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.

 

MH370 missing (Part 2)

page: 27
39
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2014 @ 11:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: earthling42
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Yes, but seeing the graph which Sy made, i do agree with him that the measured offset should increase a lot more to the end.
If you want an accurate representation, you must look at a globe. 2D maps can be misleading to just plain wrong in what they suggest, which could be the case here, with what appears to be a Mercator projection, one of the worst offenders, which is only accurate at the equator.




posted on May, 16 2014 @ 06:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: sy.gunson
For the satellite ping chart to be correct the airliner would have to fly a steady heading towards INMARSAT.
The guy who did the analysis linked in the previous posts actually didn't have a problem with that part, saying it was a pretty common practice to graph absolute values, implying the original data could be negative as you suggested a long time ago, but he had lots of other problems with Inmarsat's analysis.


I'm not sure which "guy" you are referring to.

There was a guy called Mike Exner who realised the data was inverted after the satellite re-transmitted the signal to the ground station. He plotted the data reversing the data inversion. I accept the Exner BOF chart as accurate, trouble is that does not support the flight through the Straits of Malacca either because that shows MH370 flew away from the satellite pretty continuously until between 18:00 and 18:25 UTC.

The biggest difficulty with the original BOF chart published by the Malaysian Government is that after 18:25 UTCif it turned whether north or south the values should be near zero because there was theoretically no real movement away from or towards the satellite but the BOF chart shows the opposite, large displacements.



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 08:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: earthling42
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Yes, but seeing the graph which Sy made, i do agree with him that the measured offset should increase a lot more to the end.
If you want an accurate representation, you must look at a globe. 2D maps can be misleading to just plain wrong in what they suggest, which could be the case here, with what appears to be a Mercator projection, one of the worst offenders, which is only accurate at the equator.


This is not a visual illusion:




Maybe you did not pay attention to the distances?

The BOF chart shows a dramatic closure of distance .... forget the map. The actual measured distances show a dramatic widening of the gap and that has nothing to with the effects of Mercator projection.

The simple fact is the BOF chart contradicts the map track published by Malaysian investigators. MH370 did not fly through the Straits.



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 07:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: sy.gunson
Maybe you did not pay attention to the distances?

The BOF chart shows a dramatic closure of distance .... forget the map. The actual measured distances show a dramatic widening of the gap and that has nothing to with the effects of Mercator projection.

The simple fact is the BOF chart contradicts the map track published by Malaysian investigators. MH370 did not fly through the Straits.
Earthling said: "i do agree with him that the measured offset should increase a lot more to the end", and I was referring to that comment, about the end where the path looks curved on the map, but it's not curved, it's actually 2 straight lines on a globe, or as close to a straight line as you can get at constant altitude.

The increasing distance doesn't imply that BOF should increase any more than it did, based on the geometry.

Now when you bring up the Malacca strait which is a different subject, I make no claims it went to the Malacca strait and even Malaysia has admitted they aren't completely sure MH370 is what they tracked on radar. There is obviously data that's not being shared with us by many parties, but inmarsat says they can't even respond to the allegations their analysis is incorrect due to their participation in the investigation. Well they responded by saying the other analyses are wrong, but I consider that a non response, since it doesn't address the technical issues in a scientific manner.


originally posted by: sy.gunson
I accept the Exner BOF chart as accurate, trouble is that does not support the flight through the Straits of Malacca either
I'm not sure that Inmarsat's or Exner's analysis is correct; what if they are both wrong? Exner seems to say the reference point is the ground station in Australia rather than the satellite, but what if it's not either the ground station or the satellite, but some combination (sometimes the ground station, sometimes the satellite)?

Inmarsat should be responding on a more professional level to Exner's analysis. Just saying "he's wrong" doesn't explain why they think he's wrong and doesn't address his criticisms with their analysis. This whole claim of secrecy as the reason they don't respond further seems ridiculous. I don't see why their analysis details need to be kept secret.
edit on 17-5-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

edit on 17-5-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 08:22 AM
link   
Where's the data?

Malaysia continues with its ignorance or cover up...



"The raw data is with (satellite company) Inmarsat, not with Malaysia, not with Australia, not with Malaysia Airlines, so if there is any request for this raw data to be made available to the public, it must be made to Inmarsat," Acting Minister of Transportation Hishammuddin Hussein said.

