Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 disappearance theories/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

CAPTIO zone

Décrit en détail dans l'article francophone, résultat d'études des spécialistes français Jean-Marc Garot (membre de l'académie de l'air et de l'espace), Michel Delarche avec ingénieurs spécialistes d'Inmarsat:

1. 2016-08-11 publient un livre en français : Le détournement du MH370, ISBN 9791026206415. Je l'ai acheté à bon marché en version numérique chez Amazon. C'est donc bien après la remise du très long rapport malaysien.
2. 2017-10-03 Michel Delarche donne une conférence devant le groupe régional Côte d'Azur de la 3AF, donnant des illustrations publiées dans le livre, dont la zone de recherche réduite méritant d'être explorée, beaucoup plus au Nord que ce qui a été fait jusque là. J'étais à cette conférence.
3. En fin 2017, ils publient le site web CAPTIO détaillant leurs hypothèses et permettant de suivre le navire de recherches. Il contient plusieurs onglets dont l'un porte sur le document détaillé « A plausible trajectory for MH370 ». je l'ai consulté dès cette période, mais celui-ci a évolué au fur et a mesure de résultats plus précis de leur étude avec Inmarsat, d'où la version 3.4 actuelle de janvier 2018.

Par ailleurs, c'est dit dans la version francophone, ils ont eu des interviews dans les medias français dont des émissions de télévision.--Friendly, Kasos_fr (talk) 13:54, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

This is en.wiki. Could you provide a translation? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Described in detail in the article francophone, result of studies of French specialists Jean-Marc Garot (member of the academy of air and space), Michel Delarche with engineers specialists of Inmarsat:

1. 2016-08-11 publish a book in French: The misappropriation of the MH370, ISBN 9791026206415. I bought it cheaply in digital version at Amazon. It is thus well after the delivery of the very long malaysien report .
2. 2017-10-03 Michel Delarche gives a lecture in front of the regional group Côte d'Azur of the 3AF, giving illustrations published in the book, whose reduced area of ​​research deserves to be explored, much more to the North than what has been done so far. I was at this conference, and had a private diner with him after.
3. At the end of 2017, they published the CAPTIO website detailing their hypotheses and making it possible to follow the research vessel. It contains several tabs, one of which is on the detailed document "A plausible trajectory for MH370". I consulted it at this time, but it has evolved as more accurate results of their study with Inmarsat, hence the current version 3.4 of January 2018.

Moreover, it is said in the French version, they had interviews in French media including TV shows .-- Friendly, Kasos_fr (talk) 13:54, 11 May 2018 (UTC)--Friendly, Kasos_fr (talk) 07:09, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Merci beaucoup, Friendly, Kasos_fr, j'étais trop paresseux. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:08, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

La Reunion and Diego Garcia

It's 24 to 48 hours since the announcement that a large piece of apparent Boeing 777 debris washed up in La Reunion is being sent to France for analysis. 24 to 48 hours seems more than enough time for various allegedly RS media sources to report on conclusions being drawn about this on the Internet. I would expect the obvious one is that, per the maps in our Ocean circulation article, Indian Ocean currents tend to flow from around Diego Garcia (with its American base) towards La Reunion, and do not tend to flow from where everybody was told to search (off Australia) towards La Reunion (or at least it takes a lot longer for them to reach La Reunion from off Australia after circling round about half the Indian Ocean), thus presumably fuelling the Diego Garcia and Shootdown theories. I'm not sufficiently interested to want to go looking for the relevant RS sources myself, but other editors might be, and finding such RS sources would quite likely help them to improve this article, so I just thought I'd mention it here in case any editor is interested. Tlhslobus (talk) 05:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Indian Ocean Gyre displays the current flows in the Indian Ocean, and is therefore more specific than the site you quoted. The flow is circular, as in a whirlpool, and it's not inconceivable that debris near the south-western coast of Australia might be carried in a semicircular fashion north and then west to Reunion. It seems incorrect to postulate that the aircraft part could have come only from the Diego Garcia area. Akld guy (talk) 06:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the useful Indian Ocean Gyre link. Apart from that, what you said is roughly what I more or less said myself, when I wrote "(or at least it takes a lot longer for them to reach La Reunion from off Australia after circling round about half the Indian Ocean)". And, incidentally, without a knowledge of how fast the currents flow we can't know whether the debris would have had time to reach Reunion from Diego Garcia, let alone Australia (though knowledge of the speeds might also be able to rule in Diego Garcia and rule out Australia, or vice versa if the debris arrived too late to be from Diego Garcia - a further complication is that the gyre reverses direction in winter, so correct calculations would need a lot of expertise). But that's not really the point, which is that Internet theories can be expected to crop up and be reported on in RS media on the basis of information which may or may not be adequate, and if the theory gets mentioned in RS media then it becomes a potential candidate for inclusion in this article. (It is not really our job to try to decide whether a theory is correct or not - we don't do Original Research). Tlhslobus (talk) 07:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

