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: 31
39
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2014 @ 03:43 AM
link   
Raw Data

Heres a link to the raw data thats just released.




posted on May, 27 2014 @ 05:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Psynic

The search resumed over a week ago after repairs were completed.



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 07:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Psynic

The search resumed over a week ago after repairs were completed.


So they would have you believe.

The underwater search was postponed while the 'Yellow Submarine' returned to Perth for "maintenance". After two weeks it returned to the search area, where on it's first dive, it was damaged during recovery and was forced to return to Australia for "repairs".

Due to a "lack of spare parts" supposedly, it has not been in operation since.

They are only attempting to give the impression of a search in progress, they stopped a month ago and never resumed.

nz.news.yahoo.com...



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 07:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Psynic

And look at the date of that article. A week ago.

m.scmp.com...

This is the last week of searching until possibly August, but it's out there looking. Repairs were completed and it returned to the search area.



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 09:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: michael1888
Raw Data

Heres a link to the raw data thats just released.
Thanks for the link. That confirms my thought from several pages ago:


originally posted by: Arbitrageur
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)?
According to what was released, it's a combination, not one or the other as I suspected:


The transmission signal path from the aircraft has two components affected by Doppler shift; between the satellite and the aircaft, and between the satellite and ground station.

Inmarsat Classic Aero mobile terminals are designed to correct for aircraft Doppler effects on their transmit signals, The terminal type used on MH370 assumes a stationary satellite at a fixed orbital position.
An individual aircraft terminal will have a fixed frequency bias.
Satellite, terminal and ground station oscillator stability
The correction applied bu the Automatic Frequency Control (AFC) system in the ground station partially compensates for the satellite to ground station Doppler.
I don't think Exner took all these into account, but then I'm not sure how Inmarsat took them into account either, such as what do they estimate the " individual aircraft terminal" "fixed frequency bias" and how did they estimate it, or did they? Exner made a big deal about why the frequency offset wasn't closer to zero before the plane took off, but he doesn't appear to have considered this.

It will be interesting to see how Exner and others who found problems with Inmarsat's analysis view the raw data, but without more specifics on these "considerations" listed above, I'm not sure they provided enough detail regarding exactly how they processed this raw data.

I was expecting a little more from Inmarsat, like how they processed this raw data (taking these considerations into account). It would also be helpful if Inmarsat would release the other aircraft data they used to confirm the route was southbound and not northbound. So we have more now, but it's still incomplete.



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Dicking around until we forget, is right!
What a stupid mass media we have. In your face for approximately 8.5 wks, then Blammo! DONE. No more coverage. No more pressure. a reply to: Psynic


edit on 27-5-2014 by kkrattiger because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 11:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Psynic

And look at the date of that article. A week ago.

m.scmp.com...

This is the last week of searching until possibly August, but it's out there looking. Repairs were completed and it returned to the search area.


Your link states the search has been "scaled back".

How does that gybe with the announcement that the search has been "intensified"?

How much further "back" can it be "scaled"?

You can't do less than one broken down drone.

Yet all this positive press to give the impression progress is being made.

What a joke.



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 12:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Psynic

It has been scaled back. The planes returned home, and a lot of the ships have too.

I suppose you have proof that it's broken down still, right?



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 08:29 PM
link   
If anyone wants to read the pprune pilots attempt to make head or tails of this stuff now that the data is released, it starts on page 544 That forum is modded fairly severely so a keen eye is needed before any slightly off topic posts get deleted by the mods.
edit on 27 May 2014 by qmantoo because: page change



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 10:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Psynic

It has been scaled back. The planes returned home, and a lot of the ships have too.

I suppose you have proof that it's broken down still, right?


Not only out of commission but SCHEDULED to be discontinued until August!!!

Read my lips, no new search.



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 11:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Psynic

So the articles that say it's back out for a week and has been back out for a well are lies, but the articles that it's broken are the truth. Double standard much?

I'm aware it's going to be discontinued until August, all the sources say that. But it has been repaired and back at sea for a week now, and once this search pattern is ended, then it will be discontinued.

Sorry, but I'm not going top just take your word for it when there are multiple credible sources saying otherwise. Unless you can prove them wrong, "read my lips" doesn't come close to cutting it.



