Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 disappearance theories

Never let the facts get in the way of a good theory
I eventually decided to mention the fake debris theory (which I referred to in an earlier comment) in one sentence at the end of the Diego Garcia section (the source conveniently connects the theory to Diego Garcia). Could anybody find an RS saying about this something like "Never let the facts get in the way of a good theory", as I guess it would improve the article, but I really don't want to go looking for such a RS myself, for fear of wasting yet more time on such a dubious subject. Tlhslobus (talk) 11:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * When there are so few hard facts it is easy and even legitimate to make assumptions. Nothing triggers the brainwaves more than a puzzle that should not be a puzzle. No plane has ever disappeared into thin air like MH370. Then one single piece of debris is discovered, as if it escaped a clean-up. Everything else went to the bottom of the ocean in one piece. These puzzles become mind games and that is quite legitimate. I tend to subscribe to one of what they call 'conspiracy' theories. until I see hard facts which discount that. But by the looks of it, we'll never know and that is quite puzzling because we would have thought that was a non possibility.58.174.193.15 (talk) 05:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Why is it considered out-of-order to suggest that the debris might have been faked? I'm sure it is quite possible to falsify those identity markings, and I find it suspicious to hear it repeated so often that the debris has been confirmed genuine. Valetude (talk) 18:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "No plane has ever disappeared into thin air like MH370." Not true. No-one has ever found Glenn Miller's plane or the HP-42 that disappeared over the Gulf during World War 2. It is interesting, though, that given the level of monitoring nowadays this plane still vanished. Although all that may prove is that we are still not omnipotent and the Pacific is a really big ocean. Britmax (talk) 14:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Flight 19, anyone? Mr Larrington (talk) 11:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I can confirm that the Pacific is a really big ocean. But it does have a large heap of trash. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:44, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Flight 370 missing ?
I found this picture on google earth look at the numbers in the picture M8Rite (talk) 21:56, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

It’s not that mate Georgebroadfield (talk) 19:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Acquisition of Freescale staff
The heading "Acquisition of Freescale staff" does not reference the evidence that there were 20 Freescale staff upon the flight. Add comment and reference -> Freescale Semiconductor issued a statement expressing grief of loss of 20 Freescale employees.

Heading content currently simply implies that snopes.com finds no evidence that the four inventors listed on the patent application were on the aircraft passenger list, because names do not match.
 * Hi, I do no understand why is the sentence you want to add relevant. This is not about the 20 but about the four with 20%, and there is not anything about that in the source. It can be rephrased like this but I do not think it is necessary (do you?): "There were 20 Freescale employees on the flight[your source] but the urban myth website snopes.com suggests that there is no evidence that the four inventors listed on the patent application were on the aircraft passenger list, nor that they were entitled to a 20% share of the patent, and it says it is unlikely that their share would revert to Freescale on their death as presented in the email.[39]" WikiHannibal (talk) 09:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Page Title
As discussed on WP:FTN, Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 conspiracy theories is the appropriate title for this article, because each individual "unofficial (i.e. fringe) theory" carries with it an unspoken assumption that the mainstream is suppressing/ignoring it in favor of the official explanation. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


 * support Its hard to know where to begin.Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * A further thought; all conspiracy theories are unofficial theories. We don't have articles entitled Unofficial 9-11 theories, Unofficial JFK Assassination theories, Unofficial Moon Landing theories, etc. for good reason. In the case of this article, I realize there are probably a couple sources that did not intend to be taken as conspiracy theorists, such as technology writers and the like, however by speculating an "alternative explanation" it unfortunately assumes some kind of intention by the mainstream not to recognize it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said, its hard to know where to begin with the reason why.Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


