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.

 

'A shot in the dark': How a UK firm and a team of scientists used a nineteenth century mathematica

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 11:44 AM
link   


A private British satellite company used a wave phenomenon discovered in the nineteenth century to analyse the seven pings its satellite picked up from Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 and determine its tragic final destination.

The new findings led Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak to conclude that the Boeing 777, which disappeared more than two weeks ago, crashed thousands of miles away in the southern Indian Ocean, killing everyone on board.

Investigators working on the disappearance of the plane believe that it may have been flown on a suicide mission.

Radar pings from MH370, automatically transmitted every hour from the aircraft after the rest of its communications systems had stopped...

'A shot in the dark': How a UK firm and a team of scientists used a nineteenth century mathematical model to track missing flight MH370 - and confirmed the worst fears of the families of all passengers and crew

This could be big in my opinion, whether in solving the mystery or giving rise to more and more questions...

Still reading...

ETA:

Malaysia said the U.S. Navy will deliver a black box pinger locator to Perth on Wednesday. The Australian warship that will tow the locator is due to arrive in the search area on April 5. By then, there may be little time left.

The team trying to piece together just what happened to MH370 are convinced that someone on board the plane crashed it to commit suicide.


Sounds like this is going to lead to something much, much bigger...
edit on 3/25/2014 by ChaosComplex because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Nope! Sorry not buying it!

Hogwash i say.....





posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Speaking to BBC News today, Chris McLaughlin, Inmarsat's senior vice president, explained how his firm was able to conclude the aircraft definitely flew south.

He said: 'We took Malaysian 777 airline data and modeled that against the northern and southern path and what we discovered was that the path to the south is undoubtedly the one taken.'

Asked why it took so long, he said: 'We have been dealing with a totally new area, we have been trying to help an investigation based on a single signal once and hour from an aircraft that didn't include any GPS data or any time and distance information so this really was a bit of a shot in the dark and it is to the credit of our scientific team that they managed to model this.'

The new data revealed that MH370 flew along the southern corridor where investigators had said the plane could have travelled along, based on pings sent several hours after it disappeared on March 8.

Investigators had drawn up two huge search areas in two large arcs - a northern corridor stretching from Malaysia to Central Asia and a southern corridor extending down towards Antartica.


Article

With such a gigantic area to search its no wonder the information is so slow to be released.

I'm sure no one wants to taste their foot too many more times in this situation...



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Yeah agreed, suicide with all the other people on board i just dont think anyone would do that purposely.

Has that ever happened before?

It could have been somthing spectacularly wrong with the pilots food maybe?



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Not buying it either... I think they just want the whole thing to just "blow over"; to become yesterday's news. It must be terribly embarassing to lose an entire 777 and have zero answers as to what happened...



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 11:57 AM
link   
what about the cell phones that kept ringing..
does that fit or fail this scenario?



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Danbones
what about the cell phones that kept ringing..
does that fit or fail this scenario?


I honestly don't think the cell phones ringing was a sign of anything.

Do some simple tests yourself, with different models and different carriers. I'm sure between you and your family/friends you can come up with a few of each.

Turn the phone off and try to call it.
With the phone on, pull the battery and then try to call it.
If you happen to have $20 to waste buy a prepaid phone, activate it, then smash the holy crap out of it then call it.
It may still ring on the caller's end in a few scenarios because of how calls are handled today. I'm pretty sure there was an in depth thread/explaination on this here somewhere...if I find it I'll paste the link here.




posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Biigs
Yeah agreed, suicide with all the other people on board i just dont think anyone would do that purposely.

Has that ever happened before?

It could have been somthing spectacularly wrong with the pilots food maybe?


Suicide/hijacking definitely seem out of place to me as well.

Hijackers generally want some sort of publicity, so far this situation hasn't fit that mold...



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 12:31 PM
link   

LightningStrikesHere
Nope! Sorry not buying it!

Hogwash i say.....



Me neither, 3000 miles of fuel does not make for 5200 to 5400 miles of travel. It doesn't make sense and sounds like a red-herring to get everyone to "look over there" because something else is going on "over here." The CIA and US Navy did this when the Helderberg went down in the Indian Ocean in 1987. The US government needed to get the p239 off the downed plane (even in 15000 feet of water) before anyone else, like the SRO crew, found it. Is this situation the same with MH370, who knows? I haven't researched it as intensely as I did the Helderberg, partly because that p239 on the Helderberg was for my project and my CO was supposed to be on board. What I do know however, is that if a targeted person or target cargo is on a commercial airline, the intelligence community considers everyone on board acceptable losses. I avoid planes like the plague, especially since my time in Brussels when airport security had to remove two suitcase bombs from a commercial plane I was boarding. Do some serious research into Pan Am 103, Swiss Air 111 and the Helderberg SA295 and you'll see what I mean, too many targets and linkages.

Cheers - Dave
edit on 3/25.2014 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Biigs
Yeah agreed, suicide with all the other people on board i just dont think anyone would do that purposely.

Has that ever happened before?


Air Egypt 990.



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 12:42 PM
link   

AugustusMasonicus

Biigs
Yeah agreed, suicide with all the other people on board i just dont think anyone would do that purposely.

Has that ever happened before?


Air Egypt 990.


EgyptAir Flight 990 (MS990/MSR990) was a regularly scheduled flight from Los Angeles International Airport, United States, to Cairo International Airport, Egypt, with a stop at John F. Kennedy International Airport, New York City. On 31 October 1999, the Boeing 767-300ER operating the route crashed into the Atlantic Ocean about 60 miles (97 km) south of Nantucket Island, Massachusetts, killing all 217 people on board.[1]The cause — either deliberate crash or mechanical failure —is disputed.


Egypt Air 990 Wiki

NTSB says it was deliberate, ECAA says mechanical failure.

I have a feeling MH370 will have a similar fate, with no real conclusion to be made...
edit on 3/25/2014 by ChaosComplex because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/25/2014 by ChaosComplex because: Forgot how to spell



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 12:45 PM
link   

ChaosComplex
]

EgyptAir Flight 990 (MS990/MSR990) was a regularly scheduled flight from Los Angeles International Airport, United States, to Cairo International Airport, Egypt, with a stop at John F. Kennedy International Airport, New York City. On 31 October 1999, the Boeing 767-300ER operating the route crashed into the Atlantic Ocean about 60 miles (97 km) south of Nantucket Island, Massachusetts, killing all 217 people on board.[1]The cause — either deliberate crash or mechanical failure —is disputed.


Egypt Air 990 Wiki



It is solely disputed by the Egyptians who refuse to believe that a person would commit suicide due to the serious negative stigma associated with the act. The physical evidence, flight data recorder, show the First Officer pushing the nose down and praying to Allah, while the Captain was pulling back on the yoke and imploring him to pull the aircraft out of its steep dive. The facts do not lie, nor do they care about someone's supposed religious predilections.



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 12:54 PM
link   

AugustusMasonicus
It is solely disputed by the Egyptians who refuse to believe that a person would commit suicide due to the serious negative stigma associated with the act. The physical evidence, flight data recorder, show the First Officer pushing the nose down and praying to Allah, while the Captain was pulling back on the yoke and imploring him to pull the aircraft out of its steep dive. The facts do not lie, nor do they care about someone's supposed religious predilections.


I agree with you 100%, and I was only raising the point that two organizations have opposing opinions on a situation that is assumed to be a closed case, even if it is solely disputed by Egyptians.

The MH370 plot seems to thicken with each new view point, each new piece of evidence...and speculation from these supposed Super Powerful, All Knowing, and In Control of the World As We Know It agencies and organizations has only further confused the public IMHO.



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaosComplex
 


Well, here's a shot in the dark for ya. Make of it what you will...or not.


LONDON, March 6 (Reuters) - Inmarsat Plc (Other OTC: IMASF - news) , the satellite company building a new global network, said it finished 2013 with an upturn in its core maritime, aviation and land services business, giving it momentum for faster growth in the next two years. The British group, which provides communications to shipping, aircraft and remote locations, reported revenue growth of 5.4 percent in its core Global MSS business to $194.3 million in the fourth quarter, beating market expectations by 4.5 percent. Chief Executive Rupert Pearce said the group had finished 2013 "with a flourish". "We have a couple of good months behind us and feel operationally and financially we will deliver against our objectives this year," he said in an interview on Thursday. Its shares, which had fallen earlier this week to their lowest since December, were trading up 3.8 percent at 699.5 pence by 0934 GMT. Analysts at brokerage Jefferies said revenue was ahead on every line, including in its Solutions business which has been hit by cuts in U.S. government spending. "Coming into the quarter, investors had seemingly been worried about downgrades on the back of deterioration in the ... Solutions business and perhaps even some contagion into Inmarsat (LSE: ISAT.L - news) Global," they said. "The 4Q13 results strongly dispel these concerns."


Inmarsat Set for Faster Growth

They have a hell of a financial gain here "IF", they turn out to be correct. Stocks are already rising substantially since market open and after their announcement about MH370's supposed demise. Just look at the days price range.

ISAT.L Chart

ETA

Forgot the current news:


BANGALORE, India & LONDON--(BUSINESSWIRE)-- IsatPhone 2 is the newest satellite phone on the market and the latest offering from Inmarsat Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd. (BSE: 532663)(NSE: SASKEN), today announced that it has successfully delivered full phone development of Inmarsat’s IsatPhone 2 satellite mobile handset. Sasken was deeply involved with all aspects of development; including software, hardware, mechanical design, antenna design, system integration, testing, as well as manufacturing support. This engagement follows a successful partnership the two companies had earlier, for the development of IsatPhone Pro in 2010. The IsatPhone 2 provides improved features and functionalities such as faster network registration, higher voice quality, voice mail, extended battery life, emergency assistance, built-in E-compass, tracking, bluetooth connectivity; all packaged in an ergonomic and ruggedized handheld specifically designed and developed by Sasken. “Sasken is once again proud to be a key partner behind the successful delivery of IsatPhone 2 for Inmarsat, the world’s leading provider of mobile satellite communications”, said Anjan Lahiri, CEO, Sasken. “This reinforces our capability in Productization, Commercialization and Maintenance of products across the technology spectrum in demanding environments.” Ronald Spithout, President, Inmarsat Enterprise said: “We are pleased with the capability and commitment demonstrated by Sasken in developing a high quality robust handheld for our satellite phone portfolio. Sasken has been a reliable partner to us for over a decade; supporting us in delivering products and services that exceed the expectations of our customers around the world.” Sasken developed the IsatPhone 2 from multiple locations around the globe working in tandem. Sasken’s team in Finland took ownership of hardware design, while software was developed and integrated in India; whereas satellite specific testing was carried out in Indonesia, parts of Europe and North America as well as other key markets. Manoj Damodar, Client Partner and Head, EMEA Business, Sasken, said: “Leveraging our extensive experience in developing mobile devices, and combining our deep knowledge of communication protocols, multimedia, UI, middleware, mobility applications and testing expertise, we were able to successfully deliver the IsatPhone 2 for Inmarsat.” Sasken will continue to augment capabilities to deliver innovative products and solutions for customers across the technology and communications ecosystem.


Inmarsat Partners with Sasken




edit on 3/25/14 by ThePublicEnemyNo1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 12:59 PM
link   

bobs_uruncle

LightningStrikesHere
Nope! Sorry not buying it!

Hogwash i say.....



Me neither, 3000 miles of fuel does not make for 5200 to 5400 miles of travel.

Cheers - Dave
edit on 3/25.2014 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)


When you take off, you don't just fuel up enough to make the trip. By regulation, you must take off with enough fuel to fly to the destination, fly the instrument approach procedure, plus enough to then fly to a chosen alternate airport, plus another 45 minutes of fuel. And if you have made arrangements for cheaper fuel at home base than at the destination, you might choose to ferry some fuel around. And many pilots will carry some "insurance" fuel although our companies frown on it because it uses fuel to carry extra fuel.
Plus, miles at the end of the trip are "cheaper in fuel. During the first hour of the trip you will burn more than 7 tons of fuel in the 777. For the last hour you will burn less than 6.



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 01:03 PM
link   

F4guy
And if you have made arrangements for cheaper fuel at home base than at the destination, you might choose to ferry some fuel around. And many pilots will carry some "insurance" fuel although our companies frown on it because it uses fuel to carry extra fuel.
Plus, miles at the end of the trip are "cheaper in fuel. During the first hour of the trip you will burn more than 7 tons of fuel in the 777. For the last hour you will burn less than 6.


If I remember correctly pilots flying routes to China will typically take on extra fuel outside of China due to the higher cost of fuel in mainland China.



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ThePublicEnemyNo1
 


ETA
osted reply before reading current news article you posted.


edit on 3/25/2014 by ChaosComplex because: (no reason given)


Read the last article, still not sure what to think...

Guide me through your line of thought, because I'm missing something.
edit on 3/25/2014 by ChaosComplex because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 01:11 PM
link   

F4guy

bobs_uruncle

LightningStrikesHere
Nope! Sorry not buying it!

Hogwash i say.....



Me neither, 3000 miles of fuel does not make for 5200 to 5400 miles of travel.

Cheers - Dave
edit on 3/25.2014 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)


When you take off, you don't just fuel up enough to make the trip. By regulation, you must take off with enough fuel to fly to the destination, fly the instrument approach procedure, plus enough to then fly to a chosen alternate airport, plus another 45 minutes of fuel. And if you have made arrangements for cheaper fuel at home base than at the destination, you might choose to ferry some fuel around. And many pilots will carry some "insurance" fuel although our companies frown on it because it uses fuel to carry extra fuel.
Plus, miles at the end of the trip are "cheaper in fuel. During the first hour of the trip you will burn more than 7 tons of fuel in the 777. For the last hour you will burn less than 6.


Fuel has weight, that has to be part of the fueling equation. Planes do not carry more than they need for the trip and as you say insurance purposes. The maximum amount of fuel carried on the plane should have been for roughly 2600 miles plus 250 miles (1 hour of approach circling) plus 1 hour of additional flight time or 500 miles which gives us a grand total of 4350 miles. So where did the extra 1000+ miles come from?

I flew (as pax) from Johannesburg to Kinchasa, where we were going to refuel because we were almost running on fumes in a 747-200b. Kinchasa didn't have any, so we flew from Kinchasa back to Brazzaville and you should have seen that pilot sweating when he came out of the cockpit. After a short conversation and my explaining my interest in the situation, he told me that he had 6 minutes of fuel left. So, what they are supposed to have and what they do have can some times be two totally different things.

Cheers - Dave
edit on 3/25.2014 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by LightningStrikesHere
 


The what explanation do you offer and what makes you disagree with the findings by Inmarsat and the AAIB, two organisations with nothing to gain but a lot to lose if they are fabricating evidence?

It's all very well saying "hogwash" and you're not buying it, but to not offer anything else or be unable to dispute the findings with sound reasoning just makes you look like a bit of a tool.

They've used a sound and well understood principle to work out the flight path - what have you got to offer to counter it?



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 01:58 PM
link   
This last partial ping is interesting..

Hishammuddin Hussein, the defense minister and acting transport minister, said that the plane appeared to have sent a last, partial satellite signal eight minutes after a previously disclosed electronic “handshake” between the plane and a satellite at 8:11 a.m. on March 8. The incomplete signal represented a “partial handshake,” he said. “At this time, this transmission is not understood and is subject to further ongoing work,” Mr. Hishammuddin said.

If they were hourly, why would they suddenly pick up another ping 8 minutes after the last?

Did the pings provide the plane info within them? If not, unless you can explain why 370 would ping, could they be seeing another airplane that was obviously in the same area as 370?
edit on 25-3-2014 by dethfromabuv because: clarity



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join