Page 6 of 7

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 64

Posted: Thu May 29, 2014 2:20 pm
by laddb
Quoting LovesCoffee (Reply 217):
"Search area for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 'can now be discounted'"

here.

This would appear to cast some doubt on the Inmarsat conclusions as to the location of the airplane.

Not the Inmarsat data, but the underwater locator beacon pings. What I think happened was the ship was towing the pinger along the final Inmarsat ping ring and quickly got a "hit", so the search shifted there. I think the previous, more southern area along the Inmarsat ring is more likely the resting place.

[Edited 2014-05-29 07:20:47]

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 64

Posted: Thu May 29, 2014 3:06 pm
by LTC8K6
Quoting alberchico (Reply 249):
BTW has any debris or oil slicks been found at all ?

No. There has been no sign of 9M-MRO whatsoever since the transponder went off the air near waypoint IGARI, except for some satellite data.

All we have are some rather vague primary radar returns that haven't been confirmed, and the satmodem pings that have been confirmed. The radar returns could certainly be 9M-MRO, but as far as I know, there's been no official data about them. All we have is a pirated screen shot, I think.

No debris of any sort from 9M-MRO has been found.

It's close to 3 months now.

So, the only confirmed sign of 9M-MRO after IGARI seems to be the Inmarsat ping data.

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 64

Posted: Thu May 29, 2014 3:11 pm
by Finn350
Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 251):
The radar returns could certainly be 9M-MRO, but as far as I know, there's been no official data about them. All we have is a pirated screen shot, I think.

The primary radar returns have been confirmed by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, see reply # 42 and

http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5205507...ions%20on%20defining_FactSheet.pdf

[Edited 2014-05-29 08:51:20]

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 64

Posted: Thu May 29, 2014 4:28 pm
by LTC8K6
Quoting Finn350 (Reply 252):

The primary radar returns have been confirmed by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau

Hmmm...just released.

Well, that's really no more than has been said before, and that we have discussed at length many times.

Nothing about confirming the radar track as 9M-MRO, just a statement about two radar contacts and an assumption that they were 9M-MRO.

How do they know this was 9M-MRO?

I guess that they do know, and I have no problem with people accepting it, and it seems likely.

But that little bit of doubt as to how they know, is bothersome.

[Edited 2014-05-29 09:28:54]

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 64

Posted: Thu May 29, 2014 4:35 pm
by LTC8K6
Now, if it was tracked all along that path shown in the fact sheet, then it certainly was 9M-MRO.

But I haven't heard anything about it being tracked for that much of it's flight.

With the path shown, I'm going to guess that it was actually tracked all that way by primary radars, and we just aren't allowed to know the specifics.

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 64

Posted: Thu May 29, 2014 5:00 pm
by bellancacf
I am reluctant to raise my hand and ask this, but just to round out the information in this thread, could someone tell me what would most likely have happened if the plane was shallowly submerged during the time that the Inmarsat ping series was being collected? Would water over the plane have totally blocked the signal? Would it have introduced a delay? Would this delay have varied with time for some reason? You see what I'm trying to rule out ...

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 64

Posted: Thu May 29, 2014 5:14 pm
by SoJo
Quoting nupogodi (Reply 214):
You're growing senile, old man.

How dare you say such a thing. Everyone is allowed to air their views on this site and in this thread.

Absolutely despicable IMO.

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 64

Posted: Thu May 29, 2014 5:27 pm
by WarrenPlatts
Quoting bellancacf (Reply 255):
I am reluctant to raise my hand and ask this, but just to round out the information in this thread, could someone tell me what would most likely have happened if the plane was shallowly submerged during the time that the Inmarsat ping series was being collected? Would water over the plane have totally blocked the signal? Would it have introduced a delay? Would this delay have varied with time for some reason? You see what I'm trying to rule out ...

If it was floating and still had power for the SATCOM, the ping rings would all be in the same place. Since they are not in the same place, that implies the a/c was moving around at hundreds of knots; that entails that she had to be flying the whole time.

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 253):
Nothing about confirming the radar track as 9M-MRO, just a statement about two radar contacts and an assumption that they were 9M-MRO.How do they know this was 9M-MRO?

You've also got to remember that the radar track is fully consistent with the 18:27 ping ring. That is, 5 minutes after the last radar contact, that LOP was laid down just about right where it should have been, given the apparent speed of the radar track.

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 64

Posted: Thu May 29, 2014 5:38 pm
by bellancacf
Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 257):
If it was floating and still had power for the SATCOM, the ping rings would all be in the same place. Since they are not in the same place, that implies the a/c was moving around at hundreds of knots; that entails that she had to be flying the whole time.

