MH370 - What We Do Know a Year Later

[phreak]

It's been more than a year since it happened, but the mystery is still unsolved. Or is it? Of course we don't know what happened exactly, but we definitely know much more than a year ago. So what do we know for sure?

- MH370 never crashed into the ocean, otherwise some debris would have been already washed ashore somewhere. Remember lots of debris from Japan showing up on BC coastline within months after the earthquake? Same is true about huge wide-body jets: no debris within a year ANYWHERE - no crash. (http://time.com/3826131/mh370-malaysia-airlines-missing-jet-stop-search/), (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/04/16/mh370-search-may-be-in-the-wrong-place-again.html)

- MH370 has never been flown to the Southern Indian ocean - the area of the year long search. The credible evidence that it was flown over the Maldives existed a year ago, but was quickly dismissed with no reasonable explanations provided. Local residents saw a big passenger plane with white body and red stripes of Malaysia Airlines flying unusually low on the day MH370 went missing. Obviously the plane landed somewhere not far from that area due to fuel limitations. Strangely that evidence was ignored completely and mass media didn't even bother with any independent investigation. (http://www.maldives.com/destination...-flight-mh370-sighted-flying-low-maldives/542).

- Instead a new extremely unreliable evidence suddenly appeared - Inmarsat 'handshakes'. These calculations have never been seriously questioned or independently verified, but deemed credible and convincing enough to spend tens of millions of taxpayers dollars (and keep doing so) to search for the plane in the knowingly wrong area. But that 'evidence' was very handy to make sure nothing would be found. (http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/malaysia-a...umed-flight-path-says-marine-surveyor-1497043)

So why would a few governments deliberately waste millions of dollars? The only explanation is that they are directly involved in the crime (kidnapping and possibly premeditated murder of 239 people), and covering it up is needed at any cost. Whoever committed that crime, precisely calculated everything except witnesses in the Maldives and no debris washed ashore within a year. And no media outlet bothered with independent investigation though the case is so high profile. Why is that? It's not too late though to follow the true leads, solve the crime and possibly rescue some of the passengers if they are still alive.

 

[clu]

The visual sighting over the Maldives was determined not to be credible.

The satellite calculations are based on math, physics, and known technology. The technique was not at all unreasonable.

 

[phreak]

The visual sighting over the Maldives was determined not to be credible.

The satellite calculations are based on math, physics, and known technology. The technique was not at all unreasonable.

The visual sighting over the Maldives was determined not to be credible by who? And why? This information has never been provided. But why not try to analyze it yourself?

When someone tells you he/she was woken up by a loud noise, went outside to check it out and saw a 'huge plane flying' very low, how could it be not credible? That's pretty straightforward. Witnesses are lying? What for? What's the catch?

'The satellite calculations are based on math, physics, and known technology'? How come nobody has been able to independently verify them? And no proof has been provided?

 

[sybian]

Or perhaps the pilot made a perfect water landing, the plane was more or less intact....and it sank to the bottom of a very deep ocean.

 

[clu]

The visual sighting over the Maldives was determined not to be credible by who? And why? This information has never been provided. But why not try to analyze it yourself?

When someone tells you he/she was woken up by a loud noise, went outside to check it out and saw a 'huge plane flying' very low, how could it be not credible? That's pretty straightforward. Witnesses are lying? What for? What's the catch?

The witness gets out of bed, goes outside, and manages to see a plane still overhead despite its speed and can look so close as to describe details of this thing? I would love to know what kind of vision this witness had.

I am dismissing the anecdotal claim because (a) people do make stuff up just for the attention it brings and (b) it is not my job to discredit such vague hearsay and intangible claims.

'The satellite calculations are based on math, physics, and known technology'? How come nobody has been able to independently verify them? And no proof has been provided?

I read how it was done. The math is hella complex involving Doppler effects on satellite transmissions. I happen to understand that stuff and I'd still say good luck sharing the data and getting someone else not in that field to make any sense of it whatsoever. But it was actually pretty clever.

But honestly I don't really want to engage this thread too much further because when you throw away a reasonable explanation on a claim of "have you seen the evidence yourself" and then venture so far into conjecture with your fantasy of a perfect international cover up, I think we have a very different definition of what "evidence" means.

 

[phreak]

The witness gets out of bed, goes outside, and manages to see a plane still overhead despite its speed and can look so close as to describe details of this thing? I would love to know what kind of vision this witness had.

I am dismissing the anecdotal claim because (a) people do make stuff up just for the attention it brings and (b) it is not my job to discredit such vague hearsay and intangible claims.



I read how it was done. The math is hella complex involving Doppler effects on satellite transmissions. I happen to understand that stuff and I'd still say good luck sharing the data and getting someone else not in that field to make any sense of it whatsoever. But it was actually pretty clever.

