0
$\begingroup$

A geometrical method to find MH370 has been published on the Net (see images below).

I am sure it is wrong (because if it were that easy, thousands of people would have had this idea back in 2014). However, it has attracted some attention.

My question is:
How can this method be proven wrong in a simple, straight-forward way ?

 
Here is the method:

1 2 3 4

source: This method was first presented here.

EDIT:
How is this question off-topic while How can a computer model yield two possible flight paths of MH370 in South Indian Ocean? is on-topic? Isn't this having it both ways?

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
22
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ The final ping is not at the crash site. The Pings were done at an interval of once an hour. So after the final ping, the plane may have crashed immediately, or may have flown for almost another hour before crashing. That time-window alone creates huge uncertainty. $\endgroup$
    – abelenky
    Nov 26, 2018 at 20:44
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ An 84km "margin of error" is more than 22,000 square kilometers, roughly the size of the country of Belize. Expand that based on up to an additional hour of travel (in any direction, planes can turn quickly) and you are looking at potential search areas in the millions of square kilometers. $\endgroup$
    – Ron Beyer
    Nov 26, 2018 at 21:01
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ What sort of refutation are you looking for? If I said that I found MH370 and buried it in my back yard, what would you consider to be a refutation of that? $\endgroup$
    – Tanner Swett
    Nov 26, 2018 at 23:06
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ <How is this question off-topic while How can a computer model yield two possible flight paths of MH370 in South Indian Ocean? is on-topic? You can't have it both ways.> Yes, we can. The question you link asks to explain the methods used by an official investigation. Official investigations are on topic here. You ask us to "(dis)prove" some sort of badly defined/justified method a random person on the internet came up with. We are not here for that. $\endgroup$
    – Federico
    Nov 27, 2018 at 12:13
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ If I say that MH370 can be found by "zoogblat infrkwt hrrtyyflppq" can you please disprove that theory? I don't understand it but I've told you the method. If you can disprove that, then I will work on disproving your theory. $\endgroup$
    – DJClayworth
    Nov 28, 2018 at 1:56

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
5
$\begingroup$

The picture says that "If [the above facts are] true, the plane can only be at one of two green dot locations." However, it doesn't give any reasoning or evidence to support this claim. So, there's no reason to think that the claim is correct.

You asked if itʼs possible to prove that the method is wrong. Itʼs not possible to prove that the method is wrong, because there is no method here. The picture is merely a collection of facts and unsupported claims.

However, the picture does seem to rely on a particular premise. Specifically, the picture seems to be based on the premise that the departure airport, the Inmarsat satellite, and the crash site must form a right triangle. That premise is false; the locations of airplane crashes are actually not affected by the positions of overhead satellites (or vice versa).

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
13
  • $\begingroup$ No evidence is presented for items 1-3, but that doesn't by itself make item 4 wrong. Particularly as items 1-3 are generally accepted knowledge (and the consensus on wikipedia). Item 3 should probably be modified to say "on or close to the 7th arc" $\endgroup$
    – summerrain
    Nov 26, 2018 at 22:27
  • $\begingroup$ Even if you assume that items 1 through 3 are correct, no evidence or reasoning is given for item 4. $\endgroup$
    – Tanner Swett
    Nov 26, 2018 at 22:39
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @rainbowtableturner Yes it’s no proof 4 is wrong. But with equal confidence one could state „1-3 are true. Therefore it must be at Area 51.“ since no deduction is given that allows to get to 4 from 1-3, right? $\endgroup$
    – Cpt Reynolds
    Nov 26, 2018 at 23:06
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @rainbowtableturner Yes, of course. $\endgroup$
    – Cpt Reynolds
    Nov 27, 2018 at 7:57
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @summerrain You're making me feel very frustrated right now. You asked us to "refute this method", even though there's no method described here to refute. So I take my best guess at what the method is, and now you respond to my guess by saying "nobody ever said that". Multiple people have tried to help you multiple times in multiple ways, and you've done nothing but complain about our answers and say that we're wrong. If you want more help, then please show some gratitude and some effort. $\endgroup$
    – Tanner Swett
    Nov 29, 2018 at 2:11

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .