Let me start by quoting the two articles: Duncan Steel refers to the Michael Exner comment.
Duncan Steel
http://www.duncansteel.com/archives/category/mh370
"Another recent publication
regarding MH370 that is also badly in error is an ebook entitled “MH370
& AF447″ which has been made available online by the author, one
Siegfried Walther. It is a tissue of nonsense.
A few comments from
Independent Group (IG) members regarding Walther’s ebook:
It was written by a lawyer
and it shows. There were a lot of words and self-promotion but little
substance.
Let me say that the article
is a rambling mess and hardly the work product of a competent attorney. There
are errors of fact as in most of the published work on this subject because the
full scenario is complex and unique; further, there are a relatively small
number of undisputed facts.
I stopped reading after
page 18. That’s when I realized the entire theory rested on the
likely-false assumption that ACARS was turned off at 1707…an unlikely
assumption …certainly not a known fact.
A more-detailed summary of
this egregious mistake in Walther’s purported analysis appears below, written
by Mike Exner."
Comments on “MH370 & AF447″ by Siegfried Walther
by Michael Exner
2015 June 16
"Unfortunately, the analysis of MH370 by Siegfried Walther is
fundamentally flawed from the outset by his misunderstanding of how the ACARS
system works in conjunction with the Inmarsat AMSS system. Starting on page 16,
Walther states:
“The ACARS was switched off
or became disabled at 01:07. The Transponder only switched off or became
disabled some thirteen minutes later at 01:20 after MH370 signed off from
Malaysian ATC.”
This statement is simply
not true. There is no evidence whatsoever that the ACARS was switched off or
became disabled at 17:07 UTC. All that is known for sure is that the ACARS
transmission expected at 17:37 (30 minutes later) did not take place. From this
fact, it is known that ACARS or the AES (or both) stopped functioning at
some unknown time between 17:07 and 17:37. Absent any other information, it
could be said that the probability that ACARS or the AES (or both) were
switched off or failed at 17:07 is no more or no less likely than going off
line at 17:20 or 17:36 or any other time in between 17:07 and 17:37 UTC.
But we do know something
else. We know that the transponder stopped replying to interrogations at
about 17:20, and we know the last VHF radio contact was at about the same time.
Taking all three facts together, it is actually much more likely that the AES
and/or ACARS stopped at the same time (i.e. circa 17:20, not 17:07).
Virtually everything that
follows in Walther’s analysis is based on this false assumption that there was
a 13 minute gap between the events. Take away that erroneous 13 minute gap
assumption and the entire analysis that follows then collapses.
I would encourage Walther
to go back and reconsider his theory under the much more likely assumption that
the ACARS-AES, VHF and transponder all were switched off or became inoperative
at about the same time (circa 17:20). All the evidence taken together
suggests this is much more likely.
Note too that there is no
evidence whatsoever that the VHF radio failed or was switched off. All we know
for sure is that there were no transmissions from MH370 received after about
17:20. The radio may have been working fine, and if there were crew alive and
listening, they could very well have heard every call to 9M-MRO (i.e. MH370),
but did not respond for unknown reasons. We simply do not know if the VHF was
off or on."
MY RESPONSE
At the outset, let me quote something I said in an earlier article on this blog.
"I post blogs to exchange ideas, to share insights I have and to learn from the insights of others.
To this end, replies or responses which agree with the views I posted are not as treasured as those in which questions are posted to me, or those in which my views are challenged or in which it is suggested that I'm wrong.
I welcome any chance to learn, to exchange views, or even to be proven wrong. If I'm proven wrong, I'll change my view and be glad someone took the trouble to point me in the right way. I welcome all questions raised, which I might not have considered, since these could lead me to confirm a theory held or to realise that it was wrong. "
I thus welcome the fact of Michael Exner's written criticism of my book as well as the tone in which it was written, even though I don't agree with his conclusion.
The same cannot be said about Duncan Steel's ill-informed, mean spirited and entirely unsubstantiated remarks.
I shall deal with each article in date order.
In his article Michael Exner says that there is no evidence to support the assertion in my book that the ACARS was switched off at 17:07 UTC. He invited me to consider his reasons for saying this. I have done so.
I concede that in this he is correct and I readily concede that my statement is wrong. I concede too that he is correct, for the reasons he states, that we can accept it as fact that the ACARS went off some time between 17:07 and 1737 UTC.
His suggestion, however, that this error undermines the validity of the theory I advance or that it changes conclusion I published in the book (and I remind him that this was the same conclusion I published on my blog only 36 hours after the aircraft's disappearance), is completely without foundation.
