User avatar
Spyhunter
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 8:01 pm

Re: MH370 & MH17: Spyhunter theories for his fans

Mon Dec 10, 2018 7:49 pm

Well I seem to have convinced some one in the French BEA!

Merry Christmas to one and all.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 8910
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: MH370 & MH17: Spyhunter theories for his fans

Mon Dec 10, 2018 8:48 pm

Spyhunter wrote:
Well I seem to have convinced some one in the French BEA!

Merry Christmas to one and all.


Mary Christmas, and well done, loking forward to read it in an official document form the BEA.........
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 2531
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: MH370 & MH17: Spyhunter theories for his fans

Mon Dec 10, 2018 9:00 pm

Surprised JT610 hasn't been added to Spyhunter's radar.
 
User avatar
Spyhunter
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 8:01 pm

Re: MH370 & MH17: Spyhunter theories for his fans

Fri Jan 25, 2019 2:10 pm

Happy New Year everyone!

JT610 has indeed been on my radar. Sounds like a pitot tube issue, BUT, if it was pitots, what caused them to fail? There's more than one on a 737 Max!

As always I have an open mind (this is NOT an invitation to 777Jet to make a sarcastic comment!!) and I would welcome people's views.

It's important to connect dots - Indonesia has been under pressure, therefore sabotage cannot be ruled out. Pilot error seems improbable - it seems like the crew were following their instruments.

This is where things get a bit controversial in the airliner community. Pilots are trained to trust their instruments. I had a little bit of blind flying training (we don't have to say 'persons with visual difficulties flying training' do we?) and that's how I was taught by my QFIs. The advice is usually correct. We all know how easy it is to become disorientated in cloud or at night.

The problem is that following your training blindly, no pun intended, can get you and your passengers killed. Instrument failure is not unknown, as in that crash at Basel (a DC-9, wasn't it?). More to the point current training makes the saboteur's job easier. All you have to do is sabotage the instruments and you get the plane.

I worked, informally, on the Smolensk Air Disaster, a classic case of pressure instrument sabotage, in that case via the Air Data Computer, using the same method used by GO2 at Staines (Papa India).

Until we get the DVD and its client agencies like GO2 sorted, and take sabotage off the table, my recommendation is that pilots should be trained in counter-sabotage techniques. Specifically pilots should be taught to use their judgment and reject what their instruments are telling them in a proper case,using back-up instruments where necessary. Radar altimeters are a classic example - use of the their radar altimeter would have saved the UN Air Command pilots at Ndola. (There's nothing in the latest conspiracy theory by the way - the Belgian pilot in question was nowhere near Ndola that night.)

Pilots typically lack intelligence expertise, just as intelligence analysts typically lack aviation expertise. The answer is a multi-disciplinary approach, recognising that each community has a common aim p the safety of air navigation.

Anybody who thinks that I don't care about aviation safety doesn't know me, or my father for that matter (he was an air traffic controller at Eagle Farm and Garbutt in the 60s and 70s). Aviation is in my blood.
 
BlueberryWheats
Posts: 482
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 9:46 am

Re: MH370 & MH17: Spyhunter theories for his fans

Fri Jan 25, 2019 3:31 pm

Sigh... how to put this delicately?

Go away and join a conspiracy theory forum.
 
User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 2531
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: MH370 & MH17: Spyhunter theories for his fans

Fri Jan 25, 2019 6:16 pm

Spyhunter wrote:
JT610 has indeed been on my radar.


My comment was meant to be sarcastic, but you go ahead and do you. Oh look you did.


Sounds like a pitot tube issue, BUT, if it was pitots, what caused them to fail? There's more than one on a 737 Max!


Wrong. Angle of Airflow (AOA) sensors, not Pitot tubes. (Despite them having flushed the Pitot system in their maintenance actions)

As always I have an open mind (this is NOT an invitation to 777Jet to make a sarcastic comment!!) and I would welcome people's views.
I guess I won't make a sarcastic comment either then..

It's important to connect dots - Indonesia has been under pressure, therefore sabotage cannot be ruled out. Pilot error seems improbable - it seems like the crew were following their instruments.


In this assertion you have far more supporters in this forum than you probably have in the past (just go look at the post in the other forum and all the tin foil hat comments). Despite it being completely unsubstantiated.. Though, open mind right?

This is where things get a bit controversial in the airliner community...


The rest is just gibberish. Pilots are trained to fly the plane, they don't need to know to look for sabotage, they need to know how to fly. If the airplane isn't behaving the way it is supposed to, as was the case in JT610, then they are supposed to know how to disable all automatic inputs and fly manually. It appears they failed to do that. Fortunately we have the CVR so we will know for certain in due time.

And with that, I say good day sir. (In Fez's voice)
 
salttee
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: MH370 & MH17: Spyhunter theories for his fans

Sat Jan 26, 2019 1:30 am

Will everyone please stop feeding the troll and maybe he'll go away for good.
 
alfa164
Posts: 2810
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:47 am

Re: MH370 & MH17: Spyhunter theories for his fans

Sat Jan 26, 2019 1:48 am

salttee wrote:
Will everyone please stop feeding the troll and maybe he'll go away for good.


He just keeps reviving his own thread, hoping for attention.

I think he loves the attention... unjustified as it is...

:roll:
I'm going to have a smokin' hot body again!
I have decided to be cremated....
 
User avatar
neutrino
Topic Author
Posts: 1536
Joined: Thu May 10, 2012 5:33 pm

Re: MH370 & MH17: Spyhunter theories for his fans

Sat Jan 26, 2019 5:21 am

Guys, be nice.
The (international) New Year is just over, and the Lunar New Year is looming round the corner.
Wishing everybody happy and safe flights.
Potestatem obscuri lateris nescitis
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 8910
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: MH370 & MH17: Spyhunter theories for his fans

Sat Jan 26, 2019 11:43 am

salttee wrote:
Will everyone please stop feeding the troll and maybe he'll go away for good.



If you don't like to read about his theories, there is one simple solution: don't read them. Nobody is forcing your hand to read this thread 8-)
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
salttee
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: MH370 & MH17: Spyhunter theories for his fans

Sat Jan 26, 2019 12:53 pm

Dutchy wrote:
salttee wrote:
Will everyone please stop feeding the troll and maybe he'll go away for good.



If you don't like to read about his theories, there is one simple solution: don't read them. Nobody is forcing your hand to read this thread 8-)

They are not theories Dutchy, they are bullshit. That's what you seem to like to wallow in; you always grope for the meaningless, no matter the topic. Nothing could be more meaningless on the subject of MH-370 than the drivel in this thread. So, I'm not surprised that you eat it up.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 8910
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: MH370 & MH17: Spyhunter theories for his fans

Sat Jan 26, 2019 12:56 pm

salttee wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
salttee wrote:
Will everyone please stop feeding the troll and maybe he'll go away for good.



If you don't like to read about his theories, there is one simple solution: don't read them. Nobody is forcing your hand to read this thread 8-)

They are not theories Dutchy, they are bullshit. That's what you seem to like to wallow in; you always grope for the meaningless, no matter the topic. Nothing could be more meaningless on the subject of MH-370 than the drivel in this thread. So, I'm not surprised that you eat it up.


Ah so you result in insulting me.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
salttee
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: MH370 & MH17: Spyhunter theories for his fans

Sat Jan 26, 2019 1:10 pm

Dutchy wrote:
salttee wrote:
Dutchy wrote:


If you don't like to read about his theories, there is one simple solution: don't read them. Nobody is forcing your hand to read this thread 8-)

They are not theories Dutchy, they are bullshit. That's what you seem to like to wallow in; you always grope for the meaningless, no matter the topic. Nothing could be more meaningless on the subject of MH-370 than the drivel in this thread. So, I'm not surprised that you eat it up.


Ah so you result in insulting me.
Does the truth hurt? Spyhunter is an author of pulp fiction; he tests his crap here. You mistake what he writes for honest theories, just as you mistake the propaganda Russian trolls write for honest opinion.

If you don't like what I write there is one simple solution: don't read it.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 8910
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: MH370 & MH17: Spyhunter theories for his fans

Sat Jan 26, 2019 1:16 pm

salttee wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
salttee wrote:
They are not theories Dutchy, they are bullshit. That's what you seem to like to wallow in; you always grope for the meaningless, no matter the topic. Nothing could be more meaningless on the subject of MH-370 than the drivel in this thread. So, I'm not surprised that you eat it up.


Ah so you result in insulting me.
Does the truth hurt? Spyhunter is an author of pulp fiction; he tests his crap here. You mistake what he writes for honest theories, just as you mistake the propaganda Russian trolls write for honest opinion.

If you don't like what I write there is one simple solution: don't read it.


Haha, The truth doesn't hurt, it never does. Uneducated guesses/snap judgments about some other persons might lead to disaster. ;)

Hint: If you truly read this thread you would know what I think about Spyhunter's theories, they are great entertainment :spin:
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
salttee
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: MH370 & MH17: Spyhunter theories for his fans

Sat Jan 26, 2019 1:22 pm

I don't read this thread. The first few posts a few years ago was plenty. I generally don't read your posts either.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 2606
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: MH370 & MH17: Spyhunter theories for his fans

Sat Jan 26, 2019 2:17 pm

alfa164 wrote:
salttee wrote:
Will everyone please stop feeding the troll and maybe he'll go away for good.


He just keeps reviving his own thread, hoping for attention.

I think he loves the attention... unjustified as it is...

:roll:


Speaking of attention, how did his attempt at clearing the child-pornography case go? Obviously he didn't achieve anything, because all the articles are still there without redactions.

BTW, doesn't the site have a policy on people convicted for child pornography?
 
petertenthije
Posts: 3681
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 10:00 pm

Re: MH370 & MH17: Spyhunter theories for his fans

Sat Jan 26, 2019 3:27 pm

salttee wrote:
I don't read this thread. The first few posts a few years ago was plenty. I generally don't read your posts either.

Well, if you had read some of the posts then you would have seen that Dutchy is one of the more vocal posters against Spyhunter.

But why let easily verifiable facts get in the way of a good grudge heh?

