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.

 

"Search for MH370 could take Centuries"

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 01:53 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Psynic

that is correct I was aware I did not bother checking the spelling as I was more passionate about the fact that is not you but them who are not being realistic
sorry I was really hungry and it was 1.30am in a morning here when I posted it now it is 3am my wife is waiting for me in bed and my food went old cold as i have not touched it yet whilst i wait here to see if any of your" friends "have something constructive to add

and you say what u did
thanks a lot brother good night


(post by Psynic removed for a manners violation)

posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 04:07 PM
link   
My apologies.

Of course you have every right to post whatever you wish.






posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 03:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Psynic

sorry I got emotional
I want to ask this

at what point in your opinion did someone realized dangerous content and how was it confirmed . I understand the point u make that maybe they were following leads but that would mean they would need to see where plane arrives and to whom it is passed on to.

also if it was shot down why didn't they stick to pacific ocean story. it is way deeper then Indian ocean . the debris would have been dragged from china sea directly into pacific and they said that it actually crashed at a verge of sea floor when it becomes ocean floor. also there are only crappy horizontal radars there.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 05:43 AM
link   
That ocean is a vast place and the plane could conceivably never be found. For comparison (not a good one I admit) a small plane called the 'Kookaburra' went missing in central Australia in 1929 and remained a mystery until 1978 when Dick Smith funded his own expeditions to search for it. The plane had landed safely in the spinifex desert with an engine problem and the crew had perished due to exposure & thirst before they could clear enough of a runway to take off again. MH370 is a much more difficult target to locate than the Kookaburra even with all the modern equipment that's now available.

Amelia Earhart springs to mind also (never found).



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 05:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Pilgrum

again I ask why did Jindalee radar not detect it.

i.imgur.com...

Jindalee radar was fully operational
and can detect anything bigger then 26feet
mh370 is 250feet
edit on 15-3-2015 by MimiSia because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 06:22 AM
link   
The five U.S. Navy Avenger torpedo-bombers comprising Flight 19 in 1945, and the PBY Mariner sent to search for them have never been found, and no debris was ever reported from them. A total of 27 men. The last radio heard from the Avengers, were a preparation to ditch at sea, since they were out of fuel. A report from a merchant ship said they saw a huge air explosion at sea, thought to have possibly been the PBY.

Not one piece of wreckage, from either of them.. Thousands of square mile search over Atlantic, The Gulf and over Florida itself.

We have to keep this in mind, when we say that a plane can simply not disappear.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 06:48 AM
link   
a reply to: charlyv

and we have to keep in mind that that was 1929 and 1945

once again I poin out mh370 was in a range of a WA radar that can spot anything larger then 26feet craft. mh370 is 250feet

then it is also not a conventional 360 degrees horizontal radar

there is no where to hide where the words of Jindalee radar personnel

Defence Systems Daily: “JORN assures early warning for Australia”, 29 February 2000, by Michael Sinclair-Jones
edit on 15-3-2015 by MimiSia because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 11:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: MimiSia
a reply to: Psynic


at what point in your opinion did someone realize dangerous content and how was it confirmed . I understand the point u make that maybe they were following leads but that would mean they would need to see where plane arrives and to whom it is passed on to.




The point is, no one has to "realize" dangerous content for the Proliferation Security Initiative Operational Experts Group to take command and demand protocol be followed.

Were they "following leads"? Most likely, but again irrelevant. The actions of the A/C are enough by going dark and changing course. On 9/11 they didn't even provide that much of an indicator of intention; the transponders hadn't been "turned off".

The wording of PSI allows for interdiction in the case of "Dual Use" material and "The Delivery Systems" of WMD's.

An airliner is both a 'dual use' and 'delivery system' as a weapon of mass destruction, witness WTC.

As soon as it became clear that the plane was rogue, it fit the criteria for a PSI Interdiction. The plane IS the "dangerous material".

I hope that answers your question.





posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 11:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: MimiSia
a reply to: Psynic



also if it was shot down why didn't they stick to pacific ocean story. it is way deeper then Indian ocean . the debris would have been dragged from china sea directly into pacific and they said that it actually crashed at a verge of sea floor when it becomes ocean floor. also there are only crappy horizontal radars there.


