It’s been almost two years since MH370, and the worldwide search into the greatest mystery in the history of aviation is looking a little ragged. Nothing has been found on the seabed where satellite analytics said the plane must have gone. Only a single piece of debris has turned up, and it’s under lock and key in France. Some are starting to grumble that we’re reaching the end of profitable inquiry. Others say, maybe it’s time to consider a broader range of possible fates for the missing plane. To get a sense of the mood of the room (as it were) I’d like to pose a question to readers:
If the search of the seabed comes up empty, no further debris is found, and investigators find significant problems with the flaperon (such as proof that the barnacles are less than a year old, or that the the barnacle species mix indicates it didn’t originate on the 7th arc), would you be willing to seriously consider the possibility that the satellite signal was deliberately tampered with and that the plane went somewhere else other than the southern Indian Ocean?
- No, this is an unreasonable idea. Tampering with the satellite signal would be so complicated that no one could have attempted it, and in fact it might even just be totally impossible. The plane must have been on the seventh arc somewhere in the Southern Hemisphere at 0:19. Occam’s razor.
- Yes, and in fact we should disregard satcom data entirely. Maybe it was corrupted deliberately by Inmarsat or a Western intelligence agency, and maybe the so-called experts don’t know what they’re talking about. The plane could be anywhere.
- Yes, but we can’t disregard the satellite data entirely. The data is not illusory, it had to be generated by some physical process that originated on the airplane, and analyzing it might help us understand where the plane went.
- None of the above. (Explain).
Please answer in comments, and feel free to be as verbose as you wish.
4. None of the above.
You know my position so I won’t belabor it. The satellite data is fine, and the flaperon is consistent with a terminus along the Southern coast of Sumatra. That theory has continued to gain strength over time without invoking the notion of motive which only reinforces it.
It will take on “last man standing” status, as time goes on. I am very sure of that.
I encourage people to use the information we have – ISAT data, flaperon finding, and plausible motive. It really is not that difficult.
@DennisW, In reading your answer I realized that the way I phrased the answer was too prejudicial. (Partly I was trying to be light-hearted, partly I was letting my prejudices show.) Actually, I would categorize you in camp #1, and rewrote the answer to make it (hopefully) seem less offensive to you. Even though the scenario you favor is not my favorite I consider it a reasonable one to entertain.
Number 3 is the prudent course of action. I find it curious so many want to disregard what few data points we have: satellite pings, underwater pings, and eyewitness reports. I also find it curious so many cling to unfounded assumptions: cruise altitude, cruise speed, and people with evil intent.
Number 1 is a corollary to number 3.
@Jeff 🙂
1> is good. However, I don’t think it would be unthinkable to spoof the ISAT data. I’ve entertained the notion for some time, and really believe it would not be extremely hard for specialists to pull off.
Having said that, I do not believe that is what happened. It seems more likely to me that the perpetrator was totally unaware of this residual signature. Certainly, there was no possibility that the ISAT data could have been used in “real time” to track the aircraft.
@jeffwise
“Even though the scenario you favor is not my favorite I consider it a reasonable one to entertain.”
whoa, now we have finally moved from the dead point 😉
I vote for 2. All else being equal (i.e. no plane), the only logical conclusion is that the ISAT data is wrong for some reason not yet considered.
My answer is a hybrid of Option #3 but with elements of Option 2 – which I understand may sound contradictory, but actually, most aligns with Jeff’s line of thinking. I agree with @Bruce..except I don’t necessarily think that ‘evil intent’ needs to be founded..there are dark people and dark governments that do purely evil things for nil benefit. In my opinion we should’ve started looking elsewhere (North) MONTHS ago..or they at LEAST should’ve started looking at things from another dimension, another angle. Just my two cents..
Satellite reading is OK.one should go deep into it.6&7arcs are seems to be imaginary.why?it is not following automated hourly signal sequence. It came out within few seconds.one at07:41myt is missing.After 5 arc ring of satellite plot mh370 confined to 5th arc position only.It must have fallen into a cavity of hills in north SUMATRA,at 5 arc.
