Erebus wrote:

N14AZ wrote:

From that article:

Recently one of the world’s most respected oceanographers the University of Western Australia’s Professor Charitha Pattiaratchi emphatically said that MH370 is lying just outside the area that has been searched.

Wow, what a revelation! Is there a scientific definition for "just outside"?

I will say that the chances of finding the wreck outside of the searched area is now 100%. Never had any formal education in oceanography, however.

Agreed!

Those ending scenarios only consider an uncontrolled ending. If it was a controlled glide from max altitude add 100NM+ either side of the arc (and they still don't know and can't agree on which part of the arc the final ping occurred). The data suggesting the ending was uncontrolled is only a snapshot of that very moment in time. If somebody then took manual control it is very possible for a glide to have occurred.

777Jet wrote:

Those ending scenarios only consider an uncontrolled ending. If it was a controlled glide from max altitude add 100NM+ either side of the arc (and they still don't know and can't agree on which part of the arc the final ping occurred). The data suggesting the ending was uncontrolled is only a snapshot of that very moment in time. If somebody then took manual control it is very possible for a glide to have occurred.

Many months ago,I think it was last October, someone provided a link to another site and in one of the posts I read that the experts who had examined the flaperon which was found in Reunion (to the east of Madagascar) concluded from the damaged it had sustained that the plane made a controlled ditching but upon hitting the water it flipped over. This offers tangible proof and we can discard the other scenario. (I hope you all agree).

Why don't you take a trip to KL and see how things work around there?

No,thanks. Personally I am an armchair person like everyone else!

gzm wrote:

777Jet wrote:

Why don't you take a trip to KL and see how things work around there?

No,thanks. Personally I am an armchair person like everyone else!

Personally, I am regularly in KL and probably know better than most on here how things work.

enilria wrote:

I believe the plane was remotely controlled, probably by a passenger in the cabin, although I'm not sure we can completely rule out it was done from the ground either.

I read in an article from a link provided by 777 Jet that Boeing has the technology to do that. It can be used to avert hijacking and guide the plane remotely to its intended destination in spite of inputs by the pilot. But a passenger cannot do that. This is in the realm of science fiction. A video on YouTube was made shortly after the disappearance claiming that "this is a new kind of crime". The purpose being,to prevent a certain passenger from arriving in Bejing at all costs. This sounds too star-trek or taken from a bestseller. It would be much easier (and feasible) to get rid of that person before boarding the flight don't you think? So why not rule out this scenario altogether?

gzm wrote:

enilria wrote:

I believe the plane was remotely controlled, probably by a passenger in the cabin, although I'm not sure we can completely rule out it was done from the ground either.

I read in an article from a link provided by 777 Jet that Boeing has the technology to do that. It can be used to avert hijacking and guide the plane remotely to its intended destination in spite of inputs by the pilot. But a passenger cannot do that. This is in the realm of science fiction. A video on YouTube was made shortly after the disappearance claiming that "this is a new kind of crime". The purpose being,to prevent a certain passenger from arriving in Bejing at all costs. This sounds too star-trek or taken from a bestseller. It would be much easier (and feasible) to get rid of that person before boarding the flight don't you think? So why not rule out this scenario altogether?

Truth is stranger than fiction. I still believe MH17 and MH370 are somehow connected. The odds of MH losing 2 777s in a single year are in the trillions. Statistically something has to join these events. For example, maybe MH370 was used to test remote control in order to use it to later crash MH17. Or after MH370 went down, MH17 was purposefully targeted by a SAM because it would create doubt as to why it went down after MH370. Or there is a technical fault in the navigation specifically impacting MH 777s that was a factor in both crashes. Or you could come up with 100 possible causalities, but statistically something has to link them. Could be anything, but it's something...

enilria wrote:

Truth is stranger than fiction. I still believe MH17 and MH370 are somehow connected. The odds of MH losing 2 777s in a single year are in the trillions. Statistically something has to join these events. For example, maybe MH370 was used to test remote control in order to use it to later crash MH17. Or after MH370 went down, MH17 was purposefully targeted by a SAM because it would create doubt as to why it went down after MH370. Or there is a technical fault in the navigation specifically impacting MH 777s that was a factor in both crashes. Or you could come up with 100 possible causalities, but statistically something has to link them. Could be anything, but it's something...

I wrote about that a few days ago but you seem to have forgotten it. I said that the only connection between the loss of the two MH 777s in such a short time is that the second one must have been the revenge of China. There can be no other explanation. Amid accusations of a Malaysian coverup, one has to stop and think: What do they mean? One has to be an insider in the politics of that region. It means that Malaysia has conspired with another country,either the USA or the former USSR and agreed to sacrifice one of its airplanes. The flight was chosen for reasons we will never know but, incidentally, was carrying 153 Chinese passengers. Somebody has forgotten that the Chinese dragon has awaken and some day will take a proper revenge. But in the meantime they did not want to be in debt.

Maybe MH370 was used to test remote control...

Well this is interesting,I haven't made up my mind about that but it means cooperation with the USA only and I don't want to leave Russia out yet.
A few weeks ago I was speaking with a friend from abroad, I brought up the subject because I trust his abilities -I mean he is a computer person- and from the way he changed the subject I understood it is more sinister than we think....

gzm wrote:

Maybe MH370 was used to test remote control...

Well this is interesting,I haven't made up my mind about that but it means cooperation with the USA only and I don't want to leave Russia out yet.
A few weeks ago I was speaking with a friend from abroad, I brought up the subject because I trust his abilities -I mean he is a computer person- and from the way he changed the subject I understood it is more sinister than we think....

A theory I've heard was that some intelligence service used remote control of MH370 to determine whether it could be remotely controlled and then used the exact same type of aircraft (to minimize the chance of a problem) to maneuver MH17 into a false flag crash blamed on Russian missiles in order to stoke more intl anger over the Crimea situation. Ukraine, USA, and EU all had motive for that. I think that's pretty unlikely and is too complicated for Occam's Razor, but when there's really no explanation of MH370 it's going to spawn a lot of theories.

enilria wrote:

A theory I've heard was that some intelligence service used remote control of MH370 to determine whether it could be remotely controlled and then used the exact same type of aircraft (to minimize the chance of a problem) to maneuver MH17 into a false flag crash blamed on Russian missiles in order to stoke more intl anger over the Crimea situation. Ukraine, USA, and EU all had motive for that. I think that's pretty unlikely and is too complicated for Occam's Razor, but when there's really no explanation of MH370 it's going to spawn a lot of theories.

Interesting theory, but... it's flawed to begin with. MH17 was going to be there anyway. It was flying on a well used air-route and was exactly where it was supposed to be. There were other commercial flights before and after it; IIRC MH17 was minutes between a SQ A380 and an AI 787 flying along the same route. The point is, there would be no need to maneuver MH17 into the area via remote control because it was eventually going to be there anyway.

On another note, what ever happened to the other MH777 that was parked in Israel???

777Jet wrote:

Interesting theory, but... it's flawed to begin with. MH17 was going to be there anyway. It was flying on a well used air-route and was exactly where it was supposed to be. There were other commercial flights before and after it; IIRC MH17 was minutes between a SQ A380 and an AI 787 flying along the same route. The point is, there would be no need to maneuver MH17 into the area via remote control because it was eventually going to be there anyway.

Again, not my theory, but the theory covers all of that. Yes, obviously it would require knowing that the plane would be there. It posits that the missile didn't hit the plane at all, or that they used remote control to bring the plane down to an altitude where it could be hit, or they used it to minorly deviate the flight path because the plane was flying pretty high for the BUK missile system to hit effectively

From Wikipedia...
On 14 July 2014, a Ukrainian Air Force An-26 transport plane flying at 6,500 m (21,300 ft) was shot down.

On 5 June 2014, the airspace above Donetsk Oblast was closed by Ukraine below 26,000 feet (7,900 m) and on 14 July that below 32,000 feet (9,800 m) was closed.[5]:179–180 A few hours before the shootdown the Russian ATC issued NOTAM UUUUV6158/14 which closed the Russian airspace in the adjacent area below 53,000 feet (16,000 m) (FL530). The reason given was "armed conflict in Ukraine", but such a high altitude was not justified by previous incidents and was comparable with the 18,000 m (59,055 ft) range of the "Buk" missile.

MH17 was supposed to be flying at 34,000' per the article. That means realistically they would need within 2-3 miles of the direct flight path.

777Jet wrote:

On another note, what ever happened to the other MH777 that was parked in Israel???

Last seen when? Would you care to remind us?
You mean it was an MH777 or a Boeing 777?

trpmb6 wrote:

Sydscott wrote:

if they can verify the imarsat data it will put to bed a lot of the conspiracy theories. That's about all we can hope for .

I think the trouble with conspiracy nuts is that any new data contradicting their conclusions will be attributed to the greater conspiracy. Therefore no proof will ever assuage them.

gzm wrote:

777Jet wrote:

On another note, what ever happened to the other MH777 that was parked in Israel???

Last seen when? Would you care to remind us?
You mean it was an MH777 or a Boeing 777?

A Malaysia Airlines (MH) 777-200ER - 9M-MRI. 9M-MRI went to Tarbes Lourdes Pyrenees in October 2013 and then to Tel Aviv in November 2013 before being re-registered as N105GT (new owner GA Telesis, LLC of Fort Lauderdale, Florida). Not sure if it was scrapped or not.

IIRC 777s are built in pairs and 9M MRI was the twin of the one lost as MH370. Can someone confirm ?

JayBCNLON wrote:

IIRC 777s are built in pairs and 9M MRI was the twin of the one lost as MH370. Can someone confirm ?

I heard it was triplets. Not sure if identical triplets though

Remember: It's always the stupid people believing in all that conspiracy bullshit. Or in something that some mysterious people "up there" have done, usually just refered as "them" or a country. It's just simpler for simple brains to make up a bullshit stories that could be from a bad action movie and belive in that story. This is far easier, than dealing with the complex reality, which knows more than black and white, and where even things happen that statistically should not happen.

Making the stuff up about MH17 being in some conspiracy? Or getting shot down on revenge? Have you ever researched how many civilian aircraft flew over the East Ukrainian territory until the Russians shot down MH17? Every European and Mid East airline flew over the territory. Just google new reports from large newspapers and media houses from the days after the terrorist act of the Russsians. There are so many stories of civilian airlines flying over the East Ukraine, often with screenshots from FlightRadar24. And the journalists (rightfully) asking if the airspace should have been closed long time ago. And if the airlines should have avoided it on their own, even without an official closure. The people of MH17 were just unlucky that the BUK hit their aircraft. Ten minutes earlier it could have been another commercial passenger aircraft. Or 30 seconds earlier it would have hit the Ukrainian transport plane it was supposed to hit. Just don't be so ignorent but face the truth and reality. And also don't make up your own truth, because you don't like reality.

These are some of the commercial flights in the 48 before the MH17 shotdown in the East Ukrainian region:


Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28357880

777Jet wrote:

gzm wrote:

777Jet wrote:

On another note, what ever happened to the other MH777 that was parked in Israel???

Last seen when? Would you care to remind us?
You mean it was an MH777 or a Boeing 777?

A Malaysia Airlines (MH) 777-200ER - 9M-MRI. 9M-MRI went to Tarbes Lourdes Pyrenees in October 2013 and then to Tel Aviv in November 2013 before being re-registered as N105GT (new owner GA Telesis, LLC of Fort Lauderdale, Florida). Not sure if it was scrapped or not.

Was still there as of 2 weeks ago, still in MH colours, completely stripped of parts and with an American reg. as you stated, basically in the same state for 3-ish years.

Viper911

And to add, this was the airspace in the last seconds before MH17 was shot down:


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aERAG7gFVs (from FlightRadar24)

Minutes earlier or later the rocket could have also hit Singapore Airlines, Air India or Japan Airlines if you consider that the Russian Army at this point of the war was pushing to enter Mariupol in the South and the Ukrainian Army feared the Russians were trying to secure a safe corridor towards the island Crimea.

I know three things: First, Crimea is a peninsula,so do some research before you speak,
Second, there was not one Chinese passenger on board (what a coincidence!) just google "Victims MH17"
And three: You called me a nut and the rest but boy,some guys just don't understand malice...

And last but not least: Try not to insult others because they have a different opinion than your own.Thanks.

Latest is that MH370 may have been spotted in the Cambodian jungle

NZ321 wrote:

Latest is that MH370 may have been spotted in the Cambodian jungle

First, I check the "exclusive" source - the Daily Star - and realise we're talking zero credibility.

Then I look at the picture and the very first thing I think is "satellite obviously pictured a plane in flight".
Honestly, how could an aircraft have "crashed in the jungle" yet show up on Google maps (after "hours" of searching) obviously intact? Not one ounce of critical thinking between nut-job surfing the internet and eventual publication in Fox News etc.

I despair for humanity...

Then I scrol a bit further down and find "Cambodia dismisses reports of MH370 crashing in its jungle":

https://www.newkerala.com/news/read/42092/cambodia-dismisses-reports-of-mh370-crashing-in-its-jungle.html

NZ321 wrote:

Latest is that MH370 may have been spotted in the Cambodian jungle

First of all, let me countdown from 10. ...3...2...1. Thank you. *sigh*

The plane on Google maps is MD-83, which at the time belonged to Sky Angkor Airlines, and is actually airborne in this picture.

zeke wrote:

ltbewr wrote:

I am surprised that China didn't also open their own investigation and make demands for info from the Malaysian government and Immerstat considering they lost many more citizens than France did

Considering China stated they tracked the aircraft going down South China Sea and stated searching there wasting considerable search efforts by Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore, and Indonesia is clear evidence they should be the last ones demanding anything. They never provided their radar data from their military assets in the area, and never provided the radar data from their over the horizon radar which covers that area. The aircraft should have been on the Chinese over the horizon radar for several hours.

I wonder if the Chinese military is hesitant to release any of its radar data from the area in question because doing so would show the US and Russian intelligence agencies the capabilities of the Chinese radar systems. But, I suspect that the US NSA, NRO, CIA, AFSPC (Air Force Space Command), DIA, XYZ, CBA,etc etc already have a pretty good idea of the capabilities of the Chinese radar systems anyway, with all of those Navy P-8 Poseidon surveillance flights conducting SIGINT in the area, along with the many other forms of intelligence gathering techniques available. I know I sound like a nutjob, because I am one. Just posting my thoughts in regards to the quoted post.

I haven't read the complete details of what France intends to do. I remember glancing at an article where these words caught my eye "re-examining INMARSAT satellite ping data.
Beyond that; they have to do more. There is no point reopening the investigation without following through and conducting a search AFTER the INMARSAT satellite ping data is re-examined. I know that conducting another search is complicated as it comes down to who will order the search and who will pay for it (French Govt? Chinese? Malaysian? Australian? or a combination of these).

For a search this time around (if ordered) i hope that in addition to a mother ship like Seabed Constructor launching AUV (Autonomous Underwater Vehicles); I hope these additional technologies can be used (in fact they hold the key IMHO) -

1) https://www.saildrone.com/

2) https://www.boeing.com/defense/autonomo ... index.page

So is this 2018?.This, is very very sad.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/a ... d=12103581



It's easy as.Everything in this flight is 'normal as'.The turn left over northern Malaysia is due to storm activity.The co-pilot has to be in on the plan.It's late,service as normal.The plane is now heading towards Diamantina Deep..This is easy sell,everyone on board after the initial turbulence warning was cool.So we now have complicit passengers onboard following Captains instructions.The Captain runs MH370 into a soft landing smack bang on the deepest part of the Indian Ocean.Yes.He studied the ditching of U.S Airways flight 1549.He wanted to know how to leave minimal trace.If you look at the flaperon it is damaged from left to right.This is because the waves from remote Australia swerve from Dimantina Deep, towards the Reunion Islands and Africa.So damage is from the plane landing Hudson Styles in waves which follow a plane landing very softly heading south along the coast of Australia.

To break it down further.The waves have caused damage to the outer portion of the flaperon simply because the wave action is heading towards Africa or the West.

This mystery is just about 'everything as normal'.There is lights out with sleeping passengers until the soft landing.

I want the U.S to fund a deep sea exploration into Diamantina Deep.It's a plane constructed in the U.S.NTSB...you need to stand UP.

p51tang wrote:

I want the U.S to fund a deep sea exploration into Diamantina Deep.It's a plane constructed in the U.S.NTSB...you need to stand UP.

I won't comment on the rest, but there will be no NTSB deep-sea investigation: first of all, it would cost more than the NTSB's entire yearly budget. It would require congressional authorization, which means you have to get at least 218 reps to agree with the conspiracy theory and pay for an expensive and open-ended investigation of another country's aircraft loss.

And right after that happens, I'll buy that bridge you're selling.

I want the U.S to fund a deep sea exploration into Diamantina Deep.It's a plane constructed in the U.S.NTSB...you need to stand UP.

Why is it our job? Why do we need to "stand UP?" Why do we need to pay for it? Why do people always expect the US to do the heavy lifting?

My friend, we don't have primary jurisdiction. And, the costs involved would be tremendous. It's not gonna happen. But, since you feel so strongly about it feel free to get your government (assuming you're not an American) to fund the expedition. I'm sure they'll be happy to cough up the funds. Now, if you'll excuse me I have some beachfront property in North Dakota to sell...

chidino wrote:

p51tang wrote:

I want the U.S to fund a deep sea exploration into Diamantina Deep.It's a plane constructed in the U.S.NTSB...you need to stand UP.

I won't comment on the rest, but there will be no NTSB deep-sea investigation: first of all, it would cost more than the NTSB's entire yearly budget. It would require congressional authorization, which means you have to get at least 218 reps to agree with the conspiracy theory and pay for an expensive and open-ended investigation of another country's aircraft loss.

And right after that happens, I'll buy that bridge you're selling.

The US funds too much that we shouldn't. As much as I would like an answer, there just isn't that budget.

First question before spending money on research:. What will I do with the information? There is unlikely to be anything found to benefit the USA. There is no evidence of an aircraft malfunction.

I would rather the NTSB step up funding for autonomous vehicles; that will save lives.

Lightsaber

Thank you Lightsaber, that was well said. Also, as also stated earlier in the thread China doubtless had over the horizon radar tracks of the plane but isn't willing to share it, likely due to fears about divulging its defense capabilities. The Malaysian military was also exceptionally slow to release radar information, likely for the same reason, when the plane first vanished and the investigation began. In Malaysia's case, it may have been due to conceal a lack of capability, as some in the media have speculated. Still... There are at least two governments with surveillance apparatus in the area who need to "step UP" first. They possess data of some form, however pure or vague, which could almost certainly narrow down the plane's flightpath far more precisely than anything we've seen lately.

747megatop wrote:

I haven't read the complete details of what France intends to do. I remember glancing at an article where these words caught my eye "re-examining INMARSAT satellite ping data.
Beyond that; they have to do more. There is no point reopening the investigation without following through and conducting a search AFTER the INMARSAT satellite ping data is re-examined. I know that conducting another search is complicated as it comes down to who will order the search and who will pay for it (French Govt? Chinese? Malaysian? Australian? or a combination of these).

As I've said in the previous page this has nothing to do with the French government, and there is no reopening of anything, that's a bad translation. This is about a criminal investigation, that was opened soon after the crash, and never closed since then (French justice is quite slow so even if we had found the plane and knew everything, it wouldn't be closed by now). I doubt there is much money to investigate, as France is just a small party to the tragedy. Unlike with AF447 where the government, AF, and Airbus founded the search efforts.

Martin Kristensen, an engineer at Aarhus University in Denmark published a new analysis of the pings data. He says his analysis points to an entirely new location, near Christmas Island in the Indian Ocean.

Source: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/6125 ... ysterious/

N14AZ wrote:

Martin Kristensen, an engineer at Aarhus University in Denmark published a new analysis of the pings data. He says his analysis points to an entirely new location, near Christmas Island in the Indian Ocean.

Source: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/6125 ... ysterious/

If that trajectory was correct, wouldn't it have been picked up on Indian, Indonesian and Australian radar (civil and military)? And isn't this trajectory a few hours flying time short of the "generally" accepted flying time?

N14AZ wrote:

Martin Kristensen, an engineer at Aarhus University in Denmark published a new analysis of the pings data. He says his analysis points to an entirely new location, near Christmas Island in the Indian Ocean.

Source: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/6125 ... ysterious/

Reading the article, it doesn't say anything about why this path in particular. IIRC the original track went off-radar after heading south, yet this track seems to be based on doing a complete 180 and hugging the Indonesian coast. Surely that's against the known radar data...?!