MH370 Source Material

by Peter Gerard Myers

Date: March 19, 2023; update March 20, 2023.

My comments are shown {thus}; write to me at contact.html.

You are at

Copyright: Peter Myers asserts the right to be identified as the author of the material written by him on this website, being material that is not otherwise attributed to another author.

Also see the parent webpage of this one, MH370.html.

(0) The Unreliability of Wikipedia
(1) Operation Northwoods on use of Decoy Aircraft, and flying planes as Drones
(2) Unreliability of the Inmarsat Data: satellite experts say investigators could be looking in the wrong ocean
(3) Mystery load weighing 89kg was added to the cargo flight list after take-off
(4) Emirates head Tim Clark tells Spiegel that MH370 was hijacked, warns "others would like to bury" the truth
(5) SMH Transcript of Emirates head Tim Clark interview with De Spiegel on MH370
(6) Acoustic waves provide rival Scientific data to Inmarsat - Usama Kadri
(7) Acoustic data recorded on March 8th 2014 at Diego Garcia
(8) Blaine Gibson claims stalking, death threats and assassination; says debris found disproves pilot suicide theory
(9) MH370 'wreck hunter' says debris found disproves pilot suicide theory
(10) Blaine Gibson in hiding for six years because of death threats over MH370 Debris
(11) Blaine Gibson recounts his interviews with Maldives witnesses (at Kudahuvadhoo)
(12) Fake solution of MH370 mystery in The Atlantic Monthly of July 2019
(13) French spy tells Ghyslain Wattrelos that American Intelligence Agencies took MH370
(14) Jim Stone reports cell phone call from Philip Wood on Diego Garcia
(15) Netflix doco on MH370 vilifies Blaine Gibson

(0) The Unreliability of Wikipedia

Wikipedia has two webpages on MH370, one presenting the official theory, and one presenting unofficial or conspiracy theories; the two link to each other. The official one is at .

The unofficial one was at

but is now at

In the past, the unofficial one, being edited by many people, at times presented incriminating information (against the US Government). However, it no longer does so; it's now written by the same people as the official one. The difference is that, whereas the official one ignores conspiracy theories, the unofficial one seeks to debunk them.

The current Wikipedia webpages, official and unofficial, make no mention of the comments of Emirates CEO Tim Clark, or of the reported phone call of Philip Wood from Diego Garcia.

When I checked it on January 28, 2017, and again on February 2, 2019, I found that the unofficial webpage not only omitted the most incriminating evidence, but favorably quoted Cass Sunstein, a leading, government-appointed, debunker of 9/11 and other conspiracy theories. This is what it said:

'Harvard professor Cass Sunstein noted that the conflicting information initially released by the Malaysian government explains the interest in alternative theories. Sunstein, who has written on the topic, argued in an interview with the Wall Street Journal on 20 March 2014 that conspiracy theories in general often are borne out of horrific and disastrous situations, because such events make people angry, fearful and looking for a "target".'

Cass Sunstein, when at Harvard University, authored a paper recommending "Cognitive infiltration" of Dissident groups by Government agents:

Conspiracy Theories, by Cass R. Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule, both of Harvard Law School, January 15, 2008:

Sunstein was later appointed by Obama to take on this role.

In reply, David Ray Griffin wrote a book Cognitive Infiltration: An Obama Appointee's Plan to Undermine the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory: .

(1) Operation Northwoods on use of Decoy Aircraft, and flying planes as Drones

Operation Northwoods

Bamford, James. (2001). Body of Secrets. Doubleday, New York.

Body of Secrets

by James Bamford

DOUBLEDAY New York 2001

In the early 1960s, the Joint Chiefs of Staff proposed Operation Northwoods, a False Flag attack on a U.S. plane (actually a drone carrying no passengers) by Cuba. This would justify a U.S. invasion of Cuba in retaliation.

They planned to "make it appear that Communist Cuban MiGs destroyed a USAF aircraft over international waters in an unprovoked attack" (p. 86).

An aircraft at Elgin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to the CIA. The duplicate would be loaded with selected passengers, boarded under aliases. The registered aircraft would be converted to a drone [remotely controlled unmanned aircraft]. Take off times of the drone and the passenger-carrying aircraft would be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida.

From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft would go to an auxiliary field at Elgin AFB where passengers would be evacuated and the aircraft returned to its original status. The drone would continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone would transmit a "May Day" message saying it is under attack by Cuban MiGs. The transmission would be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft, which would be triggered by radio signal (pp. 85-6).

(2) Unreliability of the Inmarsat Data: satellite experts say investigators could be looking in the wrong ocean

This article was at, but is now behind a paywall - which is inappropriate for a likely Crime Scene.

Why the Official Explanation of MH370's Demise Doesn't Hold Up

Outside satellite experts say investigators could be looking in the wrong ocean.

Ari N. Schulman

The Atlantic

May 8 2014, 8:00 AM ET

Investigators searching for the missing Malaysian Airlines flight were ebullient when they detected what sounded like signals from the plane's black boxes. This was a month ago, and it seemed just a matter of time before the plane was finally discovered.

But now the search of 154 square miles of ocean floor around the signals has concluded with no trace of wreckage found. Pessimism is growing as to whether those signals actually had anything to do with Flight 370. If they didn't, the search area would return to a size of tens of thousands of square miles.

Even before the black-box search turned up empty, observers had begun to raise doubts about whether searchers were looking in the right place. Authorities have treated the conclusion that the plane crashed in the ocean west of Australia as definitive, owing to a much-vaunted mathematical analysis of satellite signals sent by the plane. But scientists and engineers outside of the investigation have been working to verify that analysis, and many say that it just doesn't hold up.

A Global Game of Marco Polo

Malaysia Airlines flights are equipped with in-flight communications services provided by the British company Inmarsat. From early on, the lynchpin of the investigation has been signals sent by Flight 370 to one of Inmarsat's satellites. It's difficult to overstate the importance of this lonely little batch of Òpings.Ó They're the sole evidence of what happened to the plane after it slipped out of radar contact. Without them, investigators knew only that the plane had enough fuel to travel anywhere within 3,300 miles of the last radar contact-a seventh of the entire globe.

Inmarsat concluded that the flight ended in the southern Indian Ocean, and its analysis has become the canonical text of the Flight 370 search. It's the bit of data from which all other judgments flow - from the conclusive announcement by Malaysia's prime minister that the plane has been lost with no survivors, to the black-box search area, to the high confidence in the acoustic signals, to the dismissal by Australian authorities of a survey company's new claim to have detected plane wreckage.

Although Inmarsat officials have described the mathematical analysis as Ògroundbreaking,Ó it's actually based on some relatively straightforward geometry. Here's how it works: Every so often (usually about once an hour), Inmarsat's satellite sends a message to the plane's communication system, asking for a simple response to show that it's still switched on. This response doesn't specify the plane's location or the direction it's heading, but it does have some useful information that narrows down the possibilities.

You can think of the ping math like a game of Marco Polo played over 22,000 miles of outer space. You can't see the plane. But you shout Marco, and the plane shouts back Polo. Based on how long the plane takes to respond, you know how far away it is. And from the pitch of its voice, you can tell whether it's moving toward you or away from you - like the sound of a car on the highway - and about how fast.

This information is far from perfect. You know how far the plane was for each ping, but the ping could be coming from any direction. And you how fast the plane is moving toward or away from you. It could also be moving right or left, up or down, and the speeds would sound the same. The task of the Inmarsat engineers has been to take these pieces and put them together, working backwards to reconstruct possible flight paths that would fit the data.

What's the Frequency?

There are two relevant pieces of information for each ping: the time it took to travel from plane to satellite, and the radio frequency at which it was received. It's important to keep in mind that the transit times of the pings correspond to distances between satellite and plane, while frequencies correspond to relative speeds between satellite and plane. And this part's critical: Relative speed isn't the plane's actual airspeed, just how fast it's moving toward or away from the satellite.

Authorities haven't released much information about the distances - just the now-famous 'two arcsÓ graphic, derived in part from the distance of the very last ping. But they've released much more information about the ping frequencies. In fact, they released a graph that shows all of them:

Graph 1: MH370-Inmarsat1-wrong.png.

This graph is the most important piece of evidence in the Inmarsat analysis. What it appears to show is the frequency shifts or 'offsets' - the difference between the normal 'pitch' of the plane's voice (its radio frequency) and the one you actually hear.

The graph also shows the shifts that would be expected for two hypothetical flight paths, one northbound and one southbound, with the measured values closely matching the southbound path. This is why officials have been so steadfastly confident that the plane went south. It seems to be an open-and-shut verdict of mathematics.

So it should be straightforward to make sure that the math is right. That's just what a group of analysts outside the investigation has been attempting to verify. The major players have been Michael Exner, founder of the American Mobile Satellite Corporation; Duncan Steel, a physicist and visiting scientist at NASA's Ames Research Center; and satellite technology consultant Tim Farrar. They've used flight and navigation software like STK, which allows you to chart and make precise calculations about flight scenarios like this one. On their blogs and in an ongoing email chain, they've been trying to piece together the clues about Flight 370 and make sense of Inmarsat's analysis. What follows is an attempt to explain and assess their conclusions.

What We Know

Although the satellite data provides the most important clues about the plane's overall flight path, they're not the only clues available. Authorities have some basic but crucial additional information about the flight that can help to make sense of the satellite math:

1. The satellite's precise coordinates

The satellite in contact with Flight 370 was Inmarsat's IOR satellite, parked in geostationary orbit above the Indian Ocean. The satellite is meant to be stationary, but its orbit has decayed somewhat, so that it actually rotates slightly around its previously fixed position. Its path is publicly available from the Center for Space Standards & Innovation.

2. The plane's takeoff time and coordinates

16:41 UTC from the Kuala Lumpur airport.

3. The plane's general motion toward or away from the satellite

From radar tracking, we know the plane traveled northeast, away from the satellite, over the first 40 minutes after takeoff, then westward, toward the satellite, until 94 minutes into the flight, when it was last detected on radar. Inmarsat spokesmen have stated that the ping distances got progressively longer over the last five hours of flight, meaning that the plane was moving away from the satellite during that time.

4. Two flight paths investigators think are consistent with the ping data

In addition to the frequency shift graph, the Inmarsat report includes a map with two 'Example Southern Tracks,' one assuming a flight speed of 400 knots, the other a speed of 450 knots. Check it out:

Graph 2

These bits of knowledge allow us to put some basic constraints on what a graph of the ping frequency shifts should look like. We'll use more precise numbers later; for now, it's helpful just to have some qualitative sense of what to expect:

5. Frequency shifts that should all be negative

When the plane is moving away from the satellite, the radio signal gets stretched out, so the frequency decreases. This means that the frequency shifts should be negative over most of the flight. Although there was an approximately one-hour period starting 40 minutes after takeoff when radar showed the plane moving westward, toward the satellite, the graph shows that no pings were sent during that time - so actually, all of the shifts on the graph should be negative.

6. Frequency shifts before takeoff that should be near zero

Plotting the satellite's path in STK, you can see that it moves through an ellipse centered around the equator. Space scientist Steel has created this graphic of the satellite's motion, including marks for its position when the plane took off and when it last pinged the satellite:

Duncan Steel.

The satellite's motion is almost entirely north-south, and the plane's takeoff location in Kuala Lumpur is almost due east of the satellite. This means that the satellite was only barely moving relative to Kuala Lumpur, so the frequency shift for a plane nearly stationary on the ground at the airport would be nearly zero.

7. Frequency shift graph should match map of southbound flight paths

The way the Marc-Polo math works is that, if you assume the plane traveled at some constant speed, you can produce at most one path north and one path south that fit the ping data. As the example flight paths on Inmarsat's map show, the faster you assume the plane was moving overall, the more sharply the path must arc away from the satellite.

This constraint also works the other way: Since flight paths for a given airspeed are unique, you can work backwards from these example paths, plotting them in STK to get approximate values for the ping distances and relative speeds Inmarsat used to produce them. The relative speeds can then be converted into frequency shifts, which should roughly match the values on the frequency graph. (This is all assuming that Inmarsat didn't plot the two example paths at random but based on the ping data.) We'll put more precise numbers on this below.

The Troubled Graph

But the graph defies these expectations. Taken at face value, the graph shows the plane moving at a significant speed before it even took off, then moving toward the satellite every time it was pinged. This interpretation is completely at odds with the official conclusion, and flatly contradicted by other evidence.

The first problem seems rather straightforward to resolve: the reason the frequency shifts aren't negative is probably that Inmarsat just graphed them as positive. Plotting absolute values is a common practice among engineers, like stating the distance to the ocean floor as a positive depth value rather than a negative elevation value.

But the problem of the large frequency shift before takeoff is more vexing. Exactly how fast does the graph show the plane and satellite moving away from each other prior to takeoff?

The first ping on the graph was sent at 16:30 UTC, eleven minutes prior to takeoff. The graphed frequency shift for this ping is about -85 Hz. Public records show that the signal from the plane to the satellite uses a frequency of 1626 to 1660 MHz. STK calculations show the satellite's relative motion was just 2 miles per hour toward the airport at this time. Factoring in the satellite's angle above the horizon, the plane would need to have been moving at least 50 miles per hour on the ground to produce this frequency shift - implausibly high eleven minutes prior to takeoff, when flight transcripts show the plane had just pushed back from the gate and not yet begun to taxi.

On the other side of the frequency graph, the plane's last ping, at 00:11 UTC, shows a measured frequency shift of about -252 Hz, working out to a plane-to-satellite speed of just 103 miles per hour. But the sample southbound paths published by Inmarsat show the plane receding from the satellite at about 272 miles per hour at this time.

In other words, the frequency shifts are much higher than they should be at the beginning of the graph, and much lower than they should be at the end. Looking at the graph, it's almost as if there's something contributing to these frequency shift values other than just the motion between the satellite and the plane.

Cracking the 'Doppler Code'

Exner, an engineer who's developed satellite and meteorology technologies since the early 1970s, noted that the measured frequency shifts might come not just from each ping's transmission from plane to satellite, but also from the ping's subsequent transmission from the satellite to a ground station that connects the satellites into the Inmarsat network. In other words, Exner may have found the hidden source that seems to be throwing off the frequency graph.

Inmarsat's analysis is highly ambiguous about whether the satellite-to-ground transmission contributed to the measured frequency shift. But if it did, a ground station located significantly south of the satellite would have resulted in frequency shifts that could account for the measured shifts being too large at the beginning of the graph and too small at the end. And sure enough, Inmarsat's analysis states that the ground station receiving the transmission was located in Australia.

It's possible to check the theory more precisely. Public records of Inmarsat ground stations show just one in Australia: in Perth. Using STK, you can precisely chart the satellite's speed relative to this station, and, using the satellite-to-ground signal frequency (about 3.6 GHz), you can then factor the satellite-to-ground shifts out of the frequency graph. Finally, you can at last calculate the true satellite-to-plane speed values.

The results seem to be nearly perfect. For the first ping, you wind up with a satellite-to-plane speed of about 1 mile per hour - just what you'd expect for a plane stationary or slowly taxiing eleven minutes before takeoff. This finding seems to provide a basic sanity check for interpreting the graph, and led Exner to declare on Twitter, 'Doppler code cracked.' He produced a new graph of the frequency shifts, shown below. The gently sloping blue line shows the shifts between the satellite and the ground station in Perth, while the dotted red line shows the newly calculated satellite-to-plane shifts:

Graph 3: MH370-Inmarsat2-correction.png.

Why Inmarsat's Analysis Is Probably Wrong

If this interpretation - based on the work of Exner, Steel, Farrar, and myself - is correct, it would allow independent experts to fully review Inmarsat's analysis, verify its work and check to see if Inmarsat might have missed any important clues that could further narrow down the plane's whereabouts.

The problem is, although this interpretation matches two basic expectations for the frequency graph, it still doesn't match Inmarsat's example flight paths. The new frequency values, calculated by Exner, show the flight's speed relative to the satellite as only about 144 miles per hour by the last ping, but Inmarsat's example flight paths show a relative speed of about 272 miles per hour.

It's possible these outside experts have still erred or missed some crucial detail in their attempts to understand the Inmarsat analysis. But that just means that Inmarsat's analysis, as it has been presented, remains deeply confusing, or perhaps deeply confused. And there are other reasons to believe that Inmarsat's analysis is not just unclear but mistaken. (Inmarsat stands by its analysis. More on that in a minute.)

Recall that the Marco-Polo math alone doesn't allow you to tell which direction pings are coming from. So how could Inmarsat claim to distinguish between a northern and southern path at all? The reason is that the satellite itself wasn't stationary. Because the satellite was moving north-south, it would have been moving faster toward one path than another - specifically, faster toward a southbound track than a northbound one over the last several hours of the flight. This means that the frequency shifts would also differ between a northbound and southbound path, as the graph shows with its two predicted paths.

