zebra100
Member
Jaac report here: http://www.jacc.gov.au/media/releas..._Definition_of_Sea_Floor_Wide_Area_Search.pdf
Last edited by a moderator:
JAAC- New MH370 Underwater Search Area Definition
- Thread starter zebra100
- Start date
NewAmericanCenturySucks
Member
Five reasonable questions for the ATSB re: fig.4, p.6, “MH370 – Definition of Underwater Search Areas”, released June 26:
(notation: IACMRL = Inmarsat arc-constrained maximum range line)
1. The NW bound for S1/S2/S3 is clearly the 8:11 Inmarsat arc; what is the SE bound – is it IACMRL, pre-March 27?
2. The NW bound for S4/S5 is clearly also the 8:11 Inmarsat arc; what is the SE bound – is it IACMRL, March 27-April 1?
Assuming I have 1. and 2. correct:
3. If the only reason for moving from 1. to 2. was “less available fuel”, why do IACMRLs 1. and 2. cross at S26.5?
4. The IACMRL that is plotted in fig.4 seems (per fig.20) to be the LIVE version (i.e. post-abandonment of radar-indicated altitude data) – on what date was it first computed?
5. If later than April 1, what was your live IACMRL from April 1 until [answer to 4]?
(notation: IACMRL = Inmarsat arc-constrained maximum range line)
1. The NW bound for S1/S2/S3 is clearly the 8:11 Inmarsat arc; what is the SE bound – is it IACMRL, pre-March 27?
2. The NW bound for S4/S5 is clearly also the 8:11 Inmarsat arc; what is the SE bound – is it IACMRL, March 27-April 1?
Assuming I have 1. and 2. correct:
3. If the only reason for moving from 1. to 2. was “less available fuel”, why do IACMRLs 1. and 2. cross at S26.5?
4. The IACMRL that is plotted in fig.4 seems (per fig.20) to be the LIVE version (i.e. post-abandonment of radar-indicated altitude data) – on what date was it first computed?
5. If later than April 1, what was your live IACMRL from April 1 until [answer to 4]?
NewAmericanCenturySucks
Member
Fig. 35, p.40 of the report linked to in #1 (this thread's topic) contains the following map describing Curtin U's acoustic event detection:
Appendix B, p.46 of the same report contains the following two sentences (emphasis mine):
Hopefully, this alternative location they've published fits in with other published evidence (pilot's simulated landing, e.g.) - again, "should the arc defined by the handshake be called into question".
Appendix B, p.46 of the same report contains the following two sentences (emphasis mine):
I for one applaud the ATSB for considering alternative search areas, "should the arc defined by the handshake be called into question"."should the arc defined by the handshake data be called into question, the various timing and acoustic considerations discussed here would suggest that a reasonable place to look for the aircraft would be near where the position line defined by a bearing of 301.6° from HA01 crosses the Chagos-Laccadive Ridge, at approximately 2.3°S, 73.7°E"
Hopefully, this alternative location they've published fits in with other published evidence (pilot's simulated landing, e.g.) - again, "should the arc defined by the handshake be called into question".
NewAmericanCenturySucks
Member
An earlier version of the above post included my best attempt to examine this ATSB claim, to see if it held up; i.e. does this published coordinate meet the basic investigative standards for opportunity and motive. However, this would necessarily involve an examination of nearby islands to which MH370 might plausibly have been headed - the nearest island, in particular. Since scenarios which connect all this evidence together could be deemed speculative, I will prudently self-censor.
On an unrelated point: I applaud this site's moderating community for its recently redoubled efforts to ensure all examination of claims related to this mystery are based on sound reasoning and evidence-based scrutiny. So many sites would have chosen to moderate on the basis of much less noble criteria (such as proximity to each other of words like "MH370" and "Diego Garcia"); kudos to Metabunk for taking the high road.
On an unrelated point: I applaud this site's moderating community for its recently redoubled efforts to ensure all examination of claims related to this mystery are based on sound reasoning and evidence-based scrutiny. So many sites would have chosen to moderate on the basis of much less noble criteria (such as proximity to each other of words like "MH370" and "Diego Garcia"); kudos to Metabunk for taking the high road.
