MH370’s Location was Guided by Outdated Depths

Background

In 2014, outdated maps would have been used by the mastermind to determine the location where MH370 now lies. There is a perception that with time the addition of new data will help improve the resolution of the available data, and perhaps even contain hints of MH370’s debris field if high-resolution mapping was available. Here, I show that, paradoxically, firstly adding more high-resolution data may in fact smooth out anomalies in modern maps, and secondly, and sadly, that only low-resolution data is available for the location of MH370.

GEBCO (General Bathymetric Chart of the Oceans) is a global initiative that compiles seafloor depth data from multiple sources, primarily satellite altimetry and high-resolution ship-based surveys. Satellite altimetry provides broad coverage by inferring seafloor topography from variations in sea surface height, but its resolution is relatively low. In contrast, ship-based surveys offer highly detailed bathymetric data but are limited to specific regions where expeditions have been conducted.?

In 2014, when MH370 disappeared, the available GEBCO maps were based largely on lower-resolution satellite altimetry, with sparse high-resolution ship data. Since then, extensive surveys conducted during the MH370 search have significantly improved bathymetric coverage in the southern Indian Ocean. Notably, in 2018, Ocean Infinity contributed its high-resolution search data to the Seabed 2030 project, a GEBCO initiative aimed at mapping the entire ocean floor by 2030.

Here, I aim to show that understanding these differences in data resolution is crucial when evaluating assumptions about potential underwater impact sites. Since only data available up to 2014 was used for planning, we should base our assumptions on that level of resolution when determining where MH370 was intended to be ditched. Let’s see how the current search area around the so-called IG site and my proposed location at the Penang Longitude Deep Hole have evolved over the years.

Changes Around the IG Site

The current search by Armada 78 06 (26 February 2025), of the so-called IG site of deep ravines, is roughly within the following bounds:

·??????? Latitude: 34.2°S to 35°S

·??????? Longitude: 92.7°E to 94°E

Figure 1 compares bathymetric changes between 2019 (the earliest GEBCO dataset available, which may not have had the high-res Ocean Infinity data blended in yet) and 2024. Key observations are:

·??????? The top left of the figure shows coarse satellite data that has changed at large spatial scales between the two years.

·??????? The 2019 map reveals far more seafloor structure than the 2024 data, likely because it was based on individual ship tracks rather than a blended compilation across multiple ships.

·??????? By 2024, high-resolution mapping from Ocean Infinity was incorporated, resulting in a significantly smoother representation of the seafloor.

So, the 2024 map, despite having more data points, does not necessarily provide a more accurate depiction of the real seafloor. The addition of more data blends out inaccuracies within a larger pool of neighbouring points from multiple ships heaving up and down with their sonar systems, ultimately smoothing out real seafloor anomalies. We will revisit this question later.

As for the relevance of this site, consider the deep crevasses on the right, which the IG suggests could conceal MH370. These features appear in both datasets, meaning they could have been used—but were they? Would a mastermind, carefully studying the 600 × 200 m debris field of Air France 447, risk misjudging the seafloor landing site by 600 m or more?

Ultimately, this ravine seems irrelevant, as the IG theory is based on the flawed assumption that MH370 ran out of fuel at the 7th arc and suffered a fictitious high-speed dive (due to an elementary physics error) with flaps fluttering off and no sign of the huge debris field expected—which would have been very obvious in satellite imagery such as those by MODIS. Two extensive searches have already covered the full range of plausible locations and beyond—expanding from 25,000 km2 (or less) to 120,000 km2, with many areas searched multiple times. Do we now retrace our steps, microscopically following every ravine and crevice (which Armada 78 06 is now doing) across the entire search zone, all while relying on the same flawed fuel starvation theory?

Unbelievably, I’m told that is a real possibility! Surely not! Then again, this would provide fantastic new data for marine geologists, who will be the main benefactors of the generous but misguided mapping by Ocean Infinity—yet it remains superfluous to the search for MH370.

Let’s move on to the Penang Longitude site, which is at most 15 km2 or less. I am informed by Australia’s National Marine Facility that mapping it would take only hours, not even a day. Go figure…

?

Figure 1. Changes in bathymetry around so-called IG site of deep ravines currently being mapped by Armada 78 06. See main text of lat/lon bounds for the map. Top map is from GEBCO 2019 and bottom from GEBCO 2024.

Changes Around the Penang Longitude Deep Hole

The location of the Penang Longitude Deep Hole is approximately -33.063°S, 100.254°E. The exact location is determined by intersecting the longitude of Penang Airport (within its bounds) with the Pilot-in-Command (PIC) simulator track, which was discovered by the FBI and deemed irrelevant by officials.

Since officials did not respond to my emails, I had to crudely digitize the PIC track from images available in publications. Ironically, the same officials who dismissed my inquiries and redirected me to the generic Malaysian MH370 contact considered certain “special ones” as “credible.” They even conducted due diligence by reviewing the high-resolution search data around the "credible" one's proposed location—only to conclude that nothing was there. This, in turn, led to an angry outburst from the "credible" but now "ungrateful" individual, who then revised his calculations and shifted his supposedly precise location north by about 1,000 km—right into the Jindalee over-the-horizon Radar Network! Talk about jumping into the fire to be roasted! Still roasting as we speak…

To those at Geoscience Australia—whom I respect and worked with collaboratively for about 15 years—I want to express our sincere appreciation for your careful efforts in this due-diligence work which is well valued by the scientific community.

As for my own findings, I may be an outcast, but my proposed approximate location remains small compared to those suggested by the “credible” others.

Bathymetric Changes at the Penang Longitude Deep Hole (2019 vs. 2024)

Figure 2 compares seafloor mapping data between 2019 and 2024 around the Penang Longitude Deep Hole. Key observations:

·??????? In 2019, the data had a smooth, wavy, velvet-like appearance due to its coarse resolution. By 2024, as more satellite data was added, the surface became better defined, flattening out further.

·??????? Some additional high-resolution data was incorporated, likely from ships mapping the seafloor while transiting to and from the MH370 search zone. A key addition appears to be a swath in the southernmost region of the map, where previously smooth terrain is now shown as a series of fractured steps aligned northwest to southeast.

·??????? Disappointingly, the deep hole was bypassed by high-resolution mapping. As a result, its resolution remains nearly identical to that of 2019 and quite possibly 2014. For the deep hole, the reliance on coarse satellite data and continual smoothing prevents anomalies from being detected.

?

Figure 2. Changes in bathymetry around the Penang Longitude Deep Hole, marked approximately by the red square. The circled seamount is an example feature to be explored in greater detail in the next figure. The lat/lon bounds for the map are lat: (-32.6; -33.6) and lon: (99; 100.9). Top map is from GEBCO 2019 and bottom from GEBCO 2024.

To see the changes bought about by blending in more high-resolution data, in Figure 3 we zoom in on the red-circled seamount shown in Figure 2. Paradoxically, there is greater apparent higher level of detail evident in 2019 compared to the same seamount in 2024 which incorporates the data from seafloor mapping conducted during the search for MH370! This suggests that inaccuracies in blending data from different ships in one of the most rugged and rough ocean areas is smoothing out real features. Hence, a key implication is that searching for high-level detail in seafloor anomalies must rely upon individual images from ships for comparison. The blended product is unlikely to contain the details necessary for instance to determine a large debris field, let alone the largely intact fuselage of MH370.

So, sadly with the lack of high-resolution data at the crash site we are hamstrung to make any assessments which require as a minimum individual tracks of the high-resolution images. Believe me I have looked at these images for a long time, even with the help of GEBCO, and whilst there are some tantalizing hints, it is enough to excite but not enough to inspire confidence. We shall have to wait and see… But if Armada’s search fails and they do not search this site, we as a concerned group of global scientists must get together to bring this search to a successful ending. One search planned in 2022 has already been derailed so the diversionary forces to the 7th arc are great! The force is not with us, yet...

?

Figure 3. Zoomed in view of seamount circled previously in Figure 2, note the apparent higher level of detail evident in 2019 compared to the same seamount in 2024 which incorporates the data from seafloor mapping conducted during the search for MH370.

Further Details of the Penang Longitude Deep Hole

?My somewhat vain attempts to see if the deep hole had any anomalies, perhaps from an avalanche as MH370 pressure vessels imploded or the fuselage crashed into the seafloor, as shown in the figures below. ?These sounds from the deep hole location were very precisely monitored at Cape Leeuwin, Perth Canyon, Scott Reef and Diego Garcia as documented in the “There Lies MH370” report.

Figure 4. GEBCO 2022 bathymetry (kindly provided by GEBCO) showing the Penang Airport shifted directly south (as best as I could manage to keep the scales consistent). Note alignment with coarse-resolution image of the deep hole. The Drifter Start Box is the box used to seed drifters for a re-run of the CSIRO drift model with the standard drift formula which plausibly matched locations and timings of all recovered debris including the Malaysian Airlines towelette.

Figure 5. Expected west-east debris field at the Penang Longitude Deep Hole based upon currents from the CSIRO BRAN 2020 model (bottom left image). The extent depends upon the assumed sinking speed. Recent work suggests that the speed used here (from memory 7 m/s) may be too high (recent estimate is 4.9 m/s) so the field is likely displaced further east than shown.

Figure 6. For Interest Only: Attempt to spatially filter the bathymetry (left image) using a filter that I developed for hydrology (the popular Lyne-Hollick algorithm). Anomalies are apparent in the high resolution part of the image top-right part but it is hard to draw any conclusion from this analysis as the scales are way too coarse.

Figure 7. Cross-section through the Penang Longitude Deep Hole showing a series of stepped mounds with deposits in the valleys. If the deep MH370 sound was an implosion or the fuselage hitting the side of the hole, an avalanche in this quiescent part of the seafloor may be possible. ?

Figure 8. 3D depiction of the bathymetry of the Broken Ridge region; using the excellent R-package by Tyler Morgan-Wall.