Routes (Episode 11)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ก.ย. 2024
- Today’s episode is something of a double-header, as we address two different but related topics: the scientific method, and how Andy and Jeff’s efforts fit into it. In the first half of the show, Andy and Jeff talk about their personal histories, and how their experiences prepared them for tackling the mystery of MH370. In the second half, Jeff describes how working on this mystery has shaped his understanding of the scientific method, and in particular how scientists deal with uncertainties in data and in their knowledge of initial conditions. Understanding so-called Bayesian methods is crucial, because it’s the approach that search officials used in defining the search area on the seabed of the southern Indian Ocean. For more, visit their website at deepdivemh370.com.
![เกิดใหม่ทั้งทีก็เป็นสไลม์ไปซะแล้ว ซีซั่น 3 - ตอนที่ 69 [ซับไทย]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QuodflInQT8/mqdefault.jpg)
![[Re:all TREASURE] EP.6 in 방콕ㅣ🚩 쩡캠의 방콕 투어 빵 마이 와이 👍](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/uyFw-nItA_s/mqdefault.jpg)
I'm now hooked on this series. As a bit of a nerd this is better than 99.9% of box sets. Keep it up and I look forward to continuing.
Thank you! We're taking a hiatus at the moment but will be back soon. /JW
Great video, can’t wait till next week 🙌
I find it diffucult to believe that if the plane went to the Indian Ocean, that the military base at Diego Garcia didnt detect it. They surely even have satellite radars that work similar to the primary radar in the plane, by reflecting radio waves, how come the US has zero info on this.
I think the U turn was not necessarily handled by the pilot himself. Autopilot apparently cannot make such high angle turns but that's cause probably it has programmed into it that the autopilot should never surpass a certain turning angle for security. A skilled hacker though, could perfectly make that U turn by controlling the plane, I think most likely, remotely. Just like in video games. Honestly, it seems that U turn was programmed beforehand because I'm assuming turns like that are highly dangerous for aircrafts of such size as the 777. So it get the feeling that turn was calculated mathematically, by a machine and called to action by the hacker on land. This is all my speculation of course but I think it's just another possible alternative theory.
Are you going address the orbs circling the plane discovered from a orbiting satellite or simply ignore it?
Some people seem to find it credible and compelling. My only question is: within the seven-hour process of MH370's disappearance, from the turnback at 17:21 to the last Inmarsat transmission at 0:19, where do you think this event took place?
SomeOrdinaryGamer has a video specifically debunking those orb videos. Some of the graphics seen in them come directly from an old school shooter game called Killing Time.
You can find these debunking videos right here on TH-cam.
I am sure this is coming, but is there a map of the probability of the North route? I know Baikonur sounds probable, but where else could it have gone? Is there any updated thinking from the books? Any thoughts on the new locations in the Southern Indian Ocean people want to search?
Good question.
It's worth mentioning the idea of understandable or at least not so ridiculous places to go which can comply with the satellite data experiment. For example, the middle of nowhere in the southern Indian Ocean is not an understandable place to go for any theory of what happened to mh370. It's a ridiculous place for anyone actually to choose to fly the plane to, including if considering a notion that the pilot wanted to kill himself.
If going north, on the other hand, Baikonur can be an understandable place to go to, and not ridiculous in terms of examining some theories. I don't know if there would be many other such places which are northerly and more or less in range with the BTO & BFO experiments.
We’ll start talking about this in episode 13!
This is an interesting video. Thanks.
I take some issue with what Jeff says that numerous turns and changes of speed are possible but really unlikely. You ask in this situation of all situations, "Why would anybody do that?"
Actually though, there is really no basis to fall upon the position that unusual changes in the flight would have been unlikely and there is a perfectly reasonable rationale to explain why such an unusual flight was not unlikely in the circumstances. It's worth reminding ourselves these can be the most unusual flight circumstances which have happened in peace time.
Such changes fit exactly the profile of stealth and evasion of the suggested early route. If we believe both the primary radar being mh370 and also bank upon a general southerly route from the satellite data experiment, there are three abrupt, severe turns already, purely made to be evasive and a short primary radar profile potentially suggesting a very strange flying style.
Therefore there would be every reason to estimate whoever was in control would want to keep up such a flight profile. That's a long distance away from it being "really unlikely" as you suggest. It's really unlikely for normal flying of course, but obviously this single flight can be viewed as the single phenomenon furthest away from normal flying in history. That's true whatever would have happened, whatever the reason or explanation behind everything can have been. Continuing stealthy turns and changes of speed fit well even the claim that the pilot stole the plane, not quite sure what information was sent live or sent unmonitored & stored, and concerned about ships' radar below.
Also you're talking about it being "really unlikely" changes of speed and heading would have been made purely with regard to the notion that the plane went close to the southern Indian Ocean area already searched. Yet the whole theory that that area where the plane went to is completely unlikely in itself in terms of formulating an explanation, whatever the satellite data experiment might or might not suggest.
There is no sensible reason to go there. It makes the least sense of going anywhere within range. Therefore to talk then about changes in speed or heading being really unlikely (without any rationale there from what we do know is a some kind of a unique flight event) is logically inconsistent with the southern Indian Ocean route the point is made to support.
I'm sorry that I happen to be someone who jumps on points in a critical way. However regarding mh370 and the strangeness of the satellite data experiment and hypothesised Indian Ocean destination, I've long seen there is often a lot of woolly thinking around those subjects - which is rarely tackled but very much ought to be.
Also, just to point out, the suggestion there could have been a 1% chance the data was "somehow tampered with in a way that you don't really understand " is completely random.
With just as much mathematical validity as you (which isn't much if we're both honest) I suggest there is a 42% chance the data was somehow tampered with - purely as a retort to your suggestion of a 1% chance.
@@lecochonbleu It's a feature of Bayesian induction that estimates of prior probability are necessarily subjective. So, yes, 42 % is as valid as 1 %. Also, I think you misunderstand the logic behind why a complicated path is less likely than a straight path. It isn't merely that I find it hard to understand why someone, flying at night over an open ocen where no one is watching, would engage in a twisting, complicated flight path and/or random changes in engine setting and/or altitude; it's rather that, if one supposes that a pilot has decided to fly this way, and imagines all the possible routes he could have taken, the chance that any particular one of them would have matched the data would be quite low. It's hard to explain the logic here in such a limited space, if you're interested in pursuing this topic I would suggest reading the Australian government's book on the topic which you can find readily online: "Bayesian Methods in the Search
for MH370"
@@DeepDiveMH370
Thanks for the interesting mathematical reply which somehow concerns probability! 😂 It's different - and certainly interesting!
Yes, I did misunderstand regarding the suggested flight style in a straight line and at more or less standardised velocity. I did think you were justifying those suggested flight characteristics because they would give a generally unusual flying style and therefore should not be taken seriously.
This brings me to another phenomenon then - what you tell me you were describing, and brings me back to discussions I had with others in mh370 groups some years back.
This is, as you say, that the estimated flight pattern of more or less a straight line at a pretty unchanging or at least similar speed is the likely route because that's what the satellite data experiment says - somehow.
Actually I didn't understand it then and I was told that I was lucky enough in discussing with a few others to come across the few people who would actually "disclose" that, it seemed to them, nobody actually understood it. By this, they explained, over quite some time and a good deal of asking people who involved themselves in the satellite theory, who were making their own calculations, what they found was that either people admitted they didn't understand this or said that they did understand it but weren't able even to approach giving an explanation.
Some of the people who said it was "like that" said it was just a given, that it wasn't something explained and they couldn't work it out without the full data set and method which only Inmarsat had and has.
Whilst clearly, as stated before, I understand that the satellite data experiment is nothing of established or accepted science, however that doesn't necessarily need to mean that it is wrong or that there is nothing in it.
I think I understand that the suggestion is, somehow, that the BFO data suggests intersections on the BTO arcs which happen to coincide with hypothesised routes which are more or less straight and typically at a constant speed. I think that means also (does that also mean?) it is further suggested that there are no good fits for BFO data giving BTO Arc intersections from other than flying in more or less a straight line and at a pretty constant speed?
It sounds quite weird to me (but what do I know!).
Is this, though, more or less or not too far off, the reason you are giving for the suggested flying style of a pretty constant speed and without significant direction changes?
Is it within the realm of possibility that the plane is in the area searched, but was missed for some reason, for instance because of the terrain ?
It's not impossible and indeed that's what some members of the Independent Group have claimed for quite some time.
However the plane could just as easily have gone somewhere else in the ocean or potentially landed somewhere. An issue there with the Independent Group tends to be that they seem only able to allow that the plane could only have gone to or very near to the area already searched, while the satellite data project remains nothing more than an unproven experiment, scientifically speaking.
Meanwhile the world is absolutely vast and indeed through the years other parties say they have used the satellite data to give positions thousands of miles away. (For example some aviation people calling themselves Captio, estimating the position was still in the southern Indian Ocean but not so far off the coast of Java.)
Would you @ Deep Dive mh370, I suppose particularly Jeff, know if there is anything in this claim some have made: That mh370 was at the right place and time when over the South China Sea to connect fully or at least make a handshake ping with the Inmarsat satellite positioned for the Far East, but for whatever reason never did?
Also if there isn't anything in that, meaning if the plane were not supposed to connect with the Eastern satellite by the time its connection was lost, it it possible the satellite was disconnected at this time purposively to avoid the new, eastern satellite? In other words, is it possible the plane, where things would be normal, should have very soon gone on to connect to the Far East satellite if the plane's satellite connection had not been deliberately disconnected in the sea east of the Malaysian peninsula around the very time the connection went out?
(Within the original question is further the possible issue that perhaps mh370 might also have been expected to connect to the Far East satellite whilst the satellite connection was actually still on.)
From memory, what I read in the general press from Inmarsat was only that the plane would have progressed to connect from the satellite serving the Malaysian peninsula to this new, eastern satellite if it had continued as expected on its route to Beijing.
I don't think I ever saw any details given about whether or not the plane would have already have been expected to connect to the eastern satellite by the time the connection was lost, or about if the satellite was disconnected just around or before the very time a connection to the eastern satellite was expected.
If may be that this subject was not properly given out at any time but I wonder with your connections and experience if you know anything about this please?
There has further been the suggestion that avoiding a connection with the eastern satellite would avoid triangulation. Although I have not heard the suggestion at anytime from Inmarsat that mh370's satellite service ever involved connecting to more than one satellite at the same time at any case (nor was expected to), so perhaps the triangulation idea wouldn't fit at all with the standard story from Inmarsat & Malaysian about the kind of satellite service.
Really good question -- my understanding is that if the plane had continued on its planned route to Beijing, it would have switched over to the Pacific satellite, but as far as I know there isn't anywhere on the 7th arc that's far enought east for it to do so. If it had connected, then you're right, triangulation with the Pacific satellite would have destroyed the ambiguity inherent in the data and allowed the plane's location to be pinpointed much more precisely.
@@DeepDiveMH370
Thanks for replying. Just regarding the part I was asking about, which concerns any possible or expected connection to the Far East Inmarsat satellite, I was asking regarding when the satellite connection was first turned off, rather than when it disconnected the second and final time. Sorry it wasn't so clear. I forgot there were two disconnections. That means somewhere around Igari and the eastern Malaysian peninsula early in the flight.
I suppose you must have answered my question anyway. If the most easterly section on 7th Arc from the BTO experiment was not far east enough to make a connection with the Inmarsat Far East satellite, that is anyway clearly more easterly than it was possible for the plane to have been earlier when the satellite cut out originally (to come back on again soon). So from that it would seem that when the satellite connection was first disconnected, the Far East satellite couldn't have had any relevance.
It's still conceivable it could have been on a hijacker's mind to avoid connecting with a new satellite just as it was to escape Malaysian ATC control and avoid connecting with Vietnamese ATC - so it might not be accurate to say there is no relevance in considering that satellite as linked with what happened. However the ATC avoidance was very exact and it's easy to get the feeling a hijacker knew precisely what they were doing. Still, again, one doesn't know what they knew and always staying cautious always fits the suggested flight profile.
Challenge to the manufacturer: go find it - then get your gear off the job site.
i swear to god that i’m the only middle schooler who’s interested in this😭😭
That's awesome!
Question regarding the Russian passengers: what is the statistical significance of the Russians and/ or Ukrainians on the MH370 flight as compared to other flights with the same itinerary? In other words, is it common or an anomaly to have that number of Russian passengers on that specific flight?
We’ll be getting to that very soon!
@Dep Dive MH370
OK so these are all Boeing planes: engines fell off, 4 times, three before the El Al Amsterdam disaster - doors are now doing the same - software likewise caused multiple fatalities - center fuel tank on TWA 800, still an implausible explanation (albeit the suspicion is not of company incompetence, still,, their interest in a true investigation was absent, IMO)
And sorry to ay the planes on September 01 which like MH370 show signs of hacking of the controls, precisely when aircraft are between ATC hand-offs - something the hijackers of that say years back could not have known,
Or at least not, short of there being a drill in which professional, ex-military [pilots of United 7 American , 8 of them, cooperated - only to be double-crossed somehow & murdered, with all aboard
a countermand of the controls could plausibly have been done, from the ground, if not from the passenger compartment.
For this reason final minutes pf PA flight cockpit voice was not played even to families - how indeed might 7 of 8 boxes be useless, or worse, vanished - yet another Boeing or subsidiary's aircraft part".