 * support moving to Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 conspiracy theories and reversing current redirect. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This talk page needs renaming too.Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , it was moved back by {{{u|Wbm1058}}. So now we have to go through the bureaucracy of an RM. Guy (help!) 08:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong support. The article was moved here on 2014-06-15 by, an editor who is now inactive, and has remarkably few mainspace edits. It was moved with minimal discussion ( and ), at a time before the timeline was definitively established, so there were legitimate competing theories - something that is no longer the case. "Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 conspiracy theories" is clearly the correct title per WP:PROFRINGE (e.g. 9/11 conspiracy theories) and I have no idea why it was moved back after I moved it to the correct title. The fact that the lead says that some of these have been described as conspiracy theories is irrelevant: by definition, they all are. The current title is equivalent to "unofficial Earth shape theories" or "unofficial moon landing theories". Guy (help!) 08:39, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Guy, a conspiracy, also known as a plot, is a secret plan or agreement between persons (called conspirers or conspirators) for an unlawful or harmful purpose, such as murder or treason, especially with political motivation (Collins Dictionary), while keeping their agreement secret from the public or from other people affected by it. The theory that the captain acted unilaterally, using the flight as a murder-suicide, is therefore by definition not a conspiracy theory. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Maybe helping would be if the main article also referred to these as such. There currently are four links here from it: from the lead, from the body as well as from two templates (these latter two may be automatically renamed).  But if the prose also used it and it was well sourced, it would be more natural for this article's name to also conform.  Basically, I suggest that the main article may also need updates.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 09:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Please review the previous archived discussions: Renaming article and Words to use/not use in new title. Obviously the conclusion drawn HERE that the "Move was done without prior discussion" is not true:
 * at 21:58, 15 June 2014 ( moved page Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 conspiracy theories to Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 unofficial disappearance theories: See talk page)
 * The fringe theories noticeboard should not be usurping normal processes for deciding on page titles. That was also a poor close because it ignored the opinion I cannot think of a good replacement for the word, but it should be replaced with something. But not "conspiracy theories", since it does not fit all of the ideas in the article. How about "speculation"? --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC) – wbm1058 (talk) 13:10, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I had already agreed with "conspiracy theories" . --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm having trouble following the logic of the statement "each individual "unofficial (i.e. fringe) theory" carries with it an unspoken assumption that the mainstream is suppressing/ignoring it in favor of the official explanation." So the "conspiracy theories" are theories that the mainstream media conspired to suppress reports about or ignore unofficial or fringe theories? doesn't clearly state "the official explanation". It's not clear to me that there is any single official explanation. The lead of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 says "The disappearance of Flight 370 has been dubbed one of the greatest aviation mysteries of all time." and "In the absence of a definitive cause of disappearance"... in other words, there is no official explanation, only theories, some more plausible than others. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Calling some theories “unofficial” assumes that “official” theories exist. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Good point; I would support removing that word from the title, moving this to Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 disappearance theories. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Cambodia Unfinished Sentence
In the Cambodia section, the sentence containing "appears to be a plane about 70 m (230 ft) (ca 10% larger" seems incomplete. It is unclear if the "70 m" refers to length, width or something else of the aircraft's dimensions.  The "ca" seems to be reference to an unfamiliar unit of measure or some unfinished wording. SquashEngineer (talk) 13:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Disappearance of Malaysian Flight 370
It is difficult to understand why none of the articles evem mentioned the possibility of the flight landing at Gan Airport (on Addu Island), the Island to which local observers stated that the plane was heading. The plane would have no reason to fly so low over the Maldives if it planned to land on Diego Garcia - more than 1000 km from there.

2804:14D:32B2:3CED:FDC1:F04D:B0BA:4FF7 (talk) 18:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Official Search Basis
We do not really need to invent unsubstantiated, speculative causes for MH370's disappearance. About one week after the accident, Malaysia's Prime Minister Najib Razak announced (see YouTube) that the apparent cause was deliberate diversion. Razak's 2014 announcement was based on much assistance from the U.S. (NTSB. FBI, Boeing)and other governments (re: radar data) and other companies and organizations (Inmarsat satellite, AAIB, etc.). Seven years later, Razak's 2014 statement still stands the test of time. Furthermore, in 2020, Australia's former Prime Minister Tony Abbott told the press that the accident was believed to be apparent mass murder/suicide and that was what Malaysian officials privately advised Australia. George Bibel, air industry consultant, has said the industry believes MH370 was a criminal act (presumably apparent pijacking). We also know the USA is refusing to disclose MH370 data via FOIA act, citing apparent criminal act.

