If The MH370 Submerged In
The Gulf of Thailand – Additional Points Part 3
如果MH370沉浸在泰国湾 – 附加论点第3部分
Nam Fong (Malaysian)
南方 (马来西亚人)
(I)
Is Wing-Broken Aircraft The MH370?
(I)
折翼的飞机是MH370吗?
(1)
On April 29, Michael Hoebel, a pilot from New York claimed that, after trawling
through thousands of satellite images on TomNod website, he has found an image he
believed is the MH370 aircraft in the Gulf of Thailand. The image was taken
days after the missing of MH370, it was provided by the crowd-sourcing website
that has been sharing satellite images to the public online. Let’s examine
whether it can be the MH370 or not.
(1)
于4月29日, 麦克霍贝尔, 一个来自纽约的飞机师称, 由“汤诺”网站上彻查了数千卫星影像后, 他找到一个影像他相信是失踪的MH370飞机在泰国湾.
那张影像是MH370失踪后几天拍的,
由一个群搜网站分享卫星影像给在线的大众. 让我们考究它到底是不是MH370.
(2) The image of the aircraft-like object was taken on the sea in the northeast off-shore peninsular Malaysia, and east of Songkhla in Thailand, not west of Songkhla as reported, this is a typical mistake made by some people who always confuse with certain opposite directions, such as left and right, or east and west. The location is close the southern side border (7.5oN) of the square as proposed in my main article. It is not a big issue in terms of the location which is on the northwest side of the normal flight path, as I have analyzed in previous articles, the MH370 had turned left, diverted to the north, northwest then west, if the position is correct as shown in the diagram below, that would mean the aircraft had moved further in the southwest direction toward Kelantan.
Coordinate
diagram draft 3 经纬草图表3
(3)
Those coarse grainy spots, due to low resolution of image taken from satellite
far high in the sky, seemed to be consistent between the darker surrounding and
the brighter aircraft-like object, besides, object has a rather “solid” shape
with clear-cut edges, this suggests the object is unlikely a cloud which could
be a few kilometres above the sea surface. Certainly it is not an aircraft moving
without left wing in the air, if it is a huge ship it should have been clearly identified
on the sea surface earlier, so there is a possibility the huge object is
submerged under sea water. Some comments on internet queried how can the object
in the hundreds of metres deep sea be detected by the satellite, in fact they
misunderstand that the average depth of the Gulf of Thailand is only about 45
metres, deepest about 80 metres, with this depth of sea water, it is reasonable
to capture image of metal-made object but rather faint and with low resolution.
(3) 那些粗粒状点, 出于低解析度的影像是从在于天空中远处的卫星所拍摄, 看似较暗的周围与较亮的疑似飞机物体是一致的, 此外, 该物体有一个相当“实体”的形状以及鲜明的边界线, 这就建议该物体不像是一块在海面之上数公里处的云朵. 当然它不是一个没有左翼的飞机在空中移动, 如果它是一艘巨型的船它在海面上早该已被认清楚了, 因此有可能该巨大的物体是沉浸在海水底下的. 一些网上的评论责问怎么可能该物体在数百米深的海里被会被卫星探测到, 其实他们误解了泰国湾的平均深度是大约45公尺, 最深大约80公尺, 以这样深度的海水, 拍到金属制造的物体是合理的, 不过相当模糊和低解析度.
(4)
The object in the image has a length of 210 feet, which Michael Hoebel had made
a comparison and claimed it is closely matched with the dimensions of a Boeing
777 aircraft. Definitely it is too long to be a giant shark or whale, and it
should have stunt those many people searching on the sea at that time. Another internet
comment is that, the right wing is too far forward, looked like attached at the
first class section, but it has to consider the issues of view angle and
reflection. Then, could it be the wreckage of MH370? Very simple, just revisit
the location will solve the doubt.
(4)
该影像里的物体有一个210尺的长度, 麦克霍贝尔已做过比较因而宣称它和一架波音777飞机的大小是相符的. 肯定的它是一只巨鲨或鲸鱼那就太长了, 而且它的出现早就把当时在海上搜寻的许多人吓呆了. 另一个网上评语是, 那个右翼太过前头了, 看起来像是连接在头等机舱部位, 不过需要考虑观测角度和折射的问题. 那么, 它可能是MH370的残骸吗? 很简单, 只要重回该地点查看就能解开疑惑了.
(5)
Let’s presume it is aircraft wreckage, and the bearing of its head is
appropriately pointing toward the direction of Kelantan. Such direction should suggest
that the aircraft had been engaged to return to Malaysia mainland, the pilots
might have attempted to turn back to the nearest airport in Kota Bahru. But it
might have gone down into the sea about 120-160 km away from Kelantan’s coast,
about 200-240 km from Songkhla, about 500 km from Kuala Lumpur International
Airport.
(5)
让我们假定那是飞机残骸, 而机首的方位角恰好指向吉兰丹的方向. 这样的方向应该建议该飞机已被操档归往马来西亚大陆, 机师可能尝试折返去哥打峇鲁的最近飞机场. 不过它可能就在离吉兰丹海岸大约120-160公里外进入海里了,
离宋卡府约200至240公里, 离吉隆坡大国际机场约500公里.
(6) If it were the wreckage of aircraft, I
think it would be an unusual case of “crash” into the sea, it is largely not
disintegrated and considered as remained in one piece as I have predicted,
except that its left wing is missing, which should have been separated from its
main body. The separated wing could be underneath of the rear halve fuselage of
the aircraft, or stacked on it. Whether an aircraft could be intact or not
depend on how was the touch down during “sea-landing”, it may disintegrate into
many debris pieces, or dislodging some of it parts, or the main body largely
intact but with some dents which can be severe or minor. As I have predicted, it
is almost a fact now that the MH370 did not disintegrate, because none of its debris
has been found in the Indian Ocean or South China Sea.
(6)
如果那是飞机残骸,
我想这将会是非一般的“坠毁”进海里的案例, 它大致上没有分解而可被考虑为保持一整块的就如我所推测, 除了其左翼失踪了, 它应该是从机身主体脱离了. 脱离的机翼也许在飞机主体后半部的下面, 或者叠在其上. 一架飞机可否完整的有赖于它做“海上降落”时是如何触落的, 它可能分解成很多碎片, 或者某些部分脱移, 或者主体大致上完整不过有些严重或轻微的凹损. 就如我所推测, 几乎已成事实MH370没有分解, 因为在印度洋和南中国海没有找到它的一块碎片.
(7)
The hypothesis I have proposed maybe relevant to the situation encountered by
the MH370. While it was still in the process of turning to left, it was also descending,
probably on auto-piloting mode, when it came down to the sea surface, its lower
left wing would come into contact with the sea water first, but still at high
speed such as 200-300 km/h, very strong resistance force at the touching point
caused the left wing to break off, as the aircraft wobbling on the sea surface,
the frictional force with sea water caused it to slow down rapidly and brought
it to stalled within seconds, this could have minimized the impact, therefore
it did not disintegrate into many debris. So, the search operation by scouring
everywhere on the sea surface is irrelevant in such case.
(7)
我所提出的设论或许对MH370遭遇的状况有关联. 正当它还在左转的过程中, 它也在降低着, 可能在自动导航模式中, 当它降落到海面时, 它比较低的左翼将先触到海水, 不过还处于高速例如200至300公里时速, 在触及点的非常强的阻力导致它的左翼脱落, 该飞机还在海面上摇晃时, 和海水的摩擦力导致它急促缓慢下来以及在数秒内将它顿停了, 这可能就降低了冲击力, 因此它没有分解成许多碎片. 所以, 搜寻行动在海面上到处找对这起事件是不适当的.
(8)
There are several flight paths we could simulate for the aircraft after
incidence had begun at about 1.22 am. If the aircraft did not follow the Path 1
as I have proposed earlier, we could predict another one Path 2. For either
path, the approximate turning point at 1.30 am is important that the aircraft might
have passed through (as shown in diagram Draft 3), because that was where the
New Zealand oil rig worker who had seen the fireball at about the location.
(8)
飞机在约凌晨1时22分事故开始之后有几条飞行航道我们可以做出模拟. 如果该飞机没遵循我早前提出的航道1, 我们可以推测另一个航道2. 两个航道之中, 大约凌晨1时30分的大概转弯点既飞机可能经过的地点是非常重要的(既如显示于草图3), 因为那边是那个纽西兰钻油台工人曾经看到火球的大约位置.
(9)
Based on the digital image, Michael Hoebel has contacted the federal National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and FBI by sending his evidence via FedEx,
but he did not receive a response from them. The dilemma he encountered is same
as for Michael McKay from the Songa Mercur oil rig platform in Vietnam, who has
e-mailed to the Malaysian and Vietnamese officials, but did not receive any
reply. I also had sent my theoretical analysis to media and official, but ended
up with disappointment. No matter how, what is needed is the physical evidence
of the wreckage, the important point is, they have to go back to the spot and
carry out search operation. However, the precise location maybe out of the
range, because a small error in the satellite may give rise to tens to hundreds
of kilometres of difference.
(9)
根据那些数码影像,
麦克霍贝尔曾联络美国国家运输安全局和联邦调查局, 经由联邦快邮寄上他的证据, 但是他没有收到他们的回应. 他所遭遇的困境就如来自越南“松尔么库儿”钻油台的麦克墨凯的一样, 他曾电邮去马来西亚和越南的官方, 但是他没有收到任何答复. 我也有寄我的理论分析给媒体和官方, 不过是以失望终结. 不管怎样, 所需要的是残骸的物质证据, 重点是, 他们必须回到那个地点进行搜寻行动吧. 无论如何, 准确的位置可能会有点出入, 因为卫星的一个小误差可能会造成数十至上百公里的差别.
No comments:
Post a Comment