6&7 was manipulated by crew from deep bottom of hill’s cavity.It must have been reflected by plane or satellite over SINGAPORE.As a mirror reflection over Singapore back to satellite signals plotted at double the distance at 6&7,as image only.So 6&7 to be disgarded, for study.plane not in SEA, it is in dry land only,shown by plane’s equipments are working condition.
Sir I think I could easier pronounce your name than understand your post…
The closest answer for my position is 2.
I think it is hard to throw the BTO data overboard, but I have my problems with the interpretation of the BFO data, unfortunately paired with minimalistic understanding of their composure.
All the initial deliberate action points to a destination in the northern hemisphere. And it points to a military knowledgeable or even trained person on the controls or commanding / forcing the pilot on the controls. Yes, I’m talking about a deliberate action, not for suicide or any political statement, but to get something or someone on the airplane or to prevent someone or something on the airplane from reaching its intended destination. There are those who argue, that something or someone could be hijacked on the ground with less effort. That might well be true, but more traces would have been left and more danger that the organisation committing such an act could be caught with its pants below their knees.
The best argument for such a possible plan is, that it obviously worked perfect. The aircraft and all souls on board disappeared, nothing has been found yet and no fingerpointing has been done from anybody or aimed at anybody. All are clueless, and probably searing at the complete false location.
If the ISAT data had been known and part of the plan, then we cannot thrust them. If they had not been known, then it is amazing that they had not been very useful until now and we might expect that this will not change.
Assuming the deliberate act from the maneuvers and flight path flown during the initial phase of the flight until 1820 something, it would be a complete brake of behaviour to assume afterwords a flight to the south at near constant heading, FL and speed on autopilot without pilot intervention. Coupled with a max range profile until fuel exhaustion and a smooth ditching on the water for sure death it is a ridiculous assumption.
This flight to the south makes only sense for me, when the initial task was fullfilled sometime around 1840 and the flight south was a pilotless flight to get rid of the airframe with the dead souls on board. Discard the evidence forever.
A flight under the control of an able hijacker with maybe military pilot training would have nothing in common with the above mentioned profile, it would follow different rules and long trained behaviour. And that would not be equal to that of an civil trained airline pilot. Not the aircraft (the B777 and its built in gadgets) dictates how it is flown, but the pilot, his expierence, his ability and his task. That includes a profile with variable altitudes, headings and speeds under manual control to avoid radar detection as long as possible and reach its intended destination unharmed.. And that explains the seemingly complete failure of the ATC and Military secondary and primary radar systems and their asociated organizational bodies. They failed because they had been outwitted by trained and able people.
There are holes and open questions in any scenario and any motive, and they are in this one too. The difference is, we talked a lot about the SIO destination and lot of money has been burned without result, but scenarios like I mention here and others mentioned before are quickly disposed to the conspiracy folder. They are discarded to be too difficult to be performed and too complicated to go unnoticed. But are the other scenarios better? In those scenarios the conspiracy is laid on the door of the military and political leadership of Malaysia and some neighbouring nations, they failed, and they cover their failure by lying or saying nothing at all. Now I wonder how every soldier and every person in the known is forced to keep his mouth shut, and we are not talking about a few possible witnesses, there would be hundreds from the plain soldier on the scope until the general who reports to his political leader, who in turn would order to keep everything secret. That does not work in our days of open global social networks, not for such a long time.
It was a deliberate act.
It was not the SIO
The BTO are most probably correct to a high degree
I doubt the correct interpretation of the flight path
I have my doubts concerning the interpretation of the BFOi in conjuction with the assumptions concerning the flight path
It was not Zahire, at least not alone. He may have been duped.
I’m not sure which category this comes under. There was a guy in my home city who was apparently healthy and happy, and yet he recently gassed himself in his bathroom, and with no suicide note. Zaharie has a lot of hallmarks as someone who was allegedly not happy with things, and yet everyone seems to want to defend him, inspite of all the rumours at the time. Of course his wife and kids and brother-in-law will want to defend him, as will the Malaysian government, because it is in their interests to do so. Just look at the evidence, the going invisible just before Igari, the crossing between the Thai/Malaysia border, the run up the Malacca Strait. All that pretty much rules out mechanical problems, plus the flight was presumably made by an experienced pilot. Remember the chaos the 9/11 hijackers created en-route to their targets. I’m just repeating what’s been said before, but if you join what dots we have, then this is the most likely outcome. If it was spoofed, then the flaperon was planted, but if it was spoofed why go to the trouble of flying it up the Malacca Strait. I apologise if i’m talking nonsense, but after enjoying reading Jeff’s website, and all the contributors’ comments for nearly two years, I want to try and contribute something!
@RetiredF4, “It was a deliberate act.
It was not the SIO
The BTO are most probably correct to a high degree
I doubt the correct interpretation of the flight path
I have my doubts concerning the interpretation of the BFO”
This sounds like #3…
@RetF4
So what about the flaperon? You think it was planted?
@DennisW, Well, the premise of the question is IF the flaperon turns out to be questionable, which at this point is sheer speculation. But I think some kind of determination about the flaperon is the only way we’re going to move forward substantively in any direction.
4. None of the above.
These are all loaded questions, eliminating other possibilities without valid arguments.
“If the search of the seabed comes up empty, no further debris is found, and investigators find significant problems with the flaperon …” I don’t expect the analysis of the flaperon to reveal anything definitive. I don’t expect the determination of the population of barnacles to be determining anything definitive. The analysis of the damage will confirm that the lower skin failed in tension, and the upper skin either in compression or in bending. THat will be compatible with a pressure (such as impact on water) applied to the lower surface, but does not rule out failure due to flutter.
“If the search of the seabed comes up empty, no further debris is found, …” that will be due to the limited width of the search area, which is based on the convenient but unsupported assumption of uncontrolled descent.
@Jeff
Yes. It has been a long wait, and I think it is unreasonable on the part of the French to not have released additional information by now.
@Gysbreght
I have the same speculation regarding the flaperon damage as you. I also believe the forensics will be able to differentiate between flutter and impact damage.
Still, we know the flaperon came from 9M-MRO, and we know it was found on Reunion. These facts rule out the current search area and regions beyond it.
@Jeff
I can go with answer 4 too.
@ Dennis
The silence from the investigating bodies should tell us a lot. You saw the case closed within few weeks, after the flaperon was found. It will not be closed until the next Octoberfest.
The flaperon solved no open question, but opened a lot of others, none of them has been answered. A lot has been assumed from the few sentences, the french offered as a finding from the evidence. But in the end they only confirmed, that the flaperon was (once?) mounted to the airframe, that disappeared on a flight from Malaysia to China without a trace.
It does nowhere say that it was mounted on that specufic day.
It does nowhere state that it was lost on impact or while ditching.
It does not state in what geographical region it made contact with the water.
It does not state what the seagrowth could tell us.
It does not state how the perforation damage was inflicted
It does not state how it separeted the aircraft.
The flaperon just tells me:
Look i’m here. I once was mounted to a nice shiny aircraft. Some time ago I ended in the water got company by sealife and stranded at LaReunion. Since then I’m dammned to keep my mouth shut and tell nobody where I came from and who or what caused my fate.
@Dennis
I’m not saying it was planted, but I’m neither excluding such a possibility.
Meanwhile I’m more interested for the reason of this multinational secret then what the flaperon could tell us.
@DennisW:
” I think it is unreasonable on the part of the French to not have released additional information by now.”
I think it is reasonable to assume that the French have submitted their findings to the Malaysian authorities conducting the accident investigation according to ICAO Annex 13, and thoseauthorities will include those findings in their next Interim Report that is due in March, 2016.
@Gysbreght
I hope you are correct about the French, but I have grave doubts.
@RetF4
You still have the “multinational conspiracy” belief. Sooner or later you have to stop drinking from Ron’s cup. You are not saying the flaperon was planted. Really? How else would it have gotten to Reunion if the plane flew North as you propose? I doubt it fell off the plane along the way. You cannot ignore evidence that does not support your theory.