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 11:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Psynic

So the articles that say it's back out for a week and has been back out for a well are lies, but the articles that it's broken are the truth. Double standard much?

I'm aware it's going to be discontinued until August, all the sources say that. But it has been repaired and back at sea for a week now, and once this search pattern is ended, then it will be discontinued.

Sorry, but I'm not going top just take your word for it when there are multiple credible sourcessaying otherwise. Unless you can prove them wrong, "read my lips" doesn't come close to cutting it.


Feel free to post a few of these "multiple credible sources".



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 12:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Psynic

This source has a reputation to protect and are careful about the things they write.

Flightglobal

Here's a google search about it. Pick your source. All agree that the ROV went back out about a week ago.

Google search



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 02:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Psynic

This source has a reputation to protect and are careful about the things they write.

Flightglobal

Here's a google search about it. Pick your source. All agree that the ROV went back out about a week ago.

Google search


Your links confirm what I've said.

The 'Ocean Shield', carrying the American owned, Bluefin 2 has only even been on station for one week in the last month and is being completely recalled tomorrow. Whether the drone was launched in that week is unknown, but considering the minimum effort of the search, I wouldn't be surprised if it hadn't.

It's a mere pantomime show, designed to give the impression they are looking and that the reported "Doppler Effect" data is legitimate.



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 02:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Psynic

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Psynic

The search resumed over a week ago after repairs were completed.


So they would have you believe.

The underwater search was postponed while the 'Yellow Submarine' returned to Perth for "maintenance". After two weeks it returned to the search area, where on it's first dive, it was damaged during recovery and was forced to return to Australia for "repairs".

Due to a "lack of spare parts" supposedly, it has not been in operation since.

They are only attempting to give the impression of a search in progress, they stopped a month ago and never resumed.

nz.news.yahoo.com...


Just to refresh your memory as to what you said. So no, my links don't confirm what you said, as you said it hasn't been out at all in a month.



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 09:21 AM
link   
What are you trying to prove with this nit picking.

It's a token search at best.

The 'Bluffin' 21 is a stage prop for fools to fixate on.

And as of today, it's HISTORY.

Let it go.



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 09:39 AM
link   
insightz-uk.com...
You're getting sleepy, very sleepy.
www.militaryaerospace.com...
When you hear the words "We'll probably never know" your brain will go blank and you'll forget everything about MH370.



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 09:05 PM
link   


A series of pings detected in the southern Indian Ocean and originally believed to have come from missing Malaysia Airlines jet MH370 are now thought to have been emitted from either the searching ship itself or equipment used to detect the pings, a US Navy official says.

Michael Dean, the US Navy's director of ocean engineering, told CNN that authorities now believed the four acoustic pings at the centre of the search off the West Australian coast did not come from the missing passenger jet's black boxes, but from a "man-made source".

"Our best theory at this point is that (the pings were) likely some sound produced by the ship ... or within the electronics of the Towed Pinger Locator," Mr Dean told CNN on Wednesday.

"Always your fear any time you put electronic equipment in the water is that if any water gets in and grounds or shorts something out, that you could start producing sound."

Link


Scratch the pings. This might also mean the best guess from sat data is wrong. Back to the drawing board.



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 09:32 PM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel
There was a lot of reason to doubt the pings were from MH370, but there also reasons to doubt the speculative comments by Dean, if he hasn't identified the source, which obviously he hasn't, from your link:


Chris Johnson, a spokesman for the US Navy, described Mr Dean's comments as "speculative" and "premature".
Coming from the ship itself? What on the ship? Coming from the pinger locator if water seeped in? Sorry but this claim is idiotic. Acoustic pinging at 33 kHz at specific intervals is not a realistic failure mode for water leaking into electronics.

I still haven't ruled out animal tagging so I'm not saying the pings came from MH370, but this is a very dumb sounding statement by Dean.

Also I'm not as quick to write off the satellite data as the pings, though there could be errors with the analysis, but at least there is high confidence the signals were from MH370.

edit on 28-5-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 09:56 PM
link   
It think the whole affair is speculative.




top topics



 
39
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join