NewAmericanCenturySucks
Member
On a different thread, Mick admonished me for stating as fact my "opinion" that the ATSB misled us as to the reason for moving the MH370 search March 28. I hadn't thought any further proof was required; but fair enough. Below is the basis for my "opinion".
Quoting from page 6 of this thread's subject document (linked to in #1, above):
.
The original SE boundary of S1, S2, and S3 is described in the report as MH370's maximum range line, constrained by the necessity of hitting all Inmarsat arcs on cue. If you take fuel away from MH370, the maximum range line moves inside of where it was. That is, NW. That is, up and to the left. I have crudely plotted (black, red) a couple of potential ways in which fuel removal might have affected this boundary line. To my eye, this would not improve the prospects of S3 relative to where the search was already focused - if anything, I would think it would shift the most probable track west.
I would have vastly preferred to plot the actual maximum range line generated by the ATSB's March 27 fuel analysis - but this crucual range line - the one driving the ATSB's key decision to move the search dramatically to the NE - appears to have been omitted from the report.
It cannot possibly have been the line defining S4/S5 in Fig.4 on p.6, because that line crosses the original (S1/S2/S3) maximum range line - and the one thing on which we can all agree is that the removal of fuel could not possibly have added range.
The question remains: why did they move the search so far to the NE? Per the above, it could not possibly have been the reason they gave.
I await hard scrutiny of this analysis. Thanks in advance for analyzing with dispassion, and with an open mind; I have tried my best to do likewise.
Quoting from page 6 of this thread's subject document (linked to in #1, above):
Did the increased fuel burn cause the most probable track to move north, as the sentence implies (but does not explicitly state...)? If so, how could it have caused this? Consider Fig.3, p.5:On 27 March (D20), the JIT advised they now had more confidence in the increased speeds provided by primary radar near Malaysia. This increased the aircraft fuel burn and the most probable track moved north to the S3 area.
.
The original SE boundary of S1, S2, and S3 is described in the report as MH370's maximum range line, constrained by the necessity of hitting all Inmarsat arcs on cue. If you take fuel away from MH370, the maximum range line moves inside of where it was. That is, NW. That is, up and to the left. I have crudely plotted (black, red) a couple of potential ways in which fuel removal might have affected this boundary line. To my eye, this would not improve the prospects of S3 relative to where the search was already focused - if anything, I would think it would shift the most probable track west.
I would have vastly preferred to plot the actual maximum range line generated by the ATSB's March 27 fuel analysis - but this crucual range line - the one driving the ATSB's key decision to move the search dramatically to the NE - appears to have been omitted from the report.
It cannot possibly have been the line defining S4/S5 in Fig.4 on p.6, because that line crosses the original (S1/S2/S3) maximum range line - and the one thing on which we can all agree is that the removal of fuel could not possibly have added range.
The question remains: why did they move the search so far to the NE? Per the above, it could not possibly have been the reason they gave.
I await hard scrutiny of this analysis. Thanks in advance for analyzing with dispassion, and with an open mind; I have tried my best to do likewise.
zebra100
Member
"On 7 March 2014 at 1722 UTC1 (8 March 0022 local time Malaysia), flight MH370, a Boeing 777-
200ER registered 9M-MRO, lost contact with ATC during a transition of airspace between
Malaysia and Vietnam"
The first sentence is already wrong--MH370 lost contact at 00:22 Malaysia local time--that's how they prepared this report-
200ER registered 9M-MRO, lost contact with ATC during a transition of airspace between
Malaysia and Vietnam"
The first sentence is already wrong--MH370 lost contact at 00:22 Malaysia local time--that's how they prepared this report-
"On 7 March 2014 at 1722 UTC1 (8 March 0022 local time Malaysia), flight MH370, a Boeing 777-
200ER registered 9M-MRO, lost contact with ATC during a transition of airspace between
Malaysia and Vietnam"
The first sentence is already wrong--MH370 lost contact at 00:22 Malaysia local time--that's how they prepared this report-
That's what it says: (8 March 0022 local time Malaysia)
Stevan Gvozdenovic
Member
I'm too baffled with this, what happened with S4/S5 areas after all, are they totally excluded from search?
NewAmericanCenturySucks
Member
The report's statement I quoted in #5 above logically implies:
March 27 increased confidence in tracked speeds => less fuel for untracked phase => change in maximum range line => move search N
That's what I mean when I say "March 27 fuel analysis" - nothing more, nothing less.
