[Peetwo]

Thank you Brock & TY for your comprehensive statistical analysis paper on the DOI (debris of inconvenience):

Hypothesis to Test
•it is claimed that, on March 8, 2014,

•MH370 impacted near the Inmarsat data-indicated location
•Within a few nautical miles of the “7th Arc”, between 32 and 40°S latitudes

•It is known that, by March 31, 2016,
•no authenticated debris from this impact was reported to have hit Australian shores

•Null hypothesis: that this is not unlucky enough to cause concern

•Method in brief:
•Extract probabilities from a respected drift study
•Develop a full statistical model to estimate shoreline hits, discoveries, and reports
•Rigourously test this model via sensitivity analysis
•Employ Monte Carlo simulation to test hypothesis

  

Key data used: International Pacific Research Center (IPRC)

•General info:    http://iprc.soest.hawaii.edu/about/about.php

•
•MH370 drift model:  http://iprc.soest.hawaii.edu/news/MH370_debris/model_assumptions_search_suggestions.php
•
•Why IPRC?
•Well respected, well-documented model; strong follow-up support provided, to minimize risk of misinterpretation
•Most optimistic of 9 drift studies in deeming the flaperon reachable from current search box at relatively low (0.8%) windages.
•
•Nikolai Maximenko and Jan Hafner of IPRC are thanked profusely for providing detailed model output
•While proximity probability data are from IPRC, all downstream probabilities, analyses, and conclusions are the author’s alone
•
•Key statistic:  probability of coming within 25-50km of a shoreline
•this is IPRC’s working definition of beaching: once inside this proximity, tracer is removed
•available for each day between April 1, 2014 and January 31, 2016
•Starting point:  line just inside 7th Arc from 34 to 37°S latitudes
•
•Windages tested:   0,  0.8,  1,  2,  3,  4,  5%

Cumulative shoreline probabilities – Single piece of debris
•The slides which follow graph the probability that a single piece of debris at the IPRC starting line on Mar. 8, 2014 would hit each indicated shoreline by the end of each indicated month


•The height of each bar indicates the cumulative probability (that and all prior months combined)

•Single-item probability trends are shown for each of of 0% and 1% windage levels
•
•Slides 5-26:   Windage = 0%  April, 2014 to Jan, 2016 (1 slide per month)
•
•Slides 27-48:   Windage = 1%  April, 2014 to Jan, 2016 (1 slide per month)
•
•(Note: colour of bars is immaterial)

And I note your comments on the Jeff Wise blog:

Brock McEwen

Posted April 30, 2016 at 2:11 AM

Thanks, Jeff. While I wear your description with honour, I must confess to moments when I feel plenty domitable. At times, I feel downright domited. Cyberspace teems with folks willing to stoop to depths I’d thought unimaginable, just to throw roadblocks in the way of independent researchers. For some reason.

Had I known of the Geomar photo, I’d have sent you a picture of me with my finger on a globe, too. Just not sure you’d like where I’d have been pointing…

In all seriousness: it never hurts to emphasize that I am not a drift expert, nor pretending to be one in issuing this report. I am simply transcribing – as faithfully as possible – the probabilities IPRC gave me, and trying to add the additional variables necessary to produce a statistic we can actually compare to the physical record. It is not meant to be “the word” on debris discovery probabilities; rather, a living model in the public domain, to be improved by the “wisdom of crowds”.

In fact, i hope such a public domain model serves as both a challenge to search leaders and as a litmus test for “anti-conspiracy” crowd. The JIT’s minions are challenged to put their models out into the public domain, so we can verify for ourselves that all search strategies were developed in good faith. And those who hurl “conspiracy theorist” epithets have a choice:

– improve this model, and reveal themselves as champions of the pursuit of knowledge, or
– deride and dismiss it, and reveal themselves as partisan hacks.

Broadly speaking: we are all in one of three camps:-

1) No state actor is hiding anything major (so, accident or rogue element); search leadership doing their best, but have just been unlucky. MH370 is, in global terms, not far from search box.

2) A state actor unrelated to the search team is hiding something major (so, MH370 taken far from search box); search leadership are to this day fooled by this deception, and doing their best – but unless they spot the deception, are doomed to fail.

3) A state actor related to the search team is hiding something major; search leadership knows what actually happened, but would rather not admit it (embarrassed by what they either did or didn’t do). Search likely to end either in eternal mystery, or faked discovery.