But this is actually where the graph makes the least sense. The graph only shows different predicted values for the north and south tracks beginning at 19:40 UTC (presumably Inmarsat's model used actual radar before this). By this time, the satellite was traveling south, and its southward speed would increase for the rest of the flight. The frequency shift plots for northern and southern paths, then, should get steadily further apart for the rest of the flight. Instead, the graph shows them growing closer. Eventually, they even pass each other: by the end of the flight, the graph shows the satellite traveling faster toward a northbound flight path than a southbound one, even though the satellite itself was flying south.

One ping alone is damning. At 19:40 UTC, the satellite was almost motionless, having just reached its northernmost point. The graph shows a difference of about 80 Hz between predicted northbound and southbound paths at this time, which would require the satellite to be moving 33 miles per hour faster toward the southbound path than the northbound one. But the satellite's overall speed was just 0.07 miles per hour at that time.

Inmarsat claims that it found a difference between a southbound and northbound path based on the satellite's motion. But a graph of the frequency shifts along those paths should look very different from the one Inmarsat has produced.

Losing Faith

Either Inmarsat's analysis doesn't totally make sense, or it's flat-out wrong.

For the last two months, I've been trying to get authorities to answer these questions. Malaysia Airlines has not returned multiple requests for comment, nor have officials at the Malaysian Ministry of Transportation. Australia's Joint Agency Coordination Centre and the UK's Air Accidents Investigation Branch, which have been heavily involved in the investigation, both declined to comment.

An Inmarsat official told me that to 'a high degree of certainty, the proponents of other paths are wrong. The model has been carefully mapped out using all the available data.'

The official cited Inmarsat's participation in the investigation as preventing it from giving further detail, and did not reply to requests for comments on even basic technical questions about the analysis. Inmarsat has repeatedly claimed that it checked its model against other aircrafts that were flying at the time, and peer-reviewed the model with other industry experts. But Inmarsat won't say who reviewed it, how closely, or what level of detail they were given.

Until officials provide more information, the claim that Flight 370 went south rests not on the weight of mathematics but on faith in authority. Inmarsat officials and search authorities seem to want it both ways: They release charts, graphics, and statements that give the appearance of being backed by math and science, while refusing to fully explain their methodologies. And over the course of this investigation, those authorities have repeatedly issued confident pronouncements that they've later quietly walked back.

The biggest risk to the investigation now is that authorities continue to assume they've finally found the area where the plane went down, while failing to explore other possibilities simply because they don't fit with a mathematical analysis that may not even hold up.

After all, searchers have yet to find any hard evidence - not so much as a shred of debris - to confirm that they're looking in the right ocean.

(3) Mystery load weighing 89kg was added to the cargo flight list after take-off

MH370 investigators 'discover mystery load weighing 89kg was added to the cargo flight list' after take-off


Tuesday 16 July 2019 13:32

French investigators searching for answers over the disappearance of flight MH370 have discovered a 89kg weight was added to the flight before take-off, it has been reported.

The doomed Malaysia Airlines plane was carrying 239 people when it disappeared while travelling from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing on March 8, 2014.

Ghyslain Wattrelos, a French national who lost his wife and two teenage children in the disaster, said last week there may be new evidence surrounding what happened.

Two Parisian judges are currently conducting a judicial investigation, and have received a report on the passengers and baggage brought on board, French newspaper Le Parisien reported.

Mr Wattrelos told the paper: "It was also learned that a mysterious load of 89 kg had been added to the flight list after take-off.

"A container was also overloaded, without anyone knowing why. The expert draws no conclusion.

That 89kg load added to the flight list after take-off, and overloaded container, may be cargo headed for China that an intelligence agency wanted to stop.

(4) Emirates head Tim Clark tells Spiegel that MH370 was hijacked, warns "others would like to bury" the truth

Missing Plane: Emirates Head Critical of MH 370 Investigation

Interview Conducted by Andreas Spaeth

October 9, 2014

Despite months spent searching for Malaysia Airlines flight MH 370, not a trace has been found.

Why is there still no trace of flight MH 370? In an interview, Sir Tim Clark, head of Emirates Airline, is sharply critical of the investigation thus far. He believes someone took control of the plane and maintained it until the very end.

Tim Clark has been a senior manager at the airline Emirates since 1985 and has been instrumental in developing it into one of the world's largest airlines. Today, the 64-year-old is seen as a knowledgeable expert and critic of the aviation industry. His view of the vanished Malaysian Airlines flight MH 370 is a provocative one. The plane that disappeared was a Boeing 777 and Emirates operates 127 such aircraft, more than any other airline in the world. [...] {Sydney Morning Herald transcript follows}

(5) SMH Transcript of Emirates head Tim Clark interview with De Spiegel on MH370

Sir Tim Clark believes information is being concealed

Emirates head presses for change to prevent further tragedy

Sydney Morning Herald November 21, 2014

The full transcript of German aviation journalist Andreas Spaeth's interview with Emirates chief Sir Tim Clark.

It's many months later and we know nothing about MH370, having disappeared on March 8, 2014. What can be done?

TIM CLARK: Malaysia Airlines 370 remains one of the great aviation mysteries. Personally I have the concern that we will treat it like that and move on, and it will go onto National Geographic as one of aviation's great mysteries. We mustn't allow this to happen. This aeroplane has disappeared without trace. The public and the industry are questioning the lack of information and the cold hard logic of the disappearance of this and the factors that led to its disappearance. The tracking of the aircraft, its routing, its altitude oscillations, these were all measurable and explainable in my view. But we seem to have allowed it to go into this black hole of 'it could be one of aviation's great mysteries'. It can't be left like that, never. We must know what caused that aeroplane to disappear.

What do you think happened?

CLARK: My own view is that PROBABLY CONTROL WAS TAKEN OF THAT AEROPLANE, the events that happened during the course of its tracked flight will be anybody's guess of who did what and when. I think we need to know who was on this aeroplane in the detail that obviously SOME PEOPLE DO KNOW, WE NEED TO KNOW WHAT WAS IN THE HOLD OF THE AEROPLANE, in the detail we need to know, in a transparent manner. And we need to continue to press all those stake holders, that were and are involved in the analysis, in the assessment of what happened, for more information. Because heading an airline that operates the largest number of 777s in the world, I have a responsibility of knowing exactly what went on. I do not subscribe to the view that the aircraft, which is one of the most advanced in the world, has the most advanced avionic and communication platforms, needs to be improved so that we can introduce some kind of additional tracking system for an aeroplane that should never have been allowed to enter into a non-trackable situation.

What do you mean by that?

CLARK: The transponders are under the control of the flight deck. These are tracking devices, aircraft identifiers, that work in the secondary radar regime. If you turn off that transponder in a secondary radar regime, it causes a disappearance of that particular aeroplane from the radar screen. That should never be allowed to happen. All secondary and primary radar should be the same. Irrespective of when the pilot decides to disable the transponder, the aircraft should be able to be tracked. So the notion by the Malaysians that the disappearance from the secondary radar and then the ability of the military to use primary radar to track the aeroplane and identify it as 'friendly' ­ I don't know how they did that - is something we need to look at very carefully.

What about other ways of monitoring?

CLARK: The other means of constantly monitoring the process of the track of an aircraft is the Aircraft Communication and Reporting System, ACARS. That is designed primarily for the companies to monitor what the aeroplanes are doing, we use it for a number of things, but primarily to monitor the aircraft systems and engine performance. So we track from the ground, as we do at Emirates, every single aircraft and every component of the aircraft and engine of the aircraft at any point of the planet, and very often we are able to track faults in the systems before the pilots do. It's that good and it's that real time.

How was it possible to disable that?

CLARK: Disabling it is no simple thing, and our pilots are not trained to disable ACARS. There are ways to enter the system through the multiple menu levels to get through and disable, but to completely disable also requires you to go down below the main deck into the avionics bay. That requires you to leave the flight deck and go down through a trap door in the floor to do that. But somehow this thing was disabled, so much so that the ground tracking capability was eliminated.

What should be the consequence?

CLARK: We must find systems to allow ACARS to continue uninterrupted, irrespective of who is controlling the aircraft. So that is not something somebody can do. If you have that, with the satellite constellations that we have today even in the Southern Ocean, we still have the capability of monitoring. So you don't have to introduce additional tracking systems. We are told we are saying that because we don't want to spend money. I have no problem spending and Emirates is one of the first to step out and ensure that safety is never compromised. But I have to be persuaded that adding additional tracking systems on top of what we already have is really worthwhile.

So what should be done then?

