I am hoping for clarity. If the data is innocent then the trip ended with a nosedive, but if the data is spoofed why does lead to Kazakhstan? If the data is false, couldn't the plane have flown really anywhere that the fuel would take it?
Great question, people ask it a lot. The answer is that while the BFO data is fairly straightforward to spoof, we don't know of a way to spoof the BTO data, because it's created through a much simpler process. It's the BTO data that allowed researchers to generate two fairly narrow patchs, one to the north and one to the south, along which the plane almost certainly flew.
There's an appendix to Australia's final report in which they analyzed the paint on several pieces of debris and found that it matched that used for the MH370 aircraft.
Interesting. thx! So how do you bring together this terminal dive and its widely discussed data with a landing somewhere around russia, eg baikonour or kambala airfield? do the data fit with it?
Great question. I should have specified that this is the interpretation of the BFO data if you assume that it was producted "innocently," by a normally working SDU, and hadn't been tampered with post the second reboot at 18:25. If that spoof attack did happen, and the plane went to Kazakhstan, then the BFO values of the 7th ping are simply spurious.
re: @jeffwise: "if the plane went to Kazakhstan, then the BFO values of the 7th ping are simply spurious."
Sorry, but that's an easy out.
You (rightly!) challenge everyone to explain the SDU re-logon, saying that this "is a complicated technical mystery and any theory must explain all the facts at hand".
But for your own theory, you skip over mismatching data.
I would imagine that if the descent were to reach the point that pieces were flying off à la Silk Air 185, then it would be too late to meaningfully pull out of the dive.
As for the Avionics Handbook, I'm not sure what you're referring to...
You wrote, "Doesn't this prove that you can interrupt the system briefly by performing a software update, making the plane 'go dark', cut communications and fly in Secondary or Direct mode?" That's the million dollar question -- it sure seems possible, especially in the context of the MSAG paper, but I'd really love to talk to someone who's an expert in both cybersecurity and the ARINC 629 bus specifically
@jeffwise:
You can find an IG group discussion initiated by myself about this episode S2E4 here:
https://mh370.radiantphysics.com/2026/01/01/the-search-for-mh370-continues-into-2026/#comment-39846
I added links to this substack page here and to ufly, but it seems Victor removed them (or it was a technical quirk).
Is this podcast no longer available on Spotify or amazon music? Can only see season 1 episodes
Thanks Keelie -- yes, I've unfortunately had to restart the podcast under a different name. You can find it on Spotify here: https://open.spotify.com/show/6JyFlxPVfImPQj3vr4gOAj and on Apple podcasts here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/finding-mh370/id1750281366
I am hoping for clarity. If the data is innocent then the trip ended with a nosedive, but if the data is spoofed why does lead to Kazakhstan? If the data is false, couldn't the plane have flown really anywhere that the fuel would take it?
Great question, people ask it a lot. The answer is that while the BFO data is fairly straightforward to spoof, we don't know of a way to spoof the BTO data, because it's created through a much simpler process. It's the BTO data that allowed researchers to generate two fairly narrow patchs, one to the north and one to the south, along which the plane almost certainly flew.
any chemical analysis on the debris? i couldn t find one (;
There's an appendix to Australia's final report in which they analyzed the paint on several pieces of debris and found that it matched that used for the MH370 aircraft.
Interesting. thx! So how do you bring together this terminal dive and its widely discussed data with a landing somewhere around russia, eg baikonour or kambala airfield? do the data fit with it?
Great question. I should have specified that this is the interpretation of the BFO data if you assume that it was producted "innocently," by a normally working SDU, and hadn't been tampered with post the second reboot at 18:25. If that spoof attack did happen, and the plane went to Kazakhstan, then the BFO values of the 7th ping are simply spurious.
re: @jeffwise: "if the plane went to Kazakhstan, then the BFO values of the 7th ping are simply spurious."
Sorry, but that's an easy out.
You (rightly!) challenge everyone to explain the SDU re-logon, saying that this "is a complicated technical mystery and any theory must explain all the facts at hand".
But for your own theory, you skip over mismatching data.
I would imagine that if the descent were to reach the point that pieces were flying off à la Silk Air 185, then it would be too late to meaningfully pull out of the dive.
As for the Avionics Handbook, I'm not sure what you're referring to...
Oh, yes! Quite interesting, not very detailed but a good overview of the architecture. Was there anything in particular that caught your eye?
You wrote, "Doesn't this prove that you can interrupt the system briefly by performing a software update, making the plane 'go dark', cut communications and fly in Secondary or Direct mode?" That's the million dollar question -- it sure seems possible, especially in the context of the MSAG paper, but I'd really love to talk to someone who's an expert in both cybersecurity and the ARINC 629 bus specifically
@jeffwise: What is the MSAG paper ?