It seems undeniable that Boeing has a quality-control issue vis-a-vis Airbus, and I can't see its reputation getting better without a change in management at the very top.
agreed - simple case of corporate greed to make the mistakes and then deny & cover ass
but these u-turns right between ATC areas is different & suggests high-tech spycraft, to me
let alone a whole Boeing landing strut, with tires, was found April 2011 in Manhattan - showing little damage - yellow rope wrapped around the strut - and this 4 blocks in wrong diection to be associated with Sept 1 planes
At the risk of over-simplifying, the MH370 Bayesian analysis in essence assumed a straight ghost flight (no maneuvers) from when radar contact was lost at 1822. The fact that the Bayesian 97% "hot spot" did not result in finding MH370 simply indicates the assumption of pilot-less ghost flight from 1822 was probably wrong. It does not mean that the Russian hijack theory, or other conspiracy theory is correct. Analysis/interpretation of the satellite data, to define exact GPS/flight path, is extraordinarily difficult, almost impossible technical challenge, which explains why MH370 has not yet been found. We just simply do not know yet where along Arc7 in the Southern Indian Ocean the crash was, and how far away from Arc7, active pilot vs. ghost flight etc is unknown.
Ha. You also went to GW. I graduated in 2002 with a degree in journalism.
I am a journalist, I have been living in Europe off and on for 20 years. When MH370 went missing, I was in a position where I traveled sometimes to Asia, particularly to Singapore, but I had been to Malaysia and China. So I often thought that I could have been, for some reason, on that plane. Obviously Air France was terrifying, but they found the plane, in fact, they found some wreckage and bodies rather quickly. This was not the case with MH370. I agree with Jeff that having a plurality of eyes on the data could lead to future breakthroughs.
@@justin7964
"I agree with Jeff that having a plurality of eyes on the data could lead to future breakthroughs."
It's a very little known fact which is worth knowing that Inmarsat has never given out the full data to anyone, including even to the Independent Group. (The IG's own, original calculations on the satellite data came from an incomplete set of data which the Malaysian government held, given to the IG by a relative of one of the deceased from the plane, not even passed to the IG by any official body.)
I think Inmarsat may later have given the IG *a* set of data, but I know that anyway the IG still did not receive the full Inmarsat data with full method because that is considered proprietary to the satellite company.
Very early on, in 2014, Inmarsat described publicly how it was letting nobody outside of the company in on either the calculations, the full method used or the full data itself. It was strongly against suggestions that it should simply hand the data over to an accredited research institution. I remember Mark Dickinson being questioned about this on TV. Strangely, or at least it seemed so to me - very strangely - Inmarsat publicly declared that there is not on this earth a good enough collection of experts of, Inmarsat said, multiple disciplines who would be required to come together in the same time and place to analyse this data, other than within Inmarsat.
It still seems so strange. Not in MIT, for example? Not Stanford or Harvard nor Oxford where there will be world leading academic researchers in every discipline, including the kinds of really quite old satellite communications technology used in standard, commercial aviation (whatever calculations are being done with the data from that technology)?
Actually the more I've thought of this claim from Inmarsat over the years, the stranger it has gotten to me.
The BTO & BFO experiments have never been scientifically validated by any accredited, independent scientific body of standing as a way of tracking, or even a potential method of tracking under any particular circumstances. Basically this is not anything of accepted science in other words. Why? Because Inmarsat refused and refuses to allow their experiment to be properly, scientific examined and trialled.
I had thought more recently that Inmarsat had eventually given out its full data, and method, to the IG at least but I have since read from Inmarsat itself that its original position has not changed. In other words, it refuses to publicise outside of the company even the full method involved.
Of course there has been great advertising attached to mh370 for the satellite company over the years, such that the kind of service provider most people would never hear of became a household name around the world. I'll always remain completely surprised the company decided never to hand over their method and data, even under a lock and key privacy agreement, to a well-known multi-disciplinary, independent research institution for attempted validation, if the company really valued much the work it did.
Just for an example, the Malaysian government which relies upon the advice of the international Safety Investigation on mh370, may well have agreed to further searching in the southern Indian Ocean if the company which suggested a potential tracking idea would just let its method and data be scrutinised independently by known scientists.
Hail the buff and blue!
Jeff & Andy like myself you guys are fascinated by the mystery that is mh370. I believe there are things we do not know correctly or things (assumptions could be wrong) but let’s be realistic. I’m confident you are far from being realistic. I’ve watched almost all of your episodes now and I’m confident Jeff especially is not a grounded individual.
Since this episode was about yourselves, Jeff, could you explain why your eyes are different?
Wait, different how??
the right one looks darker than the left one. Maybe it is the lighting, but it doesn't change when your head position is different. Is your pupil larger on that side? Does your iris have a large nevus? Have an ophthalmologist take a look to make sure its ok. @@DeepDiveMH370
It’s because Jeff is actually part of the Lazard people conspiracy, just ask David ike he knows all about it 😂