The last RECORDED position of MH370 is on a northwestward course approaching the Andaman Islands.

It would be impossible to get to the Pacific from there without leaving additional radar fixes.

They did not have the option of "choosing" another ocean.

The SIO was the only deep spot they could feasibly reach and as you've pointed out, Jindalee radar sweeps a large swath of it, so they had to rejig their Inmarsat "Magic Formula" and add the "radar was facing the wrong way" explanations when they realized they'd implicated themselves.

Believe me, the Southern Indian Ocean will serve well enough as a cover story. Just look at the seasonal nature of it's navigability. You do know that, due to conditions and ship maintenance, the search vessels spent more than half of the last year in port don't you?






posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 11:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Psynic

I still don't understand really what you think happened to the plane. You say it was shot down. so I ask why



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Psynic

yes I do know that half the time they didn't /couldn't search
there is a record of people seeing the plane in sea near andaman islands
so what about debris
edit on 15-3-2015 by MimiSia because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-3-2015 by MimiSia because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 11:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: MimiSia
a reply to: Pilgrum

again I ask why did Jindalee radar not detect it.

i.imgur.com...

Jindalee radar was fully operational
and can detect anything bigger then 26feet
mh370 is 250feet


I don't know where you get the "26 feet" thing from?

An objects detectability is not based as much on size as it is material and shape. Radar reflectors are not large objects.

The point you're making is a good one, in that, had MH370 been where the cover story says it was there would be a radar fix, and there wasn't.

As I've repeatedly said, the only basis for searching the Southern Indian Ocean is the cooked numbers provided by collaborators to the cover-up.




posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 11:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: MimiSia
a reply to: Psynic

I still don't understand really what you think happened to the plane. You say it was shot down. so I ask why



You have to read the Proliferation Security Initiative and understand the significance of the speeches Najib and Obama gave one month after the disappearance.

The PSI does not require the A/C be shot down, per se. It requires that it be identified and ordered to land. Only if it refuses to do so does it escalate to the next step.


edit on -05:0001153542015-03-15T11:54:01-05:00 by Psynic because: clarification



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 11:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: MimiSia
a reply to: Psynic

yes I do know that half the time they didn't /couldn't search
there is a record of people seeing the plane in sea near andaman islands
so what about debris


Be careful making statements like that without backing them up with some kind of link.

I don't know about "a record of people seeing the plane in sea near andaman islands"

Can you find where you read that?




posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 11:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Psynic

From this article
www.aph.gov.au...

"Now we can spot a Cessna 172."

Size of Cessna 172
en.m.wikipedia.org...

sorry to be precise :27 ft 2 x 36 ft 1

being a female is hard to be technical for me
edit on 15-3-2015 by MimiSia because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 11:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Psynic

story from Raja Dalelah who is convinced she saw an aircraft near Andaman islands

www.thestar.com.my...
edit on 15-3-2015 by MimiSia because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 12:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: MimiSia
a reply to: Psynic

From this article
www.aph.gov.au...

"Now we can spot a Cessna 172."

Size of Cessna 172
en.m.wikipedia.org...

sorry to be precise :27 ft 2 x 36 ft 1

Those Aussie's do have a certain laissez faire when it comes to science.

"Originally we could see an object the size of a Concord.
"Now we can spot a Cessna 172."
Wood is not very conductive, so boats made from timber remain less
"visible", and WGCDR Gray says the minimum size of a target is classified information.

Read the line I emboldened.


Shape and material matter; size not so much.




posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 12:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: MimiSia
a reply to: Psynic

story from Raja Dalelah who is convinced she saw an aircraft near Andaman islands

www.thestar.com.my...


I am familiar with her reports.

She says she saw something "an hour or so out of Chennai" which I'm sorry to say is not the same as "near the Andaman Islands".

It's not like the islands were visible to her or she reports how many more minutes it took to reach them.

It's a very generalized supposition by the reporter.

Having said that, I believe her.

I wonder what the stewardess who ignored her and shuttered her window is going to feel like when she realizes the woman was speaking the truth?




new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join