If The MH370 Submerged In The Gulf of Thailand – Edited Points (1)

如果MH370沉浸在泰国湾 – 修辑论点(1)

Nam Fong (Malaysian)

南方 (马来西亚人)

(J) No Strong Hard Evidence for Turn-Back at the Waypoint IGARI.

(J) 在伊嘎里航点折返没有强固的证据.

(1) Finally, 55 days after the missing of MH370, the preliminary report was released on May 1. The report was based on the investigation and consultation of multinational investigators from USA, UK, Australia, China and Malaysian authorities. The investigators include experts from National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), Inmarsat, Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB). The expertise is of world-class, the equipment is of high-tech, but the report is apparently crude and too simplified, many data is not available, for example the coordinates of important locations were not given, instead of resolving puzzle, it creates more doubts to the whole world. However, since there are some very useful official data now available, I will make some change and commend accordingly.

(1) 最终, MH370 失踪55天后, 初步报告于5月1日被公布了. 该报告是根据调查和咨询多国的调查员, 来自美国, 英国, 澳洲, 中国和马来西亚当局. 这些调查员专家包括来自国家运输安全局, 国际海事卫星组织, 航空意外调查局. 这些专才是世界级的, 仪器是高科技的, 但是该报告却显得粗糙和太简化, 很多数据都不能取得, 例如重要位置的经纬度没被提供, 莫是厘清疑难, 它反而挑起更多疑惑给全世界. 无论如何, 由于现在有了一些非常有用的官方数据, 我将作出一些相应的修改和评论.

(2) As expected, the time the MH370 aircraft lost contact was changed from 1:30 am to 1:21:13 am, given as the last known secondary surveillance radar (SSR) return, the new time is very closely matched with 1:22 am as I mentioned in Additional Points – Part 2. The location where the MH370 aircraft lost contact was announced in the very first day as at 6^o55’15”N and 103^o34’43”E, this has been used in the media and public discussion for many days, but now in the preliminary report it becomes “unknown”, however, it is indicated the last known SSR return was at Waypoint IGARI, which is located at N6^o56.87’ E103^o34.63’, very close to 6^o55’15”N and 103^o34’43”E announced earlier. So, I will use the Waypoint IGARI coordinates as the reference for analysis and discussion.

(2) 不出所料, MH370飞机失联的时间从凌晨1时30分改成凌晨1时21分13秒, 是以最后所知的副监控雷达返回来提供的, 这新的时间和我在附加论点第2部分所提及的凌晨1时22分很接近的吻合. 那个最早第1天就被公布MH370失联的位置是在北纬6度55分15秒和东经103度34分43秒, 这已沿用于媒体和公众的讨论很多天了, 而现在初步报告中它成为“未知”, 然而, 它被表明最后所知的副雷达返回是在伊嘎里航点, 那是在北纬6度56.87分和东经103度34.63分, 非常接近之前公布的北纬6度55分15秒和东经103度34分43秒. 因此, 我将用伊嘎里航点的经纬度做为分析和讨论的参考.

(3) In the diagram released in the preliminary report, there is no indication of military radar detection of the MH370 at Waypoint IGARI, and there is no mention of MH370 turn-back tracking in this area, not as described by many local and foreign media sources, those are only graphic simulation made by the media. This proves that my hypothesis as mentioned in main article is correct. This is the first proof (that is without evidence) to deny the “Indian Ocean cruise theory”. Besides, there is no evidence that the MH370 had been flying at low altitude crossing the Malay Peninsula, investigators saying it flying at 12,000 feet or even 5,000 feet is actually a speculation.

(3) 在初步报告公布的图表中, 并无标明在伊嘎里航点军事雷达探测到MH370, 也没有提及在这区域有追踪MH370折返, 并非许多本地和国外媒体源所描述的, 那些只是媒体所做的图绘模拟. 这证明我在主要文章所提起的设论是对的. 这是第1个证明(既是没有证据)否定“印度洋漫航理论”. 此外, 没有证据MH370曾经在低海拔飞行横越过马来半岛, 调查员们说它在12,000尺或甚至5,000尺飞行纯粹是一个揣测.