Your post does sum up your problem. You assume someone is wrong, and that's where it ends. Try looking up some facts for a change.
Attamottamotta!
 
salttee
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: MH370 & MH17: Spyhunter theories for his fans

Sat Jan 26, 2019 6:11 pm

petertenthije wrote:
salttee wrote:
I don't read this thread. The first few posts a few years ago was plenty. I generally don't read your posts either.

Well, if you had read some of the posts then you would have seen that Dutchy is one of the more vocal posters against Spyhunter.

But why let easily verifiable facts get in the way of a good grudge heh?

Your post does sum up your problem. You assume someone is wrong, and that's where it ends. Try looking up some facts for a change.

My initial post in this string stated that if we ignored the troll he might go away. Arguing with a troll is usually referred to as "feeding" the troll. It gives the troll attention and allows him a platform to re-state the message he or she is trying to sell.

This troll is exploiting the people who argue against him, just as this troll is exploiting a tragedy where 239 people died and just as he exploits this forum where people come to converse about their real interests and views. This exploitation offends me whenever it comes into my view, therefore I lobby against it in the only reasonable and potentially effective way I know: asking people to refrain from feeding the troll.
 
User avatar
Spyhunter
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 8:01 pm

Re: MH370 & MH17: Spyhunter theories for his fans

Sat Feb 02, 2019 8:26 pm

In answer to Blueberry Wheats I don't do conspiracy theories! I'm an intelligence analyst, not a conspiracy theorist, indeed I debunk a number of conspiracy theories in my book, including the one about the Ndola DC-6B crash, which has just had a recent airing.

No one has come up with an answer to the late Captain Jan Bartelski's analysis of the failings of UN Air Command and the lack of airmanship, with respect, of the crew. Conspiracy theorists tend to maintain a fixed view in defiance of the facts, rather like those pushing the SIO theory in relation to MH370. The Katangan Fouga Magisters lacked both the range to reach Ndola and an AI radar for night interception, so could not have shot down the DC-6 at night. Suggesting possible names for the pilots doesn't deal with these facts.

Dealing with trpmb6's points, he/she may well be right re the AOA indicators, although AOA's are typically fed through an air data computer, introducing a vulnerability.

With respect he/she elides manual and instrument flying. You can fly a plane manually in IFR conditions, just as you can fly a plane on autopilot in VFR conditions. My point is that existing pilot training makes airliners vulnerable to sabotage, because pilots are too trusting of their instruments and are following them right into terrain. Of course this is controversial and goes against current thinking - my point is that current thinking is dangerously wrong.

Ad hominem attacks are the weakest form of argument, alfa 164.

I've never concealed my summary conviction in England in 2014 for making indecent images of children in New Zealand in 2011, for which I received a three year supervision order, which expired in 2017. The conviction has been referred to the Home Secretary by my solicitors, with a view to a Royal Pardon, and to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, with a view to referring the conviction to the Crown Court.

In order to obtain the conviction it was necessary to conceal material information from the court. In particular the prosecution concealed the serial number of my laptop hard drive and the country of manufacture of the memory stick on which the images were found. They were joined in this deception by SanDisk and Dell Inc, but SanDIsk have backed away since they were taken over by Western Digital Corporation and Dell have backed away since the election of Donald Trump.

I was denied the right to cross-examine both the Dell and SanDisk witnesses by the trial and appeal courts, with respect, at the insistence of the Crown Prosecution Service, who refused to call the witnesses, going back on an assurance given by prosecuting counsel at the appeal hearing, presided over by HH Judge Karen Holt, who herself was later indicted and acquitted for computer misuse.

The prosecution has effectively collapsed. The rozzers have been caught out by a code on the outside of the memory stick, which turns out to have been manufactured after I am supposed to have acquired it! Moreover SanDisk have now admitted that a second code, the significance of which was concealed from the trial and appeal courts, would have given the country of manufacture.

Neither the memory stick nor laptop used to convict me had my fingerprints and DNA on it. Thames Valley Police were so concerned about the negative fingerprint and DNA results that they chose to conceal them from the CPS, myself and the court, which was of course serious police misconduct. (I only found out about the negative tests because the rozzers told MI5).

Dell and the CPS concealed the existence of Dell's service website, which had data about my laptop's hard drive on it. The website was tampered with, apparently at the request of the Obama Administration, who later ordered the FBI to stop an inquiry into a prosecution lie about the FBI at my bomb hoax trial. (The FBI backed down and agreed to suspend their investigation.) It now transpires that the hard drive used to convict me was an aftermarket item, probably sold after the original was seized. Its warranty expiry date was 18 months after my laptop's warranty expired.

There is no answer to these points, which have been made in a series of expert's reports by a forensic scientist. Neither the CPS nor the Bar Standards Board has served an expert's report in reply.

The timing of the allegation is also instructive. The police claim to have seen the images on first examination but they kept quiet about them for 8 months - that doesn't happen in genuine cases. The allegation was only raised after the security minister at the Foreign Office confirmed to the media that there HAD been a nuclear threat to the London Olympics. It was prosecuted very nervously - I wasn't arrested, offered a caution (which I rejected, since they weren't my images) and the police computer technician conceded that she could not date the images, i.e. she accepted that they could have been placed on the memory stick after the police raided my home. She also conceded that I could not have known that they were on my memory stick, since they could only be seen with specialist software not on sale to the general public.

The images allegation is and always was junk, with every respect to Thames Valley Police and the CPS. The conviction was achieved through gross deception of the court and the fabrication of material evidence. TVP's evidence exhibits handling procedures were a disgrace, The hard drive apparently wasn't even bagged, as a result of which there is no chain of evidence.

There are also constitutional issues - the police raided my home and barrister's chambers without a warrant. An unreported Divisional Court ruling against the CPS that a solicitor's office could not be raided without a warrant was suppressed from both myself and the court, which amounted with respect to gross prosecutorial misconduct.

If you want to bash my character you're probably better off trying something else!
 
User avatar
Spyhunter
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 8:01 pm

Re: MH370 & MH17: Spyhunter theories for his fans

Sat Feb 02, 2019 8:58 pm

Before anyone even asks how I could have been tried in England for an offence said to have been committed in its entirety in New Zealand, the answer is that the English courts lacked jurisdiction. The arrogance of the CPS with respect knew no bounds. The prosecution was a wilful interference with the sovereignty of New Zealand and amounted to a violation by the United Kingdom of both international law and the Statute of Westminster.

The New Zealand Crown Law Officers were made aware by me of the prosecution. The New Zealand authorities, very sensibly with respect, wanted nothing to do with the case. New Zealand Police didn't even commence an investigation, no doubt aware that the memory stick with the images on never went anywhere near New Zealand. NZP would of course have been familiar with NZ quarantine regulations, which made a nonsense of the prosecution case, since they undermined the timeline.

The legal reasoning with respect of District Judge Vickers and Judge Holt by which they assumed jurisdiction over New Zealand is so weak it scarcely deserves to be called reasoning. In particular it ignored 175 years of binding authority to the effect that general words in an act of Parliament will not suffice to justify a breach of international law. DJ Vickers retired early, not long after the case, and rightly so with respect. Mr Justice Blake, who refused a judicial review, also retired early, as indeed did the judge in the bomb hoax trial, HH Judge McCreath.
 
ChrisKen
Posts: 751
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 11:15 pm

Re: MH370 & MH17: Spyhunter theories for his fans

Sun Feb 03, 2019 2:39 am

Spyhunter wrote:
In answer to Blueberry Wheats I don't do conspiracy theories! I'm an intelligence analyst, not a conspiracy theorist, indeed I debunk a number of conspiracy theories in my book, including the one about the Ndola DC-6B crash,

Self proclaimed intelligence analyst, convicted hoaxer, disgraced professional and grandiose, highfalutin fantasist.

Conspiracy theorists tend to maintain a fixed view in defiance of the facts, rather like those pushing the SIO theory in relation to MH370.

Sounds rather like your self publicised views on the matter and all the rest of the vile, deluded, self proclaimed 'expert opinion' you churn out.

I've never concealed my summary conviction in England in 2014 for making indecent images of children in New Zealand in 2011, for which I received a three year supervision order, which expired in 2017. The conviction has been referred to the Home Secretary by my solicitors, with a view to a Royal Pardon, and to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, with a view to referring the conviction to the Crown Court.

Fantasyland, your appeal was outright unsuccessful. You seem to have forgotten to mention the five year Sexual Offences Prevention Order that was also handed down (that's still in effect isn't it?) and having to sign the Violent and Sex Offenders Register.


the rest of it

I refer you back to the first reply of the post.
 
User avatar
Spyhunter
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 8:01 pm

Re: MH370 & MH17: Spyhunter theories for his fans

Fri Feb 08, 2019 8:16 pm

SOPO expires in the next few weeks, ChrisKen! You haven't engaged with my points - a conviction based on fabricated evidence is worthless, or are you saying that it is appropriate for the police to manufacture evidence, conceal evidence damaging to their case and mislead the court? Where do you live? North Korea? Sounds like you favour North Korean standards in the criminal justice system!

In the meantime I continue to practise law, albeit only as a consultant, and challenge my disbarment. In fact I've been advising an airline pilot this week! No names, no pack drill, of course.

You might be interested to know, 'ChrisKen' that I have taught intelligence studies, at master's level. Generally speaking the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the Pentagon and the NSA don't let fantasists through their doors. How many times have you been invited in to the Pentagon to discuss intelligence matters?

Again I make the point that some posters seem more interested in abuse and ad hominem attacks, rather than dealing forensically with my arguments. Very frankly, those who have pushed the SIO theory vociferously (in fairness, some, like Dutchy, have adopted the theory in good faith and dealt rationally with the arguments against it) are starting to look silly. MH370 never went anywhere the SIO and that is why extensive sonar searches, including using military sonar, have failed to find the wreckage.

The capabilities of modern side-scan sonar were on display only this week, with the location of the wreckage of the Piper Malibu carrying an Argentine footballer on his way to Rhoose from Nantes. Ironically it was found by David Mearns, who rather rudely rejected my warning that shareholder funds were at risk by searching the SIO for MH370 on a success only basis. Thankfully for the shareholders wiser heads prevailed!

However, I don't take things personally. I don't like David, with respect, but I don't doubt his competence in his chosen field and will always give credit where it's due. His search for the PA-46-310P was professionally conducted and produced quick results, bringing some closure for the families.

