The Mourouk Ebony hotel posted a dozen pictures on their facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/resamarket/posts/1039524829451663?pnref=story

Here is a picture of the reverse side:


Also, there are photos of young gooseneck barnacles that are attached. And that bracket looking thing on the obverse side several posts above turns out to be a hinge.

I could not find any inscriptions, other than the decorative foil itself.

As for the implications of this latest find, I don't think it falsifies the controlled flight input theory, at least not yet. No one has ever claimed that pulling off a "succesful" ditching in the SIO is a sure thing. If a controlled ditching was attempted, it is likely that the right side would have hit first due to the direction of travel and direction of swells, explaining the flaperon and EB676 objects. Then, like ET961, the a/c would roll to the right, causing the right horizontal stabilizer to strike the water, thus explaining the “NO STEP” object. Then, like ET961, a violent cartwheel motion could be expected.

Granted, there are no reefs to strike along the southern 7th arc. But 200 knots squared times the mass of a 777 is still a lot of kinetic energy; probably enough to cause the fuselage to separate; even the picture perfect Hudson River ditching pierced the fuselage. If the fuselage separated where a bulkhead happened to be located, that could easily explain the Rodrigues object.

Again, whilst a 200 knot, low-angle crash involves a lot of energy, it is still about an order of magnitude less energy than would be involved in a high-angle crash at 600 knots. Thus, even in a “botched” ditching attempt, we could expect a lot less debris than from an uncontrolled dive from high altitude. Thus, overall, IMO, the totality of the evidence–including the lack of more debris evidence–still favors the controlled input theory. Yes, there are the anomalous BFO values at the end, but the error bars on the BFOs are so wide, you can’t tell me that they absolutely rule out controlled flight inputs.

The bigger problem for the alternative theory is that finding one more object does not change the big fact that there are so few of them (5 so far). I see Duncan Steel just put out a new post, claiming that the initial debris field consisted of 10,000 objects! But the bigger the field, the more of a problem you have: according to a study of actual drifting buoys (as opposed to a priori numerical simulations) some 20% of all objects should have washed ashore somewhere by now, including ~5% going ashore in Australia. Out of 10,000 initial objects, 2,000 objects should have washed ashore somewhere, including roughly 500 objects washing ashore in Australia. It is inconceivable that the reporting rate of objects washing ashore is 1/4%.

Even if 90% of the initial debris field subsequently sank, you still have a problem: a 2.5% reporting rate is still way to low, especially when considering populations are sensitized to the presence debris, as are the people in Australia and the Mascarene islands.

Dr. Steel claims the finding of an object on Rodrigues is a special, surprising prediction from their IG-produced numerical simulations. This is not the case: I myself predicted that Rodrigues would be a good place to look for debris nearly 2 years ago on this website, the first person to do so I am aware of. All I did, or anybody could do, is simply look at the Wikipedia current chart that Richard Godfrey reproduces. The Mascarenes are like natural nets placed in the middle of the South Equatorial Current. Apparently, Blaine Gibson came to the same conclusion. Before he went to Mozambique, he traveled to Rodrigues first, and walked the entire eastern shore, finding nothing. That more objects have not been found there is not for lack of looking. The shortage of found objects represents a real shortage of original source objects IMHO.

As for the flutter hypothesis regarding the flaperon: according to highly respected pilots posting on this website, one must be very cautious in drawing conclusions from simulators that are pushed well past the normal operating envelope–they cannot be considered to be reliable, even if simulations are all there is to go on. The flaperon is not just a flimsy flap: it is also an aileron in its own right. It is the main flight control surface that is used during high speed flight: hence it’s location behind the beefiest part of the wing. The flaperon should be the last part to fall off due to flutter.

[Edited 2016-04-02 08:33:36]

I believe you will find that pattern all through the airplane, or at least common to one class section.. matching the pattern to a particular panel is nice detective work, but inconclusive as the pattern is repeated many times.

perhaps someone who flies that airline frequently can add some detail.

Quoting kanban (Reply 101): I believe you will find that pattern all through the airplane, or at least common to one class section.. matching the pattern to a particular panel is nice detective work, but inconclusive as the pattern is repeated many times.perhaps someone who flies that airline frequently can add some detail.