Well, what started me wondering about this was my understanding that 'place' is being deduced from 'delay', and I wondered if a varying delay could have some other explanation than change of 'place': water over the antenna, "sluggish" electronics as the systems died, ... you see what I mean. How sure are we that delta-delay means only delta-xy?

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 64

Posted: Thu May 29, 2014 5:51 pm
by lancelot07
Quoting Finn350 (Reply 244):
Since Bluefin-21 has been involved in the search, it has scoured over 850 square kilometres of the ocean floor looking for signs of the missing aircraft.

which is about 1-2% of the search area before it was reduced.
A lot of work to do, and no reason to give up ! And no reason to assume it is in another ocean, as some people dream.   

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 64

Posted: Thu May 29, 2014 6:04 pm
by nupogodi
Quoting SoJo (Reply 256):
How dare you say such a thing. Everyone is allowed to air their views on this site and in this thread.

Absolutely despicable IMO.

And yet the world keeps turning. I am glib, but not terribly offensive.

Completely denying that the plane was communicating with Inmarsat for many hours past the initial 40 minutes that were tracked on SSR is plain ignorant, and that's the nicest way I can put it. Maybe I can be super-serious and be like, "Sir you are incorrect" but I have tried that approach. Having a laugh and saying, "You're nuts, grandpa" has the same effect.

It flew for over 7 hours. The terminal was powered for over 7 hours. It *did not* go down where it lost contact ... not to mention those are shallow seas and the area was searched extensively in the first two weeks. How else can I address someone who completely discounts that evidence? There is nothing left but humour.

So... lighten up, old man  

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 64

Posted: Thu May 29, 2014 6:04 pm
by lancelot07
Quoting bellancacf (Reply 258):
Well, what started me wondering about this was my understanding that 'place' is being deduced from 'delay', and I wondered if a varying delay could have some other explanation than change of 'place': water over the antenna, "sluggish" electronics as the systems died, ... you see what I mean. How sure are we that delta-delay means only delta-xy?

No, not possible.
1. The "delays" did not become longer all the time.
2. water blocks electronic signals.

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 64

Posted: Thu May 29, 2014 6:09 pm
by lancelot07
Quoting SoJo (Reply 256):
How dare you say such a thing. Everyone is allowed to air their views on this site and in this thread.

Absolutely despicable IMO.

Nupogodi did just that. And I second him.
Some people have very weird ideas, and this is not a conspiracy-lovers forum.

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 64

Posted: Thu May 29, 2014 8:03 pm
by WarrenPlatts
Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 262):
Quoting SoJo (Reply 256):How dare you say such a thing. Everyone is allowed to air their views on this site and in this thread.

Absolutely despicable IMO.
Quoting Lancelot: Nupogodi did just that. And I second him.
Some people have very weird ideas, and this is not a conspiracy-lovers forum.

I second Sojo. I reported that post the moment I saw it. It should have been DELETED. And the moderators just posted a warning to stop the name-calling. I have received emails from multiple people saying they will not pay the $25 to register for this forum because of all the absolutely gratuitous, unnecessary trash talking that goes on here. You people are costing this forum $$$! Unbelievable.

And as for conspiracy-lovers--you are one of them--not NAV30! You are totally projecting. E.g., this beauty piece:

Quoting lancelot07:
So the description "200nm from Butterworth" at 02:22 is a red herring ? Iirc, it was corrected later (very suspiciously)

Indeed....

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 64

Posted: Thu May 29, 2014 8:16 pm
by nupogodi
Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 263):
I second Sojo. I reported that post the moment I saw it. It should have been DELETED. And the moderators just posted a warning to stop the name-calling

*sigh*

It wasn't name-calling. It was a light-hearted jab, followed up with an actual contribution, as re-hashed as it may have been.

I don't care how old you are. If you deny that the aircraft flew past 40 minutes, you *are* senile or delusional. There is absolutely no evidence to show that it did anything but. All the evidence shows that it DID fly that long. The leaps and leaps through the realms of improbability you have to make, to somehow convince yourself the plane went down along its flight path while Inmarsat continued to communicate with 'it', even when the area has been extensively searched...

Report me all you want, WP. Sorry that I have to deliver the truth maybe with sharper words than others would use. Do *you* believe the "it only flew 40 minutes" theory? No, you don't, we are *intensely* aware of that. Do you believe it's a VALID theory? No, you don't.

So let me do what you don't have the guts to do - tell it like it is.

Anyone thinking it only flew 40 minutes is delusional. That's a harsh thing to say though, so making a reference to age causing it is where the *humour* is derived from. If we can't laugh at ourselves, what have we got? But yada yada, the world keeps turning, this plane isn't even being searched for at the moment, and as internet discussions go this one will go the way all of them go.

