Survey conducted by @Jay (Joel Kaye) via the comments section of “Guest Post: Northern Routes and Burst Frequency Offset for MH370.”
635 thoughts on “Where Do We Think MH370 Went?”
@Niels, yes, he talked about radar data and the Chris Mclaughlin interview is a mess alright. I wonder to this day what he was talking about. I think after that interview he never talked that extensively on tv again.
@Nihonmama, please don’t connect the Curtin Boom and the Maldive sighting again. We sorted that out a while ago. The Curtin boom happened BEFORE the Kudahuvadhooan sighting. Brock himself has buried the theory that the Maldive plane might’ve caused the boom.
But you are right, the Le Monde story becomes sillier the longer you think about it.
@littlefoot
Well, I didn’t mean the interview. I think Chris understands very well what he is talking about. But I’m glad you headed him say the same, before people start calling me delusional.
@Niels: In the interview with Megyn Kelly on March 24, McLaughlin did say the plane turned over the Andaman Islands and a subsequent turn to the south. But he also said he was no expert in this area. It may be that he was referring to the Andaman and Nicobar Islands and the Andaman Sea collectively as “the Andamans”, in which case he could be describing an early turn that passed near Great Nicobar Island.
On the other hand, if the satellite call at 18:40 is ignored as it was in the ATSB report from June 2014, a later turn is possible, and the plane might have turned over the Andaman Islands. This might indicate there was additional data that placed the plane over the Andamans, and this data was buried after we hit them over the head with the BFO value at 18:40.
Interestingly, if the BFO was spoofed in the way I proposed, the BFO at 18:40 and a flight over the Andamans (Port Blair) are both explained.
StevanG – there can be no diplomatic stink with a disappeared plane. But a violated one sitting on the tarmac? If it went north it would not have done so invisibly, doesn’t mean anyone did anything about it. China is the only issue? What obligation would anyone have to reveal an odd plane on some log if they have all headed off down the SIO – case closed. As Obama said – “it’s in the SIO.” Today I think that was based on an absence of intel than on actual intel.
Nihonmama – Hedley Thomas’s story. The ABC media watch program(Australian National broadcaster) and Hedley’s employer Newscorp have a venomous relationship. Always shooting each other down. I think Hedley blinked here.
Doppler – I labored this all of last year. There was never anything new about it.
Phone calls – why is everything still so murky? Still. Someone adjust the picture.
@Littlefoot:
“The Curtin boom happened BEFORE the Kudahuvadhooan sighting. Brock himself has buried the theory that the Maldive plane might’ve caused the boom.”
Where did I connect the SIGHTING of the plane to the BOOM? I did not.
Brock said the CLOSEST land to the refined best-estimate is Kuda Huvadhoo.
Has KudaHuvadhoo’s location or the location of the recorded event in question changed?
And, a not-insignificant fabrication published by a major newspaper is silly?
Is that what it is?
Inmarsat were happy to fill the airwaves in the beginning and at that stage everyone was anticipating a bit of plane was hours away. But it didn’t come off and they wound the media appearances right back. Then silence and apathy. Suddenly it was all about the ATSB. Can you imagine the existence of an IG in the case of 9-11? But there they are doing interviews and publishing reports and getting recognition and in some cases driving it, and all the while it’s understood that it’s no accident. Extraordinary.
@Matty and @Niels
Matty said “As Obama said – “it’s in the SIO.”” Could you supply the reference for this please, I can’t find it. So much stuff out there, not all accurate. Did you come to a conclusion Niels about when anyone first said SIO? Thanks.
AM2 – the southern arc had gained favor even before Inmarsat split them with their analysis. The Obama line as I recall it was a bit of video and I haven’t got a clue where to find it but now it smells like….SIO….sure….go for it.
@Nihonmama, that’s hair splitting. At the end of your post from 6/30/6:36pm you quote Brock, who at the time (Feb.26) made the connection between Kudahuvadhoo and the Curtin Boom. Since you don’t comment further on this, you invite readers to make this connection as well.
It was a bone of contention with us numerous times, since back then Brock still thought it possible – like numerous others, including many journalists, who believe it to this day – that mh370 was sighted over the Maldives and then went in a straight line to the location of the Curtin boom and finally crashed there. In the end someone – I think it was Cosmic Academy – did the correct time conversion and showed it wasn’t only unlikely but it was completely impossible that the plane over Kudahuvadhoo had anything to do with the Curtin boom. Something most journos and many commenters still don’t get. Including Hedley Thomas. But Brock acknowledged since then the truth of the time table.
If the plane over Kudahuvadhoo is supposed to have been mh370, then mh370 can’t have crashed where the boom came from, which then must be totally unrelated to mh370. If on the other hand mh370 crashed at the location of the Curtin Boom, then the plane over Kudahuvadhoo can’t have been mh370. Plain and simple.
If however the plane over Kudahuvadhoo is connected in any other way with the disappearance of mh370 is a different matter. The research which seems to suggest that it might’ve been a plane from a Maldivian airline is apparently very shoddy indeed, as you showed earlier in your comment.
@AM2
The earliest reference to the Indian Ocean I can find is a March 13 report quoting US Whitehouse spokesman Jim Carney.
@Niels.
P.S. Did you see this WP article from 15 Mar with much simpler graphic than the other you linked to (also 15 Mar or later?) until you click on the graphic which links to the other article. All rather odd and doesn’t help confirm timeline.
Littlefoot – I think the Curtin boom is significant in that it proves their devices were working perfectly well.
@Dennis W
Thanks but I was looking for Southern IO references in particular, trying to sort out incorrect assumptions that I (or others) may have made.
@AM2
The WP article I linked to has a date just below the graphic. Also if you check the dates of the comments it is correct that it is from March 15th. It is the first indication I remember the focus was going south (see the flight paths provided by NTSB). Hardly anyone understood why. The Chinese even hadn’t started their land search.