I am sorry to say that I cannot say the same for the AAIB's investigation. It's almost as if they didn't want to find the plane. Having found it they evidently have some nervousness as to what they might find. There is no reason at all why the wreckage could not be recovered. The fuselage is largely intact and I gather lies in not much more than 15 fathoms of water. Every accident investigator knows the importance of examining the wreckage, in fact it's usually the starting point. Photos, not least underwater photos, are no substitute.

What are the AAIB worried about? I'm unimpressed by the theories being pushed in the media, such as engine failure. How would engine failure prevent a Mayday call? The Malibu has a battery, like all modern aircraft. I'm sure they didn't swing the prop to start her at Nantes! Then there's the missing pilot. What happened to the poor chap? So far we know he wasn't wearing a parachute - seeing the pilot wearing a parachute tends to put punters off! The cabin windows appear to be intact, so it's unlikely the pilot fell out of the aircraft. In any event we have no body, and there was an extensive search, professionally and properly conducted by Guernsey Police, when the plane was reported missing.

Too early to call this one!
 
User avatar
Moose135
Posts: 3062
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:27 pm

Re: MH370 & MH17: Spyhunter theories for his fans

Fri Feb 08, 2019 9:44 pm

Spyhunter wrote:
Conspiracy theorists tend to maintain a fixed view in defiance of the facts, rather like those pushing the SIO theory in relation to MH370.


Remind me again of the facts behind your South China Sea theory. I don't recall specific evidence being presented, only your theories.

Spyhunter wrote:
The capabilities of modern side-scan sonar were on display only this week, with the location of the wreckage of the Piper Malibu carrying an Argentine footballer on his way to Rhoose from Nantes.

They also had a very good idea of where to look - it was found within a half mile of its last know location, at a depth of about 220 feet. Much different than the circumstances faced in the MH370 search.

Spyhunter wrote:
I am sorry to say that I cannot say the same for the AAIB's investigation. It's almost as if they didn't want to find the plane. Having found it they evidently have some nervousness as to what they might find. There is no reason at all why the wreckage could not be recovered. The fuselage is largely intact and I gather lies in not much more than 15 fathoms of water. Every accident investigator knows the importance of examining the wreckage, in fact it's usually the starting point. Photos, not least underwater photos, are no substitute.

They did recover Sala's remains, but poor weather in the area caused them to stop further recovery efforts at this time. That's not to say they won't continue when weather improves.

Spyhunter wrote:
What are the AAIB worried about? I'm unimpressed by the theories being pushed in the media, such as engine failure. How would engine failure prevent a Mayday call? The Malibu has a battery, like all modern aircraft. I'm sure they didn't swing the prop to start her at Nantes! Then there's the missing pilot. What happened to the poor chap? So far we know he wasn't wearing a parachute - seeing the pilot wearing a parachute tends to put punters off! The cabin windows appear to be intact, so it's unlikely the pilot fell out of the aircraft. In any event we have no body, and there was an extensive search, professionally and properly conducted by Guernsey Police, when the plane was reported missing.


From the one published photo I've seen, it looks as if the rear passenger door on the port side of the fuselage is open/missing - you can see it just ahead of the N-number on the fuselage, in fact, the "N" part of the number is missing due to the opening. I haven't seen other photos, so there is no telling if there are other openings in the the fuselage where the pilot's body may have exited during the crash or subsequent sinking of the airframe. Until the aircraft is recovered and examined, you can't tell what caused the crash. It may have had an engine failure, and the pilot got focused on dealing with that, lost control and went down before making a Mayday call - remember, it's "Aviate, Navigate, Communicate" so letting someone know he has a problem is not high on the list of things to do.
KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
 
ChrisKen
Posts: 751
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 11:15 pm

Re: MH370 & MH17: Spyhunter theories for his fans

Sat Feb 09, 2019 7:41 am

Spyhunter wrote:
SOPO expires in the next few weeks, ChrisKen! You haven't engaged with my points - a conviction based on fabricated evidence is worthless, or are you saying that it is appropriate for the police to manufacture evidence, conceal evidence damaging to their case and mislead the court? Where do you live? North Korea? Sounds like you favour North Korean standards in the criminal justice system!

Why must I engage your points regarding your appeal? I have no way to verify their validity, nor do I self proclaim grandiose expertise to pontificate on the matter. You have presumably presented these points and the evidence to support them or at least provide reasonable doubt, to/in a court of law during the appeals process. That court declined your appeal and upheld the conviction.

Stating you're attempting to obtain a Royal Pardon all sounds rather grand (a well established theme) but you, I and the dog next door all know it doesn't actually overturn the conviction and the probability of you actually obtaining one is politely put, extremely low.

Thanks for confirming the Sexual Offences Prevention Order was also handed down as part of sentence pertaining to your conviction and that is still in effect today. Nothing regarding your VISO register status though. Although to be fair, I only specifically asked about the SOPO.
As for the rest, neither asked for nor relevant to the question asked, the first sentence was sufficient.



You might be interested to know, 'ChrisKen' that I have taught intelligence studies, at master's level. Generally speaking the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the Pentagon and the NSA don't let fantasists through their doors. How many times have you been invited in to the Pentagon to discuss intelligence matters?

Bully for you old chap! Any evidence of this other than your own self published claims or grandiose beliefs?
The security clearances I currently hold or have held previously are quite frankly none of your business. I've no desire nor need to engage in a colloquial 'pissing contest' with you, and I will certainly not kowtow to the poor attempts at belittling or intimidation you often employ when responding (against the forum's rules I believe).
Having seen many who get to go through those doors, you may wish to revise that statement.


Again I make the point that some posters seem more interested in abuse and ad hominem attacks, rather than dealing forensically with my arguments.

Maybe some are, maybe some aren't, you aren't averse to using such tactics yourself. In the case of the original post made above, I can assure you I wasn't interested in or attempting either. I merely queried some of your response to others regarding certain factual events surrounding your conviction and adjusted others to reflect their self proclaimed status rather than the grandiose, highfalutin fantasy version. Perhaps that last bit was approaching something naughty (forum wise) when taken in isolation, but one read of your many 'articles' or posts should quickly reveal it's not an unreasonable conclusion to arrive at. They were also your own words in court.

For the latter part of the quote: Again I will state that I have very little interest in engaging with your arguments, and I have made it quite clear as to why. Namely my opinion of you and your conspiracy theories, which you do nothing to sway. In fact the more long winded guff filled posts you make, especially like those above, the more you reinforce those opinions.
Why on earth are you yakking on about the SIO, Sonars, a Piper Malibu and the AAIB being involved in some sort of ludicrous cover up? It was neither asked for nor in the slightest bit relevant to our brief interaction. We can all take a guess though, as you relish any opportunity to shoehorn in your outlandish claims or raise your so-called notoriety.

Very frankly, those who have pushed the SIO theory vociferously (in fairness, some, like Dutchy, have adopted the theory in good faith and dealt rationally with the arguments against it) are starting to look silly. MH370 never went anywhere the SIO and that is why extensive sonar searches, including using military sonar, have failed to find the wreckage.

Again, neither asked for, nor relevant to the interaction. However, just for fun I will indulge you on some of the points in your latest reply.
You consistently over-estimate the capabilities of today's technology, especially when it's being operating at (and very much beyond) it's limits. You also seem to forget 'semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit' when presenting your fantasies/conspiracy theories/expert opinion, call them what you will. Quasi scientific terms, grand claims, statements contrary to established facts, moving of goalposts and falsehoods all sound pretty grand, and may stroke your ego but they don't prove a sausage.

The capabilities of modern side-scan sonar were on display only this week, with the location of the wreckage of the Piper Malibu carrying an Argentine footballer on his way to Rhoose from Nantes. Ironically it was found by David Mearns, who rather rudely rejected my warning that shareholder funds were at risk by searching the SIO for MH370 on a success only basis.

Again, neither asked for or relevant.

Indulgence: Yes a side scan sonar can give reasonably decent definition in the 67 metres of water and flat bottomed seabed that the Malibu was found. It also helps the area's wrecks are comparatively well mapped. However, you yet again severely over-estimate it's capabilities if you think the same definition can be returned in the abyssal waters 4,500 metres down. You'll also note, the probable area being searched was a mere 4 square miles and the aircraft was whooping 0.6 miles from it's last known position.
AF447's wreckage was eventually found after many searches, with a relatively small probable area of 80-250 sq miles, at the extremes of the equipment's physical limits (3,980 metres), a whole two years after the crash. The aircraft was found within 30 miles of it's last known position, in a resting spot that had been 'searched' many times over using many different techniques before it was actually found there.
MH370's rather large probable area (25,000 sq miles) in the SIO utterly dwarfs that of AF447's and is at least 600 metres deeper. It's last known position at 02:22MYC is 6 hours stale as the aircraft has been confirmed to still be in flight at 08:10MYC. It sent it's final piece of data at 08:19MYC. There's still another 50 odd minutes before the 09:15 handshake after that, where it's airborne status is unknown. If it's ever found it is highly likely to be over 2,000 miles from it's last known position. A needle in a haystack is very much an understatement, even with technology at the forefront of today's capabilities.

It's not a case of dragging a fish through the water (autonomous or otherwise) and a lovely image of an aircraft magically appearing that it's often thought to be by the layman. It's slow, tedious, drawn out and often downright difficult to interpret the resulting images (even if it's still largely intact).


I am sorry to say that I cannot say the same for the AAIB's investigation. It's almost as if they didn't want to find the plane.

Of course they wanted to find the plane. Unfortunately, there's these annoying things called budgets, resources and how best to use them to contend with along with established procedure.. While it'd be lovely to solve every mystery, in the real world you have to stack the benefits up against the cost, resources and effort required. A reasonable search was made, focused quite correctly on survivability and then reasonably beyond for wreckage/bodies for probable cause. The investigation can continue using all the other methods, techniques and data available. While the aircraft is nice to have, it's not the be and end all of an investigation.

There is no reason at all why the wreckage could not be recovered.

Those professionals and experts in the respective fields of operation that are actually on the scene and armed with all the details would seemingly disagree somewhat.
There's good reasons why it hasn't been recovered thus far. The initial attempt to physically recover the wreck failed due strong currents around the site & the surface weather. The weather then beat them back to port. If you hadn't noticed it's been pretty grim and is forecast to continue being so.

