there is no history of the inmarsat data.o if they're looking at just the sequence of the pings, they haven't looked at the days before. that same flight is a regular flight. so there should be comparable inmarsat data on equivalent pings to do comparison to. but none of that information has been disclosed. so we just have to trust what they tell us. and that's just not acceptable. >> and, you know, sarah, the bluefin-21 obviously, as we were reporting, it's almost done. in the single most promising areas, they described it themselves, 80% of the way done, unless there is some sort of shocking news in the next few minutes when the headline comes out that they put out daily. they will have found nothing again. you've had very serious concerns that officials are looking in the wrong place. you have talked about that on this program where. do you think they should be searching next? >> honestly, i don't have an opinion because i don't have any data on which to make the opinion. so i would never presume to allocate the kinds of r

>> reporter: you know, they are asking can the investigators trust the inmarsat data, the data that gave, that gave the current location and investigators are telling them that's the best thing we have. the families said have you looked at the diego garcia military base on those british owned indian ocean islands. again the investigators telling the families well that's not on the inmarsat data and there's no evidence to suggest that the planes might have gone, there might have been hijacked, might have landed there, might have been shot down there. the families are not satisfied with that answer. they want to listen to the air traffic control recordings, the voices of the pilot and first officer. they said part of the gays can't do that. they want to know what was in the cargo. part of the investigation. they want to know whether the plane took a left or a right turn when it turned back to malaysia. they were shown maps, but having talked to someone present in that meeting still confusing and unclear exactly the route the plane took. so they are asking the same questions they have been

now, we have heard reference to this inmarsat data. we don't have that data.lysis, and we don't know what assumptions were put into it to produce this search area. all we have had to go on is the assertions by the malaysians and the australians as well. and you remember the language that tony abbott used when he assured, he spoke before parliament, he went up to china and told the chinese that it was very confident that we were on the verge of finding this plane. those promises have come up empty and left a lot of people wondering what were those assumptions. what was that analysis? why did they say the plane was here in the first place? >> arthur, there has not been a single piece of debris found. that is why these reports and these stories, you saw the facial reaction on the prime minister of australia. there are people and family members who are very seriously asking that question because there has been no proof to the contrary. >> look, the bottom line is that it's certainly understandable why people are saying what they have gone, may have gone the northe

>> i've expressed, erin, skepticism about the pings underwater, not the handshakes from the inmarsat datater, the black box pings. >> there are some of our analysts that have expressed the same skepticism and we have discussed that together. but this data to me seems -- i won't pretend to even know the science or be familiar with this particular science be. the bottom line is they claim to have sent this out two weeks prior to the battery life going dead on the black box pingers. okay. if it was sent to all these experts, the ntsb, rolls-royce, boeing, you can go on down the list. >> right. >> they probably got this information and said not so much. and we would like our inmarsat data. i'm sure this was not done in a vacuum. and none of this matches up with any of the handshake situation. it makes no sense to me. >> it is incredible, jeff, the reliance on the inmarsat data. it may end up completely vindicated. no one came up with anything better. everyone who seems to be involved in this buys into it. we've never been given the fullbackup to where this data comes from. all we know is it's

what is the reliability of the inmarsat data? should not they produce the numbers and data? i don't know, this data was reviewed by the ntsb, the waib, by boeing, the malaysians and others. there has been plenty of peer review about it. and as the prime minister went on to tell me it is all they have got. >> uh-huh. we'll ask some of the best minds in the business about that search area in a little bit, richard. first, i want to play something the malaysian prime minister said when you asked him about the victims' families, let's listen to this. >> are you prepared to say that the plane and its passengers are lost? >> at some point in time i would be. but not -- right now, i think i need to take into account the feelings of the next of kin. and some of them have said publicly that they're not willing to accept it until they find hard evidence. >> but richard, this seems to be vastly different language, almost a contradiction to what he said in a press conference almost a month ago. let's listen to that. >> it is therefore with deep sadness and regret that i must inform you t

what is the reliability of the inmarsat data? should not they produce the numbers and data? i don't know, this data was reviewed by the ntsb, the waib, by boeing, the malaysians and others. there has been plenty of peer review about it. and as the prime minister went on to tell me it is all they have got. >> uh-huh. we'll ask some of the best minds in the business about that search area in a little bit, richard. first, i want to play something the malaysian prime minister said when you asked him about the victims' families, let's listen to this. >> are you prepared to say that the plane and its passengers are lost? >> at some point in time i would be. but not -- right now, i think i need to take into account the feelings of the next of kin. and some of them have said publicly that they're not willing to accept it until they find hard evidence. >> but richard, this seems to be vastly different language, almost a contradiction to what he said in a press conference almost a month ago. let's listen to that. >> it is therefore with deep sadness and regret that i must inform you t

