[Kharon]

Endless point and eternal counterpoint.

Flog away all you like “V”, it can little harm now. There is a ‘hard-line’ school of thought emerging to fill the void, which although unpleasant, must be considered. The lines of argument go something like this:-

This was, in one form or another, a deliberate, planned, criminal act.

A statement which needs detail; by whom and why, to what end? Many options to choose from; political, financial, lunacy; malice, the entire gamut of ‘criminal’ options available; take your pick. If and I do mean if, this was a deliberate act, then it must be to some purpose.  That purpose would need to be communicated; plain robbery under arms does not compute; - unless there was something of real value to make the huge effort worthwhile on board the aircraft.  Even if the sole purpose was to dispose of the ‘egg-heads’ and a patent, there are much simpler, legal ways of disposing of surplus personnel.  I believe we can rule out ‘theft’; which takes us back to ‘communication’ in some form.  Yet there is no record of any – bar ‘routine’ comms; before radio darkness.

So, the ‘why’ of it emerges, begging answers. One line of discussion supports the theory that some form of 9/11 type threat was made for political purposes. Buildings threatened if demands were not met etc. This line of discussion says that the aircraft was simply shot down to prevent the conclusion and avoid agreeing to the demands. A cover up would be necessary of course, but it could be done. Personally, I can’t agree with this theory, but it has a certain logic and can be ‘loosely’ aligned with known fact.

So, the ‘why’ of it emerges, begging answers. Another line of argument supports the theory of ‘Electronic Terrorism’ – the aircraft hi-jacked itself.  Again, not too fanciful and certainly ‘do-able’ , but to what end?  Ransom would work, prisoner release would work, political statement would fit; lots of options there for the connoisseur. Whatever the motivation, supporters of the theory hold to the notion that somehow, it all went wrong and the aircraft disappeared as the hacked systems failed to perform as programmed.

The point of this ramble is that in the absence of ‘logical’ explanation to fit with the few ‘known’ facts, those few facts can be cobbled into reasonable lines of discussion. Me? I stick to my ‘the aliens took it’ line; works a treat when folk ask me about ‘the mystery’; I get a few odd looks, but mostly, they leave me alone to enjoy my ale in peace without having to get into damn fool questions and half baked answers. Cheers ET.

Toot toot.

[ventus45]

Done and dusted. The search is ended, period, as predicted.
"Operation Mincemeat Two" has been a resounding success.
RIP MH370 - probably the world's "first" fairly comprehensively documented, "perfect crime".

[Kharon]

The games they play in heaven.

Rugby Union for winter, cricket for summer. Both games may seem incomprehensible to many, which is fair enough; Gridiron and Baseball create as much confusion to others. However, no matter the finer points being lost on the visitor, when a dynamic ‘play’ is made, it is recognizable. In rugby, there is a thing called a ‘speculator’ pass, which, as the name implies, is a calculated gamble. The move may or may not work out; but when the options are limited and no forward progress is being made, a well placed ‘speculator’ may turn the tide.  The Annexe 13 search was such a ‘speculator’; everyone watching the ball, holding their breath as the two teams scramble to cover the opportunity presented.

Some would say the MY speculator failed and now the game must be restarted from centre field. There are others who would say that the gamble paid off and now the game can be reset in centerfield and restart. Either way its back to taws for the search; only this time the focus will be on the almost inescapable conclusion that the loss of this aircraft was, indeed, a criminal act.

With the encumbrance of the Annexe 13 obligations side-lined, the real work can begin. The French nailed it early in the piece by treating the whole thing as ‘criminal’, from the beginning, which IMO is the only road worth travelling. If the fruitless search of the SIO proved nothing else, it has demonstrated that all legitimate ‘innocent’ reasons for the disappearance have been ruled out; technical failure, crew incapacitation, fire, etc. and the logic associated with ‘normal’ causes has failed to find either the aircraft or the reason for its loss.

I notice the media is now slowly picking up the threads and reporting that Malaysia is finally ramping up the ‘criminal’ investigation. Let’s all hope they turn the dogs loose and treat this whole thing as a serious criminal act and stop messing about, wishing and hoping that some ‘innocent’ explanation will be delivered by the gods. Whether 370 was an act of terrorism or hi-jack or even theft, then intelligence or security has let the Malaysia government down.

9/11 was a serious wake up call; the world more than ever now dependent on the intelligence and security services. If (big IF) there is an exploitable gap in that network, then no matter the political embarrassment, that gap must be plugged.

Someone, somewhere knows exactly what happened to MH 370. The answers (IMO) are on the ground. Time to stop buggering about. The failed Annexe 13 search has defused the situation and the spotlight is dimming, time, space and opportunity to bring in the criminal investigators and quietly but firmly get to the real solution – then find the aircraft and bring this saga to an end.

There, my two bob; spent as pleased me best.

Toot toot.

[ventus45]

A "speculator" - or "sold the dummy" ?

In Rugby, a "true speculator" was a field goal scored by a player kicking a goal from a ball that was in play, but on the ground.
Being "sold the dummy" can refer to a tactic executed against the opposition, in "shaping" to either "kick or pass", and then not doing so, or, if you are "going to be creamed", passing the ball to a team member, so that it is "he who gets creamed", not you !

Now, in the case of MH-370 and the LIDO Radar, we have a situation where any of the three possibilities above "may be in play".

First - The Lido Radar returns may have been actual returns, (of the aircraft going via Medan) ie, on the table, in play - but MY simply rotated them (kicked them) into the (moved) Malacca Strait goalposts.

Second - As above, but recognising that they were "going to get creamed", so:-

Third - Pass it off - to the ATSB / DSTG - to do their Bayesian Search - so that ultimately  "they get creamed" - which they have - in spades !

It all comes back to one thing.

The Malaysians know full well what happened that night - and why - and have been, from day one, and remain, desperate to ensure that no one ever finds out the truth.

Ventus45-the-final-post.JPG Size: 131.25 KB  Downloads: 89

[ventus45]

Perhaps worth a “re-read”, and perhaps worth a “re-think”.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-r3yua...view?pli=1

[ventus45]

Interesting trailing edge damage pattern.

Interesting-trailing-edge-damage-pattern.JPG Size: 237.23 KB  Downloads: 239

[ventus45]

If this is a Flap Track Fairing from 9M-MRO, the question arises, how was this damage inflicted ?  

Is it consistent with relatively "gentle" impact forces expected in a controlled ditching, or devastating impact forces expected in a a high speed dive entry to the water ?  

Given the shape of the metal frame, and the fact that there is no significant sign of "physical distress" between it and the attached honeycomb structure, I would assume the former. Thoughts ?

A.jpeg Size: 178.19 KB  Downloads: 227

B.jpg Size: 90.01 KB  Downloads: 228

C.jpg Size: 64.5 KB  Downloads: 226

A.jpeg Size: 178.19 KB  Downloads: 227

[Curtis]

Hi, all,

re the debris found so far and which is said to be from 9M-MRO or very likely so:

These parts are mainly from wings/tail , but AFAIK nothing from the hull-body itself. In case of a high violent crash (steep, high velocity) i find it logical to have similar sized debris from the hull. If these materials are of similar buoyancy (and size) like the wing parts there should have been found pieces from the hull, too.

Thus my question: Are the materials of a B777 hull  similar like those of the wings in respect to buoyancy?

If the answer is yes, the implication would be the hull was not damaged that hard, means "likely ditch".

Thanks for Your time.

C.

