Jump to content

Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 disappearance theories

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2804:14d:32b2:3ced:fdc1:f04d:b0ba:4ff7 (talk) at 18:07, 15 October 2020 (→‎Disappearance of Malaysian Flight 370: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

They found the plane (So let's delete this article now)

So I believe it is now time to revisit deleting and merging this article with the main article about the plane itself. At the very least it's time that this content is cleaned up (placed into proper historical context and weeded of irrelevant information). The original anti-deletion argument compared this page with pages about conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11, the moon landing, and the Kennedy assassination. However, time has shown us that while those theories are here to stay, the Malaysian Airline theories have faded from the public's consciousness. It should be nominated for deletion.Beetlejuicex3 (talk) 21:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Before I say anything else, I want to emphasize that I think a significant portion of this article is rubbish. Nonetheless, there are several reasons why this article should not be deleted or merged:
  1. the subject is notable; as mentioned in the deletion discussion, the unofficial disappearance theories themselves have been given a lot of attention (including a lot of criticism), thus the article meets WP:GNG
  2. the main article is already long (64kB "readable prose size", see WP:SIZE) and so it is not appropriate to merge more content into the main article; considering this and that the article meets notability guidelines, it is an appropriate WP:Summary style sub-topic for its own article
  3. investigators have refrained from giving statements about the cause of Flight 370's disappearance, so basically all postulated causes are "unofficial disappearance theories"
  4. the recent findings do not prove/disprove most of these theories
Note that you're not correct that they found the plane...a very small piece of it was found after it floated across an ocean over 16 months from the time the plane was lost. The bulk of the aircraft sunk close to where it impacted the water, which investigators believe is thousands of mi/km east of where the debris was found. AHeneen (talk) 23:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely premature. We should probably at least wait until the plane is found and an official explanation is produced, and then perhaps wait a while to see how quickly which theories die (it would be a surprise if there are no attempts to claim the official explanation is a fraud; the recent Independent article that I've used mentions theories that the debris are fake, though I haven't bothered putting them into the article - somebody else may wish to do so). Even then there will be an argument for keeping the article for what the theories (specifically including the most nonsensical ones) and their reporting by the media may tell any interested readers about the 'crazy' world we live in and/or the 'crazy' species we are - it's an argument that I rather like, though I'm not sure I like it enough to want to waste a lot of my time trying to defend it. Tlhslobus (talk) 00:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In hindsight, I agree with both of you and I am going to withdraw my deletion nomination. Although I will say that the page needs to be reorganized, updated to reflect the recent findings (and conspiracies resulting therefrom), and have some of its more ludicrous sections removed.Beetlejuicex3 (talk) 00:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore the overall tone of this article seems to be slanted, almost like the editors of the page want the conspiracies to be true, as opposed to an unbiased presentation of these theories.Beetlejuicex3 (talk) 00:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with reorganizing and updating (I've done a bit of updating myself, though I don't want to put any more effort into it). But I'd be sad to see any of the "more ludicrous sections" removed - they're mostly the only thing I've bothered to read (and work on); I suspect I may not be the only reader who has little or no interest in what actually happened to the plane (a loss which is presumably just another very sad tragedy, and the world is always full of such tragedies). I can't comment on the overall tone of the article, having mostly only read the "more ludicrous sections". Tlhslobus (talk) 01:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
the recent findings do not prove/disprove most of these theories - shouldn't it be mentioned in the theories that do involve 'theft' of the plane. Are people really going to plant garbage and debris from the aircraft six months later (and not be discovered doing it)? Also they would have to be aware of ocean current/debris models to have picked the right spot. The information certainly discredits those theories. 69.165.138.69 (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Never let the facts get in the way of a good theory

I eventually decided to mention the fake debris theory (which I referred to in an earlier comment) in one sentence at the end of the Diego Garcia section (the source conveniently connects the theory to Diego Garcia). Could anybody find an RS saying about this something like "Never let the facts get in the way of a good theory", as I guess it would improve the article, but I really don't want to go looking for such a RS myself, for fear of wasting yet more time on such a dubious subject. Tlhslobus (talk) 11:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When there are so few hard facts it is easy and even legitimate to make assumptions. Nothing triggers the brainwaves more than a puzzle that should not be a puzzle. No plane has ever disappeared into thin air like MH370. Then one single piece of debris is discovered, as if it escaped a clean-up. Everything else went to the bottom of the ocean in one piece. These puzzles become mind games and that is quite legitimate. I tend to subscribe to one of what they call 'conspiracy' theories. until I see hard facts which discount that. But by the looks of it, we'll never know and that is quite puzzling because we would have thought that was a non possibility.58.174.193.15 (talk) 05:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it considered out-of-order to suggest that the debris might have been faked? I'm sure it is quite possible to falsify those identity markings, and I find it suspicious to hear it repeated so often that the debris has been confirmed genuine. Valetude (talk) 18:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"No plane has ever disappeared into thin air like MH370." Not true. No-one has ever found Glenn Miller's plane or the HP-42 that disappeared over the Gulf during World War 2. It is interesting, though, that given the level of monitoring nowadays this plane still vanished. Although all that may prove is that we are still not omnipotent and the Pacific is a really big ocean. Britmax (talk) 14:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 unofficial disappearance theories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Who is Emil Enchev? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Too much speculation and accusations even for this type of an article, sorry. Any WP:RS? WikiHannibal (talk) 16:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Flight 370 missing ?

I found this picture on google earth look at the numbers in the picture M8Rite (talk) 21:56, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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. [1]

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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-malaysia-airlines-freescale/loss-of-employees-on-malaysia-flight-a-blow-u-s-chipmaker-says-idUSBREA280T020140309

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
As I said, its hard to know where to begin with the reason why.Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This talk page needs renaming too.Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I had already agreed with "conspiracy theories" [1]. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Calling some theories “unofficial” assumes that “official” theories exist. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Cambodia Unfinished Sentence

In the Cambodia section, the sentence containing "appears to be a plane about 70 m (230 ft) (ca 10% larger" seems incomplete. It is unclear if the "70 m" refers to length, width or something else of the aircraft's dimensions. The "ca" seems to be reference to an unfamiliar unit of measure or some unfinished wording. SquashEngineer (talk) 13:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Malaysian Flight 370

It is difficult to understand why none of the articles evem mentioned the possibility of the flight landing at Gan Airport (on Addu Island), the Island to which local observers stated that the plane was heading. The plane would have no reason to fly so low over the Maldives if it planned to land on Diego Garcia - more than 1000 km from there.

2804:14D:32B2:3CED:FDC1:F04D:B0BA:4FF7 (talk) 18:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370_disappearance_theories&oldid=983693130"