@AM2
The “Southern” Indian Ocean is a nuance. Note that Carney made no reference to an arc running North and South or any North/South ambiguity which was prevalent for some time after that date. He said Indian Ocean period. I believe Inmarsat was still trying to sort out the BFO data on that date.
There is nothing coming directly from US sources after that date either. I think the White House was told to shut up, and let things play out through Inmarsat. No point in compromising an intel source.
Dennis – Agreed. The US govt basically withdrew from the game(on the surface?) and from then on it was Inmarsat. It struck me as instantly strange. They had the ball under their arm and were heading for the line and the big players were standing back. They had no intention of making the running.
@VictorI
Option2. But why was it buried, why not combined (ROD)?
Mclaughlin was quite specific in which area he is not an expert in.
@DennisW
Please check the March 15th Washington Post article carefully. It was clear attention turned to the south, and NTSB played a major role there. So to say it was all left to Inmarsat after March 13th is not true, at least if we agree Isat had not sorted it out yet.
@AM2 Would indeed be good to find out who made the SIO announcement explicitly, as first, and when.
@Niels
Sorry, not working for me. Maybe I am reading the wrong article. Please repeat the link to which you are referring.
@DennisW
“Yes, I just have more difficulty understanding how the uplink signal might be intercepted. It is a big dish (narrow beam) signal near the surface of the earth”
Your response indicates that I may not have been clear enough.
You don’t need the time of uplink burst at Perth. You only need to receive the sat’s relay of that signal (downwards from Sat to listening post). That listening post can be anywhere in the global beam of the satellite.
I discussed this some pages ago (or maybe in the other thread). ALSM confirmed there, that the uplink is sent from satellite via global beam, I guess, since it needs to reach a/c anywhere in the global beam.
So, you’d receive 2 signals per hand-shake, the sat relay of the uplink and the sat relay of the down link signal.
The time difference between the two, with consideration of the geometry between listening post – sat – a/c will give you all you need to measure a BTO-like quantity, no matter where you are in the global beam.
Cheers
Will
@Niels
A minor point: Looking at the 136 comments in the WP article you linked to, second one in newest by “branch1” on 21 Mar 2014 –
“I was surprised to see that you had made substantive changes to this article since it was published on March 15, but I could not find any notation of the changes you had made. You added the missing data points at 5:11, 6:11, and 7:11AM. I know that, because I found my own comment of 2:15 PM on 3-16-14 asking about the missing data points. You also added references to the possible debris that were not even announced until 3-19-14. Did I miss where you listed the changes you made after the original publication on March 15?”
Still seems that something doesn’t add up here with the date it was published and why changes were made.
Yes, I remember there was this issue with more of their articles about MH370, people complainted more often.
Concerning this article: some of the comments (dates and times are given) refer to the paths plotted to the south, so I don’t think we are too far off with the dating.
And I suppose there should also be archived printed versions in the end.
@Niels: I don’t know if you saw a previous comment of mine where I addressed this, but I believe that by March 12/13, Inmarsat already believed the plane went south based on the Doppler (BFO) analysis, even though the BFO refinement that produced the “excellent match” occurred several days later. The delay in obtaining the “excellent match” was due to issues surrounding the bug in the EAFC pilot receiver at Perth.
@ Niels
Various news articles state that Thai radar picked up the aircraft.
“Although the signal was sporadic, the aircraft was later again picked up by Thai radar swinging north and disappearing over the Andaman Sea, Air Marshal Monthon added.”
Here is an interesting tidbit found by @LGHamiltonUSA:
***
Officials close to the investigation said available information showed the plane may have passed close to Port Blair, the capital of India’s Andaman and Nicobar Islands, 550 miles (885 km) further northwest along an established commercial flying route.
“It went very near Port Blair, that much we understand from information available,” said a senior military official with knowledge of the investigation. “It had gone into Indian airspace and then it was not clear where the plane went after Port Blair.”
An Indian Defence Ministry spokesman declined to comment on whether the aircraft had flown over Port Blair.
So based on this comment and the comment by Chris McLaughlin, it suggests that at one point it was believed the plane flew over Port Blair.
@MuOne
Got it. Duh! Thx.
As we think about what additional data, if any, Inmarsat and Malaysia might have had to proclaim that MH370 approached Port Blair, it is worthwhile to remember that there was a large, military exercise in the area called Cobra Gold. Led by the US and Thailand, it included 9,000 American troops that practiced paratrooping and amphibious landings into Thailand.
“With the U.S. and Thailand leading Cobra Gold, commanders and analysts say the strategic aim of the exercise was to demonstrate to Beijing’s communist leadership how fast and effective the U.S. can be in supporting its Asian allies, all of whom lie in a tight arc around China — from India and Nepal through Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia to South Korea and Japan.”
@VictorI
Thanks a lot for these postings
– Is there a graph available how the BFO match looks like with and without Perth correction?
In addition, regarding possible tracing near Port Blair, there was also a navy excercise just finished west of Malaysia. These vessels usually have pretty good “eyes”, at least the Butterworth crossing should have stirred some servicemen onboard away from their Friday night beers, back to business.
@Victor
I spent some time looking at a Port Blair trajectory at the request of another contributor here. I could not make the numbers work relative to the ISAT data. You know that, of course. The point is additional data that conflicts with data you already have forces you to make choices relative to what data you believe. That is not a position I like to find myself in.
For my part, I think the ISAT data is valid. On that basis I would categorically rule out the Maldives, Port Blair, and many other suggestions. Spoofing is always a possibility, but without a motive I have a hard time embracing it. Anything on that plane could more easily be obtained on the ground (physical items or PAX). A 777 can be purchased on line. What would be the point of such an elaborate undertaking? You have to have an answer for that question before you yell “spoof”.