It would be nice if we could pinpoint exactly what part of the a/c the bulkhead came from. What about that hinged bracket? Could that be for a tray table at the front of the economy section? What else could it be used for?

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 102):

The square hole is probably a latch or a light, note it is re-enforced on the panel back.. my suspicions lead more towards a stowage bin or a sliding door.

There is only one way to find out, gentlemen: You book a seat on a Malaysian Airlines B777 and you will have all the time you need to do your investigation....
By the way, Mr. Warren Platts, do you think that the sparsity of objects from MH370 could mean that the airplane hit the water somewhere else and not necessarily in the South Indian Ocean? Just saying...

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 100): Thus, even in a “botched” ditching attempt, we could expect a lot less debris than from an uncontrolled dive from high altitude. Thus, overall, IMO, the totality of the evidence–including the lack of more debris evidence–still favors the controlled input theory

True, but you don't need any kind of ditching attempt. Just remember AF447:
Very little debris found floating, some of it from the inside of the plane, and none of it washed ashore. The wreck has been found largely intact on the ocean floor.
Iirc, the aircraft crashed with about 100kts horizontal and vertical speed into the ocean, resulting in about 150kts speed and 45 degree angle.
And AF447 was not what one might describe as "controlled", let alone "ditching attempt".

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 100): No one has ever claimed that pulling off a "succesful" ditching in the SIO is a sure thing.

Actually, it was claimed to be a hopeless thing by knowledgeable people here. This doesn't automatically rule out an attempt in a desperate situation where there is no alternative. But it makes a planned, premediated attempt by an experienced human in the cockpit extremely unlikely.

Unfortunately, there are few conclusions from the parts. The plane is indeed somewhere in the Indian Ocean, all conspiracy theories about landing somewhere and planting parts should be utterly discredited by now. But for the type of the final crash and even more the cause of the accident many possibilities remain open.

Quoting gzm (Reply 104): There is only one way to find out, gentlemen: You book a seat on a Malaysian Airlines B777 and you will have all the time you need to do your investigation....

I thought MAS has retired all its B777s since they are considered to be bad luck...

Quoting gzm (Reply 104): By the way, Mr. Warren Platts, do you think that the sparsity of objects from MH370 could mean that the airplane hit the water somewhere else and not necessarily in the South Indian Ocean? Just saying...

Heh. Who knows?  No doubt the solution to the puzzle will be surprising. Indeed, the most surprising thing would be to find it where they're looking!

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 100): according to a study of actual drifting buoys (as opposed to a priori numerical simulations) some 20% of all objects should have washed ashore somewhere by now, including ~5% going ashore in Australia.

Can you provide a citation please? Also note the numerical studies on the ATSB website indicate few (if any) debris would be expected to wash up in Australia. Pretty much everything heads West into the Indian Ocean Gyre.

This most recent find is quite interesting, since previously the lack of debris from inside the fuselage was taken as an indication that the aircraft was successfully ditched. This hypothesis is now proven false; if there was a ditching it resulted in fuselage breakup, and more likely there was no ditching at all, just an uncontrolled crash.

I thought your earlier discussion on the various search biases to be quite well-reasoned, which is why I am perplexed that you so strenuously attempt to fit this latest debris discovery into your controlled ditching theory. You are over-fitting the data, and I find Duncan Steel's hypothesis of tens of thousands of debris to be far more credible.

Quoting kanban (Reply 103): The square hole is probably a latch or a light,

I think that this is either a galley or lavatory wall. The square hole looks like an access hole for the hardware that attaches the galley or lav to the seat track in the floor. The access hole is usually covered up by a kick panel or a carpet section, and you can see the equally spaced holes for the screw inserts that mounts that kick panel. Is the bracket on the wall part of a literature pocket mount?

The aft side shows five rectangles which looks like it was support for a vertical wall of a galley. Did MH have any galleys against the sidewalls of the airplane?

Could it be this closet? Note the kick panel at the bottom and literature pocket.

http://cdn.seatguru.com/photos/show?pid=3961&photoversion=1

[Edited 2016-04-02 18:35:18]

Geoffrey Thomas, Aviation Editor for The West Australian, today stated on television whilst being asked about this recent find; "This plane was *clearly* out of control" - LOL

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 107): if there was a ditching it resulted in fuselage breakup,

Hardly a surprise.