[aussie500]

The hull is made of metal, attached to a metal frame, even in bits the size of what was left of the MH17 fuselage, most of it is not going to float. There is no way to ditch on the open ocean and stay intact, especially not in the roaring 40's, during a storm. A few panels might have detached, depending on how much force was applied to the hull, and where it was when it broke up, in the air, or hitting the water. Such panels broken or intact might yet wash up. The bit of similar material that washed up in WA back in 2014, had help with some more buoyant attachments. If that was from MH370, it was an internal bit possibly from one of the galleys. ATSB and the federal police vanished it never to be seen again.

No internal window panels, or ceiling panels have washed up yet, only part of one seat has turned up, those head rest frames are pretty distinctive. The overhead bins, when eventually emptied of contents might also detach from their frames, they all are buoyant. If the floor panels stayed attached to their frame, they are not likely to float, same with the walls. All those yellow pipes running the length of the plane would break up and float, we have a sighting of a similar pipe back on 24th March 2014. There was a lot of yellow pipe, along with all sorts of other piping. I have no idea how tough it is, it has probably been broken up by now. The smaller piping is not distinctive enough to be recognized.

If the debris all eventually ended up going west, there is a nice long coast to catch what gets past the islands, why has it not washed up yet? There was plenty of stuff seen going east, north east and even south east, both in the sat images, and the aerial sightings. China spent a fair bit of time fishing directly east. No one followed up on what might have gone east and not been turned north, or might have gone south, or might never have left the search area. The searchers abandoned the area, once they analyzed all those photos they took, and all the more detailed info from military planes involved in the search. They did not reveal most of the sightings, never released the photos of the debris which they do have. They covered up what they found, and a convenient distraction turned up, to turn attention further north.

P7 - Nicely done Aussie 500; good to hear from you – here; have a choc frog. 

[Peetwo]

The hull is made of metal, attached to a metal frame, even in bits the size of what was left of the MH17 fuselage, most of it is not going to float. There is no way to ditch on the open ocean and stay intact, especially not in the roaring 40's, during a storm. A few panels might have detached, depending on how much force was applied to the hull, and where it was when it broke up, in the air, or hitting the water. Such panels broken or intact might yet wash up. The bit of similar material that washed up in WA back in 2014, had help with some more buoyant attachments. If that was from MH370, it was an internal bit possibly from one of the galleys. ATSB and the federal police vanished it never to be seen again.

No internal window panels, or ceiling panels have washed up yet, only part of one seat has turned up, those head rest frames are pretty distinctive. The overhead bins, when eventually emptied of contents might also detach from their frames, they all are buoyant. If the floor panels stayed attached to their frame, they are not likely to float, same with the walls. All those yellow pipes running the length of the plane would break up and float, we have a sighting of a similar pipe back on 24th March 2014. There was a lot of yellow pipe, along with all sorts of other piping. I have no idea how tough it is, it has probably been broken up by now. The smaller piping is not distinctive enough to be recognized.

If the debris all eventually ended up going west, there is a nice long coast to catch what gets past the islands, why has it not washed up yet? There was plenty of stuff seen going east, north east and even south east, both in the sat images, and the aerial sightings. China spent a fair bit of time fishing directly east. No one followed up on what might have gone east and not been turned north, or might have gone south, or might never have left the search area. The searchers abandoned the area, once they analyzed all those photos they took, and all the more detailed info from military planes involved in the search. They did not reveal most of the sightings, never released the photos of the debris which they do have. They covered up what they found, and a convenient distraction turned up, to turn attention further north.

P7 - Nicely done Aussie 500; good to hear from you – here; have a choc frog. 

Not sure if you've seen it Aussie 500 but Gunson (God bless him.. ) has raised some interesting questions on that timeframe from the MH370 search: Why do you think the recently concluded search for Malaysian Airlines Flight ML370 failed to find the wreckage?

...Political intervention on behalf of Boeing diverted searchers away from debris sightings in March 2014. The search for MH370 has been the most evil, politically corrupt air accident investigations ever conducted.