Logically and from data analysis, the pilot is implicated. Many experts consider the flight path shows a highly experienced pilot. There has been no non-pilot cockpit take-overs since the 9/11 hardening of the cockpit doors. The senior pilot is the one person with motive, means, and opportunity. There is no evidence whatsoever for any other cause of this accident, the plane seemed to operating perfectly, and as Razak mentioned early on, no signs of outside hijackers.

There are some, shall we say, cultural and denial problems. After Razak got voted out of office, the next Malaysian admin absolved the pilot of blame, and claimed no known cause of the accident. In that part of the world, pilot suicide is an anathema and a socially unacceptable accusation. Another other major source of denial (I feel) are those wanting to protect pilot integrity and aircraft design. Per the Wiki article on pilot suicide, the public wants to see a suicide note before they accept pilot suicide. This is the quandary we have here.

Also, the official rule seems to be (from FAA/NTSB) if there is no wreck found with black boxes, then there can be no official establishment of probable cause. But what we can say, until the wreck is ever found, pilot hijacking is the almost obvious suspected cause. And we have to observe some people are extremely opposed that that realization. But the opposition is political in nature: a culture war, but there is zero evidence for any other cause at this point. TBILLT (talk)TBillT


 * Sounds all sensible to me. Another point preventing better information are privacy issues. Any official and reliable reporting on the private situation of the pilot is impossible since his wife has a right for privacy and protection from public scrutiny (or retaliation). Unless there will be very clear evidence coming forward, any (official) accusation against the pilot is kind of impossible, I guess.


 * We do not invent them. We quote people who quote people who invent them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

WSPR (amateur radio software)
On 6 March 2024 the BBC documentary Why Planes Vanish: The Hunt for MH370 examined the claims of retired British aviation engineer Richard Godfrey that the flight path of the aircraft could be plotted by analysis of the disruption to Weak Signal Propagation Reporter signals on the day in question. Scientists at the University of Liverpool are undertaking a major new study to verify how viable the technology is, and what this could mean for locating the aircraft. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)


