Malaysia Airlines flight MH370-Updates and Discussion

warren44

GekkePrutser wrote: »

A jammer is nothing but a transmitter transmitting a signal that causes interference. A hand-held wideband one implies low power, both because of the handheld nature and because the RF energy is spread over a wider spectrum. A targeted single frequency jammer would be much more effective but those are not what you'd buy on Chinese sites (and what the poster I replied to mentioned)

Because a receiver is meant to receive weak remote signals, it is easily overwhelmed by a much closer source, even one that has lower power. That's what a jammer does. But a transmitter is not listening to anything nearby, it just does its job. It's not affected by local noise. And on the receiving end the jammer won't even be heard as it's so weak, so why wouldn't a transmitter work? As a ham operator I've often operated in noisy conditions. Transmitting works fine but hearing the reply is the problem.

You are wrong again. The freq jammers are targeted to a specific area of the band. A cell phone and GPS jammer is only going to jam targeted frequencies from 800mhz to 1900mhz.

Anyone inclined to do so could easily achieve this with tools available on the market to jam specific freq bands. If someone such as this pilot with all of this aviation equipment in his house was so determined to hijack a plane he would also know what freq to jam.

robbieVan

It took two years to find AF447 and they knew exactly where it went down, patience is needed here, people are so used to having answers straight away these days and news current to the second, while waiting to takeoff at lax yesterday i was looking at a 772 out the window and even within the perimeter of the airport it is a small piece of metal, they are using a little sub scouring the surface of the ocean in a huge are, it will take time but they will find it, push it out of your mind and let them do their job

warren44

robbieVan wrote: »

It took two years to find AF447 and they knew exactly where it went down, patience is needed here, people are so used to having answers straight away these days and news current to the second, while waiting to takeoff at lax yesterday i was looking at a 772 out the window and even within the perimeter of the airport it is a small piece of metal, they are using a little sub scouring the surface of the ocean in a huge are, it will take time but they will find it, push it out of your mind and let them do their job

cmon bro, stop comparing the two already. They had pieces of wreckage and bodies recovered within the first week during the Air France incident. This is completely different. They are not going to find the plane in the ocean. Stop being easily led like sheep. The media and sneaky malay guvt want to beat it in every ones head as to think its anything but a hijacking for a reason.

the_monkey

warren44 wrote: »

cmon bro, stop comparing the two already. They had pieces of wreckage and bodies recovered within the first week during the Air France incident. This is completely different. They are not going to find the plane in the ocean. Stop being easily led like sheep. The media and sneaky malay guvt want to beat it in every ones head as to think its anything but a hijacking for a reason.

OK so where do you think the plane is ?

Landed in Antarctica perhaps ?

robbieVan

warren44 wrote: »

cmon bro, stop comparing the two already. They had pieces of wreckage and bodies recovered within the first week during the Air France incident. This is completely different. They are not going to find the plane in the ocean. Stop being easily led like sheep. The media and sneaky malay guvt want to beat it in every ones head as to think its anything but a hijacking for a reason.

I'm not sure how good you are with common sense and reasoning so I'll go slow,

You do realise they found wreckage in the first week with AF447 because they knew where it went down?

They were looking in the wrong area for weeks so how could they find any wreckage in the first week if they are thousands of miles away?

By the time they narrowed it down to where it went down any wreckage would've have sunk by then or floated away, because, and this might come as a shock to you, but the ocean is moving, currents etc, and there is a pile of junk in it already.

oh and btw when they find it in the ocean I'm gonna private message you and laugh at you, I know it's fun thinking up conspiracy theories but it just makes you look naive.

warren44

robbieVan wrote: »

I'm not sure how good you are with common sense and reasoning so I'll go slow,

You do realise they found wreckage in the first week with AF447 because they knew where it went down?

They were looking in the wrong area for weeks so how could they find any wreckage in the first week if they are thousands of miles away?

By the time they narrowed it down to where it went down any wreckage would've have sunk by then or floated away, because, and this might come as a shock to you, but the ocean is moving, currents etc, and there is a pile of junk in it already.

oh and btw when they find it in the ocean I'm gonna private message you and laugh at you, I know it's fun thinking up conspiracy theories but it just makes you look naive.

