Great podcast guys, binge listened the entire thing in about a week.
Questions, Do you not think if this technology existed and indeed was used on this plane successfully. It would not have been used again in the last 10years since?
My take? Russia stole one plane and shot down another in the span of four months. That was enough of a statement to make to high-level Western leaders, that also didn’t start WWIII. Had they tried this to an airline owned by a NATO country, and not defenseless Malaysia, it might not have ended well. Plus … imagine the vast resources it requires to pull this off - twice!
From my perspective, the only countries that could’ve made a plane like MH370 disappear are Russia, China and the United States. China presumably isn’t interested in murdering its own citizens, and this caper doesn’t strike me as a move the 2014 Obama White House would perpetuate.
Others may try, just like how I wondered why there was only one 9-11.
I think it’s just too hard and too risky, and the consequences would be grave if proven. -Andy
Thanks Charlie! The vulnerability that existed aboard MH370 when it took off that night was unusual at the time and doesn't exist at all anymore. For instance, the Inmarsat plan that Malaysia Airlines was subscribed to didn't embed GPS data in every transmission. After the disappearance, that feature was made standard. Of course, the broader issue is: if this vulnerability wasn't exploited again, why hasn't another one been? And to be sure, the aviation industry is riddled with security vulnerabilities. I guess my fear is that while it doesn't seem like another hijacking akin to MH370 has happened in the last 10 years, there's no reason why another couldn't in the near future -- unless we change our attitude toward security in aviation.
Thanks for explaining. Another question I had is do you think Florence's theory is impossible? (I read her book as well) and did anyone ever at any point speak to that Cathay Pacific pilot who saw that "Debris field" seemed like it would be easy to track him down
I think "impossible" is not too strong a word -- there simply isn't any evidence for it, third hand claims of anonymous tips in parking garages notwithstanding. And plenty of evidence against it. As for debris fields being spotted from the air, there were numerous reports of things in the early days, but none of them checked out, which is not that surprising, since all kinds of things can cause patches of junk to float on the ocean surface.
Thanks for the reply. I really do find all this fascinating and you seem to have backed everything up with evidence. Look forward to the next podcast, will there be anything on Ocean Infinity and the "new evidence " they claim to have for a new search zone?
I was extremely skeptical of her theory until I saw her at a Hong Kong press club event for the book and saw how well respected she was by other established, mainstream journalists. I think you’re both pointing to possibilities that should make us face security very differently to say that I thought you laid out extremely well in the pod and is a war reaching societal question in many other applications, all these years later (some of which Andy pointed out or alluded to in the pod). I think it would be fascinating to see you show us where you might have already gone researching from a security standpoint, including how cargo is accounted for, tracked and handled. I’d also pay good money to be in a live Q&A with you and Florence. She made a kind remark about you at the HK event; I got the sense that she respects you and definitely does not see you as a conspiracy theorist (whilst admitting her theory sounds implausible except for the type of sourcing you mentioned).
That's interesting, thanks, Jennifer. I think that Florence is an intelligent, hard-working and resourceful journalist, but she's way off base when it comes to MH370.
But please stop getting pissed because CSIRO are not taking direction from you.
You should also stop getting annoyed because they are not giving you the answers that agree with you that's not how science works.
CSIRO are an Australian government organisation with responsibility for the spending of Australian tax payers money.
Australia stepped into the MH370 investigation and led it. Did your government?
MH370 is an important mystery to solve. But CSIRO have many other responsibilities and challenges to address *for Australia*.
I appreciate your background science. I too have a couple of science degrees, but CSIRO are far more expert than you and I combined.
You highly praise the scientists that agree with your arguments, but are highly critical of those who do not.
Please petition your government to spend your tax dollars, or the Malaysian government, to conduct the experiments that you are interested in, or conduct them for yourself.
For what it's worth, CSIRO also partner with industry, so you may consider approaching them with the financial backing to conduct the experiments you are looking to have performed.
Please also stop calling them Cicero
It's either C.S.I.R.O (sounding out the letters), or alternatively, 'Sigh-Row'.
While I am being pedantic, 'Boy' not 'Booey'.
I love your passion for the MH370 mystery and your drive for an explanation and more importantly, justice and closure for all victims.