(4) If the MH370 did turned back at waypoint IGARI during the time 1.22 am – 1.25 am, Mike McKay from the Songa Mercur oil rig platform in Vietnam, most likely would not be able to observe fireball of aircraft at a bearing of 265^o–275^o from his location, because the aircraft would have moved in the southwest direction toward the Malay Peninsula. The investigators have to ask one very critical question, as I have discussed in my main article, that is, do they believe the MH370 had caught a fire on board?

(4) 如果MH370有在凌晨1时22分至凌晨1时25分时段在伊嘎里航点折返, 来自越南的“松尔么库儿”钻油台的麦克墨凯, 极有可能不会从他的位置的方位角265度至275度观察到飞机的火球, 因为该飞机已经向西南方向朝马来半岛移动了. 那些调查员必须问一个非常关键性的问题, 就如我在主要文章里所讨论的, 那就是, 他们相信MH370机上有发生一起火患吗?

(5) If you still insist to believe MH370 had turned back at the Waypoint IGARI, please remember the MAS’s Narita Flight which is about 30 minutes ahead of MH370 (please see New Sunday Times of March 9), if both flights were at a speed of about 850 km/h, then the distance between them would be about 425 km, if MH370 turned back at 1:25 am (could be even earlier at 1:22 am), whereas the Narita Flight continue moved forward and in the opposite direction of MH370 upon turned back, by the time Narita Flight’s pilot contacted MH370’s co-pilot just after 1:30 am, there would be additional 5+5=10 minutes difference in time, convert to distance would be about 142 km, let use 125 km after offset for slowdown, so the total distance between MH370 and Narita Flight is about 425km+125km=550 km at about 1:30 am, that is the airspace distance roughly from Kulai to Penang, do you think the pilot could contact another aircraft at this far distance?

(5) 如果你还是坚持相信MH370有在伊嘎里航点转回头, 请记得那架在MH370前头30分钟的马航的成田航机(请看3月9日的新周日时报), 如果两架飞机的速度都是大约850公里时速, 那么它们之间的距离将会是大约425公里, 如果MH370在凌晨1时25分转回头(可以是更早的凌晨1时22分), 而成田航机继续向前移动, 既是转头的MH370的相反方向, 等到成田航机的机师在刚过凌晨1时30分联络到MH370的副机师时, 那就有多出时间上的差异5+5=10分钟了, 换成距离就是大约142公里, 做了放缓的调整就用125公里吧, 那么MH370 和成田航机在凌晨1时30分时的总距离就是大约425公里+125公里=550公里, 那就是大概从古来去槟城的空中距离, 你认为那机师能在这么远的距离联络得到另一架飞机吗?

(6) The time the Malaysian air defense detected an unidentified aircraft was also revised from 2:15 am to 2:01:49 am. So, the time taken from the lost point 6^o56.87’N and 103^o34.63’E to northwest of Penang or near Perak Island is not 45 minutes (1:30 am to 2:15 am) as announced in the earliest days, also not 53 minutes (1:22 am to 2:15 am), but is about 40.5 minutes (1:21:13 am to 2:01:49 am). The distance from Penang to the military radar detection point was initially reported to be 200 nautical miles or 200 miles, but the precise distance or coordinates is not indicated in the preliminary report. It is utmost crucial to know whether these times and distances can tally with the speed of the aircraft.   

(6) 马来西亚空防探测到一架不明身份飞机的时间也从凌晨2时15分修改成凌晨2时零1分49秒. 因此, 从失踪点北纬6度56.87分和东经103度34.63分到槟城西北部或靠近霹雳岛所用的时间就不是45分钟(凌晨1时30分凌至晨2时零15分)即如最早几天所公布的, 也不是53分钟(凌晨1时22分至凌晨2时15分), 而是约40.5分钟(凌晨1时21分13秒至凌晨2时零1分49秒). 从槟城到军用雷达探测点的距离最初被报道为200海浬或200里, 不过确实的距离或经纬度没有在该初步报告中被注明. 欲知道这些时间与距离和飞机的速度能否相符是极为重要的.  

