I Think I Saw MH370

[MAP Waves]

Originally Posted by Koolinglass

Two solutions currently in discussions and to be implemented shortly.


The black box batteries to send signals for 90 days.


A new AFIRS to monitor the data stream going to the black boxes and designed to detect any abnormal occurrences during the flight. Once triggered, it will send an alert and begin to stream live data via Iridium to a number of pre-determined recipients, including technical and airline executives, manufacturers, air traffic control and search & rescue. This means no expensive search for the black boxes. Presumably they should have enough information as the cause of any accident and the location of the aircraft. The cost is minimal, as the use of satellite time is reduced to only when the AFIRS is triggered.


The AFIRS can be easily fited to most of the current aircraft types.

What has been missing from speculation, and I have not found discussed anywhere is motive..... people act for a reason, and no explanation for any of the changes in course proposed show instinct survival of our human nature!

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by Cpt Pat

Wow! That's a huge number of assumptions:

1) The crew intentionally killed the passengers by exceeding the capabilities of their supplemental oxygen.
2) The crew intentionally flew out into the vastness of open ocean.
3) An engine caught fire due to the (enormous assumption) that it lost oil pressure.

The last item is a real whopper, and it violates Occam's Razor: ""plurality should not be posited without necessity." In other words: single effects usually have a single cause. All other things being equal - the simplest explanation is usually correct. Unless there is some linkage, of which I am not aware, that would cause a fire somewhere in the fuselage to result in a loss of engine oil pressure, the likelihood that an engine would fail from a coincidental and unrelated oil pressure fault in the same flight is infinitesimal.

My own gut feeling is that a fire occurred in flight, that the crew pulled all the electrical circuit breakers to non-essential electronics in an effort to isolate the cause, while setting a course on the autopilot to divert to a suitable alternate airport, and then the crew was overcome by smoke (histotoxic hypoxia) causing the plane to continue on the last set heading until fuel exhaustion. It's just a gut feeling based on what I know about flight operations.

I believe than any altitude data pertaining to the flight that was not received directly from the aircraft's onboard altitude-encoding transponder (which was shut down soon after the flight left its planned course) should be viewed with strong skepticism. The reason altitude encoders were placed on aircraft is the wild inaccuracy of altitude information obtained from ("primary") radar returns alone.

There are few events more stressful for a flight crew than fire-in-flight. And they can be forgiven for not making a radio call before they shut down the radio and transponder, along with other electronics, in an effort to extinguish a fire.

Of course, there are those who insist it was all an act of suicide or terrorism. That's convenient: it means that no one has to fix or pay for anything.

Cpt Pat
Commercial Pilot, multi-engine airplanes

In general, I concur with the salient points of Cpt Pat's post. I have some trouble with the paragraph I highlighted as I hold a different opinion to Pat. I would expect a radio call if possible to be made early; either to advise ATC of a departure from flight plan or to declare an emergency. Also I have trouble believing the transponder would be shut off intentionally unless there was proof in the cockpit that it was the source of trouble and I know of nothing that would be available to the crew that would indicate such.

However, these are minor differences of opinion in the grand scale of the mystery so I remain aligned with the general veiw point as expressed above.

Originally Posted by Jess928

......
IMHO, this has to be either foul play (I'm sure of it) or a catastrophic cascadal failure of systems (hard to believe?).

The main issue I have with foul play or malicious intent is that of motive (as Marc has also expressed further on).
To date, we (the general public) are not aware of any benefit to anyone by the disappearance of MH370.

Originally Posted by Advocate

.........
One of the biggest questions I had when I 1st started following MAH370 missing was what was the timeline between the "all right good night"; the left turn and the transponder being turned off. I stopped following it to help a family with a missing loved one around the time bluefin was almost done mapping. To date; I have not seen an answer to this..........

This aspect troubles me also. However, please remember we don't know if the transponder was turned off; all we know is that it stop transmitting. We don't know the reason for why it stopped.

Originally Posted by MAP Waves

What has been missing from speculation, and I have not found discussed anywhere is motive..... people act for a reason, and no explanation for any of the changes in course proposed show instinct survival of our human nature!

I concur!

[Advocate]

Originally Posted by MAP Waves

I largely have not followed much after thread post 403 was made Australia chooses firm to map sea floor in MH370 search . WHY? Because ATSB in their early email to Kate said something along the lines (threats of disclosure prevent specifics) that what she saw largely fits in with what they already know - i.e. this sighting is not of any importance with their planned action!
From speaking to many cruisers this sort of behaviour seems to be a very common reason why we are actually cruising - to get away from this sort of nonsense. I am even cynical enough to believe a plane will be found on the next search unless there is open public scrutiny of the search and data.