Dave, I'm glad that you like the podcast, and frankly all your points are well taken. I have enormous respect for the scientists, seamen, and other personnel at AMSA, ATSB, DSTG, CSIRO and the rest -- you're quite right that Australia has shouldered more than its fair share of the burden. And thank you to the Australian taxpayer, by the way! As I tried to express in the podcast, I understand why David Griffin would be annoyed by journalists like me, and I think he's shown admirable responsiveness by not only replying to my questions but doing so quickly and thoroughly. That said, I do disagree with him, and I think that, while their intentions were good and they worked hard, the ATSB and the others they enlisted did not succeed in their mission, and I feel it's very important to understand that in order to try to figure out why. (I mean, barnacles growing on the flaperon trailing edge, that's just flat-out impossible, right?) Anyway, thanks for explaining to us how to pronounce Sigh-Row, we truly had no idea. As for "boo-ey"... we're Yanks, man! What can I say...
After listening I have to say you've built a credible case that Russia COULD do this. What remains missing for me is the WHY of the case. Are you exploring motive? (Granted that is HARD to do all things considered) The tipping point for me and I think others would be plausible theory for why Russia wanted that particular plane on that particular night.
Dave, That's a question a lot of people ask. I address it in my book, but we haven't yet gotten around to it in the podcast -- but we will. My philosophy is that you have to establish what happened first, and only then can you get into talking about things like motive. But rest assured, there's a lot of interesting stuff to get into.
I still think money is the motive. 1MDB is the Malaysian Sovereign Wealth Fund that saw large scale embezzlement. I think some Russians might have lost a lot of money being laundered. You can’t recover that in court.
Chatgpt says-
While there is no direct evidence of Russian oligarchs being involved in the 1MDB scandal, there have been reports suggesting potential connections. These reports have pointed to suspicious financial transactions and investments involving individuals or entities with ties to Russian oligarchs.
It is important to note that investigations into the 1MDB scandal are ongoing, and any connections to Russian oligarchs or other individuals or entities are subject to further scrutiny and verification.
I think you may be on to something, but as a point of rhetorical technique I'd refrain from quoting ChatGPT as a source!
Seriously though, the huge tranches of money that are being transferred around the world in secret, only occasionally surfacing in leaks like the Panama Papers, is truly concerning, and I wish our elected officials would take transparency legislation more seriously.
Because I clearly can't wait for the next ep to come out, I had some spare time last night, and I'm a fruit loop, I decided to do some amateur sleuthing.
Where to start? I'm a Brit so I love to talk about the weather! I looked into the historical sunrise and weather data for some suitable airports, those with runways over 8000ft that were in, near or around the end of the corridor (see sources). I think you're set on Baikonur Cosmodrome, but I wanted to find out for myself what would be the shortest route (fuel consumption), closest to the last ping on the 7th arc, landing conditions etc. Also, I was wondering if their air traffic control was up because they were expecting flights at that time anyway. I ignored Hazret-Sultan International Airport as it's a new airport.
Apologies if I've got anything wrong, I'm not an expert researcher and I might not be able to read my notes properly.
Sources:
Airports within the area of the last image on JeffWise.net, Episode 13 etc, posted 14th December 2023.
Weather is from WorldWeatherOnline, approximate landing time within 3 hour weather forecast, 3-6am, 8th March 2014.
Airport arrivals during the night assuming ATC up, Flightradar24, from current data so might be wrong for 2014.
Runway lengths checked but not detailed below, internet or Wikipedia.
Assumption of landing near or after last ping at UTC 8:19, Kazakhstan 05:19, Kyrgyzstan 06:19 - honestly, if that's the only thing that's wrong here, I don't mind.
Kyzylorda - Sunrise 07:04 -18degC Clear NE 17km/h, ATC No
Baikonur Yubileyny and/or Krayniy (Extreme) - Sun rise 07:13 -20degC Cloudy E19km/h (furthest away so would it have reached there on a fuelless glide?), ATC unknown
Manas - ignored as US base until June 2014, although...
as you mentioned, Kant Air Base to the East (Kyrgyzstan UTC +6). Sun rise 07:26, -6degC, Rain/Snow 11km/h NW, ATC unknown. It's a very interesting route given it's proximity to a US base, which was possibly quieter as it was winding down to hand back to Kyrgyzstan and not looking out for MH370. It seems to be the shortest route that is closest to the corridor and 7th arc ping, and earlier sun rise. I would expect it could be ignored if it hugged the mountains on an Easterly turn after Taraz. What an Eff You that would be to the US/East if they snuck past them! It could also be a close call at about 26km/16miles due South. If they were to stay high, and made an extremely quick descent - Sarajevo Approach - to land at Kant, maybe. I don't know what I'm talking about really, but I think that fits with some of the data suggesting a pilot was controlling things at the end. All flight scenarios would have the landing in the dark, possibly a little bit of light in the East for Kant, weather conditions range from normal to fruity (with the extreme low temps).
