Fisherman says he saw MH370 go down hands over coordinates

a reply to: szino9

i actually remember a mention of a boat or fisherman seeing the plane go down. it was right in the beginning of the investigation. if i remember correctly i think it was mentioned here on ats. will try and find it

a reply to: szino9

Having a submersible check out the area. They really have no choice. It will be far easier/cheaper than the full scale hunt that was attempted.

Fred..

I just found this in the original story that was not there before. Its been added an hour ago

He did not explain why he had taken almost five years for him to report his version of events to authorities.

MSM never fails...

a reply to: marceldp1

I think that may have been someone near the Andaman Islands, unless there was more then one.

a reply to: szino9

It was the oil rig worker's testimony that i remember not fisherman

originally posted by: marceldp1
a reply to: szino9

i actually remember a mention of a boat or fisherman seeing the plane go down. it was right in the beginning of the investigation. if i remember correctly i think it was mentioned here on ats. will try and find it

It was mentioned on ATS, the sighting was around the South China sea...there were other sightings too,

edition.cnn.com...

As for conspiracy theories, a controlled landing of the plane somewhere was not a conspiracy theory, it was actually one of at least a half dozen official theories as to what might have happened to the plane.

a reply to: marceldp1

Yeah, I remember that one also. Closer to Vietnam near the beginning of the flight. That one I mentioned was toward the time the plane was said to have run out of fuel.

I could be wrong but in my opinion it doesn't make any sense that the airplane would have been on fire... I mean if it had a mechanical failure that caused the fire then it would not have gone very far off of the original flight path.... would it ?

And if it got hijacked it seems that it would be extremely slim odds that the plane would have a mechanical failure that would have caused a fire in addition to it... Or maybe I'm missing something

Dont forget, that when pilots have an emergency they go through a certain order of doing things.

Aviate, Navigate, Communicate.

Why not report it? Because perhaps he and his crew were up to something illegal.

originally posted by: HarryJoy
I could be wrong but in my opinion it doesn't make any sense that the airplane would have been on fire... I mean if it had a mechanical failure that caused the fire then it would not have gone very far off of the original flight path.... would it ?

And if it got hijacked it seems that it would be extremely slim odds that the plane would have a mechanical failure that would have caused a fire in addition to it... Or maybe I'm missing something

The most likely scenario is that the plane suffered some kind of failure that killed the cockpit crew, but left the plane flying. Either depressurization or a fire could conceivably cause this.

Back in 1999, pro golfer Payne Stewart died when his plane depressurized. It happened over Florida, but the plane continued on unguided until it ran out of fuel and crashed in South Dakota. I remember when it happened. There was discussion that the Air Force might need to shoot down the plane if it looked like it might crash in a heavily-populated area, but ultimately that wasn't necessary.

a reply to: smurfy

Thanks. Didnt know there were so many sightings.

Hope they follow up on this new lead!!

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
the biggerst question = why dint he immediatly radio " mayday - aircraft in distress " ??????????

without " magic " or some vast overarching conspiracy - irs implausible to assume that he could know anything at the time - other than :

its a malaysia iarline airbus - and its gong down .

further

he says - he knows evactly where it crashed - but somehow - he retreieved zero debris - despite being right on site

many fishermen don't have radios. heck many fishermen are in boats that are little more than canoes with outriggers. although since he apparently has a "crew" it would seem to be a bigger boat, but we have no clue as to how big, what type or how powered. (sails and oars are still popular). it could even be one of the bigger boats which is still pretty much just a bigger canoe with outriggers, with a crew, which could even just be something like three or more people. the fact he apparently has a GPS device is a step up from many fishermen. many fishermen being pretty much some of the poorest people, barely making a living. and since it looks like a portable battery operated one, he wouldn't need a motor to power is like would be needed for a decent radio. and if he is from a smaller area, it is possible that he even reported what he saw when he reached shore and was disbelieved or to be honest he or even those he reported to were ignored. just as poor people tend to be ignored and considered too ignorant to take seriously.

as for those questioning why the information would even still be on the unit. even my old dinky car GPS has held my trips from more than ten years ago. as well as points and addresses i have put into it. and will remain there until i either wipe that info out, or suffer a problem which erases them accidently.

So you think because an electronic item has a little physical wear that it will loose data? Do you understand how solid state memory works, like the kind that is used in cell phones, tablets, etc? Even if the device had "died" (not powering on), they could probably still pull the data from it. It really is amazing how well some of this stuff holds up even in harsh environments - if made properly.

Could have sworn I read an article about this plane this morning where malaysian officials found the black box. One was holding it (red) in his hand in the photo. I'll go back and look to see if this was indeed the same plane. Or if I can even find it.


Sorry, wrong plane.

source

a reply to: generik

the furuno gp32 - is a fixed unit - not hand held - it requires expernal power - and has an external antena unit

your " reasons for him not having VHF " are quite amusing - you have no idea what is vessel was - so you invent reasons for him not to have one

he was ALLEGEDLY > 60km off shore when the aledged incident happened - and on the perhiphary of a major shipping lane

as for " not being taken seriously " - ROFLMAO - coast guard authrorities take people that say - i just saw a plane crash - very seriously - the " sens of humour deficient " ones like the indonesians - also beat the holy crap out of you when they discover you lied to them

hint - why is he being taken seriously now ??? -

this tail makes less sense - the more you look at it

ETA - regards VHF - surely SOMEONE present had the brains to ask - did you have a radio - and if so - why didnt you mayday the siteing ????????

also - when i say indonesians are " sense of humour deficient " - i am not insulting the entire nation - just pointing out the indonesian law enforcement - does not have any sense of humour when faced with liars or criminals

originally posted by: rickymouse
I'm thinking this guy did see the accident, reported it within days, and his report was blown off because they thought the plane was somewhere else. That kind of thing is common, lots of evidence is tossed out because of false beliefs of investigators. It also happens in science a lot.

A lot of times in cases like this where everyone is supplying every kind of possible evidence at once, it is just lost in the initial shuffle. There were probably 100,000s of "helpful" leads presented in those first days. Some local official could have easily compiled something, or just a note that wound up in a stack and that one just fell through the cracks. Everyone just assumes when you tell the authorities that they are "on it", but they were probably chasing the low hanging fruit at that stage.

Or, he just never told anyone -- unlikely. Or, he was doing something illegal -- probable.

a reply to: Halfswede

1 - the 2019 tail - contanes zero references to any claim that he informed anyone previously

2 - in the initial stages of the incedent - there was a time frame - when very few people knew that MH370 was " an incident " . IF he had reported it imeditatly - its likley that a provincial indonesian coastguard station would be unaware that there was a missing airliner

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Okay I guess now the question is is the area where the fisherman says he saw the aircraft in line with the last known heading of the aircraft ? If it is then I would say there's a very good chance that he is correct

I just realize that if they only saw smoke it may be that when a jet engine is running out of fuel it creates some smoke I would have to ask somebody that knows more about jet engines.

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
Why now? After all these years??

Stinks of a cover story, doesn't it? Check those dudes bank accounts and see how much they got paid to say this.