by Victor Iannello
Note: Ever since the idea of spoofing was first discussed, one of the main issues has been how falsified BFO values might have been calculated. Most of assumed that the values were arbitrarily selected to suggest a flight in a generally southward direction. Here, Victor Iannello presents an ingenious suggestion: that hijackers might have altered a single parameter in the Satellite Data Unit frequency precompensation algorithm. — JW
Notice: The views expressed here are solely mine and do not representthe views of the Independent Group (IG), Jeff Wise, or any other group or individual. — VI
Summary
In previous work, paths were reconstructed for MH370 using the available radar and satellite data. Paths to the north of Malaysia were studied bymatching the measured Burst Timing Offset (BTO) data, but relaxing the constraint of matching theBurst Frequency Offset (BFO), which is appropriate if the BFOdata waseithercorrupted or misinterpreted. It was found that there are paths to the north that end at airports that could be reached with the fuel that was loaded onto MH370.In this work, the conventional interpretation of the BFO is challenged. In particular, the possibility that the operation of the SATCOM was deliberately modified so that a northern path would have the BFO signature of a southern path is studied. Some of the findings are:
- The Honeywell Thales MCS-6000 SATCOM used by MH370 hasafrequencycorrection algorithm withthe capability to correct for the Doppler shift caused by inclination of thesatellite. This is known to the official investigation team butis not generally known by independent researchers.
- The value of inclination for the Inmarsat I3F1 satellite that was broadcast by the Ground Earth Station (GES) at Perth, Australia, to be used by SATCOMs logged into the satellite, was zero. The true inclination of the satellite was around 1.65⁰. The two parameters that describe the satellite inclination, the inclination angle and the time of the ascending node, are stored in the System Table of the SATCOM in non-volatile memory, and are used by the frequency compensation algorithm.
- If an individual obtained unauthorized access to the non-volatile memory of the SATCOM, the value of the inclination used by the frequency correction algorithm could be changed from 0 to 3.3⁰, or about twice the true inclination of the satellite. With this change, the BFO signature of a northern path that satisfied the BTO data would resemble the BFO signature of a southern path that satisfied the BTO data.
- The apparent turn to the south between 18:28 and 18:40 UTC that is suggested by the measured BFO data might have been caused by a change to the inclination parameters stored in the SATCOM’s System Table during that time interval.
- The calculated values of BFO for northern paths with the inclination parameter changed to 3.3⁰match the measured BFO values with an RMS error less than 3.8 Hz. This is true for Mach numbers between 0.65 and 0.85 at FL350, with little variationin errorseen in this speed range.
- At each log-on, the inclination parameters would be reset to zero. Therefore, the BFO data associated with the log-ons at 18:25 and 00:19 UTC should be evaluated with inclination parameters set to zero. The BFO data at times between these log-ons should be evaluated with the possibility that a change was made.
- The BFO value at 00:19 matches an aircraft along the northern part of the 7tharc on the ground and stationary once the BFO is adjusted for the log-on offset seen at 16:00 UTC. This suggests that if MH370flew north, it might havesuccessfully landed.
- Researchers have identified security vulnerabilities in other SATCOMs, including backdoors and access to memory, although the MCS-6000 has not been specifically studied. The possibility of “spoofing” the BFO to disguise location has been considered before.
Read the whole report here.
@Lauren:
Back in April, I wrote an long post on the out-of-the ordinary MAS insurance policy — and motive.
https://twitter.com/nihonmama/status/588463925945102336
A few days ago, I ran the report of MAS unusual policy by a friend, whose clients are some of the world’s largest insurance companies — and also part of the global syndicates that cover much of the aviation industry’s risk. His comment:
“Paying for search is not standard”.
As to the possible spoof of the fuel data, IMO, that’s one of the biggest elephants in the room. Or in the alternative — what we’ve been told was MH370’s fuel load is not correct.
A question RWMann (a former executive with two major airlines) asked some of us a few months ago:
“Is there a physical fuel slip indicating fuel uplift at KLIA?” He went on: “Fuel load is Captain’s discretion (over dispatcher’s flight plan load), but has to be justified as it costs fuel ($) to tanker it.”
@Brock, all:
This is an excerpt from a message I received last night:
“all I can say is that information has been hidden from families, even the ICAO report was censored.”