But, there were mostly Chinese people on board so I don't get how this is having a go at the East.
I'm not as intelligent as a lot of people who research this and I'm not sold on any theory, my mind is as open as it can be. Look, there goes a tumbleweed. It's in the shape of a question mark.
OK, I had a chance to look at these on Google Earth, and I think they all have a major problem, which is that to get to them the plane would have had to turn around at the 7th arc and fly back the way it came, which seems unlikely to me given how very low on fuel they would have had to be at that time: if they had the airport in sight, I think they would go right to it. The exception to this problem is Kyzylorda, which seems to sit pretty damn close to the 7th arc and near the westernmost of the possible routes that the Australians calculated. Victor Iannello spent a considerable amount of time considering endpoints in the area in 2015, before the flaperon turned up on Réunion, and his opinion was that the plane would have had to fly too fast to get to Kyzylorda (and Yubileyney was even worse) but that Alma Aty was possible. You can read his whole analysis here: https://www.jeffwise.net/2015/04/29/guest-post-northern-routes-for-mh370-ending-at-airports/
Thanks for the reply. And that was an interesting read.
I agree that the plane appears to be flying back with my idea, but then I started to think about the potential issues with data and assumptions made between pings. I know you, Victor and all the other experts know way more than me, and I’m probably missing a lot of information/factors, but I love a ‘what if?’. Maybe there was a large loop made to avoid other aircraft in the vicinity. Maybe MH370 tried to follow an established flight route to appear to be a “normal” plane, that just happened to have a “faulty transponder”.
I guess I discounted other airports as too far East from my ‘Taraz corridor’ idea. And some airports just seem too close to civilians and the possibility of a secret not being so secret. It’s got to be a military airport, surely.
Hey Keelie, this is super interesting, and very timely -- Andy and I are going to address this in the podcast very soon. I'll take a look more carefully later today when I have some time. Thanks for pitching in!
Andy & Jeff - great podcast! Thank you both for all the hard work! I do have a question: if MH370 did not go south, which certainly seems possible since no plane was found in the identified 7th arc location, then where would the 7th arc search location have been if the plane went north? Thanks!
Thank you Nathan. If the plane went north, then the equivalent to the southern search area would be in central Kazakhstan, not far from Russia's Baikonur Cosmodrome. We talked about it in Episode 13.
have stumbled upon your pod literally last Wednesday before I boarded a plane (hoped not to jinx anything lol) but have been completely absorbed eversince and am unable to think about anything else. I watched the Netflix documentary just last night and I was wondering what you think about Cyndi Hendry (TOMNOD volunteer) who found pictures of the Debris in the South China sea? How do you explain those images?
Hey Tina, that's so wonderful to hear, thank you! I guess your plane must have reached its destination without vanishing... :) As for Cyndi Hendry, she was one of a large number of people who used Tomnod, saw pictures of clouds or waves or random debris, and convinced herself that what she was looking at was part of an airplane. It was pretty exasperating at the time because, like Hndrey, a fair number of these people became fully convinced that they had solved the mystery, even though their claims didn't match any of the other evidence. To this day one of the major difficulties of the case is that people become convinced that they've solved the case and won't spend any more time thinking about the evidnece.
Hi there! First time listener here. You know regarding the scraps and barnacles theory I found your conclusions very reasonable. But that raises an obvious question for me (apologies if you addressed it in some other episode): planes don't fall into the ocean all the time and when they do they hit big news I asume, so should not we be able to explain where those months to a year old scraps came from if we believe them to not belong to the MH370? My point being we cannot just discard those as not belonging to MH370 without having a sound explanation for their existence. Thank you!