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 64

Posted: Thu May 29, 2014 9:13 pm
by dank
Quoting mandala499 (Reply 218):
Further, this seems to be backed up by the lack of response from the aircraft's satcom between 17:07 and 18:25 and aircraft initiated log-on at 18:25, which is before the tranponder going offline, until after the aircraft disappeared from military radar,

It's just kind of hard to imagine that some catastrophic electrical situation would have led to the signal stopping and then reinitiated but none of the other things that dropped came back online.

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 64

Posted: Thu May 29, 2014 9:26 pm
by dtw2hyd
Quoting nupogodi (Reply 264):

Entire world is putting up with BS published by Malaysia, China, Inmarsat and Australia among many others. Some BS is professionally presented than others. What difference it makes with one more theory on an internet forum.

There are no valid theories here because nothing has been proven.

If you saw Sarah Bajc's interview, this investigation is like every one following emperor with no clothes. Being next-to-kin she has right to comment than any of us.

[Edited 2014-05-29 14:54:05]

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 64

Posted: Thu May 29, 2014 9:29 pm
by pvjin
Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 263):
I have received emails from multiple people saying they will not pay the $25 to register for this forum because of all the absolutely gratuitous, unnecessary trash talking that goes on here. You people are costing this forum $$$! Unbelievable.

I doubt those people visit many forums at all, most have way more trash talk in them than this one does.

But yeah, his post is quite offensive.

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 64

Posted: Thu May 29, 2014 9:42 pm
by hivue
Quoting nupogodi (Reply 264):
*sigh*

I'm more or less in NAV30's age range, nupogodi, and no offense taken as I doubt any was intended. I guarantee you that at this age a thin skin is no use at all.

The idea that the plane crashed in the S. China Sea after 40 min is sufficiently ridiculous that it probably should just be ignored.

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 64

Posted: Thu May 29, 2014 9:42 pm
by 747megatop
Quoting NAV30 (Reply 212):
I'm pretty sure that that location (in the open sea, north-east of Malaysia and quite close to Vietnam) is where they'll eventually find MH370.

Is this based on a gypsy fortune teller gazing into a crystal ball and coming up with MH 370's final resting place and giving you the information or is it based on some science?

If they what you say is indeed true then how did they miss finding it in the initial search of the South China sea or Gulf of Thailand?

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 64

Posted: Thu May 29, 2014 9:53 pm
by 747megatop
Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 237):
t's not the first time it's happened--and I'm not talking about Amelia Earhart: there was that 727 that was stolen from Angola in 2003. It disappeared without a trace...

So did the Varig cargo 707 off Japan.

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 64

Posted: Thu May 29, 2014 9:54 pm
by WarrenPlatts
Quoting nupogodi (Reply 264):
So let me do what you don't have the guts to do - tell it like it is.

Sir, it doesn't take guts to tell an older man that he's senile. All it takes is a mean spirit. You remind me of that xkcd cartoon character:



Who cares if NAV30 believes MH370 crashed in the South China Sea? It's a harmless belief, and certainly no more incredible than half the stuff that's posted on these threads. A lot of people believe in creationism as well. Does that bother me? Absolutely not. And I was a paleontology and evolutionary biology major in college. Why? Because belief in creationism is harmless. When around such people, it's more important to play the role of the gentleman, and maintain a friendly and polite demeanor. When you find yourself resorting to insults and name-calling, it's a sure sign of neckbearded insecurity and a lack of personal self-confidence.

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 64

Posted: Thu May 29, 2014 10:29 pm
by 747megatop
64 threads later without any signs of MH 370 i have more questions than ever -

1) Why hasn't anybody put a test plane in the air and tried to replicate the MH 370's supposed flight path and log the INMARSAT handshake signals in order to cross check & cross verified with MH 370's hand shake signals that have been analyzed by INMARSAT? Or has this already been done?

2) How far away from the ocean floor do the under sea submersibles carrying the side scan sonar being used for the next phase of the searches have to hover in order to sonar map the ocean floor for detection of the wreckage? What is the smallest objects detectable from that distance at which it hovers above the sea floor?

Looks like there were able to detect objects the size of a car tire in 10m depths - http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~latallah/objectdet.pdf . I also found some link with specs on the Remus 6000 - http://www.km.kongsberg.com/ks/web/n...$file/remus6000web.pdf?OpenElement but none of these links including - http://www.mosaichydro.com/sites/def.../files/papers/sidescan_vs_mbes.pdf has the information that i am curious about so any information by knowledgeable will be appreciated.

