MH370 missing (Part 2)

a reply to: sy.gunson

Well yes, in the early stage, we saw the altitude change to 0 so the transponder must have been set to ALT RPTG OFF.
Why is a good question, i would think that if one wants the transponder to stop transmitting, STBY would be selected.
Perhaps the one who did that did not know it and thought he had switched the transponder off? the pilot would not make this mistake, of that i am sure.

Edit:

To be honest, i doubt that there was an emergency call, we would have seen more sources, it is not something to keep secret.

originally posted by: earthling42
a reply to: sy.gunson

Well yes, in the early stage, we saw the altitude change to 0 so the transponder must have been set to ALT RPTG OFF.
Why is a good question, i would think that if one wants the transponder to stop transmitting, STBY would be selected.
Perhaps the one who did that did not know it and thought he had switched the transponder off? the pilot would not make this mistake, of that i am sure.

Edit:

To be honest, i doubt that there was an emergency call, we would have seen more sources, it is not something to keep secret.

No the Transponder was not selected to ALT RPTG OFF

Vietnamese airspace is not FANS 1/A and that is why Vietnam does not require nor receive altitude data.

Vietnam receives simple ADS-B but not ADS-C information.

This is the Flight plan for MH370:

DCT PIBOS R208 IKUKO M076F290 R208 IGARI M765 BITOD N0480F330 L637 TSN N0490F350 W1 BMT W12 PCA G221 BUNTA N0480F350 A1 IKELA N0480F350 P901 IDOSI N0480F390 DCT CH DCT BEKOL K0890S1160 A461 YIN K0890S1190 A461

Please note that it did not turn north at BITOD for TSN via L637 but continued on for a further 10nm towards Con Son Island deviating from the Flight Plan before the last transponder contact.

The US emabassy was the reported source of the emergency transmission about the 'collapse' of the cabin so I reckon that is pretty reliable IF we can frst of all believe the Chinese newpaper article. I can see how in the early days of a disaster things are released which later on may prove to be 'inconvenient'. The juicy stuff is in the detail of these things.

a reply to: qmantoo

I would expect that if they had indeed listened to an emergency call, they would have reported it to Malaysia or both.
Surely there must have been more traffic or stations in in the area who were able to hear the same.
Now it is supposedly confidential and fuel for speculation, i just can't see any reason not to inform Malaysia about such an important piece of information concerning their aircraft.
So considering that China seems to be the only source, i remain sceptical that there ever was an emergency call from MH370.

And yes i agree fully with you, that is why i posted the messages from Vietnam about the ELT and supposed crash, but if they do not have a radar and are reliant on SITA, than we must doubt them too, China would certainly have reported the same.

But there is another similar situation with the Malaysian embassy in China, who informed China that the aircraft had landed safely in Nanning.
This was later disputed by Malaysia itself.

a reply to: sy.gunson

But Sy, look at the last moments on FR24, we see a change in altitude which is not transmitted anymore and thus reads 0 for the last remaining minutes.
All the other traffic which travel the same route do not show this change, they appear normal and altitude information is transmitted untill the aircraft is out of range.

a reply to: judydawg

More for my friend.....


CNN aviation expert Miles O’Brien said GeoResonance’s claims are not supported by experts. “My blood is boiling,” he told CNN’s “New Day.” “I’ve talked to the leading experts in satellite imaging capability at NASA, and they know of no technology that is capable of doing this. I am just horrified that a company would use this event to gain attention like this.”

David Gallo, director of special projects at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, also expressed skepticism. “It’s so revolutionary, and I don’t know anyone that knows of this kind of technology,” he told CNN. “And I know most of the people in this business.”

I guess they just don't talk to the right people. According to the website, the technology has been used to find buried munitions a has successfully found sunken ships, etc. Gold has a spin of 3/2. I wonder if they now know where every Spanish Main sunken vessel is located if I have this right.

I am still convinced that earth field nmr detection is possible. The microwave frequencies required are near auditory, but a short pulse of RF has all frequencies. The focus is via the radar imaging made for topography mapping. The only question is if coils sensitive enough can be located where the echo can be detected at the surface of the ocean. And if enough pulses can be obtained at each location to overcome the noise.


Judy Of all the reading I have done on this missing plane. This is break though to most on the internet. May I share to another site. I will not take credit for it. I don't know anything about all this stuff just love a good mystery. I have learned a lot.

I don't mind if you do. I and they cannot say that it is the missing plane. It is, however, on the last heading seen by radar and the area was once a focus of investigation until all that calculation. What I want to emphasize is that a very new form of earth observation may exist. What I know is that it is theoretically possible, just difficult. The complete denial of it by the authorities who get interviewed and who apparently are guiding the current search is what burns me. Be skeptical but don't be judgmental, I say to them.


if this technology is fact, think of just how exposed all the nuclear submarines would be! The countries who spend billions or even trillions on these subs would "bust a gasket!"


True. Maybe that explains why they have to say it is impossible. Word was it was invented to guard the Black Sea. Kind of ironic that the origin of the first apparatus was the Ukraine.