Hey Gastón! The assumption is that these pieces did, in fact come from MH370; in fact the flaperon has serial numbers inside it that match those on the one installed on the missing plane. So what is sound explanation for their coming ashore with only a few months' worth of biofouling growth? The only explanation I can think of is that someone took them from the plane and after a year put them in the ocean. No doubt this will strike some people as an outlandish narrative but it is the only way that I can think of to explain the evidence in hand.
I’ve listened to every episode, great job! I’ll also mention I did not follow the news very much when this incident happened, and have not watched the Netflix doc. Basically my knowledge is only the info from your podcast.
I love getting into the nitty gritty details, but I also recognize that sometimes we can do that and completely miss the overarching things.
I’m a huge, “why” person. The details you are presenting do seem to lead to the plane being taken by Russia, but now that has me asking myself the 50,000 foot view question, “why?” Why take a plane? If it was an act of terror, don’t they typically lay claim to an act, in order to “terrorize”, or to boast. I struggle to believe someone took it just to say they could, and not use it in the same way again or in a more sophisticated way before now. Why go to all the trouble to so much later drop parts into the ocean to mislead. The 50,000 foot “whys” is what hinders me from grasping solidly to this theory.
I’m sure there in much I don’t know along these lines, so maybe an episode of theories of intent would be interesting?
Thanks Denise -- You might be happy to know that Andy feels exactly the same way that you do and has been bugging me to address this topic very soon. So we're going to start getting into it--not in tomorrow's episode but I think right after
interesting programe on the BBC TV regarding MH370 , a university and Richard Godfrey are looking into WSPR and are getting some possible stats . Have you taken a look at the posabilities.
Thanks! We'll probably do a podcast about Richard Godfrey and WSPR, it's basically a fraud but it's gotten a lot of traction, pretty shocking that the BBC has fallen for it.
a Professor Simon Maskell at the University of Liverpool is trying to verify the accuracy of WSPR over long distances and is hoping for some outcome oneway or another
Great podcast guys, binge listened the entire thing in about a week.
Questions, Do you not think if this technology existed and indeed was used on this plane successfully. It would not have been used again in the last 10years since?
Charlie
My take? Russia stole one plane and shot down another in the span of four months. That was enough of a statement to make to high-level Western leaders, that also didn’t start WWIII. Had they tried this to an airline owned by a NATO country, and not defenseless Malaysia, it might not have ended well. Plus … imagine the vast resources it requires to pull this off - twice!
From my perspective, the only countries that could’ve made a plane like MH370 disappear are Russia, China and the United States. China presumably isn’t interested in murdering its own citizens, and this caper doesn’t strike me as a move the 2014 Obama White House would perpetuate.
Others may try, just like how I wondered why there was only one 9-11.
I think it’s just too hard and too risky, and the consequences would be grave if proven. -Andy
Thanks Charlie! The vulnerability that existed aboard MH370 when it took off that night was unusual at the time and doesn't exist at all anymore. For instance, the Inmarsat plan that Malaysia Airlines was subscribed to didn't embed GPS data in every transmission. After the disappearance, that feature was made standard. Of course, the broader issue is: if this vulnerability wasn't exploited again, why hasn't another one been? And to be sure, the aviation industry is riddled with security vulnerabilities. I guess my fear is that while it doesn't seem like another hijacking akin to MH370 has happened in the last 10 years, there's no reason why another couldn't in the near future -- unless we change our attitude toward security in aviation.
Thanks for explaining. Another question I had is do you think Florence's theory is impossible? (I read her book as well) and did anyone ever at any point speak to that Cathay Pacific pilot who saw that "Debris field" seemed like it would be easy to track him down
I think "impossible" is not too strong a word -- there simply isn't any evidence for it, third hand claims of anonymous tips in parking garages notwithstanding. And plenty of evidence against it. As for debris fields being spotted from the air, there were numerous reports of things in the early days, but none of them checked out, which is not that surprising, since all kinds of things can cause patches of junk to float on the ocean surface.
Thanks for the reply. I really do find all this fascinating and you seem to have backed everything up with evidence. Look forward to the next podcast, will there be anything on Ocean Infinity and the "new evidence " they claim to have for a new search zone?