My recommendation to the aircraft manufacturer group is that they find a way to make disabling of the ACARS system impossible by the flight deck. And the transponder as well - I'm still struggling to find why a pilot should be able to put the transponder into standby or off. In my view, that should not be an option. Thirdly, the air traffic control systems should not have a situation where a non-transponder aircraft without its squawk identifier should not be allowed to turn off and still not be able to track it. This is absolute stuff of nonsense. Radar is radar, it will pick up metal objects flying at the speed of the size of a 777 without any difficulty. Who took the decision to say: 'If a transponder is off, we can't track it in a secondary radar regime'? Which apparently most air traffic control systems are in. We must look at that as well. This aircraft in my opinion was under control, probably until the very end.


IF THEY DID! I am saying that every single element of the 'facts' of this particular incident must be challenged and examined in full transparency, exhausted to the point that there is no other way that we can think of this other than a complete mystery. We are nowhere near that, there is plenty of information out there, which we need to be far more forthright, transparent and candid about. All the entities involved like the NTSB, the Malaysians, the Australians, Boeing itself, whatever. They all know that people like me, and I hope the Malaysians are in this boat, too, will not allow this to go into that box of oblivion. Every single second of that flight needs to be examined. From the point on its heading in a north-easterly direction where it 'disappeared' off the screen and made a conscious left turn to go almost due West in controlled flight. There were apparently some oscillations in altitude from 41.000 to 27.000 feet, then the notion that it turned between existing waypoints on a north-easterly, then a north-westerly, then a south-westerly heading, where it theoretically then ended up in the Southern Ocean. For which they couldn't find a trace in 1.7 million square miles of search, nothing, they say.

So YOU NURTURE DOUBTS that it actually happened as is said?

When you press questions on this, I SENSE A DEGREE OF BELLIGERENCE, the more belligerent people become, the more worried I become. They have used AF447 as an example, where it was two years to track the aircraft, but very shortly after the incident they found the fin, floating. So we knew that the aircraft had gone in. And yes, there were all sorts of oceanographic issues with the currents and it took us two years to find. But in this case, there wasn't a seat cushion, and our experience tells us that IN WATER INCIDENTS, WHERE THE AIRCRAFT HAS GONE DOWN, THERE IS ALWAYS SOMETHING. We have not seen a single thing that suggests categorically that this aircraft is where they say it is, nothing. Apart from this 'handshake', which calls my electronic engineers to start thinking 'what is all this about?'.

What is their conclusion?

CLARK: They say, even though they disabled satellite communication and the ACARS, it is actually not disabled, it is still powered up and sends out weak signals that hunt, like you would do with a mobile phone. And therefore it is traceable. Well, I question this 'handshake' as well. In the Southern Ocean, with a very weak signal, which is intermittent, and they are a multitude of other aircraft in the same area, I'm not sure about that. Those are the things that need to be challenged. First of all let's establish what actually happened. If the industry then believes there is a case to put extra tracking devices on board, we can look at it. But don't walk down a blind alley. Many people, including at IATA, are going down this path. I don't agree with it.

At which point in the presumed flight path do your doubts start?

CLARK: There hasn't been one overwater incident in the history of civil aviation, apart form Amelia Earhart in 1939, that has not been at least five or ten percent trackable. THIS HAS DISAPPEARED. SO FOR ME THAT RAISES a degree of SUSPICION, and I'm totally dissatisfied with what is been coming out of all of this.

Who can change that?

CLARK: I'm not in a position to do it, I'm essentially an airline manager. But I will continue to ask the questions and will make a nuisance of myself, when OTHERS WOULD LIKE TO BURY IT, and we have an obligation to the passengers and crew of MH 370 and their families, whose deep distress you see every day. We have an obligation not to brush this under the carpet, but to sort it out and do better than we have done.

So the search efforts undertaken so far were not good enough?

CLARK: They will start the search now again in the Southern Ocean, but look at what they had there: The Russians, the Chinese, the British, the Australians, the Malaysians. They had so many aircraft there that at one point, they had to bring in a separate aircraft to control their movements, so they didn't bump into each other. And still, nothing. Now, months later, they are gonna start again, but they couldn't find anything with all these entities before. This is very strange.

What is your gut feeling, will we at some point know more about what actually happened?

I think we will know more if there is full transparency of everything that everybody knows. I do not believe that the information held by some is on the table. Who actually disabled ACARS, who knew how to do it? If you eliminate the pilot on a suicide mission, I'm sure you could have put the aircraft in the South China Sea, rather than fly it for seven hours. So if he was on a suicide mission, he would have done it then. Who then took control of the aircraft? Who then knew how to disable ACARS and turn the transponder off? That is a huge challenge.

Can you understand that there is still so much disbelief everywhere how this could have ever happened in this time and age?

CLARK: Therein lies this huge question mark in my mind. I know this did not have to happen, there is technology to track these aircraft and everybody will say that, Boeing or Airbus. That is where the conundrum is of mystery, that is where we must be more forthright and candid as to what went on, it is not good enough for the Malaysian military to say: "On a prime radar we identified it as 'friendly'".

The role of the Malaysian military appears to be particularly murky.

CLARK: This is a very busy part of Southeast Asia, the notion that we should not be able to identify if it is friend or foe, or we can on primary radar and do nothing about it, is bizarre. What would have happened if the aircraft would have turned back to fly into the Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumpur? But we identified it as "friendly"? Friendly with intent, or friendly without intent? But what was done? These are the questions that need to be asked of the people and the entities that were involved in all of this. Full transparency of that will help us to find out what went on.

(6) Acoustic waves provide rival Scientific data to Inmarsat - Usama Kadri

Effect of sea-bottom elasticity on the propagation of acoustic­gravity waves from impacting objects

Usama Kadri

Published online 29 January 2019

Last but not least, a fifth signal appears at 3:07 (see Fig. 5). This signal probably indicates restarting the system after it was shutdown for 25 minutes, i.e. there is a missing data in these specific CTBTO recordings. ... The locations of signals found on HA08s are with high uncertainty or unknown and require further analysis. Though, if related to MH370 that might suggest a location in the northern part of the Indian Ocean. Due to the sensitivity of the recorded data, it is unlikely that the three hydrophones on HA08s had a simultaneous technical failure and the reason behind the shut down is to-date unknown. The missing data might be related to the military action in the area (during or after the impact), but another argument is that a violent nearby activity (including impact, explosion) could have resulted in a shutdown of the system. Both the signal HA_30 of bearing 247° recorded at 11:57 on March 7th, and the missing data if related to MH370 could (independently) suggest that the impact location is closer to Diego Garcia's station, as opposed to Cape Leeuwin's station.

The text at Figure 5 says, "Figure 5. Raw data recorded by all three hydrophones of HA08s. The sharp signal indicates restarting the system after 25 minutes of missing data on all three hydrophones starting from 3:07 UTC."

(7) Acoustic data recorded on March 8th 2014 at Diego Garcia

Rewinding the waves: tracking underwater signals to their source Article | OPEN | Published: 24 October 2017

Rewinding the waves: tracking underwater signals to their source

Usama Kadri, Davide Crivelli, Wade Parsons, Bruce Colbourne & Amanda Ryan Scientific Reportsvolume 7, Article number: 13949 (2017) | Download Citation

Abstract Analysis of data, recorded on March 8th 2014 at the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organisation's hydroacoustic stations off Cape Leeuwin Western Australia, and at Diego Garcia, reveal unique pressure signatures that could be associated with objects impacting at the sea surface, such as falling meteorites, or the missing Malaysian Aeroplane MH370. To examine the recorded signatures, we carried out experiments with spheres impacting at the surface of a water tank, where we observed almost identical pressure signature structures. While the pressure structure is unique to impacting objects, the evolution of the radiated acoustic waves carries information on the source. Employing acoustic­gravity wave theory we present an analytical inverse method to retrieve the impact time and location. The solution was validated using field observations of recent earthquakes, where we were able to calculate the eruption time and location to a satisfactory degree of accuracy. Moreover, numerical validations confirm an error below 0.02% for events at relatively large distances of over 1000 km. The method can be developed to calculate other essential properties such as impact duration and geometry. Besides impacting objects and earthquakes, the method could help in identifying the location of underwater explosions and landslides.


The vast majority of literature on underwater sound (acoustic) waves neglects the effects of gravity, which is justified for many applications because the speed of sound in water far exceeds the maximum phase speed of gravity waves. However, it has been shown recently that gravitational effects play a prominent role under two scenarios.