This analysis was completed in time for AMSA to base their March 28 release on it (emphasis mine):
If your post expressed a desire to see the details showing how the investigation team connected these dots: welcome aboard.
The search area for missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 has been updated after a new credible lead was provided to the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA).
As a result today’s search will shift to an area 1,100 kilometres to the north east based on updated advice provided by the international investigation team in Malaysia. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB), Australia’s investigation agency, has examined this advice and determined that this is the most credible lead to where debris may be located.
The new search area is approximately 319,000 square kilometres and around 1,850 kilometres west of Perth.
The new information is based on continuing analysis of radar data between the South China Sea and the Strait of Malacca before radar contact was lost. It indicated that the aircraft was travelling faster than previously estimated, resulting in increased fuel usage and reducing the possible distance the aircraft travelled south into the Indian Ocean.
ATSB advises the potential flight path may be the subject of further refinement as the international investigative team supporting the search continues their analysis.
If your post expressed a desire to distance the ATSB from this mess: I concede it's possible from the wording in para 2 of the release quote that more than just the confidence in tracked speeds came from the JIT. However, ATSB seems to me to be taking ownership of all maximum range lines in the June 26 report.
If your post expressed a desire for more info on how the ATSB turns inputs (like fuel) into maximum range lines, p.21 of the report is a good summary.
Last edited:
TWCobra
Senior Member.
I think you are a little confused. The maps you are referencing are located in the "Surface Search" part of the report. At this point in the search it was still an air search and they were searching for surface debris. Debris would have given a pointer to the crash site after taking into account 20 days of drift due to ocean currents.
The following map gives a good idea of the prevailing currents.
http://www.seos-project.eu/modules/oceancurrents/images/global_currents.png
The following map gives a good idea of the prevailing currents.
http://www.seos-project.eu/modules/oceancurrents/images/global_currents.png
Last edited:
Jason
Senior Member
Based on the surface currents in that map you included TW, wouldn't it have been wiser to do an underwater search starting in S3 perhaps, since the currents in the SIO rotate counter clockwise, and in the corridor where they most likely believe the plane ditched due to inmarsat, the current is actually moving north.
NewAmericanCenturySucks
Member
With respect, TWC, it is you who is confused. My argument (#5 above) - including the extracted figure, and all extracted quotes - is based strictly on Figure 3, page 5 of the June 26 report, in the section entitled "possible impact areas".
They were trying to determine where to put their pinger detector in, and claim to have come up with this.
The March 28 release (which I added merely to confirm the date at which the analysis referenced on p.5 would have been performed) did indicate they wanted to use this analysis to help guide the search for debris, of course; but the location move was clearly based on a redrawn maximum range line (which they have suppressed from the report).
If your argument is correct, the March 28 release should have read: "we did fuel analysis that moved the most probable impact point to the west (per move to black or red max range line in #5, above), but ocean currents March 8->March 28 would have more than offset this, and so that's why we're moving the debris search east. (When we finally start searching for the FDR, we'll be sure to start further west, per the fuel analysis.)"
It did not say this, and their site selection for the FDR search one week later rules this argument out. The June 26 report reconfirms that the move in the most probable track was what prompted the March 28 search site move.
Finally: if your argument were correct - and drift were responsible for the move NE (despite the ATSB's stated rationale) - then why does Fig.6 (p.8) of the June 26 report (attached) show debris searches taking place almost uniformly west of the postulated impact points?
Attachments
Last edited:
Jason
Senior Member
But ocean surface currents in that corridor move north, north east, not south or south east.
NewAmericanCenturySucks
Member
TWC, have you ever been in a canoe on a slow-moving river, when the wind was blowing upstream? I have; when I stopped paddling, I drifted upstream.
For a debris search, winds generally matter more than do currents. A sample report from mid-march:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/21/flight-mh370-indian-ocean-objects
from the article (emphasis mine):
Janette Lindesay, an associate professor at the Fenner School of Environment and Society, also said the objects could have moved hundreds of miles, and added that while the possible debris would be drifting generally west, it may have been buffeted by other winds and drifted north or south, making the search even more difficult.