But Inmarsat, which owns the satellites, insists that the data has already been released to investigators.

"Inmarsat's raw data was provided to the investigation team at an early stage in the search for MH370," Chris McLaughlin, the company's vice president of external relations, told CNN's "Erin Burnett: OutFront."

He added, "We have very high confidence in the analysis of this data, which was independently evaluated by the international teams accredited to the official investigation."

It's up to investigators, he said, to decide what they want to release -- and when. The company says the Convention on International Civil Aviation prevents the release findings from an investigation without the consent from the state conducting the investigation.

"I don't know who to believe," CNN aviation analyst Miles O'Brien said. "But isn't it awful that it's quite evident somebody is lying here? Somebody is lying. We're talking about something that involves a missing airliner, now 70 days. Lives lost, families shattered. And there (are) people lying about this. This is absolutely reprehensible. I can't even believe...it would be funny if it wasn't so tragic."

Aviation attorney Arthur Rosenberg said he thinks the satellite company is obligated to release the data, whether or not Malaysian authorities have it.

Link



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 08:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur


The increasing distance doesn't imply that BOF should increase any more than it did, based on the geometry.


I believe we have been clear enough that the BFO is not about distance, but about velocity in relation to the satellite.



This picture shows that the velocity of the aircraft away from the satellite was faster in the end than at the beginning.
Now this can mean of course, that the aircraft will not be found at that spot.



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel

it gets more ridiculous with each passing day.



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Why does my feed from Youtube of MH370 posts never includes anything less than a month old, usually two months?
Other subjects appear within hours, but Malaysian Airline information never comes up until it is severly outdated.
Anyone else notice the same thing?
edit on 17-5-2014 by Psynic because: spelling



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 12:14 PM
link   
Hello,

While I do not have anything substantive to add...

I would like to thank the members that are keeping up the postings and the work you have done.
I have been following this topic closely since day one and do not know (obviously) what happened, but am inclined to believe my gut instinct, from the first reports, that something deliberate happened to this plane, and am quite open to the possibility it did not crash.

With not enough free time to do any type of investigative work on my own to lend to the discussion, I am very appreciative of the folks keeping this topic active.



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 06:59 PM
link   
a reply to: ronjer

Well you just shared your opinion on MH370.

Nobody knows what has happened, it could well be that it flew north and thus never crashed in the Southern Indian Ocean.
Personally i think that the pilots had to deal with an uncontrollable aircraft, damage to the controls of the aircraft.
edit on 17-5-2014 by earthling42 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 07:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: earthling42
I believe we have been clear enough that the BFO is not about distance, but about velocity in relation to the satellite.

This picture shows that the velocity of the aircraft away from the satellite was faster in the end than at the beginning.
Now this can mean of course, that the aircraft will not be found at that spot.
I'm still lost. Both the map and the BOF show the velocity away from the satellite (or is it the ground station?) increasing, so why are you saying you don't believe it?


originally posted by: roadgravel
Where's the data?

Malaysia continues with its ignorance or cover up...
Yes all this finger pointing at the other guy is maddening. I think there's some incompetence on the part of Malaysian officials, but I think it's more than that. They are holding things back.
edit on 17-5-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 09:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Yes, it shows the velocity is increasing, but compared to the beginning of the flight the increase seems to be much less than it should be.
That is what i ponder about, this could be because the aircraft had a low speed, or it's path is more to the south (the former search area)
An aircraft at FL350 or let's say FL300 has a much higher stall speed than when it flies at a low altitude.
And if it was flying at a low altitude it would have consumed more fuel which is contrary to the calculations, it had about 50 tons of fuel and was able to fly for 7.5 hours at normal altitude which it did.



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 10:00 PM
link   
About the raw data, it apparently consists of only 14 numbers.
These numbers were handed to Malaysia.

satellite-data-is-just-14-numbers

As i mentioned in an earlier post, there are two kinds of data derived from the handshakes, namely the ping time delays (arcs) and the BFO, out of the the 7 data points (handshakes) these form the 14 numbers.



