worth money, cheers! If you do not, you get to write down your gains from elsewehere at a greatly favorable rate.. It’s hedging, and not surprisingly a strategy used in many ways by hedge funds.
This is one of several stories you can read about the strategy, which mentions Paul Marshall,
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/tax/9593444/Taxman-investigates-shipwreck-salvage-tax-break.html
Please also see Jeff’s blog post on the topic from January. Taken together this information makes it fairly clear that the real reason is financial, as it so often is.
@Scott O
Yes, I had read JW’s post on Paul Marshall, and I was aware of the tax issues “in general” though not in detail, but I still think there is more to it (OI’s motives) than just money. No proof obviously, just a “gut feeling”.
@ventus45, Also nothing more than a gut feeling, but I think that Paul Marshall et al are people with more money than brains who bought someone else’s narrative and disbursed their millions without really understanding what they were getting into.
This is how almost everything in the world works these days.
@ScottO
I wonder what the answer is. I’m starting to wonder which is the biggest threat, North Korea or Russia. Let’s hope we are not in the brink of a cold war.
IF Russia is brazen enough to attack British citizens with a nerve agent that has it’s finger prints in it. Is brazen enough to shoot down Mh17. I’m starting to believe it is possible Russia had something to with Mh370.
Question is though: Why!! I think it had something to do with Freescale. 4 days before Mh370 went down with 20 Freescale employees on board this news article was released:
“Freescale Releases LDMOS RF Power Products for US Defense Applications
March 4, 2014
freescaleFreescale has announced the availability of 11 new commercial RF power LDMOS products that can meet the requirements of US defense electronics applications. This is the first set of products released as part of the company’s strategic defense initiatives for its RF power business, announced in June 2013.
Freescale now provides support for US defense customers, enabling them to optimize the performance of these RF devices for radar, military communications and electronic warfare applications”
Maybe the intention wasn’t to kidnap Freescale employees…. But weird. They sign a deal with the US Defence department then 4 days later Freescale are sending a large delegation to China. As 2 of the world’s leading superpowers that wouldn’t look good to Russia. Then again. How would the US feel about it?
@ventus45, @jeffwise, I’m not sure you end up with a $700 million dollar fortune without some sense–at least a sense of how to deploy your assets to make lots of money.
That said, many smart people, in government, in academia and in, uh, independent groups all believe the plane is somewhere near where SC is searching. I guess that fits with what you’er saying, Jeff.
Ventus, could OI not be honest actors based on just the published facts? What more do you think they might know or their motives might be?
Scott O said:
“If you find something worth money, cheers! If you do not, you get to write down your gains from elsewehere at a greatly favorable rate”
The tax break angle has been raised before.
If – as has been claimed on here before – OI is registered as a limited company in the Cayman Isles, there wouldn’t be any tax.
There is no tax imposed by the Cayman Government on limited companies registered in the Caymans, hence the appeal of registering a company there.
Ventus45 said:
“So, PS9, to return to your question:-
what would there be to prevent OI continuing to search wherever they wanted after the 90-day contract had ended ?
Answer – absolutely nothing. OI can do what they like after the “contract” ends.”
If that is so, then what would the purpose be? Why should the MYG contract with OI to search a defined area in order to (in your scenario) constrain them to search areas where the MG know the aircraft isn’t, when OI can continue to search wherever it wishes after the 90 day contract?
Doesn’t make sense since the MYG wouldn’t really be constraining them at all.
Unless, of course, we surmise OI will decide not to continue since it won’t get paid. But it will have searched all of the likely areas by then, and may still (?) think it’s worthwhile to quickly do CI and other areas near Sumatra – which may be easier (ie. quicker) since not so deep.
Michael John said:
“IF Malaysia has rigged this new search to make sire they are around when it’s found (at least I think that is what PS9 is suggesting) then wouldn’t it make more sense that the aircraft would have been found in the area where Malaysia stands to lose the least amount of money? The longer the search rags on the more they tend to lose if Mh370 is found.”
Good point.
But maybe too obvious perhaps if the aircraft was found in the first few days. Perhaps better if it was in an outlier area that the ATSB (and others) could later say was ‘unlikely’, and so not in their original search area(s).
A few million is peanuts to them though – Najib has much more than that in his private bank account(s), according to news reports.
In any case, at the rate they’re searching we’ll see soon enough.
Ge Rijn said:
“There is absolutely not one bit of conclusive proof you (or someone else) can come with to support a planting-scenario.”
Equally, and as pointed out to you many times before, there is ‘not one bit of conclusive proof you (or someone else) can come with’ to support the viewpoint that planting *did not* take place.
Note your word: ‘conclusive’.
Scott O said:
“@PS9 I miss no point. ”
“…and if you took the time to read the link I included, you would see that once a proper investigation was undertaken, in this case with the expertise of the British Air Investigation Board, not the Italian judiciary, it was quickly apparent there was no conspiracy whatsoever on the part of Nato or, oddly the French, who were singled out for curious blame or any military at all but rather a bomb left, likely, in the plane’s lavatory. And so the hymn book in this case was never sung from.”
You are indeed missing the point, blatantly and repeatedly.
So, according to the investigating Judge, the cover-up was ordered by NATO and involved NATO countries, and you quote an investigation by one of the countries involved in the cover-up as proof there was no cover-up, whilst ignoring the (independent of NATO) Italian judiciary investigation who says there was, and who put 4 Italian air force generals and 5 other people at senior level forward for prosecution for treason and hiding evidence?
And what’s more, you’re incapable of seeing that as a possible instance of the hymn book being sung from?