“It is an area with a continuing series of low pressure weather systems that are steered by this westerly wind. They [the weather systems] have strong winds associated with them, and the wind direction also changes between south westerly and north westerly, depending on where you are in relation to these cold fronts,” she said.
NewAmericanCenturySucks
Member
At the risk of wasting time on a quibble: the report's opening sentence should have read, "8 March 0122 local time Malaysia". The opening statement is in fact factually incorrect.
zebra100 was correct in pointing out the error (which I believe he was paraphrasing in his own comment, as a literary eye-roll - not attempting to correct).
Ah yes, I had mistaken the paraphrasing as a correction.
So does this type of error lend weight to the cover-up theory, or the messed-up theory?
NewAmericanCenturySucks
Member
A typo - taken at face value - suggests the latter, obviously, and trivially. But the opacity I've documented - including suppression of key analysis and critical maximum range lines - suggests the former. And if I were in charge of a hypothetical cover-up, I'd make darned sure I riddled the search (and its documentation) with silly errors.
I'd be satisfied - hell, thrilled - with an explicit admission of either. As I've made clear for months. But every day's delay in this admission makes me ever more convinced that what they're hiding is big.
Last edited:
Jason
Senior Member
How "big" would the something they are hiding have to be to involve a multinational cover up? You wouldn't need to cover up the fact that they were seeking asylum, or if there were hijackers on the plane. Stories like that surface every year to be honest with you, so what would the hiding something "big" have to be in order for such a large cover up to be needed.
Something to keep in mind when discussing all these search areas is that they are all just what they currently think to be the most probable areas. It's helpful here to look at the Air France search, which used a "probability map" to prioritize various areas
https://www.informs.org/ORMS-Today/...8-Number-4/In-Search-of-Air-France-Flight-447
Of course AF447 was known to be in a much smaller area. With MH370, the potential search area is thousands of times larger. But they will be using a similar approach. regions will be given probabilities based on various assumptions, and these probabilities will constantly be refined as new information comes in, or models are improved, or people change their minds, or mistakes are identified.
We don't know all the inputs to the model here. We just get the output - the most likely regions - which is then misrepresented in the press as a "narrowing down of" or "identifying a new" search area.
There's a big complex mess of stuff going on behind the scenes. We don't know what all those things are. The document in the OP gives us an incomplete picture of how they arrived at the regions, mentioning "analysis" without full details. So I feel any criticism of the search areas is unfortunately going to be very limited, unless you are privy to all the analysis that has been performed - which might include some of the primary radar tracking by the military that it seems they want to keep under wraps for national security reasons.
https://www.informs.org/ORMS-Today/...8-Number-4/In-Search-of-Air-France-Flight-447
Of course AF447 was known to be in a much smaller area. With MH370, the potential search area is thousands of times larger. But they will be using a similar approach. regions will be given probabilities based on various assumptions, and these probabilities will constantly be refined as new information comes in, or models are improved, or people change their minds, or mistakes are identified.
We don't know all the inputs to the model here. We just get the output - the most likely regions - which is then misrepresented in the press as a "narrowing down of" or "identifying a new" search area.
There's a big complex mess of stuff going on behind the scenes. We don't know what all those things are. The document in the OP gives us an incomplete picture of how they arrived at the regions, mentioning "analysis" without full details. So I feel any criticism of the search areas is unfortunately going to be very limited, unless you are privy to all the analysis that has been performed - which might include some of the primary radar tracking by the military that it seems they want to keep under wraps for national security reasons.
NewAmericanCenturySucks
Member
Mick: with respect:
If the claim "had less fuel, therefore move search 1,100km NE" were made by an agent opposed to the dominant power structure, I suspect you wouldn't fret over the feelings of the claimants - nor their rank, nor their access to additional info. Rather, you would take one look at Fig.3, compare it to the March 28 release, and say: "this can't be right; because (math)". And you would say so publicly, on this site. You would stamp the claim as "debunked", and dismiss apologist appeals for clemency as off-topic.
Your impassioned defense of the investigation team - in the face of damning evidence - reveals, in my opinion, a bias that you should examine.
If the claim "had less fuel, therefore move search 1,100km NE" were made by an agent opposed to the dominant power structure, I suspect you wouldn't fret over the feelings of the claimants - nor their rank, nor their access to additional info. Rather, you would take one look at Fig.3, compare it to the March 28 release, and say: "this can't be right; because (math)". And you would say so publicly, on this site. You would stamp the claim as "debunked", and dismiss apologist appeals for clemency as off-topic.