The fact is that nothing turns on the error I made. On the contrary, if I accept his theory that it is more likely that the ACARS went off at the same time as the transponder i.e. at 1720, all that happens is that I lose one of the weaker arguments out of the ten I advanced in my theory and I gain a ninth, even stronger argument in favour of the theory I advanced. I would also need to re-cast one of the other points I made.
Exner's error is evidently based on the assumption that because the first of my ten reasons dealt in some detail with the 13 minute interval this somehow meant I attached great significance to it. The fact is that I commenced with that point because I thought, admittedly wrongly, that this was the first event to occur. The 13 minute point was first for this reason only.
Indeed, however, Exner's real error is that he fails to appreciate the simple methodology I employed to arrive at the conclusion I did at the outset and in my book.
Instead, in seize upon an ultimately insignificant error in his rush to disprove my theory, he did the very thing some jury members and certain experts do. He failed to see the wood for the trees.
He failed to appreciate the insignificance of the error, the insignificance of the two points which I made in reliance upon that error, failed to read or to understand the methodology I was employing, (despite that I set out the methodology in black and white and then went on to apply it in the paragraphs Mr Exner chose not to quote)
I never once suggested nor implied that my theory was dependent on the 13 minute gap. Yet, this does not stop Mr Exner from coming to the following startling yet completely baseless concussion:
"Virtually everything that follows in Walther’s analysis is based on this false assumption that there was a 13 minute gap between the events. "
Clearly, Mr Exner failed to understand the methodology I said I was going to employ, and failed to understand the paragraphs in which I did employ that methodology. Alternatively, in his rush to judgment it seems he missed or chose to ignore numerous paragraphs which stated the precise opposite of what he contends they say.
For one. In Chapter 1 of my book, I set out the methodology to which I subscribe. Far from placing reliance on any one fact, as Mr Exner suggests I do, I explicitly tell the reader one has to have regard to the totality of the known facts.
Only a mindless idiot fixates on one fact bases an entire theory on it.
A
favoured theory as to the cause of an air crash can be accepted as being the
probable cause, IF the totality of the known facts points towards such favoured
theory to such an extent that it renders that theory to be probable, AND
provided that the totality of the known facts also serves to undermine or to
eliminate all the other likely or common competing theories by rendering each such
competing theory to be improbable.
Not only do I tell the reader that my method is to consider the totality of the facts, but I then go on to do precisely that in just about every paragraph. Not once do I say I'm basing my theory on the 13 minute interval, what I DO say clearly demonstrates the precise opposite.
The content of reason 5 on its own proves just how false and/or how totally inaccurate Mr Exner's conclusion is.
"Reason
five: - The
timing of the failure to comply with ATC’s handover to Vietnam’s ATC points
firmly to one and only one probable cause
It is at this stage that one must consider the
single piece of evidence which, even if considered in isolation, increases the
probabilities of unlawful human conduct to a point where it must be elevated to
the most probable cause, whilst simultaneously pulling the carpet out from most
other alternative theories.
If a pilot on that flight, wished to choose
ONLY ONE MOMENT which would allow his airliner to avoid been tracked for long
enough to ‘disappear’, precisely which moment would he choose?
The answer is simple.
A rogue pilot would choose the five seconds
or so after the hand-off from Malaysian ATC, prior to the time when he ought to
be making contact with Vietnamese ATC.
When I heard that the hand-off to
Vietnamese ATC did not occur, that the aircraft’s transponder had instead been
switched off, and that the airliner then changed course, these facts on their
own caused me to conclude that a deliberate unlawful act was the most likely
cause of the airliner’s disappearance. Why?
Because if one aimed to escape from
Malaysian ATC, and wished to avoid being tracked by radar for long enough to
avoid being tracked at all, of all the moments in the entire six hour flight
between Kuala Lampur and Beijing, those critical five seconds comprise the precise window of opportunity one would choose.
Malaysian ATC would assume that the
aircraft was under the control of Vietnamese ATC and Vietnamese ATC would be
under the impression that the airliner was late, that it had been delayed at
Kuala Lampur for some reason or possibly even that it had been diverted to
another destination for any number of reasons. This buys the perpetrator
considerable valuable time.
So, if you consider the test I set above,
all the pieces of the puzzle fit perfectly. The probabilities of my theory being
correct are in the upper nineties at least.
However, that is not enough. One still needs to
exclude the possibility of the fire, explosive decompression, catastrophic
mechanical or technical failure etc"
There you have it. Couldn't be clearer to any OPEN minded child with grade 2 reading ability. I do attach greater significance to events of one period over all else, and its the five minute or so period AFTER handover and NOT the thirteen minute period relating to the ACARS.