Likewise with an SIO (37S or beyond) terminus. Without invoking the suicide explanation (which I find extremely unlikely) I have heard no plausible explanation. Do you believe Shah or someone else on the plane wanted to commit suicide? If not what do believe led to the SIO as I have defined it? Time for the IG and the ATSB to at least put forth any likely reason for that terminus. You cannot continue to hide behind the math as you have been doing for 18 +/- months.
@DennisW: I don’t advocate embracing the spoof. At this point, I choose to not dismiss it due to a missing motive, nor do I yet dismiss the SIO scenario. We have no idea what could be happening between countries in private.
For instance, and this is completely fabricated, let’s supposed the Malaysian sovereign fund and the Chinese mob in a backroom deal cheated Russian oligarchs out of money. There might be pressure to send a strong message back to Malaysia and China, and hitting MAS might be the chosen vehicle for doing this. The same motive might have caused MH17.
My point is only that I very reluctantly will dismiss a scenario based on my inability to understand what the motivation might be. I am no expert in geopolitics or international intelligence.
@Dennis said, “Time for the IG and the ATSB to at least put forth any likely reason for that terminus. You cannot continue to hide behind the math as you have been doing for 18 +/- months.”
The IG’s objective has always been to performed detailed technical analyses to help pinpoint the location of the plane. As a group, it has not been willing to engage in speculation. Even if there was a desire to do so, it would be practically impossible to reach consensus amongst the entire group.
I think it is very difficult to present a report that includes both hard science and speculation because the hard science gets grouped together with the speculation. Some might think that diminishes the value of the IG’s technical work, but I do not fall into that camp.
Dennis,
OK, time to leap in here, in defence of the IG. You know the math works. No one has put in more detailed analysis than some members of the IG, and from entirely differ points of view. It is entirely possible that the flight ended in SIO naturally, as a result of a series if incidents leading up to 18.28 or so that resulted in disablement of the crew and all passengers. In this scenario I can believe that the crew did all that they could to recover the aircraft but were thwarted. No
motive necessary. No conspiracy. Just a set of very unfortunate events.
So, how did the FMT occurr. Perhaps the crew were directing the aircraft track using the heading indicator to perform a continuous turn, to buy time to try to recover other systems. Very simple procedure. At a particular point the last crew member is overcome and the aircraft simply continues to fly out of the turn and continue on the same azimuth, which just happened to be about 186 deg.
@Littlefoot:
Brock tweeted —
on 5.28.14:
“Why did Peter Foley say Curtin U event was an HOUR too late? Curtin U says 00:25 UTC (PERFECT for #MH370 fuel limit)”
on 05.30.15:
“ATSB’s Foley just told Oz senate “Curtin boom” an hour too late for #MH370 fuel exhaustion. He’s dead wrong: timing is perfect.”
Then, on 06.01.15, Peter Foley [ATSB Program Director, Operational Search for MH370], after dissembling in front of the AUS Senate, issued a memo to the Chairman of the AUS Senate — with the subject heading “Budget Estimates May 2015” — but the thrust of the memo was a correction of the inaccurate testimony he’d given the Senate with respect to acoustic detections that might possibly relate to MH370.
“Using the three hydrophones from the Cape Leeuwin station, Curtin University subsequently calculated a precise bearing that showed the signal came from the northwest, in the central Indian Ocean, with the most likely location calculated to be 5.93°S, 77.22°E with a corresponding time of the event approximately of 0039 UTC. There is however uncertainty about where the event occurred and therefore about the time taken for the signal to arrive at the hydrophone array.”
A corresponding time of the event APPROXIMATELY of 0039 UTC.
Approximate means a rough estimate — not exact. So yes, IF 0039 UTC (0539 Maldives time) is CONFIRMED to be the time of the acoustic event, then it would be 36 minutes EARLIER than the reported 0615 Kudahuvadhoo sightings and therefore, the plane those villagers saw was likely NOT MH370.
But Curtin hasn’t CONFIRMED that the acoustic event in question occurred at 0039, has it?
Here is Brock’s comment on this board (“Guest Post: Northern Routes…” at 1:38 pm):
“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.
Then Brock said:
(I DISPUTE ALL 3, BUT THAT IS A DIFFERENT SUBJECT.)” CAPS mine.
And, the event time estimate is 00:39 (WITH LARGE UNCERTAINTY).
So let’s be clear: an uncertain estimate does not equal evidence of.
And there’s another rub:
if, as Victor has shown (and there’s a pilot who says the same and will posting on his website soon) MH370 had enough fuel to make it to the Maldives, and the folks on Kudahuvadhoo DID see it, then the “perfect match” of the Scott Reef estimate to the FUEL EXHAUSTION STORY gets called into question, doesn’t it? Because MH370 could not have been in the water at 0525 Maldives time AND have been seen flying over Kudahuvadhoo 50 minutes later — at 0615 — could it?
So, has any OTHER information been left OUT of the data STORY as it pertains to those acoustic “detections”?
‘Metao’ (Reddit — April, 2014 “Do the pings stopping suggest they were from MH370?”)
“A transient is an temporal anomaly. A boom is what you think. So, this wasn’t well publicised, but the translation is: a very loud broadband noise like an explosion (or heavy object striking the water at high speed) was detected on two different data recorders, one belonging to CMST off Rottnest Island, and one belonging to the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty people near Cape Leeuwin, I think? at around the same time of the half handshake. Using speed of sound estimates it was possible to guess where the noise came from, and it was near the arc calculated by inmarsat.. Ocean Shield went there with the TPL – towed pinger locator – and viola.
Apparently hoops were jumped through to access Diego Garcia’s data, but they’ve been doing seismic measurements, so the data is a mess and unusable.
A combination of first hand and reliable second hand information. It’s difficult for me to elaborate further, unfortunately, for both identity and employment reasons.”
The seismic data from Diego Garcia is “a mess and unusable” ?
It is not “hard science” to say someone switched on the AP, input a speed and heading, and allowed the aircraft to fly into the SIO where it eventually ran out of fuel. That is a bold hypothetical that screams for an explanation. People do things for a reason. Lacking at least a single plausible reason that you are willing to articulate invalidates the hypothetical (in my view).