The first scenario concerns energy exchange between gravity and acoustic waves via resonant triad nonlinear interactions1,2. This mechanism may provide a natural explanation of the generation of underwater faint earth tremors, namely microseisms3,4, if the elasticity of the sea-floor is considered5. Employing a similar mechanism6, some of the energy found initially in surface gravity waves can be withdrawn and redistributed over a larger space, resulting in a modulation of the original gravity wave, as argued to be useful by a recent tsunami-induced damage mitigation technique7.

The second scenario concerns the propagation of low frequency acoustic waves, e.g. generated from energetic impacts at the surface, underwater explosions, or submarine earthquakes8. Here, some of the basic acoustic mode properties, such as amplitude and speed, can be modulated fundamentally9. Such modulation proved to be significant, not only when dealing with direct problems, such as the early detection of tsunami9,10,11 or the generation of deep water currents12, but also when treating inverse problems13.

To properly describe the propagation of acoustic waves under the effects of gravity we employ acoustic-gravity wave theory, which accounts for both the slight compressibility of water and gravitational effects. The propagating acoustic modes are referred to as acoustic­gravity waves, to distinguish them from acoustic waves described using Ôpure' acoustic theory where gravity is omitted. Although our understanding of underwater acoustic­gravity waves is relatively recent, acoustic­gravity wave theory proved to have a broad spectrum of applications.

In this study, we are concerned with tracking underwater low frequency signals, in particular those generated from impacting objects at the sea surface, originally motivated by locating the missing Malaysian Aeroplane MH370. To this end, we solve the inverse problem which allows calculating the impact time and location. We found that impacting objects have a unique pressure signature, that has been employed to identify a few events, recorded on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organisation's (CTBTO) hydrophones, possibly initiated from falling meteorites, and others that could be associated with MH370.


To study the pressure signature more carefully, we carried out experiments with weighted spheres that hit the water surface in a water tank (see Methods). The experiments confirmed a unique structure of the signature comprising three regions, I, II, and III, that are believed to be associated with the initial impact, cavitation, and secondary impact or reverberations, respectively (Fig. 1).

... Corresponding author Correspondence to Usama Kadri. ==

(8) Blaine Gibson claims stalking, death threats and assassination; says debris found disproves pilot suicide theory

US wreck hunter Blaine Gibson claims stalking, death threats and assassination prevent MH370 mystery being solved

STALKING, death threats and even assassination are preventing the mystery from ever being solved, the man who has found the most debris from the doomed aircraft has claimed.

Staff writers News Corp Australia Network

MAY 29, 2018

STALKING, death threats and assassination are preventing one of the world's greatest aviation mysteries - what happened to Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 - from being solved, according to wreck hunter Blaine Gibson.

Gibson, a self-styled investigator who has been described as an "Indiana Jones crusader", has been credited with discovering over two dozen pieces of the doomed plane.

The US lawyer and blogger called off his one-man mission in March last year.

But with the latest search for the missing plane scheduled to conclude tomorrow, Gibson has claimed criminal methods are being employed to prevent more MH370 debris being handed to authorities, effectively stifling the four-year search.

In an interview with The West Australian, Gibson, who is said to have found more than half of the debris that has been discovered of the ill-fated jet, said his own search was subjected to intimidation, stalking, death threats, defamation and assassination.

"For whatever reasons, some people are very upset that I and other private citizens are finding pieces of the plane," he told the newspaper.

Gibson alleged those illegal acts included the murder of Houssenaly Zahid Raza, the Honorary Malaysian Consul in Madagascar, last year. Raza was gunned down in the centre of the island nation's capital Antananarivo in an apparent assassination on August 24.

Raza had been due to deliver new MH370 items to Malaysian investigators in Kuala Lumpur when he was unexpectedly slain. One of those pieces was said to be the baseplate of an aerodynamic fin, from the top of a Boeing engine that would not normally come off.

"It should not have broken away and, according to aerodynamic experts, this could only happen in an extreme event," Gibson told The West Australian.

Gibson also claimed authorities were dawdling on a report on personal effects of passengers on MH370 he had found.

As US search company Ocean Infinity wraps up its search in the southern Indian Ocean, Gibson called for the Malaysian government to offer a reward to locals for debris found in the Indian Ocean.

"This should have been done a long time ago," Gibson said.

"There is so much more out there and pieces I have handed in to local authorities have not been collected by the Malaysians. A reward would galvanise many villagers to collect pieces that are just lying on beaches. Some of these could be critical to the investigation." ...

(9) MH370 'wreck hunter' says debris found disproves pilot suicide theory

FMT Reporters - January 21, 2018 11:45 AM

PETALING JAYA: An independent wreck hunter who has searched for Malaysian Airlines flight MH370's parts over the past three years has claimed that debris recovered thus far negate speculation of the pilot deliberately crashing the plane in a murder-suicide.

Blaine Gibson was reported by Australia's ABC news network today as saying that the theory was disproven by evidence that the fuselage of the Boeing 777-200ER had shattered on impact and was not under water.

He said the wing flap was found to be retracted and not deployed for landing, indicating that there was no controlled glide.

"It has been examined by Boeing, examined by the ATSB (Australian Transport Safety Bureau), and they have concluded that it was in a retracted mid-flight position, not in a landing position," he claimed.

"The original theory to explain away Malaysia 370 forever was the 'pilot suicide controlled glide ditching theory' - that somehow the pilot decided that he was going to kill everybody on the plane, ditch the plane, sink it intact and create a big mystery," he added.

"I can say categorically, absolutely, that did not happen. "

Gibson said a TV monitor casing he had found on Riake beach in Madagascar had clearly come from the back of an airplane seat.

He said if it was from MH370, it was a "very significant piece of debris" because it disproved the theory that the plane glided intact into the ocean.

"It proves that the fuselage, the main cabin, shattered on impact. The fuselage is not as some people claim intact under water. It shattered on impact," he was quoted as saying.

According to ABC, Gibson had together with local islanders and fishermen found at least 20 pieces of wreckage confirmed or deemed likely to have come from the plane on remote Indian Ocean islands and the east coast of Africa.

Among them was a right wing flaperon, right aft flap and right outboard flap, the report said.

Gibson claimed that some of personal items like bags and shoes, though not confirmed as coming from MH370, matched those seen on CCTV footage of people boarding the plane at the Kuala Lumpur International Airport (KLIA).

He however added that there were no items like luggage tags, passports and identity cards that could be positively linked to the plane.

The ABC report said the personal effects were long ago handed to Malaysian authorities who have never confirmed any as being from MH370.

MH370, helmed by Captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah, disappeared en route to Beijing from KLIA with 227 passengers and 12 crew on board on March 8, 2014.

On Jan 10 this year, Ocean Infinity, a US seabed exploration company, inked a deal with the Malaysian government to search for the missing plane on a "no cure, no fee" basis.

The search involves the use of the Norwegian Seabed Constructor vessel equipped with advanced submersibles covering an area of 25,000 sq km within 90 days.

(10) Blaine Gibson in hiding for six years because of death threats over MH370 Debris

How intrepid wreck hunter Blaine Gibson who has spent years finding pieces of missing flight MH370 in a quest for truth has been in hiding for six years because of death threats over his discoveries

Analysis by Blaine Gibson and Richard Godfrey has suggested plane was crashed quickly and intentionally Gibson said he has faced threats from trolls and has experienced other personal attacks Some of these have come from people with strong feelings about the fate of the flight


PUBLISHED: 05:46 AEDT, 20 December 2022 | UPDATED: 09:20 AEDT, 20 December 2022

Wreck hunter Blaine Gibson has faced a torrent of abuse on his quest to find the debris from Flight MH370.

The Malaysian Airlines passenger jet went down with 239 passengers on board somewhere over the Indian Ocean in March 2014.

Analysis by Gibson, a former lawyer from Seattle, and Richard Godfrey, a British engineer, has suggested the plane was crashed quickly and intentionally.

Since then, Gibson has traveled across the Indian Ocean to discover potential pieces of wreckage from the flight.

He has jetted over to the Australian search and rescue zone in the southern part of the Indian Ocean, the Maldives to speak with villagers who claim to have spotted the plane and also to Réunion Island to talk to the man who discovered the flaperon from MH370.

His search has involved speaking to witnesses and interviewing people who have reported debris.

Gibson, aged 65, told The Times that he has been threatened by trolls and has also experienced a number of other personal attacks.

Some of these have come from people with strong feelings about the fate of the flight.

One theory proposed that the plane was taken over under the orders of Russian President Vladimir Putin and flown to Kazakhstan.

Another claims it was gunned down in the South China Sea and drawn into a time warp, or that it is resting in shallow water off Western Australia.

Gibson said that people refuse to believe the plane came down in the region that it did, noting that they try to undermine his evidence.