In the end I decided to find and add one such RS myself, though that one RS could probably be quoted in relation to several theories, and there are more RS out there. Tlhslobus (talk) 05:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't forget that surface winds since the time of the crash will also influence the debris flow. It's not a simple matter of getting the ocean currents right. Dcs002 (talk) 10:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The flight was quite obviously shot down en route to Diego Garcia and the subsequent coverup and all information has been classified for national security reasons. (logic) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.207.166.255 (talk) 02:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Facts vs. Fiction

The official report from Malaysia basically says apparent intentional diversion as cause of the accident. That implies hijacking by either third party or crew (Malaysia says they feel it was not the crew, but nobody really feels Malaysia is being totally truthful about this accident). There is *no* evidence of fire or equip malfunction, but there is indeed radar tracking evidence that the aircraft was piloted on a diliberate path, with no apparent attempt to land due to malfunction, and no normal communications that would be expected for a malfunction. The Inmarsat satellite data shows the plane went to the Southern Indian Ocean most likely somewhere from 10 South to 40 South on Arc7. The debris of the crash, some three dozen pieces, are being found in Madagascar and Africa as expected for an aircraft crash in the Southern Indian Ocean.

So those are the basic facts. Based on that a (1) Hijacking is possible, (2) a crew Hijacking is possible, the (3) MH370-Captio.net theory is a possibly true hijack story that seems to be corroborated by rumors within Malaysia (although the rumors from Malaysia say the crew was diverting to COCOS or XMAS Islands).

An innocent cause such as unknown fire, unknown mechanical problem, or depessurization/hypoxia is still remotely possible, but not very likely based on the facts. There is zero supporting evidence. Admittedly some books have been written citing such events, but those books are not highly regarded by the experts.

Then we get into the wild conspiracy theories based on not-accepting the evidence. That includes the spoofing or electronic faking of satellite data to fake a flight path to the south, the Maldives theories, the shoot-down theories, Diego Garcia theories, northern flight route theories, alien black hole theories, Cambodia etc.

But what we should be communicating to the public is that the MH370 was a likely criminal act of hijacking, by the someone or some group, possibly including the crew. The introductory comments in this article are out-dated. I think now we do have facts to squelch just about everything except hijacking, unless somebody has some new evidence to disclose. I question the direction and need for this article because I see no merit or need to further confuse the public on MH370. TBILLT (talk) 01:10, 2 December 2018 (UTC)TBILLT

The article is on unofficial theories so even conspiracy theories, if notable, will are listed. If you have a source saying a listed "theory" is not possible/probable for some reasons, or if the source adresses it in some other way (no evidence found etc.), feel free to add such info into the respective sections of the article. WikiHannibal (talk) 18:05, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Merge together satire sections, or delete all together

The sections "Satire about pilot reappearing" and "Pitbull and Shakira" are rather trivial. I don't see how this is in any way relevant or significant.

