How Crazy am I to think I know where MH370 is? Jeff Wise in NY Magazine

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Depends whether or not they have an honest Marriage or not.

I expect my wife would tell me it was one in a million, if that's what she really thought the odds were..would your Wife lie to please / appease you then?

a reply to: Xcathdra

The only way for the scenario to work would be if ALL major players with the capability to monitor deep airspace are in on the "plan".

That's bring us to one major power doing a monumental mistake of some sort, and the consensus that exposing the "gaff" would be detrimental for the "higher good" of the world. Then the responsible nation would have paid big buck and/or accorded favors for other nations to keep it quiet.

Similar to a theory that the Kursk was torpedoed by the US!

a reply to: MysterX
There's a 30% chance your wife isn't part of the 70%, but I think even the 70% have good intentions:

70% of women and a THIRD of men have faked an orgasm to avoid hurting their partner's feelings

So if women are trying so hard to avoid hurting their partners feelings, don't be so shocked if those efforts extend outside the bedroom, they just might. I don't take his wife's estimate of his theory at face value for that reason.

The only thing about the hi-jack idea to begin with is the theory of them putting in false data. It wouldn't matter if Inmarsat's data was itself inherently wrong, while some serous thinkers already have that opinion, and even Jeff wise had some opinion on that without actually saying why. Anyway, Inmarsat's data was relayed to them indirectly, from satellite to ground substation, to Inmarsat at different frequencies, and there is some NASA guys who think that this corrupted the original ping timings, where the pings were based on a specific frequency, but ultimately their impression was that the so-called arc, should actually be the whole circular area. That would include the northern and western regions.

To add; Sorry I had go to lunch before posting any links,

www.theatlantic.com...
Extract,

"The Troubled Graph.
But the graph defies these expectations. Taken at face value, the graph shows the plane moving at a significant speed before it even took off, then moving toward the satellite every time it was pinged. This interpretation is completely at odds with the official conclusion, and flatly contradicted by other evidence."
Extract,

"Exner, an engineer who’s developed satellite and meteorology technologies since the early 1970s, noted that the measured frequency shifts might come not just from each ping’s transmission from plane to satellite, but also from the ping’s subsequent transmission from the satellite to a ground station that connects the satellites into the Inmarsat network. In other words, Exner may have found the hidden source that seems to be throwing off the frequency graph."

"Inmarsat’s analysis is highly ambiguous about whether the satellite-to-ground transmission contributed to the measured frequency shift. But if it did, a ground station located significantly south of the satellite would have resulted in frequency shifts that could account for the measured shifts being too large at the beginning of the graph and too small at the end. And sure enough, Inmarsat’s analysis states that the ground station receiving the transmission was located in Australia."


Duncan Steel's own site,
www.duncansteel.com...

originally posted by: drock905

I imagine everyone who comes up with a new theory, even a complicated one, must experience one particularly delicious moment, like a perfect chord change, when disorder gives way to order. This was that moment for me. Once I threw out the troublesome BFO data, all the inexplicable coincidences and mismatched data went away. The answer became wonderfully simple. The plane must have gone north.

Using the BTO data set alone,I was able to chart the plane’s speed and general path, which happened to fall along national borders.Fig. 21 Flying along borders, a military navigator told me, is a good way to avoid being spotted on radar. A Russian intelligence plane nearly collided with a Swedish airliner while doing it over the Baltic Sea in December

How Crazy am I to think I know where MH370 is? Jeff Wise in NY Magazine


More from the article:

I realized that I already had a clue that hijackers had been in the E/E bay. Remember the satcom system disconnected and then rebooted three minutes after the plane left military radar behind. I spent a great deal of time trying to figure out how a person could physically turn the satcom off and on. The only way, apart from turning off half the entire electrical system, would be to go into the E/E bay and pull three particular circuit breakers. It is a maneuver that only a sophisticated operator would know how to execute, and the only reason I could think for wanting to do this was so that Inmarsat would find the records and misinterpret them. They turned on the satcom in order to provide a false trail of bread crumbs leading away from the plane’s true route.

This was just published a few hours ago and I found it very interesting. It's a pretty long essay but the evidence seems very convincing.

