Was the Malaysian Military Radar data released by Geoscience Australia?
In a recent paper, written by Capt. Patrick Blelly, Jean-Luc Marchand and an anonymous source called trise5631@gmx.com they claim that the Malaysian military radar data has been released by Geoscience Australia.
I contacted trise5631 and was kindly shown how to download the data. There are two files called RADAR_Polylines and RADAR_Points. How to download the files and an analysis of the data can be found in the paper here
In each case you will receive the JSON files that are used in ArcGIS, with the organisation licence ATSB, to build the ESRI vectorial map layers on the Geoscience Australia website.
If you Google “arcgis radar_polylines” and “arcgis radar_points” you will get descriptions of the data.
Both data items were created on 20th April 2017 and are owned by Geoscience Australia, but with Credits (Attribution) ATSB. They are layers that support the generation of the story map application “The data behind the search for MH370” on the Geoscience website.
It is clear from the descriptions, that the positions are “indicative only” and the layers are designed to support the generation of the story map application “The data behind the search for MH370” on the Geoscience website. The data files have been viewed over 145,000 times since their creation on 21st April 2017. The files have been updated in May and July 2017.
These are files supporting a Geoscience Australia website graphic and are not a Malaysian military radar official data release. The data is 7 years old and not a new disclosure. The data has been viewed over 145,000 times and is not a newly divulged secret.
The RADAR_Polylines JSON data is not consistent with the RADAR_Points data.
The RADAR_Polylines JSON data is not consistent with the ACARS Position Reporting data and ADS-B data available from MH370 up until diversion and is not consistent with the Civilian Radar data from Kuala Lumpur International Airport TAR, Genting RSR, Kota Bharu Airport TAR or Butterworth AFB Penang Airport TAR either before or after diversion.
Unlike the ACARS, ADS-B and Civilian Radar data, the JSON files contain no timestamps. This is because the JSON files were only designed to support maps and not a release of radar data.
The existing ACARS, ADS-B and Civilian Radar data are still valid and this 2017 data is simply a graphical input to produce a map on the Geoscience Australia website.
@All,
A new article by Geoffrey Thomas titled “MH370 Military Radar Claim Debunked” can be viewed at the following link:
https://www.airlineratings.com/news/mh370-military-radar-claim-debunked/
Mr Godfrey said that “these are files supporting a Geoscience Australia website graphic and are not a Malaysian military radar official data release. The data is 7 years old and not a new disclosure. The data has been viewed over 145,000 times and is not a newly divulged secret.”
@All,
An article in “The Parisien” newspaper by Paméla Rougerie.
The title in French is: “Vol MH370 : origine des données, thèse du suicide… Que penser du nouveau rapport de chercheurs français ?”
The title in English is: Flight MH370: origin of data, suicide thesis… What do you think of the new report from French researchers?”
You can read the article in the original in French at the following link:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/u4m978zlduktnuicsvnh0/Le-Parisien-Pam-la-Rougerie-22APR2024-French.pdf?rlkey=ueme9li9etw0tek1kvcbqq4za&dl=0
You can read the article translated into English at the following link:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/1l4me4nadgo9wni4vxtyd/Le-Parisien-Pam-la-Rougerie-22APR2024-English.pdf?rlkey=go4lfr2x9edznvw5dnbsb0anm&dl=0
@All,
Here is a new paper titled “Geoscience Australia data is not from the Malaysian Military”.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/s0h6dntvz1ldhu6svkwnj/Geoscience-Australia-data-is-not-from-the-Malaysian-Military.pdf?rlkey=yxfa7z2py2oia36b9ktvaxlwz&dl=0
Here are the key findings:
Military radar data has a date-time stamp, the Geoscience data does not.
Military radar data is a chronological stream, the Geoscience data is not.
Military radar data has major gaps, the Geoscience data does not.
Military radar raw data does not contain repeats, the Geoscience data has 38 repeats.
Military radar raw data does not contain additions or fillers, the Geoscience data has been redacted.
Military radar data was shown to the NOK in 2014, the Geoscience data does not use this data.
Civilian radar data was released in 2015 and since updated, the Geoscience data matches.