I have been asked to elaborate on the "lights" (in one of Saucy's posts) and "buoy" (location post 219) so yesterday I got up to date and post 479 has a picture which immediately set of another "odd occurrence that happened on this passage " - the search vessel - pertinent because that is very similar (the one we saw was not red but grey and a helicopter landing pad was not evident) to a ship we saw "randomly sailing" - ships go via the shortest route between 2 points - it is cheapest and quickest - they do not go on one course, turn to anther course, head back to where they came from turn etc... that ship was searching for something! I f it was for MH370 - for gods sake we are a sailing boat and we are in the search area and they did not bother to stop us and ask us if we saw anything??? But then again when did they search in the Andaman sea start?
So for those cynics out there that Kate is doing this for fame and glory - The search party did not even think it was worth asking a potential witness if they saw anything??? Even after turning our radio off after passing through the shipping lane it is easy enough to make contact! Just steam 100m alongside and any idiot would know you want to make contact!

So from our ships gps log the following can be established.
Attachment 83529
Garmin still have not responded as to their time zone map, and so without actually knowing what time sunset and sunrise actually occurred I have shown the approximate night time
It did not happen on the night of the 3rd as there is no submarine cable in the location which is what we concluded it must be .
On the night of the 4th a bright light was visible over the horizon at about 1 oçlock from the bow through the night. How do I know it was the night of the 4th? We discussed what it might be -
Unlikely flare from unmarked rig (yes we got 4 year old charts) - We have seen many big bright flare stacks - sail through the Arabian gulf and you can see the glow from 30 to 40 miles and even then you can see "flicker".
A work ship working on the submarine cable was the most likely conclusion which is what we put it down to as there was a submarine cable on our chart which put it about in the correct bearing.
On the night of the 5th it was at about 2oclock off the bow. We assumed it was the same working ship - but having plotted it, that is not possible as the submarine cable was now to our port!
An approximate moving fix puts its estimated position as shown above. Does anyone have upto date charts, or info on what might be there because the most likely explanation to date is a naval flotilla which would substantiate assumption of the buoy!
On the 7th March Our crew spotted something in the water and I was on the helm - my first reaction was - nightmare DAN buoy (long stick) so we t0runed to see if we can help. As we were getting closer I thought no flag so it must have been bashing around for a while and I hope there is not a half eaten dead person hanging onto it! For detailed location see post 219.
The closest picture I could find of the buoy is this with a few significant exceptions!
Attachment 83530
We have commercial diving business where we maintain weather buoys and oceanographic instrumentation - so I have alot of experience with those sort of buoys!. Like the one above those buoys are yellow and have lights - they are meant to be seen as with the equipment on them they are very expensive!
All three of us concur the buoy we saw was NOT YELLOW it was red or orange and/or some black. that the diameter was no more than 1m, it had a whip antenna not highly visible like the antenna on the buoy above) 2 to 3m (, with small solar panels around the antenna base.
This adds up to a buoy that DOES NOT WANT TO BE SEEN EASILY!
The picture above is of a acoustic target buoy. The one we saw may have been one as well, or part of an acoustic target array. It may also have been a drifting wave buoy, but as I pointed out above - they are yellow, have lights and are expensive. Hence they are designed to be seen so shipping can avoid them!

I have been told by SWMBO that I can not put my political / controversial questions here! So does anyone have any other sites where the disappearance of MH370 is being objectively discussed and questions being asked to help answer the many anomalies in this mystery! Meantime, I will make a post with the unedited version on my own blog, so that you can read it if you're interested. But first I have to take the dogs to the beach.

Hi Mark; we're discussing all sorts of things on WS as well as the company that lost 20+ employees that were on it. Let me grab more info.
You will need an email addy from your ISP to join. If you only have gmail I can give you info on who to speak to.
WS MAS 370 section

Originally Posted by Wotname

This aspect troubles me also. However, please remember we don't know if the transponder was turned off; all we know is that it stop transmitting. We don't know the reason for why it stopped.

You're right; we don't know if it stopped working or was turned off. The last I remember when I followed it was they felt it was turned off/disabled. I still would like to know the order of these events.

[Advocate]

Originally Posted by Wotname

This aspect troubles me also. However, please remember we don't know if the transponder was turned off; all we know is that it stop transmitting. We don't know the reason for why it stopped.