The fuselage is largely intact and I gather lies in not much more than 15 fathoms of water.

You'll find it's in well over double your '15 fathoms of water'. 67 metres, or 220 ft if you prefer, is 36.6 fathoms. Your frequent disregard, confusion or liberal bending of established facts to suit is concerning.

Every accident investigator knows the importance of examining the wreckage, in fact it's usually the starting point. Photos, not least underwater photos, are no substitute.

Yes it's often the starting point, when they have it. Guess what? They do. The wreck has been photographed and recorded in effective detail, enough detail for the AAIB to postpone recovering the wreck for the time being (not that they can do so due to the extremely poor weather and sea conditions currently found in the channel). By definition that makes the photos a substitute. If they feel the need to recover it later on in the investigation, they can do so. More importantly do so in better weather conditions.

Congratulations, you've under estimated technology for a change. The quality of under water high definition photographs and video available these days is nifty so these images of the wreck do indeed make a very reasonable substitute while it can't be recovered.
It's strange how you flip flop between advanced modern technologies being unsuitable (close up high resolution photograph & video is poor) or the best thing since sliced bread (grainy deep sea side sonar smudges) depending on which reinforces your frankly bizarre claims.

Having found it they evidently have some nervousness as to what they might find.

Why would they be worried about conducting their investigation? Why would you assume they are nervous based on the current verifiable facts available, other than fantastical conspiracy theories of your own making?

What are the AAIB worried about?

Not a great deal as the AAIB being worried would appear to be entirely in your own conspiracist's fantasy.

I'm unimpressed by the theories being pushed in the media, such as engine failure. How would engine failure prevent a Mayday call? The Malibu has a battery, like all modern aircraft. I'm sure they didn't swing the prop to start her at Nantes!

AVIATE, NAVIGATE, COMMUNICATE for starters. It's very much near the bottom of a list pilot's priorities.
There's a whole plethora of reasons a mayday call wasn't radioed if it was an engine failure or indeed any other failure. Moreso when operating single pilot.
To completely write off engine failure due to a lack of a mayday radio call and the aircraft possessing a battery is amateur in the extreme. To throw in a conspiracy theory on top of it is simply fantastical nonsense.

Then there's the missing pilot. What happened to the poor chap? So far we know he wasn't wearing a parachute - seeing the pilot wearing a parachute tends to put punters off!

No one knows, that's why he's missing. Very droll regarding the parachute. He's likely to been have ejected from the aircraft, somehow managed to (fully/partially) self evacuate at some point during the proceedings or since the aircraft is at the bottom of the rough sea, on a site with strong currents, he's been removed via water action.

The cabin windows appear to be intact, so it's unlikely the pilot fell out of the aircraft.

And you've established this how?
One single image of the aircraft on the seabed has been released. You see the left side (damaged) rear section in which there's a partial view of an open rear door and the sole cabin window that should be visible is definitely no longer intact as it's been utterly mangled. The date stamp on that image and it's release date precede that of the ultimately successful attempts to recover Mr Sala's body.

In any event we have no body, and there was an extensive search, professionally and properly conducted by Guernsey Police, when the plane was reported missing.

Ever tried spotting something as small as a human on the sea's surface? It's hard enough to someone sporting a bright orange life jacket with their head and shoulders above it with arms waving frantically, leave alone a corpse at best, floating just below the surface in rough conditions. The body could conceivable be hundreds of miles out into the Atlantic by now. By the same token, it could be mere 50ft away from the wreck site.

I notice, this particular search has been 'extensively, professionally and properly conducted' while all the others have seemingly not been (according to you), would this be because it suits your agenda?

The mysterious missing body indeed! Is this soon to be dramatically revealed as having been stealthily rescue of a DVD agent, involving the DVD submarine that's carrying a warhead from the Kursk, which was previously planted at ground zero, and in London, whilst en-route to it's new target Tokyo, in a plot to detonate and bury the Olympic Stadium in Haribo as a homage to their previous attack on Aberfan? Ah but why 'off' Mr Sala? Of course Sala had to be removed, he'd stumbled upon this plot after consuming some of a Nigerian drug runner's tainted packet of dolly mixtures that were being used to keep Maddy sedated somewhere in a unknown Moroccan town. Absurd isn't it? Although it must be true because a DVD trained hamster left an encoded message in Jeremy Corbyn's copy of the little red book during the Wrekin Young Socialist party of 1967, which one of my high level contacts has recently decoded. I apologise as I digress. Of course no one in their right mind would believe any of this, would they?

Too early to call this one!

The first thing you've said reference the to this event with any merit.

Agreed, it's is too early. The press, armchair experts and conspiracy theorists can speculate all they want, the vast majority will expose themselves as foolish.
All the relevant parties investigating are armed with far better data, facts, figures, details and investigating tools. Let them get on with investigating without having to deal with the crackpots.

I know you'll disagree with this last bit.
They (AAIB & others involved) are there to investigate it, figure out the probable cause and then make recommendations to help avoid it being repeated, improving aviation safety throughout the industry. Strangely enough, they're not there to cover stuff up, involve themselves nefarious shenanigans or even attempt to make conspiracy theorist looks foolish. That last one they mange that all by themselves.


With that said; I'm really not interested in any further discussion with you regards any of your conspiracy theories. Feel free not to respond, I won't be offended, indeed not doing so would be the mark of a gentleman and garner you one small notch back up the ladder of respectability.

Tschüß, out.
 
User avatar
TheFlyingDisk
Posts: 1611
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 12:43 pm

Re: MH370 & MH17: Spyhunter theories for his fans

Sat Feb 09, 2019 2:14 pm

salttee wrote:
Will everyone please stop feeding the troll and maybe he'll go away for good.


Honestly, I find his ramblings far more entertaining than all the Trump threads that fills the Non-Aviation forum!

If Trump wasn't president I'd agree with you, but he is - so relax, let Mike Shrimpton ramble all he wants!
I FLY KLM+ALASKA+QATAR+MALAYSIA+AIRASIA+MALINDO
 
User avatar
Spyhunter
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 8:01 pm

Re: MH370 & MH17: Spyhunter theories for his fans

Fri Feb 22, 2019 9:07 pm

Thank you the Flying Disk!

I do try and respond to posts, Chris Ken, but I don't bully or belitle, nor do I rush to conclusions. I commented on the Malibu crash as a fresh topic.

Staying with the Malibu, you speak as though I had never heard of "Aviate, Navigate, Communicate". I have actually flown aircraft, or were you not aware of that? I am NOT suggesting that a Mayday call would be the pilot's first priority. That would be avoiding a stall and stabilising the plane at the best possible glide speed, confirming and noting his position, followed by going through the inflight engine restart checklist. He would also no doubt need to reassure his passenger and make sure that he was strapped in tight. All of this would be instinctive for an experienced pilot.

A pilot in an emergency, which this was, also knows that he or she needs to get a Mayday call out asap, and squawk 7700 (surely a Malibu would have a transponder?) A Mayday call and 7700 squawk brings in ATC assistance, including a diversion vector. When over the sea, with a possible ditching, it allows accurate information to be relayed to Air Sea Rescue. Yes it's difficult to spot a body in the water, and yes I have spoken with wartime Coastal Command pilots about how difficult air sea rescues are. All the more important to get a Mayday call and 7700 squawk out. We don't even know if Sala could swim.

The plane was at its cruising altitude, and the Malibu is pressurised. It was not planning to refuel in the Channel Islands and there is no reason to suppose it had descended from its cruise altitude when the engine failed. It is a fair point to ask why the missing pilot failed to get a Mayday or 7700 out.

Re wreckage depth, I said "I gather" - I wasn't expressing a concluded view. I agree it was just over 36 fathoms. It's still not particularly deep.

An area of high pressure has moved into the Channel Islands in the last few days. The Met report looks pretty good to me, save for some early morning mist. I haven't heard anything about a search for the missing pilot or an attempt to recover the wreckage. I ask again, why the are AAIB dragging their heels, in what is a high-profile incident?

Where is the pilot's body? It should have drifted ashore by now. Usually a body lost at sea in littoral waters will drift onto shore after about 7 days. Bodies don't normally sink unless they're weighted down, something once pointed out to me by an MI6 wetwork specialist tasked with taking out an IRA gunrunner.

Since I am not alleging foul play in this case, the valuable maxim you quote has no application. It's of limited application in the law anyway, since the onus of proof is often reversed. It is in my Bar disciplinary proceedings, eg - I have to prove I was wrongly convicted.

Regular readers will know that contrary to ChrisKen's low opinion of me, I do in fact acknowledge good points. Moose takes just such a point re the door - it does appear to have been opened. I am not sure however that this doesn't deepen the mystery. We have an open door, a missing pilot and no body!

Fair points are also taken re the cabin windows. We can't see it all, but we can see suggests a controlled ditching. Of course we will know more when the wreckage is raised, but nobody seems to be in a rush to do that.
 
User avatar
Moose135
Posts: 3062
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:27 pm

Re: MH370 & MH17: Spyhunter theories for his fans

Sat Feb 23, 2019 3:08 am

Spyhunter wrote:
Moose takes just such a point re the door - it does appear to have been opened. I am not sure however that this doesn't deepen the mystery. We have an open door, a missing pilot and no body!

Even a controlled ditching is a violent event - check some of the photographs of N106US after it came out of the river. I would have no doubt that even a controlled ditching of this Malibu could be violent enough to cause a cabin door to pop open and be torn off.
KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
 
ChrisKen
Posts: 751
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 11:15 pm

Re: MH370 & MH17: Spyhunter theories for his fans

Thu Feb 28, 2019 1:31 pm

Spyhunter wrote:
Bodies don't normally sink unless they're weighted down,

Correct, only if you make the assumption the body was dumped on the surface to begin with, and that body had positive to neutral buoyancy.