• So some random tabloid wrote a hoax article about the pilot reappearing. Gives no theory as to why the plane disappeared.
• There was a song that vaguely referenced Malaysia, a plane, and names of people who weren't even on the plane. Okay so...

I would personally delete both - WP:DON'T PRESERVE - but I could abide merging the two together into a new section, titled "Satirical theories" or something. And perhaps fleshing out the pilot reappearance hoax if it was actually significant. Hughpac (talk) 17:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Emil Enchev's new theory

Probably some of you know who this guy is. In a recent conversation he suggested the hypothesis that not Captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah is the culprit of the disappearance, but the co-pilot, 27-year-old First Officer Fariq Abdul Hamid. He was hijacked MH370 plane in the same way as Andreas Lubitz Germanwings Flight 9525. Scandal with the his fiancé Nadira Ramli probably was the reason for his destructive behavior. Emil Enchev suggests that this woman be subjected to a Polygraph detector with only two question: 1. Did they have problems with her fiance Fariq Abdul Hamid before flight MH370? 2. Did she have sexual relations with the Captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah?

Emil Enchev also suggest investigators to question any of the employees, who knew the flight attendants more closely - "Can one of the air hostesses have had sexual contacts with both pilots?" This may also to be the reason Fariq to close himself in the cockpit while Zaharie was in the toilet, and to take control over the plane.

So if he is right - this is the woman which was the reason for MH370 disappearance. And this woman with arrogance and without shame, is silencing what she knows about this case: http://satwinhans.blogspot.com/2009/11/female-pilot-gender-is-not-problem-in.html 79.100.143.139 (talk) 14:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Who is Emil Enchev? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Too much speculation and accusations even for this type of an article, sorry. Any WP:RS? WikiHannibal (talk) 16:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Norman Davies

Theory of Norman Davies, Honeywell computer remote hijacking and hiding in Antarctica ice, must be present in this article because Davies is serious historian writing books like Rising '44: The Battle for Warsaw. Davies told his theory in a published book, interviews, and in media listings of conspiracy theories of MH370 he is always listed: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=12191656

https://www.deccanchronicle.com/lifestyle/viral-and-trending/040518/7-conspiracy-theories-malaysia-airlines-flight-mh370-disappearance.html

https://www.theweek.co.uk/mh370/58037/mh370-conspiracy-theories-what-happened-to-the-missing-plane

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-magazine-interview-the-historian-norman-davies-on-conspiracy-theories-the-cold-war-and-his-own-spy-novel-past-8s86qwnpm?wgu=270525_54264_15765170745608_5154128985&wgexpiry=1584293074&utm_source=planit&utm_medium=affiliate&utm_content=22278 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teutonic Mouse (talk • contribs) 06:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Electronic hijacking is already covered in the article, added a brief note about Norman Davies. WikiHannibal (talk) 09:02, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

My addition was reverted, which I do not mind, but perhaps it would be best to state the reasons here, so as to guide further possible edits concerning Davies. WikiHannibal (talk) 23:27, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Acquisition of Freescale staff

The heading "Acquisition of Freescale staff" does not reference the evidence that there were 20 Freescale staff upon the flight. Add comment and reference -> Freescale Semiconductor issued a statement expressing grief of loss of 20 Freescale employees.

Heading content currently simply implies that snopes.com finds no evidence that the four inventors listed on the patent application were on the aircraft passenger list, because names do not match.