 * This was added under the pilot suicide section, and is out of place. The WSPR analysis doesn't add any more credibility or further evidence to the pilot suicide theory of MH370. We already have likely trajectory into the Indian Ocean from the Inmarsat data, theres nothing in the proposed WSPR flight path that would add to the pilot suicide theory.
 * Furthermore, the creator of WSPR himself Prof. Joe Taylor, a nobel prize winner in physics, doesn't believe it can be used to determine a planes trajectory. Regardless of WSPR accuracy, it is out of place in the discussion of pilot suicide. SelRav (talk) 19:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Which is a more appropriate location? I'm not sure why Richard Godfrey  would have spent ten years of his life just making it all up. It is remarkably consistent with the 7th arc. The clincher will be the results of the Liverpool University study, which is due to be reported in about 6 months' time. But that is not a reason to prevent it from being included here now. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Regardless, you have provided nothing of how it is "consistent" with pilot suicide, I don't wish to speculate on Godfrey's motivations. Regardless of WSPR accuracy you have given no description of how it is at all relevant to pilot suicide. It's simply a proposed trajectory with no new information, you can make the WSPR trajectory fit any scenario of MH370 you like. SelRav (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Like a hijacking to North Korea, a flight to Diego Garcia or a fire in the cockpit? I opened my reply with "Which is a more appropriate location?" Perhaps you missed that question. But here's another question: how is the Inmarsat data consistent with pilot suicide, but WSPR not? They are both strands of evidence that support the same conclusion. What are the other theories that would better explain that very likely route? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't say Inmarsat data is consistent with pilot suicide, you are misunderstanding. "Which is a more appropriate location?", there is no appropriate location, because the WSPR analyisis provides no further evidence in support of pilot suicide any more than it provides evidence for a hypoxic ghost flight, it's simply a trajectory.
 * All that WSPR attempts to describe is a more precise trajectory into the southern Indian Ocean, but we already knew it flew into the southern Indian Ocean based on Inmarsat. It doesn't add evidence to any one theory. It would be a better fit in "Search for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370" article. 2A02:A46F:17DF:0:AD6D:565B:3C10:AB8E (talk) 21:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I was replying to SelRav who said "This was added under the pilot suicide section, and is out of place." I'm sorry if this has escaped your notice. Yes, I agree it gives a much more accurate flight path. And by complete coincidence, Ocean Infinity now announce another no-cure, no-fee search. I'd strongly suggest that this section of the article should say that both the Inmarsat and the WSPR data are not inconsistent with the mass murder/ pilot suicide theory. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC) p.s. the Florence de Changy tooth crown detail seems to be the weakest possible single piece of hearsay, to be presented as contrary "evidence", that one might ever imagine (although I have not read the book)... Your dentist phones you up and asks, "Do you want to make an appointment, in a few days' time, to get that expensive crown fitted again?" And you say, on the spur of the moment, "No sorry, I'm just off tomorrow to fly 239 people, hundreds of miles, to their certain deaths."
 * I was logged out but that reply was actually me, I forgot to hit 'keep me logged in'.
 * There is no evidence that Ocean Infinity is searching in the area provided by Godfrey, in fact, it's likely the new proposed search is based of a different end of flight scenario. It's not a coincidence and probably not related to Godfrey who has been pushing his claims for years now, and he himself has 'revised' his own flight path many times, and the beginning of the WSPR flight path doesnt even line up with the known military radar flight path.
 * "Inmarsat and WSPR data are not inconsistent with the mass murder/ pilot suicide theory."
 * They also are not inconsistent with accident scenarios, that isn't reason to include them there either. Nothing in it is evidence of pilot suicide, any more than it's evidence of any other scenario ending in the southern Indian Ocean. This is entirely baseless speculation based on a largely discredited analysis. SelRav (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Why is it more likely that the offer of a new search is based on a different end of flight scenario? But yes, they certainly aren't searching anywhere yet. And they won't be until the respective governments all agree? Oh, and what are the "other scenarios ending the southern Indian Ocean"? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC) p.s. so you've just created your account for the purposes of this discussion? I guess you're not too bothered that other editors now know your ISP and geolocation?
 * p.p.s. if the initial path of the aircraft is known from military radar, shouldn't that be made clearer in the article? It's only mentioned here in relation to the claims of Simon Hardy. It's not clear how much further military radar was able to track the aircraft beyond the scope of the civil airports? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * no, I didn't create my account for the purpose of this discussion and I don't see the purpose of discussing my ISP and geolocation. Frankly it's quite weird that you would bring that up. Seems like starting to delve into personal attacks.
 * Anyway like I said, the best place for WSPR mention is in the search article instead of speculating over which theories fit WSPR. If you'd like other theories for how how the plane ended up in the southern indian ocean, it might surprise you that the conclusion of the final ATSB report was that a ghost flight accident scenario is most likely. SelRav (talk) 23:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If you were concerned about revealing your ISP and geolocation, there might be some administrative action you could request to hide them. That's all. I'm not sure how that constitutes any kind of "personal attack". It can be a little confusing trying to converse with two apparently different users who turn out to be the same person. I'm glad you've remembered to log in this time.