The IG and SSWG seem to have no issues in creating scenarios of this type. I do.
@VictorI, DennisW
I don’t think it is a problem at all to start around 1900 UTC near Port Blair and make it to the 1941 UTC ping ring. The more interesting question is at what time would you pass astern of the sailoress and could you make the westerly transition in time to the 1941 UTC ping ring with SW/SSW track. I can run the simulations in coming days. I expect the 0011 UTC position will be somewhere near S21.
For now: would anyone roughly know the E/W distance between sailoress 1930 UTC position and 1941 UTC ping ring?
@Nihonmama
Why do you think the aircraft was flown to the Maldives?
@ Nihonmama, can this be really so difficult? I didn’t say at all that the Curtin boom doesn’t match with the estimated time of mh370’s supposed crash around 00:19 UTC. It could fit actually because the boom happened around 00:25 UTC. That’s what Brock was arguing about with Foley. And Brock is right as far as the timing of the boom is concerned.
What I try to eradicate is the still wide spread erroneous idea that the plane which was seen over Kudahuvadhoo could have crashed at the location of the Curtin boom. It can’t, because it was seen almost an hour AFTER the boom happened – around 01:15 UTC. SO, if mh370 should’ve really crashed at the time and location of the Curtin boom, then the plane over Kudahuvadhoo was a different plane and not mh370.
If conversely the plane over Kudahuvadhoo was mh370, then the boom can’t have had anything to do with mh370, because it was seen flying almost an hour after the boom occurred.
So, if one wants to follow the Western trail, one has to make up one’s mind: either mh370 went westwards and crashed eventually at the Curtin boom location. Then the plane over Kudahuvadhoo was definitely not mh370. Or one choses to believe the Kudahuvadhooan witnesses and believe that they have seen mh370 almost an hour after it supposedly crashed according to the sat data. But then the Curtin boom was probably nothing more than an earthquake after all.
But one cannot have it both ways.
@DennisW:
You said:
“For my part, I think the ISAT data is valid. On that basis I would categorically rule out the Maldives, Port Blair, and many other suggestions”
Why would what I think about why MH370 might have flown OVER Kudahuvadhoo matter? You’ve already (categorically) ruled the Maldives out.
@Nihonmama
A careful read of the post you quoted indicates that a spoof is still on the table for me if a good reason for one can be articulated. I just wanted to see it you had one.
@Littlefoot:
You said:
“can this be really so difficult?”
It’s not difficult for me. At all.
“if mh370 should’ve really crashed at the time and location of the Curtin boom, then the plane over Kudahuvadhoo was a different plane and not mh370.”
Yes, and your entire post is a REPEAT of what you’ve stated earlier — which I just acknowledged in my earlier post.
Maybe it wasn’t clear enough.
In order (FOR ME) to disconnect the Kudahuvadhoo sightings from the acoustic event requires CONFIRMATION (read: proof) that the event happened at the TIME Curtain ESTIMATED that it did — at 0039 (or at 0025, if using the Scott Reef data).
If either 0039 (or 0025) is CONFIRMED as the the TIME of the acoustic event, then the sighting(s) over Kudahuvadhoo were not MH370.
When that confirmation happens, let me know.
@Niels
The distance between Kate at the time of her sighting and the 19:40 ring is a little over 70 nautical miles.
@Littlefoot:
CORRECTION:
If either 0039 (or 0025) is CONFIRMED as the the TIME of the Curtain acoustic event AND that event(s) PROVES to be linked to MH370, then the sighting(s) over Kudahuvadhoo were (obviously) not MH370.
@DennisW:
“a spoof is still on the table for me if a good reason for one can be articulated.”
I think you’ve just answered your own question.
🙂
it seems that the Cope Tiger was quite friendly and funny event, despite the missing B777, while in media almost everybody there was 24/7 searching it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWFepAwrZEc
I dont know if it wasnt here mentioned but some Matthias Chang is trying to sell for profit his psycho fear and hate spreading conspiracy books (it seems) and he used also the military exercises and MH370 too – although he is right that there is lot of confusion, for sure, Freescale Cortex M0 chip nor ZigBee RF-link are not anything secret – alone they can power maybe smartwatch or tamagochi – but its entertaining to watch his video too… https://mariamuir.com/cope-tiger-military-war-game-exercise-and-missing-flight-mh370/
@Nihonmama, I think you can trust Dr. Alec Duncan and the speed of sound in this. While it might be impossible to pin down the time of the boom to the exact minute, it’s beyond doubt that it happened well before the sightings of the Kudahuvadhooan plane. You can do the math yourself if you read the report and Dr. Duncan’s explanations. Some of them he gave to Brock personally.
Unless you want to accuse someone of falsifying the records of the Curtin Boom the Kudahuvadhoooan plane can’t have caused the boom.
Correction:
The Kudahuvadhooan plane actually could’ve caused the Curtin Boom: if it dropped a bomb or caused an appropriate explosion/implosion at the location where the boom came from – and went THEN eastwards in order to spook the islanders.
😉
@Nihonmama
Riddle me this riddle me that…
I don’t do well with riddles. The fact is that no one has come up with a plausible reason for the plane to be in the Maldives, much less a reason important enough to spoof the ISAT data. It is absolutely a non-starter. You have to do much better to bring it to life.
@Niels, yes, he talked about radar data and the Chris Mclaughlin interview is a mess alright. I wonder to this day what he was talking about. I think after that interview he never talked that extensively on tv again.
@Nihonmama, please don’t connect the Curtin Boom and the Maldive sighting again. We sorted that out a while ago. The Curtin boom happened BEFORE the Kudahuvadhooan sighting. Brock himself has buried the theory that the Maldive plane might’ve caused the boom.
But you are right, the Le Monde story becomes sillier the longer you think about it.
