It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Beijing-bound MAS plane carrying 239 people missing as of 20 mins ago.

page: 373
181
<< 370  371  372    374  375  376 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 07:23 AM
link   

sy.gunson

Yes the whole world is having a big old chuckle about the tin foil hat crazies at ATS who can invent a conspiracy out of any newspaper article faster than they can fold the same article into a work of Origami.

Tons of mindless speculation is being spawned here with absolutely no relationship to the facts.


Hate to be a Betty Buttinski here - but UnknownEntity was actually not inventing a conspiracy out of a newspaper article... the newspaper article either was, or the Russian source. Or it's not a conspiracy and it's the truth. Any one of those three.

Calm your farm Sy!!




posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 07:37 AM
link   

sy.gunson
reply to post by roadgravel
 


So you are saying the aircraft flew low over the Maldives an hour after fuel was exhausted and more than an hour after the last satellite ping ?

...Bearing in mind that a Boeing 777's maximum permitted speed below 10,000ft is 250 knots and maximum possible speed is 280knots with about ten times the fuel consumption at 35,000ft.

If it flew across the Indian Ocean at low altitude it would not make it half way to Sri Lanka.


NO.

You started the conversation by saying the plane (which someone mentioned) was spotted in the Maldives before it took off using bad UTC versus local time conversions. I simply pointed out what the correct conversions are. That tends to show the sighting was an hour after what is believed to be the time it went into the ocean. (assuming it went into the ocean).

I was hoping to help a person or two understand the local versus UTC time.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 07:41 AM
link   

sy.gunson

Arbitrageur

sy.gunson
Classic Aero is an ACARS based system
That link says "Controller–pilot data link communications", not "Classic Aero is an ACARS based system". I think you're confused.


Why don't you actually read the link I provided before rushing to refute it?

I already quoted from that link but let me do it again... This time bother to read it:




It was originally deployed in the South Pacific in the late 1990s and was later extended to the North Atlantic. FANS-1/A is an ACARS based service and, given its oceanic use, mainly uses satellite communications provided by the Inmarsat Data-2 (Classic Aero) service.
I did read it, but I don't think you understand what it says.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by sy.gunson
 


reply to post by sy.gunson
 




Of course not because the engine leasing agreement did not require transmission of data after take off and climb to altitude.

You are flogging a dead horse


That's because certain people here keep posting it as true. Even if the lease was there, with no ACARS it would not go out.

You even posted



It had a subscription to use ACARS for 30 minutes after engine start. Thereafter engines made a handshake connection through ACARS every 30 minutes or so.


Can't be true since it was not working.





edit on 4/10/2014 by roadgravel because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 08:14 AM
link   
The penultimate ping/handshake came... The almost immediately the final ping/handshake followed...
Almost and hour early!!!

So can the pings/handshakes be trusted???
About as much as a politicians handshake in this situation!!!



They have the technology to stay 30-50 years ahead of us, more if you're into a conspiracy about conspiracies!!!

So it's simple for them to initiate handshakes from the touch of a button along a selected route they want us to believe!!!!!



The worst part is, admittedly 30-50 years ahead of us technology wise, maybe more...

Which is telling me in 50 years time they're gonna be no better off when it comes to finding a missing Plane!!??!!??!!

If that's not worrying to some... I don't know what is to be honest!!!



Peace MH370 xxx
edit on 10-4-2014 by CharlieSpeirs because: No Reason Given!!!
no seriously I removed a word for grammatic effect!!!



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by CharlieSpeirs
 

Two different things. One is a competed two way conversation, one is an attempt to establish a communication channel.

edit on 4/10/2014 by roadgravel because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by roadgravel
 


Washington Post... ACARS run through!!!


I've heard that a satellite detected MH370 after the plane went dark. If the flight's communications were down, what was talking to the satellite?

The short answer? ACARS.



But you said ACARS had been disabled.

ACARS was disabled. But the satellite equipment it uses hadn't been. It had been responding to "pings" from a satellite that, at a minimum, tells investigators the plane was still up and running. Others have called this activity a digital "handshake."