I was extremely skeptical of her theory until I saw her at a Hong Kong press club event for the book and saw how well respected she was by other established, mainstream journalists. I think you’re both pointing to possibilities that should make us face security very differently to say that I thought you laid out extremely well in the pod and is a war reaching societal question in many other applications, all these years later (some of which Andy pointed out or alluded to in the pod). I think it would be fascinating to see you show us where you might have already gone researching from a security standpoint, including how cargo is accounted for, tracked and handled. I’d also pay good money to be in a live Q&A with you and Florence. She made a kind remark about you at the HK event; I got the sense that she respects you and definitely does not see you as a conspiracy theorist (whilst admitting her theory sounds implausible except for the type of sourcing you mentioned).
That's interesting, thanks, Jennifer. I think that Florence is an intelligent, hard-working and resourceful journalist, but she's way off base when it comes to MH370.
Guys, great podcast,
But please stop getting pissed because CSIRO are not taking direction from you.
You should also stop getting annoyed because they are not giving you the answers that agree with you that's not how science works.
CSIRO are an Australian government organisation with responsibility for the spending of Australian tax payers money.
Australia stepped into the MH370 investigation and led it. Did your government?
MH370 is an important mystery to solve. But CSIRO have many other responsibilities and challenges to address *for Australia*.
I appreciate your background science. I too have a couple of science degrees, but CSIRO are far more expert than you and I combined.
You highly praise the scientists that agree with your arguments, but are highly critical of those who do not.
Please petition your government to spend your tax dollars, or the Malaysian government, to conduct the experiments that you are interested in, or conduct them for yourself.
For what it's worth, CSIRO also partner with industry, so you may consider approaching them with the financial backing to conduct the experiments you are looking to have performed.
Please also stop calling them Cicero
It's either C.S.I.R.O (sounding out the letters), or alternatively, 'Sigh-Row'.
While I am being pedantic, 'Boy' not 'Booey'.
I love your passion for the MH370 mystery and your drive for an explanation and more importantly, justice and closure for all victims.
Keep the podcast going.
Dave, I'm glad that you like the podcast, and frankly all your points are well taken. I have enormous respect for the scientists, seamen, and other personnel at AMSA, ATSB, DSTG, CSIRO and the rest -- you're quite right that Australia has shouldered more than its fair share of the burden. And thank you to the Australian taxpayer, by the way! As I tried to express in the podcast, I understand why David Griffin would be annoyed by journalists like me, and I think he's shown admirable responsiveness by not only replying to my questions but doing so quickly and thoroughly. That said, I do disagree with him, and I think that, while their intentions were good and they worked hard, the ATSB and the others they enlisted did not succeed in their mission, and I feel it's very important to understand that in order to try to figure out why. (I mean, barnacles growing on the flaperon trailing edge, that's just flat-out impossible, right?) Anyway, thanks for explaining to us how to pronounce Sigh-Row, we truly had no idea. As for "boo-ey"... we're Yanks, man! What can I say...
After listening I have to say you've built a credible case that Russia COULD do this. What remains missing for me is the WHY of the case. Are you exploring motive? (Granted that is HARD to do all things considered) The tipping point for me and I think others would be plausible theory for why Russia wanted that particular plane on that particular night.
Dave, That's a question a lot of people ask. I address it in my book, but we haven't yet gotten around to it in the podcast -- but we will. My philosophy is that you have to establish what happened first, and only then can you get into talking about things like motive. But rest assured, there's a lot of interesting stuff to get into.
I still think money is the motive. 1MDB is the Malaysian Sovereign Wealth Fund that saw large scale embezzlement. I think some Russians might have lost a lot of money being laundered. You can’t recover that in court.
Chatgpt says-
While there is no direct evidence of Russian oligarchs being involved in the 1MDB scandal, there have been reports suggesting potential connections. These reports have pointed to suspicious financial transactions and investments involving individuals or entities with ties to Russian oligarchs.
It is important to note that investigations into the 1MDB scandal are ongoing, and any connections to Russian oligarchs or other individuals or entities are subject to further scrutiny and verification.
I think you may be on to something, but as a point of rhetorical technique I'd refrain from quoting ChatGPT as a source!
Seriously though, the huge tranches of money that are being transferred around the world in secret, only occasionally surfacing in leaks like the Panama Papers, is truly concerning, and I wish our elected officials would take transparency legislation more seriously.
Because I clearly can't wait for the next ep to come out, I had some spare time last night, and I'm a fruit loop, I decided to do some amateur sleuthing.