@littlefoot
Well, I didn’t mean the interview. I think Chris understands very well what he is talking about. But I’m glad you headed him say the same, before people start calling me delusional.
@Niels: In the interview with Megyn Kelly on March 24, McLaughlin did say the plane turned over the Andaman Islands and a subsequent turn to the south. But he also said he was no expert in this area. It may be that he was referring to the Andaman and Nicobar Islands and the Andaman Sea collectively as “the Andamans”, in which case he could be describing an early turn that passed near Great Nicobar Island.
On the other hand, if the satellite call at 18:40 is ignored as it was in the ATSB report from June 2014, a later turn is possible, and the plane might have turned over the Andaman Islands. This might indicate there was additional data that placed the plane over the Andamans, and this data was buried after we hit them over the head with the BFO value at 18:40.
Interestingly, if the BFO was spoofed in the way I proposed, the BFO at 18:40 and a flight over the Andamans (Port Blair) are both explained.
StevanG – there can be no diplomatic stink with a disappeared plane. But a violated one sitting on the tarmac? If it went north it would not have done so invisibly, doesn’t mean anyone did anything about it. China is the only issue? What obligation would anyone have to reveal an odd plane on some log if they have all headed off down the SIO – case closed. As Obama said – “it’s in the SIO.” Today I think that was based on an absence of intel than on actual intel.
Nihonmama – Hedley Thomas’s story. The ABC media watch program(Australian National broadcaster) and Hedley’s employer Newscorp have a venomous relationship. Always shooting each other down. I think Hedley blinked here.
Doppler – I labored this all of last year. There was never anything new about it.
Phone calls – why is everything still so murky? Still. Someone adjust the picture.
@Littlefoot:
“The Curtin boom happened BEFORE the Kudahuvadhooan sighting. Brock himself has buried the theory that the Maldive plane might’ve caused the boom.”
Where did I connect the SIGHTING of the plane to the BOOM? I did not.
Brock said the CLOSEST land to the refined best-estimate is Kuda Huvadhoo.
Has KudaHuvadhoo’s location or the location of the recorded event in question changed?
And, a not-insignificant fabrication published by a major newspaper is silly?
Is that what it is?
Inmarsat were happy to fill the airwaves in the beginning and at that stage everyone was anticipating a bit of plane was hours away. But it didn’t come off and they wound the media appearances right back. Then silence and apathy. Suddenly it was all about the ATSB. Can you imagine the existence of an IG in the case of 9-11? But there they are doing interviews and publishing reports and getting recognition and in some cases driving it, and all the while it’s understood that it’s no accident. Extraordinary.
@Matty and @Niels
Matty said “As Obama said – “it’s in the SIO.”” Could you supply the reference for this please, I can’t find it. So much stuff out there, not all accurate. Did you come to a conclusion Niels about when anyone first said SIO? Thanks.
AM2 – the southern arc had gained favor even before Inmarsat split them with their analysis. The Obama line as I recall it was a bit of video and I haven’t got a clue where to find it but now it smells like….SIO….sure….go for it.
@Nihonmama, that’s hair splitting. At the end of your post from 6/30/6:36pm you quote Brock, who at the time (Feb.26) made the connection between Kudahuvadhoo and the Curtin Boom. Since you don’t comment further on this, you invite readers to make this connection as well.
It was a bone of contention with us numerous times, since back then Brock still thought it possible – like numerous others, including many journalists, who believe it to this day – that mh370 was sighted over the Maldives and then went in a straight line to the location of the Curtin boom and finally crashed there. In the end someone – I think it was Cosmic Academy – did the correct time conversion and showed it wasn’t only unlikely but it was completely impossible that the plane over Kudahuvadhoo had anything to do with the Curtin boom. Something most journos and many commenters still don’t get. Including Hedley Thomas. But Brock acknowledged since then the truth of the time table.
If the plane over Kudahuvadhoo is supposed to have been mh370, then mh370 can’t have crashed where the boom came from, which then must be totally unrelated to mh370. If on the other hand mh370 crashed at the location of the Curtin Boom, then the plane over Kudahuvadhoo can’t have been mh370. Plain and simple.
If however the plane over Kudahuvadhoo is connected in any other way with the disappearance of mh370 is a different matter. The research which seems to suggest that it might’ve been a plane from a Maldivian airline is apparently very shoddy indeed, as you showed earlier in your comment.
@AM2
The earliest reference to the Indian Ocean I can find is a March 13 report quoting US Whitehouse spokesman Jim Carney.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/13/malaysia-airlines-indian-ocean_n_4959252.html
@Niels.
P.S. Did you see this WP article from 15 Mar with much simpler graphic than the other you linked to (also 15 Mar or later?) until you click on the graphic which links to the other article. All rather odd and doesn’t help confirm timeline.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/malaysia-airlines-flight-mh370-search-expands-amid-focus-on-criminal-act/2014/03/15/66cf570c-ac52-11e3-a06a-e3230a43d6cb_story.html
Littlefoot – I think the Curtin boom is significant in that it proves their devices were working perfectly well.
@Dennis W
Thanks but I was looking for Southern IO references in particular, trying to sort out incorrect assumptions that I (or others) may have made.
@AM2
The WP article I linked to has a date just below the graphic. Also if you check the dates of the comments it is correct that it is from March 15th. It is the first indication I remember the focus was going south (see the flight paths provided by NTSB). Hardly anyone understood why. The Chinese even hadn’t started their land search.
@AM2
The “Southern” Indian Ocean is a nuance. Note that Carney made no reference to an arc running North and South or any North/South ambiguity which was prevalent for some time after that date. He said Indian Ocean period. I believe Inmarsat was still trying to sort out the BFO data on that date.
There is nothing coming directly from US sources after that date either. I think the White House was told to shut up, and let things play out through Inmarsat. No point in compromising an intel source.