(7) Now let’s estimate the aircraft’s speed again based on the new data of times and distances, to compare whether it could tally with the high speed range 850-900 km/h at high altitude. The distance is from the lost contact point 6^o56.87’N and 103^o34.63’E to the area nearby Perak Island, the basic time is from 1:21:13 am to 2:01:49 am; there are 3 sets of possible calculations: (a) First, presume the aircraft followed a direct arc flight path, which crossed over the southern Thailand and Kedah state of Malaysia, the distance is about 560 km, so the speed would be about 560x(60/40.5) equals 830 km/h, which is comparable with the aircraft’s high speed range. (b) Second, presume the aircraft crossed over only the 4 states of peninsular Malaysia with smooth curved path, the distance is about 600 km, so the speed would be about 600x(60/40.5) equals 888 km/h, which is only marginally comparable with the aircraft’s high speed range. (c) Third, the above calculations do not take into account of the following factors: (i) the offset times for slow down and turned around near the lost contact point 6^o56.87’N and 103^o34.63’E, which might need about 3-5 minutes or more, let presume after the turned around there left about 37 minutes for the aircraft to cross over the peninsular Malaysia and to reach the point near Perak Island; (ii) some “sway turning” flight during night time, which might increase the total distance by 20-50 km, let’s presume the total distance is 620 km. So, the speed would be about 620x(60/37) equals about 1005 km/h, this is quite out of the aircraft’s normal speed range 850-900 km/h at high altitude, the normal speed should be even slower if the aircraft was at lower altitude to avoid military radar detection. (d) So, based on the above calculations, it is a weak evidence to support the speculative turn-back theory, instead there is higher possibility that the aircraft did not cross over the peninsular Malaysia. [The above calculations are rough estimation, when location coordinates are available, precise calculations can then be made].    

(7) 现在让我们根据新的时间和距离数据再估次计飞机的速度, 以做比较它和在高海拔的高速度范围850至900公里时速是否能符合. 距离是从失踪点北纬6度56.87分和东经103度34.63分到霹雳岛附近地区, 基本的时间是从凌晨1时21分13秒至凌晨2时零1分49秒; 有3组可能的计算法: (a)首先, 假定该飞机跟随一个直接的弧形飞行航道, 那就是横越过泰国南部和马来西亚的吉打州, 距离是大约560公里, 因此速度将是约560x(60/40.5) 等于830公里时速, 那是和飞机的高速范围对得上的. (b)第二, 假定该飞机以顺畅的弧形航道只横越过半岛马来西亚的4个州属, 距离是大约600公里, 那么速度将是约600x(60/40.5) 等于888公里时速, 那和飞机的高速范围只是稍微对得上. (c) 第三, 以上的计算不包括以下的因素: (i)放缓与在失踪点北纬6度56.87分和东经103度34.63分附近转回头的抵消时间, 那可能需要3至5分钟或更多, 就让转回头后还剩下37分钟让飞机横越过半岛马来西亚以及到达霹雳岛附近地点; (ii)晚间一些“弯来弯去”的航行, 那就可能增加总距离约20至50公里, 让我们假定总距离为620公里. 那么, 时速将是约620x(60/37) 等于约1005公里时速, 这就相当出乎于飞机在高海拔的正常速度范围850至900公里时速以外, 如果该飞机要在较低的海拔以避开军用雷达的探测那么正常速度应该更慢. (d)因此, 根据以上的计算, 那是一个很脆弱的证据去支持揣测性的折返理论, 反而有较高的可能性该飞机没有横越过半岛马来西亚. [以上的计算是粗略的估计, 当位置的经纬度有了, 就可做准确的计算].