"You have to see these two things at two different layers," said David Cenciotti, an aviation writer based in Rome. "At the higher one you have ACARS with all the series of messages that can be exchanged between the plane and the receiving station on VHF, HF or SATCOM. At the lower layer you have the network that is used to deliver these messages: pings are used to check the status of the underlying network."

No information gets exchanged in a ping -- it's simply a way for one entity to make sure that the other is there.



I was just going by the "experts" opinion!!!
Anonymous of course



The underlined italic is what I was referring to!!!
Not messages back and forth, just the relay from the satellites!!!

Thanks for the info though pal!!!

Peace R.G!!!



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 11:18 AM
link   

auroraaus
The CVR continued to record after landing and subsequently all relevant information needed on it wiped.



Aurora, there is a button that the pilots push after landing to erase the CVR. This was included on the equipment due to the concerns voiced by aircrews and unions that the content on the recorder might be used to punish or blackmail flight crews for anything said in the cockpit in confidence. At the airline I flew for, just before shutting down the engines we would erase the CVR. I do not express agreement with this, just reporting how it was/is.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by CharlieSpeirs
 


it's pretty clear you don't understand technical stuff. Some of that stuff you quoted is basically what I have been saying.

Now this, is misleading



No information gets exchanged in a ping -- it's simply a way for one entity to make sure that the other is there.


No high level data. But that is one point asking the other point if it is there and it is responding yes. Otherwise, how would it know it is there. It's is a two way conversation. Think about pinging an internet server. Similar idea.

There is a link that can be used for multiple types of data.

This is as bad as the person who could not understand how to convert between UTC and local time.

Looks like facts are pretty much frowned upon here.
edit on 4/10/2014 by roadgravel because: (no reason given)

edit on 4/10/2014 by roadgravel because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 12:22 PM
link   
Another change


Flight 370's pilot, Capt. Zaharie Ahmad Shah, was the last person on the jet to speak to air-traffic controllers, telling them "Good night, Malaysian three-seven-zero," Malaysian sources told CNN.

The sources said there was nothing unusual about his voice, which betrayed no indication that he was under stress. One of the sources, an official involved in the investigation, told CNN that police played the recording to five other Malaysia Airlines pilots who knew the pilot and co-pilot. "There were no third-party voices," the source said.

CNN



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by roadgravel
 



it's pretty clear you don't understand technical stuff. Some of that stuff you quoted is basically what I have been saying.


Like I said already... It's not my opinion!!!

It's the anonymous "expert" who spoke to Washington Post!!!
It's their job to have an understanding not mine pal!!!



This is as bad as the person who could not understand how to convert between UTC and local time.

Tell that to the Washington Post not me!!!



Looks like facts are pretty much frowned upon here.

Not by me pal... It's the whole reason I'm on ATS!!!


Peace R.G



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by CharlieSpeirs
 

You are the one pointing fingers at me....You also have to option to research and learn about this technology.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by roadgravel
 




You are the one pointing fingers at me....

When exactly did I point fingers at you???
You replied to my post, I shared a source, I said thanks for the info, & your attitude got worse as you went on to reply again that I'm wrong even though I just shared an experts opinion!!!



You also have to option to research and learn about this technology.

& you have the option to complain to the Washington Post if you don't like their expert analysis!!!
By the way...
The ping & handshake... They are the same thing, do your research before you become so pretentious on a forum!!!
Just google every single article to do with pings/handshakes related to MH370 & you'll realise you jumped the gun and assumed what I know about technology!!!



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by sy.gunson
 


The last picture is again really interesting

Going to work on it tonight and i also will have another look at the possible path it would have flown above the Gulf of Thailand and heading towards Bachok were it had been spotted by atleast two witnesses

The best bet is that it was spotted there arround 1:45
Let's see if it is possible for the aircraft to be at the next point at 2:22 where it last was spotted, that should give some indication of the speed.

A pilot questioned on this flight on presstv.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 01:26 PM
link   

CharlieSpeirs
you have the option to complain to the Washington Post if you don't like their expert analysis!!!

Does roadgravel also have the option to complain about how you misrepresented the Washington Post's article? Because the only part of that article that was coming from an anonymous expert, is the part you actually failed to quote.

If somebody had turned ACARS off, why didn't the pings stop then as well?

Disabling the transmission of engine performance data and other information may be as simple as flipping a switch. But to stop the pings from occurring, you'd have to dig around in the guts of the plane itself, said one ACARS expert who asked for anonymity because he wasn't authorized to speak to the public.
"The antenna is on top of the aircraft, so it can't be reached," the expert said. "And secondly — think of it like a fuse box. The fuse box for the power — to disable that you'd have to open up the floor, go down and find the correct switches and cables and disable that. For a lot of pilots, they don't even know that that's there."

The rest of it, including the part you copied and pasted did have named and/or identified sources. ( i.e. the author(Brian Fung), Malaysia Airlines CEO & David Cenciotti)

www.washingtonpost.com...



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 01:33 PM
link   
That unknown source would probably have been the Malaysian Government itself



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by OatDelphi
 



Does roadgravel also have the option to complain about how you misrepresented the Washington Post's article? Because the only part of that article that was coming from an anonymous expert, is the part you actually failed to quote.


No but I will now complain about your reading comprehension!!!

See I was agreeing with the experts opinion that the technology was still working, therefore interferable IMO!!!
Also my point that the ping & handshake are the same thing is proven within the article!!!

Not that the expert said every word of the article!!!
But I'll join in with the pedantry & say they're all experts anyways, it's why they've been asked to give their opinion & knowledge!!!

I know they were named, I shared the article after reading it... I quoted the gentleman who was named!!!


My original point stands despite a barrage of ill treatment!!!
Pings are also known as Handshakes!!!
That's what I said first, it's what I've stuck with, it's actually the truth!!!

Don't like it???
Complain away!!!
edit on 10-4-2014 by CharlieSpeirs because: Elaborating to avoid confusion!!!



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 02:00 PM
link   
You really want to talk about "reading comprehension"?


CharlieSpeirs

Like I said already... It's not my opinion!!!

It's the anonymous "expert" who spoke to Washington Post!!!

You attributed the entire article, including the stuff you yourself copied and pasted, to an anonymous source. Which clearly isn't true.

I'll even tell you why it happened... Because you ran out, did a google search, and quickly found an article which you then tried to slice up to fit your point.

You failed to read, digest and comprehend the information that you were about to use. You got caught. And now again you want to act like you are being ill-treated or berated.

Can you comprehend that???



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by OatDelphi
 


No it was necessary for you to comprehend my original point!!!

I have elaborated my previous post with an edit to avoid confusion which was my bad!!!
Here it is so you don't need to go back again!!!


See I was agreeing with the experts opinion that the technology was still working, therefore interferable IMO!!!
Also my point that the ping & handshake are the same thing is proven within the article!!!

Not that the expert said every word of the article!!!


What I attributed to the anonymous expert was that the ACARS was still working, to go with the theory the tech could be played with...
I never said that the expert was the entirety of the post!!!!
Merely backing up my original stance with a source, something people cry about if it doesn't happen, when it does there is a problem with the source, give me a break!!!

Did you read the initial post???
To which I received a response telling me I was wrong???
When I wasn't!!!
Because that's how this started!!!


Secondly I never went for the first one that popped up...
I typed in specifics to see if ACARS pings/handshakes worked despite it being disabled!!?
That's what I was looking for initially!!!

I went with W.P because I usually stick with Xinhua but I presumed that would be frowned upon anyways!!!!


This place is for debate, you cannot defend people who berate others...
You should refrain from joining in also... Especially when that person was wrong to begin with, just happy to make assumptions about people's knowledge!!!
Deny ignorance, don't feed it!!!


Peace Oat!!!



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 02:47 PM
link   
You are confusing ACARS with the sat comm system. This plane was said to have used VHF to transmit ACARS data, not the sat link anyway.

Bye...



new topics

top topics



 
181
<< 370  371  372    374  375  376 >>

log in

join