Dennis – Agreed. The US govt basically withdrew from the game(on the surface?) and from then on it was Inmarsat. It struck me as instantly strange. They had the ball under their arm and were heading for the line and the big players were standing back. They had no intention of making the running.
@VictorI
Option2. But why was it buried, why not combined (ROD)?
Mclaughlin was quite specific in which area he is not an expert in.
@DennisW
Please check the March 15th Washington Post article carefully. It was clear attention turned to the south, and NTSB played a major role there. So to say it was all left to Inmarsat after March 13th is not true, at least if we agree Isat had not sorted it out yet.
@AM2 Would indeed be good to find out who made the SIO announcement explicitly, as first, and when.
@Niels
Sorry, not working for me. Maybe I am reading the wrong article. Please repeat the link to which you are referring.
@DennisW
“Yes, I just have more difficulty understanding how the uplink signal might be intercepted. It is a big dish (narrow beam) signal near the surface of the earth”
Your response indicates that I may not have been clear enough.
You don’t need the time of uplink burst at Perth. You only need to receive the sat’s relay of that signal (downwards from Sat to listening post). That listening post can be anywhere in the global beam of the satellite.
I discussed this some pages ago (or maybe in the other thread). ALSM confirmed there, that the uplink is sent from satellite via global beam, I guess, since it needs to reach a/c anywhere in the global beam.
So, you’d receive 2 signals per hand-shake, the sat relay of the uplink and the sat relay of the down link signal.
The time difference between the two, with consideration of the geometry between listening post – sat – a/c will give you all you need to measure a BTO-like quantity, no matter where you are in the global beam.
Cheers
Will
@Niels
A minor point: Looking at the 136 comments in the WP article you linked to, second one in newest by “branch1” on 21 Mar 2014 –
“I was surprised to see that you had made substantive changes to this article since it was published on March 15, but I could not find any notation of the changes you had made. You added the missing data points at 5:11, 6:11, and 7:11AM. I know that, because I found my own comment of 2:15 PM on 3-16-14 asking about the missing data points. You also added references to the possible debris that were not even announced until 3-19-14. Did I miss where you listed the changes you made after the original publication on March 15?”
Still seems that something doesn’t add up here with the date it was published and why changes were made.
@DennisW
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/satellite-locates-malaysian-flight-370-still-flying-seven-hours-after-takeoff/2014/03/15/96627a24-ac86-11e3-a06a-e3230a43d6cb_graphic.html
@AM2
Yes, I remember there was this issue with more of their articles about MH370, people complainted more often.
Concerning this article: some of the comments (dates and times are given) refer to the paths plotted to the south, so I don’t think we are too far off with the dating.
And I suppose there should also be archived printed versions in the end.
@Niels: I don’t know if you saw a previous comment of mine where I addressed this, but I believe that by March 12/13, Inmarsat already believed the plane went south based on the Doppler (BFO) analysis, even though the BFO refinement that produced the “excellent match” occurred several days later. The delay in obtaining the “excellent match” was due to issues surrounding the bug in the EAFC pilot receiver at Perth.
@ Niels
Various news articles state that Thai radar picked up the aircraft.
“Although the signal was sporadic, the aircraft was later again picked up by Thai radar swinging north and disappearing over the Andaman Sea, Air Marshal Monthon added.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-19/malaysia/5332052
Here is an interesting tidbit found by @LGHamiltonUSA:
***
Officials close to the investigation said available information showed the plane may have passed close to Port Blair, the capital of India’s Andaman and Nicobar Islands, 550 miles (885 km) further northwest along an established commercial flying route.
“It went very near Port Blair, that much we understand from information available,” said a senior military official with knowledge of the investigation. “It had gone into Indian airspace and then it was not clear where the plane went after Port Blair.”
An Indian Defence Ministry spokesman declined to comment on whether the aircraft had flown over Port Blair.
India has said it is possible that the military radars were switched off as it operates on an “as required” basis in that area.
***
http://in.mobile.reuters.com/article/topNews/idINDEEA2L03120140322
So based on this comment and the comment by Chris McLaughlin, it suggests that at one point it was believed the plane flew over Port Blair.
@MuOne
Got it. Duh! Thx.
As we think about what additional data, if any, Inmarsat and Malaysia might have had to proclaim that MH370 approached Port Blair, it is worthwhile to remember that there was a large, military exercise in the area called Cobra Gold. Led by the US and Thailand, it included 9,000 American troops that practiced paratrooping and amphibious landings into Thailand.
“With the U.S. and Thailand leading Cobra Gold, commanders and analysts say the strategic aim of the exercise was to demonstrate to Beijing’s communist leadership how fast and effective the U.S. can be in supporting its Asian allies, all of whom lie in a tight arc around China — from India and Nepal through Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia to South Korea and Japan.”
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/02/17/us-military-exercises-in-asia-meant-to-send-signal-to-china-say-experts/
@VictorI
Thanks a lot for these postings
– Is there a graph available how the BFO match looks like with and without Perth correction?
In addition, regarding possible tracing near Port Blair, there was also a navy excercise just finished west of Malaysia. These vessels usually have pretty good “eyes”, at least the Butterworth crossing should have stirred some servicemen onboard away from their Friday night beers, back to business.
@Victor
I spent some time looking at a Port Blair trajectory at the request of another contributor here. I could not make the numbers work relative to the ISAT data. You know that, of course. The point is additional data that conflicts with data you already have forces you to make choices relative to what data you believe. That is not a position I like to find myself in.
For my part, I think the ISAT data is valid. On that basis I would categorically rule out the Maldives, Port Blair, and many other suggestions. Spoofing is always a possibility, but without a motive I have a hard time embracing it. Anything on that plane could more easily be obtained on the ground (physical items or PAX). A 777 can be purchased on line. What would be the point of such an elaborate undertaking? You have to have an answer for that question before you yell “spoof”.