Where to start? I'm a Brit so I love to talk about the weather! I looked into the historical sunrise and weather data for some suitable airports, those with runways over 8000ft that were in, near or around the end of the corridor (see sources). I think you're set on Baikonur Cosmodrome, but I wanted to find out for myself what would be the shortest route (fuel consumption), closest to the last ping on the 7th arc, landing conditions etc. Also, I was wondering if their air traffic control was up because they were expecting flights at that time anyway. I ignored Hazret-Sultan International Airport as it's a new airport.
Apologies if I've got anything wrong, I'm not an expert researcher and I might not be able to read my notes properly.
Sources:
Airports within the area of the last image on JeffWise.net, Episode 13 etc, posted 14th December 2023.
Weather is from WorldWeatherOnline, approximate landing time within 3 hour weather forecast, 3-6am, 8th March 2014.
Airport arrivals during the night assuming ATC up, Flightradar24, from current data so might be wrong for 2014.
Runway lengths checked but not detailed below, internet or Wikipedia.
Assumption of landing near or after last ping at UTC 8:19, Kazakhstan 05:19, Kyrgyzstan 06:19 - honestly, if that's the only thing that's wrong here, I don't mind.
Kazakhstan UTC +5
Taraz - Sunrise 06:39 -2degC Snow NNW12km/h, ATC Yes
Shymkent - Sunrise 06:46 3degC Rain NW13km/h, ATC Yes
Kyzylorda - Sunrise 07:04 -18degC Clear NE 17km/h, ATC No
Baikonur Yubileyny and/or Krayniy (Extreme) - Sun rise 07:13 -20degC Cloudy E19km/h (furthest away so would it have reached there on a fuelless glide?), ATC unknown
Manas - ignored as US base until June 2014, although...
as you mentioned, Kant Air Base to the East (Kyrgyzstan UTC +6). Sun rise 07:26, -6degC, Rain/Snow 11km/h NW, ATC unknown. It's a very interesting route given it's proximity to a US base, which was possibly quieter as it was winding down to hand back to Kyrgyzstan and not looking out for MH370. It seems to be the shortest route that is closest to the corridor and 7th arc ping, and earlier sun rise. I would expect it could be ignored if it hugged the mountains on an Easterly turn after Taraz. What an Eff You that would be to the US/East if they snuck past them! It could also be a close call at about 26km/16miles due South. If they were to stay high, and made an extremely quick descent - Sarajevo Approach - to land at Kant, maybe. I don't know what I'm talking about really, but I think that fits with some of the data suggesting a pilot was controlling things at the end. All flight scenarios would have the landing in the dark, possibly a little bit of light in the East for Kant, weather conditions range from normal to fruity (with the extreme low temps).
But, there were mostly Chinese people on board so I don't get how this is having a go at the East.
I'm not as intelligent as a lot of people who research this and I'm not sold on any theory, my mind is as open as it can be. Look, there goes a tumbleweed. It's in the shape of a question mark.
Thanks for reading if you got this far.
OK, I had a chance to look at these on Google Earth, and I think they all have a major problem, which is that to get to them the plane would have had to turn around at the 7th arc and fly back the way it came, which seems unlikely to me given how very low on fuel they would have had to be at that time: if they had the airport in sight, I think they would go right to it. The exception to this problem is Kyzylorda, which seems to sit pretty damn close to the 7th arc and near the westernmost of the possible routes that the Australians calculated. Victor Iannello spent a considerable amount of time considering endpoints in the area in 2015, before the flaperon turned up on Réunion, and his opinion was that the plane would have had to fly too fast to get to Kyzylorda (and Yubileyney was even worse) but that Alma Aty was possible. You can read his whole analysis here: https://www.jeffwise.net/2015/04/29/guest-post-northern-routes-for-mh370-ending-at-airports/
Thanks for the reply. And that was an interesting read.
I agree that the plane appears to be flying back with my idea, but then I started to think about the potential issues with data and assumptions made between pings. I know you, Victor and all the other experts know way more than me, and I’m probably missing a lot of information/factors, but I love a ‘what if?’. Maybe there was a large loop made to avoid other aircraft in the vicinity. Maybe MH370 tried to follow an established flight route to appear to be a “normal” plane, that just happened to have a “faulty transponder”.
