• MH370 speculation has become excessive recently. Metabunk is not a forum for creating theories by speculation. It's a forum for examining claims, and seeing if they hold up. Please respect this and keep threads on-topic. There are many other forums where speculation is welcome.

Claim: MH370 "thrown around like fighter jet in a bid to avoid radar source"? [Dubious]

a source close to the investigation told the Sunday Times
Content from External Source
And there the path goes cold.
 
Welcome maac a good mob here, May be many reason why flew wildly but these are claims ATM and I not yet seen good firm intel that shows it did fly about,,, anyhoo attempt to defeat military radar designed to track missile or HP jets by a big & tactical slow 777 is most unlikely to succeed. We can only hang about till flight and cockpit recorder if found can tell us just what was going on. There a thread covering MH 370 speculation find it and have wander though.
 
Welcome maac a good mob here, May be many reason why flew wildly but these are claims ATM and I not yet seen good firm intel that shows it did fly about,,, anyhoo attempt to defeat military radar designed to track missile or HP jets by a big & tactical slow 777 is most unlikely to succeed. We can only hang about till flight and cockpit recorder if found can tell us just what was going on. There a thread covering MH 370 speculation find it and have wander though.

Thanks for the welcome derwoodii - it takes a bit of getting used to this site, but it is a real eye opener.
 
Thanks for the welcome derwoodii - it takes a bit of getting used to this site, but it is a real eye opener.

TBH there isn't really anything to debunk in your link. It's just someone saying that someone told them something. The only detail I can see is climbing to 45000 and dropping to 5000 and that doesn't sound like 'being thrown around like a fighter' or 'avoiding radar' to me
 
Interesting how the article actually only contains 3 whole sentences devoted to that information, which is just a slightly longer repeat of the headline. The other 90% of the article doesn't go into any more detail at all.
It's just an anonymous assertion that is certainly interesting but is a bit useless if they don't include the analysis that led to it.

‘It was being flown very low at very high speed. And it was being flown to avoid radar.’
 
TBH there isn't really anything to debunk in your link. It's just someone saying that someone told them something. The only detail I can see is climbing to 45000 and dropping to 5000 and that doesn't sound like 'being thrown around like a fighter' or 'avoiding radar' to me

I was wondering if there may have been reasons why that claim could not be true ... e.g. perhaps it is inconsistent with other known facts. Although of course there is so much that is unknown!
 
Thanks for the welcome derwoodii - it takes a bit of getting used to this site, but it is a real eye opener.

yup there some good stuff here thou the need for attention to detail and keep content on topic make it hard to get use to for a while ;)
 
I was wondering if there may have been reasons why that claim could not be true ... e.g. perhaps it is inconsistent with other known facts. Although of course there is so much that is unknown!

That's not really what this site is about though. It's more about looking at the evidence provided to support a claim and seeing if the evidence is bunk or not, in this case there isn't any provided.
 
"An investigator" becomes "A source close to the investigation." This would be big news if it were true, but it seems almost brushed off here. Just filling column inches methinks.
 
Back
Top