You're right; we don't know if it stopped working or was turned off. The last I remember when I followed it was they felt it was turned off/disabled. I still would like to know the order of these events. There is too much secrecy!

[Advocate]

Originally Posted by MAP Waves

I largely have not followed much after thread post 403 was made Australia chooses firm to map sea floor in MH370 search . WHY? Because ATSB in their early email to Kate said something along the lines (threats of disclosure prevent specifics) that what she saw largely fits in with what they already know - i.e. this sighting is not of any importance with their planned action!
From speaking to many cruisers this sort of behaviour seems to be a very common reason why we are actually cruising - to get away from this sort of nonsense. I am even cynical enough to believe a plane will be found on the next search unless there is open public scrutiny of the search and data.

I have been asked to elaborate on the "lights" (in one of Saucy's posts) and "buoy" (location post 219) so yesterday I got up to date and post 479 has a picture which immediately set of another "odd occurrence that happened on this passage " - the search vessel - pertinent because that is very similar (the one we saw was not red but grey and a helicopter landing pad was not evident) to a ship we saw "randomly sailing" - ships go via the shortest route between 2 points - it is cheapest and quickest - they do not go on one course, turn to anther course, head back to where they came from turn etc... that ship was searching for something! I f it was for MH370 - for gods sake we are a sailing boat and we are in the search area and they did not bother to stop us and ask us if we saw anything??? But then again when did they search in the Andaman sea start?
So for those cynics out there that Kate is doing this for fame and glory - The search party did not even think it was worth asking a potential witness if they saw anything??? Even after turning our radio off after passing through the shipping lane it is easy enough to make contact! Just steam 100m alongside and any idiot would know you want to make contact!

So from our ships gps log the following can be established.
Attachment 83529
Garmin still have not responded as to their time zone map, and so without actually knowing what time sunset and sunrise actually occurred I have shown the approximate night time
It did not happen on the night of the 3rd as there is no submarine cable in the location which is what we concluded it must be .
On the night of the 4th a bright light was visible over the horizon at about 1 oçlock from the bow through the night. How do I know it was the night of the 4th? We discussed what it might be -
Unlikely flare from unmarked rig (yes we got 4 year old charts) - We have seen many big bright flare stacks - sail through the Arabian gulf and you can see the glow from 30 to 40 miles and even then you can see "flicker".
A work ship working on the submarine cable was the most likely conclusion which is what we put it down to as there was a submarine cable on our chart which put it about in the correct bearing.
On the night of the 5th it was at about 2oclock off the bow. We assumed it was the same working ship - but having plotted it, that is not possible as the submarine cable was now to our port!
An approximate moving fix puts its estimated position as shown above. Does anyone have upto date charts, or info on what might be there because the most likely explanation to date is a naval flotilla which would substantiate assumption of the buoy!
On the 7th March Our crew spotted something in the water and I was on the helm - my first reaction was - nightmare DAN buoy (long stick) so we t0runed to see if we can help. As we were getting closer I thought no flag so it must have been bashing around for a while and I hope there is not a half eaten dead person hanging onto it! For detailed location see post 219.
The closest picture I could find of the buoy is this with a few significant exceptions!
Attachment 83530
We have commercial diving business where we maintain weather buoys and oceanographic instrumentation - so I have alot of experience with those sort of buoys!. Like the one above those buoys are yellow and have lights - they are meant to be seen as with the equipment on them they are very expensive!
All three of us concur the buoy we saw was NOT YELLOW it was red or orange and/or some black. that the diameter was no more than 1m, it had a whip antenna not highly visible like the antenna on the buoy above) 2 to 3m (, with small solar panels around the antenna base.
This adds up to a buoy that DOES NOT WANT TO BE SEEN EASILY!
The picture above is of a acoustic target buoy. The one we saw may have been one as well, or part of an acoustic target array. It may also have been a drifting wave buoy, but as I pointed out above - they are yellow, have lights and are expensive. Hence they are designed to be seen so shipping can avoid them!

I have been told by SWMBO that I can not put my political / controversial questions here! So does anyone have any other sites where the disappearance of MH370 is being objectively discussed and questions being asked to help answer the many anomalies in this mystery! Meantime, I will make a post with the unedited version on my own blog, so that you can read it if you're interested. But first I have to take the dogs to the beach.

