[Peetwo]

Latest on the DOI trail -

Another day & another confusing element to the debris providence trail  , courtesy JW blog today:

Image of Barnacle-Encrusted Debris Surfaces in South Africa
– May 17, 2016Posted in: Aviation
 


Above is a picture that Neels Le Roux Kruger recently posted on the ‘MH370 In search of the truth’ website. He writes:

An interesting development with regards to “Klein Roy”.

‘This morning I was in contact with an individual from the town of George inland from Mosselbay in South Africa. The person, who is a frequent visitor to Klein Brak beach, was walking on the beach at Klein Brak on 23 December 2015 on an amateur ocean photo assignment. He captured images of the ocean and the beach – and he also took a photo of an object he though was part of a signboard. He said he did not think much of the object at the time and he didn’t examine it (or handle it) since it smelled of decomposing marine life. The fragment was covered in barnacles and mussels. He took a random photo and also notes that when he returned later the day the fragment was gone – probably washed back out to sea by the incoming tide. After reading about the investigation into the MH370 debris and the identification of “Roy” he made the connection to my photos of the piece and came into contact with the media.
Quite amazing – this is definitely the “Rolls Royce” fragment I picked up 3 months later in the same area!

This is exciting since it brings the time frame for the washing up of the RR fragment 3 months forward to at least December 2015. It is also an indication of the presence of substantial amounts of marine life on the fragment when it first washed up along the South African coast.

For reference, here’s an image of the piece as it was found by Kruger in March near Mossel Bay, South Africa:


Taken together, these photos make a compelling case for the idea — which I have strongly disputed here — that barnacle-encrusted pieces could be thoroughly cleaned by wave, sand, and sun after coming ashore.

The implication, then, is that the pieces were not “ineptly planted,” as I asserted, but that the lack of biofouling is due to the pieces spending time ashore before they were discovered.

This is Planetalking's take on this photo posting:

MH370 debris photo gives doubters a reality check

An amateur photographer has come forward with a photo that torpedoes some of the conspiracy claims made about the disappearance of MH370
Ben Sandilands


This was taken on an amateur photo assignment last year and not recognised as part of MH370

There is a cautionary tale on Jeff Wise’s website today about jumping to conclusions about MH370 debris being planted as part of some far reaching conspiracies involving the missing Malaysia Airlines jet.

It sinks claims that some of the five fragments now recognised as coming from Boeing 777-200ER that vanished on March 8, 2014, were too clean in terms of marine growths to have been what they were claimed to be.

One of those fragments, a part of the cowling of one of the jet’s two Rolls-Royce engines, looked whistle clean when it was recovered from a beach in South Africa late in March, although on closer examination, there was some marine contamination on it.
A photo has now emerged of the same object beached in the same part of the South African coast that was taken in December last year, bearing obvious growths of barnacles that often attached themselves to floating objects in shallow water.

MH370 disappeared as an ATC transponder identified object while on a flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing with 239 people on board. The ATSB managed search for the sunk wreckage of the jet in a priority search zone in the south Indian Ocean is now in its final months, unless there is a discovery before then

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2016/05/18/mh370-debris-photo-gives-doubters-reality-check/

"..An amateur photographer has come forward with a photo that torpedoes some of the conspiracy claims made about the disappearance of MH370.."

Hmm...I am not sure that many of the contributors to the JW blog would totally agree with you on that Ben..

Brock McEwen
Posted May 18, 2016 at 12:05 AM
Does this photography buff have a name, yet?

To summarize: this anonymous figure was interested enough in the piece to not only photograph it, but return to the same beach for a second time that day, remember exactly where it HAD been, and make an explicit mental note of its disappearance – yet apparently did not consider the photo worth sharing with anyone until 5 months later (and fully 2 months after the Rolls Royce fragment became huge news – in SA especially). Does this summarize the state of affairs?

 Trond
Posted May 18, 2016 at 12:19 AM

@rich
Im not sure if this one item have been picked up and kept silent about because of what was carved into it.


 Rand
Posted May 18, 2016 at 12:22 AM

 DennisW
Posted May 18, 2016 at 12:26 AM
@Brock

Elaborate Photoshop?
Is there any way to check the source image for metadata?


 MH
Posted May 18, 2016 at 12:48 AM

The photo seems a little bit “staged”. But it’s seems none of the barnacles are attached with a “stalk” to the engine covering. The sand seems artificially placed And not placed by a natural processes.


Tom Lindsay
Posted May 18, 2016 at 12:59 AM

Hi All
Have checked out this pic (RR) with some very good software, which I use on a daily basis. Not one sign of any Exif/meta data to be seen. NOT one. Clean as a whistle. My opinion – looks staged.

Personally I hope the photo is ridgy, didge and did turn up 3 months before to simply be washed out to sea again...
MTF...P2