basically saying no, it s not relevant anymore. what i m confused about tonight, amongst other things, the debris the new search area, we had assumed before the news conversation that this was the debris field allowing for drift of 20 days. but he said in that press conference that this was the crash point. i believe what he said was he indicated they were both. which either he misspoke or the only other interpretation is he believes the debris, given the currents hire, which are not as strong as in this other area, are closer to the crash point. i m sorry, but it s only 700 miles away. i can t imagine it being that different, now after 20 days it s going to be that close to where the crash site is. miles, what do you think? he said it included 21 days
currents and also in determining the search area, mr. young will comment further. we have taken account drift information as well as the likely entry point of the aircraft into the water. mr. young, do you want to add? that s correct. that s what we ve been doing with all of the searches we ve conducted so far. this is day 21 for the search for the aircraft. so we have, using our own in-house systems, as well as expert advice from the united states coast guard and commercial companies, drifted the area for 21 days of movement taking into account the actual weather and the known currents for the area, yes. how many debris fields seen by satellites? how much faster was the plane going according to the new analysis and how you know it continued to go at that faster speed after the radar lost
new zealand has been looking. does that mean whatever debris that has shown up in the satellites is now that it s not stuff from an aircraft? great question, and we asked those same things here in the seventh fleet. a couple points. one, that satellite image comes in from all different places. it could be commercial, it could be military, it could be other government agencies. and then the second is, you never know where it may be. if you look at it, they re just little specks on the screen. without visual confirmation, you don t know if it is debris or
the satellite imagery that s available. i m sure they take it from commercial and government sources. and they provide us with the best leads that are available. i think in you want a detailed explanation, you probably need to talk to them. the potential debris spotted supports the apparent search area, given that it may have drifted from that area? referring to the new area, aircraft have only just arrived on scene today. so we ll need to wait to see what emerges. in regards to the old areas, we have not seen any debris. and i would not wish to classify any of the satellite imagery as debris, nor would i want to classify any of the visual sightings we made as debris. and that s just not justifiable from what we have seen.
alleged debris that had been spotted over the last week or so in an area, they re now searching some or moving toward an area some 684 miles away from that. so does that mean that was all wrong? you know, i don t know what that means as far as whether it was wrong or right. but what i do know is interpreting the satellite data is not easy to do. people think it s on or it s not. if that transponder is not on, you re looking at very small pieces of white dots. it could be white caps or anything. exactly. on the radar system, it s pings off of something, but you don t know what it is. so it doesn t surprise me that after digging into that and seeing the possible try angulations that they would readjust their calibrations. richard quest? what they ve done, after we got the satellite information