@jeffwise : 1 question I wanted to ask for a long time:
In case MH370 is found in the SIO, would you then dismiss your Northern theory entirely ?
Or would you entertain the possibility that the debris field on the sea floor as well as the black boxes have been planted there (given your belief that the debris found on the coastlines may/must have been planted as well) ?
Count me as skeptical of the feasibility, but to be honest, your hijacking theory appears more sophisticated than throwing into the ocean the parts of a dismantled B777 and manipulate the CVR/FDR.
Tha's an interesting idea. I think they'd not only have to carefully plant all the debris in a plausible pattern on the sea floor, but also create a pattern of data on the FDR that would depict a flight that would create the recorded Inmarsat data and wind up at the location where the wreckage was. Not physically impossible but several orders of magnitude more difficult!
There is also the problem of the serial numbers on the pieces, that would have to be dealt with (like the flaperon, which "lost" its serial number for some reason).
I think what cannot be faked are the deformations of the debris by the impact. Trained crash site investigators cannot be fooled.
But for Putin it's probably enough to fool the general public.
So, bottom line:
In case MH370 is found in the SIO, would you then dismiss your Northern theory entirely, which you have devoted 10 years of your life to ?
If you take B777 pieces from a scrapyard and throw them off a container ship at the impact location, some pieces get carried away to shores (which would do away with the necessity to even plant debris there) and the rest of it sinks to the ocean floor. Underwater currents etc. slightly randomize the location where the pieces end up, so I don't know if the pattern on the sea floor could be used to prove tempering. At least it could be somewhat plausibly denied (such as Putin did with MH17).
Yes, the FDR would need to be manipulated.
This would all certainly be very difficult to accomplish. But your sophisticated hijacking scenario seems even more difficult to accomplish. So by that logic, if your Northern theory truly pans out, then faking the crash site would be very much in play IMO.
Or are you saying that it would be more difficult to accomplish than your BFO spoofing theory (considering that your white-hat hacker said it was "almost impossible") ?
@jeffwise : So did you have the time to think about my question ?
« In case MH370 is found in the SIO, would you then dismiss your Northern theory entirely ? Or would you entertain the possibility that the debris field on the sea floor and the black boxes may have been planted there (given your belief that the debris found on the coastlines may/must have been planted as well) ? »
1. Cyber-Physical Attack Possibility: The text raises the idea that MH370 could have been subject to a cyber-physical attack, using the example of Stuxnet—a virus that inflicted real-world damage to Iran’s nuclear centrifuges through digital manipulation. This establishes a potential parallel for aviation systems.
2. Discussion with Cybersecurity Expert: Dr. Krishna Sampigethaya, a professor in cybersecurity at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, was consulted. While he referenced cybersecurity in aviation, no specific evidence links his expertise or statements to cyber-physical vulnerabilities in MH370.
3. Injury Incident Involving Collision-Avoidance Systems: Dr. Sampigethaya mentions an event where crew responses to a collision-avoidance warning led to passenger injuries. This is noted to illustrate potential human response risks, even without cyber interference.
4. Aviation ISAC (Information Sharing and Analysis Center): This group is mentioned as fostering collaboration in real-time threat intelligence and best practices among aviation industry players to manage cyber risks. However, no evidence links this group’s work to MH370.
5. Vulnerabilities in Aircraft (Especially the Boeing 777): A 2014 paper by the Micro Systems Automation Group for the FAA purportedly discusses security vulnerabilities in the US civil aviation fleet, with the Boeing 777 mentioned as having the highest vulnerability count. No specific vulnerabilities relevant to MH370 are cited.
6. Miscellaneous Events and Attempts at MH370 Research: The mention of a Kickstarter project to buy and modify a 777 flaperon for research highlights experimental attempts but doesn’t provide substantial information or findings.
Analysis and Critique
• Speculative Links without Concrete Evidence: Although cyber vulnerabilities and the potential for cyber-physical attacks are theoretically relevant, the provided text lacks specific evidence or mechanisms that could have affected MH370. The Stuxnet example shows the potential impact of cyber-attacks in other fields but does not establish direct or even indirect causality related to MH370.
• Ambiguous Expert Consultation: Dr. Sampigethaya’s insights on general cybersecurity concerns in aviation do not correlate directly to MH370’s disappearance or Boeing 777 vulnerabilities in a manner that adds factual grounding. His reference to collision-avoidance issues highlights pilot responses but lacks relevance to cyber-attack scenarios.
• Lack of Empirical Data from ISAC and FAA Reports: Although the FAA report notes vulnerabilities, there’s no elaboration on which specific cybersecurity risks the Boeing 777 faces or how they could feasibly lead to the circumstances of MH370. The involvement of ISAC underscores industry efforts to address cybersecurity but offers no actionable insights or findings relevant to MH370.
• Irrelevant or Unsubstantiated Speculations: The Kickstarter initiative, while intriguing, appears unrelated to any substantial forensic investigation or fact-finding on MH370. Such side projects, though possibly well-meaning, do not substitute for data-driven analysis or validated forensic methodologies.
It’s pure speculation and just adds to confusion in the Disappearance. I honestly don’t believe this is the cause of MH370 Disappearance.
I appreciate your time spent in writing up this analysis, Ed. I would simple note that, in a hostile threat environment, writing down a list of rationalizations as to why one is not actually in any danger does not provide for one's security. This "I'm sure everything is going to be fine, let's not look too critically at the threat" is precisely why the United States is about to end its 248-year-old experiment in democracy.
Hi Peter, Thanks for checking in. I took a little bit of a breather after I finished re-posting all the episodes from season 1, just posted a new episode for season 2. This one took a fair bit of work so I wasn't able to do it speedily! Hoping to post every two weeks going forward.
• US government hackers remotely hacked into a Boeing 757 as it sat on the runway and were able to take control of its flight functions by using "a combination of radio frequency communications to break in".
« Conspiracy theorists have claimed that the technology has been secretly fitted to some commercial airliners. Some, including historian Norman Davies, have blamed it for the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, the cause of which is unknown as of March 2024.[5][6][7][8][9][10] According to Bob Mann, an airline industry consultant, evidence of the Boeing Uninterruptible Autopilot system being installed in a commercial airline has not been publicized and is not proven to exist.[11] Safety concerns, including the possibility that such a system could be hacked, have prevented its roll-out. »
Thanks, Peter. Yes, I've addressed all of this, and the cyber hijack angle is carried foward further in the re-edited episode from Season 1 that I'll be posting later today.
@jeffwise : I am very sorry to read, that you didn't reach your kickstarter goal. Why did you set a time limit instead of running it open-endedly (if that's at all possible) or at least for a longer time frame ?
Hi Peter, I could have set it for 60 days, but I wanted to have a tighter time window so that I could move on with other strategies if it didn't pan out. When I went in, I really didn't know how it worked; if the drifter buoy project works out and we get data that suggests another push would be merited, I'll seriously consider giving it another go.
Thanks for your insights. And best of luck for your ongoing efforts. I am so sorry that it didn't pan out the first time. It's really a shame, when you consider how much money all the seabed searches combined have swallowed already ... Your project would have cost a fraction. I am wondering if all past contributions to the search efforts have been governmental or if there were private contributions too. If so, it might be worthwhile to try to identify those contributors to see if they might chip in sth. for your project. Just a thought.
That's a great idea. I do think that the original Fugro search was funded entirely by the governments of Australia, China, and Malaysia. The Ocean Infinity search was funded by the company itself, which is privately held by wealthy investors. Their primary interest seems to be in showing off their seabed-search technology, rather than solving mystery per se, so I don't think they'd be interested in funding the flaperon project. But I'm sure there are a lot of wealthy people who could write a check for $50,000 without breaking a sweat, and some of them are probably quite fascinated by the mystery. If anyone has any ideas about closing that loop I'd be keen to hear it!
"the company itself, which is privately held by wealthy investors..."
... for whom it would be peanuts to fund the flaperon project.
And they would benefit from this additional clue for where to search (or not search), as the search efforts themselves are 100 times more expensive than your ideas of narrowing down or second-guessing the search area. So they would greatly benefit.
If I am not mistaken, in one of your podcast episodes you told a story about an OI party in South Africa, reflecting negatively on their relationships with you. But I would encourage you to reach out to them anyway. At this point, I don't think you have much to lose (but everything to win), no ?
I appreciate your input, Peter. And you may be right, that they would be amenable to listening to me. But I suspect not. You say I don't have anything to lose -- well, there is the opportunity cost of time and energy; part of trying to move the ball in this case is contemplating all the myriad things I could conceivably do, and trying to figure out which will be most likely to bear fruit. And then there's the demoralization factor; it may seem like I'm a monomaniac but it does take the wind out of my sails when I find myself "pushing on string," as I like to put it.
I completely understand you. The trick is not to get your hopes high (so as not to get demoralized if it doesn't pan out). So what I would do is just send a short note with:
• a few lines explaining/summarizing your project
• a link to one of your webpages with more details about the project
• a polite question if they would be interested in funding (or contributing funds to) the project
• a few reasons for how THEY would benefit from the project:
1. OI shouldn't see it as an expenditure, but a potential huge cost-saver, because it helps narrowing down the search area and also excluding impossible areas. A single search day spent in the wrong area is 100 times more expensive than funding your project.
2. They can have their name/logo on the flaperon and use it as a PR campaign. (That's what they are doing with the search for MH370 anyway, so it fits nicely into their marketing strategy.)
• a few reasons for how the worldwide aviation community would benefit
I would send this at least to OI and CSIRO.
Maybe you can think of other potentially interested parties ?
@jeffwise : 1 question I wanted to ask for a long time:
In case MH370 is found in the SIO, would you then dismiss your Northern theory entirely ?
Or would you entertain the possibility that the debris field on the sea floor as well as the black boxes have been planted there (given your belief that the debris found on the coastlines may/must have been planted as well) ?
Count me as skeptical of the feasibility, but to be honest, your hijacking theory appears more sophisticated than throwing into the ocean the parts of a dismantled B777 and manipulate the CVR/FDR.
Tha's an interesting idea. I think they'd not only have to carefully plant all the debris in a plausible pattern on the sea floor, but also create a pattern of data on the FDR that would depict a flight that would create the recorded Inmarsat data and wind up at the location where the wreckage was. Not physically impossible but several orders of magnitude more difficult!
There is also the problem of the serial numbers on the pieces, that would have to be dealt with (like the flaperon, which "lost" its serial number for some reason).
I think what cannot be faked are the deformations of the debris by the impact. Trained crash site investigators cannot be fooled.
But for Putin it's probably enough to fool the general public.
So, bottom line:
In case MH370 is found in the SIO, would you then dismiss your Northern theory entirely, which you have devoted 10 years of your life to ?
If you take B777 pieces from a scrapyard and throw them off a container ship at the impact location, some pieces get carried away to shores (which would do away with the necessity to even plant debris there) and the rest of it sinks to the ocean floor. Underwater currents etc. slightly randomize the location where the pieces end up, so I don't know if the pattern on the sea floor could be used to prove tempering. At least it could be somewhat plausibly denied (such as Putin did with MH17).
Yes, the FDR would need to be manipulated.
This would all certainly be very difficult to accomplish. But your sophisticated hijacking scenario seems even more difficult to accomplish. So by that logic, if your Northern theory truly pans out, then faking the crash site would be very much in play IMO.
Or are you saying that it would be more difficult to accomplish than your BFO spoofing theory (considering that your white-hat hacker said it was "almost impossible") ?
@jeffwise : So did you have the time to think about my question ?
« In case MH370 is found in the SIO, would you then dismiss your Northern theory entirely ? Or would you entertain the possibility that the debris field on the sea floor and the black boxes may have been planted there (given your belief that the debris found on the coastlines may/must have been planted as well) ? »
@jeffwise ?