the inmarsat data, the half ping, the correlation between the doppler shift and other signatures from other 777s flying through the area. that was good data that got us down here. separately, we have the pings that they found. we have radar data. yes, we made certain assumptions about the performance of the airplane. but it all coalesced in this area. this area is not a little area. it's a big area. i -- i say give it a little more time. >> okay. >> before we jump to conclusions. >> they have less than 10% to go. and michael kaye, you know, almost every word out of your mouth is inmarsat data, inmarsat -- you believe in the inmarsat data but still believe they should be looking, am i wrong, in the northern arc? you're not sure they're searching in the right area? >> i think we've got enough evidence and data. in the absence of absolutely nothing. 47 days in, it's in the absence of no other data. we've got something from inmarsat. we've got something from pings. experts say that theapins could not be con -- pings could not be confused with any natural sources, so it leads to this area.

i think the inmarsat data is solid. because really, like richard said -- >> and you talked to inmarsat yourself. >> i have. >> you talked about that on the show. they have gone through the wobbles that might have been the plane and why they feel so confident. >> the performance of the aircraft, the endurance of the aircraft, all that they've gone through. so yes, i'm confident that inmarsat has led us in the right area or toward it. but it may be a bigger area than is being searched right now. and i had a lot of confidence that we were actually listening to signals from the black boxes. and after speaking to some analysts that it seems to me that this may not be the right frequency. and that disturbs me, but then again, i think this airplane is still in the ocean. >> on the issue of the pings from the black boxes, i'm going to have to disagree with you, as much as it pains me to do that. >> arthur, you traffic in disagreement. >> i do. i do. i think those pings were right on. i think that the frequency difference, the 3

they must have had a lot of confidence in the inmarsat data. was disappointed about the objects we found in the south. i talked myself into thinking it was a wing. i was disappoint wed didn't see what those things were. although logically from the data they want to look some place else. >> every lead so far has come up empty. is this just trial and error from here on out? is there a better way to search? >> yes, is it trial and error. and there is a better way to search. what was disturbing last week is that the malaysian investigators stated that the air traffic control tapes and radar data and security recordings and tapes from the airport were sealed. it seems those are three crucial pieces of data that need to be released so as many minds and eyes as possible can search for it. the better way to do the search is to get the information out there. >> geoff, reading your latest piece it focuses on how we have zero tangible evidence about where this plane is. are you convince wed are looking in the right area? >> we, we don't know what the right

. >> moving to the inmarsat data is brought to your attention. did you have any doubts when inmarsat and your advisers said we believe the plane flew for six and a half, everyone hours or so and this is where it went. you must have had a shocked reaction. >> to be honest i found it hard to believe to begin. how could a plane that was i supposed to be heading towards beijing, you know -- they could decide the plane ended half way -- it is a bizarre scenario which none of us could have contemplated. that's why when i met the team, mind you these are experts in the aviation industry, they are the real expert s as you know, they come from the united states, from u.k. they were there. i asked them, are you sure? i asked them again and again, are you sure? and their answer to me was, we are as sure as we can possibly be. >> are you prepared now to say the plane and its passengers have been lost? on the balance of the evidence, it would be hard to imagine otherwise, richard. >> the significance is until malaysia says the plane has been lost, the compensa

inmarsat, the satellite. and the interpretation of that data is crucial. and the thing we need to remember is we don't know how inmarsat carried out those calculations. we cannot independently assess their reasons for saying we are in this area that we're looking. >> they have the inmarsat data, jeff, but they also have the underwater pings picked up by the towed pinger locator. they have heard something under the water there. so steve, the question is how long do you look for it where you did hear those pings? the australian official in charge of this essentially said we're going to give this another week under water with the bluefin 21. is that really enough time? >> well, i think we're going to take as much time as it needs. you know, as jeff said, perhaps the inmarsat data hasn't been viewed by -- as transparentally and as widely a group as it might have been, but i have a lot of confidence in the two pieces of data which seem to be aligning, the inmarsat pings and the pings picked up by the towed pinger locator. so that's what's focused this area. i th