He claims what he has discovered leads to the theory that the plane was hijacked by very sophisticated hijackers. They were able to spoof the satellite data transmissions and then fly the plane to Kazakhstan where it was hidden. He names the suspected landing strip complete with satellite images and goes into detail on how it could have been done.

He lost me at "flying along borders is a good way to avoid radar." What a bunch of nonsense. There is literally NOWHERE that any Nation monitors more closely than their borders, lol. Nah, that plane is under like 20,000 feet of water and might never be found.

The fact the three men in question have at least secretive lives.....lends to the credibility of the theory IMHO. He dug up some fishy anomalies in his story. Need to watch and see if Russia "protects & watches" that area . Sort of ala.....Keep folks away from Shanksville. " Nuttin tu see here, muve along" Crappy attempt at written Russian accent.

originally posted by: thesmokingman
Technology that existed many years ago makes it impossible for this plane to just disappear. There is more to the story yes, but I do believe that the US and Malaysia at the very least know where the plane is, no matter what happened to it. In fact, I guarantee it.

You're wrong. I guarantee it. The plane is under thousands of feet of water in an area of ocean that is not well mapped at all. The World is a big place and it is still quite possible for planes to disappear. In fact, more planes disappear over land than do over water. Simple Google searching verifies this. They'll find the plane eventually.

a reply to: drock905

The US intelligence departments know what happened and they aren't telling for some reason.

a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

Other than once again throwing "THE US DID IT!!!!" out there, do you have ANYTHING AT ALL to back that up or to provide a reason why they would do that or HOW they could cover it up?

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass
a reply to: drock905

The US intelligence departments know what happened and they aren't telling for some reason.

Indeed.

And that reason is to deny the perpetrators their victory.

Terrorist act? What terrorist act?

time.com...

Funny how we don't hear much about the Uyghurs anymore.

The Beijing subway attack by a group of sword wielding Uyghurs that killed and mutilated dozens of commuters was the last time they were able to get any news coverage.

The Chinese passengers of MH370 would make quite a high profile bargaining chip with which to steal some headlines.

originally posted by: Metallicus
There is no way 'they' just lost this huge airliner. I don't know if this gentleman is correct, but I am positive the 'official story' is wrong.

You may choose not to believe it but the Indian ocean is hugh and radar only covers a tiny portion near coastal areas. It is certainly possible to loose a plane of this size or even larger.

a reply to: thesmokingman

The technology may have existed but Maylaysia doesn't necessarily employ the latest technology. From what I understand they go for the economy package when it comes to outfitting a plane.

a reply to: RP2SticksOfDynamite

And when they do what will you have to say then?

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Depends whether or not they have an honest Marriage or not.

I expect my wife would tell me it was one in a million, if that's what she really thought the odds were..would your Wife lie to please / appease you then?

To be honest she said 5% chance he's accurate which means she's really saying 95% chance your wrong honey. Not exactly glowing support is it?

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657

originally posted by: Metallicus
There is no way 'they' just lost this huge airliner. I don't know if this gentleman is correct, but I am positive the 'official story' is wrong.

You may choose not to believe it but the Indian ocean is hugh and radar only covers a tiny portion near coastal areas. It is certainly possible to loose a plane of this size or even larger.

There is no evidence MH370 was anywhere near the Southern Indian Ocean.

Sir Timothy Clark says the INMARSAT data based on a brand new theory called 'Burst Timing Offset' is bunk.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

? ? ? how does a guy fake an orgasm?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

PS Women who fake orgasm aren't doing themselves or their partners any favors. What guy wouldn't appreciate some tips? Oh and this won't help find that plane either.

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
a reply to: RP2SticksOfDynamite

And when they do what will you have to say then?

Let's cross that bridge if and when we come to it.

That no debris has been found up to now is a lot more relevant than your "what if?"

But there is a northern Indian ocean.


a reply to: Psynic

a reply to: Psynic

You wouldn't even admit there's a bridge never mind crossing it. LOL.
Everything is a conspiracy.
Everything is a false flag.
Everything is Obama's fault....
It's the ATS mantra.
I live to debunk by sensibility.