A lot of people who watched the Netflix documentary “MH370: The Plane That Disappeared” have written me with questions. I asked my friend Sarah Wynter, star of the hit show “24,” to discuss some of the ones that have gotten asked the most. This is a new format for me; in the past I’ve mostly explained my ideas through writing, but I thought that people who came to my work via video might prefer that medium. I’m grateful to Sarah for helping me out with her considerably more advanced televisual chops.
Markus, Thanks, glad you liked the show. I totally agree, it’s less important to decided what scenario is the most likely than do a thorough, professional assessment of every one that could potentially match the data.
Hi Jeff,
Thanks for the engaging and intriguing journalism. Three questions – How is the washed up debris (Mozambique?) explained if the aircraft in fact landed in Kazakhstan? What do you propose happened with the aircraft after landing…. Did it get destroyed along with all the bodies? Surely someone would eventually notice if they started using the 777. The risk that someone would notice something seems not insignificant… I heard in another doc that the pilot was in fact practicing the flight path in simulation in the months leading up to the event – is this true or not?
Thanks much!
Hi Jeff– in the spirit of considering all possibilities (however remote or outlandish), I wondered if you’d watched the video circulating of supposed drone/satellite footage of the plane.
And if so– wondered if the plane’s turn shown the video matched movement that was detected during the time the plane was on radar. Or if the video has other characteristics that might it seem more/less authentic. To me it seems like a cgi hoax but it was just strange enough to warrant a second look. Thanks much!
Brian, I haven’t heard of a video like that.
Dana, If the plane was hijacked to Kazakhstan, then the debris found in Africa must have been planted there in furtherance of the deception. I suppose they could have removed parts and replaced them and continued to use the plane or else just scrapped the plane and pulled parts off it.
The flight simulator is discussed in the doc.
Hi,
I’m sure much has been investigated about the passengers on board MH370 but has anyone looked into who didn’t board MH370?
More specifically who didn’t board and was supposed too and then waited and boarded a flight 4 months later that was also brought down.
Jeff I came across this post from someone who writes extensively about plane crashes: https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/call-of-the-void-seven-years-on-what-do-we-know-about-the-disappearance-of-malaysia-airlines-77fa5244bf99
Have you seen it before? Fairly straightforward summary of the pilot theory but goes into much more detail than usual.
As a zoologist and someone who uses environmental DNA in my work, my immediate thought when seeing the flaperon in the Netflix documentary was we can gain an immense amount of information on the length of submersion, depth and pathway from what was living or had lived on the flaperon. I immediately googled this and found your reviews of the barnacle data, but very little else. I did not search thoroughly so I am likely missing information but from my quick readings it seems like this is another questionable part of the story. Has anymore come out from this data?
AJ, Search officials initially hoped to used the marine fouling of the flaperon to figure out where the plane went down, in just the manner you describe. To their surprise, they were unable to because, as the final report issued by the ATSB put it, “the specimens analysed here were quite young, perhaps less than one month.”
I write about this here: http://jeffwise.net/2018/02/08/mh370-debris-fouling-supports-spoof-scenario/
DG, I hadn’t seen that before. It’s pretty solid.
Mark, I’m not aware of any such person.
To Mark’s point, there apparently were 5 passengers who checked in to MH 370 but didn’t board:
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/playboy-pilot-at-controls-of-mh370-had-a-track-record-of-inviting-pretty-passengers-into-his-cockpit-where-he-smoked-and-posed-for-snaps/news-story/019b359a3439f5fdb46a2b5fa96d5723
“There has been no further update on the five passengers who checked in for flight MH370 but didn’t board the plane. They had their luggage removed from the hold.
Malaysian Transport Minister Hishammuddin Hussein said they were being investigated but he didn’t say whether this was suspicious.”
But I didn’t see anything about one of them being on MH17.
@Jeff Wise: I agree that this is a possible but extremely complex scenario. That is precisely what puzzles me: You mistrust the debris, you mistrust the data transmitted to Inmarsat (since you think it may have been spoofed), but you seem to trust Inmarsat’s data handling and publishing. I am not criticizing this in any way, I am merely curious what reasons make your trust so selective ?
I don’t see any reason for foul play by Inmarsat, but if we set aside motives and just focus on mere feasibility: On a strictly technical level it would be 100 times easier for Inmarsat to provide false data than the entire procedural chain that would be necessary for the spoof scenario.
So if you think the BFOs are wrong, why do you think it’s more likely they were spoofed upstream (before being transmitted to Inmarsat) than falsified downstream by Inmarsat itself ?
(And again, to avoid any misunderstandings, let me point out once more, that I personally don’t mistrust Inmarsat, don’t see any possible motive and that I found Mark Dickinson very convincing and sincere in the Netflix interviews, but none of that is the point.)