I shall avoid your comments in future, I have better things to do.
Michael John said:
“IF Russia is brazen enough to attack British citizens with a nerve agent that has it’s finger prints in it. Is brazen enough to shoot down Mh17. I’m starting to believe it is possible Russia had something to with Mh370.”
The ‘example’ murder of a defector in the UK is not new, Russia apparently did a similar thing a few years ago but with Polonium instead of VX – Alexander Litvinenko, 2006 – and has done several others over the years. The poisoned umbrella tip is especially imaginative though:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/06/poisoned-umbrellas-and-polonium-russian-linked-uk-deaths
As has been said before, MH17 was possibly a retribution/warning aimed at Hishy and Najib – look at who was onboard.
If it was retribution, it could suggest MH370 might have been diverted to dispose of/obtain a person onboard. Although why doing that wouldn’t have been easier on the ground is puzzling.
@Ge Rijn
Thank you. I accept your point that a piloted descent is compatible with the drift data (no debris on WA shores).
I guess the outcome of the OI search will help to address this.
If 9M-MRO is a hijack then it’s incredibly sophisticated, something the debris field lacks.
I will just put these two recent Australian Senate Hearing videos up for background info.
Senate Estimates 26 Feb 2018 – Part-1.3gp
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1-iHieo4NunpFng1IMvidMIXla2_4BjKu
Senate Estimates 26 Feb 2018 – Part-2.3gp
https://drive.google.com/open?id=130oFLucHKLK-Lfdfkwn9iu15MGZtJcrS
Now moving on.
It was clearly evident from when the search first moved to the SIO (at White House Insistance) when we were look in the 38S to 45S range, that at every single turn of events , Malaysia tried to “DRIVE” the search NORTH. So much so, that the southern air search was cancelled, the ships, including HMAS SUCCESS, were directed north, and no attempt was made to “re-find” and collect the debris spotted by both RAAF P3 Rescue 103 (or was it 104 – I have forgotten), and the RNZAF P3 crew. Not only that, but the PLA(AF) IL-76 was grounded, and not allowed to continue a southern search.
The Chinese then spat the dummy and went home, and it is blatantly and strikingly obvious to anyone, that they took no further part in any northern search, and when they were effectively goaded into sending a ship down, it spent most of it’s time in port, or doing nothing useful to the search, in fact, many Australian Defence people considered it to be openly monitoring HMAS Stirling.
My thinking is, that Malaysia knows it was going “deep south”, and is thus quite happy for the search to go all the way up the 7th Arc to the beaches of Java if need be, but it sure as hell does NOT want anyone looking around 38S and further, on, or near the arc.
@PS9
As I said before, Malaysia want to “wrap it up”. Exhausting the likely areas gives them that opportunity. That is why they are allowing OI to “exhaust” the likely areas.
OI may well know something we don’t, and perhaps they are just “playing the game out” as well.
It all comes down to Annex-13. So long as no final report is issued, Malaysia still controls what happens. Once the final report is issued, they don’t, it is as simple as that.
Why do you think the Malaysians are pushing Australia to renew and re-ratify those “expired” agreements ? It is all about control.
In my frank opinion, my government would be bonkers to entertain them any fiurther.
Let’s do a hypothetical.
OI completes the designated search areas and comes up empty.
If so, Malaysia just said that the final report is written, and ready for release.
Why should any sane person beleive anything Malaysia says ? They never released anything of significance, not the “true” radar data, nothing.
Will they actually release it ?
My bet is no, because if they do, they loose control.
We will just have to wait and see. It will be a big gamble for Malaysia to release that final report.
Getting back to the notion of OI perhaps knowing something that we don’t, itwould not surprise me, that the instant that final report is published, SC will be up anchor and making “flank speed” for wherever they (privately) really think it is.
Then watch the diplomatic gymnastics of all the players – it will be olympic level stuff for sure.
@Scott O
re. intelligence of russian actions
maybe you could also consider, that Skripal was an important asset of the intelligence comunity around the Steele Dossier, that alarmed western inteligence to the Trump-Russia Collusion threat.
Skripal was a very top officer of the GRU and had information about the russian inner circle, that he may have used after his jail term. He was a regular visitor to the russian embasy in London and had many contacts to russians in Britain. So, it makes sense for Putin , to start the war against Europe – its nothing else we are talking about – with a brazen attack in the peaceful english province in the close neighbourhood of Porton Down …
@all
Putin is a man of secret agencies
As time goes by, now after 4 years, it becomes quite clear, that the commando that took MH370, might very well have been directed by Putins agencies. This is , because we now understand better, how he acts. His situation is, he is too weak for a military confrontation with the west, and to be hones, he does not understand a bit of strategic military power, because his career was in the KGB. So he is usxed to the methodology of secret wars behind the scenes. Making a potential runner for president a puppet of the FSB was one of his major scoops only to be rivalled by successfully influencing the very elections to have a puppet of the FSB in the white house now, who destroys everything Americans believed in and who destroy the whole foundation of which the transatlantic partnership was built.
The decision to start his hybrid war against US and Europe seems to have been made with the Crimea events. Since then Russia did not mind to break any rules of civilized behaviour . There is no way back for him.
And at this point its interesting facts for MH370. Was there intelligence aboard MH370 that Russia urgently wanted ? The 20 “process engineers” of a a conmpany that was woring on the next generation robot weapon systems? In hindsight it may very well have been one of the major scoops orchestrated by Russian Agencies. Like they did with the successful hacks of European governments and the like. There is a lot of hybrid war activities ongoing.