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 64

Posted: Thu May 29, 2014 10:59 pm
by LH707330
Quoting bcworld (Reply 199):
Navy official: Pings not thought to be from Flight 370's black boxes

If that's the case, then we'll get to thread 100 before this plane is found, if it ever is.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 263):
I second Sojo. I reported that post the moment I saw it. It should have been DELETED. And the moderators just posted a warning to stop the name-calling. I have received emails from multiple people saying they will not pay the $25 to register for this forum because of all the absolutely gratuitous, unnecessary trash talking that goes on here. You people are costing this forum $$$! Unbelievable.
Quoting nupogodi (Reply 264):
It wasn't name-calling. It was a light-hearted jab, followed up with an actual contribution, as re-hashed as it may have been.

Ok guys, some of this is subject to interpretation, and it's difficult to read humor in text. I get frustrated too when I see persistent, stubborn refusal to acknowledge facts, but it's often best to criticize the idea and let others determine who's right.

Quoting moderators (Reply 25):
But we ask you to respect everybodys opinion in here. Try to stay calm and don't start any name calling in here.

+1. Let's not get this shut down. Where's the a.net peace pipe? 
Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 271):
A lot of people believe in creationism as well. Does that bother me? Absolutely not. And I was a paleontology and evolutionary biology major in college. Why? Because belief in creationism is harmless.

I think it's problematic when half your country's population rejects science in favor of such theories.

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 272):
1) Why hasn't anybody put a test plane in the air and tried to replicate the MH 370's supposed flight path and log the INMARSAT handshake signals in order to cross check & cross verified with MH 370's hand shake signals that have been analyzed by INMARSAT? Or has this already been done?

They did this right afterwards with some other airliners to test the BFO and ping rings.

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 64

Posted: Thu May 29, 2014 10:59 pm
by ComeAndGo
Quoting 747megatop (Reply 272):
1) Why hasn't anybody put a test plane in the air and tried to replicate the MH 370's supposed flight path and log the INMARSAT handshake signals in order to cross check & cross verified with MH 370's hand shake signals that have been analyzed by INMARSAT? Or has this already been done?

The Inmarsat signal checks have been done on an other MH 777 early in the investigation.

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 64

Posted: Thu May 29, 2014 11:08 pm
by ComeAndGo
Quoting nupogodi (Reply 264):

You seem to spend a lot of time on A.net. You accumulated almost 1000 posts in a couple of months. Did you notice, there is a moderator position available. Why don't you take it. You can then exercise your righteousness and just delete posts that are off topic. No need to insult anyone.

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 64

Posted: Thu May 29, 2014 11:22 pm
by YoungMans
Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 262):
....this is not a conspiracy-lovers forum....
Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 263):
And as for conspiracy-lovers....

There is this big fat red line in the sand and its name is 'Conspiracy Theory'..!

This line must not be crossed under any circumstances, by threat of being branded and ridiculed as a 'Conspiracy Theorist'.
These days, being called that is a big No-No and, in today's world, it might even mean the loss of someones job!

Imagine two aircraft mechanics working on the fuselage of a big aircraft. Because it needs two persons to fit this special 1/4" nut, a pretty fumbly job, it somehow fell behind a strut. Couldn't possibly get it out unless a whole big panel is taken out and that would take at least a day.

They both know that this nut, where it is, cannot do any harm or ever fall out again. They look at each other and without having to say a word they just leave it there... and keep working as if nothing happened.

That, by definition, is already a conspiracy.

Apart from a few facts that we all know by now, what has been provided here are simply theories - nothing more, nothing less. Some of these can easily be brushed aside by professionals, like Pihero and others, because aircraft have very specific performance limitations and various operational factors that also come into it.

Despite all the theories that have been put forward so far, here on these threads and by the search teams, not one of them has led to finding the aircraft. Yes, there have been detailed discussions on 'what might have happened' or 'possibly could have' but all of that is guessing, surmising and assuming.
It's all theory....

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 264):
The leaps and leaps through the realms of improbability you have to make, to somehow convince yourself the plane went down along its flight path while Inmarsat continued to communicate with 'it', even when the area has been extensively searched...

That is theory...
There is no guarantee that Inmarsat did in fact communicate with the aircraft. It is assumed it did, with a high degree of confidence (as they say), but there is no guarantee.

The Inmarsat company has provided the data they have in good faith but even they can only guarantee that they have passed it on correctly, not that the data was from 9M-RMO. There is a big difference ....

Most people on these threads probably want to stay on "..this side of the red line", where the explanation is mechanical failure or anything that can be explained in straight forward terms. In other words, they baulk at even considering the likelihood of conspiracies. Unfortunately the world is no longer an innocent place; conspiracies are just as likely as mechanical failures, fires, pilot suicide or whatever else.

It may go seriously against the grain here but maybe it is time to consider conspiracy theories on equal terms.
Why..? Because we wouldn't want 'them' to get away with it ....

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 64

Posted: Fri May 30, 2014 12:06 am
by LGWGate49
Guys NAV30 and Warrenplatts are heroes in their own movies, and you know what, I really hope Tom Cruise or Brad Pitt plays them in the movie if they are proved right.

At least they are trying to find this damn plane. If you just want to negate any contributions moving forward then stop, please. Analyse and contribute positively, otherwise you only create pointless noise to a thread that is already 64 threads long.

This is the most important thread a.net has ever carried. Imagine what it would have been like if on 9/11 only AA11 had crashed. Now think of the likely scenarios.

Between you, you have extraordinary expertise (I am an uneducated lurker). Pool it, and let's truly make a difference in this investigation.

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 64

Posted: Fri May 30, 2014 1:03 am
by markak
Quoting ComeAndGo (Reply 274):

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 272):
1) Why hasn't anybody put a test plane in the air and tried to replicate the MH 370's supposed flight path and log the INMARSAT handshake signals in order to cross check & cross verified with MH 370's hand shake signals that have been analyzed by INMARSAT? Or has this already been done?

The Inmarsat signal checks have been done on an other MH 777 early in the investigation.
=============
This is a minor point to consider.
If INARSAT is recording all this data and was able to look at MH370s data retrospectivly, then they should
also be able to look at other flights with a known track retrospectivly. Thus you should be able to do some kind of cross
check without flying an actual test flight or waiting for another similar flight. They should already have all the data recorded you could ever want. It is a little suspicious to me that they seemed to have a record of MH370 but not other flights.

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 64

Posted: Fri May 30, 2014 1:48 am
by 777Jet
Quoting dtw2hyd (Reply 248):
Quoting FLY744 (Reply 205):
Can I suggest that you read ICAO Annex 13 before you make any more statements such as this. I think you will find that all parties are very constrained in what they can say by that Annex.

I guess US entities have to contemplate either to follow Annex 13 or some future US congressional investigation. My take US Navy cares more about congressional investigation than ICAO Annex 13. Otherwise they wouldn't have bypassed Australia and Malaysia to make such statement.

I believe that could be the case.

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 251):
The radar returns could certainly be 9M-MRO, but as far as I know, there's been no official data about them. All we have is a pirated screen shot, I think.
Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 253):
Quoting Finn350 (Reply 252):

The primary radar returns have been confirmed by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau

Hmmm...just released.

Well, that's really no more than has been said before, and that we have discussed at length many times.

Nothing about confirming the radar track as 9M-MRO, just a statement about two radar contacts and an assumption that they were 9M-MRO.

How do they know this was 9M-MRO?

I guess that they do know, and I have no problem with people accepting it, and it seems likely.

But that little bit of doubt as to how they know, is bothersome.

Correct! IMO they have no idea and they can only assume based on the belief that MH370 was supposedly flying in that area at that time and because they can't link it to any other plane they could wrongly, or correctly, assume that it is MH370...

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 271):
Sir, it doesn't take guts to tell an older man that he's senile. All it takes is a mean spirit.

People should just tell it how it is. The truth is the truth, regardless of age  

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 64

Posted: Fri May 30, 2014 1:49 am
by newhaven
Hey ....

Did they find it yet ?

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 64

Posted: Fri May 30, 2014 1:54 am
by rwessel
Quoting asetiadi (Reply 234):
so the plane is not in Indian Ocean, that means the whole data was wrong. Meaning, 100% they have no idea where it is.

No, no, no. They've ruled out that the plane is in a 850 sq km section of the Indian Ocean. Which, for reference, actually covers more than 73 million sq km. The Inmarsat data puts the plane in an area of a few hundred thousand sq km, it was the acoustic pings that narrowed it down to the smaller area, and those are now apparently thought to be from some source other than MH370.

Quoting bellancacf (Reply 255):

I am reluctant to raise my hand and ask this, but just to round out the information in this thread, could someone tell me what would most likely have happened if the plane was shallowly submerged during the time that the Inmarsat ping series was being collected? Would water over the plane have totally blocked the signal? Would it have introduced a delay? Would this delay have varied with time for some reason? You see what I'm trying to rule out ...

If the antenna were under a few inches of water, there would be little difference. Under a few tens of feet of water, the attenuation would be enough that no connection would be possible at all. And no, there would not be any meaningful impact on signal timing. While RF propagation though water *is* slower than through air, the maximum possible amount involved is so small that the net impact would be utterly negligible.

To put a number on it, the index of refraction of water is approximately 1.3 (this varies a bit based on the frequency, but not really enough to matter for this calculation), so the speed of light in water is about (300,000,000/1.3)m/s, or about 77% of the nominal (in vacuum) value (IOW ~230,800,000m/s). So there would be roughly an extra nanosecond of delay for every meter of water the signal passed through (and you'd get that coming and going, but since the "ping" is round trip, it cancels out). So if the antenna were under 100m of water, you'd get an extra delay of 200ns, which would impact the position calculation by something on the order of 35m. A couple of points: attenuation would make a connection between the aircraft and satellite impossible long before the depth hit 100m, so the added error cannot be nearly that high, and second, the uncertainty from *other* sources in the system is on the order of 10s of *km*, another 35 *m* of wiggle is utterly ignorable.

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 64

Posted: Fri May 30, 2014 1:59 am
by newhaven
PING.

PING.

OMG I am SO sick of hearing about this

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 64

Posted: Fri May 30, 2014 1:59 am
by 777Jet
Quoting nupogodi (Reply 264):
Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 263):
I second Sojo. I reported that post the moment I saw it. It should have been DELETED. And the moderators just posted a warning to stop the name-calling

*sigh*

It wasn't name-calling. It was a light-hearted jab, followed up with an actual contribution, as re-hashed as it may have been.

Funny how sometimes a general warning is posted about something and sometimes the same things results in the deletion of dozens of posts!

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 264):
I don't care how old you are. If you deny that the aircraft flew past 40 minutes, you *are* senile or delusional.

You are also senile and delusional if you believe a lot of what has been released or said by the authorities.

Quoting newhaven (Reply 280):
Hey ....

Did they find it yet ?

It was never lost  

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 64

Posted: Fri May 30, 2014 2:05 am
by 777Jet
Quoting rwessel (Reply 281):
Quoting bellancacf (Reply 255):

I am reluctant to raise my hand and ask this, but just to round out the information in this thread, could someone tell me what would most likely have happened if the plane was shallowly submerged during the time that the Inmarsat ping series was being collected? Would water over the plane have totally blocked the signal? Would it have introduced a delay? Would this delay have varied with time for some reason? You see what I'm trying to rule out ...

If the antenna were under a few inches of water, there would be little difference. Under a few tens of feet of water, the attenuation would be enough that no connection would be possible at all.

Also, if it floated there for 7.5 hours it would have still been floating during daylight and could have been spotted. 99.9999% it is no where near that area where it went missing...

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 64

Posted: Fri May 30, 2014 2:11 am
by nupogodi
Quoting pvjin (Reply 267):
But yeah, his post is quite offensive.

Let's agree to disagree.

Quoting hivue (Reply 268):
I'm more or less in NAV30's age range, nupogodi, and no offense taken as I doubt any was intended.

Thank you. Of course I meant no harm. You older fellows have probably forgotten more than I've ever learned. That doesn't mean he's right, though...

I just use humour to express myself, sorry if it comes off as offensive. "Sorry" in the sense that "sorry it offends you", truly never mean to cause harm and never have in my life, but I'm not sorry for being that way.

Quoting hivue (Reply 268):
The idea that the plane crashed in the S. China Sea after 40 min is sufficiently ridiculous that it probably should just be ignored.

Indeed! And yet I mock it and am mocked for doing so. When will we come full circle? When those mocking me are mocked for mocking the theory that I mocked?

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 271):
Who cares if NAV30 believes MH370 crashed in the South China Sea? It's a harmless belief, and certainly no more incredible than half the stuff that's posted on these threads. A lot of people believe in creationism as well. Does that bother me? Absolutely not. And I was a paleontology and evolutionary biology major in college. Why? Because belief in creationism is harmless. When around such people, it's more important to play the role of the gentleman, and maintain a friendly and polite demeanor. When you find yourself resorting to insults and name-calling, it's a sure sign of neckbearded insecurity and a lack of personal self-confidence.

Christ. How long ago was college for you anyway? This isn't a religious debate, why in the world would you bring that up? This is about a practical, physical thing. Isn't it YOU that said you're on the "unofficial investigation" to "find the airplane"?

Most people here just want to know what happened, FRIEND. Or can I say dude? I want to say dude, but it exposes my youth.

We will not know what happened here for years. We may never know. You may not be alive when the final report is published, WP, I may not be either. Remember that.

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 64

Posted: Fri May 30, 2014 2:13 am
by newhaven
Quoting 777Jet (Reply 284):
Also, if it floated there for 7.5 hours it would have still been floating during daylight and could have been spotted. 99.9999% it is no where near that area where it went missing...

Agreed ... I STILL say that plane's on the ground in North Korea.

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 64

Posted: Fri May 30, 2014 2:23 am
by nupogodi
Quoting newhaven (Reply 286):
Agreed ... I STILL say that plane's on the ground in North Korea.

Since every word I say is heavily scrutinized,

with the utmost respect Sir newhaven,

I request from you what evidence led you to this belief.

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 64

Posted: Fri May 30, 2014 2:27 am
by 777Jet
Quoting nupogodi (Reply 285):
We will not know what happened here for years. We may never know. You may not be alive when the final report is published, WP, I may not be either. Remember that.

There will be no real final report if we never know - which is what will happen under some of the scenarios mentioned  
Quoting newhaven (Reply 286):
Quoting 777Jet (Reply 284):
Also, if it floated there for 7.5 hours it would have still been floating during daylight and could have been spotted. 99.9999% it is no where near that area where it went missing...

Agreed ... I STILL say that plane's on the ground in North Korea.

Or China, Diego Garcia or several of the countries around the Western / North Western part of the Indian Ocean associated with terrorism (just to suggest a few places). If it was taken to Diego Garcia it will either never be found or will only be found (in location that it was remotely flown to later or dumped in after being broken up and transported there slowly) when the higher-ups are ready for it to be found. And, whoever finds it will purposely find it but the official line will be they were in that area looking for something else and just so happened to stumble across it...

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 64

Posted: Fri May 30, 2014 3:16 am
by WarrenPlatts
Quoting 777Jet (Reply 288):
it was [possibly] taken to Diego Garcia

WTF? So the Americans were behind the whole thing after all? To set up a false flag attack against Israel, make it look like it came from Iran, and start another war in order to bump up the "defense" spending contracts by another couple of hundred billion? Unbelievable....

OK, how is this less incredible than NAV30's theory that it crashed in the South China Sea?!?

One thing I will say in favor of NAV30 is that he is not a conspiracy theorist....

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 64

Posted: Fri May 30, 2014 3:17 am
by dennypayne
Quoting YoungMans (Reply 276):
The Inmarsat company has provided the data they have in good faith but even they can only guarantee that they have passed it on correctly, not that the data was from 9M-RMO

Incorrect. It has been pointed out many times in these threads that each aircraft's SATCOM equipment that communicates via Inmarsat has a unique identifier, much like your mobile phone's IMEI number or your computer's MAC address. The data unequivocally came from 9M-MRO's identifier (both during the "normal" phase of flight and afterwards).

Could the identifier be spoofed by some other equipment? Probably not 100% impossible but I'd say it would be exceedingly unlikely and would require some extraordinary evidence.

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 64

Posted: Fri May 30, 2014 3:22 am
by dennypayne
Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 289):
One thing I will say in favor of NAV30 is that he is not a conspiracy theorist....

Those who demonstrate (over and over) a refusal to understand basic facts (much like the creationists you mentioned) are just as annoying...especially when said facts (7.5 hours of Inmarsat data) were established 2 months ago.

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 64

Posted: Fri May 30, 2014 3:28 am
by 777Jet
Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 289):
Quoting 777Jet (Reply 288):
it was [possibly] taken to Diego Garcia

WTF? So the Americans were behind the whole thing after all? To set up a false flag attack against Israel, make it look like it came from Iran, and start another war in order to bump up the "defense" spending contracts by another couple of hundred billion? Unbelievable....

OK, how is this less incredible than NAV30's theory that it crashed in the South China Sea?!?

One thing I will say in favor of NAV30 is that he is not a conspiracy theorist....

If you are naive enough to 100% rule out that a government is not involved well then, good for you sir!

Funny how you respond to my Diego Gracia comment but not to the other places that I and others have mentioned  

BTW, the following idea came from you: ""To set up a false flag attack against Israel, make it look like it came from Iran, and start another war in order to bump up the "defense" spending contracts by another couple of hundred billion? Unbelievable...."" That is your imagination, not mine  Wink

And, on conspiracy theorists, wasn't the conspiracy theorist born in the USA?

One thing I will say in favour of NAV30 is that he is not brainwashed....

[Edited 2014-05-29 20:45:02]

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 64

Posted: Fri May 30, 2014 3:39 am
by YoungMans
Quoting nupogodi (Reply 285):

The points you are making in that post are reasonable and valid.

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 264):
Anyone thinking it only flew 40 minutes is delusional.

On what hard facts and grounds are you basing any statement as fact or conclusions that 9M-RMO must have flown for much more than 40 minutes or even for those 7.5 hours?
Or, put differently, on what grounds can you state that it did fly for as long as it is supposed to have done?

The only basis you have is a theory (or several).

If you are basing your assumptions wholly and solely on the satellite pings, that is not enough.
Whilst we can be 99.99x% certain that the data is from 9M-RMO, there is still that 0.00y% chance that it is not.

And if there were only one item of actual evidence coming up, corroborating a theory other than what has been assumed here so far, then that 0.00y% would all of a sudden become very important.

Then again too, in any and all of this, some theories are stronger than others.
The real professionals on these threads are able to very quickly put holes into most of them or wipe them out altogether. Regardless, unless a theory is actually disproved, with the appropriate evidence, every theory stands as any other.

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 64

Posted: Fri May 30, 2014 3:57 am
by YoungMans
Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 289):
WTF? So the Americans were behind the whole thing after all?

Relax, Uncle, the Americans on the whole are good people; just as most people are right around the world.
It is the Military-Corporate-Government complex that is not nearly so innocent!
(By crikey; I'm really sticking my neck out now!)

Quoting dennypayne (Reply 290):
Probably not 100% impossible ...

...you said it, mate.

As I would imagine it, it would be no problem for an agency (commercial or otherwise) from the Military-Corporate-Government complex to duplicate a call sign of that nature, using an elaborate electronics lab; it could be on a submarine or at Pine Gap. If they want it, they'll get it .... Money would be no object.

Edit:
Mind you, I quite agree that it probably wouldn't be as simple or easy as the hacking of mobile phones in London!?!

[Edited 2014-05-29 21:05:38]

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 64

Posted: Fri May 30, 2014 4:09 am
by NAV30
Quoting hivue (Reply 268):
The idea that the plane crashed in the S. China Sea after 40 min is sufficiently ridiculous that it probably should just be ignored.

That's the bit that could annoy me a bit. Not 'ridiculous,' the (highly-probable) crash was fully reported:-

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...date-4-pictu-idUSL3N0M502D20140308

Detailed accounts have been published saying that, two minutes after the Captain said goodnight to Kuala Lumpur, the aeroplane's communications 'went dead.' No check-in with Vietnam, 'off radar,' all communications shut down. And no further communications with anyone from then on,

All the available evidence strongly suggests that it crashed right then and there.

People are of course welcome to disagree - politely, anyway.   But perhaps I should ask a (polite) question?

Can anyone who knows anything about flying seriously believe that, had MH370 stayed in the air, a highly-experienced captain and a competent first officer would have turned the aeroplane west and 'flown blind' across one of the busiest flight areas in the world, and then turned south and flown into one of the loneliest ones, and then kept going until their fuel ran out?

Of course not! They'd have recognised it as an emergency situation and landed as soon as they could?

If people wonder how Inmarsat could possibly have kept reporting positions for hours afterwards, the only answer is that I don't know either. All the (Inmarsat) evidence appears to say that it did. But there's no other evidence?

[Edited 2014-05-29 21:16:20]

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 64

Posted: Fri May 30, 2014 5:05 am
by LTC8K6
Quoting NAV30 (Reply 295):
All the available evidence strongly suggests that it crashed right then and there.

But there's no evidence at all for that. None. Zero without a rim.

A 777 crashed near waypoint IGARI and almost 3 months later this still cannot be confirmed?
How could that be?

You might as well claim that it crashed in Kansas and couldn't be found...

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 64

Posted: Fri May 30, 2014 5:18 am
by NAV30
Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 296):
But there's no evidence at all for that. None. Zero without a rim.

I take it that you agree that the aeroplane lost all contact at that time, LTC8K6?

Only one option left to it in that situation. Land as soon as possible.

And what is your conclusion as to why the Captain, having 'signed off' from Kuala Lumpur, did not make contact with Vietnam?

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 64

Posted: Fri May 30, 2014 5:26 am
by JHwk
Quoting dennypayne (Reply 290):
It has been pointed out many times in these threads that each aircraft's SATCOM equipment that communicates via Inmarsat has a unique identifier, much like your mobile phone's IMEI number or your computer's MAC address. The data unequivocally came from 9M-MRO's identifier (both during the "normal" phase of flight and afterwards).

Could the identifier be spoofed by some other equipment? Probably not 100% impossible but I'd say it would be exceedingly unlikely and would require some extraordinary evidence.

1. There is no security built into the ping broadcast/response algorithm from everything we have been led to understand to this point-- no cryptographic handshake that guarantees source and respondant.

2. Both examples you use of IMEI and MAC addresses are easily spoofed. Ultimately it is just a RF signal that needs to get back to the ground station.

3. The logging procedure has to be vetted; it is possible to modify the log data.

4. While none of this is likely, it is foolhardy to not acknowledge the limitations of this being the sole source of information in determining the aircraft's final resting place.

RE: MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 64

Posted: Fri May 30, 2014 5:28 am
by sipadan
Quoting NAV30 (Reply 297):
And what is your conclusion as to why the Captain, having 'signed off' from Kuala Lumpur, did not make contact with Vietnam?

Look, LTC8K6 is correct. There is NO evidence to support what you claim. That you do not even allow for a 'foul play' scenario further negates and nullifies your stance...Your myopia is breathtaking in degree.