Incorrect when you're aware any body will become negatively buoyant at depth of around 9 metres. The aircraft is in 68 metres of water. Bodies trapped in aircraft tend to sink with it. If it's escaped after sinking below 9 metres, it's very rarely back to the surface unless it's alive and kicking.
Above 9 metres the average human body doesn't possess much in the way of positive buoyancy. Indeed, some are negatively buoyant on the surface to start with (varies with water/body densities). Males tend to be less buoyant.
'Not sinking' does not equate to 'floating proudly on the surface'. A body will 'float' at the point of it's neutral buoyancy, this is usually below the surface. There are many variables which will then determine whether it sinks or continues to float in the short term. All bodies, unless washed up on shore or found, will ultimately sink to the bottom of a body of water. As you can see, "bodies don't normally sink unless weighted down", doesn't hold much water!


Where is the pilot's body? It should have drifted ashore by now. Usually a body lost at sea in littoral waters will drift onto shore after about 7 days

Covered in previous post. You can even add your new found knowledge of negative buoyancy to it. It could be anywhere between hundreds of miles out into the Atlantic or 50ft from the wreck site. Usually? Please provide your evidence. I suspect you mean bodies floating on the surface, even then it's not necessarily correct as it's dependent on all sorts of local conditions.

...something once pointed out to me by an MI6 wetwork specialist tasked with taking out an IRA gunrunner.

Again, one of many fanciful embellishments to give some sort of faux credence to your statements. There's no need for it, your statements should be able to hold water themselves.


The plane was at its cruising altitude, and the Malibu is pressurised. It was not planning to refuel in the Channel Islands and there is no reason to suppose it had descended from its cruise altitude when the engine failed. It is a fair point to ask why the missing pilot failed to get a Mayday or 7700 out.

As said there are many factors as to why the pilot didn't get a mayday or emergency squawk out. Most of them human factors, all easily researched. The simplest being they are too busy or engrossed in the task of recovering the aircraft/figuring out what's wrong (AVIATE, NAVIGATE).
"Should be instinctive" Maybe, but even a crew of three professional airline transport pilots managed to fly an 4 month old DC10 into the ground without a call because they became so engrossed in what turned out to be a burnt out indicator light. (EA401. Although I'm sure you have your own conspiracy theory for that one too). A less experienced single pilot flying VFR at night, in poor weather, dodging cloud, in a single engine aircraft, over water....

Not sure where you're getting the engine had definitively failed from, this hasn't been confirmed or ruled out either way.

Looking at the final flight track in the report, it has hallmarks of a classic "graveyard spiral" These are usually the result of a "spatial disorientation". Given that the aircraft was flying VFR, at night, in poor weather whilst altering track and altitude to maintain VFR, you'll find this may well be a rather good candidate for contributing to the accident as these are classic conditions for spatial disorientation to occur. No engine failure needed. Again, the formal investigation continues, as per the AAIB's usual procedures.
Whilst we can assume he held his night flying rating at some point, his actual (current) license endorsements were still unknown at the time of the interim report.
Was he IFR rated too? How many hours of night flying did he have? No and/or low hours on either and you can justly increase the probability of spatial disorientation being a contributory factor. Again the AAIB investigation continues.

There are many variables to be considered, which can affect the resulting in (probable) cause(s). I'm sure the AAIB will investigate them accordingly.



An area of high pressure has moved into the Channel Islands in the last few days. The Met report looks pretty good to me, save for some early morning mist. I haven't heard anything about a search for the missing pilot or an attempt to recover the wreckage.

The conditions at the time were appalling as was the forecast 10-14 days post the recovery attempts. The recent improvements are irrelevant because they've stated they have enough high quality footage of the wreck to work from for the time being. One would assume the vessels being tasked were released at this point too. If they subsequently require the wreck to be salvaged, they can do so at their leisure as the wreck site is known and documented. Not sure why this translates into skullduggery, cover ups or running scared in your mind.



Since I am not alleging foul play in this case,

Oh really?......So why in the face of the AAIB conducting their investigation in accordance with their usual practices....
Spyhunter wrote:
...I cannot say the same for the AAIB's investigation. It's almost as if they didn't want to find the plane.
What are the AAIB worried about?
I ask again, why the are AAIB dragging their heels, in what is a high-profile incident?



If you strip away all the grandiose waffle, pseudoscience, weasel words, falsehoods and unconfirmed assumptions, you don't have much left to argue with:
Where's the pilot? Answer could be anywhere. We may never know. The AAIB know the condition of the wreck and can come up with plausible probable cause(s).
Why did it crash? That's what the AAIB investigation is there to determine and is doing in a manner consistent with their usual operations.

To combine them and cynically imply some sort wrong doing on behalf of the AAIB.......
 
User avatar
Spyhunter
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 8:01 pm

Re: MH370 & MH17: Spyhunter theories for his fans

Sun Mar 03, 2019 5:45 pm

With respect, Chris, if that's your first name (I don't do anonymous posts and am always willing to put my name to my intelligence analysis) asking where the pilot is, is a legitimate question.

We still have a missing pilot. Now it doesn't follow that murder was done and that the crash was rigged, but the case cannot be closed, surely, until we know what happened to the pilot.

You make fair points about the buoyancy of the human body. I entirely accept that a body at neutral buoyancy might be just below the surface and difficult to spot, but if the pilot had drowned anywhere near the surface his body should have washed ashore by now, or been recovered. The area has been well searched.

If the pilot was trapped in the aircraft, or made his escape after the aircraft had sunk but was too deep to be able to make it to the surface his body should have been near the aircraft - it would have been a separate sonar target.

A fair point is made about ditching, but it all depends on the ditching, doesn't it? Clearly some ditchings can be quite violent. Others can be quite gentle. This was a general aviation aircraft, with a comparatively low stalling speed. All the indications from the state of the wreckage are that it was a controlled, gentle ditching. The door might have been forced open during the ditching, but I suspect it was opened afterwards.

If GO2 were involved they would have relied upon their influence with the Cabinet Office, which in turn gives orders to AAIB, who are not independent and are willing to distort reports for political reasons, as in the case of the Comets and Flight 38, the Heathrow 777, where I intervened on behalf of the unjustly maligned captain.

So far as I am aware AAIB still have made no attempt to recover the wreckage. The weather excuse has long gone. It will have to be a private effort, presumably by the same group which located the aircraft. It is beginning to look more and more like murder, possibly of the pilot as well as his prominent passenger. I am troubled however by the absence of motive. There is clearly more to this crash than meets the eye, but we are nowhere near the whole truth.

I am wholly unimpressed, I'm afraid, with the points about the transponder. It's so quick and easy to squawk 7700 that the absence of a squawk calls for comment. It would not have been difficult to set the aircraft up in the glide, assuming engine failure. There is no indication at all that the aircraft's controls were affected, on the contrary she appears to have hit the water gently.

EA401 was a Lockheed L-1011 Tristar, Chris. I've commented on that crash in my book. There is no credible explanation for the flight engineer's actions other than that he was suborned. He was in a position to check that the nose-gear was down and locked. The DVD had picked up on a design flaw in the Tristar, which was a fine aircraft and I am told a delight to fly. It was too easy to disengage the autopilot without warning by moving the control column, making it vulnerable to distraction sabotage.

The 1011 progamme had been subjected to espionage from the very beginning, starting with the theft of the blueprints, which CIA made aware to American Airlines long before the first flight. The DVD also intervened re the Rolls engine contract, in order to bankrupt Rolls-Royce and cancel the RB-211 programme, which had them seriously worried. I had a thorough briefing on the Rolls collapse when leading the British Customer Buy out bid for Rolls-Royce Motor Cars.
 
User avatar
Moose135
Posts: 3062
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:27 pm

Re: MH370 & MH17: Spyhunter theories for his fans

Sun Mar 03, 2019 6:18 pm

Spyhunter wrote:
EA401 was a Lockheed L-1011 Tristar, Chris. I've commented on that crash in my book. There is no credible explanation for the flight engineer's actions other than that he was suborned. He was in a position to check that the nose-gear was down and locked. The DVD had picked up on a design flaw in the Tristar, which was a fine aircraft and I am told a delight to fly. It was too easy to disengage the autopilot without warning by moving the control column, making it vulnerable to distraction sabotage.

Wow, so now EA401 was a DVD plot. Perhaps you should give us a list of crashes that the DVD wasn't behind.

Spyhunter wrote:
The 1011 progamme had been subjected to espionage from the very beginning, starting with the theft of the blueprints, which CIA made aware to American Airlines long before the first flight.


Is that why American never purchased the L-1011?
KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
 
User avatar
BartSimpson
Posts: 577
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2016 5:01 pm

Re: MH370 & MH17: Spyhunter theories for his fans

Sun Mar 03, 2019 6:24 pm

Moose135 wrote:
Spyhunter wrote:
EA401 was a Lockheed L-1011 Tristar, Chris. I've commented on that crash in my book. There is no credible explanation for the flight engineer's actions other than that he was suborned. He was in a position to check that the nose-gear was down and locked. The DVD had picked up on a design flaw in the Tristar, which was a fine aircraft and I am told a delight to fly. It was too easy to disengage the autopilot without warning by moving the control column, making it vulnerable to distraction sabotage.

Wow, so now EA401 was a DVD plot. Perhaps you should give us a list of crashes that the DVD wasn't behind.


What's the DVD? Never heard of it - apart from that electronic device, of course, but I'm sure you don't mean that.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 8910
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: MH370 & MH17: Spyhunter theories for his fans

Sun Mar 03, 2019 6:25 pm

BartSimpson wrote:
What's the DVD? Never heard of it - apart from that electronic device, of course, but I'm sure you don't mean that.



Ah, they are that good, that you never heard from them :lol:
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
petertenthije
Posts: 3681
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 10:00 pm

Re: MH370 & MH17: Spyhunter theories for his fans

Sun Mar 03, 2019 11:06 pm

BartSimpson wrote:
What's the DVD? Never heard of it - apart from that electronic device, of course, but I'm sure you don't mean that.

If gou read through this thread, you will learn all you need about them.

Long story short, Spyhunter asserts they are the remnants of the Nazi Gestapo. These guys have supposedly infiltrated nearly every intelligence agency as well as most mayor defense contractors, militaries, the finance industry and politics. If anyone dies from anything other then old age, then 9 times out of 10 the DVD are behind it. Aircrashes are particularly popular with the DVD.

Honestly, read through this thread. Even if you only read the posts that say DVD, you’ll laugh your arse of.
Attamottamotta!
 