On 20 March, three French satellites Pleiades A, Pleiades B & Terra SAR-X spotted 122 debris adrift between two extremely large objects sighted 16 & 18 March respectively. These two large objects were 24m (80ft) & 22.5m (75ft) in length.


That evening a US Navy P-8 Poseidon search plane, one of two P-8 aircraft flew from Perth out to the area indicated by French satellites and in darkness made numerous radar hits.

Upon landing the following morning (Australian time) ABC reporter David Wright Tweeted about their discovery.

The search plane also took infra red images of debris through gaps in low cloud during the night time flight. The following image was obtained from the Australian Government in response to a FOIA request for images from search flights.

This was the situation by 21 March 2014. None of these debris were ever recovered by search vessels. Ironically the Australian warship HMAS Success was steaming from Perth directly for the location identified by French satellites when it was ordered to steam east away from the debris.



On 25 March 2014 the search planes were grounded ostensibly because of bad weather, however the weather system in question was closer to Australia than the search area and had already passed east of the search area.


By 27 March at Malaysia’s request the entire southern search area was abandoned with no attempt whatsoever to recover any of the debris sighted in the water.

For reasons which have no rational basis RV Ocean Shield departed Fremantle on or about 30 March and steamed North away from the debris towards HMS Echo which was searching above Zenith Plateau where RV Ocean Shield immediately reported a bogus underwater ULB detection.

It is quite possible that HMS Echo deliberately lowered devices to emit false pings from underwater in a deliberate deception campaign. There has never been any accounting for the activity of HMS Echo over Zenith Plateau prior to the arrival of RV Ocean Shield.
In my opinion there was a multi-national effort to discredit satellite sightings of debris spotted in the Southern Indian Ocean in March 2014.

 
It was also pointed out to me recently that some of the French Satphots (Lat/Long(s)) were included in the Malaysian Lido Hotel briefing (see top L/H corner):

  
There could be an official explanation (that I have missed) but it would appear that these possible French satellite sightings never had SAR assets (surface or air) tasked to re-identify/verify...


MTF...P2 


Ps Got some QON on MH370 you want asked? - For those international MH370 followers interested the next round of Australian Senate Estimates, where the powers to be at the ATSB will appear, is two weeks from now on the 27 February - Estimates (Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee) – Parliament of Australia http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Busi...O4.twitter

[ventus45]

So, Holland's paper is essentially telling us, that the BFO's don't tell us a hell of a lot - not really, so don't get your knickers in a knot over it.  Hmmmmmm ...  

And why publish it at Cornell ?  https://arxiv.org/pdf/1702.02432.pdf  Why not through the ATSB (I am choking on that ! - too much Merlot last night - but it was a good drop !)

Then of course there is his UNPUBLISHED "reference 7"
[7] “Internal study regarding SATCOM ground-station logs,” MH370 Flight Path Reconstruction Group - SATCOM Subgroup.

WE NEED that.  Mr Greg Hood, for your IMMEDIATE ACTION - thank you.

Moving right along now.

The pesky question of The ATSB's often repeated ASSERTIONS that "an in flight log on by the AES can ONLY be due to POWER INTERRUPTION" raises it's ugly head yet again.

As previously stated, and previously buried, but now "resurfaced" the FACT is, that the way the SYSTEM is designed and specified, REQUIRES the AES to maintain synchronization via CONTINUOUS monitoring of the P channel.

If the P channel is lost for a short time (specified in the literature previously posted way back) synchronization will be lost.  Loss of the P channel can occur a number of different ways, and if it does, it will FORCE the AES to initiate a NEW log-on request.

NOTE - NO POWER CYCLING IS REQUIRED, so all the "power loss = second engine flame-out = APU start etc" theories are quite probably "out the window".