It would be more of a surprise if the fuselage remained in one piece.

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 107): and more likely there was no ditching at all, just an uncontrolled crash.

How exactly does this "most recent find" support that?

I suspect that if the fuselage broke into a few pieces during a ditching then many items would escape, especially items in the areas around the fuselage section joins if that is where the fuselage broke apart.

Where are these kind of divider panels located in MH 777s in relation to fuselage section joins?

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 109): Where are these kind of divider panels located in MH 777s

for the location of bulkheads:
http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Mal...laysia_Airlines_Boeing_777-200.php

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 109): It would be more of a surprise if the fuselage remained in one piece.

   And yet, one pet theory of some here depends upon an evil genius planning to achieve this.

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 110): for the location of bulkheads:

I asked for the location specifically "in relation to fuselage section joins?"

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 110):    And yet, one pet theory of some here depends upon an evil genius planning to achieve this.

Well keeping the aircraft intact as possible is usually the plan when ditching regardless of the likelihood.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 111):    And yet, one pet theory of some here depends upon an evil genius planning to achieve this.  Well keeping the aircraft intact as possible is usually the plan when ditching regardless of the likelihood.

  

The mischaracterizations never cease.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 109): Geoffrey Thomas, Aviation Editor for The West Australian, today stated on television whilst being asked about this recent find; "This plane was *clearly* out of control" - LOL

This guy has been promoting an 'accident' theory since time immemorial. How stupid must one be to become an 'aviation editor'? Extremely.

Quoting DL_Mech (Reply 108): You are over-fitting the data, and I find Duncan Steel's hypothesis of tens of thousands of debris to be far more credible.

So just curious, do you, or do you not, believe that someone was alive and in the cockpit during the southern leg? Surely you have an opinion on this matter?

[Edited 2016-04-02 23:47:52]

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 111): I asked for the location specifically "in relation to fuselage section joins?"

You may google for the joints   Without doing so, i strongly suspect there will be one behind the cockpit, and one in front of the tail, and more somewhere in between.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 111): Well keeping the aircraft intact as possible is usually the plan when ditching regardless of the likelihood.

OMG, and i thought landing on an airstrip is the usual plan if you want to keep the aircraft intact 

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 113): OMG, and i thought landing on an airstrip is the usual plan if you want to keep the aircraft intact

Last time I checked "landing on an airstrip" was not an option when 'ditching' in the open ocean - especially in the middle of the SIO  

[Edited 2016-04-03 02:10:37]

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 112): The mischaracterizations never cease.

  

Neither do the smartarse replies from some  

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 113): You may google for the joints

Ah yes, google...

Is this google you talk about where you found seatguru?  

LOL

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 114): Last time I checked "landing on an airstrip" was not an option when 'ditching' in the open ocean - especially in the middle of the SIO

Landing on an airstrip was very much an option when MH370 took off. And when it diverted. And for a few hours afterward.

I came across seatguru long ago, and i suspect i found it referred to on a.net. I am fairly sure you will find information or photos with google. Afaik, assembly of a T7 is not classified info.

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 116): I came across seatguru long ago, and i suspect i found it referred to on a.net.

Here's a picture of a seat map from seatguru.com for reference when theorizing about where the bulkhead section came from:

(Thanks to Annette @Aussie500)!  

Looks plausible to me. Interesting that it's right next to an emergency exit. Presumably this represents a relatively weak point in the fuselage structure?

One should also note that it is on the right side. Call this confirmation bias if you want but: a/c attempts water landing but swells moving in from the right catch right wing/engine; a/c rolls to right a la ET961; a/c now at nearly 90 degree roll angle WRT to sea surface; violent cartwheel motion ensues, hammering forward end of fuselage into water surface; initial fuselage separation occurs right where the emergency exits are in the galley section between rows 4 & 5 within business class....



ETA: Actually, complete separation of the fuselage might not occur. Cartwheel motion would slam right side of forward fuselage into water causing the emergency exit hatch to implode. This would rip out the Rodrigues object, yet leave the fuselage more or less intact. The blown open door would allow rapid sinking, yet not allow much interior debris to be released. This would explain all objects found so far, as well as the big fact that more debris objects have NOT been found...



[Edited 2016-04-04 07:25:45]