But honestly I don't really want to engage this thread too much further because when you throw away a reasonable explanation on a claim of "have you seen the evidence yourself" and then venture so far into conjecture with your fantasy of a perfect international cover up, I think we have a very different definition of what "evidence" means.

Have you tried yourself to look at low flying planes in Richmond (close to YVR), or even not-so-low flying planes say, in Surrey? If your vision is not extremely bad, you'll be able to easily read airline names/logos painted on planes, and figuring out the colour of plane's body/stripes is a piece of cake. You don't have to be in a rush either - you'll have a couple of minutes or so to watch the plane flying across the skies above you. So there is nothing unusual that the Maldives residents were able to clearly see the plane: it took them probably a few seconds to run outside their huts. You are dismissing as 'anecdotal' the claim that can be easily verified by any of us, but give credibility to something very controversial and pretty much unverifiable.

The fact that the Inmarsat 'handshake' calculations are very complex doesn't mean they are accurate - it's pretty much a guessing game. The search area have been modified a few times already. And according to the latest info (I've provided the links in my original post), the whole 'handshake' theory is highly questionable and unreliable. But what is really suspicious is that once the 'handshake' theory showed up, any other explanations / alternative locations were dismissed outright without any verification. There was a company which specialized in detection of objects on the ocean floor. They detected an object with the shape of a big plane around the Maldives, but it didn't go any further just because the location was not the one pointed by Inmarsat. That could be the Boeing in case if it was ditched and sank intact.

Everything based on concrete evidence was disregarded in favour of some vague calculations based on incomplete data. Plus willingness to waste around hundred million of taxpayers dollars. If it is not the conspiracy, what the hell is it? Have you seen many governments (even corrupt) deliberately wasting millions of dollars without any benefit even for themselves?

 

[hornygandalf]

I was a little surprised that there didn't appear to be any further investigation of these claims, and that they were quickly dismissed as not credible. Doesn't mean there has been a coverup, though.

Conspiracy theories are just that until proven otherwise. But in the absence of any contradicting information, I wouldn't dismiss those theories out-of-hand. The truth can sometimes be stranger than fiction. And hopefully someone independent will quietly investigate the Maldives claims to see if there is anything credible in them.

 

[phreak]

I was a little surprised that there didn't appear to be any further investigation of these claims, and that they were quickly dismissed as not credible. Doesn't mean there has been a coverup, though.

Conspiracy theories are just that until proven otherwise. But in the absence of any contradicting information, I wouldn't dismiss those theories out-of-hand. The truth can sometimes be stranger than fiction. And hopefully someone independent will quietly investigate the Maldives claims to see if there is anything credible in them.

But that's the point: if there were no cover up, alternative claims would have never been dismissed as not credible. If your goal is to find the plane, why would you dismiss credible and easily verifiable evidence in favour of the obscure one? It doesn't make any sense, at least if you WANT the plane to be found.

I watched that story closely a year ago, and I remember that any attempts of alternative investigation were flooded with info like: we found the debris for sure this time - it's so big it can't be anything but the plane; yes, that's the back box signal, no doubts about it. Needless to say all these claims appeared to be fake. It looked very childish and naive, but somehow the media and general public didn't raise any doubts. It was so clear that the purpose of the 'investigation' was to keep it within the Southern Indian ocean at any costs.

 

[masterblaster]

Some say the plane is at the US base on Diego Garcia in the Indian ocean.

 

[phreak]

Some say the plane is at the US base on Diego Garcia in the Indian ocean.

This is at least way more likely, and explains the reasons for the crime cover up.

 

[hornygandalf]

There may be a coverup, but we can't assume that the dismissal of the claims by Maldives islanders is evidence of a coverup. It simply indicates that it might be a possibility.

 

[phreak]

There may be a coverup, but we can't assume that the dismissal of the claims by Maldives islanders is evidence of a coverup. It simply indicates that it might be a possibility.

We are talking about the criminal investigation here: how would you qualify deliberate and selective dismissal of evidence based not on any objective criteria, but arbitrary decisions? 200+ people are likely dead! This is not a joke.

 

[clu]

This is at least way more likely, and explains the reasons for the crime cover up.

Really... You're not thinking objectively. A cover up like you propose is next to impossible. There's quite a leap between "governments waste money" (yes they do) and multiple countries collaborated to lead the world on a red herring wild goose chase when they knew damned well where the plane was. This proposition is frankly irrational. To ask one of your own questions... WHY? For much less than that amount of money they could acquire a plane discretely and probably make a couple hundred people disappear in a lot less conspicuous fashion.

There's Edward Snowdon, there's Wikileaks, there's proof that the US can't even keep its own secrets right there and you think an international consortium pulled off the perfect crime? Irrational.