. >> here's the thing, if you buy into inmarsat, though we haven't seen data, it propry ta tear, part an investigation, nice to see what underlies it, but if you buy into that, inmarsat, rings, you're limited as to where the plane might be. you know, coupled, the rings with the pings, and you're left with, i think, a pretty good case that the airplane is at the bottom of the sea. people continue with theories, they will continue with theories. we're talking about the grassy knoll, don. >> absolutely. mary, i know you like to deal in facts. very -- the only fact we know is the plane is missing. these are what we're dealing with mathematical probability here. >> right. absolutely. but you know, we are to deal with what we have. you know, conspiracy theories, no matter what happens in the country, we come up with conspiracy theories, there are still people -- i get mail every day from people still saying we were wrong about september 11th. >> flight 800, you and i were in the green room. >> yeah. >> in the green room, a gentleman who just went on and on about the conspiracy theorists for

there will always be questions about that inmarsat data, simply because it has not been shared. and i believe at this juncture it should be shared so we could be cross verified by other professionals. >> all right. stick around, a lot of show to get you. michael kay we'll get you in the next block. >>> coming up, a survival story so miraculous many simply don't believe it. a teenaged boy climbs into the landing gear of a jet in california and gets out five hours later in an airport in hawaii. later, i'm going to talk to the family of one flight 370 passenger and get their thoughts. >>> plus, new details of the chaos and confusion on the sinking ferry that led to the death of at least 104 people in south korea. we'll be right back. how did we do it last time? i don't know... i forget. feeding your lawn need not be so difficult neighbors. get a load of this bad boy. whoa. this snap spreader system from scotts is snap-crackin' simple -- just snap, lock, and go. [ scott ] feed your lawn. feed it! sfx: car unlock beep. just snap, lock, and go. vo: david's heart attack didn't come wit

the inmarsat data.ou start to sort of say let's all release all the evidence about the computer that was found. and it starts to become mushrooming about what you hold on. where i think you should and they should now be starting to look at, we are one month on, john. it's time for them to give a first written report, a statement of facts, so they we know exactly what we know and how they know it. >> david gallo, one month on, does this go on for two months, for three months? you've been involved with long, long searches before, obviously. when is it time to change the nature of it or at least admit you're not looking the same way you did before? >> right now, again, with air france one of our secrets was to make it a committee-free zone. so the committees are important. the sharing of knowledge is important. but at the end of the day it was a small group of people, a single team, a single ship, a single technology with a single mission and that was to find that aircraft. and we had to block out everythi

the inmarsat data.tart to sort of say let's all release all the evidence about the computer that was found. and it starts to become mushrooming about what you hold on. where i think you should and they should now be starting to look at, we are one month on, john. it's time for them to give a first written report, a statement of facts, so they we know exactly what we know and how they know it. >> david gallo, one month on, does this go on for two months, for three months? you've been involved with long, long searches before, obviously. when is it time to change the nature of it or at least admit you're not looking the same way you did before? >> right now, again, with air france one of our secrets was to make it a committee-free zone. so the committees are important. the sharing of knowledge is important. but at the end of the day it was a small group of people, a single team, a single ship, a single technology with a single mission and that was to find that aircraft. and we had to block out everything t

from then on, we couldn't really get a good heading except for the inmarsat data. >> michael kay, let'sck a few weeks, malaysia took days to reveal flight 370 showed up on their radar. what does that tell you about malaysia's military? >> key conundrum for the prime minister, don, revealing potential holes in his national security defense. does he go and tell the world that effectively he hasn't seen anything, an unidentified radar blip, no ir 5 flight plan, no routine airways traffic, or does he tell the world that the ministry did see something however they deemed it not serious enough to go and investigator deemed not hostile, as the prime minister said. he clearly went for the latter. but in doing so, i think he has exposed a real weakness within his air defense. and i think that is telling the world there is a problem here with malaysia. and that is sensitive. malaysia is under the microscope at the moment. he's trying to avoid any future problems. >> unwittingly, in some ways, maybe making it worse, by revealing that there are some holes in their radar. >> his options weren't grea

so that sort of backs up where we are, done it and it validates the inmarsat data and validates what they are hearing. any time you can get evidence to overlap that way gives you hope. >> thank you so much. coming up on the lead. planes and ships racing to find where these things are coming from. how daunting a search area are they up against. families were told all hope is lost. but now malaysia's transport minister says miracles do happen. can malaysian officials get their stories straight? stay with us. ameriprise asked people a simple question: in retirement, will you outlive your money? uhhh. no, that can't happen. that's the thing, you don't know how long it has to last. everyone has retirement questions. so ameriprise created the exclusive.. confident retirement approach. now you and your ameripise advisor can get the real answers you need. well, knowing gives you confidence. start building your confident retirement today. ...we'll be here at lifelock doing our thing: you do your connect to public wi-fi thing protecting you in ways your credit card company alone can't. get lif