Hi Mark; we're discussing all sorts of things on WS as well as the company that lost 20+ employees that were on it. Let me grab more info.
You will need an email addy from your ISP to join. If you only have gmail I can give you info on who to speak to.
Gonna send you the link via PM

[europaflyer]

Originally Posted by SaucySailoress

Minutes. And, if I am correct in my current belief that I first saw the orange right after our accidental gybe and last saw it after I had put the engine on, then that would be a total time of 5 to ten minutes, and that feels about right.

The two higher aircraft I only observed for a few minutes... They were heading away when I first saw them and the orange plane. Plus they weren't interesting.

Then if you remember it as being in sight for longer than an ordinary airliner then that is just more evidence that it was not what some are speculating it was.

I feel I should reiterate my point that you should not take this whole episode so seriously as to let it start to have a major impact on your life. I sincerely doubt you watched a 'live cremation'. Burning aircraft DO NOT fly on for hours after a fire visible from several miles away has started. They crash within minutes. Although some workings I did early on in the thread - which unfortunately have been widely reported on - did construct a scenario whereby MH370 could have passed your boat, I should have made it clearer that that is all they showed. I have never felt that an airliner with a fire so serious as to be visible for 5-10 minutes from the ground - ie. at a significant distance - could fly on for any length of time. My workings early on were done purely as a technical exercise, and I feel very bad that I did not make that clear in my first few posts. At that time, I was looking purely at the navigational aspect of the sighting.

Being made primarily of aluminium, aircraft structures are compromised very rapidly by fire. There is no precedent for an aircraft flying with significant fire damage for a fraction of the time which MH370 flew after your sighting.

Some of the speculation on this thread is really getting very silly, and all in all I am thoroughly glad I post anonymously so as to not be associated with it, and indeed so that the misinterpretations of what I have posted previously cannot be attributed to me.

If I were in your position I would have not further involvement with it other than in any future correspondence with the authorities. You have done a great job in trying to remember as much detail as you can about the event, and perhaps the authorities will find what you have sent to them of use. However, I really hope you don't get dragged in to convincing yourself that you did genuinely see MH370 and that you bear some sort of responsibility, or even ending up trying to defend what you saw. In my mind, your work here is done. Fix your boat up, go sailing!

[Advocate]

Originally Posted by Advocate

Hi Mark; we're discussing all sorts of things on WS as well as the company that lost 20+ employees that were on it. Let me grab more info.
You will need an email addy from your ISP to join. If you only have gmail I can give you info on who to speak to.
Gonna send you the link via PM

Apparently new members can't send links via PM nor can I do so as a profile comment.

WS MAS 370 section

There is a company called Freescale that had over 20 employees on the plane. They were making cloaking technology

If you run into email issues; use the addy below.
wbsleuth@xmission.com

[Advocate]

Originally Posted by MAP Waves

Attachment 83529

Can someone elaborate on what a submarine cable is?

[Advocate]

Originally Posted by europaflyer

Then if you remember it as being in sight for longer than an ordinary airliner then that is just more evidence that it was not what some are speculating it was.

I feel I should reiterate my point that you should not take this whole episode so seriously as to let it start to have a major impact on your life. I sincerely doubt you watched a 'live cremation'. Burning aircraft DO NOT fly on for hours after a fire visible from several miles away has started. They crash within minutes. Although some workings I did early on in the thread - which unfortunately have been widely reported on - did construct a scenario whereby MH370 could have passed your boat, I should have made it clearer that that is all they showed. I have never felt that an airliner with a fire so serious as to be visible for 5-10 minutes from the ground - ie. at a significant distance - could fly on for any length of time. My workings early on were done purely as a technical exercise, and I feel very bad that I did not make that clear in my first few posts. At that time, I was looking purely at the navigational aspect of the sighting.

Being made primarily of aluminium, aircraft structures are compromised very rapidly by fire. There is no precedent for an aircraft flying with significant fire damage for a fraction of the time which MH370 flew after your sighting.

Some of the speculation on this thread is really getting very silly, and all in all I am thoroughly glad I post anonymously so as to not be associated with it, and indeed so that the misinterpretations of what I have posted previously cannot be attributed to me.

If I were in your position I would have not further involvement with it other than in any future correspondence with the authorities. You have done a great job in trying to remember as much detail as you can about the event, and perhaps the authorities will find what you have sent to them of use. However, I really hope you don't get dragged in to convincing yourself that you did genuinely see MH370 and that you bear some sort of responsibility, or even ending up trying to defend what you saw. In my mind, your work here is done. Fix your boat up, go sailing!

The company Freescale which lost manhy employees were making cloaking technology. I have to wonder if this orange glow was something to do with that?