The flaperon came from 9M-MRO, and it was found on Reunion. Either propose a theory that explains those facts or you will not be taken seriously by anyone.
@Dennis
Read my post. I did not exclude a ghost flight to the south, I never did. But I see a different reason for such possible ghost flight. And that must not necessarily end in the farthest southern part of 7th arc. It could be exactly where you assume the final resting place.
The flaperon could have come off in the final minutes of this ghost flight due to high spoed flutter
The flaperon could have come off during maneuvering prior final turn north or south
The flaperon could gave been replaced some time ago, and in the end been used as a floating device by fishermen or people living at the coast.
The flaperon could have been planted.
And I might be totally wrong. I at least admit it that such a possibility exists. And all the above I h’ve told you before. You seem to ignore that fact though for whatever reason.
@RetF4
I am a very careful reader, and very deliberate. Direct quotes from your post (cut and pasted).
“All the initial deliberate action points to a destination in the northern hemisphere.”
“Assuming the deliberate act from the maneuvers and flight path flown during the initial phase of the flight until 1820 something, it would be a complete brake of behaviour to assume afterwords a flight to the south at near constant heading, FL and speed on autopilot without pilot intervention. Coupled with a max range profile until fuel exhaustion and a smooth ditching on the water for sure death it is a ridiculous assumption.”
You are convinced the plane flew North, and have been ever since we have been communicating. That flight path is not supported by the ISAT data nor is it supported by the flaperon finding. I don’t ignore what you say, it is simply that what you say or think you say makes no sense.
In early days after disappearance I was proponent of northern route too, thinking it could be closely following SIA 777 to appear as the same plane on radar.
But after Inmarsat came with their analysis showing it went to the south then I changed the theory too.
I do not fully understand why ATSB did not contact Mike McKay the only reliable eyewitness who send an email to Vietnamese authorities about his sighting. I am sure he saw the burning MH370 about 50-70 km west of the Songa Merkur oil rig near the Vietnam coast in the South China Sea. I am sure the MH370 can be found there and I can’t believe the area was never been thoroughly searched as Mike wrote to me:
Dan,
I wrote what I thought might help the search but within two days of my email being leaked the search in the South China Sea was called-off. On the basis of the (belated) primary military radar readings coming to light, the search was then moved to the Andaman Sea. I think the South China Sea search was called-off prematurely and as such I would agree with your assessment. Acting on my sighting, the Vietnamese sent out one flight only (six days after MH370 disappeared) and then were told to stop looking.
I have been hoping for some evidence to prove that is was not MH370 I saw, but unfortunately there has been no proof yet.
Mike.
I would choose 2 however there is a possible debris find recently on twitter…
https://twitter.com/travelmadison/status/688481540267970560
huh if not faked that definitely is part of some malaysian plane…
@StevanG
Looks like it may be faked.
https://twitter.com/edward_767/status/688543607293255680
@Matbythesea
already discounted
@all
As we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don’t know we don’t know
Donald Rumsfeld
It’s baffling this investigation has
unanswered the answerable and answered the unanswerable. In other words, fairly simple questions (of which there are many) such as:
(1) Who did Z speak with on his last cell phone call, was it a restricted phone
(2) Were passengers unable to make calls from their cell phones while still on the runway and before comms disabled, if so, why didn’t they?
(3) What is the reason for not releasing the full cargo manifest?
(4) Were there practiced SIO landings on Z’s simulator?
were and remain unanswered. Many of these relatively simple questions may have provided insight and helped build a storyline in the initial weeks, but not after the B data made it’s grand entrance and all else was seemingly insignificant.
All the proverbial eggs were put in the Capitals B data basket and are beginning to smell. IMO, everyone should theoretically remove the Inmarsat data from their thinking just once, consider all the other pertaining factors, stare at the da•• map for the 10,000th time and see if anything new shakes loose.