The evidence drives me into camp 3. I would be in camp 2, were it not for the documented deception of search leadership.

And an online campaign to discredit independent researchers that does not sleep.

 
In response to JW (& don't have a Hernia P1  ):

MH370 Debris Questions Mount

– April 29, 2016Posted in: Aviation

German oceanographers Arne Biastoch (left) and Jonathan Durgadoo
 
Earlier this week the indomitable Brock McEwen completed a much-anticipated statistical analysis of where MH370 debris would most likely wash ashore given a presumptive start point within the current seabed search zone. It’s definitely worth a look, but for the moment I’ll stick to the punch line, which is that while it is quite possible for Indian Ocean currents to carry debris from the search zone to the discovery locations in the western Indian Ocean within the appropriate time frame, Brock was not able to run any simulations in which debris turned up in Africa/Madagascar/Réunion but not in Western Australia. No matter how he changed the parameters, the result came back the same: debris should have washed up in Western Australia long before it washed up anywhere else.

The gap between Brock’s simulations and the actual state of affairs—five pieces of debris in the western Indian Ocean, and none in Australia—indicates, as Brock points out, that “either something’s wrong with the model, or something’s wrong with the search.”
A similar conclusion was reached by a different set of researchers using a different methodology. According to an article in the German newspaper Kieler Nachrichten, scientists from the GEOMAR-Helmholtz Institute for Ocean Research in Kiel (above) have completed a detailed drift analysis of their own in collaboration with colleagues in Great Britain. Simulating the course of two million pieces on a supercomputer, the researchers found that the locations of all five pieces found so far are compatible not with a point of origin in the current search area but instead “the plane, which had 239 people on board, must have crashed a lot further north.” (Hat tip to reader @MuOne for alerting me to this.)

It has long been clear that the wreckage of MH370 will not likely be found in the current search area. This, in turn, means that the “ghost ship” scenario can be ruled out: MH370 did not fly south on autopilot until fuel exhaustion and then plunge into the sea without human intervention. As this fact has become increasingly clear, the most popular backup scenario has been that a suicidal pilot flew the plane southward until it ran out of fuel, then held it in a glide so that it flew further south beyond the search zone. Both of these new drift analyses, however, suggest that this scenario is not correct, either. If the debris originated north of the search area, then the plane must have taken a slow, curving flight under pilot control.

Meanwhile, no further light has been shed on the obviously problematic absence of marine fouling on the African debris pieces. Neither Australian nor Malaysian officials have released any information based on the analysis that the Australians say they have carried out. This state of affairs should be troubling for everyone interested in the mystery of MH370, but naturally it is particularly difficult for the families of the flight’s missing crew and passengers. After I published my last piece on this topic, Chinese next-of-kin issued a statement which read, in part:

Following aviation writer Jeff Wise’s recent article questioning debris found near the coast of Africa, MH370 China families have restated their assertion the missing may still be alive and call for an offer of amnesty in exchange for the release of the missing… An extensive surface search and ocean floor search have found no supporting evidence MH370 crashed in the Southern Indian Ocean.… The sum of this is that there is no reason to believe MH370 crashed in the Southern Indian Ocean and reason to believe in a wholesale attempt at deception. We believe our missing loved ones may still be alive.

I understand that not everyone is ready to accept that the absence of marine life can only mean that the debris was planted. However, I take issue with the implication (made most publicly in a piece in the IBTimes ) that raising questions about the provenance of these crucial pieces amounts to a “conspiracy theory” or that it unjustifiably raises the next-of-kins’ hopes that their loved ones might be alive. If we want to solve this mystery, then we must deal in facts, not sling innuendo. Anyone who is legitimately concerned about solving this mystery will no doubt hope that authorities in Australia and Malaysia will respond forthrightly to the troubling questions that have arisen. It is not acceptable for this information to be buried.

Cheers Brock choccy frog is in the mail...



MTF...P2
Ps I also note that Kangaroo court is sniffing around the French sub deal - err watch out MIM..

Bribery allegations against Australia’s $50 billion submarine contract winner


Australia has just awarded a $50 billion defence project to build Submarines and even before the ink is dry on the contract hundreds of thousands of dollars if not millions of dollars have landed in the pockets of Liberal Party crony and former staffer Sean Costello.

To make matters worse the French company DCNS which has won […]

Reminder: MH370 & word association