01-27-2016, 05:48 PM
Not promoting a theory - like last time, just hoping to collect facts:
We all remember the ill-fated "Maldives debris" - found just a few days after the Réunion debris, it seemed to have everything going against it:
- impossible to drift there from the 7th Arc
- timing was suspicious (were these just copycat debris finders, looking for cheap notoriety?)
- "looked like a surfboard" (I admit I checked out dozens of pics of vintage "Frantic", etc. logos, seeking a font match, to settle the issue)
- on top of all this, Malaysian authorities definitively ruled it OUT, after having taken it back with all the other debris, and examining it in their labs
Right?
Well...
- The 7th Arc is having trouble agreeing with any aspect of the physical record. Furthermore, the search has been fumbled so badly, many are suspecting a deliberate attempt to search slowly. It is now reasonable to suppose that the signal data may have somehow been rendered invalid.
- while many pieces of debris were retrieved from many Maldivian atolls, the one whose images circled the globe - the aerodynamically angular, beat up chunk of honeycombed aluminum, with a white finish - was one of the few pieces NOT recovered, tested, and ruled on by Malaysian authorities. More than a month before the pictures hit cyberspace, it was taken away with the regular garbage cycle to an atoll they use as a garbage dump.
- Apparently, the photos were taken on May 31, 2015 - prior, obviously, to being carted away by the local garbage collectors. If this is true, the "hoax" angle loses a lot of steam - while the original group of resort employees who discovered the piece admit they were persuaded to publish their photos only after seeing the Réunion debris, this now doesn't really argue either way, since the timing seems natural for both hoax and genuine discovery.
- the construction has been described by one online expert (I know, I know...bear with me) as "carbon fibre, honeycomb cores and kevlar composite...PRECISELY what they build planes out of. Nothing else requires the expense of materials so strong and light as this".
- I have seen several commenters suggest it looked to them like a piece of wing or tail. A subset explicitly mentioned a 777.
- the letters "IC" - preceded by a probable "T" (or possible "F") - might suggest the word "STATIC" - part of a warning painted on many parts of a commercial jet. Some folks suggest such a warning would be expected on the underside of the extreme edge of a 777's wingtip, because that's where static build-up can occur (I am out of my element, here).
- my own inspection of many photos yesterday suggests the font is consistent with an aircraft warning label, and its red colour consistent with the warning labels on 9M-MRO.
Now.
My question to this forum is simple:
Drawing on your aviation expertise and/or connections, can I be so impertinent as to ask you please to offer your best insights on what you think this object might be?
...WITHOUT bias induced by the assumption that the signal data has already rendered a positive match impossible?
Here's the original photo set:
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_f...=660391502
Huge thanks in advance.
We all remember the ill-fated "Maldives debris" - found just a few days after the Réunion debris, it seemed to have everything going against it:
- impossible to drift there from the 7th Arc
- timing was suspicious (were these just copycat debris finders, looking for cheap notoriety?)
- "looked like a surfboard" (I admit I checked out dozens of pics of vintage "Frantic", etc. logos, seeking a font match, to settle the issue)
- on top of all this, Malaysian authorities definitively ruled it OUT, after having taken it back with all the other debris, and examining it in their labs
Right?
Well...
- The 7th Arc is having trouble agreeing with any aspect of the physical record. Furthermore, the search has been fumbled so badly, many are suspecting a deliberate attempt to search slowly. It is now reasonable to suppose that the signal data may have somehow been rendered invalid.
- while many pieces of debris were retrieved from many Maldivian atolls, the one whose images circled the globe - the aerodynamically angular, beat up chunk of honeycombed aluminum, with a white finish - was one of the few pieces NOT recovered, tested, and ruled on by Malaysian authorities. More than a month before the pictures hit cyberspace, it was taken away with the regular garbage cycle to an atoll they use as a garbage dump.
- Apparently, the photos were taken on May 31, 2015 - prior, obviously, to being carted away by the local garbage collectors. If this is true, the "hoax" angle loses a lot of steam - while the original group of resort employees who discovered the piece admit they were persuaded to publish their photos only after seeing the Réunion debris, this now doesn't really argue either way, since the timing seems natural for both hoax and genuine discovery.
- the construction has been described by one online expert (I know, I know...bear with me) as "carbon fibre, honeycomb cores and kevlar composite...PRECISELY what they build planes out of. Nothing else requires the expense of materials so strong and light as this".
- I have seen several commenters suggest it looked to them like a piece of wing or tail. A subset explicitly mentioned a 777.
- the letters "IC" - preceded by a probable "T" (or possible "F") - might suggest the word "STATIC" - part of a warning painted on many parts of a commercial jet. Some folks suggest such a warning would be expected on the underside of the extreme edge of a 777's wingtip, because that's where static build-up can occur (I am out of my element, here).
- my own inspection of many photos yesterday suggests the font is consistent with an aircraft warning label, and its red colour consistent with the warning labels on 9M-MRO.
Now.
My question to this forum is simple:
Drawing on your aviation expertise and/or connections, can I be so impertinent as to ask you please to offer your best insights on what you think this object might be?
...WITHOUT bias induced by the assumption that the signal data has already rendered a positive match impossible?
Here's the original photo set:
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_f...=660391502
Huge thanks in advance.