Where's your evidence that it's anything other than what they say? (The witness claimed to be able to see in the windows of the airplane and see people. That's why I made the eyesight comment.) What I say happened is that the media in its usual flurry to be the first to report some scoop did its usual thing of reporting half-assed details as fact, only correcting itself (or letting the errors go) over time.

Never attribute to malevolence what you can attribute to incompetence.

 

[phreak]

Really... You're not thinking objectively. A cover up like you propose is next to impossible. There's quite a leap between "governments waste money" (yes they do) and multiple countries collaborated to lead the world on a red herring wild goose chase when they knew damned well where the plane was. This proposition is frankly irrational. To ask one of your own questions... WHY? For much less than that amount of money they could acquire a plane discretely and probably make a couple hundred people disappear in a lot less conspicuous fashion.

There's Edward Snowdon, there's Wikileaks, there's proof that the US can't even keep its own secrets right there and you think an international consortium pulled off the perfect crime? Irrational.

Where's your evidence that it's anything other than what they say? (The witness claimed to be able to see in the windows of the airplane and see people. That's why I made the eyesight comment.) What I say happened is that the media in its usual flurry to be the first to report some scoop did its usual thing of reporting half-assed details as fact, only correcting itself (or letting the errors go) over time.

Never attribute to malevolence what you can attribute to incompetence.

Diego Garcia scenario is a speculation at this point - I can only agree with you on that. But the obsession with searching for the plane in the Southern Indian ocean is pretty much entirely based on another speculation, and it's gotta be a good reason for that. If we have a mass murder investigation, isn't it our obligation to follow ALL valid leads, not just some?

If we have doubts that the witnesses from the Maldives are credible, what about sending there a couple of investigators to verify those claims? Then the investigators report: OK, we did this and that, and we found these claims not credible due to blah-blah-blah. Have you seen on TV a journalist interviewing a witness in Maldives? Why the hell not? Isn't it what journalists are always after? Somebody found something airplane-like on the ocean floor - let's send the underwater vehicle to have a look. Here is a videotape - you can clearly see it is not a plane. What's wrong with that? Money is not an issue - they already wasted shitload of it and planning to waste even more. Guess what: the government of Maldives was not even CONTACTED regarding those claims, forget about verifying them. They were never verified - just dismissed. This is not just incompetence considering the nature of the investigation - these are criminal intentions.

 

[phreak]

"To my knowledge there is no proven theory to work out a distance or position using Inmarsat signals."

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/571700/Malaysia-Airlines-MH370-flight-path-new-plane

 

[clu]

"To my knowledge there is no proven theory to work out a distance or position using Inmarsat signals."

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/571700/Malaysia-Airlines-MH370-flight-path-new-plane

Yeah but he's wrong. They used the data in an unconventional way, but the methodology was sound. Regardless, if I had your inclination to unfounded suspicion, I know the data could be faked, so releasing it would prove nothing.

 

[hornygandalf]

We are talking about the criminal investigation here: how would you qualify deliberate and selective dismissal of evidence based not on any objective criteria, but arbitrary decisions? 200+ people are likely dead! This is not a joke.

We do not know the basis upon which the dismissed the evidence. It may have only been partially reported in the media. I like to keep an open and semi-sceptical (at least) mind until the evidence is clear and irrefutable. Though sometimes we have to believe purely on intuition and gut feeling.

 

[clu]

Even allowing the Maldives claims might be true, it still doesn't mean an international criminal cover up. In fact this article says the Maldives authorities were contacted:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ng-plead-investigators-visit-share-story.html

"The Maldvies National Defence Force released a statement in March last year which denied that there had been any aircrafts in the area at the time of the disappearance, which locals have branded as an attempt to hide the limitations of their radar facilities."

As cover ups go, this is way more believable than some deliberate multinational covert hijacking. So if you want to entertain conjecture, there are still numerous more mundane explanations. The international consortium could've been misdirected by CYA incompetence of the Maldives military not some crazy inexplicable James Bond plan to steal a plane and its passengers.

And the article does indicate locals were consulted by the media. Whether it was just in print and not on TV is really of little consequence.

But conspiracy theorist mentality can work both ways. For example, I could say "how can it be that so many people say they saw it but with cell phones etc. today no video evidence?" (We're not talking fishermen and mud huts here. They interviewed a local "IT professional".)

This avenue of thought is pointless. It's evidence only that we don't know everything, not that there's a cover up. Not knowing everything is the normal human condition. People have an overconfidence in the media's accuracy and the government's ability to execute an evil plot flawlessly. Considering how incompetent the government is at most things it astonishes me that people can expect them to suddenly be so perfect when it comes to pulling off something fiendishly complex. It boggles the mind.

 

[theunit]

The ufo's got it

 

[Larry Storch]

The ufo's got it

But then they flew into the Bermuda triangle . . . . . . . .