Dear Jeff
Relevant Points Identified
1. Cyber-Physical Attack Possibility: The text raises the idea that MH370 could have been subject to a cyber-physical attack, using the example of Stuxnet—a virus that inflicted real-world damage to Iran’s nuclear centrifuges through digital manipulation. This establishes a potential parallel for aviation systems.
2. Discussion with Cybersecurity Expert: Dr. Krishna Sampigethaya, a professor in cybersecurity at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, was consulted. While he referenced cybersecurity in aviation, no specific evidence links his expertise or statements to cyber-physical vulnerabilities in MH370.
3. Injury Incident Involving Collision-Avoidance Systems: Dr. Sampigethaya mentions an event where crew responses to a collision-avoidance warning led to passenger injuries. This is noted to illustrate potential human response risks, even without cyber interference.
4. Aviation ISAC (Information Sharing and Analysis Center): This group is mentioned as fostering collaboration in real-time threat intelligence and best practices among aviation industry players to manage cyber risks. However, no evidence links this group’s work to MH370.
5. Vulnerabilities in Aircraft (Especially the Boeing 777): A 2014 paper by the Micro Systems Automation Group for the FAA purportedly discusses security vulnerabilities in the US civil aviation fleet, with the Boeing 777 mentioned as having the highest vulnerability count. No specific vulnerabilities relevant to MH370 are cited.
6. Miscellaneous Events and Attempts at MH370 Research: The mention of a Kickstarter project to buy and modify a 777 flaperon for research highlights experimental attempts but doesn’t provide substantial information or findings.
Analysis and Critique
• Speculative Links without Concrete Evidence: Although cyber vulnerabilities and the potential for cyber-physical attacks are theoretically relevant, the provided text lacks specific evidence or mechanisms that could have affected MH370. The Stuxnet example shows the potential impact of cyber-attacks in other fields but does not establish direct or even indirect causality related to MH370.
• Ambiguous Expert Consultation: Dr. Sampigethaya’s insights on general cybersecurity concerns in aviation do not correlate directly to MH370’s disappearance or Boeing 777 vulnerabilities in a manner that adds factual grounding. His reference to collision-avoidance issues highlights pilot responses but lacks relevance to cyber-attack scenarios.
• Lack of Empirical Data from ISAC and FAA Reports: Although the FAA report notes vulnerabilities, there’s no elaboration on which specific cybersecurity risks the Boeing 777 faces or how they could feasibly lead to the circumstances of MH370. The involvement of ISAC underscores industry efforts to address cybersecurity but offers no actionable insights or findings relevant to MH370.
• Irrelevant or Unsubstantiated Speculations: The Kickstarter initiative, while intriguing, appears unrelated to any substantial forensic investigation or fact-finding on MH370. Such side projects, though possibly well-meaning, do not substitute for data-driven analysis or validated forensic methodologies.
It’s pure speculation and just adds to confusion in the Disappearance. I honestly don’t believe this is the cause of MH370 Disappearance.
Thank You Ed Skerritt
I appreciate your time spent in writing up this analysis, Ed. I would simple note that, in a hostile threat environment, writing down a list of rationalizations as to why one is not actually in any danger does not provide for one's security. This "I'm sure everything is going to be fine, let's not look too critically at the threat" is precisely why the United States is about to end its 248-year-old experiment in democracy.
Great breakdown Ed. I was wondering why there wasn’t more specific questioning around MH370.
Thank You
@jeffwise : Your last episode dates back to Nov 1. Are you on a break leading up to season 3 ?
Hi Peter, Thanks for checking in. I took a little bit of a breather after I finished re-posting all the episodes from season 1, just posted a new episode for season 2. This one took a fair bit of work so I wasn't able to do it speedily! Hoping to post every two weeks going forward.
From day 1 I was concerned about a cyber-hijacking.
There are at least 3 different methods:
• Chris Roberts successfully commandeered planes by hacking into the IFE:
https://www.wired.com/2015/05/feds-say-banned-researcher-commandeered-plane
• US government hackers remotely hacked into a Boeing 757 as it sat on the runway and were able to take control of its flight functions by using "a combination of radio frequency communications to break in".
https://www.news.com.au/technology/online/hacking/boeing-757-controls-hacked-remotely-while-on-the-runway-officials-reveal/news-story/48f41ed3fd10011e223faf59e2998e54
• Boeing Honeywell Uninterruptible Autopilot:
« Conspiracy theorists have claimed that the technology has been secretly fitted to some commercial airliners. Some, including historian Norman Davies, have blamed it for the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, the cause of which is unknown as of March 2024.[5][6][7][8][9][10] According to Bob Mann, an airline industry consultant, evidence of the Boeing Uninterruptible Autopilot system being installed in a commercial airline has not been publicized and is not proven to exist.[11] Safety concerns, including the possibility that such a system could be hacked, have prevented its roll-out. »
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Honeywell_Uninterruptible_Autopilot
Thanks, Peter. Yes, I've addressed all of this, and the cyber hijack angle is carried foward further in the re-edited episode from Season 1 that I'll be posting later today.
@jeffwise : I am very sorry to read, that you didn't reach your kickstarter goal. Why did you set a time limit instead of running it open-endedly (if that's at all possible) or at least for a longer time frame ?
Hi Peter, I could have set it for 60 days, but I wanted to have a tighter time window so that I could move on with other strategies if it didn't pan out. When I went in, I really didn't know how it worked; if the drifter buoy project works out and we get data that suggests another push would be merited, I'll seriously consider giving it another go.
Thanks for your insights. And best of luck for your ongoing efforts. I am so sorry that it didn't pan out the first time. It's really a shame, when you consider how much money all the seabed searches combined have swallowed already ... Your project would have cost a fraction. I am wondering if all past contributions to the search efforts have been governmental or if there were private contributions too. If so, it might be worthwhile to try to identify those contributors to see if they might chip in sth. for your project. Just a thought.
That's a great idea. I do think that the original Fugro search was funded entirely by the governments of Australia, China, and Malaysia. The Ocean Infinity search was funded by the company itself, which is privately held by wealthy investors. Their primary interest seems to be in showing off their seabed-search technology, rather than solving mystery per se, so I don't think they'd be interested in funding the flaperon project. But I'm sure there are a lot of wealthy people who could write a check for $50,000 without breaking a sweat, and some of them are probably quite fascinated by the mystery. If anyone has any ideas about closing that loop I'd be keen to hear it!
"the company itself, which is privately held by wealthy investors..."
... for whom it would be peanuts to fund the flaperon project.
And they would benefit from this additional clue for where to search (or not search), as the search efforts themselves are 100 times more expensive than your ideas of narrowing down or second-guessing the search area. So they would greatly benefit.
If I am not mistaken, in one of your podcast episodes you told a story about an OI party in South Africa, reflecting negatively on their relationships with you. But I would encourage you to reach out to them anyway. At this point, I don't think you have much to lose (but everything to win), no ?
I appreciate your input, Peter. And you may be right, that they would be amenable to listening to me. But I suspect not. You say I don't have anything to lose -- well, there is the opportunity cost of time and energy; part of trying to move the ball in this case is contemplating all the myriad things I could conceivably do, and trying to figure out which will be most likely to bear fruit. And then there's the demoralization factor; it may seem like I'm a monomaniac but it does take the wind out of my sails when I find myself "pushing on string," as I like to put it.
I completely understand you. The trick is not to get your hopes high (so as not to get demoralized if it doesn't pan out). So what I would do is just send a short note with:
• a few lines explaining/summarizing your project
• a link to one of your webpages with more details about the project
• a polite question if they would be interested in funding (or contributing funds to) the project
• a few reasons for how THEY would benefit from the project:
1. OI shouldn't see it as an expenditure, but a potential huge cost-saver, because it helps narrowing down the search area and also excluding impossible areas. A single search day spent in the wrong area is 100 times more expensive than funding your project.
2. They can have their name/logo on the flaperon and use it as a PR campaign. (That's what they are doing with the search for MH370 anyway, so it fits nicely into their marketing strategy.)
• a few reasons for how the worldwide aviation community would benefit
I would send this at least to OI and CSIRO.
Maybe you can think of other potentially interested parties ?