Peter, You pose an excellent question. The fact I feel that up-stream shenanigans are more likely has nothing to do with my relative degree of trust in the parties (presumably) responsible, but simply in the fact that thanks to a specific and rather unusual combination of characteristics a mechanism exists by which an up-stream tampering is possible, as I describe here: http://jeffwise.net/2018/12/22/the-mh370-miracle/
@Jeff Wise: That’s interesting. What proof/evidence do you have ?
1. We know that the SDU was tampered with, at least insofar as it was turned off and on again in a way that implies sophisticated knowledge. (Few pilots know how to do this, there’s no compelling explanation for why they would, etc.)
2. Inmarsat was unable to make any sense of the initial BFO values generated after the first reboot.
To which anyone can of course say, “It could be coincidental, there might be an innocent explanation that no one has come up with, or maybe the pilot really did cycle the entire electrical system for the sake of fuel efficiency, etc.” To which I’d say, sure. These things are proof, just evidence that can be interpreted to favor a data-tampering scenario.
That’s precisely my point: It’s very specific, highly unusual and incredibly complex! That doesn’t make it more likely but less likely.
Technically speaking, the spoof scenario is infinitely more complex than a falsification of the BFO data by Inmarsat. Yet you choose to believe in the former rather than the latter. Why?
PS: Let me point out, that I am fascinated by your theory. I’m just asking as devil’s advocate.
Peter, I’ve explained it as best I can. At some point you either get it or you don’t. Going to have to leave it at that.
@Jeff: Thanks for your replies. I completely “get” your theory and as I said, I am fascinated by it and really hope and encourage you to pursue it further.
And it’s okay also if it’s based on a gut feeling. I know you said in the podcast interview, you don’t like Occam’s razor. But there are two scenarios: one is incredibly complex and the other one is very simple (technically speaking). Yet you favor the complex over the simple.
It’s a bit like the ticket inspector being told the ticket was eaten by the passenger’s dog, while there is a much simpler explanation: the passenger did not have a ticket.
I am just asking why you favor the complex solution over the simple one ?
Is it because you see a motive for the perpetrators of the spoof scenario but no motive for Inmarsat ?
Or is it because of the 2 pieces of evidence you laid out in your post above ?
Or is it because of something else ?
I’d really like to know, because as much as I am fascinated by your theory (especially because it’s so highly complex and would connect all dots in a really elegant way), at one point we have to ask, why we choose to believe in an unlikely Tom-Cruise-Mission-Impossible style event rather than something less farfetched. I am not saying it’s undue to do so. I am just asking about the reason for it.
I wanted to say what you think happened about it going North is possible. If a person does anything about computers, programming, coding, oh yes, that is definitely possible to access it. If they’re well aware of how the system reads information, it is very possible. You can’t doubt anything when it comes to knowledge about computers that someone may or may not have. It was newer software, so it’s very possible that that could’ve happened. But you second-guess it and act like it didn’t happen, that’s just , not wise on their part. I can understand the people don’t want to think that I could possibly happen, but it can. You can all kinds of notification about data breach, this data breach that you’re talking about Venta now. Security for things are much more secure today than they were before. But people are finding factors into things. So it is possible. The weirdest thing is, they searched and searched, and still came up with nothing. There should’ve been some way of estimating where it would have landed in the water and the whole thing with the movements of the water and all. That’s how they do it for finding wrecks in the ocean.
Jeff,
Assuming for the moment the AWACS communications scrambling theory happened, is it possible that the MH370 could’ve flown in a dog fight type manner to get out from underneath the AWAC’s signal jamming, and that’s why it temporarily came back on radar?
If that type of physical flight maneuvering couldn’t free the MH370 from the AWACS jamming its signal, isn’t the mere fact that it did come back on radar, even for brief time period, an indication that the AWACS theory is kind of bogus?
Or, is there some other *plausible* way that the MH370 could’ve briefly overcame the AWACS signal jam? (Seems extremely unlikely.)
Thank you for providing a forum to discuss this case. My heart hurts for the families. It’s beyond horrifying to even imagine.
Have you heard the BBC Podcast, Passenger List?
I’m pretty sure that this was at least inspired by MH370.
It’s a very interesting series.
I have not! I’ll check it out.
Jeff: Could you briefly lay out the different things that could explain the power cycling? If you’ve done this in a post can you link it? I just wanted to know what the various options are that could explain this.
Hello Mr. Jeff,
Watching the Netflix documentary and perhaps you might have answered these questions but, could it be possible the airplane flew out into space? The data reveled that the equipment stopped transmitting somewhere at the South Indian Ocean, but is it possible to know the altitud this happened? Praying for all the souls in that aircarft.
Rodolfo, Planes stay up by using their wings to generate lift as they pass through the air. The air gets thinner as you go higher until there is not enough for the plane to generate enough lift to stay up. As a result each plane has a “ceiling” that it cannot go above. Of course in space there is no air at all, so there is no way for a plane to go there.
I’m still stunned by the lack of physical evidence of MH370. Maybe it’s at the bottom of the Indian Ocean at an unreachable location but it’s hard to believe that even if only the flaperon is the only piece. One would think ships in the Indian Ocean would have seen more physical evidence at some point.
@Jeff Wise:
On Victor’s blog, your theory is discussed as follows:
Is this an accurate portrayal of your position/theory ?
Peter, I’m not sure I understand this formulation. As I see it there are two issues involved in the rebooting of the SDU:
1) What’s the motivation? Why would you want to de-power the equipment rather than de-select it? It’s like unplugging your TV instead of hitting the “off” button on the remote control. And, even weirder, why would you subsequently want to plug it back in?
2) How likely is it that a captain like Zaharie would know how to do this? It took the Independent Group weeks for months — at any rate, a long time — collectively poring over documents to figure out how to do this. It’s not something most captains know how to do; the ones whom I’ve asked about it have said, “What’s an SDU?”
I would also like to clear up the misconception that it’s the reboot of the SDU that makes me suspect Russia; rather, it’s the fact that the Doppler precompensation algorithm for this particular brand of SDU can be fairly easily tampered with, which brings the spoof scenario into the realm of possibility.
Hi Jeff,
Thank you for investigating this case so thoroughly. I too feel we need to find the answer to this!
I always just assumed the plane was in the Southern Indian Ocean. Then I saw the Netflix documentary and read that in Feb of this year an int’l commission concluded that they still do not know why MH17 was brought down. And they believe that Russia has something to do with supplying the weapon involved, although they can’t confirm this. It just seems so hard to believe that the taking down of MH17 is a coincidence.
I have one question: what do you think of Richard Godfrey’s work, the physicist who studied the radio signals from ham radio operators and how they were perturbed by MH370 and thinks the plane is in the Indian Ocean?
Thank you.
LP, Thanks for your kind words. As for Richard Godfrey, I feel that he has for years spread misinformation about the case for reasons I don’t understand. He seems to have the technical expertise to know better yet consistently promotes baseless ideas like the ham-radio theory.
Jeff,
Are there any updates on the Russian and Ukranian passengers on MH370. I still find the video of these passengers boarding could be more clues as to what happen. I still find it strange to this day that 3 passengers from Russia and Ukraine were on MH370 between Kuala Lumpur and Beijing.
Sekar, I’m continuing to work on this angle. Suffice to say that it’s not clear why the Ukrainians really were on that flight; it doesn’t make a lot of sense that they were on their way to two furniture shows several weeks apart.
I just don’t understand, why China had a passive role in thus process.
The plane was flying to China, the plane had a vast majority of Chibess citizens, China as a local power, should have done something more, should have had a leading role in the searches, investigations etc. Why did China became in shadow?
Jeff: One of the other key parts of your reasoning seems to be that it’s not in the search areas. But isn’t it the case that even portions of the highlighted search areas have not yet been comprehensively searched? In other words, couldn’t the a/c still be within one or several of the rectangular areas proposed?
Paulo, You raise a good point. China has contributed money toward the search effort but hasn’t played a leading role in the investigation.
Truman, It’s true, there is a possibility that it fell into a crevasse or somesuch. I consider this to be implausible but not impossible — why I say that, whatever happened, it had to be weird. (Because this isn’t the only uncanny implausibility that must have taken place under the pilot-suicide scenario.)
Two things that seem hard for me to believe (but perhaps both speak to my ignorance about aspects of this case) are (a) the notion that no one scrambled jets because the a/c was deemed friendly and (b) that there were no sat or other images of the plane recorded over Malaysia/Singapore/Thailand/malacca strait as it passed through these areas; am I just wrong about that? In other words: (a) is it less crazy than it sounds for NONE of those countries to have an image of the plane? and (b) even in a post-9/11 world, is an errant B777 just “not that big a deal” such that jets would not automatically be scrambled?
Truman, It’s always been my assumption that the Malaysians simply weren’t paying attention, and that it was only when they went back and looked at previously recorded tapes did they realize that their radar had picked up a plane. But we don’t really know — or why Thailand and Indonesia have never said anything about recording the plane’s passage up the Malacca Strait.
I do think it’s impossible to realize that during peacetime, when there is zero perceived threat, air forces don’t keep jets fueled up with engines running on the tarmac, waiting to be scrambled.