fly that route with another aircraft exactly and see if it really is that inmarsat data is accurate.here is data to go back to but i think this is the best shot and i'm still pretty confident that we're in the right place. >> david soucie, thank you so much. >>> we've lost our signal with rob mccallum. our apologies to him. >>> when we come back, making a statement in the black sea. a russian fighter jet is getting really close to a u.s. navy ship. what the pentagon is saying about this provocative maneuver. >>> investigators are being looking at new information. could anything tell what happened on board flight 370 after it went radio silent? ♪ ♪ ♪ ben! ♪ [ train whistle blows ] oh, that was close. you ain't lying. let quicken loans help you save your money with a mortgage that's engineered to amaze. and that's epic, bro, we've forgotten just how good good is. good is setting a personal best before going for a world record. good is swinging to get on base before swinging for a home run. [ crowd cheering ] good is choosing not to overshoot the moon, but to land right on it and do som

. >> will raw inmarsat data be included in the malaysian report coming out this week?out. i'm on tender hooks. i hope that report does get released. that would be like christmas and thanksgiving if it is in it. >> why hasn't the flight been replicated through the elevation and radar and acars and pings? we have heard this question a couple times. >> look, in many ways, it has. they have looked at malaysian 777s traveling on various routes after the disappearance and they have taken inmarsat data from them and in many ways they have in fact replicated it for the purpose of the calculations that have been done. >> it has been done just not specifically in a way that many people would think. >> thank you everyone. i appreciate you joining us tonight. that's it for us. i'm don lemon. i'm don lemon. "ac360" starts right now. -- captions by vitac -- www.vitac.com >>> good evening, everyone. breaking news on a very dangerous night after an especially deadly weekend. new tornado watches and warnings going up. new twisters touching down including this one, a storm as you can se

. >> michael kay, i have a question to you about the inmarsat data. we learned that they are studying the data for any new clues. why won't they open it to the general public to analyze? >> i think, don, because the analysis is inconclusive. it has never been done before and you have intelligent brains working on it and they are learning as the days, weeks and months go by. if i was working on inmarsat i would want to keep it close hold because i would want to make sure it is in the right hands and affected upon as per what they were saying. what i would say there are more bits of this investigation, more concrete than others. the inmarsat is relatively concrete compared to the assumptions on what height the aircraft traveled at and what speed the aircraft traveled at. back to the question of where do we go next we have to focus on the arc. that's what inmarsat gives us. and the height and speed is where the inaccuracy is occurring. >> coming up much more on the search for flight 370. why we may have crossed a legal milestone that could possibly help t

so within the confines of the inmarsat data -- and it's interesting to note that even tonight the answeraustralian maritime safety authority, even in their announcement today of what the search is that will be taking place on friday australia time, they refer again to this international group based that's refining that inmarsat data. they're continuing to refine where they believe the plane would have been when it went down. >> kl being kuala lumpur. we know that the australian ship "the ocean shield" and the u.s. navy towed pinger locator, they're looking for the so-called black boxes. the british ship "echo" is there. does that give you reason to believe they may be on to something? >> well, wolf, not really. what it tells me is they're about to shift the search to the next phase. up until now for the last four weeks we've been searching the ocean surface looking for debris. obviously haven't found anything yet. now what i think they're probably going to do is announce they're going to start searching the ocean bottom. they've brought all the right assets in to do that, and that would

they want to see that inmarsat data. they want to know how authorities can conclude based on just that inmarsat data. they wanted to know, what is the flight's log book? but after that two-hour meeting, alison, the families left even more frustrated. they said not a single one of their questions was answered. and after the briefing, we actually asked the authorities why that is the case, why they can't be more transparent, and they said this is an unprecedented situation. this is an answer they always give. this is an unprecedented situation, and they simply don't have the answers themselves. they can't relay any of the information they have to the families until all of this is verified. of course, on day 46, a lot of the family members want specific answers. alison. >> okay. very frustrating. sumnima udas from kuala lumpur. thanks. >>> from one tragedy to another. with each passing hour, the numbers grow more grim. the death toll from the south korean ferry disaster now stands at 108. 194 others are still missing. diver

the other thing, too, let's not forget about the 6 1/2 handshakes from the inmarsat data.the aircraft was airborne for six to seven hours. >> right. i assume what you're saying is if it would land up here that wouldn't have been in the air some seven hours after last contact. >> exactly. if you draw a direct line, the radar traces take the aircraft out to the top of end noo dindo then north. three hours flying time. what was the aircraft doing for the other 3 1/2 to 4 hours? it would have had to taken a very unusual track to eventually get to the resting place in the bay of bengal. that's unusual as well. >> one thing they're talking about now, kind of in theory because we haven't heard anyone say, yes, we're going to go search this. sending a ship from maybe india, maybe somewhere else to go there and actually search this area. this may be the one really good thing about it possibly landing in the bay is that it is much more shallow than the search efforts currently in the southern arc. it's only about 3,000, 3600 feet. >> 1,000 moot emeters in depth. angus houston has a

. >> moving to the inmarsat data is brought to your attention. did you have any doubts when inmarsat said and your advisers said we believe now the plane flew for 7 hour os or so, 6 1/2 hours or so and this is where it went, did you -- you must have had quite a shocked reaction? >> to be honest, i found it hard to believe to begin with. because how could a plane that was supposed to be heading towards beijing, they could decide that the plane ended halfway towards antarctica. it's a bizarre scenario which none of us could have contemplated. therefore, when i met the team -- and mind you, these are the experts in aviation industry, they are the real experts, as you know. you know, they come from the united states, they come from the uk, they were there. i asked them, are you sure? i asked them again and again, are you sure? and their answer to me was, we are as sure as we can possibly be. >> are you prepared now to say the plane and its passengers have been lost? >> on the balance of the evidence, it would be hard to imagine otherwise. >> but the s

jeff, she saying where is the inmarsat data?uld go the northern route. there had been. it's not the mainstream analysis that is out there. let's be fair and say that. what do you think of this, that we still haven't seen this data? is there a chance that this plane is somewhere else? >> well, it's not only mainstream analysis that we're in the right place. we simply have taken the word of the authorities at face value. the americans have been saying this. the malaysians, the australians have all been saying take our word for it, it's in the southern ocean. i think if we don't find debris in the surface, if we don't find wreckage under the surface, the question is going to become deafening, where is this plane? why have you been telling us that it's in the south? we don't need to go to crazy conspiracies i think to want to know why do we think it's in the south if there is no evidence physically that it's there. >> and i hear your point. mary, do you hear his point? although i would say you have all these different governments ag

. >> and i think a new ping is needed to look at the inmarsat data and to see that it's accurate.ith outsiders, that could be a problem. >> richard quest will weigh in. what do you think about that, richard? >> i think he's right in the sense that you don't find what you are -- where you are looking at the moem, you hament, you ha back to square one. first of all, all of the pings and inmarsat handshakes and you are working your way up the arc towards the last known position which, of course, was when the primary radar from the malaysians lost contact at 2:22. but i don't think you're going to get any disagrement or argument from those people involved because these men and women are both into technology and science and will recognize that if what they have done so far has failed to yield results, then there really is only one other thing. you go back to your first and last verified fact and you work forward again. one point to note tonight, malaysia is sending a group of technical experts to beijing. there was an extremely acrimonious meeting between the families and the authoriti

this investigation, you know, last week announcing that the air traffic control tapes and the inmarsat data were secret and never be released. and then they dribble out information, announcing everyone had perished in the ocean. and then, turning around and -- it's like they're reacting but they don't know what they're reacting to. at this point it has so compromised their credibility that they really ought to be looking to forge a very close bond with australia and let them take a bigger role. the credibility of their investigation at this point is doomed. >> when a pilot leaves the flight deck, a flight attendant has to head into the cockpit in his place or her place, which is something that is already done in the united states. can you explain for passengers why they do that? >> it's a security measure. you don't want to have a single person in the cockpit. if something happens, there's a person there to assist. in other words, if the flight crew member is on the other side of the door and some sort of bad thing happens, you have an additional person in there just to get the aircraft dow

in the absence of anything else, i'm confident in the inmarsat data and what "ocean field picked up sos going to lead us to the location. >> they're concluded that they need more from electronic equipment therein deed. let's take a quick look at this tweet. it says, we hear that might stimulate pings, but how often do false positive tis actually occur? >> there have been frequency picked up, but never at one second pulse like these are doing. you not only have the frequency which other things use, commercial fishing boats use some in that same frequency to look for fish, but they're talking about multiple pings per second. this is a one second ping. that's what we have here. we've never picked up anything that i'm aware of as far as false positives. >> not in anything you can remember? that's pretty interesting. mary, the official signal picked up on saturday lasted two hours 20 minutes. the two most recent lasted five and a half minutes and seven minutes as well. it appears to be weakening. how bad is that for searchers. >> it's bad because we still have a lot of area to search. by th