On the search (attn: @Brock):
Read this conversation:
https://twitter.com/TheJaneWardell/status/603675226912661505
@TheJane Wardell and @Swatisays are the two Reuters journos who wrote the recent piece about the search (and the choice of Fugro) — which in turn garnered a push-back statement from the ATSB.
What Wardell’s comments allude to is that they have ADDITIONAL information re the search ‘story’ that WSJ and Maclean’s (both of which reported on this same issue, but earlier) did not.
@Nihonmama,
Interesting. So, to spell it out plainly: the plane went South in order to be never found because of a big insurance scam. With the welcome side effect of having mapped the ocean floor in a geological area of interest. The SDU got switched on again because the plane should be searched in the SIO. And the only deception was the amount of fuel the plane grabbed in KL Airport. Which of course could only be accomplished if MAS was in on it.
You know what? That’s the first SIO scenario I find somewhat convincing. It checks a lot of sqares. Question is of course who actually abducted the plane and how did the pilot save himself. I’m sure he didn’t want to die for such a scam.
The loss of MH370 really does leave many question marks.
1)The partner of Danica Weeks was a frequent flyer. Yet, on this occasion… Mr Paul Weeks gave his wedding ring back & his watch back to his wife, just in case something happened? Paul hadn’t done this on any previous flights… just MH370. In his wife’s shoes, I would be highly suspicious of this action.
This would have been an everyday flight for Mr Paul Weeks. Why remove a wedding ring & wrist watch?
2)Sarah Bajc reported that her boyfriend always sent her a text message, just before the plane departing. Mr Woods was also a frequent flyer. Yet, this particular flight, no text message was sent to Sarah Bajc?
So we have 1 missing plane & 2 of the passengers (known to be frequent flyers) doing/not doing things that they would usually do. And this doesn’t create question marks for people?
Sarah Bajc teamed up with Ethan hunt and a few other family members, with close relatives missing. A reward fund was created. The fund collected a whooping $100,000, which is a lot of money. There is absolutely nothing to show for this money.
Additionally (whilst looking into this) I can see that @nihonmama on Twitter has raised valid questions.
Ethan Hunt claimed that nobody on that flight was in contact with any family members BEFORE departure, or whilst boarding. @Cryfortruth confirmed that this isn’t true. Some passengers on board did contact family members/friends.
Why didn’t Philip Woods contact Sarah Bajc as he usually would do?
Ethan Hunt told an outright lie.. Why? @Nihonmama tagged Sarah.. there was no reply. Why?
Sarah Bajc has raised over $100,000 with hope to find answers. Ethan Hunt has told lies. Why isn’t Sarah bothering to answer?
Something doesn’t smell right, infact… it stinks rotten.
Not really an inconsistency if you read the Factual Information:
Para. 1.1.1: “The Captain ordered 49,100 kilograms (kg) of fuel for the flight that gave an endurance of 07
hours and 31 minutes including reserves.”
Para. 1.6.5: “Total departure fuel after refuelling was 49,700 kg (Left Tank was 24,900 kg and Right Tank was 24,800 kg) as indicated in the flight deck.
The fuel weight on board corresponded to a planned trip-fuel of 37,200 kg. Based on MH370 ATC flight plan dated 07 March 2014, the take-off fuel recorded was 49,100 kg.”
So the “41,500 kg fuel remaining after 41 minutes flying from KLIA to IGARI” estimated by the investigation was based on the 49,100 kg ordered by the Captain according to the flight plan. Actual departure fuel after refuelling was 49,700 kg according to the onboard fuel quantity measurement system, which is also the source of the 43,800 kg in the ACARS status report at 17:07.
@Nihonmama: yes, I had read that exchange – will be watching that news desk with interest.
@JS: I certainly don’t rule out misinterpretation – the range of plausible paths is obviously broader than the current seafloor search. My SIO scepticism stems primarily from a) concerns arising from careful audits of search conduct, and b) the absence of ANY debris (a VERY broad range of SIO impact points should have led to SOME debris eventually being found by air, sat, ship, seafloor, or shoreline searches). I personally throw all the radar non-detections in there, as well (though I hesitate, because folks always seem keen to rationalize that one away). Even if the plane is found on the next towfish pass, those elephants will STILL be in the room.
@Littlefoot:
Thanks. But let me be clear:
I’m not saying that the insurance scam motive leads to an SIO scenario. It COULD, and MH370 may well be in the SIO. But that’s not what I’m saying.
Think about it.
Why orchestrate a spoof leading to a massive search in a heretofore completely uncharted part of the SIO? NOT because that’s where MH370 actually went — but because MH370 went ELSEWHERE.
“But we swear, the data tells us that MH370 ended in the SIO”.
Well of course it does — because that’s what it was made to LOOK like.
Are you a Sherlock’ watcher? If so, you’ll recall the much-talked-about cliffhanger ending to season 2 — “The Reichenbach Fall”.
http://bit.ly/1M5eoNu
For more than a year after it aired, fans all over the world were on the Net trying to figure out what happened. Because WTF, Sherlock DIED and John SAW it — he saw him jump and then he saw his lifeless body. So Sherlock must have died, right? He MUST have.
But then, we find out later, that Sherlock didn’t die — and what ACTUALLY happened occurred in the minute that it took John to run from where he was standing to where Sherlock landed. A spoof extraordinaire.
So, if we’ve got a boondoogle, into-infinity search underwritten not by Australian taxpayers (but that’s the red-meat cover story) — but with a $2.25 BILLION kitty AND that part of the SIO gets mapped?
Now, as to who the pilot was — that could have been Shah — or someone else. But for this game to work, the pilot(s) didn’t need to save themselves. Because, you see, there would have been a double-cross built-in.
Loose lips sink ships.
Another scenario: Human trafficking case with an additional component: loss of plane and death certificates for all involved. MH370 took off, turned at IGARI and landed in Malaysia. Passengers never boarded the plane. Handshakes are spoofed to lay a false trail. Australia is left in the dark as someone must bear the cost of the search.
@Nihonmama, ha, I’m not only a Sherlock watcher – I’m a Sherlock expert, lol! And I tell you this: what they presented as “the solution” is a grand and brilliant spoof in itself IMVHO :). And unlike the mh370 mystery I think I know the true solution – and it’s a good one. I hope we will ever get presented with it and the makers haven’t changed their minds. But in a way they did tell us how it was done in the first episode of the 3rd season. They just have hidden it quite artfully like an easter egg. It was all very simple and just a magic trick, you know… 😉
Anyway, back to reality: if this was an insurance scam where one of the goals was to get the ocean floor mapped then the plane could’ve flown to the SIO in reality – or this could’ve been what it was supposed to look like. In this case I would probably go with the simpler idea that the plane really flew to the SIO – that would be easiest to explain without too many factions having to be involved, although the question of the missing debris would arise here, too, of course.
Since the fuel supply question arose: is there the slightest possibility that someone fiddled with the fuel numbers? With or without accomplices from MAS or airport personel? Let’s think carefully about this. It’s important.
@Nihonmama & @littlefoot,
It would not be unusual for “tankering” for a flight. i.e., loading enough fuel at the starting airport for the return leg. This might be done if the fuel is more expensive at the destination airport as long as you make sure you will be below the maximum landing weight at the destination. In the case of a 2400 nm leg, the fuel price at the destination would need to be about 15% higher to be economical.
About the fuel report:
As part of the ACARS data sent at 17:07, there was a fuel report for the climb out of KLIA (from Appendix 1.9A of the FI). If that data is wrong, it would mean either Inmarsat has altered the data logs or somebody tampered with the onboard fuel meters. I don’t put a high probability on either one.
@Littlefoot:
Glad to hear you’re a Sherlock watcher! 😉
And on this point:
“I would probably go with the simpler idea that the plane really flew to the SIO — that would be easiest to explain without too many factions having to be involved”
Factions would be persons or groups of people who are at ODDS with each other. Who would enlist one or more factions to pull off a crime? Only someone who wants to get caught. But they would enlist confederates.
If the SIO is the simplest answer, where is the plane?
IF MH370 is a crime, why are people looking for a SIMPLE way to explain that? What is simple about disappearing an airplane with people on it? Criminal scenarios are often difficult to figure out precisely because the perpetrators LEVERAGE COMPLEXITY.
Sherlock executed a brilliant magic trick, as you say. Bur remember: he didn’t do it alone.
@Lauren H, yes I’ve heard about hoarding fuel for the return leg if that is economically sensible. But if that was an above board action it would be documented.
@Victor, that Inmarsat altered the fuel log – agreed, that’s not very likely at all. I have no idea how likely it is that someone altered the fuel meter. Is it possible to alter the ACARS messages btw? The hacker Renderman claimed it’s easy to hack into the system.
I’m not saying that I consider such a “fuel spoof” or”fuel fraud” likely or unlikely. I don’t have the expertise one way or the other. But all eventualities should be covered. It could be important. Especially in a Northern scenario an undocumented fuel surplus would be a great advantage for the perps. If the plane went South there’s only a limited number of scenarios where a fuel fraud would make sense. But it probably couldn’t work without some accomplices at the airport.
@littlefoot: Sure, the ACARS functionality within AIMS could have been hacked and the fuel information reported could be false. That is more likely than tampering with the fuel meters, but still not very probable, IMO.
Fuel quantity is also embedded in the GWT (gross weight) parameter in the Engine Health Monitoring reports.
@Gysbreght, yes, that’s an important point: fuel information and weight of the plane is embedded in many parameters. It wouldn’t be enough just to alter the ACARS messages. I’m not sure if it’s possible to alter all outgoing messages consistently.
As expected
http://www.watoday.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/mh370-search-australianled-hunt-for-missing-malaysia-airlines-plane-to-end-without-new-evidence-20150603-ghgaf0.html
@Nihonmama, no, Sherlock didn’t do it alone. But I think he had a lot less accomplices than in the version he told Anderson. And he did not use a Big Blue Pillow 😉
But it’s very nice to meet a fellow Sherlock watcher. The show has been on my mind often lately when I thought about the plane’s vanishing act. It seems to be the perfect magic trick – if it wouldn’t be tragic reality with real criminals and many more victims than just the people onboard.
So — how much fuel was on board MH370 — unassailable?
@Matty, thanks.
Don’t know if that is bad or good news.
For those who believe that the plane is not there anyway it might be the inevitable end of something which stopped to make sense long ago.
For others it might be a capitulation which comes too early.
Yes, would be good if we could declare the amount of fuel unassailable with reasonable certainty.
I an thrilled by the May 30 update: “Fugro Equator is using the hiatus to conduct bathymetric survey operations, mapping additional areas of the seafloor which may be incorporated into the search.” http://www.reddit.com/r/MH370/comments/38cdx5/mh370_operational_search_update_3_june_2015/
As I recall, Dr Ulich’s recommendation of 84.0E to 85.5E along the 7th Arc was outside of the previous bathymetric survey. Brock McEwen’s post of Mike Chillit’s tweets showing Fugro Equator “breaking new ground” to the southwest has some promise of conduction a bathymetric survey of areas that include Dr. Ulich’s latest work with contrails and possibly distrails, as well as the work of Richard Cole, and “Globus Max.” See GlobusMax’s reddit post for the details. http://www.reddit.com/r/MH370/comments/2y9bdx/acoustic_and_end_of_flight_analyses_3956s_843e/ and see also http://i.imgur.com/sa5oruO.png I sure hope to read that the recently begun bathymetric work extends to these key places, which, in my opinion, can lead to further side scan sonar work after the “credible new information” leads to the identification of a specific location in which to look for the aircraft” for which the governments can authorize a further expansion of the search area.
Littlefoot – They haven’t said anything we didn’t know but I also get the feeling they are laying the groundwork for an exit before it gets away from them.
A very simple low-tech way the fuel load could have been ‘tampered’ with, and wouldn’t show up in any log:
Use more fuel from 17:21-18:25 than people think. Less fuel = less range.
Probability of faking the fuel data is low but so is making a B-777 disappear.
Per the FCOM, there are 3 data sources of the amount of remaining fuel shown on the display. Sensed from the Totalizer, Calculated and Manual entry. You cannot use the Totalizer and Manual entry together. I do not know which one is used by ACARS but it sounds like if you enter the data manually the FMC calculates the amount remaining by subtracting the amount used from the initial value.
@Lauren H, yes, unlikely isn’t good enough for exclude a fuel tampering scenario. It would disguise the actual crash or landing area very effectively.
How is the take off weight calculated? Would it be possible to declare more cargo than there actually is and then substitute the missing weight with more fuel?
Again: grabbing more fuel and disguising it somehow would only be possible with helpers at the airport. But that assumption is not unreasonable at all IMO.
If you took extra fuel would it be with the intention of landing the plane? Most likely?
15 months later not a trace. With some digging Victor has found a few things that could have happened to the BFO’s but there could be many others that haven’t seen the light of day. In 15 months an orthodoxy has developed around MH370(SIO)and I have seen it defended right here in a most exclusive way that served to belittle anyone who deviated. But hypothetically if it turned out that the northern route was suddenly favored by some revised math they would still be searching the SIO. In other words if the math suddenly pointed north they would say it was wrong/impossible and the BFO data would go out the window. Zero tangible trace of the plane however means nothing?
Looks like there’s been an interesting volte-face. They’re not going to extend the current search area after all, according to UK press. That’s a reversal of April’s announcement, I think…
@Mark
The press misread the ATSB status update. ATSB have updated it to clarify the position – the expansion to 120000sq.km. stands.
http://www.atsb.gov.au/mh370-pages/updates/operational-update.aspx
@Matty & All
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-31736835
As I’ve have mentioned in the past,regarding Panang.
As for the search…..it took them two years to find the Air France flight with only a 14 mile search area. Everybody better hunker down for the long haul.Maybe pour 6 month’s a year at a time. Try to stretch resources & of course $$$$. Even approach the international community to ante up. I haven’t been able to find out how much $$$$ China has ponied up, when they’ve had the greatest loss of life.
@Matty, extra fuel would have been great for the perps in a Northern landing scenario, since it would expand their choice of landing places considerably and nobody would be looking for the plane beyond it’s supposed fuel range during the time span when the North was still on the table.
If the plane went South irregular extra fuel woud only make sense in a scenario where the plane is not supposed to be found along the 7th arc like in Nihonmama’s proposed insurance scam.
Again: discussing it opens a huge can of worms. But it needs to be excluded with reasonable certainty, since – if possible – it would be a very logical move of the perps in a number of different scenarios.
@Kaz Lee,
Re: your comment at June 3, 9:05 am:
The 100000 $ raised for paying private investigators isn’t a huge sum as you claim but just enough peanuts to finance some very basic inquiries. The money ran out in no time. They had planned to raise much more but people didn’t donate more.
And why do you say Ethan Hunt has told lies? I’m not aware of any. If you’re talking about the missing phone calls and text messages to families and friends even before the plane started – that’s very peculiar indeed and deserves to be confirmed. It wasn’t only Phil Wood who didn’t send any messages. There were none at all from the other passengers as well according to Ethan Hunt. Very strange indeed, considering that you have to surgically remove the cell phones from some folks. So if this is true and there weren’t any messages it would hint strongly at the employment of a cell phone jammer by the perps. And that hints at a premeditated act. All accident scenarios plus accidental shoot down scenarios would have to be ruled out.
As far as I know your insinuations aren’t based on any known facts.
The story about the watch and the wedding ring is strange indeed. But something like this – a passenger suddenly having a premonition – might be more common than we think and happen before any number of flights where nothing happens at all. But then we will never be told because it isn’t news worthy.
@littlefoot
You are so right. No texts or calls before/during/after boarding would be hugely significant.
I found the April 10, 2015 statement from @cryfortruth (Voice MH370) that Kaz was evidently referring to:
“yes there were definitely tmsg sent from on board mh370 prior & even slightly after take off”
https://twitter.com/MikeChillit/status/586659486523232256
If only Ethan Hunt & Voice MH30 would say more about this & clear it up once and for all.
BTW, so glad you’re back, Littlefoot! I missed your always perceptive & thoughtful posts.
@Judy P, thanks a lot for that hint. I wasn’t aware of that apparent contradiction. My sole knowledge of Mr. Hunt’s statements comes from this interview in the ‘Guardian’ (or was it the Telegraph?) a couple of weeks ago. There he declared that no messages have been sent even before take off. If that is true it’s indeed so significant that it deserves and demands unequivocal confirmation.
@Kaz Lee, I apologize for not having read your comment carefully enough.
As JudyP pointed out there is indeed an obvious contradiction between Mr. Hunt’s and ‘cryfortruth’statements. It would be important to clear that up. That messages were sent shortly before and after takeoff would be the normal state of affairs.
As to Paul Weeks giving his watch and wedding ring to his wife, there’s on the surface nothing mysterious about that. He wasn’t worried about the flight but he was going to a new job at a Mongolian mine. His wife was a little worried about conditions out there.
@littlefoot, I agree. The fact that Paul Weeks gave his ring & watch to his wife (whether to protect them from harsh conditions or because of a premonition) isn’t necessarily suspicious at all. Likewise I’m not suspicious of Philip Wood for failing to send Sarah a text.
I also don’t assume that Ethan Hunt lied. (Even if he was wrong, he might have sincerely believed what he said.) But I sure wish we could get a conclusive answer to the question of pre-flight texts! The lack of elucidation & follow-up on this issue is very odd & frustrating. (But what else is new when it comes to MH370?)
Based on the timing of the 7th ring and the conclusions of the contributors who say it was descending at 00:19, I agree it most likely had run out of fuel sometime prior to 00:19.
I was just saying that I believe it would be easier to spoof the fuel amounts than to spoof the BFO’s. (Even if it was only the inclination angle of the satellite.)
Also, if Inmarsat only thought of using the BFO’s for predicting the speed and direction a week or so after MH370 went missing, I think it very unlikely that anyone would plan to spoof anything to do with the BFO’s beforehand.
@littlefoot – Good point about Paul Weeks. If MH370 hadn’t gone missing the news media wouldn’t have reported or even knownhe handed his ring and watch to his wife.
Re: Foley’s false testimony on Curtin acoustic event:
Conversed briefly yesterday with Alec Duncan, who I now believe will forward to Sen. Watling the work Curtin performed last September to attempt to triangulate the acoustic event (in both time and position) using data from Scott Reef.
The reason this need arises: in his “correction”, Peter Foley quoted coordinates, times, and associated uncertainties corresponding to the June/14 Curtin analysis ONLY – i.e. BEFORE the Scott Reef data helped triangulate (as reported publicly Sep/14, with details brought to this forum by me).
If you IGNORE the Scott Reef triangulation, the event time estimate is 00:39 (with large uncertainty) – still slightly infeasible under an assumption of fuel exhaustion at 00:16.
If you USE Scott Reef, the event time estimate is 00:25 (with std dev of just 85 seconds) – almost a PERFECT match.
Now, Curtin attaches caveats which must be repeated:
1) It is likely – but not CERTAIN – that the two hydrophone arrays detected the SAME event. If they were different events, the best-estimate time/coords of the Rottnest event revert back to their June values.
2) Curtin has never argued this event is MH370, citing the ISAT data, the nearby geologically active Carlsberg Ridge, and the sound’s “low amplitude tail” as all arguing against. (I dispute all 3, but that is a different subject.)
But these caveats do NOT excuse the fact that, despite the Senate Committee having ASKED the question – and Foley being given TWO cracks at an answer – our little “peanut gallery” remains considerably more informed on the topic than is the Committee.
This ever-so-superior system apparently only works when suspicious people like me stop trusting it, and start demanding accountability. That’s why I beg singers of its praises to publicly join me in MAKING it work: by demanding the ATSB(‘s puppeteers) be held fully accountable for the fiasco that is this search.
@Littlefoot, @JudyP:
Re the Ethan Hunt story, please see below and pay attention to the convo in the Twitter link. I’ve never received any response — from CryforTruth or Sarah Bajc.
Nihonmama
Posted April 14, 2015 at 9:05 PM
(“New York: How Crazy Am I…”)
@Cheryl:
“Take the phone call possibility, or lack thereof, way back to before the reboot of the sdu, to when the passengers entered the plane at KLIA. It was Philip Wood’s normal practiced routine to call Sara from his seat on every flight prior to departure, yet on MH370 this was not done. What is a mobile blocker and how does that work and could something like that have been in place here? What time did Captain Shah supposedly receive that phone call from the person who used the SID phone card, was he on the plane at the time of the call in the cockpit or still in the airport or elsewhere? I think Ethan Hunt was investigating something to this end about Philip’s no call, but I have not read anything further on it.”
Well, a big red flag has popped up re Ethan Hunt’s story — specifically regarding no calls being made from MH370 before it left KLIA. Or should I say, the REPORTING of what Ethan Hunt said. It’s all in this thread, but the response from Jon Ronson, the journo who wrote the story, warrants quoting:
“I did no additional research about this – I didn’t have time. Is it false?”
https://twitter.com/nihonmama/status/586686538014035968
AYFKM?
And there was no response from CryForTruth or Sarah Bajc’s twitter accounts. Perhaps they don’t want to confront Ronson publicly – particularly given that Bajc’s on the record saying that she trusts Hunt.
Whatever the case, why would The Guardian let Ronson’s story go to press without this HUGE point being FACT-CHECKED?
@JudyP, I read the whole twitter conversation now. I think it’s quite likely that #cryfortruth’s# statement is correct and there have been messages.
I agree with you that this doesn’t necessarily mean Ethan Hunt was deliberately lying to the Guardian. Why should he? But it’s unfortunate and frustrating nevertheless. He came across as someone who had uncovered something of utmost importance when he made that statement about the missing messages. And if true it would indeed be significant. If it’s not true Ethan Hunt has certainly not been diligent and careful enough.
@littlefoot, JudyP:
Me: “But key question remains: was Hunt telling truth about no calls? @cryfortruth’s tweet suggests no.”
JonRonson: “we did a bit more research actually and found nothing to disprove his comment”
Me: “OK. More research means? Because @cryfortruth’s statement contradicts what you reported Ethan Hunt said”
Radio silence from Jon Ronson.
@Nihonmama, I would say that Ronson wasn’t out to write an investigative article. He was writing about what’s going on in people’s minds one year after. It was more of an atmospheric piece. So for him it might’ve been enough to report that Ethan Hunt made this statement. Since the Guardian never said if Hunt’s assertion is correct or not there was no legal reason to do additional research.
Still it’s regrettable that they didn’t. Such statements stick in people’s minds and many don’t differentiate if the Guardian made this statement or if they simply retold what someone else has said.
@Nihonmama:
“I did no additional research about this – I didn’t have time. Is it false?”
Priceless.
A perfect caption for the media’s cumulative contribution to this mystery, and its “investigation”.
And a perfect epitaph for journalistic integrity, in general.
@Nihonmama, our comments crossed. So Ronson answered you that they did additional research. I wonder what they have actually done. This isn’t something which is easy to confirm or debunk with a few phone calls since so many countries are involved. I hardly expect China to be cooperative in these things.
@Brock, good investigative journalism has been sorely lacking throughout the last year. True.But this Guardian article didn’t even pretend to be investigative. It was an atmospheric piece. And they have not stated a falsehood, since they noticeably reserved judgment concerning Ethan Hunt’s statements.
@Littlefoot:
“I would say that Ronson wasn’t out to write an investigative article. He was writing about what’s going on in people’s minds one year after. It was more of an atmospheric piece.”
Ronson wasn’t out to write an investigative article — based on what? So fact-checking doesn’t apply here? We know there are half-a$$ed journos out there who get paid for churning out crap. But there IS a journalistic standard and industry practice as it pertains to fact-checking. Ronson isn’t a newbie — (he also writes books) and his piece wasn’t in the National Enquirer (although their stories often prove to be true) — it was in The Guardian.
And Ronson didn’t answer the question.
@Lauren H, I don’t necessarily agree that a fuel spoof would be easier than a BFO spoof. It’s only an intuitively more obvious path to go down. But the devil is in the details:
You would need helpers at the airport. They would have to falsify the receipts or whatever they’re using there to keep track of fuel dispension. Then the fuel meter might need tampering, as well as the ACARS messages and every parameter where the fuel amount might be embedded in. That’s not simple, it’s quite a logistic challenge.
For a BFO spoof as envisioned by Victor none of this is necessary. It just seems intuitively more complicated because of the complexity of the concept “BFO”.
And even if the perps didn’t know that Inmarsat would store and eventually use the BTOs as well for their calculations, it would still be advantageous from the perspective of the perps to distort the BFOs because every time a handshake occurred the investigators would conclude that at the time of the handshake the plane was traveling into the direction opposite to the actual heading.
@Brock:
“‘I did no additional research about this – I didn’t have time. Is it false?”
Priceless.”
RIGHT?
I was speechless and had to contain myself.
You’re supposed to be a journalist and you’re saying (out loud and in public on Twitter) that you didn’t research a HUGE point in your own piece. And then you ask a reader if the fact they’re asking YOU about is true?
*drops mic*
So did he tell his editors he didn’t check it thoroughly? Did the editors even ask (they’re SUPPOSED to).
“a perfect epitaph for journalistic integrity” is so right.
Journalism has jumped the shark.