User avatar
TheFlyingDisk
Posts: 1611
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 12:43 pm

Re: MH370 & MH17: Spyhunter theories for his fans

Mon Mar 04, 2019 12:19 am

BartSimpson wrote:
What's the DVD? Never heard of it - apart from that electronic device, of course, but I'm sure you don't mean that.


The DVD is Nazi Germany's elite, crack, secret, crack secret intelligence arm that survived WW2 and is wreaking havoc throughout the past 7 decades. Basically almost all of the plane crashes we know are the work of the DVD. And only one man is working to stop them, as they expand their tentacles into the highest reaches of power - he is Michael Shrimpton a.k.a SPYHUNTER!

Makes for a good comic series, wouldn't you agree?
I FLY KLM+ALASKA+QATAR+MALAYSIA+AIRASIA+MALINDO
 
User avatar
BartSimpson
Posts: 577
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2016 5:01 pm

Re: MH370 & MH17: Spyhunter theories for his fans

Mon Mar 04, 2019 7:10 am

Oh, that's too funny! Today is national holiday anyway - nobody is working (probably except for the DVD: They are creating havoc to disturb the carnival parades by means of a storm front and kill as many enemies as possible) so I have time to read some good stuff.
 
BlueberryWheats
Posts: 482
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 9:46 am

Re: MH370 & MH17: Spyhunter theories for his fans

Mon Mar 04, 2019 8:18 am

TheFlyingDisk wrote:
And only one man is working to stop them, as they expand their tentacles into the highest reaches of power - he is Michael Shrimpton a.k.a SPYHUNTER!


Clearly not all heroes wear capes. :stirthepot:
 
ChrisKen
Posts: 751
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 11:15 pm

Re: MH370 & MH17: Spyhunter theories for his fans

Mon Mar 04, 2019 12:18 pm

Spyhunter wrote:
EA401 was a Lockheed L-1011 Tristar, Chris.

My mistake/typo, I was indeed supposed to type L-1011.

I entirely accept that a body at neutral buoyancy might be just below the surface and difficult to spot, but if the pilot had drowned anywhere near the surface his body should have washed ashore by now, or been recovered. The area has been well searched.

Why should it have been washed up or recovered, other than for reasons relating to your wild misconceptions as a complete amateur?

If the pilot was trapped in the aircraft, or made his escape after the aircraft had sunk but was too deep to be able to make it to the surface his body should have been near the aircraft - it would have been a separate sonar target

Again why should it be near the aircraft? As a starter for ten, there's these things called currents. That area is rather prone to strong versions of them. Again, all very amateur from yourself.

Separate sonar target? Again you you rather over estimate the capabilities of side scan sonar to suit your argument. You did see the sonar image of the wreck site in the interim report didn't you? Quite good resolution as far as side scan goes but not detailed enough to find a body. That of is of course dependant on the ability of said sonar to detect a body to begin with, a body is rather soft so wouldn't give much of a sonar return even in the best of scenarios.

A fair point is made about ditching, but it all depends on the ditching, doesn't it? Clearly some ditchings can be quite violent. Others can be quite gentle. This was a general aviation aircraft, with a comparatively low stalling speed. All the indications from the state of the wreckage are that it was a controlled, gentle ditching.

"Gentle" is rather subjective. "Gentle", I think we can agree would be a very low speed (both axis) touchdown eg, A low vertical rate, at minimal speed, upon a flat calm lake, on a rather pleasant, calm day.
The English channel at night, in poor weather poor sea conditions would not conducive to "gentle". As said originally, the AAIB are conducting their analysis to determine the impact phase and are continuing their investigation.

. All the indications from the state of the wreckage are that it was a controlled, gentle ditching. The door might have been forced open during the ditching, but I suspect it was opened afterwards.

Which is why you're correctly called an amateur and conspiracy theorist.
Lets assume your gentle ditching, occurred, and that the aircraft is still intact. Please explain how they've opened said door with the differential pressure (water vs cabin) acting upon it (it doesn't take much for a human to be incapable of overcoming it). Now lets throw in a damaged and mangled frame too, little chance. The door is highly likely to have opened during the impact phase but again, the investigation continues (in their usual manner).

What part of the state of the wreckage indicates this was a gentle ditching? Did you read the SB, or even just look at the pretty pictures? The aircraft was extensively damaged, indeed the state of the wreck if anything indicates quite the contrary to your 'gentle ditching' position. The investigation continues (in their usual manner).
S1-2019_N264DB AAIB interim report wrote:
"From the ROV video examination it was possible to establish that the aircraft was extensively damaged, and the main body of the aircraft was in three parts held together by electrical and flying control cables. The engine had disconnected from the cockpit area, and the rear section of the fuselage had broken away from the forward section adjacent to the trailing edge of the wing. The outboard section of both wings, tail plane and fin were missing."


I am wholly unimpressed, I'm afraid, with the points about the transponder. It's so quick and easy to squawk 7700 that the absence of a squawk calls for comment. It would not have been difficult to set the aircraft up in the glide, assuming engine failure. There is no indication at all that the aircraft's controls were affected, on the contrary she appears to have hit the water gently.

Lets be frank, no one really gives a proverbial whether you're impressed or not. The fact remains you seem to hold a very amateur grasp of aviation and are still completely oblivious to the human factors as to why a call may have not been made or still seem to think farting around trying to enter a 4 digit code into the transponder was some sort of priority or even "quick & easy" in an emergency scenario. For the record, a radio call is quicker & easier than entering a transponder code.
There are countless examples where a many varying factors meant a radio call was not made over a wide range of aviation incidents/accidents. There is an abundance of reading matter available on the subject for your to peruse. Indeed a wide variety of aviation licenses/qualifications require human factors to be covered as an integral part of the learning required. Ignorance is no defence.

Again, you mention engine failure. No assumptions have been made on this. The investigation continues.
Again, you assume some sort of 'gentle hit' on the water despite the 'wild ride' indicated in the factual report or indeed, the extensive damage to the aircraft. The investigation continues.

So far as I am aware AAIB still have made no attempt to recover the wreckage. The weather excuse has long gone.

The AAIB made attempts weeks ago as stated. As stated they abandoned those efforts due to the conditions on scene at the time and the forecast conditions for a reasonable time frame from that point. Which piece of their statement regarding not making any further attempts for the foreseeable future due to having sufficient, high quality imaging of the wreck site are you still unable to grasp? Should they feel the need to to recover some/all of the wreck further into the investigation, they can and are free to do so.


If GO2 were involved they would have relied upon their influence with the Cabinet Office, which in turn gives orders to AAIB, who are not independent and are willing to distort reports for political reasons, as in the case of the Comets and Flight 38, the Heathrow 777, where I intervened on behalf of the unjustly maligned captain.

More grandstanding from yourself. More attempts to obfuscate the actual issues in order to further your conspiracy theories. Please indicate where the BA32 captain was unjustly maligned, the final report quite clearly gives probable cause as ice crystal contamination as the probable cause. In fact don't bother, it's mention is yet another attempt to deflect from your all too weak position and arguments regarding the Malibu incident. For brevity I'll also include your nonsense about EA401 and the DVD into this response, again no reason for it other than to obfuscate and further your conspiracy theories.

[quote It is beginning to look more and more like murder, possibly of the pilot as well as his prominent passenger. I am troubled however by the absence of motive.[/quote]
Murder huh? Only in your mind. Yes, indeed, what motive? Either to carry it out or even cover it up.... (rhetorical, let's save everyone from another long winded guff filled nonsense about the DVD, non existent government departments and rise of Keith Chegwin's left testicle as our benevolent overlord).

There is clearly more to this crash than meets the eye, but we are nowhere near the whole truth.

Probably not, Ockham's razor will usually apply. In this case, most likely "Skygod decided flying across the channel as a VFR flight, in poor weather, at night, in an anecdotal "aircraft that looks like it's falling apart" was anything other than a bad idea (or gamble that's paid off before) paying the inevitable price, along with his unfortunate "passenger". But as said many times.....the investigation continues as per normal procedures.


Spyhunter wrote:
]With respect, Chris, if that's your first name (I don't do anonymous posts and am always willing to put my name to my intelligence analysis conspiracy theories) asking where the pilot is, is a legitimate question.

A poor attempt at an ad hominem attack there Mr "Spyhunter" but of course you don't make them as you've previously stated.
I never said it (where is the pilot?) wasn't a legitimate question, indeed you'll see it listed as one of the only two valid questions you were left with (after stripping out all the guff) in the previous reply. I simply made the assertion that missing pilot, plus crash, plus weather does not a conspiracy make. Which you've now, finally conceded, thinly veiled in yet another switcheroo of the goalposts.
We still have a missing pilot. Now it doesn't follow that murder was done and that the crash was rigged, but the case cannot be closed, surely, until we know what happened to the pilot.
[/quote]
By the way, it can and probably will be (eventually) closed if the pilot is not found. You don't need to find the pilot/body to infer/declare/prove probable cause(s) of the crash. Indeed, they can also make a reasonable determination as to probable cause of "missing pilot" too.

While you continue to make your outlandish & grandiose claims, along with many poor attempts to bolster your self-proclaimed status as some sort of expert, the actual AAIB investigation continues, as per their usual manner and I suspect will continue to do so in this and all their other investigations, past, present and future.
 
User avatar
BartSimpson
Posts: 577
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2016 5:01 pm

Re: MH370 & MH17: Spyhunter theories for his fans

Mon Mar 04, 2019 1:59 pm

Wow. Just wow.

I browsed through some pages, but honestly, it got boring after some time, fantasy story after fantasy story, but when it comes to the beef, nothing is left. Some stuff is really sickening, esp. when I came to the Madeline McCann part. How can he make life even more miserable for the family? It's disgusting.

The one question I ask myself (no, not really, the answer is obvious) is - if this guy has so many close connections to the Intel community and whoever, and if he really has knowledge about the most secret operations: why does he then speak so freely about them? Who with any security clearance would ever again talk to him if every secret gets public right afterwards through him?

And why hasn't the almighty DVD killed him yet? They seeningly have even killed an unfortunate, unimportant second league football player - why should they stop there?
 
jpetekyxmd80
Posts: 4289
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2003 3:16 am

Re: MH370 & MH17: Spyhunter theories for his fans

Mon Mar 04, 2019 4:40 pm

Thank you for keeping up all the hard work for your many fans!