Hi, I do no understand why is the sentence you want to add relevant. This is not about the 20 but about the four with 20%, and there is not anything about that in the source. It can be rephrased like this but I do not think it is necessary (do you?): "There were 20 Freescale employees on the flight[your source] but the urban myth website snopes.com suggests that there is no evidence that the four inventors listed on the patent application were on the aircraft passenger list, nor that they were entitled to a 20% share of the patent, and it says it is unlikely that their share would revert to Freescale on their death as presented in the email.[39]" WikiHannibal (talk) 09:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Page Title

As discussed on WP:FTN, Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 conspiracy theories is the appropriate title for this article, because each individual "unofficial (i.e. fringe) theory" carries with it an unspoken assumption that the mainstream is suppressing/ignoring it in favor of the official explanation. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• support Its hard to know where to begin.Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

A further thought; all conspiracy theories are unofficial theories. We don't have articles entitled Unofficial 9-11 theories, Unofficial JFK Assassination theories, Unofficial Moon Landing theories, etc. for good reason. In the case of this article, I realize there are probably a couple sources that did not intend to be taken as conspiracy theorists, such as technology writers and the like, however by speculating an "alternative explanation" it unfortunately assumes some kind of intention by the mainstream not to recognize it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

As I said, its hard to know where to begin with the reason why.Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• support moving to Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 conspiracy theories and reversing current redirect. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

This talk page needs renaming too.Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, it was moved back by {Wbm1058. So now we have to go through the bureaucracy of an RM. Guy (help!) 08:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• Strong support. The article was moved here on 2014-06-15 by QPT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an editor who is now inactive, and has remarkably few mainspace edits. It was moved with minimal discussion (Talk:Unofficial Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 disappearance theories/Archive 1 § Renaming article and Talk:Unofficial Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 disappearance theories/Archive 1 § Words to use/not use in new title), at a time before the timeline was definitively established, so there were legitimate competing theories - something that is no longer the case. "Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 conspiracy theories" is clearly the correct title per WP:PROFRINGE (e.g. 9/11 conspiracy theories) and I have no idea why it was moved back after I moved it to the correct title. The fact that the lead says that some of these have been described as conspiracy theories is irrelevant: by definition, they all are. The current title is equivalent to "unofficial Earth shape theories" or "unofficial moon landing theories". Guy (help!) 08:39, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Guy, a conspiracy, also known as a plot, is a secret plan or agreement between persons (called conspirers or conspirators) for an unlawful or harmful purpose, such as murder or treason, especially with political motivation (Collins Dictionary), while keeping their agreement secret from the public or from other people affected by it. The theory that the captain acted unilaterally, using the flight as a murder-suicide, is therefore by definition not a conspiracy theory. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: Maybe helping would be if the main article also referred to these as such. There currently are four links here from it: from the lead, from the body as well as from two templates (these latter two may be automatically renamed). But if the prose also used it and it was well sourced, it would be more natural for this article's name to also conform. Basically, I suggest that the main article may also need updates. —PaleoNeonate – 09:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
• Please review the previous archived discussions: Renaming article and Words to use/not use in new title. Obviously the conclusion drawn HERE that the "Move was done without prior discussion" is not true:
  • at 21:58, 15 June 2014 QPT (Origamite moved page Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 conspiracy theories to Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 unofficial disappearance theories: See talk page)

The fringe theories noticeboard should not be usurping normal processes for deciding on page titles. That was also a poor close because it ignored the opinion I cannot think of a good replacement for the word, but it should be replaced with something. But not "conspiracy theories", since it does not fit all of the ideas in the article. How about "speculation"? --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC) – wbm1058 (talk) 13:10, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I had already agreed with "conspiracy theories" [1]. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm having trouble following the logic of the statement "each individual "unofficial (i.e. fringe) theory" carries with it an unspoken assumption that the mainstream is suppressing/ignoring it in favor of the official explanation." So the "conspiracy theories" are theories that the mainstream media conspired to suppress reports about or ignore unofficial or fringe theories? Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 § Speculated causes of disappearance doesn't clearly state "the official explanation". It's not clear to me that there is any single official explanation. The lead of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 says "The disappearance of Flight 370 has been dubbed one of the greatest aviation mysteries of all time." and "In the absence of a definitive cause of disappearance"... in other words, there is no official explanation, only theories, some more plausible than others. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Calling some theories “unofficial” assumes that “official” theories exist. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Good point; I would support removing that word from the title, moving this to Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 disappearance theories. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2020 (UTC)