I think I am a 1, 2 & 3
@Susie
Quoting Rumsfeld is getting desperate. How do I know?
http://tmex1.blogspot.com
@DennisW
On my end it won’t work to say “great minds think alike”, only applicable to you, so….
Ooops, I need to starti reading your blog, you are a very good writer and I’ve become attached to your gruffness
@Susie
No. Do not read my blog. All the action is here. If there is something I think is important that is not conducive to expressing in Jeff’s blog I will link it. Let’s not get distracted. Jeff is running a great blog IMO.
@retiredF4 said it already mostly for me.
flaperon does not support any scenario but it was planted to get the French back into the investigation imho.
Hey @jeff – In my honest opinion?…
I firmly believe we (collectively) will never know what happened to MH370. No debris will materialize, no intact airplanes will show up on the ocean floor. Each day further from March 4th 2014 without a single believeable hint of what really happened, is another day closer to where we already are essentially. In the position of not knowing.
Love and peace.
Number 2. My view is the satellite data is corrupt although I wouldn’t speculate what government is behind this. MH370 was hacked.
None of the above. Data is fine, but the SIO is just so damn vast and deep that a seabed search could never have been reasonably expected to find it. Time to move on with our lives.
I have my doubts about those “reboots”. I wonder if they were inserted after the fact to add external data to support their SIO scenario. The reboot might be used for database(s) to re-sequence this new data in placed order. Just my WAG.
Closest to #2, but with a caveat. Also open to #3, to extent it doesn’t impede investigation of #2.
My caveat is that #2 could also use a rewrite, to accommodate the possibility of tampering by folks OTHER than those appearing on your very short list.
I won’t belabour the points which lead me to this position, except to say they are many, profound, and litter this forum’s comment sections. Below is a link to my efforts to audit this search; I’m working on a “plain language” version.
Bottom line: in describing the state of the search, I fear Jeff is being kind: the search is starting to get “a little ragged” in much the same way the Middle East is starting to get “a little tense”: it is a hot mess, and has been so since Day 1.
Search leaders haven’t been straight with us – and I’d like to know why. Until this question is answered, not even the discovery of deep sea wreckage will do much to close the book on this mystery.
https://mobile.twitter.com/Brock_McEwen/status/681927525191122944
(P.S. Occam would roll over in his grave if he knew he was being associated with the latest attempts to square the signal data with the physical record: it’s like trying to tie up jello with twine.)
This is a good topic Jeff, as it draws out us long term, non-technical readers who have been just as consumed by this tragedy for nearly 2 years, and thank you and all the contributors (attitude and all!). My belief is more #3. The data could well have been electrically corrupted by the ‘catastrophic electrical outage’ but what if investigators have also applied it the wrong way (it’s never been used in this way before I understand?). Of less legitimacy is the Malaysian radar data which has never been released raw for analysis. The assumptions of the radar have come from Malaysia. Whether it was the initial sharp turn left west and return to Penang (or was that another aircraft on a parallel route) or the faint signal up the Straits of Malacca (Etihad EY440’s recent loitering for nearly an hour in the same area and similar flight path to that attributed to MH370, has shown this behaviour is neither unique nor nefarious. EY440 also seemingly avoided Thai radar; sound familiar? Is there a standard holding pattern enforced by one of the ATC’s in this region.) If the Malaysian radar data is removed from your analysis and we return to the last known point of contact (just past IGARI), does the Inmarsat data tell a different story? I just think the boffins have relied too heavily on Malaysia’s assumptions and interpretation and look where that has got us.
@DennisW:
” I think it is unreasonable on the part of the French to not have released additional information by now.”
@ Gysbreght:
“I think it is reasonable to assume that the French have submitted their findings to the Malaysian authorities
conducting the accident investigation according to ICAO Annex 13, and those authorities will include those
findings in their next Interim Report that is due in March, 2016.”
BEA’s position has always been clearly stated
” … The BEA reminds you that only the Malaysian authorities may communicate information on the progress
of the investigation. ”
http://www.bea.aero/en/enquetes/malaysia.airlines.flight.mh370/malaysia.airlines.flight.mh370.php
@Louis, Bear in mind that the flaperon is in the possession not of the BEA but the French judicial authorities, who are not bound by ICAO convention. In October the ATSB stated in an email to Susie Crowe:
“We have requested information from the French Judicial Authorities on the technical examination of the recovered flaperon and are awaiting their results.”
In other words, three months after the discovery of the flaperon, and two months after publicly confirming that the flaperon came from MH370, the French had still not given any information to the ATSB about what they’d learned from it. This, while the Australians were in the process of spending upwards of $100 million on a seabed search whose parameters could very conceivably have been redefined by such information.
@Louis:
Let’s not confuse the issue. BEA is not responsible for the judicial investigation conducted in France.
4/ non of the above.
I think it’s due time to take a step back and look at the whole picture, not just the BFO/BTO data.
If we assume the radar data are from MH370, (and I’m still victim of the non / mis- information, because I still don’t know wat altitiude and speed was flown over this trajectory, if it was MH370 at all ofcourse), then this was flown by a (conscious)pilot. who most logically assumed deliberately tried to avoid radar detection. And why else not make radio contact?
That rules out accidents/ mechanical failure etc. So if this is the case, one can anly conclude that it was a deliberate act. We don’t have the motive, but that’s the case with almost every starting investigation.
What has always wandered me , and I’n very !glad retiredF4 brought it up too, is why this is totally ignored. It is so strange to assume that after the assumed last radar contact all of the sudden everyone goes to a scenario of an unconscious pilot/ ghost flight. Occam’s razor!!
Start from the conscious deliberate flying, and see what would be logical behavior for the rest of the flight. (Suicide is very irrational at this point).
IMHO BFO and BTO data could fit so many paths, and IMHO the fast majority is disregarded because an illogical ghost flight is what they are interpreted to fit.
Jeff,
The problem with answering the question is that you include major hypotheticals on the flaperon (particularly ‘barnacles are less than a year old’, apparently implying the flaperon was not lost at sea in March 2014) which seem to require us to comment on a scenario including a conspiracy. Is that what you meant?
If your condition on the flaperon is rather that 100% evidence is found that it did not come from the latitudes of the current search area (which I doubt is possible to obtain) then my selection would be option 3. If the flaperon does not yield a useful constraint then option 1 remains the best approach, since the uncertainties on the position across the arc (for the range of possibilities after 00:11) and the fidelity of coverage by the towed array sonar remain concerns.
On the AUV work, it is instructive that after a year of detailed searching a 80m shipwreck was found near the centre of the search area. Clearly the towed array sonar left gaps in which large targets could be missed. Further, there seems some indication that the wreck was not seen immediately in the December 2016 AUV sonar data (Harmony diverted back several weeks later for a detailed look). The maps of the Harmony course show gaps between tracks much more that the 2km width used for the towed array work implying the AUV work is targeted (which we knew of course).
The large shipwreck could be considered a proxy for a missing aircraft, that is a large target, random location and there is only one (or a few) in the search area. If it was only just picked up at the edge of an AUV scan this would imply sea-floor area is not being covered by the towed array or the AUV sonar well enough to find much smaller targets (such an engines). Achieving sufficient AUV coverage across the whole search area thus may be a major constraint on achieving a success by mid-2016.
From ICAO Annex 13:
[blockquote]5.14 Any State shall, on request from the State conducting the investigation of an accident or an incident, provide that
State with all the relevant information available to it.
5.26 Accredited representatives and their advisers:
a) shall provide the State conducting the investigation with all relevant information available to them; and
b) shall not divulge information on the progress and the findings of the investigation without the express consent of the
State conducting the investigation.[/blockquote]
Malaysia is the state conducting the investigation. France has an accredited representative appointed to the investigation. So information requested by Australia from France needs the consent of Malaysia.
@carla
“IMHO BFO and BTO data could fit so many paths, and IMHO the fast majority is disregarded because an illogical ghost flight is what they are interpreted to fit.”
exactly, flaperon drift analysis shows it could come from the 7th arc however officials seem to be reluctant to search that area…
@Richard Cole:
There seems to be a contradiction between:
“Clearly the towed array sonar left gaps in which large targets could be missed.”
and:
” the AUV work is targeted (which we knew of course).”