Image
The Best Care in the Air, 1984-2009
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 12048
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: MH370 & MH17: Spyhunter theories for his fans

Mon Mar 04, 2019 5:07 pm

BartSimpson wrote:
Moose135 wrote:
Spyhunter wrote:
EA401 was a Lockheed L-1011 Tristar, Chris. I've commented on that crash in my book. There is no credible explanation for the flight engineer's actions other than that he was suborned. He was in a position to check that the nose-gear was down and locked. The DVD had picked up on a design flaw in the Tristar, which was a fine aircraft and I am told a delight to fly. It was too easy to disengage the autopilot without warning by moving the control column, making it vulnerable to distraction sabotage.

Wow, so now EA401 was a DVD plot. Perhaps you should give us a list of crashes that the DVD wasn't behind.


What's the DVD? Never heard of it - apart from that electronic device, of course, but I'm sure you don't mean that.


I’ve asked as well, they don’t even have a Wikipedia page, everyone has a Wikipedia page, the only reference I can ever find to them is on A.net and in particular posts by our resident conspiracy theorist Spyhunter!
 
User avatar
BirdBrain
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 4:54 pm

Re: MH370 & MH17: Spyhunter theories for his fans

Mon Mar 04, 2019 7:14 pm

Hello Spyhunter. Sorry to take you away from your MH topics, but you might need a break. Do you have any theories on the C-130 crash regarding President/General Zia-ul-haq? Was it simply a mechanical issue as we have been told? It has been described as a big mystery, but I think you might know better.

Thanks in advance. My apology if you have already discussed this before.
 
User avatar
Spyhunter
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 8:01 pm

Re: MH370 & MH17: Spyhunter theories for his fans

Tue Mar 12, 2019 10:33 pm

Thanks BirdBrain - you have a modest moniker, if I may say so, as your brain is clearly bigger than the average bird's!

Zia al-Huq most definitely not an accident, CIA knew about it in advance. Friend of mine who used to fly U-2s out of Peshawar hinted as much a few years ago. He was serious CIA by the way - he wasn't headed south out of Peshawar in his U-2! He was a friend of Kelly Johnson and was on the U-2 shakedown programme. Boys at the Skunk Works seemed to be impressed that I knew him and had some unpublished details of Tony LeVier's first test flight, which nearly ended badly.

And no, Chris Ken, I'm not a conspiracy theorist! I'm a published intelligence author, including in peer-reviewed intelligence journals, and have taught the subject at Masters level. I don't btw reveal details of Good Guy ops, when I out ops they're Bad Guys ops, or so old they're part of intelligence history, like the Royal Navy's inshore SSK work in the Vietnam War, where I believe the Good Guys involved have had insufficient credit.

DVD stands for Deutscherverteidigungsdienst, or German Defence Service. They are NOT Nazis! They are the direct descendants of the boys who installed the Nazis. German intelligence was NOT dismantled at the end of World War II, it was reorganised.

Most airliners crashes are accidents and have a defined cause. I have never suggested the contrary - it is a grotesque misrepresentation, with respect, of my position to say that I am suggesting that the DVD causes most airliner crashes. My position is that the DVD has a specialist aviation sabotage section and have successfully sabotaged a number of airliners.

I am far from being alone. The DVD is taught on Dr Paul Medhurst's excellent counter-intelligence course at the American Military University, where I taught before taking up writing full-time in late 2010. The highly professional GRU share some of my analysis, and a number of US defence contractors privately agree with me. Lockheed privately are aware that their Saigon Baby Lift C-5A was sabotaged - it was nothing to do with a design flaw. There was no flaw. Lockheed are aware of my views on the L-1011 and know that the plans were lifted by the CIA, and yes Moose, that's why American went for the 10. The 10's development was rushed and not everybody in CIA was happy about the resulting crashes, although again one at least was caused by sabotage.

Only an intelligence illiterate, ChrisKen, with respect, would seek to apply Occam's Razor to a discussion about aviation sabotage. The Razor has no application to cases where intelligence agencies are involved and is of minimal value as an counter-intelligence tool. Where all things are equal then the Razor may safely be applied, but it is only a presumption. It's a starting point, not the end point.

Re currents, you make a fair point, BUT the currents would also act on the aircraft. We would not expect the pilot to be beside the aircraft, but he should not have been far away.

Re the door my suggestion is that it was opened at the surface to exfiltrate the pilot. The AAIB interim report does not distinguish between ditching damage and ocean-floor impact damage. With wreckage on the ocean floor you have to bear in mind that there are two impacts, not one. Most of the damage will be due to the ditching, but not all.

We still have a mystery on our hands.

It's beginning to look like we have another DVD sabotage programme underway, target the 737 Max. I am not happy about the Ethiopian crash, and I don't suppose the Ethiopians are either. My thinking is that they are going after the AOA indicators. The 737 is the most tested airliner in service, with over 50 years of operations behind it. Of course the plane has been redesigned massively but the basic design goes back to 1967. It's the weakest of the Boeing '7' designs and suffered from a number of design faults, eg in relation to the rudder, but they've long been eliminated. The high bypass ratio versions have been a great success, once the bugs were ironed out of the -300.

As presently advised I am not buying a design fault. I think the decision to ground the Max in Britain and Europe is political and unfair on Boeing. Rushed groundings are a feature of sabotage operations, as the DVD have considerable political clout.

BA38 was nothing do with fuel freezing ChrisKen. The fuel didn't freeze. I had a source on the inside of the fuel tests, which were not done by AAIB but farmed out to a contractor in the Midlands. The low fuel temperature light did NOT activate, as a Boeing source privately confirmed to me (it was about the first thing they checked - a 777's avionics are a bit more advanced than a 707!)

Good news re Andy Hill's acquittal. Again I think this was sabotage, of the altimeter, which I suspect was reading about 300ft too high. Not difficult to do and not easy to pick up, especially as the Hunter doesn't have a radar altimeter, at any rate I didn't see one last time I was in a Hunter cockpit! Andy Hill is a fine pilot - Harrier pilots tend to be. He's not every pilot's cup of tea, but people of inferior ability are always ready to have a pop at those who happen to better at their job than they are. You should read some of the stuff said about me, indeed you can, on this thread!
 
User avatar
BirdBrain
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 4:54 pm

Re: MH370 & MH17: Spyhunter theories for his fans

Wed Mar 13, 2019 12:04 am

Thanks Spyhunter. That's quite incredible. When you can, and if possible, please provide any additional details. You seem very well connected and hardly miss anything.
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6968
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

Re: MH370 & MH17: Spyhunter theories for his fans

Wed Mar 13, 2019 12:32 am

Having fun with Brexit? Sabotage?
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
 
BlueberryWheats
Posts: 482
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 9:46 am

Re: MH370 & MH17: Spyhunter theories for his fans

Wed Mar 13, 2019 6:33 am

Spyhunter wrote:
Good news re Andy Hill's acquittal. Again I think this was sabotage, of the altimeter, which I suspect was reading about 300ft too high. Not difficult to do and not easy to pick up, especially as the Hunter doesn't have a radar altimeter, at any rate I didn't see one last time I was in a Hunter cockpit! Andy Hill is a fine pilot - Harrier pilots tend to be.


So this apparently amazing, totally tip-top pilot didn't notice this during pre flight checks that the airfield elevation had suddenly jumped up 300ft? He doesn't think, "hold on one tick... I best check the ATIS altimeter settings again"?

Unless you're saying the DVD are so brilliant they managed to sabotage it mid-flight?
 
ChrisKen
Posts: 751
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 11:15 pm

Re: MH370 & MH17: Spyhunter theories for his fans

Wed Mar 13, 2019 1:49 pm

Spyhunter wrote:
And no, Chris Ken, I'm not a conspiracy theorist! I'm a published intelligence author, including in peer-reviewed intelligence journals, and have taught the subject at Masters level.

Yes, you are.
"A conspiracy theory is the fear of a nonexistent conspiracy or the unnecessary assumption of conspiracy when other explanations are more probable. Evidence showing it to be false, or the absence of proof of the conspiracy, is interpreted by believers as evidence of its truth, thus insulating it from refutation."

Your "Peer reviews" are by fellow conspiracy theorists. You've never been published on a reputable site, you either self publish or appear solely on fellow conspiracy theory laden outlets.
Any assertions otherwise are simply delusional on your own part. You were convicted as a hoaxer based on one of your many conspiracy theories. You are a conspiracy theorist in every sense of the words,

Only an intelligence illiterate, ChrisKen, with respect, would seek to apply Occam's Razor to a discussion about aviation sabotage. The Razor has no application to cases where intelligence agencies are involved and is of minimal value as an counter-intelligence tool. Where all things are equal then the Razor may safely be applied, but it is only a presumption. It's a starting point, not the end point.

OK, so your default position for any accident or incident is "it was intelligence community acting" but your're not a conspiracy theorist. Gotcha!
Hate to break it to you, but AAIB work on actual evidence. There is no evidence of such activities. The simplest solution based on evidence is usually the correct one. Some cockamamie multi agency conspiracy vs what is probably all probability going to be poor judgement of a pilot hedging his bets in poor weather.

Re currents, you make a fair point, BUT the currents would also act on the aircraft. We would not expect the pilot to be beside the aircraft, but he should not have been far away.

Yes they would, but even the most deluded should be able to work out the effect would be greater on the body rather than a ~2t aircraft on the seabed vs ~75kg body. A 4kt current wouldn't move the wreck, it's more than capable of extracting a body from it though.

Re the door my suggestion is that it was opened at the surface to exfiltrate the pilot. The AAIB interim report does not distinguish between ditching damage and ocean-floor impact damage. With wreckage on the ocean floor you have to bear in mind that there are two impacts, not one. Most of the damage will be due to the ditching, but not all.

As previously stated, the timestamps and release date of the photo in question predates the subsequent recovery (and attempts thereof) of Mr Sala's body. This in itself suggests the picture was from the initial recording of the wreck ie as it was found. Unlike your amateur ramblings, the AAIB are professionals.

We still have a mystery on our hands.