Civilian radar and ADS-B data contains 4,808 rows, the Geoscience data is a subset of 500 rows.
The Geoscience data is for illustrative purposes only, for MH370 flight path graphics on their website.
Here is the backing data.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/u6o8d3ffpdx4ur95d4q2t/MH370-KLIA-Genting-Kota-Bharu-Secondary-Radar-Data.xlsx?rlkey=oanje5z5sar3xi8298kn0d6v7&dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ah50w6xxl4iky8yw1yonz/MH370-ACARS-SITA-SU-Log-Decoded.xlsx?rlkey=xzsgvikqyd3kem270jkbtp1hn&dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/2ubbsg0fdg1vvc1o0j9fq/ADS-B-Terengganu-Export.xlsx?rlkey=6m1wh2it11wqu4cb3r9yhssu1&dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/4facmbe5jn79ajta6mda7/MH370-Kota-Bharu-Butterworth-Primary-Radar-Data.xlsx?rlkey=7i2maezsilv21s9our3my2ytw&dl=0
The provenance of the Malaysian Military Primary Radar Data has to be reexamined.
The radar data that the ATSB used in their analysis was supposedly the ‘ten second radar data’ that they were provided by Malaysia. So far as I am aware, that ‘ten second radar data’ has never been released by Malaysia or the ATSB or anyone else. All that we have are the civil radar data up to near Pulau Perak Island, and a number of plots that have been digitized from the ATSB graphic that was in their report, and the now infamous ‘Lido Slide’. (I do not accept ‘the Lido Slide’ as being the true path of MH370, certainly not past Pulau Perak Island anyway).
As a general comment, I would say at the outset, that the unresolved problem of the ATSB/DSTG’s “geographic inconsistency” with the 19:41 arc intercept, is most likely a direct by-product of the “unverified and unverifiable Malaysian Military Radar Data” (which by necessity produces the FMT north of Ache) and that is, in my frank opinion, the root cause of our inability to find MH370.
But more importantly, this unverifiable radar data has produced a location that also causes significant difficulties interpreting the First Arc log on BFO’s. As we all know, many theories have been examined over the years, for example, the crystal oscillator oven warm up effects, the proposed ‘right offset of 15Nm from N571’ for possible traffic avoidance, and even the more recent Air France Captain’s scenario. None of them have produced a definitive outcome.
My track to the 2nd (19:41:00utc) arc is based on my theory that MH370 DID NOT proceed all the way up the Malacca Strait, but rather, made a LEFT turn off the Vampi Track just South-East of Pulau Perak Island, in other words, just after the end of the civil radar data. (I totally dismiss the remainder of the radar data, the so called military radar data to Vampi and beyond, as unverifiable)
Why I believe Zahari had to cross Ache can be simplified down to one thing, fuel. I have explained it all in detail in other places before, but the essential point is that his original plan had been made off a flight where he had significantly more fuel than MH370 had. He absolutely had to “cut his track miles” to get to his planned destination, so he had to “escape to the northern Indian Ocean” much earlier than his original plan. Therefore, he could not go up to the north of Ache, he had to cut across southern Ache.
My route from the end of the civil radar data is as follows: (generated from Barry Martin’s spreadsheet).
(a) Turn left just SE of Pulau Perak Island (from heading 288T to 240T) towards waypoint TASEK
(b) Thence (to OVERFLY ACHE) – Track DCT waypoint IVRAR (formerly Nagan – just north abeam of WITC)
(c) Within 10Nm of reaching IVRAR – Repower All Electrical Systems
(d) Go “Feet Wet” (cross the coast – out into the ocean – never to see land again)
(e) Thence track DCT waypoint MABIX
(f) Thence – Cross the 1st arc – continue
(g) Thence – (within 5Nm of waypoint MABIX) commence the FMT
(h) Complete the FMT at 18:39:30 at (94.7030 East / 3.0680 North) at FL400, Heading 192.8963 degrees True, GS 467.52kn
(i) 1st Satcall (do not answer) at 18:40:00 at (94.6891 East / 3.0046 North) at FL400, Heading 191.8956 degrees True, GS 467.28kn
(j) At 19:01:30utc pass 27.252Nm East ABEAM of waypoint ISBIX (closest approach to ISBIX) (94.1188 East / 0.2782 North) at FL400, GS 467.2kn
(k) Cross Equator (19:03:45utc) at (94.0591 East / 0.0078 South) at FL400, Heading 191.8791 degrees True, GS 467.71kn
(l) Cross 2nd arc (19:41:00utc) at (93.0666 East / 4.7467 South) at FL400, Heading 191.9203 degrees True, GS 467.71kn
In other words, my 19:41:00 latitude is 4.7467 SOUTH, which is way further south than most other people’s calculated latitude [and I cross the 7th arc (00:19:30utc) at (86.2442 East / 39.226 South)].