No, I think the excitation is via the ground sensing radar. The trick to using it is to control the pulse width. The second focusing pulse needs to be twice as long as the first. This radar can be focused to provide a ground detection to within a square meter resolution. The harder part is to make an rf detector for near auditory frequencies with enough sensitivity. If you have that, then the echo can be detected, but not from space I wouldn't think.

a reply to: judydawg


more form my friend....

But stop and think of the side effects of the HF hum that emits from high voltage electric transmission lines. Then, there is the reported adverse affects from the ELF that the US Navy used to communicate with submerged subs. Wonder if any of this is related to HARRP technology?


There once were complaints about near auditory interference coming from radar klystrons. I have been around them, but not the high power ones on a satellite. I am not familiar with HARRP technology. But I do think this new technology is based on something already existing as they do not own a satellite but instead use one of many. Ground mapping radar would be very available.



This is a fascinating subject! en.wikipedia.org...


It is fascinating. Seems ground based while the earth field nmr would be satellite based but with detection on the surface. I wrote the company, but I do not think they will provide an explanation to a civilian.

What disturbs me is that we know that military radars and submarine detection are at a high level of development. They would not have missed coverage of all approaches to Australia. And Australia itself has long range, over the horizon, radar. Someone knows a lot more than is being told. So the concentration on the southern Indian Ocean may not be only the result of calculation and ping detection. Once the US got involved, the search area shifted and peoples positions hardened. Got to be a reason

originally posted by: judydawg
a reply to: judydawg

I am still convinced that earth field nmr detection is possible. The microwave frequencies required are near auditory, but a short pulse of RF has all frequencies. The focus is via the radar imaging made for topography mapping. The only question is if coils sensitive enough can be located where the echo can be detected at the surface of the ocean. And if enough pulses can be obtained at each location to overcome the noise.

This bit doesn't make any sense,especially if this guy's supposed to be some sort of "expert".Auditory frequencies go up to about 15 KHz or so and need something of substance to travel in.Microwaves are electromagnetic in nature and are between the higher radio bands and visible light and can travel through a vacuum.

Unless of course I've misinterpreted what he's saying?

originally posted by: earthling42
a reply to: sy.gunson

But Sy, look at the last moments on FR24, we see a change in altitude which is not transmitted anymore and thus reads 0 for the last remaining minutes.
All the other traffic which travel the same route do not show this change, they appear normal and altitude information is transmitted untill the aircraft is out of range.

That sounds like what he described would happen.

originally posted by: judydawg
Seems ground based while the earth field nmr would be satellite based but with detection on the surface. I wrote the company, but I do not think they will provide an explanation to a civilian.

I have no idea what writing the company is supposed to accomplish. It's a little like writing a letter to a doctor and asking him to explain how brain surgery is performed. It takes a lot of training to understand the technology, and there's no way to write a brief answer to a letter explaining NMR or brain surgery.

I worked with the type of NMR used for oil and gas exploration where the equipment is dropped in the hole in the ground after the hole is drilled, and am slightly familiar with medical nmr, and roughly understand the concepts behind the satellite version but the satellite is so far away it's hard to get any resolution, so what images you do get are very fuzzy. It's also a proprietary technology so it's understandable not that many people would be familiar with it, but they do give a rough idea of how it's used on their website which makes sense to me since I'm already a little familiar with other types of nmr (and I don't know of any connection to HAARP btw).

Of course there's reason to be skeptical of the claim they found MH370 at a point vastly different from the search area, but if they have a highly specific location, it shouldn't be exorbitantly expensive to check out that one location to see what's there even if it's not MH370. Inmarsat said they've never used their technology before in this way so it's possible they could be wrong, but the chances of that seem pretty low, though I wouldn't say impossible. Thus Inmarsat has no history of success using this technique, while georesonance claims success in finding aircraft before but since they don't say which ones, I'm not sure if we should believe them.

Georesonance claims to have a history of success

to locate submersed structures, ships and aircraft. The technology has also been used to successfully identify WWII munitions that later led to the recovery of explosives left buried under layers of silt in the coastal Black Sea.

but beyond the semi specific reference to munitions in the Coastal Black Sea, their claim about "submersed structures, ships and aircraft" would be more credible if they cited their success stories with some specifics. Now if a potential customer wrote them to ask for a more specific list of those then that is something that could be answered in a somewhat succinct reply with a list of specific aircraft they've located before using the technique, if any.

One thing that looks odd is their fuzzy images seem to presume the aircraft may be somewhat intact, but I would have expected the aircraft to break up significantly upon striking the water, "miracle on the Hudson" notwithstanding since it really was somewhat of a miracle.

Apparently Georesonance told Malaysia about their find at the end of March, when the pingers would have still been active, but I couldn't find anything saying Malaysia did anything to check out the claim before the pingers died:

Malaysia Airlines Flight 370: GeoResonance survey company says "wreckage of a commercial airliner" found
You can see how fuzzy the images are at that link. I think it's a stretch, and doubt they found MH370, but maybe they found something and I am curious as to what.

Sorry about this, but a bit of farfetched thoughts.