Yes but a mystery is far from indicative of yet another intelligence plot from the mind of convicted hoaxer Michael Shrimpton. For those without paranoid delusions, there are many far more plausible solutions, and these even have the evidence to back them up.

It's beginning to look like we have another DVD sabotage programme underway, target the 737 Max. I am not happy about the Ethiopian crash,

Only in your conspiracy theorists mind. Are there any events you won't try shoehorn some form of link to your torrent of tosh?



As presently advised I am not buying a design fault. I think the decision to ground the Max in Britain and Europe is political and unfair on Boeing. Rushed groundings are a feature of sabotage operations, as the DVD have considerable political clout.

Boeing have admitted the design fault that "you are not buying", so once again you're completely at odds with established facts. Since they don't exist, they don't have "political clout". The grounding has been far from rushed.


BA38 was nothing do with fuel freezing ChrisKen.

I never said it was fuel freezing, I said ice contamination, which is exactly what the report said it was. You were the only one that asserted the pilots were "unjustly maligned", that statement that does not hold up to any scrutiny when you view the official reports. Once again you are at odds with established facts.


Again I think this was sabotage, of the altimeter, which I suspect was reading about 300ft too high.

Again, a jump to sabotage when there's no evidence to suggest it and when far more plausible explanations exist.
PS: if it was "sabotaged" and reading "too high", this should have been picked up by the pilot prior to take-off. Or did they magically sabotage them while it was in the air and parachute to safety without being noticed? Again, a very amateur grasp of aviation being displayed by yourself.

Not difficult to do and not easy to pick up,

It's all too easy to pick up a 300ft error on an altimeter, easier when two different types are fitted. It's one of the basic checks made by a pilot, on every flight, right from their very first lesson.
You'll also find, the altimeters were tested. One was reading correctly, the other -100ft across the range (attributed as incorrectly calibrated at last service/build or minor gear slippage through accident impact forces).
Personally my money is on the latter, a fine pilot would have noticed a 100ft discrepancy between altimeters and have it rectified.

Andy Hill is a fine pilot - Harrier pilots tend to be. He's not every pilot's cup of tea, but people of inferior ability are always ready to have a pop at those who happen to better at their job than they are. You should read some of the stuff said about me, indeed you can, on this thread!


Harrier pilots tend to be fine pilots of harriers. Fine pilots also make mistakes. Fine pilots are always learning. I've even seen a fine harrier pilot crash his harrier. (I suppose all involved failed to spot the DVD's involvement in that one too!).
In this case, in this aircraft and performing this manoeuvre, established facts suggest his performance was very much less than fine.
Once again are we supposed to believe some unsubstantiated "spyhunter" guff about sabotage (DVD initiated or otherwise) over mistakes by a pilot who had neither been trained to perform the manoeuvre on the type, didn't know how to perform the escape manoeuvres on the type, had never practise the required techniques to escape on the type, performed the initial phases (entry & upward half) of the manoeuvre poorly (low entry speed and low thrust set) and subsequently failed to perform the required escape manoeuvre.

Even in the highly unlikely event the altimeter was "reading 300ft too high" does not excuse any of these established facts.

The investigation identified the following causal factors in the accident:
● The aircraft did not achieve sufficient height at the apex of the accident manoeuvre to complete it before impacting the ground because the combination of low entry speed and low engine thrust in the upward half of the manoeuvre was insufficient.
● An escape manoeuvre was not carried out, despite the aircraft not achieving the required minimum apex height.

The following contributory factors were identified:
● The pilot either did not perceive that an escape manoeuvre was necessary,or did not realise that one was possible at the speed achieved at the apex of the manoeuvre.
● The pilot had not received formal training to escape from the accident manoeuvre in a Hunter and had not had his competence to do so assessed.
● The pilot had not practised the technique for escaping from the accident manoeuvre in a Hunter, and did not know the minimum speed from which an escape manoeuvre could be carried out successfully.
● A change of ground track during the manoeuvre positioned the aircraft further east than planned producing an exit track along the A27 dual carriageway.
● The manoeuvre took place above an area occupied by the public over which the organisers of the flying display had no control.
● The severity of the outcome was due to the absence of provisions to mitigate the effects of an aircraft crashing in an area outside the control of the organisers of the flying display.



I'm sure your conspiracy theories provide you with a valuable income stream now you've been ejected from your chosen profession in disgrace. If you wish to part idiots from their money on the various conspiracy theory outlets you "publish" through then good luck to you.
However, if you wish to try to further your conspiracy theories on a site where many have demonstrably better knowledge of subjects than your amateur, self proclaimed 'expert' grasp then expect to be called out as charlatan.
 
BlueberryWheats
Posts: 482
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 9:46 am

Re: MH370 & MH17: Spyhunter theories for his fans

Wed Mar 13, 2019 2:54 pm

I do find myself wondering to what end the DVD felt they needed to cause a crash at Shoreham? :roll:
 
alfa164
Posts: 2810
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:47 am

Re: MH370 & MH17: Spyhunter theories for his fans

Wed Mar 13, 2019 3:24 pm

BlueberryWheats wrote:
I do find myself wondering to what end the DVD felt they needed to cause a crash at Shoreham? :roll:


To give these self-proclaimed "experts" (i.e., conspiracy theorists) something go tell their gullible followers...

:roll:
I'm going to have a smokin' hot body again!
I have decided to be cremated....
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 17063
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: MH370 & MH17: Spyhunter theories for his fans

Thu Mar 14, 2019 10:46 pm

ChrisKen wrote:
Are there any events you won't try shoehorn some form of link to your torrent of tosh?


No pile of dead bodies shall be ignored in the quest to spread nonsense and earn money.

It's unspeakably insulting to the families of the victims. Truly disgusting.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
Spyhunter
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 8:01 pm

Re: MH370 & MH17: Spyhunter theories for his fans

Tue Mar 19, 2019 8:43 pm

Oh dear, more ad hominem attacks!

I earn royalties from the sale of my book, but I could hardly live off them! Most of my income is derived from my legal work. ChrisKen might like to think I've been disgraced but it's the CPS and Thames Valley Police who stand disgraced given the fresh evidence which has emerged. They've been caught red-handed. One of their lies was aviation related by the way - they claimed that the E-3 Sentry was grounded at the material time due to 'fatigue cracks', yet the fault was not reported to Boeing, Lockheed Martin (who held the UK maintenance contract) or any other E-3 operator! In seven years they've failed to come up with a single document or photograph supporting their crack theory, more appropriately described as a crackpot theory.

As it happens I remain a member of the Bar, subject to interim suspension. My appeal against disbarment is pending.

Spyhunter was peer reviewed by Professors Renfrew Christie in South Africa and Paul Medhurst in the UK. Professor Medhurst teaches the DVD on his counter-intelligence course at AMU, Along with other UN peacekeepers (Professor Medhurst was a field security officer with the UN) he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. I'm sure you don't even have a tiny bit of a Nobel Peace Prize, Chris Ken!

I don't get paid for writing on any website. VeteransToday.com is hardly a conspiracy theory website. A number of major players in the Intelligence Community are contributors. Gordon Duff, a good man, killed his first commie decades ago, in Laos. He was given an honorary one-star rank in the USMC and they don't hand those out with the cornflakes.

I don't self-publish either. My publishers are June Press. I have appeared in several peer-reviewed intelligence journals, including the Journal of International Security Affairs, whose then editor helped set up Nixon's first visit to China.

The DVD sabotaged the Hunter programme in the late 50s, organising the cancellation of the thin-wing Hunter, which would have been supersonic. They have been responsible for a number of classic aircraft crashes. AAIB couldn't tell sabotage from a genuine crash if they tried, ChrisKen! They're the idiots, no offence intended, who thought the Comets crashed due to metal fatigue!!

So, one altimeter was reading 100 feet too high and you dismiss my analysis re altimeter sabotage? Not sure it damages my case!

Rigging altimeters in an art. You don't normally bother with the instrument itself, you go for the pressure feed. You want something plastic, which will melt if there's fire, if you're dealing with an analogue aircraft like the Hunter. Of course you only want the misread to kick in once airborne, so you have an altitude related safety. The Abwehrt first started using barometric devices when they tried to whack our community partner Adolf Hitler. You don't want the altimeter showing the airfield 300 feet below field elevation! You're dealing with an agency with over 75 years experience of this sort of sabotage.

scbriml isn't going to like this, I'm afraid, but I'm provisionally calling the Boeing 737 Max crashes as sabotage, of either the AOA indicators or the autopilots or both. Looks like someone playing with the software using self-deleting lines of code, as in the DVD's 777 sabotage programme.

I find it instructive that no US operated Max has crashed, possibly due to not using the autopilot below FL100. Looks like the sabotage programme was prompted by that big Vietnamese order. It's also instructive that the first initiative to ground the plane came out of Peking and that Boeing overtook Airbus in 2018. The DVD back Airbus of course, as it's a European manufacturer.

I think you'll find my analysis has its internal supporters in Boeing. I am not unknown to the boys at Seal Beach and my guess is that the boys on the board have asked them to have a look. Boeing know how to make planes and there's nothing fundamentally wrong with the 737 Max.

Such design errors as Boeing have made over the years have not been major. I think they should have gone with ventral fins and fully powered rudders on the 707-100 and 707-200, indeed the crash of a Braniff -200 on an acceptance flight, I think whilst asymmetric, proves my point. The Air Registration Board got it right re ventral fins and fully-powered rudder for BOAC's Conway-powered 707-436s.

For readers unfamiliar with the 707 the Dash 200 was a higher-powered version of the Dash 100 for Braniff's South American routes with the J-75 engine (civil designation JT4A). Only four were made. The Dash 400 was the first turbofan-powered 707 to fly. As the designation implies the Dash 436 was for BOAC, aka 'Better Off On A Camel". And no, ChrisKen, I didn't have to look that up. Aviation is in my blood.

For the many new readers to this thread, welcome. Please don't be afraid to comment - there will always be trolls on any site I appear on, don't be put off by them. This thread has one purpose and one purpose only, and that is increasing the safety of air navigation, in particular by bringing a new degree of intellectual rigour to air crash investigation.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: par13del, Scorpio, seat64k, speedygonzales, Tugger and 25 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos