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: 32
39
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join
share:

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

originally posted by: roadgravel


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.



found one ,,,,"Pinger Locator"

www.abovetopsecret.com...




posted on May, 29 2014 @ 07:37 AM
link   
Reports of fishermen netting what might be an aircraft wheel rim near Sri Lanka. Investigation of parts underway.



posted on May, 29 2014 @ 07:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel


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.


One thing at a time!

The pings are false, always were, but the satellite chart showing the arcs is not.

Now you say we should 'throw out' the satellite data too? I don't think so.

The "Doppler Effect analysis" of the satellite data that placed the plane on the Southern Arc is another LIE.

These lies were to keep us from discovering terrorist involvement. Keep us looking in the southern Indian Ocean.

This whole search is a DUMB SHOW designed to neutralize the effect a HIJACKING would have on POLITICS and PROFITS.

If the ruse had been successful we would have eventually given up looking due to the vastness of the southern ocean.



posted on May, 29 2014 @ 08:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Psynic

I didn't mean throw it out but there might be a good possibility it has been interpreted wrong. Given what has been released, someone is not wanting the whole truth out there.

INMARSAT blames Malaysia but how do we really know what is going on behind closed doors.



posted on May, 29 2014 @ 08:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Psynic



Now you say we should 'throw out' the satellite data too? I don't think so.

The "Doppler Effect analysis" of the satellite data that placed the plane on the Southern Arc is another LIE.


If the Doppler analysis is a lie then that whole data set might be in question. Someone else could do a similar analysis to check it.


edit on 5/29/2014 by roadgravel because: tags



posted on May, 29 2014 @ 08:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: Psynic



Now you say we should 'throw out' the satellite data too? I don't think so.

The "Doppler Effect analysis" of the satellite data that placed the plane on the Southern Arc is another LIE.


If the Doppler analysis is a lie then that whole data set might be in question. Someone else could do a similar analysis to check it.



I'm sure the same LIARS who made claims of hearing pingers would LOVE to throw out the satellite data.



posted on May, 29 2014 @ 12:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel
Reports of fishermen netting what might be an aircraft wheel rim near Sri Lanka. Investigation of parts underway.


is there a link to the story for this?? I would like to read more.

found this link blog.parakum.com...
edit on 29-5-2014 by research100 because: added a link



posted on May, 29 2014 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: research100

Saw it on another forum and it looks unrelated but one never knows. I think this was the link (did a search)

www.dailymirror.lk...

I think at this point all ocean junk get mentioned and claimed as possible wreckage.



posted on May, 31 2014 @ 08:06 PM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel here is the followup with more pics..

.www.dailymirror.lk...

once again...not from the malaysian plANE



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: research100

The part is manufactured by Westinghouse and was designed for Cessna single engine aircraft. It is an aircraft cable pulley. AN-210-6A is the part number and is made out of phenolic, it survives corrosion.


edit on 611414 by rockflier because: added photo



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 07:57 AM
link   
I have been searching but can't find the answer if there is a radar at Pulau Perak.
Why, because of this plot.



The circle seems to indicate a blind spot from a radar, but if there is no radar at this rock called Pulau Perak, than the radar which possible had tracked MH370 is the one at Kuah, which obviously means that there cannot be a blind spot above Pulau Perak.

Please anyone, verify this and correct me if i am wrong





edit on 2-6-2014 by earthling42 because: adding images



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 08:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: earthling42
I have been searching but can't find the answer if there is a radar at Pulau Perak.
Why, because of this plot.

The circle seems to indicate a blind spot from a radar, but if there is no radar at this rock called Pulau Perak, than the radar which possible had tracked MH370 is the one at Kuah, which obviously means that there cannot be a blind spot above Pulau Perak.
Please anyone, verify this and correct me if i am wrong



Although I cannot see your images posted above, I infer from what I read on pprune that there appears to be a military radar there - see this post.

...it claims that the radar track is from Pulau Perak.


I have been reading that forum thread and somewhere after the link above there was a discussion about if the aircraft was low, then the radar would not be able to get a good fix on it. Hence the "intermittent" word used in the official reporting.
edit on 2 Jun 2014 by qmantoo because: (no reason given)

edit on 2 Jun 2014 by qmantoo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 08:59 AM
link   
a reply to: qmantoo

Ah, yes, this spot is not above Pulau Perak.

Thanks qmantoo



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 12:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: qmantoo

originally posted by: earthling42
I have been searching but can't find the answer if there is a radar at Pulau Perak.
Why, because of this plot.

The circle seems to indicate a blind spot from a radar, but if there is no radar at this rock called Pulau Perak, than the radar which possible had tracked MH370 is the one at Kuah, which obviously means that there cannot be a blind spot above Pulau Perak.
Please anyone, verify this and correct me if i am wrong



I have been reading that forum thread and somewhere after the link above there was a discussion about if the aircraft was low, then the radar would not be able to get a good fix on it. Hence the "intermittent" word used in the official reporting.


Your interpretation is correct. The aircraft was flying 'on the deck' to evade radar detection.

The complete absence of a radar image in the circle indicates just how extremely low it was flying. Auto-pilots in airliners do not include a terrain following function, which indicates the A/C was being piloted by a very determined pilot indeed. That low, over jungle, in the pitch blackness takes some serious cojones.

Not the kind of wits to expect from a man on a mission to the middle of nowhere for a moonlit swim.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 07:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Psynic
Your interpretation is correct. The aircraft was flying 'on the deck' to evade radar detection.

The complete absence of a radar image in the circle indicates just how extremely low it was flying.
Did you read the pprune forum? That's not what they say, in fact it says the exact opposite, that the complete absence of a radar image in the circle probably occurred because it was flying above radar, not below it. Apparently if you fly directly over some radars, the radar won't detect your aircraft if you're overhead because the radar beam angle doesn't extend that far up.

The raw radar data should show an estimated altitude on either side of the circle but aside from screenshots like the one with the circle that are hard to read, I haven't seen the raw data. That would probably help determine how high or low it was on either side of the circle.
edit on 2-6-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 01:56 AM
link   
For anyone who wants to calculate their own positional arcs and possible plane tracks, here in this post are details of the satellite motion in its figure 8 movement, when (UTC) it arrived at its northmost point, etc. This resolves (apparently) the north/south track when the direction of the plane relative to the satellite is calculated. I am not good at maths so I wont be calculating anything!



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 12:03 PM
link   


Katherine Tee, who was sailing across the Indian Ocean from Cochin, India, to Phuket with her husband Marc Horn, said she saw what looked like an aircraft on fire crossing the night sky, with a plume of black smoke trailing behind it.

Tee, 41, was alone on the deck of the couple's yacht in the early hours of 8 March.

"I was on a night watch. My husband was asleep below deck and our one other crew member was asleep on deck," she told Thailand's Phuket Gazette.

"I saw something that looked like a plane on fire. That's what I thought it was. Then, I thought I must be mad. It caught my attention because I had never seen a plane with orange lights before, so I wondered what they were."

"I could see the outline of the plane, it looked longer than planes usually do. There was what appeared to be black smoke streaming from behind it."

Link

Map with her location
Source - I Think I Saw MH370


Her forum post was 5-31. Wonder if this sighting counts since it fits closer to the official tale.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel

I don't believe this for a second. Just more obfuscation.

If there was a plane on fire a MAYDAY would have been broadcast.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Psynic

Not necessarily. If the fire was in the electronics bay it could have knocked out the radios among other systems.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 01:36 PM
link   
If this was MH370, and it was on fire, what are the chances it could fly for hours more until fuel exhaustion? A single engine fire that goes out?




top topics



 
39
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join