both the inmarsat data and the pings they got said it was fehrenbach, it has to be the plane it has to there. they were asked about the mud and silt down there, which could be extraordinarily deep. experts we talked to say even if there is tons of mud down there, the bluefin and other devices are good enough to determine metal from mud. back to you guys. >> appreciate it, miguel. thank you. >>> a day after visiting malaysia and promising to support the search for flight 370, president obama is in the philippines today meeting with the president there, detailing plans to return a large number of u.s. troops to that nation. but the big story there this morning, ukraine. the president announcing expanded sanctions against russia will be coming in a matter of hours. our white house correspondent, michelle kosinski, traveling with the president. michelle, give us the details this morning. >> reporter: hi, john. well, what we're looking at in the next couple hours are more targeted sanctions against individuals. putin cronies, as the administration has called them in the past, also businesse

. >> richard, a lot is obviously riding on the radar provided by the malaysians, using the inmarsat data that helped them come up with the search off australia, is that radar data something that should be re-examined? >> the radar data from the malaysian military is pretty uncontroversial. it is blips showing the plane flying across the country and then going out west. but what it does show and i have on very good sources, it does not show it flying way points. it does not show some carefully constructed route west. it is a straight line west that happens to hit several way points. now, that takes us up to about 2:20 in the morning. and that is the last known position. if the inmarsat satellite handshakes fails on accuracy you're back to that position. you really are back to the very beginning of where the mystery begins. and once you're there, frankly, you are calling into question the corridors, you're calling into question the inmarsat and ultimately the radar data. >> david souci, i talked to david gallo about this a couple of days ago about the human search, is there data that nothi

. >> so much of the search, geoffrey, is based on that inmarsat data that was apparently made available the families want to see that data because they simply don't believe it to be accurate. inmarsat isn't releasing it publicly for what, proprietary reasons? is that their explanation? >> that's my understanding, wolf. and we can understand, there's obviously commercial reasons. however, there's so much more information as the other panelists have suggested that can be released. and i think the malaysians absolutely need to release every single piece of factual information they can as soon as possible because the longer we go on as a mystery, the more the doubts are about the credibility of what they're doing. >> peter, if you were in charge of this investigation, i've asked you this before, what would you be doing? what would you have done differently than the investigators are doing now? >> well, i think i would have started the whole show differently. and i would have formed working groups on radar, operations, human factors and had periodic reports, factual reports, that all of the

when did they have the inmarsat data and tell the world to stop dating in the south china sea? are so many disconnects here that i think their credibility was shot but also leads me to believe that they have internal governor mental problems which will probably cloud the investigation. for example, there's something weird about this radar and the refusal to say what it is and the only thing they will say is they lost contact with the plane for 125 miles. where there is smoke, there is fire. there is something wrong with the radar data. >> and so arnold, does this make you even more worried about any data that could be collected? say a black box or any kind of debris is collected. do you worry about whether they can handle, whether they can secure any data if it comes to that? to you, arnold. >> the same question? >> well, this question is really about trusting malaysian authorities as to if there is any data, any evidence that is collecting, whether it's the black boxes or it becomes debris, ultimately it may make its way to malaysia. do you worry whether authorities have the c

it might be only inmarsat can figure out its own system and analyze that data. >> there are a lot ofl of the assumptions that they've been working on, since they haven't found anything, probably are wrong. >> well, i don't know if they are wrong but i think a new team could certainly requestion them and i don't think you need to move on beyond the original team. you've just got to bring in a new set of eyes to look at it. i mean, this is tough work, as we've seen. >> richard, you're there in kuala lumpur. those families, they are distraught, we've seen them crying every day and it's totally understandable. are you getting any sense at all that the malaysian authorities are going to provide at least some answers to those several dozen questions that they put forward? >> reporter: i have to say, wolf, i'm not sure why they haven't so far. and i do ask that question. and why hasn't some of what seems to be fairly rudimentary and basic questions not been answered. what i would say is, let's see this next technical team go to beijing. if this next technical team going to beijing failed to