Consider the following - from Jeff Wise's Blog



And also consider this - From Victor Iannello's Blog



The discussion continues at Victor's new blog: http://mh370.radiantphysics.com/2017/02/...h370-data/

Composite.gif Size: 361.97 KB  Downloads: 165

Composite2.gif Size: 242.64 KB  Downloads: 160

[Curtis]

@aussie500
Thanks for Your reply - read the same - metal on metal frame, so no buoyancy by itself, only if other pieces are clinging to it. Which may be possible, but not so likely as to wonder about no such debris found so far.
As for ditch - i of course would not expect a ditch in SIO. SIO makes no sense to me at all - only point for SIO are handshake data - result so far: Zero.

@ventus45
Wow, must have missed that (re log on not necessarily by power circle/loss but also/likely by P-channel loss/interruption). Where can i find more about possible reasons for that to occur - somewhere on this blog?

[ventus45]

@Curtis
Re P channel issues - it was in one of the Satcom System Specification Manuals, referenced way back, can't find it just now.  Go over to Victor's blog, they have mentioned it again.

Also note this.

The "possibility" that the BTO's we have been given may have been "altered" raises it's ugly head again, particulaly in light of the fact that:
(a) Inmarsat never replied to Jeff Wise,
(b) Inmarsat refuses to discuss the issue,
© Inmarsat refuses to release their logs,
(d) Inmarsat held firm at all news conferences that ALL data had been given to the "Official Investigation", so go ask them,
(e) Since the ISAT data is "key", the fact that Inmarsat has steadfastly, to this day, maintained a "Pontius Pilate" attitude, is worrying,
(f) Even in their "own" paper in the "Journal of Navigation", you will note that EVERY reference they use, is from "the Official Investigation" documents, note, NEVER any of "THEIR OWN".

You have to wonder, what kind of reputable organisation, uses questionable outsourced data, in a bid to explain the workings of their own system, to the general public, unless there is need to hide something, or they have been ordered to do so (by some government), or both.

The very fact that the article was published in the "Journal of Navigation" in the first place, instead of some Satellite Industry Publication, is suspicious in itself.  Is this "a clue" in and of itself ?

Then - consider this.

Smoking Gun - BTOs were possibly changed - perhaps this is why INMARSAT refuse to discuss.JPG Size: 31.45 KB  Downloads: 125

[Curtis]

@Curtis
Re P channel issues - it was in one of the Satcom System Specification Manuals, referenced way back, can't find it just now.  Go over to Victor's blog, they have mentioned it again.

Also note this....

Thanks much, Ventus45

As for P channel: Pardon, bad worded: I saw the specifications, which tells us that a disturbed connection would result in renewing of the  log on, which of course is huge different to log on after power outage. My question was meant like: "How can it happen that the P-channel signal is disturbed?" What can we deduce from that if anything.

I agree about the odd behavior of Inmarsat, which makes it suspicious, of course even more since the resulting search came up blank, and some other possible leads were discarded mainly because of this very data interpretation. This "we gave it to the authorities, go ask them" and the authorities`"investigation ongoing, no publication", "the radar details are too sensitive", "wait for final report" and so on, may be usual for a certain time - but now for almost 3 years?

And WOW! Inmarsat first said, the ca 1830 UTC pings were the closest to satellite?? Will try to find something about it.

It is similar odd,  in my humble view,  like the "later found 0019 ping"; which i cannot understand, when working with a data base - and when the log off MUST be visible in GES logs immediately and giving a good estimate of the last connection before that.

Another point IMO could be, if the ACARS transmission from 1707 was last satcom activity, shouldn´t be there a GES interrogation at  ca. 1807 + max 4 minutes = 1811 with a resulting log off at GES after some attempts?  

And; if the 1721 events would have triggered an ACARS transmission, we would come up at 1825? The latter must be coincidence, because as per data log, there were no further ACARS.

Which would lead to the question who is getting nervous if ACARS is missing? Nobody?

Who took care about the 1737 and 1807 missing ACARS?

And why did the confidential RMP report did not contain - as far as we know - any reports from witnesses, whereas there are several reports about witnesses that have filed some. Witness reports that do not corroborate the official story. And so on.

Well, may be I am mistaking it all - I am no way expert in these matters - but it looks strange; and, it does not help me to believe in ping data´s virginity. (probity).

P7 my edit - Nice post Curtis; "V" is your man, bet he's thinking on it all - right now.

[Curtis]

Add:
Found it (closest ping to satellite) on JWise first MH370 post:
http://jeffwise.net/2014/03/22/why-we-no...ght-route/

"On Friday, March 21, an Inmarsat spokesman told me that “the ping timings got longer,” meaning that the distance between MH370 and the satellite grew increasingly bigger, and never smaller. That means that at no point during its subsequent travels did MH370 travel any closer to Inmarsat. So from the 2.11am ping data alone, we can rule out every spot within the green arc:"


Hups, 1811 is mentioned... which would be expected. And it was not explained later, why the heck they came up with this, if there was no such 1811 ping?? Did i miss it?

[Curtis]

Add 2:
If that were true - on March 21st Inmarsat had "wrong" ping times - how would a PM of Malaysia be able to tell the world "beyond reasonable doubt" the plane and all pax/crew are lost in SIO, THREE days later, on 24th of March?

[ventus45]

Well done Curtis !!
Thanks for going back and digging that up again.
This matter needs a re-think.
I don't have the time at the moment, due medical issues with a close friend, so it will have to go on the "back burnere" for a few days.

[Curtis]

@Ventus45
Thanks much - and good luck for Your friend!

We also need to consider the (in the past) confidential RMP report, where the same ping times were shown in the charts - 18.11, 1911, etc - as discussed earlier.

So who would give the RMP and JWise wrong ping times? And it was not even corrected in the RMP report as far as we know. I have a hard time to believe this is just an innocent mistake. RMP and JWise simply misled, or are these the truth? Absurd in both cases.

[Curtis]

@Ventus
In the meantime Alex Siew (on Victor´s blog, 02/28/17 8.33 pm, and also at 10.41 pm) pointed to some inconsistencies i r t the RMP-report , which i think are at least an indication, something was doctored, and that belongs to the charts showing comm. activities of the crew - from folder 4 of the leak, p.18 and esp. for the appendix p. 125 and following.
This casts doubt on the whole document, and thus also on the mentioned ping times (18.11 and so on, even with then 8 pings, and no log on at 1825-1828).

So IDK if it is worth the time to speculate about the dubious content - or if it is better to ask who would have an interest to "leak" a doctored confidential document in such a way that does constitute the co-pilot´s phone connection as "reality", shows odd behavior of the captain (e.g. 1 minute before take off visiting "we chat"; or the extensive phone call with an engineer in February 14, shown in a time line for the day of the flight) and confuse with odd ping times, and stunning maps/altitudes for the radar readings.

Looking forward to hear Your opinions about it.

PS: Hope the medical issues turned out well.

[JoeDColeman1981]

I have seen a couple of online news reports as regards to speculation that Abbot thinks there could be have been a possibility of murder suicide, we will still have to keep an open mind about this because the conclusions of the so called leaked RMP and analysis of Flight sim, are said to have nothing to pin this on Z or anyone on board or not on board.

There's a possibility he could have done it and MY don't want their airline to be held accountable or for a suicidal pilot.

There's also possibility that some people like Abbot could have inside info. But if he doesn't have inside info, like many others it's the added thought of this so called Flight sim route analysis to SIO that was carried out as shown in the leaked RMP report that makes them think there's a possibility he did it, but there is no conclusive link this was from the same flight plan/path Z was or was not trying to simulate.

It may even be that Inmarsat and other experts saying "it went south" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=q7dBO8uEq7o feeling confidant about this because of the data and this added inconclusive so called route on Flight Sim. Putting two and two together. They all must have known about the Flight sim co-ordinates in early days.

Let's just not hope that this whole conclusion of going south isn't just based on added extra confidence of the flight sim analysis.