 * Until the wreckage, and possibly the two data recorders, are located, it's all "speculation".
 * I don't see any mention here of a "ghost flight accident scenario". Is that something else that's missing. If it's the "most likely" scenario, then you should definitely add it, with some ATSB sources. Does that also account for the existing pattern of coastal debris finds? Or have people just all been looking for debris in the wrong places? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * In the final ATSB report they say they cant conclude anything with certain but the ATSB has consistently stated that they believe hypoxia/unresponsive crew to be most likely, and is the theory they've worked with since the beginning.
 * My only reason for saying this is that there are many theories that the ATSB and other investigators are still working with, even as it is clear it wound up in the southern indian ocean.
 * So, back the WSPR, theres no reason to use this as evidence to pilot suicide, because a trajectory into the southern indian ocean is already known and is not adding to the discussion of pilot suicide to include it there, any more than you should add WSPR to an accident scenario. SelRav (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry, I thought you said: "the conclusion of the final ATSB report was that a ghost flight accident scenario is most likely." What even is a "ghost flight accident scenario"? If that's the phrase that ATSB use, then maybe it should be used somewhere here. The word "hypoxia" doesn't yet appear. I still believe that both the Inmarsat and WSPR data, which are largely consistent, should be mentioned as the basis for the mass murder/ pilot suicide theory. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * So my recollection of it being in the final report was erroneous, in that report the ATSB says the reason is inconclusive. However, from early on the ATSB has stated that unresponsive crew/hypoxia is the best fit for the last part of the flight as to why it flew so long into the Indian Ocean. They have reiterated many times since then that they believe unresponsive crew is the best fit for why it flew for hours into the Indian Ocean, and both the Malaysian Government and ATSB have been working with this theory. For more information on "ghost flight" see Helios Flight 522. So, saying that the Inmarsat data or Godfrey's analysis fits pilot suicide is conjecture that the ATSB doesn't even agree with, as they say the last part of the flight is more consistent with unresponsive crew/ghost flight.
 * The actual evidence for it being pilot suicide is not that it flew into the Indian Ocean, almost all the evidence of that is actually what happened in the beginning of the flight, from the manual switching off of the transponder, to the manual flying and deliberate turns such as the "turn back" and the turn around Penang, all of which was captured on military radar. SelRav (talk) 11:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying. I agree with you about the evidence from the beginning of the flight. Given that this is so compelling, how does that fit with simple hypoxia? We have the statement by Najib Razak in the lead section that "the aircraft's flight ended somewhere in the Indian Ocean". I'm still very surprised that no details are provided in the article main body, about the Inmarsat and WSPR data that support this claim. I still think this should be added, if only as a footnote. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that this is a case of pilot suicide, but my opinion is also that the proposed WSPR analysis doesn't provide any new evidence for that hypothesis as the trajectory into the southern Indian Ocean is already known with Inmarsat. Similarly, saying something like "Pilot suicide is consistent with the trajectory into the southern Indian Ocean made from Inmarsat data", would in my opionion not be relevant since as I've stated the ATSB doesn't agree with this and is bordering speculation. SelRav (talk) 13:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The estimated route of the aircraft and the geographical position of the end of the flight is entirely relevant to a mass murder/ suicide hypothesis. The WSPR data suggests an end point slightly beyond the 7th arc and in an area not yet searched. You fail to answer my question about compelling evidence from the early part of the flight not fitting with a hypoxia hypothesis. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "The WSPR data suggests an end point slightly beyond the 7th arc and in an area not yet searched."
 * I'm sorry, but this isn't relevant either. It's relevant for the search, if the data is credible, which it isn't, but still not at all related to pilot suicide. It seems like you're just trying to cram in WSPR into a place where it doesn't belong.
 * "You fail to answer my question about compelling evidence from the early part of the flight not fitting with a hypoxia hypothesis."
 * I didn't fail to answer, please re-read. SelRav (talk) 18:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * How is the compelling evidence, which points to deliberate pilot action to avoid detection consistent with flight crew hypoxia? Do ATSB explain this? I'm not trying to "cram in WSPR into a place where it doesn't belong", I'm suggesting that the available data, on the flight path to the Southern Ocean, deserves to appear in this article. A reader might otherwise assume that it's pure speculation. In fact, I don't really think the "search" and the "disappearance theories" are wholly separate topics. I think they are pretty fundamentally related. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Geelvinck Fracture Zone
"Boeing expert" and former 777 senior pilot Simon Hardy, who worked with the Australian Transport Safety Bureau during the search in 2015, says that the technical logs, just published 5 days ago for the first time, reveal that an additional 3,000kg of fuel and extra crew oxygen were added so that the pilot could glide his way into the ocean and "bury" the aircraft in the Geelvinck Fracture Zone. Hardy is already mentioned in this article, but should these additional details now be added. Quite a few UK media outlets have reported this, e.g. Standard, Independent, Express, LBC and Straights Times, plus others. Hardy calls the AAIB report "scandalous". The Geelvinck Fracture Zone is mentioned at List of fracture zones 86.176.145.112 (talk) 19:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I see that this has now been added at Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 and so perhaps should also be added here? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)