the limited search areas, do not turn up the plane, then they're going to have to go back to the inmarsat datand make sense of the many, many conflicting reports of radar data out of malaysia and indonesia and other places and try to make sense of those and see if there are not new search areas that can be opened with better analysis or maybe more cooperation from governments in terms of their radar information. >> all right, mary, david, michael, stick with us. we want to talk to all of you again in just a few minutes. another story we'll be talking about, though, a few weeks ago, a lot of people couldn't even find ukraine on a map. now that country threatens to reunite a new area of hostility between u.s. and russia. and there was no peace on easter sunday. >>> to ukraine now where hopes for a quiet easter sunday gave way to more gun fights. pro-russian groups say one of their roadbloc still un two burned out cars were s at the scene this afternoon >> all right, mary, david, michael, stick with us. we want to talk to all of you again in just a few minutes. another story we'll be talking abou

. >> when you go back and recap all of the data, the inmarsat data, all of the things that were involved to bring us to this point, having the towed pinger locators bring up those signals at that very point of approximately where the seventh ping was and now one of the significant things there was an oil slick. so maybe far-fetched but i'd like to look on the positive side. >> we shall see. they got lucky with hearing the pingers. now a possible oil slick and now again the search field appears to be moving a bit. i'm don lemon. stay with cnn and cnn.com for the very latest for malaysia flight 370. at 2:00 a.m. eastern, we'll be joined for more live coverage. first, now the season premier of morgan spurlock "inside man." good night. ♪ >> end of the road. >> you got to back up. >> we're at the airport. kim kardashian is flying from paris. there's a gaggle of paparazzi here. people are crowding around the door, jockeying for position. i'm going to bust in and try to get the best shot i can. that sucks. i'm the worst pap ever. ♪ >> i love celebrity magazines because they are easy to read, th

there are a lot of things they can do, not just refining the inmarsat data but expanding their knowledges in this part of the ocean. >> the australian chief said he expects ongoing data analysis by a team in kuala lumpur to result in further refinement of the search area within the next couple of weeks. how much more refined can they get? >> you know, i really don't see they could get much more refined. remember, the ocean shield went directly to that spot, picked up the pings. they were confident in the data and it's proven out because they did find that. i'm with david gallo. to give up on that area is counterintuitive. i'm confident and so are the people i have spoken with about the pinger. the small distortion of that pinger can cause the frequency to change that much. i'm still confident it is there. we just have to search better and deeper somehow. >> richard, last night on the program you read some questions that family members put to authorities trying to get answers. a lot of them were sensible questions, basic questions that i was surprised authorities haven't released -- i'm n

they knew that from the inmarsat data. there were various speeds from that inmarsat data, that it could have been flying, indicating that it might have clipped the tip of indonesia, might have avoided it a little bit, but this lack of radar information from indonesia allows them to now more precisely say, okay, this aircraft that whoever was flying it was taking evasive measures, and that, for the investigators, is important, john. >> all right, nic robertson for us in kuala lumpur. thank you so much. and we do expect a news conference live from kuala lumpur from the malaysian transportation minister on all the updates, including the discovery of these new pings. that's coming up in our next hour. >> about an hour and 20 minutes from now. many flight 370 family members say they need to see hard proof before they give up hope that their loved ones are still alive. many of them left malaysia and returned home to beijing over the weekend, hoping to hear something concrete about the fate of their family members soon. our pauli

in the meantime, the malaysians can continue to scratch their head and tweak the inmarsat data and theown there. and if it turns up empty, okay. now we know the plane is not there. and on a chance that they hit gold, it's a wonderful thing for the families. >> miles, rosa flor is a reporter here at cnn, reports that the technology can be used to see things near to the surface of the ocean. obviously it wouldn't see it at the bottom of the ocean. but these photos were taken a couple of days after the plane went missing. so the plane may not at that point been at the bottom of the ocean. do you think they should take a look? i know you don't think it's there. but do you think they should take a look. >> so you're saying it took a couple of days to sink down to the bottom? is that what you're suggesting? >> i'm not -- i don't know the physics of it. >> this technology does not exist. have i asked every expert in the world of satellite imagery that i can find, and no one knows of any capability that makes it possible from a satellite to detect something as small as an aircraft in the botto

