• 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.

Inmarsat MH370 Raw Data Released [Unlocked, XLSX, CSV]

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Raw CSV data here (found via Google, I've not verified it's exactly the same as the PDF)
http://pastebin.com/LZKZpdae

[Edit] and it does not seems entirely correct, with the data not being in consistent columns.
 

Attachments

  • LZKZpdae.txt.csv
    104.2 KB · Views: 879
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Silly of them to release it in a PDF format. It's also not clear if this is the RAW data - the actual bytes that were received. There may have been slight inaccuracies introduced into the data in formatting it for the PDF. For example the time stamps are like "16:00:13.406" but did the original data have exactly millisecond integer resolution? Or was it a float? Or in microseconds? What about the BFO and BTO? What is the native (transmitted) format for what these are derived from? How are they derived? What's the real raw data?
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
Here is an article on the data release with comments from the Inmarsat's VP of Satellite Operations:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/27/world/asia/mh370-is-inmarsat-right-quest-analysis/


The satellite company has extracted the crucial lines from the logs and has published it with an explanation and analysis. They have not published the raw computer pages which is likely to raise questions about why not.

Inmarsat says nothing important has been left out, but that the raw data would not have been understandable on its own. The goal of publication is transparency, not verification.

"What this provides is some transparency on what actual data came back and forwards between the plane and the ground station... How that data has subsequently been used so it allows people to see what technique. I'm hoping a great deal of transparency in terms of the analysis by Inmarsat," says Dickinson.
Content from External Source
 

Jason

Senior Member
Here is an article on the data release with comments from the Inmarsat's VP of Satellite Operations:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/27/world/asia/mh370-is-inmarsat-right-quest-analysis/


The satellite company has extracted the crucial lines from the logs and has published it with an explanation and analysis. They have not published the raw computer pages which is likely to raise questions about why not.

Inmarsat says nothing important has been left out, but that the raw data would not have been understandable on its own. The goal of publication is transparency, not verification.

"What this provides is some transparency on what actual data came back and forwards between the plane and the ground station... How that data has subsequently been used so it allows people to see what technique. I'm hoping a great deal of transparency in terms of the analysis by Inmarsat," says Dickinson.
Content from External Source
So how soon will we start to hear whether or not Inmarsat got it "right" or if they got it "wrong"? Also, will not releasing the raw data matter? Could the raw data be understood, or would it be jibberish to the untrained eye?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
So how soon will we start to hear whether or not Inmarsat got it "right" or if they got it "wrong"? Also, will not releasing the raw data matter? Could the raw data be understood, or would it be jibberish to the untrained eye?

They could release the raw data, the code they use to translate it, and that translated data in the PDF.

Even if they just released raw binary files, there are probably people out there who would go through them to check. It's not impossible to figure out, just requires a bit of motivation.
 

zebra100

Member
What Inmarsat gave are not "raw data" we asked but are "translated data" they wanted us to see and believe. The reason what we ask the "raw data" is not only to check their math model analysis but more importantly, their fundamental assumption which these analysis based upon--say, is there possibility that someone can imitate the whole answering ping or hijack the receiver even before the plane took off and transmitted pings on other bases. Inmarsat confessed there were "With minor disagreements" (see here) their testing with other airplanes and MH370 previous flights to use the model to reach the conclusion--but that's what exactly we want to see the whole process with these results: we want to see what the data previous MH370 flights match up with its positions using the same math model and Doppler analysis against known inmarsat satellite and MH370 position and direction as well as different airplanes with same equipment with their known positions and directions with same analyzed results to see any discrepancies--let us to find out if these discrepancies are dismissible or hiding something might be very important-and we know we can't dismiss that someone behind this was very capable and sophisticated on knowledge of the plane and Satcom equipment and Inmarsat software might not be that advance in the first place.

So why Inmarsat is so reluctant and protective to their data and assumption? Or Malaysia government also involved as joint issuer?

"The goal of publication is transparency, not verification." Transparency without means for people to verify is called translucent or non-transparent at all.
 

David Coulter

Senior Member.
say, is there possibility that someone can imitate the whole answering ping or hijack the receiver even before the plane took off and transmitted pings on other bases

Releasing the raw data would certainly help someone figure out how to do that! I think that there must be security concerns that making a pure raw data release problematic. Think of terrorists with sat phones buggering up the entire aviation handshake system.
 

Jason

Senior Member
Releasing the raw data would certainly help someone figure out how to do that! I think that there must be security concerns that making a pure raw data release problematic. Think of terrorists with sat phones buggering up the entire aviation handshake system.
Thats a good point, and I didn't even think about that
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
I just want to say....the past experience that I had with the Air France 447 crash (loss) and the inherent speculation that ensued....it fueled a HUGE amount of CTs and....well, ALL of them turned out to be wrong! In the case of AF 447 (and THAT is only the Wiki version!!)...the facts came out, eventually, once the Flight Recorders were recovered.

Nonetheless, ALL of the nonsense "conspiracy" this, or "conspiracy" that never seem to die, even in light of the factual evidence.

"Nature of the Beast"...(the Internet)....perhaps??
 

Jason

Senior Member
I just want to say....the past experience that I had with the Air France 447 crash (loss) and the inherent speculation that ensued....it fueled a HUGE amount of CTs and....well, ALL of them turned out to be wrong! In the case of AF 447 (and THAT is only the Wiki version!!)...the facts came out, eventually, once the Flight Recorders were recovered.

Nonetheless, ALL of the nonsense "conspiracy" this, or "conspiracy" that never seem to die, even in light of the factual evidence.

"Nature of the Beast"...(the Internet)....perhaps??
Why do you suppose this happens every time there is a tragedy TJ? Why can't the facts and or investigation be enough for the public? Is it a case of cynicism by the public toward government and authorities, or what?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Why do you suppose this happens every time there is a tragedy TJ? Why can't the facts and or investigation be enough for the public? Is it a case of cynicism by the public toward government and authorities, or what?

The naturally suspicious seem to be of the firm opinion already that the government controls the media, and that everything in it is spin. So there's an automatic rejection of any official story.
 

Jason

Senior Member
The naturally suspicious seem to be of the firm opinion already that the government controls the media, and that everything in it is spin. So there's an automatic rejection of any official story.
But don't you agree that there had to have been circumstances in history that have made the public this way. I mean when Roswell happened, and the government came out a short time later and said it was just a weather balloon, the public dropped it and believed whole heartedly in what the government said (not talking about when it resurfaced 30yrs later). What has happened since then?
 
But don't you agree that there had to have been circumstances in history that have made the public this way. I mean when Roswell happened, and the government came out a short time later and said it was just a weather balloon, the public dropped it and believed whole heartedly in what the government said (not talking about when it resurfaced 30yrs later). What has happened since then?
I think it's more of a result of our human psychology. The nature of how we think, and how we attempt to explain the unexplained, has always resulted in thinking outside of the box, and adding a touch of mysticism. It's what excites us as a species, and quenches our thirst for the unknown, regardless of what the facts and evidence are. Additionally, distrust of those who are in power is something that has existed since the beginning of mankind as well, and this too is a result of our genetics. It's a defense mechanism, and probably at one point helped the human species survive.
 

Josh Heuer

Active Member
Or, perhaps, Americans specifically have seen many scandals within their government over the years, and as time passes, more and more people are becoming less and less trusting of having some 'official story' or 'word from officials' or 'high ranking officials said' etc etc.
You can't just replace people in a broken system and expect nothing bad to happen, but this is all jabber for another topic (meta debunking). Perhaps not for this forum at all, huh?

The sudden change of story here is interesting to say the least. And all we have to go on are news stories...
 

Jason

Senior Member
OT: I think your both right Josh Heuer and ConspiracyAtheist. There have been scandals, and we are wired to think outside the box in order to survive. So have the scandals throughout history affected the evolution of the human psychi to the point of no return. Can the government, people in power, or authorities ever win back the trust of those who don't trust. How is that even possible if they never allow themselves to trust anything they say. You see what I mean.
 

Jason

Senior Member
The sudden change of story here is interesting to say the least. And all we have to go on are news stories..
I agree, this tragedy is one big mess. It's weird being apart of something from the start and watching it go through the motions. There have been so many wild and crazy CT's involving this tragedy from day one, and the media, authorities, and government aren't helping any with all the mistakes they've made.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
But don't you agree that there had to have been circumstances in history that have made the public this way. I mean when Roswell happened, and the government came out a short time later and said it was just a weather balloon, the public dropped it and believed whole heartedly in what the government said (not talking about when it resurfaced 30yrs later). What has happened since then?

The internet.
 

zebra100

Member
It's always two sides of a coin. Sometimes it's baseless CTs, sometimes it's real government cove up. CTs are not bad things, they keep us open-minded until they are proved baseless. It's much better than "1984"- who likes the communist governments give you an official story without verification? Take the case of Snowden, the government is still covering its ass.
 
Last edited:

zebra100

Member
Inmarsat predicted crash area is based on 2 presumptions which have not been verified:

1, the airplane ping system had not been faked, tempered or hacked:

2, the plane flew at a constant speed and direction which we know is not a fact of its previous radar detected course.
 

Jason

Senior Member
Raw CSV data here (found via Google, I've not verified it's exactly the same as the PDF)
http://pastebin.com/LZKZpdae

[Edit] and it does not seems entirely correct, with the data not being in consistent columns.
  1. 7/3/14,4:07:22 PM,IOR-P10500-0-3859,IOR,305,10,P-Channel,TX,0x62,-,Acknowledge,User,Data,,,,
  2. 7/3/14,4:09:37 PM,IOR-R1200-0-36E3,IOR,305,11,R-Channel,RX,0x22,-,Access,Request,(R/T-Channel),84,14840,
Why is there 2hrs and 15 minutes of data missing in the raw data report, but in the in the cleaned up version there is only 1hr missing between 1707 and 1803.
 
Top