You also should be aware that the track of an AUV can be different from that of the ship launching and retrieving it.
@Dan
If I may ask, what was the date that Mike McKay wrote to you, was this an email? Thank You
There are so many excellent posts here that its impossible to comment on each one. In particular jG, Retired F4, Ed, Susie Crowe raise excellent points but there are many others.
Susie Crowe, to your list of questions, I’d also add ‘was any recording filed of the VERY LAST known contact of MH370 by a Narita-bound pilot, 30 minutes ahead of MH370? “There was a lot of interference… static… but I heard mumbling from the other end…I’m sure it was the co-pilot.”
To answer the poll question I’d go for number 3. I agree with Ed that Occam’s Razor points to Captain Zaharie hijacking the plane. But come June 2016, if nothing is found and the flaperon buried with it, the northern arc/spoof cannot be ruled out (even becomes more likely)?
“If the search of the seabed comes up empty, no further debris is found, and investigators find significant problems with the flaperon……”
IMO, It can only be 4 – None of the above.
Whilst we have a search in progress, that has been long lasting to date, so far it comes up as empty. Its a fair bet to say it will also finish this way. So part one is a reasonable assumption to put forth.
Part two of your scenario is just supposition. Until some facts emerge on this flaperon, then any answer not being 4 is also supposition. Caveat Emptor.
There maybe other reasons for discarding sat data, but I don’t believe you can answer the question in regards to sat data as posed due to dodgy barnacles and the like…… yet.
Best I go read the 47 replies now.
(If I may, I’d also like to share a few extra thoughts on spoof/hijack scenarios. I also apologize if this second post is not entirely on topic. I have tried my best to keep it as brief and relevant as possible).
Earlier on I discussed the possibility of Captain Zaharie hijacking the plane as a crime of passion. But what differences would we see if this was a sophisticated, co-ordinated hijack (international terrorism or non-state actors)?
One difference is that a more sophisticated plot would at least take months, if not years, to plan. (9/11 took a whole 5 years from conception to completion). Captain Zaharie acting alone could’ve concocted it in a relatively short period of time without leaving any substantial evidence. But this becomes slightly more difficult when it’s a network of people and even more so if the network is multinational. So the question I would like to ask is… ‘Was any ‘chatter’ ever picked up by anyone, anywhere, at any time?’ We cannot say for sure as no direct statements have been forthcoming. But certain events may offer tantalizing clues.
‘The Tel-Aviv Twin:’
On November 4 2013, 4 months before the incident, a former Malaysian Airlines 777 was decommissioned and flown for dismantling in Tel Aviv. Details of the Israeli ‘twin’ and MH370 can be seen here:
https://www.planespotters.net/airframe/Boeing/777/28416/N105GT-GA-Telesis
http://www.planespotters.net/Production_List/Boeing/777/28420,9M-MRO-Malaysia-Airlines.php
Unfortunately, mentioning Israel often encourages knee-jerk and distasteful anti-Semitism with people using the opportunity to spout their own lazy prejudices. For them, Israeli twin = Israeli involvement. Indeed, it might just be the complete opposite – a regular, routine decommissioning, nothing unusual at all.
But what if, just for a second, we consider a third possibility, one which opens up a tantalizing prospect: a ‘twin’ being sourced for use in anti-terror drills.
Could the Israelis really have overheard chatter as far back as 2013 relating to a Malaysian 777 hijack plot? A hijack which could potentially have been used to mount an attack on Tel Aviv or anywhere else in Israel?
‘Potentially’ is a very important word here. While the Israelis may have discovered something (a point of origin for example), its also conceivable that further details were elusive (i.e. no aims/destinations could be gleaned). We must also bear in mind that this was a time of high Israel-Iran tension. No second chances would’ve, or could’ve, ever been taken; all eventualities had to be planned for to ensure the security of Israeli citizens. Certainly, a jet attack on Tel Aviv wouldn’t bear thinking about.
And so, (for me, at least), it doesn’t take a big leap of faith to assume that the Israelis would have pulled out all the stops IF they had such intelligence. And what could be better than sourcing an actual twin 777 to conduct as comprehensive and realistic an anti-terror drill as possible? Testing air defences, emergency procedures, and the like? (As things transpired, none of this would’ve been needed. But an excellent security measure nonetheless).
‘Rottnest Radar Incident’
The second clue may be a strange incident that occurred off the coast of Australia just 3 weeks before MH370’s disappearance. This incident may be completely unrelated but due its proximity to the date of MH370’s disappearance it deserves a mention.
Just before dawn, on 12 February 2014, a Western Australian fisherman photographed strange lights over the ocean 40km off Mandurah. His images appeared to show a snake-like band of light which appeared to move and change colours before disappearing with the sunrise. “After nine years of fishing I’ve never seen anything like it.” The Mandurah Mail published his images (link below):
http://www.mandurahmail.com.au/story/2086436/ufo-sighting-off-mandurah-coast-is-anyone-out-there/?cs=12#slide=3
Later, that very same day, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology’s weather radar picked up a huge serpent-shaped object in the form of a giant ‘S’ about 30 kilometres west of Rottnest Island, which lies offshore Western Australia’s capital, Perth. At around 80km long, the object caused a flurry of speculation and confusion due to its immense size. (For comparison, it would span the narrow part of the English Channel).
ABC News’ weather bureau stated “There’s no cloud… nothing to produce a rain echo, which we do see a lot, but not this particular shape.”
The next day, Australia’s Department of Defence stepped in claiming a “routine activity” caused the 80-km-long flying S-shape due unique environmental conditions at the time.
The reaction from weather experts was interesting. A Western Australian Weather administrator stated that although people had seen navy activity in the area, they didn’t believe it caused the formation. “The thing that got everybody was how long it lingered on the radar and moved in the wind… it was slow moving, it was slower moving than an aircraft dumping fuel but too fast for a helicopter. The innuendo going around is not based on science.”
Another meteorologist Rabi Rivett stated there was no explanation for the giant shape, but used a process of elimination to rule out some causes. ”It’s nothing meteorological. It’s not a cloud, radars don’t pick up clouds, that’s not what they’re for.” He also said military chaff had been ruled out. “Sometimes military… chaff can cause different formations, but the fact it maintained its shape as it moved north-west rules that out… if it was military-related they did a very good job of flying that signature in a very short period of time.”
The article below provides fascinating reading. It further goes on to analyze why there may be inconsistencies with the official story.
http://consciousreporter.com/extraordinary/mystery-of-the-rottnest-monster-was-a-giant-serpent-shaped-ufo-detected-off-western-australia/
I don’t agree with the article’s conclusion (‘UFO s…’) or its insinuation that the navy had absolutely nothing to do with it. My own thoughts revolve around whether, like the Israelis, the Australians (or the US?) might’ve been aware of unusual ‘chatter’ in the months leading up to MH370’s disappearance. And if so, were these ‘routine exercises’ (3 weeks before MH370’s disappearance) in actual fact anti-terror measures aimed at countering a mainland attack?
I’m not claiming that either of these events are indubitably related to MH370. Nor would the plane have had enough fuel to reach Tel Aviv or Perth directly (please correct me if I’m wrong). But Issac Yeffet, a former El-Al security expert, gives us an interesting glimpse into the mindset of some experts at the time. “What happened to this aircraft, nobody knows. My guess is… they hijacked the aircraft and they landed it in a place that nobody can see or find it.”
If MH370 was a indeed a sophisticated hijack event, its not unreasonable to suspect that someone, somewhere, may have eavesdropped on chatter at some point. You will rightly throw 9/11 at me (“no one saw that coming”). But that’s not entirely true. Even in that case, there WAS chatter, the authorities just mistakenly assuming a large attack in the Middle East as opposed to one on US soil.