@jeffwise : « By outfitting a 777 flaperon with the kind of sensors that Andy makes, we could determine whether the debris evidence is truly paradoxical, or there is a perfectly good reason for why it looks the way it does. »
It would be awesome to outfit a B777 flaperon with a GPS locator beacon and throw it into the water at the IG hotspot, and see what happens (what route, when does it beach, barnacles, etc.).
IMO it needs to start at ARC7 to compare apples to apples (because otherwise it won't tell us much about drift and barnacles whose population might be different regionally). How will you get it to ARC7, that's quite far away ... ?
It's about a thousand miles from Perth. That's a long way for most people but they're a different sort of person down there, used to long distances. Hoping that a local yachtsman will volunteer for the sake of solving a great mystery...
@jeffwise : I would like to take a moment to emphasize that I think it's very important that you are out there in MH370 world. For 3 reasons: (1) You are clearly ready to leave the beaten path in gathering new evidence and (2) ready to think outside the box when conceiving and refining your theory. And (3) you are asking tough, important questions and go to places, nobody else goes to. And though I find that you are a little tougher with other theories than your own (which probably comes with the territory to be naturally biased in that direction), you work is very essential. There would be a gaping hole if you were not there. I think the IG plays a very important role as classic science, but what you do is complementary. For example I have been reading almost all comments on the IG blog, but I don't remember anyone asking why the perpetrator went to such great lengths to go dark while being tracked by primary radar. These and others are really important questions to ponder. There would be a gaping hole without you. So it's great that you are out there and play your part in (this) aviation history.
Hi Jeff, I really appreciate your open look into MH370. I’m just wondering if you would comment on how you decide what direction to follow. At each choice point you have probabilities and have to decide one way and leave the others behind. There are so many possibilities. At Igari there were 3 possibilities, either the plane went straight, the plane turned left or the plane went down. You devoted a whole segment to hacking. How do we really know what is real and what is a hack? For the big turn how do we know that all the flight data after that wasn’t hacked? If the hijackers were that sophisticated why not leave the satellite link down and dump false data into Inmarsat. That might explain the missing flight identifier. If that’s true the plane could literally be anywhere. You have a unique opportunity to look where no one else has looked, why continue looking in the same place. I think your Russian direction is such a compelling case. I’ll look forward to your continuing investigation. Trip
Interesting question. I don't think I look at these questions in quite this way -- for instance, I wouldn't say, at IGARI, which of the three possibilities is most likely correct? Rather, I look at the data in hand and ask, what is the universe of possibilities that could explain how this evidence came into being? In the case of the Inmarsat data, once we understood how the Doppler precompensation algorithm worked, it became clear that there was more than one way for the BFO data to be generated. We didn't start with the assumption that there were an infinite number of ways to generate the data and then narrow it down from there. Hope that helps. Really appreciate your support, by the way!
@jeffwise : « By outfitting a 777 flaperon with the kind of sensors that Andy makes, we could determine whether the debris evidence is truly paradoxical, or there is a perfectly good reason for why it looks the way it does. »
It would be awesome to outfit a B777 flaperon with a GPS locator beacon and throw it into the water at the IG hotspot, and see what happens (what route, when does it beach, barnacles, etc.).
Glad you think so!
Is this planned?? That would be soooo exciting!!!
I'm working on putting it together, and will be discussing the plan's progress in forthcoming episodes
IMO it needs to start at ARC7 to compare apples to apples (because otherwise it won't tell us much about drift and barnacles whose population might be different regionally). How will you get it to ARC7, that's quite far away ... ?
It's about a thousand miles from Perth. That's a long way for most people but they're a different sort of person down there, used to long distances. Hoping that a local yachtsman will volunteer for the sake of solving a great mystery...
@jeffwise : I would like to take a moment to emphasize that I think it's very important that you are out there in MH370 world. For 3 reasons: (1) You are clearly ready to leave the beaten path in gathering new evidence and (2) ready to think outside the box when conceiving and refining your theory. And (3) you are asking tough, important questions and go to places, nobody else goes to. And though I find that you are a little tougher with other theories than your own (which probably comes with the territory to be naturally biased in that direction), you work is very essential. There would be a gaping hole if you were not there. I think the IG plays a very important role as classic science, but what you do is complementary. For example I have been reading almost all comments on the IG blog, but I don't remember anyone asking why the perpetrator went to such great lengths to go dark while being tracked by primary radar. These and others are really important questions to ponder. There would be a gaping hole without you. So it's great that you are out there and play your part in (this) aviation history.
I applaud the effort. I think the entire MH370 community will be very excited, if you really manage to get this done.
Hi Jeff, I really appreciate your open look into MH370. I’m just wondering if you would comment on how you decide what direction to follow. At each choice point you have probabilities and have to decide one way and leave the others behind. There are so many possibilities. At Igari there were 3 possibilities, either the plane went straight, the plane turned left or the plane went down. You devoted a whole segment to hacking. How do we really know what is real and what is a hack? For the big turn how do we know that all the flight data after that wasn’t hacked? If the hijackers were that sophisticated why not leave the satellite link down and dump false data into Inmarsat. That might explain the missing flight identifier. If that’s true the plane could literally be anywhere. You have a unique opportunity to look where no one else has looked, why continue looking in the same place. I think your Russian direction is such a compelling case. I’ll look forward to your continuing investigation. Trip
Hi Trip,
Interesting question. I don't think I look at these questions in quite this way -- for instance, I wouldn't say, at IGARI, which of the three possibilities is most likely correct? Rather, I look at the data in hand and ask, what is the universe of possibilities that could explain how this evidence came into being? In the case of the Inmarsat data, once we understood how the Doppler precompensation algorithm worked, it became clear that there was more than one way for the BFO data to be generated. We didn't start with the assumption that there were an infinite number of ways to generate the data and then narrow it down from there. Hope that helps. Really appreciate your support, by the way!
Thank you Trip! I'm really grateful for your support.