MH370: Help me debunk this

[ConspiracyAtheist]

So I've been quite interested in the MH370 saga since the very beginning. I've been involved in chatrooms pretty frequently, and tried to gather the most research I could about the topic. I had saved a bunch of different news reports, comments, etc. that I found interesting over the past 9 months, and while going through them tonight I came upon a google earth link saved in my bookmarks. Not entirely positive how I came about it, but nonetheless it definitely made me double-take. It's location is somewhere within the French and Southern Antarctic Lands, and it was a bit unnerving after zooming out enough to visualize where it is compared to the current search. Have a look, and please give me valid reasons why I shouldn't be wasting my time with this: https://www.google.com/maps/place/4...0.1499736,59m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x0

 

[Auldy]

Do you find the location here interesting or something in this picture of the bay?

What exactly did you want help debunking?

 

[Rico]

I clicked on the link and it placed a mark in water that I couldn't find anything suspicious. Can you explain which parts of this location is of interest?

Admittedly, I haven't followed MH370 news much, but based on the location provided by the link, I would say it's a bit... far. A jetliner like the 777-200 involved would have to tanker a lot more fuel to get there, and airlines generally don't do this.

According to the following link, MH370 had about 8 hours of fuel on board: http://www.smh.com.au/world/flying-...se-to-running-out-of-fuel-20140316-hvjao.html

A typical Boeing 777 cruises at about 490 knots (nautical miles per hour, assuming no wind). I don't have the actual google earth installed on my laptop, but if you can figure out the distance (in nautical miles), you can see if it's plausible to reach that location. Again, I doubt this, but I haven't plugged the numbers in myself.

 

[ConspiracyAtheist]

The fact that the satellite image looks like a plane submerged in water

 

[ConspiracyAtheist]

The location puts it very close to Inmarsat's 7th arc. I'm wondering if I'm crazy. Do you not see what looks to be a fuselage clearly showing the cockpit with it's right wing and a tail fin on the rear?

 

[ConspiracyAtheist]

It's conceivable that my mind is playing tricks on me, but once you "see it" you can't unsee it.

 

[Auldy]

If it is a plane, it can't be MH370. That is because this satellite image was taken on March the 1st, 2012, well before MH370 disappeared.

 

[Rico]

I figured out the approximate distance between Kuala Lumpur and that location. It is 3555 nm. With 8 hours of fuel, the aircraft can reach that location (Not accounting for the course change half way through).

That said, I don't quite see it without using a bit of imagination. I think I know what you are talking about though. It seems a bit large, though the color still resembles the swells in the ocean around it. It's kind of like looking at a cloud and seeing shapes.

My main thoughts about an airplane going down in an ocean is that you probably won't see the wings, fuselage, and tail intact if it went down in an ocean. Even in a controlled ditch, those giant engines on the Boeing 777 is going to tear the plane to pieces the moment it picks up water. When Air France 447 went down, it had a pretty much level attitude (albeit a hard drop), and it's debris was pretty scattered (Check this out: http://galleryhip.com/flight-447-debris.html). If anything, this is my primary reason as to why I say it is implausible.

 

[Auldy]

see the date stamp in the bottom corner

 

[ConspiracyAtheist]

View attachment 10690

see the date stamp in the bottom corner

Oh good catch. That is the one thing I've been looking for, a time stamp. It doesn't show up on my version of google earth. It just says 2014. Well, case closed. DEBUNKED.

 

[Pete Tar]

Yep, always check the date, it's not always obvious.
Did you have to go to the 'edit' page to see that date Auldy? It is covered up in the original link page, but visible after clicking the 'edit in google map maker' link.

 

[ConspiracyAtheist]

Well, I still contest that it looks awfully similar to a plane.

 

[Auldy]

Yep, always check the date, it's not always obvious.
Did you have to go to the 'edit' page to see that date Auldy? It is covered up in the original link page, but visible after clicking the 'edit in google map maker' link.

Exactly that.

https://www.google.com.au/mapmaker?...edproducts_maps&q=-49.475028+070.150056&hl=en

Sorry probably should have included that link before.

 

[Auldy]

I think the scale should be used a reference point to help debunk that its a plane, the wingspan (assuming it was intact) would be much more than 10m long which is about what I can deduce from my measurements on screen.

 

[Pete Tar]

Well, I still contest that it looks awfully similar to a plane.

Yet indistinguishable from sea foam.

 

[NoParty]

Or...

Illuminati / Stonecutters--for reasons not yet 100% clear to me--needed this plane to disappear...

so they thought: "Where could we hide it that it would never be found?"

So then one of the Bavarians says:
"Hey, I once saw a satellite image from March, 2012, with some sea foam,
that could kinda looks like a plane, if you really want it to...and squint a bit.
The beauty part, is that if we crash this plane exactly there, people will
ignore it thinking 'Naw, that's just the sea foam from 2012!' The perfect crime!"

Then they go back to keeping Atlantis off the map...

pretty obvious when ya think about it...

 

[cloudspotter]

I think the scale should be used a reference point to help debunk that its a plane, the wingspan (assuming it was intact) would be much more than 10m long which is about what I can deduce from my measurements on screen.

MH370 was 64m long with a 61m wingspan

 

[Trailblazer]

If you zoom out a little you can see that this is just one of thousands of similar white patches in the water all over this area. I thought at first they may be ice but based on the latitude and the date (late summer in the southern hemisphere) I think they are just breaking waves.

 

[Hevach]

You can see it also continues to the bottom right another 15-20 meters. It's a longer feature than the white highlight. Even without zooming out, you can see it's parallel to other features. I did a quick MSPaint job drawing lines along some other linear features around it, and they're all close to parallel running NW-SE:

The pattern continues to the right, but I stopped drawing lines.

 

[Pete Tar]

Indicating swell lines/wind direction I presume? (just to make the point clear)

 

[Hevach]

Err, yeah I guess I only explained half way, didn't I? Lots of linear features on a water surface does imply wave swells. The white highlights are just breaking waves.

 

[WeedWhacker]

Err, yeah I guess I only explained half way, didn't I? Lots of linear features on a water surface does imply wave swells. The white highlights are just breaking waves.

This is only "one" way that pilots are trained in the event of a "ditching" scenario....to assess the shape of the waves, and choose to "ditch" parallel to them. Hopefully, on the 'upward' or 'upwind' swell.

...kinda basic stuff...goes back for decades....and of course, imagines that it is a "DayLight" ditch....and not one at night, in horrible, stormy weather. Classroom stuff.....