Another thread on ATS announced the new Indian Aircraft Carrier going operational.

How many subs were in that area listening for it's signature and any other info? UK,Sub went to hunt plane but left rather quickly, US, China, Japan?

If so, somebody should have "heard" the splash as it encountered the water?

Has the planes cargo of; Gold, Secret technology, Mangosteen, Used batteries already been picked up?

a reply to: Imagewerx

This is what he has studied.......


Physical Organic Chemistry at California Institute of Technology
Past: University of Tennessee and Copper Basin


I have sent him a message to come over and explain.

a reply to: judydawg

I am in way over my head so this will be my last post on this....from my friend.....

Radio frequency (RF) is electromagnetic. It can have frequencies near that of sound which is not electromagnetic but matter waves. The magnetic field determines the frequency of the spin echo, and because the earth's magnetic field is low, the frequency of the echo will be low. The excitation need not be near the echo frequency, however, as a short pulse has all frequencies regardless of where it is centered. In fact, it would be better to have a higher frequency center for transmission and lack of interference with the echo. There needs to be two pulses, the second one being twice as long as the first. The first tips the nuclear magnets, the second refocuses them allowing for a detectable echo as the excitation is irradiated back from the sample. It is detection of the echo at low frequency that is the essence of the problem. This is done by coils at some distance from the sample. It all depends on how much low frequency electromagnetic noise there is in the environment. The only way to beat it is by repeated pulses and echo detection. But the source is not moving if it is a satellite, and the sample is not moving. So it only costs time to get enough repeats to separate a signal. This would logically be done on the surface of the earth near the sample. All I know is that it is possible, just not easy. The critics assume that no electromagnetic radiation can pass several thousand feet of sea water, and that is not true for low frequency radio waves.

a reply to: judydawg

If this equipment is any where near what they claim, I would think that academic circles would be abuzz about it, but you don't really see that. True, a working prototype may be a rather secret endeavor, but it would have to be based on actual science coming out of university labs, and the circles of professionals that fund them and utilize their discoveries would know all about it. For this reason alone, for me anyway, there is serious doubt about those claims being real. Just IMHO.

originally posted by: judydawg
a reply to: judydawg
The critics assume that no electromagnetic radiation can pass several thousand feet of sea water, and that is not true for low frequency radio waves.

I will have to sit down and study the rest of this,but at the moment it reads like something from a 1960s Irwin Allen kids sci-fi series such as Voyage To The Bottom Of The Sea or Time Tunnel.
Who are these "critics" mentioned above? Low frequency (in fact VLF or Very Low Frequency) has been used for submarine communications for a very long time,probably 50 or 60 years or so because of it's lack of attenuation by water.This is no secret and as far as I'm aware has always been in the public domain,any critics or debunkers would surely know this basic science?

a reply to: Imagewerx
Right, well at least Judydawg admits that she's "in way over my head", but apparently so is her friend ("But the source is not moving if it is a satellite, and the sample is not moving." what?), and a lot of the critics too. You can get the names of some of the critics from the link I posted, though they didn't state lack of VLF penetration in water in the article, they just said they weren't aware technology could do what Georesonance claims. I'm in over my head on satellite nmr too, but not as far as some others, as apparently may be the case with you since you at least seem to understand some basic concepts, and you may even be aware that satellites move.

originally posted by: qmantoo
The US emabassy was the reported source of the emergency transmission about the 'collapse' of the cabin so I reckon that is pretty reliable IF we can frst of all believe the Chinese newpaper article. I can see how in the early days of a disaster things are released which later on may prove to be 'inconvenient'. The juicy stuff is in the detail of these things.

A request by a US attorney for release of the information held about MH370 by the NSA was refused by Presidential Executive Order #13526 on grounds that it would be detrimental to national security and foreign relations.

NSA confirms that it does hold information but refuses to release it.

originally posted by: roadgravel

originally posted by: earthling42
a reply to: sy.gunson

But Sy, look at the last moments on FR24, we see a change in altitude which is not transmitted anymore and thus reads 0 for the last remaining minutes.
All the other traffic which travel the same route do not show this change, they appear normal and altitude information is transmitted untill the aircraft is out of range.

That sounds like what he described would happen.

It is not a change of altitude. Just it ceased to transmit data parameters about altitude. Vietnamese ATS does not have the capacity to process altitude data.

originally posted by: sy.gunson

originally posted by: qmantoo
The US emabassy was the reported source of the emergency transmission about the 'collapse' of the cabin so I reckon that is pretty reliable IF we can frst of all believe the Chinese newpaper article. I can see how in the early days of a disaster things are released which later on may prove to be 'inconvenient'. The juicy stuff is in the detail of these things.

A request by a US attorney for release of the information held about MH370 by the NSA was refused by Presidential Executive Order #13526 on grounds that it would be detrimental to national security and foreign relations.

NSA confirms that it does hold information but refuses to release it.

Any chance they stated a declassification date as mandated by section 1.5 of that order? Guessing they just defaulted it to 10 years but would be interesting if they actually stated a date or upped it to the 25 year max.