Likewise with an SIO (37S or beyond) terminus. Without invoking the suicide explanation (which I find extremely unlikely) I have heard no plausible explanation. Do you believe Shah or someone else on the plane wanted to commit suicide? If not what do believe led to the SIO as I have defined it? Time for the IG and the ATSB to at least put forth any likely reason for that terminus. You cannot continue to hide behind the math as you have been doing for 18 +/- months.
@DennisW: I don’t advocate embracing the spoof. At this point, I choose to not dismiss it due to a missing motive, nor do I yet dismiss the SIO scenario. We have no idea what could be happening between countries in private.
For instance, and this is completely fabricated, let’s supposed the Malaysian sovereign fund and the Chinese mob in a backroom deal cheated Russian oligarchs out of money. There might be pressure to send a strong message back to Malaysia and China, and hitting MAS might be the chosen vehicle for doing this. The same motive might have caused MH17.
My point is only that I very reluctantly will dismiss a scenario based on my inability to understand what the motivation might be. I am no expert in geopolitics or international intelligence.
@Dennis said, “Time for the IG and the ATSB to at least put forth any likely reason for that terminus. You cannot continue to hide behind the math as you have been doing for 18 +/- months.”
The IG’s objective has always been to performed detailed technical analyses to help pinpoint the location of the plane. As a group, it has not been willing to engage in speculation. Even if there was a desire to do so, it would be practically impossible to reach consensus amongst the entire group.
I think it is very difficult to present a report that includes both hard science and speculation because the hard science gets grouped together with the speculation. Some might think that diminishes the value of the IG’s technical work, but I do not fall into that camp.
Dennis,
OK, time to leap in here, in defence of the IG. You know the math works. No one has put in more detailed analysis than some members of the IG, and from entirely differ points of view. It is entirely possible that the flight ended in SIO naturally, as a result of a series if incidents leading up to 18.28 or so that resulted in disablement of the crew and all passengers. In this scenario I can believe that the crew did all that they could to recover the aircraft but were thwarted. No
motive necessary. No conspiracy. Just a set of very unfortunate events.
So, how did the FMT occurr. Perhaps the crew were directing the aircraft track using the heading indicator to perform a continuous turn, to buy time to try to recover other systems. Very simple procedure. At a particular point the last crew member is overcome and the aircraft simply continues to fly out of the turn and continue on the same azimuth, which just happened to be about 186 deg.
@Littlefoot:
Brock tweeted —
on 5.28.14:
“Why did Peter Foley say Curtin U event was an HOUR too late? Curtin U says 00:25 UTC (PERFECT for #MH370 fuel limit)”
on 05.30.15:
“ATSB’s Foley just told Oz senate “Curtin boom” an hour too late for #MH370 fuel exhaustion. He’s dead wrong: timing is perfect.”
Then, on 06.01.15, Peter Foley [ATSB Program Director, Operational Search for MH370], after dissembling in front of the AUS Senate, issued a memo to the Chairman of the AUS Senate — with the subject heading “Budget Estimates May 2015” — but the thrust of the memo was a correction of the inaccurate testimony he’d given the Senate with respect to acoustic detections that might possibly relate to MH370.
“Using the three hydrophones from the Cape Leeuwin station, Curtin University subsequently calculated a precise bearing that showed the signal came from the northwest, in the central Indian Ocean, with the most likely location calculated to be 5.93°S, 77.22°E with a corresponding time of the event approximately of 0039 UTC. There is however uncertainty about where the event occurred and therefore about the time taken for the signal to arrive at the hydrophone array.”
http://bit.ly/1f1PVyI
A corresponding time of the event APPROXIMATELY of 0039 UTC.
Approximate means a rough estimate — not exact. So yes, IF 0039 UTC (0539 Maldives time) is CONFIRMED to be the time of the acoustic event, then it would be 36 minutes EARLIER than the reported 0615 Kudahuvadhoo sightings and therefore, the plane those villagers saw was likely NOT MH370.
But Curtin hasn’t CONFIRMED that the acoustic event in question occurred at 0039, has it?
Here is Brock’s comment on this board (“Guest Post: Northern Routes…” at 1:38 pm):
“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.
Then Brock said:
(I DISPUTE ALL 3, BUT THAT IS A DIFFERENT SUBJECT.)” CAPS mine.
And, the event time estimate is 00:39 (WITH LARGE UNCERTAINTY).
So let’s be clear: an uncertain estimate does not equal evidence of.
And there’s another rub:
if, as Victor has shown (and there’s a pilot who says the same and will posting on his website soon) MH370 had enough fuel to make it to the Maldives, and the folks on Kudahuvadhoo DID see it, then the “perfect match” of the Scott Reef estimate to the FUEL EXHAUSTION STORY gets called into question, doesn’t it? Because MH370 could not have been in the water at 0525 Maldives time AND have been seen flying over Kudahuvadhoo 50 minutes later — at 0615 — could it?
So, has any OTHER information been left OUT of the data STORY as it pertains to those acoustic “detections”?
‘Metao’ (Reddit — April, 2014 “Do the pings stopping suggest they were from MH370?”)
“A transient is an temporal anomaly. A boom is what you think. So, this wasn’t well publicised, but the translation is: a very loud broadband noise like an explosion (or heavy object striking the water at high speed) was detected on two different data recorders, one belonging to CMST off Rottnest Island, and one belonging to the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty people near Cape Leeuwin, I think? at around the same time of the half handshake. Using speed of sound estimates it was possible to guess where the noise came from, and it was near the arc calculated by inmarsat.. Ocean Shield went there with the TPL – towed pinger locator – and viola.
Apparently hoops were jumped through to access Diego Garcia’s data, but they’ve been doing seismic measurements, so the data is a mess and unusable.
A combination of first hand and reliable second hand information. It’s difficult for me to elaborate further, unfortunately, for both identity and employment reasons.”
The seismic data from Diego Garcia is “a mess and unusable” ?
What does THAT mean?
@Niels, Victor:
On military exercises:
“Cobra Gold” (Feb 11-21, 2014)
“Cope Tiger” (March 10-21, 2014)
In addition, there was Exercise “Malapura” — involving the navies of Malaysia and Singapore.
February 25th to March 6, 2014 — in the Malacca Strait.
http://t.co/UJG2hlcj4P
@Victor
It is not “hard science” to say someone switched on the AP, input a speed and heading, and allowed the aircraft to fly into the SIO where it eventually ran out of fuel. That is a bold hypothetical that screams for an explanation. People do things for a reason. Lacking at least a single plausible reason that you are willing to articulate invalidates the hypothetical (in my view).
The IG and SSWG seem to have no issues in creating scenarios of this type. I do.
@VictorI, DennisW
I don’t think it is a problem at all to start around 1900 UTC near Port Blair and make it to the 1941 UTC ping ring. The more interesting question is at what time would you pass astern of the sailoress and could you make the westerly transition in time to the 1941 UTC ping ring with SW/SSW track. I can run the simulations in coming days. I expect the 0011 UTC position will be somewhere near S21.
For now: would anyone roughly know the E/W distance between sailoress 1930 UTC position and 1941 UTC ping ring?
@Nihonmama
Why do you think the aircraft was flown to the Maldives?
@ Nihonmama, can this be really so difficult? I didn’t say at all that the Curtin boom doesn’t match with the estimated time of mh370’s supposed crash around 00:19 UTC. It could fit actually because the boom happened around 00:25 UTC. That’s what Brock was arguing about with Foley. And Brock is right as far as the timing of the boom is concerned.
What I try to eradicate is the still wide spread erroneous idea that the plane which was seen over Kudahuvadhoo could have crashed at the location of the Curtin boom. It can’t, because it was seen almost an hour AFTER the boom happened – around 01:15 UTC. SO, if mh370 should’ve really crashed at the time and location of the Curtin boom, then the plane over Kudahuvadhoo was a different plane and not mh370.
If conversely the plane over Kudahuvadhoo was mh370, then the boom can’t have had anything to do with mh370, because it was seen flying almost an hour after the boom occurred.
So, if one wants to follow the Western trail, one has to make up one’s mind: either mh370 went westwards and crashed eventually at the Curtin boom location. Then the plane over Kudahuvadhoo was definitely not mh370. Or one choses to believe the Kudahuvadhooan witnesses and believe that they have seen mh370 almost an hour after it supposedly crashed according to the sat data. But then the Curtin boom was probably nothing more than an earthquake after all.
But one cannot have it both ways.
@DennisW:
You said:
“For my part, I think the ISAT data is valid. On that basis I would categorically rule out the Maldives, Port Blair, and many other suggestions”
Why would what I think about why MH370 might have flown OVER Kudahuvadhoo matter? You’ve already (categorically) ruled the Maldives out.
@Nihonmama
A careful read of the post you quoted indicates that a spoof is still on the table for me if a good reason for one can be articulated. I just wanted to see it you had one.
@Littlefoot:
You said:
“can this be really so difficult?”
It’s not difficult for me. At all.
“if mh370 should’ve really crashed at the time and location of the Curtin boom, then the plane over Kudahuvadhoo was a different plane and not mh370.”
Yes, and your entire post is a REPEAT of what you’ve stated earlier — which I just acknowledged in my earlier post.
Maybe it wasn’t clear enough.
In order (FOR ME) to disconnect the Kudahuvadhoo sightings from the acoustic event requires CONFIRMATION (read: proof) that the event happened at the TIME Curtain ESTIMATED that it did — at 0039 (or at 0025, if using the Scott Reef data).
If either 0039 (or 0025) is CONFIRMED as the the TIME of the acoustic event, then the sighting(s) over Kudahuvadhoo were not MH370.
When that confirmation happens, let me know.
@Niels
The distance between Kate at the time of her sighting and the 19:40 ring is a little over 70 nautical miles.
@Littlefoot:
CORRECTION:
If either 0039 (or 0025) is CONFIRMED as the the TIME of the Curtain acoustic event AND that event(s) PROVES to be linked to MH370, then the sighting(s) over Kudahuvadhoo were (obviously) not MH370.
@DennisW:
“a spoof is still on the table for me if a good reason for one can be articulated.”
I think you’ve just answered your own question.
🙂
it seems that the Cope Tiger was quite friendly and funny event, despite the missing B777, while in media almost everybody there was 24/7 searching it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWFepAwrZEc
I dont know if it wasnt here mentioned but some Matthias Chang is trying to sell for profit his psycho fear and hate spreading conspiracy books (it seems) and he used also the military exercises and MH370 too – although he is right that there is lot of confusion, for sure, Freescale Cortex M0 chip nor ZigBee RF-link are not anything secret – alone they can power maybe smartwatch or tamagochi – but its entertaining to watch his video too…
https://mariamuir.com/cope-tiger-military-war-game-exercise-and-missing-flight-mh370/
@Nihonmama, I think you can trust Dr. Alec Duncan and the speed of sound in this. While it might be impossible to pin down the time of the boom to the exact minute, it’s beyond doubt that it happened well before the sightings of the Kudahuvadhooan plane. You can do the math yourself if you read the report and Dr. Duncan’s explanations. Some of them he gave to Brock personally.
Unless you want to accuse someone of falsifying the records of the Curtin Boom the Kudahuvadhoooan plane can’t have caused the boom.
Correction:
The Kudahuvadhooan plane actually could’ve caused the Curtin Boom: if it dropped a bomb or caused an appropriate explosion/implosion at the location where the boom came from – and went THEN eastwards in order to spook the islanders.
😉
@Nihonmama
Riddle me this riddle me that…
I don’t do well with riddles. The fact is that no one has come up with a plausible reason for the plane to be in the Maldives, much less a reason important enough to spoof the ISAT data. It is absolutely a non-starter. You have to do much better to bring it to life.
Even the SIO hypothesis is better.