Speaking in MH370: The Vanishing, a three-part Channel 5 documentary, aired in May, Blaine said he feared someone who was trying to prevent Malaysia MH370 from being found might take violent action against him.

He said: 'I started to get death threats from anonymous people. Things like "No plane, no Blaine" and telling me to give up my search.

'One made a call to a friend of mine saying I would not leave Madagascar alive.

'I was being followed and I was being photographed and, yes, it's very disturbing. It's intimidating.' ...

He also argued that Malaysia has not properly investigated the disappearance and mentioned that he has faced adversity there. ...

Last month, a landing gear door was found in the possession of a Madagascan fisherman.

According to experts, it is the first piece of evidence found that suggests one of the Malaysian Airlines pilots acted intentionally.

A report from Godfrey and Gibson, released this month, said: 'The level of damage with fractures on all sides and the extreme force of the penetration right through the debris item lead to the conclusion that the end of the flight was in a high-speed dive designed to ensure the aircraft broke up into as many pieces as possible. The crash of MH370 was anything but a soft landing on the ocean.'

It added: 'The realistic possibility that the landing gear was lowered shows both an active pilot and an attempt to ensure the plane sank as fast as possible after impact.

'The combination of the high-speed impact designed to break up the aircraft and the extended landing gear designed to sink the aircraft as fast as possible both show a clear intent to hide the evidence of the crash.'

Gibson and others involved in the search hope the plane and its black box flight recorders will be discovered next year in an undersea search by Ocean Infinity, which deploys robotic technologies to capture ocean data.

Gibson told CNN: 'Until I or someone else finds the plane and the truth about what happened to it and the passengers, [I'll keep going]. The search must go on, it can't stop when the present search area is exhausted. We have to solve this mystery.'

(11) Blaine Gibson recounts his interviews with Maldives witnesses (at Kudahuvadhoo)

Maldives Revisited

By Blaine Alan Gibson

12 August 2016

1. The Kudahuvadhoo witnesses saw a large low flying jet plane with, depending on the witnesses' perspective, varying amounts of white, red, blue, and silver colors the morning of March 8 2014, at times ranging from 6:15 to 6:30 am. The plane approached from the northwest, and turned upon reaching the island to head almost due south. All five who were shown photos of the domestic Dash 8 turbo prop planes quickly stated that was NOT the plane they saw. Three of five interviewed positively identified 9M MRO as the plane they saw, and two said it could be. All the witnesses have been to Male and either seen or flown on the large jets, and are perfectly capable of telling the difference between a large jet, a propeller plane, and a seaplane. One European on a nearby island heard the same sound the same day at about 6 am, and clearly identified it as a jet engine. He was in his room so did not see it. Many other witnesses heard and saw the plane, but are reluctant to talk with us about it because the Maldives government said there was no plane.

Details of past and recent interviews with witnesses are below.

2. Maldives radar did not detect the plane seen over Kudahuvadhoo, and could not have detected it, because Maldives does not have primary radar anywhere. Maldives only has secondary radar at Male International airport, which is well out of range of Kudahuvadhoo, and neither saw nor would have seen the plane that early morning.

This was confirmed by sources at Male Airport Operations, ATC, and the, Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF).

3. Last year an article was published in Le Monde claiming that a domestic Dash 8 propeller plane, Maldivian flight 149, flew off course over Kudahuvadhoo and landed at Thimarafushi at 6:33 AM March 8, 2014. This claim was repeated widely in the press, and was republished in a book by the same author this year. This claim was used to dismiss the testimony of more than twenty eyewitnesses who reported seeing a large low flying jet, and state they saw flight 149 instead. The attached official flight records prove this claim to be totally incorrect. There was no such flight.

The plane seen by the Kudahuvadhoo witnesses was NOT any of the Dash 8 Turbo propeller plane domestic flights. According to Maldives ATC they never fly over Kudahuvadhoo, and none were flying to or from any nearby airports around the time of the sighting. When Die Zeit reporter Bastian Berbner inquired with the head of Maldives Civil Aviation about the domestic Dash 8 flight schedules, and flight 149 in particular, he was told Civil Aviation does not maintain those records, and to inquire with Male Airport Operations and Air Traffic Control. So we did.

We have obtained the actual flight records for March 8 2014 from an official within Male airport operations. They were later confirmed by a Male ATC official.

The flight records prove that earlier reports in the press of a domestic flight 149 from Male to Thimarafushi landing at 6:33 are false. There was no such flight. The earliest plane flying that route departed Male at 7:35, more than an hour after the Kudahuvadhoo sighting. The real flight 149 flew in the opposite direction landing at Male at 7: 24.The flight from Thimarafushi takes 27 minutes, meaning a takeoff at 6:57, also well after the sighting.

The actual flight records are below. They were given to us by an official at Male Airport Operations and confirmed by Air Traffic Control.

Both sources also confirmed, together with Maldivian pilots, that when the Dash 8s do fly between Male and Thimarafushi and / or Kaadedhdhoo, they never fly near Kudahuvadhoo, and in fact fly 22 nautical miles to the east. The flight track is below. [...]

1 A Eyewitness accounts

Abdu Rasheed

Abdu Rasheed, an employee of the Court, had the best view of the plane. The plane approached him at 6:15 AM from the northwest and flew on a bearing of 121 degrees towards the island, and upon reaching the southwest corner executed a deliberate turn heading South/SE at a bearing of about 168 degrees. As it turned he saw it was a mostly white plane with a long row of windows and a red stripe. When shown a picture of a Dash 8 propeller plane, he said that was definitely not the plane he saw. He added that he never saw those planes fly near Kudahuvadhoo. When shown pictures of different planes he positively identified MH 370 as the plane he saw.

Other witnesses' testimony is consistent with Abdu Rasheed's based on the angles they saw it.

Humaam Don

Humaam heard a loud noise and saw a white plane with blue and some red markings as it flew by and away from him towards the southeast. He also noted "slight steam" coming from the plane. He was hanging laundry when he first heard and saw it, then ran in front of his house, then onto the street, and watched it for about 15 seconds as it passed behind a large breadfruit tree. He has never seen any plane flying low overhead before. When shown pictures of Maldivian Dash 8s, he said that definitely was NOT the plane he saw. He insisted the plane he saw was a large jet, that looked very much like 9M MRO.

Ahmed Shiyam

I met Ahmed on my trip a year ago but we spoke very briefly and he seemed afraid to talk. However this time he was more forthcoming. He explained that he was hesitant before because the government was always telling lies about the plane, but now he is fed up. He is a schoolteacher. He was out on his motorbike with his daughter early in the morning. At about 6:15 he heard a very loud noise and looked up. He saw a large jet plane. He saw the windows and bright white colors reflecting the sunlight. The sun was shining brightly so he did not notice the other colors. He clearly saw the bulge in the underbelly of the plane in between the two wings. He saw the two jet engines very clearly. The plane was headed north to south. He did not notice the turn because when he first saw the plane it was above him...he had not seen it approach. He was positioned east of Abdu Rasheed's position, so the plane had already turned when it reached him. The plane was flying very low and did not appear to be in trouble...there was no smoke or fire, There was steam coming out of both engines. The plane flew away from him level and steady, neither climbing nor descending. He had his cell phone with him but did not take a picture because he was holding his daughter on his motorbike. He has pictures from that day, and at my request he looked through them to see if any may have accidentally captured the plane...but none did. He is familiar with aircraft types as he has flown before. When I showed him a picture of the Dash 8 propeller planes he immediately rejected them. He never sees them fly over kudahuvadhoo, and that was not the type of plane he saw that morning. When I showed him the pictures of 9M MRO he positively identified it...especially when I showed him the attached one of the underbelly. He clearly recognized the bulge between the wings. The sun was shining brightly so he did not notice any writing under the wings. He and his daughter watched as the plane flew steadily and disappeared behind the trees.

Suhuriya Ali

Sururiya was in her garden when she heard and saw a large jet plane fly from northwest to south. She saw the silver underbelly, and no wheels. She clearly saw the jet propellers. She had never seen a plane fly this low before...only small dots way high in the sky with a contrail. When she saw the news on TV that a plane was missing, she thought and said "that's what I saw". When we showed her pictures of Maldivian Dash 8 turbo props, she laughed and shook her head and said no. She positively identified 9M MRO as the plane she saw.