How on earth could anyone reading that single paragraph, on its own, possibly come to such a false, disingenuous and erroneous conclusion as did Mr Exner:
"Virtually everything that follows in Walther’s analysis is based on this false assumption that there was a 13 minute gap between the events. "
I hope he is not a pilot! Since his comprehension simple English is clearly only exceeded by the total absence of any logic.
I should stop, but there are just so many other things which Mr Exner chose to ignore which also demonstrates how delusional and fanciful his version of my theory is.
If you re-read the above paragraph 5, you will note I deal with the evidence I consider to be most compelling and supportive of my theory. I refer to the handover. I refer to the course change. I refer to the transponder. And I proceed to draw my conclusion.
That is what I DO say. And it bears no relation to what Mike says I said. In fact it says the opposite of what Mike says I said.
But here's just another of many points to incinerate the carpet I have already pulled out from under him. Not ONCE in the entire paragraph 5, where I deal with my most compelling evidence supporting my theory, do I mention ACARS or the 13 minute period. NOT ONCE!
This raises the question, how could Mike have read that paragraph and thought, even for a second, that my theory is in any way based upon the 13 minute gap or when the ACARS went off. Even if the first three paragraphs hint at a theory in line with Mike's and even that's a stretch if you read the paragraphs carefully, clearly by paragraph 5 its clear which theory I favour and which facts I rely on!
Now, I want to assume that Mike Exner is a decent honest man, and that he was not deliberately trying to deceive anyone.
Something about his style leads me to conclude that he is decent and honest and I shall give him the benefit of that doubt.
The problem is that he can't hide behind a lack of intelligence. His language skills betray him.
Why? Easy. Read Chapter 1 of my book where I make two points. Some people don't have the ability to see the wood for the trees. They fixate on petty things and miss the big picture in the process.
Another analogy I refer to in Chapter 1 also applies. The part where I explain how in long trials, many lay people reach a point where they allow their initially formed view of the innocence or guilt of a person to become crystallised in the minds and from then on their minds tend to filter any "further evidence" to the contrary.
It is possible Mike spotted my error, misinterpreted the significance I attached to it, assumed that my earlier points where the one's I favoured or considered to be my strongest, and he saw a chance to write an article to put show the "flight sim lawyer" that just how wrong and incompetent he is.
Well, as I have demonstrated, and shall demonstrate with even more compelling arguments below, if that is what he intended, he failed and failed miserably.
Sorry Duncan, you clown. Thought I'd forgotten about you? Well now perhaps you'll see why I needed to write about the wood and the trees and trials in Chapter 1 before I dealt with the air crashes themselves. "Not such a tissue of nonsense after all". Stick around mate. I'll get to you later.
There is of course, one other option. Mike Exner spotted an error, stopped reading after a few pages, and delirious with excitement, rushed to pronounce judgment about the book as a whole based only on what he'd read and without bothering to consider the rest.
Well that would be intellectually dishonest, but it would certainly explain why he got it so thoroughly wrong.
Hey, if that's what happened, and you saw a chance to stick it to a lawyer, and you rushed to take it and got a little carried away, I'll laugh and say I understand. Have the guts to own up and we'll laugh about it and say no more. Better that than admit to being dishonest, dim or lacking in discernment I should imagine.
If the latter is not the case, and you believe you were right, then read on, I'll demonstrate just how wrong you were.
You will recall that your theory about the ACARS is that it went off at the same time as the Transponder rather than earlier. I concede you are probably right. The sad thing is that this only helps me and my theory and does NOTHING to undermine it.
My theory is that the Transponder was deliberately turned off. I rely on the timing of this event the failure of the pilots to comply with the handover instruction and the turn left, all of which occurred in the window of opportunity.
If I'm correct about the Transponder, and I clearly am, then WHY or Why dear Mike would the simultaneous disabling of the ACARS possibly present me with a problem or undermine my theory?
So yes @Airinvestigate , I did make an error and at least I have no problem admitting it. But is it really serious? Turns out to prove my theory more than hinder it don't you think?
Don't tell me the pilot can't disarm part of the ACARS from the cockpit. Two experts air crash investigators / experts, one of whom was an airline pilot, , who appeared on the National Geographic Air Crash Investigation programme on #MH370 would say you are dead wrong about that too!
But it gets even worse. You all claim I'm wrong and clueless. You, Mike Exner, you (You can't apply home simu to how aircraft wired/functions- I didn't you clot, I have studied this area for years and I have yet to deliver an incorrect conclusion, SORRY!) and you Duncan Steel.
