|Quoting 777Jet (Reply 91):|
But these are your words, not mine:
Quoting YoungMans (Reply 66):
very serious foul play.
Quoting YoungMans (Reply 66):
sophisticated professional type of operation.
You are quoting there just a few selected words from whole sentences, which then give the quotes a totally different meaning. Politicians tend to do that a lot - quoting out of context!
Seeing that this issue is not going to go away, let me be as clear and concise on this as I possibly can.
Looking at the information we have, there is a possibility that the cause for the disappearance of MH370 may have been some form of serious foul play. I use 'foul play' for want of a better and more fitting term.
It certainly would not have been terrorism in the usual sense.
Had it been that, most likely we would have found out sooner or later because that kind of perpetrator tends to look for the usual 15 minutes of fame.
The kind of foul play I suspect would be way more sophisticated and well-planned than the recent bombing of the Russian airliner in Egypt.
And here again, and only this once now, I'll bring up my qualifier: If that is what happened.
Who would the perpetrators be for that kind of foul play?
I don't know.
Whoever it might have been, he, she or they would have had to be highly trained, possibly well armed and they would have had to have the right connections in the right places; and of course access to plenty of funds is a must.
And they also would have had to have what are, in their eyes, very good reasons; unless the perpetrators themselves were cold-hearted mercenaries who simply did as they are told.
The automatic question then would be, who gave them the orders.
Is that so unthinkable or unbelievable?
I don't think so; not in today's world (age) of highly advanced capabilities and greed.
Such foul play is also not unbelievable in today's ruthless world of corporate and real politics, where the public is all too often led to believe the opposite of what is actually happening.
We can be sure, though, if there was such a sophisticated perpetrator, there also would have had to be an opposition, someone or some entity the perpetrator was trying to outdo or work against. East versus west would come to mind, one corporation against another could have been possible, it could have been a payback for something or it might have been a warning.
The possibilities in the world of that kind of perpetrator, business or politics would be endless.
And again, too, if there is or was such an opposition, it may not at all be in their interest to go public with any of this.
So, in the case of MH370, are there indicators for such foul play?
Indeed there are or, to be more precise, there could be.
The early response to the incident, and how it all progressed from there on, could all be one big indicator; if one was to look at it properly and check it out. *)
The aircraft going dark at IGARI was too neat and perfect when looked at it as a possible first link in the foul play chain.
The SatComs coming back on line, just as radar coverage ends, definitely appears too neat and too right on time.
(This one item may well be the biggest give-away.)
The obfuscation by various authorities, real or perceived, could have been a lack of coordination, behind the scenes, what to tell the public or not. And the withholding of information would most likely be still going on, now.
That's why we hear nothing more about the barnacles, or so it seems. I wonder why ....
*) They say, the best way to hide something is in plain sight.
Is it possible that foul play was the cause of the disappearance of MH370? Yes, of course ....
Just as any of the other theoretical causes was possible; or not.