but right now, there is a lot of information that has come from the inmarsat data that was analyzed.ome narrowed area of the search that the team feels is highly probable from how they're describing it. you don't stop. there is no reason to. but there is no -- you really have to understand that it is a hard problem and it will be hard for them to be really successful the way you'd like them to be in a short period of time. this will take time, especially if they do not hear anymore signals from the pinger. >> we understand than that c. thank you so much. >>> let's talk about ukraine. tension is rising. lawmakers started fighting on the ukrainian parliament floor. this is right before a vote today to stiffen the penalties for anyone calling for separatism. but this fight is not just taking place in kiev. russian protesters have taken control of three ukraine crepian government buildings and the foreign minister says any crackdown against 240those protesters could lead to a civil war. joining me now, nicholas burns. thank you so much for being here. supposedly these row teproteste are

they had the pings and inmarsat data.to this area. >> reporter: crews have covered 90% of a six-mile radius area of the bluefin looking for the missing malaysian plane with no luck. nearly three weeks ago, the towed pinger thought to be from the plane's black boxes and the second ping was the highest quality and that's why they launched the bluefin in this small area first. the bluefin is being pushed to its limits, diving deeper than it is designed, using side scan sonar and then resurfaces so data can be analyzed. it's something familiar to david gallo, who was part of the search for flight air france 447. >> it's a matter of sitting in a room with a white board and there was a long period, months before we came up with the next plan of what to do. >> reporter: it took 75 days and over two years to find that wreckage. in this investigation, the subsea search area could be shifted or expanded and perhaps to include the other three pings and using other vehicles to scan the ocean floor. this remus 6000 was used in the sea

something in addition to the inmarsat data.are back to that data and that's it. it's good that the prime minister trusts it because the rest of the world has to also. >> mary, david, thank you for the take on that this morning. interesting to hear from the prime minister to be sure. kate? >> chris, thanks so much. >>> coming up knice g uing up n" would president obama saved vladimir putin if he was drowning? strange question. the president was asked and he answers, ahead. >>> and also, this sunday on "parts unknown," anthony bourdain heads to france. it airs sunday at 9:00 p.m. eastern. here is a taste. >> the kids attack their food like hungry trerchermen wiping out three servings in the time it takes me to eat one. i guess they like it. >> it good. >> yeah. this is good. >> i tell you, i don't think my chef in new york would do better. >> cooked with wine, too. you're going to jail for that in the states. >> exactly. i'm making the sauce. >> the kids eat fast. look how fast the kids eat. turn your head and they'll eat your so

we've got to go with the inmarsat data and the pings, because that's the best we've got, and i think it's very important to exhaust the current search area, which probably means more than just a day or two, probably a week or two, to finish all the ping search areas so then they can say, we've exhausted that. now it's time to rethink. but i think that altitude data and whatever happened from the turn until over past indonesia is suspect. >> and richard, should they bring in more assets at work? air france 447, right, crashed off brazil, never had a ping, but had debris. it still took them years to actually find that plane, but they had three underwater drones working 24 hours a day. this particular search could end up being the most expensive and extensive in human history. why not put more assets on it right now to try to find it quickly and minimize the costs? >> because those assets may not be available at the moment. they may have to be brought in. remember one important point, when ocean shield set sail from perth several weeks ago, it was done in a hurry. what was available, th

a pinger data point is different than an oil slick is different than an inmarsat signal and they allave different -- contribute different parts of the answer. certainly we'll be very curious to know if they can identify this oil as being possibly from an airplane. that will be nice to know. one thing you mentioned in comparing the time it takes to do this would be the air france flight 447. i want to mention that there were actually three autonomous vehicles used in that search, three vehicles and that triples your ability to search for things, too. so as mr. houston mentioned, there may be other assets brought in to play later on, especially if it turns out that they are deeper than the bluefin can search. another point is, there was a mention of four hours to analyze the data. that actually is four hours to download the data and they will have all day to look at the data while the bluefin is off on its next deployment. they have to recharge the batteries and that's what takes four hours. so this process is deliberate and time consuming. >> the air and surface search for flight 370

so there are a lot of things they can do, not just refining the inmarsat data but expanding their knowledge in this pinger part of the ocean. >> and david souci expects ongoing data by a team of experts in kuala lumpur to further revise the search area. how much more refined can they get? >> you know, i don't see how they can get much more refined. remember, the ocean shield, the ship, went out there and picked up the pings, very confident in that data and it has proven out. i'm with david gallo on that point. to give up just seems counterintuitive. so it is just a small distortion that can cause that pinger. >> the family members put to authorities trying to get answers, a lot of them were very sensible, basic questions that i was really surprised that authorities haven't released. i'm not even talking about to the media but to family members. how likely is it to happen? questions about like what sort of casing are the elts in, the electronic location transmitters? >> some basic questions, question 20, does malaysia have the capability to extract and analyze the black box information? if n