I did not here of this story until netflix because at the time I was 18 and didn’t watch the news(I still don’t watch it, I don’t believe a thing they say except for hurricanes). I am a math mathematician and I have my own thoughts about this but that doesn’t matter. What matters is that the math is done correctly on the only two facts that we have. I do not have a computer that can do this math so if you know someone who does here is what needs to be calculated. A radius of how far the plane could fly with what fuel was left at the time of disappearance then take the exact locations of the satellite with how far the plane is from the satellite, witch will look like a 3D bowl because we are only considering whats under the satellite then over lap these two findings and search where they overlap. This will give you a 360° map of where it could be. In the documentary he stated that the satellite data can’t tell you north or south only the distance from the satellite that is how I came to this conclusion. Please let me know if you found someone who can do these calculations.
Hi Jeff,
Do you follow the acoustic wave website for MH370?
https://370location.org/2022/12/mh370-satcom-signal-strength-maximum-in-level-flight/
It sounds like they are saying the plane may have banked left and eventually went down south of Indonesia looking for a runway. Has anyone looked there ?
The problem I have with reading about MH370 is that each account tends to emphasize evidence that supports its conclusion/theory while minimizing, ignoring, or sometimes entirely omitting potentially contradictory evidence. With such an incredibly strange case, that tactic usually leaves me partially persuaded towards that author’s viewpoint, but still extremely wary, and with only a vague notion of what evidence was minimized or omitted, which then leaves me feeling like I have to go do more reading to figure out why I feel so wary. Do you know of, or would you consider creating, a master list/outline/timeline of the fundamental events and pieces of evidence, each with some sort of confidence rating of how sure we are that the event happened, and/or the piece of evidence’s provenance?
I think something like that would be useful to identify the weakest areas of each theory’s narrative and perhaps could serve as a good overview, potentially pointing the way towards a more satisfying/comprehensive explanation.
Or perhaps just an article or video that really zeroes in on each leading theory’s weakest links might be in order?
People in a plane just disappeared, doesn’t that need investigating?
The most likely outcome based on the repeated SDU reboots was massive electrical failure. Reading into the pilot’s mindset, the turnaround was probably due to this but with no way to land the plane without comms, my best guess he didn’t want to inflict more loss of life and simply pointed the plane southward full well knowing there was no way and nowhere to land. Do pilots get trained for this situation on advanced electronic and electrical failure and where to go and what to do ? It seems like he did the only thing to maybe try to be seen by coming down to a lower altitude just before hypoxia set in. I blame Malaysian authorities for not scrambling jets and trying to see where this plane went or asking for help. The plane will be found eventually but I hope Boeing and airline industry learn to train pilots how to fly a plane with electrical failure.
Hi HS, I think you describe really well the feeling of entering into an intriguing but very complicated topic! It was readers such as yourself that I was thinking of when I wrote my book “The Taking of MH370,” I deliberately made it as concise as possible with an eye to bringing the newcomer up to speed on the essential points as quickly as possible. I would have done it in an article if I could but there are just too many details to cover in such a short space. Hope this helps.
Laura, I definitely think so!
Sekar, We know that the plane was not suffering a massive electrical failture because the satcom was working normally for six hours.
As someone that does cybersecurity incident response I have questions.
Sounds like you only have 2 facts to work from and that is the loss of common and the ping from the satellite.
My questions relate to the ping data, the weather on that night, and ocean currents.
I have not heard but the ping data should be able to tell you the speed of the plane after it supposedly turned around. “IF” flying back towards the satellite the plane would have been flying a steady few hundred miles an hour where as if the plane was in catastrophic failure and the plane turned around to try and make it back to land you would likely see speed anomalies and if it went down and did not turn around you would see speed difference.
This ping, we need to understand if there are things that if the responder is not moving can the time of the ping be altered? Ex: if the plane was under clouds or water. I know from AM radio and HAM radio signals can bounce off the clouds and earth. And like we know is bent when viewing an object under the surface from above the surface.
Is it plausible that when the plane is speculated that it turned around that it went down and was floating on the surface then when it made the hockey stick turn north it sank?
The ping where it is speculated following this curve of the satellite doesn’t sound logical to me. Odds are the responder stopped that distance from the satellite and did not fly north or south rather just stopped moving. Possibly it landed on the sea floor and stopped drifting.
Now if we also have to take in consideration if the plane was flying 300 mph and when turned if it increased its speed to 500 mph but flew instead of back towards the satellite but north east it would still be traveling at 300 mph towards the satellite but not nearly straight back at it but also 200 mph north as well.
Summary, the ping response graphed out would not represent flight path but if all the variables were understood could paint a better possible picture of the flight path.
Hey Jeff.
Was wondering if you have heard of or followed Mike Chillit on Twitter. He has been following mh370 pretty much since it disappeared and has hundreds and hundreds of posts on mh370. According to him, the plane was basically found back in 2017. He has imagery and formulas of exactly crash location. Just curious if you’ve read any of his stuff. If not, maybe give it a look? Thanks