telling cnn that the pings are not from the black boxes. likely not from the plane s black boxes, david. but then you also have the u.s. navy coming out and saying that view is speculative and premature and the australian search authority is saying that they aren t adds cs confident it as well. what is going on here? i tell you what s going on. it s incredibly infuriate for us, let alone for the families of what they re going through right now. my question is when did they know this? i ve been hearing this all along, which took us to having to do our own destructive testing on some of the pingers ourselves to try to see if we could replicate this 33.3 kilohertz frequency and we could not. i m extremely disappointed because what this means to me is that someone knew early on these were not from the aircraft. we learned over a month ago from our own test that it was not in the aircraft.
point of views. arthur, you have been skeptical about these pings from the beginning. correct. so here is the bottom line. in terms of the pings and their whether they re accurate or not, there is two ways to look at this. one way is in gross terms. well heard pings. we went to look where the pings were. we didn t find the wreckage. therefore the pings are erroneous. no one has talked about the technical side, the australian, the malaysians, the united states giving us technical reasons why they re not. but this is what we know. number one, the frequencies were off. frequencies were off. they were supposed to be 37.5. they came in at 33.3. another one was at 27. number two, the distances between the pings was always way too large. these pingers only put out a signal that can be heard one, two, three miles maximum. you re talking 10, 20, 30, 40 miles that they allegedly heard pings. it just doesn t make sense. number three, there was a chinese one of the chinese
kilohertz. it s very frustrating that we knew weeks ago and they knew obviously now, weeks ago, even before the bluefin finished its search that they were dramatically in question. my question is not should they have continued the investigation and the search, they should have at that point realized we need other equipment instead of waiting several weeks later to then now start bringing in additional equipment. why didn t do they do that sooner is my question? what was going on, mary? were we getting carried away with the coverage. i remember jeff wise saying i don t think those came from the plane and got a beatdown. i remember the australian prime minister saying, i have great confidence in this. those things were happening, right? those things were happening. it s characteristic of an investigation. you re trained to guard against bias is. there s something called an anchoring bias, where the first clue you get, you latch on and
why did they continue the search. why did they spend all of this monday know continuing the search? i m a little concerned. i m very concerned about what s going on out there. you know, mary, kind of to david s point, to be fair though, and i heard richard quest talk about this yesterday. in hindsight maybe folks should be skeptical. even though maybe they couldn t match the frequencies, this is all they had to work with. what else were they supposed to do? well, skeptical or not, this was the best location, the best lead based on the inmar satd sda da a and when they raised out there to start looking for the pings, remember, this is all they had. still all they had. but when they picked up the pings it is unthinkable they would say, well, it s 33.3 instead of 37.5 kilohertz. we re not going to search. that s just not an option when 239 people are missing. so i do give credit to the u.s. navy. there was no choice. they had to look once we had the inmarsat data and picked up pings.
had spoken. the family members had spoken with many aviation experts and that they didn t have much credence in those pings. are you one of those aviation experts that feels that way, that there wasn t a lot to be said for these pings, the wrong frequency, et cetera? why was so much put on them if those were not the right that wasn t the right intelligence? well, and i was one of those people to say why don t we test them? it was amazing to me that we didn t have data that would show what would happen to the pingers when they re under water and under the pressure of water for more than 30 days? there was a study out of portugal that said there could be as much as a one kilohertz variance. so you ve had one either way off of the 37.5. but there wasn t any study that showed it was 33 that it could go to 33.3, so it was astonishing to me that in this whole time, now almost three months, that no one checked to see if that would happen to a pinger. but, you know, in an investigation,