(8) Another updated time is the last air force defense radar point at 2:22 am, not 2.40 am as previously mentioned and reported by some media. Whether that is the location previously said to be 200 miles or 200 nautical miles northwest of Penang, it is not clearly labeled or explained, it has become obscure in the preliminary report. Besides, it had also been reported that the unidentified aircraft looked turning to the east or northeast somewhere near Perak Island, but now it is not indicated in the diagram. Then, what did it mean by “turn-back” announced in the very beginning? Where did MH370 make a turn-back? How could investigators simply connect the disappearance of MH370 in the east side and appearance of a so-called unidentified aircraft in the west side by saying it a turn-back? They must know that the northern Strait of Malacca is a busy flight path, the unidentified aircraft could be flights from Malaysia, Indonesia or Singapore toward the northwest directions en route to many European countries. Are those changes made under manipulation? Is the purpose of doing so likely for supporting the Indian Ocean cruise theory? (I will analyze and explain the Inmarsat’s detection of ping signals is also a weak evidence for the theory in another publication).

(8) 另一个修正的时间是最后的空军防卫雷达标点在凌晨2时22分, 而不是之前提及和一些媒体报道的凌晨2时40分. 那个位置是否是以前所说的槟城的西北200里或200海浬, 它没有被清楚的标明或解释, 它在初步报告里被模糊化了. 此外, 曾有报道那架身份不明的飞机看起来像是在霹雳岛一带向东或东北转弯, 不过现在没有在图表里注明. 那么, 在很早宣布的“折返”是什么意思呢? MH370在那里做了一个折返呢? 调查员怎么可以随便把MH370在东边消失和所谓身份不明的飞机在西边出现连结并说成是折返呢? 他们必须知道马六甲海峡北端是一个繁忙的航线, 那个身份不明的飞机有可能是从马来西亚, 印尼或新加坡往西北方向取道去很多个欧洲国家. 那些更改是不是在操纵下所做? 那样做的目的是否像是为了支配印度洋漫航理论? (我将在另一个发表分析和解释国际海事卫星组织探测到的频音讯号也是该理论的一个脆弱证据).    

(9) Lastly, I refer to a statement in the MH370 Preliminary Report on Page 4: “A playback of a recording from military radar revealed that an aircraft with a possibility of MH370 had made an air-turn back onto a Westerly heading crossing Peninsular Malaysia”, this statement is apparently written in an obscure manner. I suppose that is not military radar detection other than that detected at 2:01:49 am and last detection at 2:22:00 am, and also not another detection in the Waypoint IGARI, otherwise it would be a completely true evidence, without any obscure meaning, the times and coordinates for tracking of so-called turn-back must be absolutely ensured. The rationale is very simple, when the MH370 disappeared from KLATCC’s secondary radar, the aircraft should be still on the military’s primary radar, when it took a few minutes to dive down to lower altitude, the radar tracking should be very obvious, but none of the relevant data is available, otherwise turn-back cannot be denied.   

(9) 最后, 我参阅MH370初步报告的第4页的一段声明: “来自军方雷达的一个记录重播揭露有一架飞机有可能是MH370曾经做了一个空中折返横越半岛马来西亚而朝西方去”, 这个声明明显的以一个模糊方式来写. 我想那不是军方雷达的探测, 除了在凌晨2时零1分49秒探测到的和凌晨2时22分的最后探测, 也不是在伊嘎里航点的另一个探测, 不然的话那就应该是一个完全确实的证据, 没有任何模糊的意思, 所谓折返的追踪的时间和经纬度必须是绝对确保的吧. 其原理很简单, 当MH370 从吉隆坡航空交通控制塔的副雷达消失时, 该飞机就应该还在军方的主雷达上, 当它用数分钟下沉到较低的海拔时, 雷达的追踪应该是非常明显的, 但是有关的资料都没有到现, 不然折返就不能被否定了.