[europaflyer]

Originally Posted by Advocate

The company Freescale which lost manhy employees were making cloaking technology. I have to wonder if this orange glow was something to do with that?

Grow up.

[Advocate]

Originally Posted by europaflyer

Grow up.

Perhaps you should go to Websleuths to read all that was dug up on the plane being missing. As I said; I stopped actively participating to help a family with a missing son; another with a missing sister as well as the unidentified persons I advocate for. I'm also helping to try to pass a law in the US for missing and unidentified persons to immediately be entered into a federal database; so excuse me for not knowing much about the Freescale technology. A cloaking program that would make a plane glow orange would surely contradict itself by drawing more attention to it. Guess I needed more coffee. No need for you to be rude by telling me to grow up. I'm not a young kid

Something happened to the plane. How does a plane go missing like that in this day and age? Malaysia is being very secretive about everything.

[Gclark8]

Submarine communications cable - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submari..._and_Australia


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:19...aph_cables.png

[SaucySailoress]

Originally Posted by europaflyer

Then if you remember it as being in sight for longer than an ordinary airliner then that is just more evidence that it was not what some are speculating it was.

I feel I should reiterate my point that you should not take this whole episode so seriously as to let it start to have a major impact on your life. I sincerely doubt you watched a 'live cremation'. Burning aircraft DO NOT fly on for hours after a fire visible from several miles away has started. They crash within minutes. Although some workings I did early on in the thread - which unfortunately have been widely reported on - did construct a scenario whereby MH370 could have passed your boat, I should have made it clearer that that is all they showed. I have never felt that an airliner with a fire so serious as to be visible for 5-10 minutes from the ground - ie. at a significant distance - could fly on for any length of time. My workings early on were done purely as a technical exercise, and I feel very bad that I did not make that clear in my first few posts. At that time, I was looking purely at the navigational aspect of the sighting.

Being made primarily of aluminium, aircraft structures are compromised very rapidly by fire. There is no precedent for an aircraft flying with significant fire damage for a fraction of the time which MH370 flew after your sighting.

Some of the speculation on this thread is really getting very silly, and all in all I am thoroughly glad I post anonymously so as to not be associated with it, and indeed so that the misinterpretations of what I have posted previously cannot be attributed to me.

If I were in your position I would have not further involvement with it other than in any future correspondence with the authorities. You have done a great job in trying to remember as much detail as you can about the event, and perhaps the authorities will find what you have sent to them of use. However, I really hope you don't get dragged in to convincing yourself that you did genuinely see MH370 and that you bear some sort of responsibility, or even ending up trying to defend what you saw. In my mind, your work here is done. Fix your boat up, go sailing!

After all the help you gave us to kick start the thread, I am sorry you feel frustrated. But rest assured that I am not basing my decision to believe upon your words alone, but on logic. I saw what I saw but denied it. For several reasons. I didn't want to believe what I was seeing. When I heard about the missing plane, I heard that it wasn't in the same sea as me, so I let it go.

Now Members have asked me many questions which have enabled me to fit pieces into place. There have been many alternatives suggested, which I have desperately tried to fit to what I saw, as I have been doing ever since I saw it, but none of them fit.

Stewart created a flight profile that illustrated what I saw (but based also on what he already knew), and proved that it was possible. Logic was my stumbling block, and it was probably my lack of belief due to my lack of logic which held me back from reporting this.

Rest assured, I am not basing my decision to believe in what I saw on your one diagram, but on the wealth of information which has come forth since that first diagram, which was an essential stating point. And thank you for the effort, it is appreciated.

[europaflyer]

Frustrated is perhaps the wrong word... I'm just a bit worried that you are trying to convince yourself that what you saw was MH370 in spite of the lack of evidence. People are producing ever more detailed scenarios, but I remember that to begin with you didn't know what time or even what day the sighting was on. All you saw was a glow, which you guessed was an aircraft. We should keep cool heads here, if that's not too patronising. Military aircraft or testing, space debris re-entry, ISS pass, search aircraft and many other possibilities all seem more likely to me than a burning airliner which miraculously keeps on flying for a further five hours. I am concerned about what effect feeling you were involved in this accident could be having on you.

The most likely scenarios to me have always been that the MH370 accident was due to an act of unlawful interference, pilot suicide, or the more exotic scenario of a pressurisation problem. I have never heard any plausible scenario involving fire, and we have to see this in that context. I am not speaking as an uninformed 'interested party' with little experience of aviation as some of our new members are, and my very carefully considered view is that it just doesn't work. I regret not making that clear earlier. That is all I find frustrating.