I guess I discounted other airports as too far East from my ‘Taraz corridor’ idea. And some airports just seem too close to civilians and the possibility of a secret not being so secret. It’s got to be a military airport, surely.
Not long until the next episode! ☺️
Yes, we'll have more to discuss soon!
Hey Keelie, this is super interesting, and very timely -- Andy and I are going to address this in the podcast very soon. I'll take a look more carefully later today when I have some time. Thanks for pitching in!
Andy & Jeff - great podcast! Thank you both for all the hard work! I do have a question: if MH370 did not go south, which certainly seems possible since no plane was found in the identified 7th arc location, then where would the 7th arc search location have been if the plane went north? Thanks!
Thank you Nathan. If the plane went north, then the equivalent to the southern search area would be in central Kazakhstan, not far from Russia's Baikonur Cosmodrome. We talked about it in Episode 13.
Hi guys,
have stumbled upon your pod literally last Wednesday before I boarded a plane (hoped not to jinx anything lol) but have been completely absorbed eversince and am unable to think about anything else. I watched the Netflix documentary just last night and I was wondering what you think about Cyndi Hendry (TOMNOD volunteer) who found pictures of the Debris in the South China sea? How do you explain those images?
Hey Tina, that's so wonderful to hear, thank you! I guess your plane must have reached its destination without vanishing... :) As for Cyndi Hendry, she was one of a large number of people who used Tomnod, saw pictures of clouds or waves or random debris, and convinced herself that what she was looking at was part of an airplane. It was pretty exasperating at the time because, like Hndrey, a fair number of these people became fully convinced that they had solved the mystery, even though their claims didn't match any of the other evidence. To this day one of the major difficulties of the case is that people become convinced that they've solved the case and won't spend any more time thinking about the evidnece.
Hi there! First time listener here. You know regarding the scraps and barnacles theory I found your conclusions very reasonable. But that raises an obvious question for me (apologies if you addressed it in some other episode): planes don't fall into the ocean all the time and when they do they hit big news I asume, so should not we be able to explain where those months to a year old scraps came from if we believe them to not belong to the MH370? My point being we cannot just discard those as not belonging to MH370 without having a sound explanation for their existence. Thank you!
Hey Gastón! The assumption is that these pieces did, in fact come from MH370; in fact the flaperon has serial numbers inside it that match those on the one installed on the missing plane. So what is sound explanation for their coming ashore with only a few months' worth of biofouling growth? The only explanation I can think of is that someone took them from the plane and after a year put them in the ocean. No doubt this will strike some people as an outlandish narrative but it is the only way that I can think of to explain the evidence in hand.
I’ve listened to every episode, great job! I’ll also mention I did not follow the news very much when this incident happened, and have not watched the Netflix doc. Basically my knowledge is only the info from your podcast.
I love getting into the nitty gritty details, but I also recognize that sometimes we can do that and completely miss the overarching things.
I’m a huge, “why” person. The details you are presenting do seem to lead to the plane being taken by Russia, but now that has me asking myself the 50,000 foot view question, “why?” Why take a plane? If it was an act of terror, don’t they typically lay claim to an act, in order to “terrorize”, or to boast. I struggle to believe someone took it just to say they could, and not use it in the same way again or in a more sophisticated way before now. Why go to all the trouble to so much later drop parts into the ocean to mislead. The 50,000 foot “whys” is what hinders me from grasping solidly to this theory.
I’m sure there in much I don’t know along these lines, so maybe an episode of theories of intent would be interesting?
Thanks Denise -- You might be happy to know that Andy feels exactly the same way that you do and has been bugging me to address this topic very soon. So we're going to start getting into it--not in tomorrow's episode but I think right after
interesting programe on the BBC TV regarding MH370 , a university and Richard Godfrey are looking into WSPR and are getting some possible stats . Have you taken a look at the posabilities.
Interesting podcast by the way.
Thanks! We'll probably do a podcast about Richard Godfrey and WSPR, it's basically a fraud but it's gotten a lot of traction, pretty shocking that the BBC has fallen for it.
a Professor Simon Maskell at the University of Liverpool is trying to verify the accuracy of WSPR over long distances and is hoping for some outcome oneway or another
Thanks, I hadn't heard about that.
Is this the last episode?
No, far from it! There's a lot more to look at and a lot more to explain.