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: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 03:10 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. 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)


Wow, Dave great info thanks,for sharing,that. I fully agree with you!

Thanks again

Humbly LSH




posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 03:10 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. 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)


Wow, Dave great info thanks,for sharing,that. I fully agree with you!

Thanks again

Humbly LSH



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 03:29 PM
link   

dethfromabuv
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


None of it makes sense as I said in another thread and if it was a second plane, well stick a false VOR beacon on it that is always 100km's from the plane and if it is on autopilot, the plane will follow the VOR until it runs out of fuel. But then it all comes down to motive, this is a huge expense, why would someone do this? Who stands to gain and why is the wizard of oz saying "look over here?"

I don't know but I think there is more to this story, it will surface in about a week or two and it will come out of alternative media sources. With all of our technology and "safety" protocols, you can't just lose a 777 with 239 people on it, say "oh well" and shrug it off.

Cheers - Dave



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 03:37 PM
link   

edit on 25-3-2014 by F4guy because: double post



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 03:40 PM
link   

bobs_uruncle

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)


Your knowledge of fuel requirements is based on 1 trip riding in the back of a 747. I have spent 8,000 hours watching fuel gauges on turbine transport category aircraft. You made some miscalculations and omissions. One hour of approach circling is not worth 250 miles. At approach altitudes (2000 feet +/-) and approach configuration the Rolls Royce Trents are burning 12 tons per hour. That same 36,000 gallons will give you almost 3 hours at economy cruise (.78 Mach) at 37,000 feet. It won't do quite as well at a normal cruise of .84 Mach. And you left out the mandated fuel for getting from the initial destination to the filed alternate. Given the scarcity of adequate landing facilities in mainland China, you could easily be looking at another hour of fuel required.



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 03:43 PM
link   
The transponder was turned off. Why would a pilot or co-pilot want his plane to go silent if he intended to ditch his plane? Why would he not want his crash site ever found? What would it matter to him once he was dead?

More important still, do you think his colleague would sit idly by knowing that the guy had switched off radar contact and radically changed course away from the planned destination without telling ground control? Of course not!

Something still stinks about the whole episode. Resorting to unproven, facile reasons that leave other questions unanswered hardly amounts to a plausible explanation.



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 03:46 PM
link   

F4guy
Your knowledge of fuel requirements is based on 1 trip riding in the back of a 747. I have spent 8,000 hours watching fuel gauges on turbine transport category aircraft. You made some miscalculations and omissions. One hour of approach circling is not worth 250 miles. At approach altitudes (2000 feet +/-) and approach configuration the Rolls Royce Trents are burning 12 tons per hour. That same 36,000 gallons will give you almost 3 hours at economy cruise (.78 Mach) at 37,000 feet. It won't do quite as well at a normal cruise of .84 Mach. And you left out the mandated fuel for getting from the initial destination to the filed alternate. Given the scarcity of adequate landing facilities in mainland China, you could easily be looking at another hour of fuel required.


I love posts like these



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 03:56 PM
link   

F4guy

bobs_uruncle

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)


Your knowledge of fuel requirements is based on 1 trip riding in the back of a 747. I have spent 8,000 hours watching fuel gauges on turbine transport category aircraft. You made some miscalculations and omissions. One hour of approach circling is not worth 250 miles. At approach altitudes (2000 feet +/-) and approach configuration the Rolls Royce Trents are burning 12 tons per hour. That same 36,000 gallons will give you almost 3 hours at economy cruise (.78 Mach) at 37,000 feet. It won't do quite as well at a normal cruise of .84 Mach. And you left out the mandated fuel for getting from the initial destination to the filed alternate. Given the scarcity of adequate landing facilities in mainland China, you could easily be looking at another hour of fuel required.


I've been on quite a few flights, not as many as you, my point was the goal is not always the reality. Carrying extra fuel costs money, that extra weight tends to increase the amount of fuel required and airlines are hurting, they have to save every penny they can. So, I will give you an extra hour call it 4800 miles. The question remains, where did the other 500+ miles come from? Do they have hoses hooked up to the passengers seats now to collect methane?

Then there is the major problem, WHY would the plane travel towards Antarctica???? There are still rules in the nav system. Planes follow magnetic information, GPS, VOR, etc. How does one take a 777 off course that far? I only see a couple of solutions, injected programming either from the cockpit or remotely via satellite or Diego Garcia OR a false VOR beacon on a leading plane. In both cases it's fly till you drop.

And then, what is the motive? Who stands to gain from this misadventure? What is the gain/purpose?

I am going to throw out a possible solution here to the reason the plane was off course and it's a wild one. All the pilot, a satellite or Diego Garcia had to do was tell the nav system that South was North. Sometimes the simplest solutions are the correct ones, but it is just speculation. Maybe the extra distance could be accounted for by ocean current drift? I can play both sides.

ETA: Would you mind terribly calculating the possible known flight route distance and representing it graphically as I think you may find that the actual distance traveled to the alleged debris location is in excess of 6300 miles. I just did a quick check and it appears that the plane traveled north and also traveled some distance west before making the final turn SSW. Another thing to examine would be ocean currents and possibly travel backwards from the alleged surface debris location to a possible ocean floor debris location. If you don't have the time to do it, I will later this evening and post the maps and the calculations, then you can confirm them or deny them.

Cheers - Dave
edit on 3/25.2014 by bobs_uruncle because: the ETA



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 04:05 PM
link   


The transponder was turned off. Why would a pilot or co-pilot want his plane to go silent if he intended to ditch his plane? Why would he not want his crash site ever found? What would it matter to him once he was dead? More important still, do you think his colleague would sit idly by knowing that the guy had switched off radar contact and radically changed course away from the planned destination without telling ground control? Of course not! Something still stinks about the whole episode. Resorting to unproven, facile reasons that leave other questions unanswered hardly amounts to a plausible explanation.


Right on the money.

Besides all this BS about radical new math. It's the frickin' Doppler Effect people....we use it every damn day on the local news. Yet mainstream media is trying to make out like it is borderline magic....



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Gazrok
Besides all this BS about radical new math. It's the frickin' Doppler Effect people....we use it every damn day on the local news. Yet mainstream media is trying to make out like it is borderline magic....


The article I cited in the OP is titled "'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"

Far from making it out to be some mystical method.



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by F4guy
 


As I mentioned, the following is a map breakdown of what may have been the flight path according to at least one witness. The plane allegedly and according to military radar reports traveled towards or through the Andaman Sea. I have used 300miN followed by 800miW followed by the path south to the alleged debris location of -44.5729,90.1343. I gave the location this way so it is easy to find on google maps.

The ocean current information comes from;

Link 1
Link 2

The ocean currents are interesting in that they run around 200cm's/sec northward in that area of the Indian Ocean, a little south of the alleged floating debris moves towards Perth and a little north of the alleged floating debris moves towards India.



Obviously the distance for the original flight path to Beijing and to Perth from Kuala Lumpur are easy to source. The newspaper articles claim a rough distance of 2300 miles WSW from Perth. The actual flight distance using the RED path is about 4570 miles.

With an ocean current of 200cm/sec we are looking at a travel distance of 17.28 kilometers per day. Since the 777 went missing on March 8 and today is March 26 we have roughly 17 days of travel or a radius of about 295 kilometers or a search area of 272,000 square kilometers. I would suspect however that if that is the actual wreckage, then the debris field on the ocean floor should be about 200kms south and east by 3 to 5 degrees, but that's only based on what I have found so far. Ocean currents are stratified at different levels and have different speeds and directions much like the atmosphere, so locations due to drift are hard to determine.

Cheers - Dave
edit on 3/26.2014 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 07:20 AM
link   

bobs_uruncle

dethfromabuv
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


None of it makes sense as I said in another thread and if it was a second plane, well stick a false VOR beacon on it that is always 100km's from the plane and if it is on autopilot, the plane will follow the VOR until it runs out of fuel. But then it all comes down to motive, this is a huge expense, why would someone do this? Who stands to gain and why is the wizard of oz saying "look over here?"