Ibrahim Nasir

Ibrahim works as a handyman for the island council. I had neither met nor interviewed him before, He was jogging around the island and was east of Abdu Rasheed's location at about 6:15 the morning of March 8, 2014 when he heard a very loud sound. He recognized it as an Airbus or Boeing jet because he is married to a Sri Lankan and flies there a lot. The plane was coming very fast and above him, and he watched it crossing Kudahuvadhoo. The bottom of the plane was silver, and he saw a line of red and blue. The plane was turning so he did not see the white. When I showed him pictures he positively identified 9M MRO when he saw the picture showing some of the underside. He quickly rejected the photos of the Maldivian Dash 8 propeller plane. He said he never sees the propeller planes in Kudahuvadhoo, but has seen them in Male, and that was not the plane he saw, and that they make a different sound. He said that the villagers were talking about the large jet plane for the next two or three days after the sighting, and that when he saw a picture of the missing Malaysian plane he recognized it. He had only given one interview before the one with me, and said he also recognized the Malaysian jet when shown pictures.

The witnesses live on a flat atoll and are not used to seeing planes, so they would not even venture a guess as to the altitude. However based on where they pointed, the angles, and their descriptions, and my own experience observing jets landing and taking off at airports, I would guess the altitude was about 500 to 1000 feet.

European (who chooses to remain unidentified)

He was inside his room on the nearby Nyamo resort island resort getting dressed at about 6:00 on March 8 2014 when he heard a very loud noise which he immediately recognized as a large jet plane. Seaplanes fly often to the resort, but he knows it was not one of those, and they did not have one coming in at that time. He never hears or sees the domestic Dash 8 planes fly near Nyamo, but he knows them from Male and says they make a very different sound. The plane he heard was definitely a large jet. He is able to fix the exact date he heard it because a friend asked him about it, and he heard about the missing Malaysia airlines plane and the talk about a large jet plane over Kudahuvadhoo. But he did not make the connection because the Malaysian plane was supposed to be in the Gulf of Thailand. This man obviously flies a lot and knows what planes sound like. He has never been interviewed before. He said no guests were up yet, and says the resort has no security cameras.

Concluding remarks

This report makes no attempt or claim to prove that the large low flying jet plane seen over Kudahuvadhoo that fateful early morning was MH 370. It merely sets the record straight that the jet plane that overflew Kudahuvadhoo has not yet been identified. The Maldives government first claimed there was "no plane", then the plane was a "private jet", then fifteen months later a "domestic propeller plane flight", then back to "no plane", then finally to say it cannot be discussed due to "national security". And previously reputable international media have been readily willing to mop up and regurgitate each of those evolving claims. Any truly investigative reporter might ask why the official story has changed so many times. If this highly credible eyewitness testimony is to be dismissed, it must be done so based on credible evidence to the contrary, not based on fantasy propeller plane flights and private jets that do not exist.

Fuel calculations done by a professional pilot show that if flown at generally 20,000 ft. at the holding fuel consumption rate, MH370 could have remained flying for 9 hours and 1 minute until 01:43 UTC, about thirty minutes after the Kudahuvadhoo sighting. The map below shows a possible route flown based on radar records and eyewitness testimony within those fuel calculations. Based on the fuel loading records and the last ACARS fuel reading, MH 370 could have still been flying until 6:15 Maldives time, though it would have been near fuel exhaustion.

The MH 370 debris recovered by the author and other concerned private citizens is consistent with a crash site both south of the Maldives, in the northern part of the current search area, or anywhere in between. This report also makes no attempt to reconcile the Kudahuvadhoo sighting with the location and timing of the mainstream interpretation of the Inmarsat data. Perhaps some experts can. However it is undeniable that if the eyes of the satellite are for whatever reason wrong, the eyes of the fishermen may just be right.

This evidence could not have been obtained and this report could not have been written without the invaluable assistance of the courageous Kudahuvadhoo witnesses themselves, Haam Waheed and his many courageous friends and contacts, and Bastian Berbner of Die Zeit Magazine, whose excellent in depth article on MH 370 is published in hard copy now.

(12) Fake solution of MH370 mystery in The Atlantic Monthly of July 2019

What Really Happened to Malaysia's Missing Airplane
Five years ago, the flight vanished into the Indian Ocean. Officials on land know more about why than they dare to say.

William Langewiesche
JULY 2019


by Peter Myers, July 9, 2019


1. Alleges Pilot Suicide by Zaharie.

2. says "Technical analysis indicates with near certainty that the airplane turned south. We know this from Inmarsat's second logged value".

3. Interviews wreckage-hunter Blaine Gibson; the authors assume that MH370 went down off Western Australia, & that wreckage floated to Madagascar.

4. Blaine's plan for wreckage he found: "would hand it to Malaysia's honorary consul, who would pack it up and ship it to Kuala Lumpur for examination and storage. On August 24 of that year, the honorary consul was gunned down in his car by an assassin"

5. Author comment: "But the idea that the debris is worth killing for is hard to take seriously."

6. Author comment: "The important answers probably don't lie in the ocean but on land, in Malaysia. ... If Blaine Gibson wants a real adventure, he might spend a year poking around Kuala Lumpur."


1. Pilot suicide does not make sense if MH370 flew 5 hours or more. If Zaharie wanted to suicide, he would have done it much sooner.

2. The Atlantic Monthly itself ran an article in 2014, featuring outside experts saying that Inmarsat's analysis is wrong; and that investigators could be looking in the wrong ocean.

Why the Official Explanation of MH370's Demise Doesn't Hold Up . Full text is at item 2 above.

3. Why was one of Blaine Gibson's associates assassinated? And why has Blaine Gibson received death threats?

The Australian newspaper reported:

US wreck hunter Blaine Gibson claims stalking, death threats and assassination prevent MH370 mystery being solved

STALKING, death threats and even assassination are preventing the mystery from ever being solved, the man who has found the most debris from the doomed aircraft has claimed.

News Corp Australia Network

May 29, 2018 2:02pm

"For whatever reasons, some people are very upset that I and other private citizens are finding pieces of the plane," he told the newspaper."

If it's just Pilot Suicide, why would anyone care about the wreckage he's found? But if MH370 was hijacked by an Intelligence Agency, obviously they WOULD care. Finding the wreck might lead to them being implicated; especially if MH370 is found to have flown West.

The threats to Blaine Gibson only make sense if the plane went down near Madagascar / Reunion, and he was getting close to finding it.

Which would mean that sightings in the Maldives were genuine, and that the CIA base at Diego Garcia was behind the disappearance of MH370.

Further, that it was hijacked by the CIA, probably to stop Freescale technology and engineering know-how reaching China.

(13) French spy tells Ghyslain Wattrelos that American Intelligence Agencies took MH370

My family vanished on MH370 ­ a mysterious spy 'Mr B' told me who knows EXACT location of doomed jet, dad tells new doc

Imogen Braddick

Published: 14:06, 7 Mar 2023 Updated: 14:42, 7 Mar 2023

AN engineer whose wife and two children vanished on MH370 said a spy told him the United States know the exact location of the doomed jet.

Ghyslain Wattrelos said an intelligence officer called "Mr B" approached him and told him "the Americans know full well what happened".

The business executive lost his wife Laurence, 51, son Hadrien, 17, and 13-year-old daughter Ambre when the plane vanished on March 8, 2014.

The Boeing 777 aircraft was on route from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing with 239 passengers and crew on board when contact was lost and is disappearance remains the greatest unsolved aviation mystery.

Ghyslain had flown from Paris to Beijing to meet his family.

But instead of reuniting with his wife and kids, he was met by French diplomats when he stepped off the plane, who told him MH370 was missing.

In the agonising months that followed with no clear answers, the dad claimed he was "fed nonsense" about what happened to the plane.

Ghyslain said he "cannot accept" the plane disappeared and is working "every day, every week" in a bid to get answers for his surviving son, Alex.

Speaking on a new Netflix series on the disappearance of the flight, Ghyslain said he was approached by someone in the intelligence community in the first year of the investigation who called himself "Mr B".

He said: "Someone I knew told me, 'Mr B would like to meet you. This person has information. He's someone who is very connected, connected to the secret services'.

"The first thing he told me was, 'the Americans know full well what happened, because there were two American AWACS that were monitoring the area at the time the plane disappeared'.

"These AWACS are Boeing planes with a huge radar like a mushroom on top. And this radar basically monitors everything underneath the Boeing.

"It's like a small satellite above the earth that sees everything that's happening in a 600km radius.

"Mr B said these two planes must have perfectly tracked the MH370, regardless of its state at any moment.

"They know where it crashed. They know where it is."

He added: "Why believe the official story when they're withholding essential pieces of evidence?"

An AWAC - used by the US Air Force and NATO - is an airborne radar system designed to detect aircraft, ships and missiles.

