11-13-2016, 12:03 PM
Response to ATSB's latest report: "MH370 – Search and debris examination update" (Published: 2 November 2016):
1. The indication of rapid descent at 00:19 UTC is nothing new - within a week of (finally) being granted access to the pdf file search leaders claim was MH370's Inmarsat data log, signal data experts such as those in the "Independent Group" felt the change in altitude indicated by its :19 BFO values was quite clear. Why pretend that this is brand new analysis, let alone brand new calculations? If it is, it is coming out 33 months later than it should have: the data has not changed since March 15, 2014. Ditto the flight simulator tests. Both tasks could have - and should have - been completed in March of 2014. Had they done so, the time spent searching several nautical miles further from Arc 7 than could be reached by a plane in steep descent by 00:19 could have been better spent searching a wider segment of the Arc. (Edit: added "descent" above)
2. The flaperon's indication of a more northerly impact is nothing new - within a week of its discovery, drift experts such as Dr. Erik van Sebille had already suggested a vastly more northerly impact location ("much nearer the equator"). Why did the ATSB choose to rely - exclusively - on CSIRO's result, which a comparative analysis I conducted suggests was an outlier, due to a seemingly aggressive "Stokes effect"? More importantly: why search for 16 months in the zone only this outlier work supported, and then correct the analysis now, after those months were wasted? I am happy to re-post evidence of CSIRO's "outlier" status when benchmarked against ten other expert analyses, if anyone wishes.
3. Any drift analysis that focuses exclusively on the flaperon - and ignores the "Roy" piece - is deeply suspect. If the reporting is to be believed, this engine cowling fragment was found at the mouth of the Klein Brak river (SA) on December 23, 2015. This means it had to travel over 45% more distance, yet had under 30% more time to accomplish this. (Neither of these numbers is a fancy calc: the former was found by drawing paths consistent with the prevailing current on Google Earth; the latter by subtracting and comparing dates.) Adding this piece to any drift study drives the search zone materially further northeast; why is the potential significance of this piece being willfully ignored? I am happy to re-post evidence demonstrating that the Roy piece materially shifts the drift-indicated impact point materially further NE than does the flaperon, if anyone wishes.
4. Any drift analysis which suggests an impact at Arc 7 @ anywhere near 30°S - and yet fails even to attempt to explain zero debris on W. Australian shorelines - is deeply suspect. Studies such as Dr. Charitha Pattiaratchi's (U. of W.A.) suggest these shorelines would be saturated - even if impact was as far up Arc 7 as 25°S. I am happy to post evidence of this - supplied directly to me by Chari - if anyone wishes.
Response to recently published image resembling a police report of a cell phone connect near Penang: I am taking a sabbatical on trusting any "evidence" that is not explicitly confirmed by named and proper authorities. (Remember how much further from the truth the "pilot plotted suicide route to SIO" banner headline took us, before its author recanted, citing the fact that these points were among thousands, and could not even be confirmed to have come from the same simulated flight?) The timing - 979 days after the fact - is suspicious in and of itself; when one adds the fourth- or fifth-hand nature of this leak - and its "screen shot" quality (par for the course, with the curious case of MH370...) - we are into very, VERY dodgy territory.
For crystal clarity: I do not doubt for a second the motives of the person who actually published the graphic image over which we are now meant to fixate - nor of anyone who is promoting it online. All I point out is that, if the plane did NOT overfly Penang, then misinformation designed to appear like a leak of official data would be precisely what the doctor ordered. It is possible the "leaker" - far upstream of the actual publisher - managed to fake something designed to shift the narrative away from hard questions designed to hold search leadership accountable.
For background: for my (now 33-month long) quest to hold search leadership accountable for its key decisions, I have been treated to obfuscation, deceit, and even (of late) character assassination. So yes, I am predisposed not to trust "evidence" paraded before us, without a scintilla of accountability - anywhere - for its provenance.
1. The indication of rapid descent at 00:19 UTC is nothing new - within a week of (finally) being granted access to the pdf file search leaders claim was MH370's Inmarsat data log, signal data experts such as those in the "Independent Group" felt the change in altitude indicated by its :19 BFO values was quite clear. Why pretend that this is brand new analysis, let alone brand new calculations? If it is, it is coming out 33 months later than it should have: the data has not changed since March 15, 2014. Ditto the flight simulator tests. Both tasks could have - and should have - been completed in March of 2014. Had they done so, the time spent searching several nautical miles further from Arc 7 than could be reached by a plane in steep descent by 00:19 could have been better spent searching a wider segment of the Arc. (Edit: added "descent" above)
2. The flaperon's indication of a more northerly impact is nothing new - within a week of its discovery, drift experts such as Dr. Erik van Sebille had already suggested a vastly more northerly impact location ("much nearer the equator"). Why did the ATSB choose to rely - exclusively - on CSIRO's result, which a comparative analysis I conducted suggests was an outlier, due to a seemingly aggressive "Stokes effect"? More importantly: why search for 16 months in the zone only this outlier work supported, and then correct the analysis now, after those months were wasted? I am happy to re-post evidence of CSIRO's "outlier" status when benchmarked against ten other expert analyses, if anyone wishes.
3. Any drift analysis that focuses exclusively on the flaperon - and ignores the "Roy" piece - is deeply suspect. If the reporting is to be believed, this engine cowling fragment was found at the mouth of the Klein Brak river (SA) on December 23, 2015. This means it had to travel over 45% more distance, yet had under 30% more time to accomplish this. (Neither of these numbers is a fancy calc: the former was found by drawing paths consistent with the prevailing current on Google Earth; the latter by subtracting and comparing dates.) Adding this piece to any drift study drives the search zone materially further northeast; why is the potential significance of this piece being willfully ignored? I am happy to re-post evidence demonstrating that the Roy piece materially shifts the drift-indicated impact point materially further NE than does the flaperon, if anyone wishes.
4. Any drift analysis which suggests an impact at Arc 7 @ anywhere near 30°S - and yet fails even to attempt to explain zero debris on W. Australian shorelines - is deeply suspect. Studies such as Dr. Charitha Pattiaratchi's (U. of W.A.) suggest these shorelines would be saturated - even if impact was as far up Arc 7 as 25°S. I am happy to post evidence of this - supplied directly to me by Chari - if anyone wishes.
Response to recently published image resembling a police report of a cell phone connect near Penang: I am taking a sabbatical on trusting any "evidence" that is not explicitly confirmed by named and proper authorities. (Remember how much further from the truth the "pilot plotted suicide route to SIO" banner headline took us, before its author recanted, citing the fact that these points were among thousands, and could not even be confirmed to have come from the same simulated flight?) The timing - 979 days after the fact - is suspicious in and of itself; when one adds the fourth- or fifth-hand nature of this leak - and its "screen shot" quality (par for the course, with the curious case of MH370...) - we are into very, VERY dodgy territory.
For crystal clarity: I do not doubt for a second the motives of the person who actually published the graphic image over which we are now meant to fixate - nor of anyone who is promoting it online. All I point out is that, if the plane did NOT overfly Penang, then misinformation designed to appear like a leak of official data would be precisely what the doctor ordered. It is possible the "leaker" - far upstream of the actual publisher - managed to fake something designed to shift the narrative away from hard questions designed to hold search leadership accountable.
For background: for my (now 33-month long) quest to hold search leadership accountable for its key decisions, I have been treated to obfuscation, deceit, and even (of late) character assassination. So yes, I am predisposed not to trust "evidence" paraded before us, without a scintilla of accountability - anywhere - for its provenance.