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 10:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: earthling42
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Yes, it shows the velocity is increasing, but compared to the beginning of the flight the increase seems to be much less than it should be.
Well if that's your basis of comparison, I'd say there are a lot more unanswered questions about the BFO and related Inmarsat data near the beginning, so personally I have a lot more questions about the beginning or let's say the first half, than I do about the second half.

a reply to: earthling42
But I'm not sure those 14 numbers have even been released. Exner thinks the BFO values may be absolute values of raw negative numbers, and if he's right that would mean we don't really have the raw BFO data, though we do have 7 points, and I've never seen all 7 data points for the ping times.

Plus, there's data collected by inmarsat on other flights traveling northbound and southbound, that was used to establish a correlation with the southbound route, so that's a lot more than just the 14 data points right there.



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 11:24 PM
link   
Let us not forget the simulation done by a pilot on pprune.org which showed that a pilotless aircraft would fly in line and go up and down in a sine wave kind-of altitude track and eventually hit the ground. I am just pulling this piece of information out again in case it makes any difference or accounts for the altitude changes or speed changes or anything else which we have problems with in the official stories.

======================

While reading about the X-band radar, I thought about the MH370 plane and how that could be tracked by military radar from various countries.


The radar has been described by Lt. Gen Trey Obering (director of MDA) as being able to track an object the size of a baseball over San Francisco in California from the Chesapeake Bay in Virginia, approximately 2,900 miles (4,700 km) away.


Do we REALLY believe that the US and other countries do not know where the MH370 plane is now?

If they officially admit to these kind of resolutions then what is the technology really capable of I wonder? Maybe the range is further and maybe the baseball is now a ping-pong ball?



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 12:01 AM
link   
a reply to: earthling42




I believe we have been clear enough that the BFO is not about distance, but about velocity in relation to the satellite.


Distance is the result of Velocity. Velocity = distance divided by time

I referred to time because Arbitrageur cited a barrage of objections about map projections.

Distance is proof of velocity away from the satellite irrespective of map projection



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 12:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Psynic
.... Malaysian Airline information never comes up until it is severely outdated.

Anyone else notice the same thing?



Simple reason for that is that they are making it up as they go along.

They began saying MH370 flew IGARI-VAMPI-GIVAL-IGREX

Now they quietly pretend they never said that.



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 12:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: earthling42
About the raw data, it apparently consists of only 14 numbers.
These numbers were handed to Malaysia.

satellite-data-is-just-14-numbers

As i mentioned in an earlier post, there are two kinds of data derived from the handshakes, namely the ping time delays (arcs) and the BFO, out of the the 7 data points (handshakes) these form the 14 numbers.


The data was given to SITA by INMARSAT and from them to Malaysia who then asked the British AAIB to analyse the numbers and make sense of them. The AAIB actually made a nonsense out of them because they can not be used to plot any kind of sensible track.


edit on 18-5-2014 by sy.gunson because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 12:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: earthling42
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Yes, it shows the velocity is increasing, but compared to the beginning of the flight the increase seems to be much less than it should be.
That is what i ponder about, this could be because the aircraft had a low speed, or it's path is more to the south (the former search area)
An aircraft at FL350 or let's say FL300 has a much higher stall speed than when it flies at a low altitude.
And if it was flying at a low altitude it would have consumed more fuel which is contrary to the calculations, it had about 50 tons of fuel and was able to fly for 7.5 hours at normal altitude which it did.


It is not just the Velocity, it is the frequency which is indicating velocity towards INMARSAT, yet the map track shows a velocity away from the satellite.

You are so busy chasing your tails you miss the point entirely



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 08:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: sy.gunson

originally posted by: earthling42
About the raw data, it apparently consists of only 14 numbers.
These numbers were handed to Malaysia.

satellite-data-is-just-14-numbers

As i mentioned in an earlier post, there are two kinds of data derived from the handshakes, namely the ping time delays (arcs) and the BFO, out of the the 7 data points (handshakes) these form the 14 numbers.


The data was given to SITA by INMARSAT and from them to Malaysia who then asked the British AAIB to analyse the numbers and make sense of them. The AAIB actually made a nonsense out of them because they can not be used to plot any kind of sensible track.



Then how can your plotting be sensible?


edit on 5/18/2014 by roadgravel because: (no reason given)

edit on 5/18/2014 by roadgravel because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
39
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join