Here's the proof I know what I'm talking about or at the very least that, at the very least, my theory is accepted by many other accredited aviation experts and pilots.
I never attached much significance to the ACARS /13 minute gap. It was an afterthought and I can prove it.
As I point out in Chapter 1, my first article about MH370 came out 36 hours after the aircraft disappeared. 36 Hours. (Check it out on my BlogSpot Blog ) Not bad for a lawyer & home simu educated guy not so @Airinvestigate.
Relying only on logic, and known facts at the time my conclusion is the same as the one in the book. 36 Hours. I didn't mention the ACARS 13 minute theory once! But I did mention most of the factors which I mentioned in reason 5 above. Oh, and in reason 6.
Should I prove that Exner that his little attempt to misrepresent my theory in his comment missed six too? Why not:
"Reason
six: What are the odds fate would pick the same critical seconds of a six hour
flight to visit a catastrophic decompression, devastating fire or some other
mechanical failure that a rogue pilot would choose to escape detection from ATC
and to try to slip away?
The alternative theories assume an aircraft
with two innocent pilots. It assumes that just after the airliner had been
handed off from Malaysian ATC, and during the very same five second window of
opportunity a rogue pilot would take advantage of, the aircraft instead just
happened to suffer some non-human crisis serious enough to prevent the
handover, yet not serious enough to prevent the aircraft from in fact doing
EVERYTHING else one might expect a rogue pilot or hijacker to do in the given
circumstances.
The odds of fate choosing the same five
second window of opportunity to wreak havoc on the airliner as a rogue pilot
would have opted for must be miniscule indeed.
This is all the more so when one considers
that fate had many many other five second periods during the six hour flight to
choose from. If one considers the window of opportunity as a percentage of the
entire flight, it makes up less than one tenth of one percent of the total six
hour flying time. That, in my view, represents the odds of the alternative
theories being correct. If we allow for a one minute handover time, these odds still
remain negligible."
Sorry Mike Exner, not a shred of evidence in 6 to support your interpretation of my theory is there?
I know I'm digressing, but Lord, you guys are just so incredibly wrong I cannot help it. Just one more quote and then I'll return to the KILLER point I was going to make....
"Reason
seven: The timing of the aircraft’s turn after handover is telling particularly
since it occurred without any ATC transmission
I consider the fact that the aircraft
immediately changed course after the hand-off from Malaysian ATC to be
particularly significant.
Equally significant is the fact that the
change of course was not accompanied by any communication with ATC, which is
normal practice for a diversion.
That said, an initial failure to communicate
with ATC during an emergency is easily explained, and is not necessarily
unusual.
Standard operating procedure during an
emergency requires pilots to AVIATE & to NAVIGATE and then only to
COMMUNICATE.
However, the fact that such failure to communicate
persisted indefinitely remains highly suspicious.
There are various ways for the pilots to
communicate an emergency, including using the transponder to enter a
transponder code for radio failure or a hijack situation.
Reason
eight: - The totality of the known facts point towards ONE AND ONLY ONE CAUSE!
Nothing is impossible I guess, but if one considers
the known facts in their totality, these all point in one direction whilst the
odds of any other cause fitting these facts or displacing the favoured version
are negligible at best.
As stated above , the other theories
require one to accept that fate deliberately chose the critical window of
opportunity to visit some catastrophic systems failure or structural failure on
the airliner as part of some supernatural plot to hide the true cause of the
disaster from the world and instead to cast the blame upon two completely
innocent pilots. You have only to utter any such theory aloud to discover just
how far-fetched, fanciful, and totally implausible it sounds.
It was the combination of all the known
facts in one event which lead me to my conclusion.
Reason
nine - How can one seriously suggest that a catastrophic event or fire or major
technical failure occurred at the hand-off, which prevented any ATC communication
but which nonetheless permitted the aircraft to make several course changes
over the next hour or so and then finally continue flying for another six or so
hours?
The 777 is a very reliable aircraft with
backup systems in case certain essential systems fail. I could not, and still
cannot conceive of a technical emergency which was so catastrophic that it was
capable on the one hand of disabling all the above systems, yet on the other
hand it nonetheless permitted the aircraft to stay aloft for five or so more
hours, to make several altitude and course changes, all with no attempt to
communicate with ATC."
Oops. Mike Exner. I'm sorry. Hell I meant to only copy and past 1 more reason, my hand slipped and two others came along for the ride.