[MAP Waves]

Originally Posted by europaflyer

We should keep cool heads here, if that's not too patronising. Military aircraft or testing, space debris re-entry, ISS pass, search aircraft and many other possibilities all seem more likely to me than a burning airliner which miraculously keeps on flying for a further five hours.

Originally Posted by europaflyer

The most likely scenarios to me have always been that the MH370 accident was due to an act of unlawful interference, pilot suicide, or the more exotic scenario of a pressurisation problem. I have never heard any plausible scenario involving fire, and we have to see this in that context. I am not speaking as an uninformed 'interested party' with little experience of aviation as some of our new members are, and my very carefully considered view is that it just doesn't work. I regret not making that clear earlier. That is all I find frustrating.

In this line what I find difficult is actually are there ANY FACTS after 17:19, because from what I can see all the rest is speculation! If there is to be any hope in finding MH370 then it needs to be looked at based on facts as far as possible, and I have a few questions which the helpful invistigative press, or any one else for that matter can hopefully answer.

People behave in a rational predictable manner, which generally is out of self interest. Irrational behaviour results from coercion or panic.

There must be over a thousand people directly related to those that disappeared on flight MH370 and as any reasonable person would expect hopes go up and down as new knowledge becomes available, but what appears is that there are actually very few facts with the disappearance of flight MH370, and by fact I mean something that is believable beyond a shadow of doubt. Beyond that it is all speculation and just about everything I have seen is speculation as there are too many simple unanswered questions resulting from conflicting "facts".

As it is not known what happened to this flight I look for a rational reason as to establish what is plausible and what is not.

To start with just a few obvious questions which I am sure have a simple answer in regards ATSB Fact sheet's most probable flight path that I have not been able to find?

16:41 Flight takes off normally and then at
17:01 radio confirmation of altitude etc. which at a guess is normal Rational
17:07 ACAS transmission send data normally. Automatic
It is stated in ATSB that this transmission included fuel data -
Question 1- Is this the data that people are using for their estimates of range??
17:19 ATC last radio contact.
17;22 Last ATC (secondary) radar fix
Question 2: At a guess is flightradar24 as report says civilian radar confirmation. Is this correct?
IF this is the source;
Question 3- There are 2 versions in regards timing the last contact on flightradar24. I downloaded a video of the flighttrader24.com video that was on you tube and posted this anomaly of the time difference which said 17:51 vs the ATSB 17:22 and as is on Flightradar24 MH370 link.
Question 4 - Can anyone verify which time is correct?

Question5 : Why would someone go to all the effort of changing the time stamp?
The person that uploaded it?? - no reason except for self interest.
Question 6: How difficult would this be to change the time stamp?
Question 7: Have any demands / threats been made based on this version?
Question 8 Are there any conspiracy theories out there based on this timing?

Question 9: Who else had an interest in changing it?
To change it there needs to be a reason, a motive! Rational
Question 10: What possible motives are there?
Self Interest Rational
Crisis Management or Coercion! Irrational

Question 11: Is flightradar24 data available for public scrutiny?

17:25 Aircraft deviated from flight route
Question 12: Is this from primary radar track? If so see list of questions next.

18:22 Final primary radar fix.
Question 13: Is this source the Malaysian Military Radar?
Question 14: When did this become public information because it appears that in the early days this was not known?
Question 15: Is this data publically available for scrutiny, as there was confusion and denial and confirmation regarding the Malaysian Military Radar?

The rest of the speculated route is based on Inmarsat "ping rings" .
Question 16: Is this data available for public scrutiny?
Question 17: Has the same formula been applied and tested to the previous successful handshake - i.e. does the Inmarsat data stand up to scrutiny?
Question 18: Is there a constant speed and heading that hits all the ping rings?

Both Boeing and Rolls Royce received data.
Question 19: Is this transmitted via the ACAS or is it a seperate system?
Question 20: If a separate system is the data publically available and if not why not?

I have no doubt Kate saw flight MH370. However as there appear to be so few facts regarding MH370 I sincerely do not believe those who lost loved ones will ever get satisfactory closure!

I also fail to find any motive - no one does anything for no reason!

If MH370 was indeed in trouble and without communications - there must be procedures for landing an aircraft - I cannot believe that this is not covered in any airlines risk assessment!

There certainly have been no demands made, so I cannot believe it it in any way terrorist related! Who would hijack a plane - tell nobody - and commit suicide in the Southern Indian Ocean?