My suggestion, is that we should concentrate our attention on resolving ‘the elephant in the room’, the ATSB/DSTG’s “geographic inconsistency”, something that the ATSB seemed quite happy to just leave ‘swinging in the breeze’, with apparently no real attempt having been made to ever resolve it.
It has to be resolved, and to that end, I propose that we should ignore the Malaysian ‘ten second data’ entirely, and instead re-examine the circa 18:25utc log on BFO’s on the assumption that they occurred in a different geographic location to that currently accepted, specifically, my location, near WITC.
To begin, it is readily apparent by simple inspection alone, that one thing is very obvious.
The line of sight to the Inmarsat Satellite from Sanob is about 260 degrees true, and from WITC it is about 264 degrees true.
At Sanob, the aircraft is generally considered to be heading about 290 degrees true, but at WITC, my heading is 240 degrees true.
This produces an obvious and significant difference in the aircraft’s relative heading to the satellite for the two locations.
Up near Sanob, the aircraft heading (290 – 260) is about 30 degrees TO THE RIGHT of the line of site to the satellite.
Down near WITC, the aircraft heading (264 – 240) is about 24 degrees TO THE LEFT of the line of site to the satellite.
I have a ‘gut feeling’ that this difference in relative headings is significant, and that it could be ‘the smoking gun’ that we need to solve ‘the riddle of the circa 18:25 Log-On BFO’s, and the whole case.
Ventus there is no known fundamental technical issue with the flight path evidence as reported. The last radar data 1822 matches up very well with the Inmarsat Arc1. At the moment we do not have scientific justification to toss out any portion of the radar evidence, because the evidence as reported seems to work quite well to explain how the flight may have progressed. You are free to explore alternate truths but the burden of proof is with you and we would need some new hard evidence to overturn the hard radar evidence we already have.
At the start of the report “The Final Resting Place of MH370”, by Bobby Ulich, Richard Godfrey, Victor Iannello and Andrew Banks from 7th March 2020, there is a quote from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.
“It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
The words are uttered by Doyle’s fictitious literary detective, Sherlock Holmes, in ‘A Scandal in Bohemia‘ a story about high society blackmail, honour and nobility.
However, while it might have been deemed appropriate for a fictitious literary detective to overtly advocate the building of theories only from facts, the scientific method generally involves the postulation of a theory and the use of evidence to prove, without prejudice, the validity or invalidty of the theory.
Pseudo-science largely involves the selective use of evidence to support a pet theory, or to discredit or discourage investigation of potententially valid theories.
Any resolution of the loss of MH370 that increases regional and global hostilitities might benefit those who profit through the exploitation of hostility, conflict and associated protection services, but is unlikely to be of help to the relatives and friends of those who died, or to the global aviation community.
@TBill
I know I’m ‘out on a limb’ with this idea, but as I see it, it’s not a case of ‘providing evidence and connecting the dots’, it’s more a case of ‘finding the holes in the evidence’. The old saying ‘the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence’ applies.
The Indonesians are key.
Three things to keep in mind.
The Indonesians said:
(1) They did not see it “where the Malaysians said it was”.
(2) They did not see it “in our air space”.
NOTE: Neither of those two statements PROVES that the DID NOT see it at all, but they do leave open the ‘possibility’ that they ‘may have’ seen it ‘somewhere’ (or think they might have) but in some ‘other location(s)’ that are not consistent with the Malaysian narrative.
and, thirdly:
(3) The Indonesian police general said, “I know what happened to MH370” (and then was promptly fired).
My route is entirely feasible within those statements.
By turning to 240 degrees true at PPI, and transiting across Southern Ache at mid, even high levels, he is ‘in and out of sporadic line of sight to Sabang radar, i.e., below the effective radar terrain mask of Sabang Radar, and is totally terrain shielded from Sibolga radar, almost all the way across to WITC.
It is only as he climbs and accelerates after passing WITC and crossing the coast that he ‘climbs up into Sabang’s coverage’, but right at it’s limits. It is highly unlikely that he would have been noticed at the time.
Similarly, Sibolga is closer but even more heavily terrain masked in that area, and in fact, my path just skirts the absolute limit of Sibolga’s coverage out to sea anyway, and I doubt it would have registered on Sibolga at all, but, it is possible.
In both cases, the fact remains that even if both radars were operational, and even if both operators were ‘on the ball’, MH370 would only show up on either or both when well off the coast – 20nm – or more. (2) They did not see it “in our air space” applies.
Just like the Malaysians and the Thai’s, it would have taken the Indonesians some days to go through their radar tapes. I think they did ‘discover’ MH370 on Sabang’s tapes, but well off shore, “outside their airspace” and going away. That is probably what the Police General had up his sleeve, and he was fired very abruptly, forced into retirement, and has not been heard of since.
This is why I want the First Arc BFO’s examined again, but with a fine tooth comb this time, with every combination of time, position, speed and rate of climb (because he would have definately been climbing having crossed the coast) examined.
@ventus 45,
Indonesia issued a report stating their radar installations were not operational and were shut down due to maintenance, which was hampered by the lack of spare parts.
@ventus45,
I agree with you that “The provenance of the Malaysian Military Primary Radar Data has to be reexamined.” It would be nice if, after 10 years, Malaysia published the military radar data.
I also “do not accept ‘the Lido Slide’ as being the true path of MH370”.
You state: “At SANOB, the aircraft is generally considered to be heading about 290 degrees true, but at WITC, my heading is 240 degrees true.”
At 18:28:15 UTC on the 1st Arc the BFO data shows a track of 295.8°T for an aircraft at waypoint SANOB (6.58600°N 95.66900°E) and a track of 297.4°T for WITC (4.04783°N 96.25017°E).
You also indicate, waypoint SANOB is a line of sight of 259.5° to the Inmarsat satellite in the Indian Ocean Region and WITC is a line of sight of 263.7°. The line of sight to the Inmarsat satellite changing from 259.5 – 295.8 = -36.3 at SANOB to 297.4 – 263.7 = +33.7 at WITC is irrelevant in my view.
The reason why the Malaysian military has not released the radar data is because it shows an unauthorised incursion into Indonesian airspace and a flight path that does not follow official flight routes. The MH370 Flight Path Analysis published on 31st August 2023 on this website showed a flight path based on the WSPR analysis, which passes through Indonesian airspace but eventually renters Malaysian airspace and passes close to waypoint SANOB. The WSPR track fits the Inmarsat BTO and BFO data at each of the seven Arcs.
Your track does not fit the Inmarsat BTO and BFO data at 18:28:15 UTC and does not fit the WSPR analysis of the flight path.
The Final Resting Place of MH370 (UGIB study) published 7th March 2020 showed that there was an unexplained time gap between the 1st Arc at 18:28:15 UTC and the 2nd Arc at 19:41:03 UTC, which was filled by an artificial detour and slow speed. The UGIB study failed to adequately explain the flight path between the 1st and 2nd Arc (known as the FMT Route), preferring to focus on a straight line path starting at the 2nd Arc. Andrew Banks, one of the authors of the UGIB report stated after publication: “I was not a fan of the zig-zag FMT path from a pilot’s perspective.” Neither Victor Iannello nor I believed the Kate Tee eye witness report as her husband who was also on the boat denied the sighting ever happened. We challenged Bobby Ulich on the inclusion of the eye witness report in UGIB, but he was insistent.
The WSPR flight path fits the Inmarsat data and Boeing fuel data without any artificial detours and zig-zags to match fake eye witness reports or reduction to holding speed to lose time.