Guess what, three more reasons, no ACARS, no 13 minute gap. Not a hint of it. And yet you had the gall to mislead people that my theory depended on my error! How wrong you were!
Duncan Steele. You must be feeling a prize twit now. You clearly never read my book before you published your drivel. If you had you would have seen just how wrong Mike Exner's misrepresentations were.
Even better, if any of you had read on, you'd realise the thing which must be hardest of all for you to swallow.
And here it is. 36 Hours in, I publish my theory using logic, my ability to see the wood for the trees, and my acquired knowledge. Sorry +AirInvestigate
Well, was I right? Yip. My theory is now generally accepted to be correct by most experts. Check out the one's I quote in my book.
Sorry Duncan Steele, not a tissue of nonsense after all. Sorry Mike Exner.
God, it must irritate the living hell out of you clowns to learn how many experts came around to a theory it took me 36 hours to work out;
Oh, another Killer point, the recent National Geographic show which on #MH 370 was featured came to a conclusion. What conclusion do you twits think that was?????? Who do they agree with???
Here's a summary of what was said in that programme. Hope the notes are not too cryptic.
"
Cabin pressure can be adjusted manually to incapacitate everyone else on board.
Brenner says it appears this is a carefully thought out effort to evade
detection. Nance agrees"
Here's a summary of what was said in that programme. Hope the notes are not too cryptic.
"
3 min after last radio call malaysia made a sharp turn to
left off course. Johhn Nance aviation analyst ( former airline pilot and
airforce pilot). Says the timing of the turn immediately after the turn - the
possibility of hijack jumps into your head. Pilots have several ways to
communicate with the ground in hijack. No alert makes hikack unlikeky. He says.
Transponder cuts out 2 min after last atc trnsmission. acars switches off
after. Nance says done on purpose or emergency.
Fire could explain sudden left turn. Fire theory is that no radio call.
Cargo bays fire alarm should have sounded before the fire spread. Declare
emergency as oxygen masks drop. No emergency declared. Plane flew for on for seven hours. Hypoxia
and disorientation not consistent with turns aircraft made which would never
have been programmed into the flight computer even in one's wildest
imagination. Plane made 3 turns in the last hour and a half after the radio
call. Aviation expert Malcolm Brenner beleives those turns strongly suggest
someone in the cockpit deliberately flew the plane off course. 777 is designed
to have multiple backups making it extremely unlikely that enough systems could
fail to put the flight in jeopardy. Brnner and Nance say multiple failures are
inconsitent with evidence the plane kept flying. Brenner says 2 systems whose
purpose is to communicate with the ground went out simultaneously. He says no
obvious electrical connection other than deliberate human involvement. Nance
agrees. Says everything comes down to deliberate action by some body for some
reason. Pilot can diable acars from within cockpit but not the handshake
function.
Virtually everything I said in my Blogs last year and in my book this year is supported. Why? Cause its logical! Cause they used the method I set out the book and arrived at the ONLY conclusion which shouted at them.
But....but even if you don't agree with ALL OF THOSE EXPERTS, which you are free to do, at least have the decency to admit that my theory on this accident is shared my many well respected experts.
That must mean I'm not mug when it comes to aviation.
I'm sorry I was right from the outset. Again. But logic, knowledge and the ability to see the wood from the trees will cause you to get it right almost every time (Chapter 1 of the tissue of nonsense in case you were wondering Duncan!)
Ok, I'm bored now. I was going to try to explain how the Window of opportunity works ....but I'm not sure you care about logic or facts....Surprise me. OH, and Duncan, you mention you have a family children in your Blog. Perhaps you might wanna be an example to them and offer a retraction of what you said, or even an apology???
After all, I apologised for the ACARS error even though it ended up proving my case....
One more thing, there are a few people who question whether my expertise as a flight sim pilot qualifies me to write on these issues.
Two things: I don't only rely upon flight sim experience. I have acquired other knowledge through the years Secondly, I keep getting to the correct answers, as I demonstrate in my book. And I do so Before, not after other experts. The answers I arrive at first usually become the generally accepted view of most major experts. Annoying as that may be, the fact that I'm often first and usually correct is a fact that those who criticise my alleged expertise have no answer for.
S G WALTHER....
PS BOOK UPDATED to deal with error.
Free Download at Smashwords. See link below. iBooks, Barnes & Noble & Kobo Versions of the UPDATE out on Wednesday.
Free Download at Smashwords. See link below. iBooks, Barnes & Noble & Kobo Versions of the UPDATE out on Wednesday.
:
So I can only thank Mike for pointing out my error and for
No comments:
Post a Comment