I don't know but I think there is more to this story, it will surface in about a week or two and it will come out of alternative media sources. With all of our technology and "safety" protocols, you can't just lose a 777 with 239 people on it, say "oh well" and shrug it off.

Cheers - Dave


I hate to beat up on your theory, but we haven't used VORs (Very highfrequency Omnidirectional Ranges) for primary international navigation for years. Redundant INS (Inertial Navigation Systems) are now standard equipment. A VOR , with its 250 mile max range, isn't much good when you're 2000 miles from the nearest land. Our flight Management Systems (we don't call them autopilots, anymore) don't "home in" on radio stations. They fly the aircraft to a fixed latitude and longitude (and sometimes altitude)which, more often than not, have an ID in the software for ease of entry. For backup there are instruments in the cockpit that do relate to radio navigation such as an OBS/CDI or slaved flight director. But with the increasing prevalence of "glass cockpits" these steam gauges are disappearing.



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Gazrok
Right on the money.

Besides all this BS about radical new math. It's the frickin' Doppler Effect people....we use it every damn day on the local news. Yet mainstream media is trying to make out like it is borderline magic....


C'mon Gazrock - they made it quite clear in the article that whilst the Doppler effect is nothing new, the way in which it was used was. Unless of course you can find us an example of a missing plane being found by it's ACAR's pings to satellites before?

Also, this doesn't attempt to explain the "why" - that is very much up in the air, pardon the pun......

All it did was explain the "where" and, so far, it is looking promising.



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 07:44 AM
link   


The article I cited


The comment was really more directed to the mainstream media coverage of it....not this specific article.
Sorry for not clarifying. To see it on CNN or the TV news outlets, it's being reported as if the guy from Beautiful Mind thought up.



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 11:53 AM
link   

F4guy

bobs_uruncle

dethfromabuv
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


None of it makes sense as I said in another thread and if it was a second plane, well stick a false VOR beacon on it that is always 100km's from the plane and if it is on autopilot, the plane will follow the VOR until it runs out of fuel. But then it all comes down to motive, this is a huge expense, why would someone do this? Who stands to gain and why is the wizard of oz saying "look over here?"

I don't know but I think there is more to this story, it will surface in about a week or two and it will come out of alternative media sources. With all of our technology and "safety" protocols, you can't just lose a 777 with 239 people on it, say "oh well" and shrug it off.

Cheers - Dave


I hate to beat up on your theory, but we haven't used VORs (Very highfrequency Omnidirectional Ranges) for primary international navigation for years. Redundant INS (Inertial Navigation Systems) are now standard equipment. A VOR , with its 250 mile max range, isn't much good when you're 2000 miles from the nearest land. Our flight Management Systems (we don't call them autopilots, anymore) don't "home in" on radio stations. They fly the aircraft to a fixed latitude and longitude (and sometimes altitude)which, more often than not, have an ID in the software for ease of entry. For backup there are instruments in the cockpit that do relate to radio navigation such as an OBS/CDI or slaved flight director. But with the increasing prevalence of "glass cockpits" these steam gauges are disappearing.


Ok, that's fine, I didn't know it had changed as I have not been in the cockpit for a while, however, the problem remains the same. None of this makes any sense. Why would the plane fly in the almost exact opposite direction to its original flight path? It's good that we are discounting options here because we all want to know the truth and this is a valid method of distilling different scenarios and technical options.

Now, could the plane have made it 4500 to 4800 miles on the fuel it would have been carrying when the trip was 2700 miles (even with "insurance" fuel)? The ocean currents seem to indicate that the position the plane would have gone down should be a fair distance south and east of the floating debris, if that debris is actually from the plane, which I kind of doubt. Of course there are the bigger questions, why did this even happen and why are no governments forthcoming with data from their surveillance programs?

Cheers - Dave



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 07:10 PM
link   

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


Very likely if they were given one of the wonderful choices from the coach cabin



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join