They are also used for surveillance.

Investigative journalist Florence de Changy said a US Air Force source told her the stealthy jets have "phenomenal jamming capabilities".

And like Ghyslain, she believes the official version of events is shrouded in deceit.

According to her theory, the jets intercepted MH370 after the US found out the flight was "carrying problematic cargo to China" - such as stolen technology.

Florence theorises that the US then did their "utmost to stop the cargo from arriving to its destination".

"I realised the AWACS had this capability to completely jam the communication system of MH370, making it disappear from the screens of the traffic controllers," Florence explained.

"Now I finally had a technical explanation to how and why MH370 suddenly disappeared and I tried to pull all this together in some kind of hypothetical scenario.

"On that night, this very mysterious and very suspicious cargo, without having been scanned, and which has been delivered under escort, is loaded on MH370."

Florence said it's "possible" the two jets moved into action while MH370 was in "no man's land" between two airspaces shortly after 1am on the fateful night.

Speaking on the docuseries, she explained the jets could have made MH370 disappear from the radar - or ordered Captain Zaharie to land.

But she believes Zaharie might have ignored the order to land - and jets were scrambled by the AWACS to take out the plane.

"When Captain Zaharie receives the order, it's possible he says 'no'. He does not accept this order," Florence said.

"I think he just continued on his planned route, going to Beijing. The tension would have continued to increase as Zaharie refused the orders.

"Eventually MH370 is getting close to Chinese airspace so the AWACS have to back off.

"And, as horrible as it may seem, they still need to stop the plane and its precious cargo from arriving in Beijing.

"So, either through a missile strike or a mid-air collision, MH370 met its fate.

"It has still some loose ends, but I believe I'm certainly much close to the truth than the official narrative."

Ghyslain said he found it difficult receiving information that the Americans were allegedly involved. ...

'People need to understand the FBI had this information before anyone else... the FBI was up to something," he said.

"For me, once again, it's more proof the Americans are involved.

"The FBI never handed anything to the official inquiry. Not even one report. So we'd like to know what they did.

"I believe Malaysia was 'The Stooge' in the story. They were updated, kept quiet somehow.

"So it's the Americans leading the investigation from the outset.

"It's the British who are locating the plane, with Inmarsat. And it's the Australians leading the search. Everybody is locked out." ...


(14) Jim Stone reports cell phone call from Philip Wood on Diego Garcia

Freelance journalist: 'Hijacked flight 370 passenger sent photo from hidden iPhone tracing back to secret U.S. military base Diego Garcia'

By Shepard Ambellas - March 31, 2014 | 5:43 am

INDIAN OCEAN (INTELLIHUB) - According to freelance journalist Jim Stone, one of the American passengers, Phillip Wood, a technical storage executive at IBM who was aboard the now missing Malaysian Airlines flight 370, somehow concealed his cellphone on his person after the Boeing 777 carrying 239 people was hijacked by military personnel while on route to China.

Amazingly Stone claims that metadata within the photo yields evidence confirming "100 percent" that Phillip Wood sent the photo along with a brief voice activated text from GPS coordinates which put Wood only a few miles away from the U.S. controlled Diego Garcia military base which is located on an island south of the Maldives in the Indian Ocean.

In his post Stone claims that the coordinates may be off by a few miles proving that passenger's iPhone 5 actually sent the otherwise blank black picture revealing nothing else. Stone speculates the picture was taken in a dark room or in some position in which Wood's hands were bound.

Stone reports how the all-black image was posted along with the following text allegedly from passenger Wood:

"I have been held hostage by unknown military personal after my flight was hijacked (blindfolded). I work for IBM and I have managed to hide my cellphone in my ass during the hijack. I have been separated from the rest of the passengers and I am in a cell. My name is Philip Wood. I think I have been drugged as well and cannot think clearly."

Stone's provocative report reveals the all-black image labeled "1395192158752.jpg" contains the following metadata:

Dimensions: 240 x 320
Device Make: Apple
Device Model: iPhone 5
Color Space: RGB
Color Profile: sRGB IEC61966-2.1
Focal Length: 4.12
Alpha Channel: No
Red Eye: No
F Number: 2.4
Exposure Program: 2
Exposure Time: 1/15

In his report, the freelance journalist points out in detail how the Exchangeable Image Format (EXIF) image data is actually the true "smoking gun."

Stone writes:

The Exif is intact. Exif data gets embedded in every image by every camera and includes the circumstances under which the photo was taken. It can be viewed by saving the image to your desktop, and then right clicking it and selecting image properties. Hit the details tab. You can see that the image was taken on March 18 with an iPhone 5, with the ISO at 3200 and a shutter of 1/15. The coordinates are included in the exif data because the iPhone knows where it is, and the coordinates are for Diego Garcia. THE FIRST TIME A BLANK PHOTO SAID IT ALL.

Exif can't be rewritten with common software, it can only be added to in fields such as image credits with some advanced applications. It can be erased as well but NOT CHANGED. Photos with the exif intact will hold up in court. If the Exif is hacked and this is not real, the CIA or a really good hacker did this, which I doubt, I'd say it's probably real.

Another smoking gun is that the voice recognition software put the word personal instead of personnel. This is completely consistent with a blind software assisted dial out.

Surrounding this story is the fact that the man who managed to get this information to Farganne (forum member Glitch) was harassed and received many threatening voice mails over it, that is another piece of evidence pointing to this as being real. One thing is certain, once it's posted here on this site the genie is OUT OF THE BOTTLE. I cannot stress how important it is that the GPS coordinates in the photo do not perfectly match what Google says and are not posted anywhere on the web, because it proves that the source of those coordinates did not come from google or Wikipedia, they really did come from the imaging device and it HAD TO be at Diego Garcia when it took the photo.


(15) Netflix doco on MH370 vilifies Blaine Gibson


By Geoffrey Thomas

March 17, 2023

The recent MH370 "show" broadcast by Netflix seriously questioned the integrity of the debris from the downed Boeing 777 and that of the many people who found the pieces.

The show, MH370: The Plane That Disappeared, also called into question the motives of wreck hunter Blaine Gibson who has done fantastic work raising awareness of MH370 amongst local fishermen so they would hand in any pieces that they found.

This is critically important work as the smallest piece can hold clues as to what happened to MH370 which claimed 239 lives.

Blaine has been vilified by a number of people who have suggested either directly or indirectly, that he is just seeking publicity and incredibly "planting" debris.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

The reality is so very different that when the truth emerges it's almost not recognisable.

Here is the summary of all the debris pieces found thus far prepared by Richard Godfrey whose breakthrough work on tracking MH370 has given searchers a more precise location.

The first SIX pieces found were located by locals in Reunion Island, South Africa, Madagascar and Mozambique from mid-2015 to early 2016. Blaine had been searching for debris for some time with no success.

Blaine's first actual find was seven months after the first debris was located.

After the first debris was found, Blaine sought out the help of Charitha Pattiaratchi a Winthrop Professor of coastal oceanography at the University of Western Australia.

Chari advised Blaine to scour the lonely and mostly deserted beaches of the many islands of the western Indian Ocean for debris.

Blaine set off and did exactly that, but again we repeat ­ his first find was seven months after the first find.

After Blaine's first find another seven pieces were located by seven different people in seven different locations.

So for the first 14 pieces that were found, Blaine found just one himself!

Then Blaine found a number of pieces in two locations in mid-2016 ­ three on June 6 and 2 on June 12 and then locals turned over more.

Another seven pieces were then found by various people in once again seven different locations.

In late 2016 Blaine found another piece.

Of the 39 pieces found, Blaine actually only found 6 himself and the other 33 were found by 26 different people.

What Blaine did, however, was to use publicity ­ TV, radio and online ­ to raise awareness amongst locals so they would hand in pieces that were being used as tables and even washing boards.

And that worked as 14 pieces were handed to Blaine, who is responsible for getting a total of 20 pieces into the hands of authorities.

It is almost certain that anyone walking the beaches of Madagascar, South Africa and a host of other countries bounding the western side of the Indian Ocean will find pieces of MH370 as there is absolutely no question that the aircraft was shattered on impact and its fuselage was ruptured as some of the debris comes from inside the cabin.

Instead of accusing Blaine, everyone interested in this tragedy should thank him for finding so much debris and more importantly raising awareness amongst locals.

The first piece of debris was found on Reunion Island on July 29, 2015, by Johny Begue.


Also see the parent webpage of this one, MH370.html.

Copyright: Peter Myers asserts the right to be identified as the author of the material written by him on this website, being material that is not otherwise attributed to another author.


Write to me at contact.html.