Your impassioned defense of the investigation team - in the face of damning evidence - reveals, in my opinion, a bias that you should examine.
Last edited:
NewAmericanCenturySucks
Member
Can we at least agree that
1) the ATSB's argument - as presented in its June 26 report - is logically flawed, per #5 above, and
2) the JAAC should - per its full transparency mandate - supplement this report with data & analysis sufficient to remove this flaw
?
I'm feeling conciliatory.
NewAmericanCenturySucks
Member
I am not going to offer my speculation on this thread as to what a hypothetical cover-up might specifically be covering up, nor its precise extent/scope. All I will say is that I've seen enough to become suspicious, and that scope, if sufficiently senior, could conceivably be quite narrow (i.e. rank and file working diligently, with best intentions).
On this thread, I am simply challenging the ATSB's assertions, and proving that, on a key analytical point, their report is either incomplete, dead wrong, or covering up [something]. Instead of speculating, let's all pressure the JAAC to provide the transparency it promised.
NewAmericanCenturySucks
Member
Re: Fig 3, p.5 (pasted into #5, above):
Note that the slope of the maximum range line (SE boundary of S1/S2/S3) exceeds the slope of the endurance line (6th Inmarsat arc = NW boundary of S1/S2/S3). (The slope is exceeded by more than that explained by the increased (constant average) speed required to be assumed as one moves SW along the arc - a technical point.)
This mathematically proves that the ATSB agrees that endurance is maximized at closer to cruising speed, not at 323 KGS.
Which was the point I was trying to hammer home (with limited success) for nearly two months on the "Clone" and "Prelim Report" threads.
A parenthetical point.
Note that the slope of the maximum range line (SE boundary of S1/S2/S3) exceeds the slope of the endurance line (6th Inmarsat arc = NW boundary of S1/S2/S3). (The slope is exceeded by more than that explained by the increased (constant average) speed required to be assumed as one moves SW along the arc - a technical point.)
This mathematically proves that the ATSB agrees that endurance is maximized at closer to cruising speed, not at 323 KGS.
Which was the point I was trying to hammer home (with limited success) for nearly two months on the "Clone" and "Prelim Report" threads.
A parenthetical point.
Last edited:
Stevan Gvozdenovic
Member
I think they have submitted all assumptions for every analysis (A, B and C). I don't think they need to hide anything at least at this point.
Those assumptions are quite rigid for my taste but they will probably take other things into account if they don't find anything there.
TWCobra
Senior Member.
From the report
I say again. The movement of the surface search area, at that point in the the search was predicated on trying to find surface debris which has drifted after the crash. This was being done to,
1. Confirm the validity of the search area,
2. Then refine it for the coming, as yet not started, underwater wreckage search.
There is 20 days of drift to take into account.
Your analysis takes the area to be the probable impact point. This is not so.
Over the following days regions of S1 and S2 were drifted and provided surface search areas. Some possible satellite debris sightings were also incorporated to produce additional search areas.
I say again. The movement of the surface search area, at that point in the the search was predicated on trying to find surface debris which has drifted after the crash. This was being done to,
1. Confirm the validity of the search area,
2. Then refine it for the coming, as yet not started, underwater wreckage search.
There is 20 days of drift to take into account.
Your analysis takes the area to be the probable impact point. This is not so.
NewAmericanCenturySucks
Member
1. The areas I take to be impact areas are what the ATSB says are impact areas - in the section of the report entitled, "possible impact areas". Figure 3 (pasted in #5, above) is entitled, "Figure 3: Possible southern final positions S1-S3 based on MH370 max range and time". It is charting impact zones.
2. While I believe the March release was clearly referring to impact areas, you are free to disagree. But if you are right, then the drifted areas were all (increasingly, as time went on) west of their corresponding impact areas (see Fig.6, p.8; also March press reports; also references to westward drift at last week's news conference). Had the ATSB's decision to move 1,100km NE referred to drifted areas instead of impact areas, it would have been even more inexplicable.
These points were already covered in #13 and #15 above. Dearly hoping this clarifies.
TWCobra
Senior Member.
I am simply reading the report which states that a surface search was underway and the search areas were drifted to certain areas. That means they were looking for surface debris 20 days after the fact.
Without an oceanographic analysis of the currents and winds, the statement stands. Later on, they adjusted the probable impact points and went from there.
Your "possible final positions" is ambiguous, but it seems to me that if they thought it was the impact point they would have said so.
Without an oceanographic analysis of the currents and winds, the statement stands. Later on, they adjusted the probable impact points and went from there.
Your "possible final positions" is ambiguous, but it seems to me that if they thought it was the impact point they would have said so.
NewAmericanCenturySucks
Member
This has become ridiculous.
Figure 3 - which you feel is both mine, and ambiguous - is the ATSB's, from p.5 of their June 26 report. In the section entitled, "Possible Impact Areas".
The "Drifted Search Areas" section starts on the bottom of p.7. That's where you'll find the westward drift documented in Fig.6.
It cannot be less ambiguous.
Even in the unlikely event that the ATSB-announced March 28 search move was to reflect both fuel analysis and drift: BOTH said, "go west, young man"; why did they instead go 1,100km north-east?
(This is my final attempt to help you see the flaw in your reasoning.)
Because it has to stay on the 6th arc? If you simply reduce the range, then the end point still has to stay on that arc, so NE is the only direction it can move in.
I understand that you would argue that they would have gone further if they had gone faster. But without knowing the totality of their analysis, I'm not ready to throw it out on one criticism.
TWCobra
Senior Member.
You seem to be only seeing what you want to see. The drift figures you reference are for AFTER March 28, therefore not relevant to your claim.
To summarise for those not following the argument, NACS has said that the March 27 fuel analysis moved the probable impact point 1100 km NE.Drifted search areas
For one month from 28 March (D21), areas along the 7th arc in the S3, S4 and S5 areas were drifted to guide the conduct of the surface search. The original and drifted areas are shown in Figure 6, comparison to other regions shown in Figure 7 - Figure 10.
My counter claim is that it said no such thing as there was only a surface search going on at that time, which was solely concerned with the finding of surface debris. This debris had almost three weeks to drift away from the impact point and the one of the reasons to find it would be to harden the certainty around the position of the impact point, by applying known drift from the currents.
AFTER March 27, the drift was more westerly which meant further continuing refinement. But the drifting of the search areas UP TO March 27 indicates a NE direction of the prevailing current.
(This is my final attempt to help you see the flaw in your reasoning.)
ConspiracyAtheist
Member
NACS, reading your arguments hurts my brain a lot. You seem to have tunnel vision with this, and nothing will stop you. More than 2 people have explained to you how your arguments are presumptive, misguided, and overly ambitious. Think about the larger scope of what you're trying to argue and maybe it'll knock some sense into you. If there was some big cover-up, why would they cover it up in a way where somebody like yourself is able to figure out by doing some simple math and analysis, and why are you the only person in the world arguing what you're arguing?
NewAmericanCenturySucks
Member
I reject your question's premise. I am FAR from the only one to reject the ATSB's implied fuel analysis, chosen FDR search site, or acoustic ping authenticity. Mick referred me to Duncan Steel's site; I thank him for that, and suggest you check it out, as I did. The independent team of experts to which Steel belongs publicly dismissed all three - weeks, and in some cases MONTHS ago. (Their recommended search site is hundreds of miles SW of where they're searching now, in case you were interested.)
But I am in the minority - at least on THIS site (for now). One stiff headwind that will have reduced the number of analysts at my side will have been the insidiously strong-but-wrong intuition behind the idea that less fuel = move search NE. It is actually a fairly complex analysis that is required to truly understand how Figure 3 (in #5 above) would be redrawn if available fuel is reduced (you move from original max range line to black, and then to red; the points on the Inmarsat arc which go from feasible to infeasible are actually the north-easternmost segment.) If I may say: not "simple math and analysis".
The other headwind has been attitudes such as yours: a deep-rooted and abiding faith in the notion that anyone who questions authority must necessarily be wrong.
We're not debating whether inside experts misdirected the search for two months - we now know that they did - all we're debating here is WHY. I take the view that they are competent, and thus ought reasonably to have reached conclusions similar to those of the outside experts. The other side is (now) arguing that the inside experts are incompetent, and just messed up. Time will tell - and the truth will out.
It is worth noting that, not two months ago, we WERE debating whether they were searching in the wrong place. I was trying to convince folks - on this site, and elsewhere - that their search site was wrong. In the course of that debate, I fielded more than one reply like this one of yours ("what makes you think you're the only one....").
So I suggest you think twice next time before publicly hurling these types of insults at strangers. Is the logical, scientific pursuit of truth ambitious and relentless? My word, yes. Overly so? My word, no.
Now go take good care of that hurt brain of yours.
Last edited:
NewAmericanCenturySucks
Member
I will no longer assist you in your attempt to understand my argument, TWC, but I will correct you if and when you misrepresent my position:
"NACS" did not say - the ATSB said that the March 27 fuel analysis moved the probable impact point 1100 km NE. Per the report, p.6:
Here is Figure 4 (which immediately follows):On 27 March (D20), the JIT advised they now had more confidence in the increased speeds provided by primary radar near Malaysia. This increased the aircraft fuel burn and the most probable track moved north to...the bottom of the S4 area on the 7th arc within the S3 area
So the new impact site was centred at roughly (S31.5, E97).
Prior to that, two most probable tracks had been contemplated - one leading to each of S1 and S2 (see Figure 3). It seems reasonable to suppose these are precisely the "NTSB most probable paths" published in mid-March. The more easterly of the two NTSB paths crosses the then-presumed fuel exhaustion line at roughly (S39, E89).
The distance between (S39, E89) and (S31.5, E97) is 1,105km, and the direction is NE.
Last edited:
NewAmericanCenturySucks
Member
You don't "simply reduce the range" - you must...
1) reduce the range of each of the paths which were used to define your original max range line
2) re-draw the max range line (e.g. black or red in #5)
3) note the points of intersection between this max range line and the 7th arc.
The feasible range of impact points is (just past) the 7th arc that lies between the two intersection points (see Figure 20, p.22 - by this point in the report, they refer to the max range line as the "performance limit").
Had they done what they say they did (i.e. move from original to black or red), their revised feasible range would have shrunk - but it is actually the north-easternmost points on the arc which would be rendered infeasible by this revision.
Yes, this (counter-intuitive) result is really just a variation on the basic theme: low & slow burns more fuel per hour than does high and fast (per the Trent892 LRC performance charts in the Prelim Report thread - and corroborated by the ATSB report itself, per #25 above). If we think it's going to have more trouble making it all the way to the 7th arc, our feasible range will contract toward the zone representing maximum endurance speeds. Which are near full cruise. Which should have counter-indicated S3. Yet that's where they moved to.
Re: "totality" of the analysis: as I've been saying for months, the problem is that the ATSB itself claims to have changed one and only one model input, which caused this dramatic change in output. Appendix A confirms no additional data had entered the scene by March 28 that would affect the feasible range of points at which MH370 crossed the 7th arc. I am merely analyzing the change in outputs relative to the change in inputs, and finding this logical flaw.
vooke
Active Member
@NewAmericanCenturySucks ,
There is a tendency of debunkers to overcompensate the CTers' mistrust of authority by trusting them too much. Look up WTC7 threads here when you have time. I think you have been very coherent in explaining your suspicion and so far nobody has offered any rebuttal to any of your arguments. If your conclusions don't lead you to conspiracy, trust me many would be cheering you. It is the fear of a debunker believing in conspiracy theories that restrains them.
This explains near irrational skepticism with which evidence of coverup is met with. Cheers and keep up
They only mentioned one, but you don't know if there were others, and , more importantly, you don't know what their model is.
You've just created your own model, with very limited information, and got a different result.
It seems that their model incorporates several techniques:
Remember this is all probabilistic. They make assumptions, and assign those assumptions probabilities, this gives you a map of probabilities, not a single search area. You then take the area with the highest probability. But then you get new information all the time, and the map changes.
The S4/S5 boundary on the 7th arc was considered the best starting location due to convergence of a number of candidate paths using independent techniques
NewAmericanCenturySucks
Member
All I meant was that the move up to 20S turned out to be wrong - misguided - misdirected. I didn't think I had to prove this because the investigation team itself admitted in late May that it was the wrong place to search, and went back to the drawing board. Do you dispute any of this?
Similar threads