No they didnt know where Air France was at first, they did however have a much smaller area to guess compared to the Malaysian flight.

There are certain parts of air crafts that will not sink no matter what yet they still cant find a shred. They cant find the black boxes because they are not underwater or have been separated from the plane the way they would during a crash.

warren44

the_monkey wrote: »

OK so where do you think the plane is ?

Landed in Antarctica perhaps ?

The plane landed on solid ground. After it was stripped of its top secret cargo it was destroyed. Unfortunately the passengers expired due to hypoxia.

Jack1985

Bit of factual information, parts of AF447 were found in the first week - the wreckage was located two years later.

The plane landed on solid ground. After it was stripped of its top secret cargo it was destroyed. Unfortunately the passengers expired due to hypoxia.

Just wow..

Colser

robbieVan wrote: »

I'm not sure how good you are with common sense and reasoning so I'll go slow,

You do realise they found wreckage in the first week with AF447 because they knew where it went down?

They were looking in the wrong area for weeks so how could they find any wreckage in the first week if they are thousands of miles away?

By the time they narrowed it down to where it went down any wreckage would've have sunk by then or floated away, because, and this might come as a shock to you, but the ocean is moving, currents etc, and there is a pile of junk in it already.

oh and btw when they find it in the ocean I'm gonna private message you and laugh at you, I know it's fun thinking up conspiracy theories but it just makes you look naive.

I hope this doesnt come back and bite you Robbie:)

Can you share why you think it just crashed..whats your theory on it flying for hours undetected and how was the transponder turned off?

robbieVan

Colser wrote: »

I hope this doesnt come back and bite you Robbie:)

Can you share why you think it just crashed..whats your theory on it flying for hours undetected and how was the transponder turned off?

It wont and if it did it would be the most amazing story of this decade and I'm sure I'd love to read about it.

So anyway are you actually saying that all this money and all the governments and military power etc are all in this together and just searching for the craic or without being nearly positive it went down in the ocean?

Do you think you or anyone else has a better idea than all of these professional people? People who do this as their jobs every day.

Seriously?.. do you think from what you read on the internet you can correctly say that all the governments and air crash investigators etc etc are wrong?

Is that what you are saying? because if that is indeed what you are saying than you need to go lie down for a while and take 2 pills of cop on.

warren44 at least i think is just trolling , or well at least i hope he is or he is 11 years old

robbieVan

warren44 wrote: »

No they didnt know where Air France was at first, they did however have a much smaller area to guess compared to the Malaysian flight.

There are certain parts of air crafts that will not sink no matter what yet they still cant find a shred. They cant find the black boxes because they are not underwater or have been separated from the plane the way they would during a crash.

Which parts of the aircraft are you talking about? seat cushions?.. they will float away though in ocean drifts given that the search location wasn't known for weeks, so what is your point?

I'm pretty sure your trolling at this stage or you need to be in a home, so i'm just gonna ignore you on this cause you seem really simple

Colser

robbieVan wrote: »

It wont and if it did it would be the most amazing story of this decade and I'm sure I'd love to read about it.

So anyway are you actually saying that all this money and all the governments and military power etc are all in this together and just searching for the craic or without being nearly positive it went down in the ocean?

Do you think you or anyone else has a better idea than all of these professional people? People who do this as their jobs every day.

Seriously?.. do you think from what you read on the internet you can correctly say that all the governments and air crash investigators etc etc are wrong?

Is that what you are saying? because if that is indeed what you are saying than you need to go lie down for a while and take 2 pills of cop on.

warren44 at least i think is just trolling , or well at least i hope he is or he is 11 years old

Thanks for the medical advise Robbie...any chance you might answer my question as well?

warren44

robbieVan wrote: »

Which parts of the aircraft are you talking about? seat cushions?.. they will float away though in ocean drifts given that the search location wasn't known for weeks, so what is your point?

I'm pretty sure your trolling at this stage or you need to be in a home, so i'm just gonna ignore you on this cause you seem really simple

Aww so now you are going to start with the personal attacks / insults because youre a typical follower with the blinders on who takes the medias word for it instead of thinking outside of the box.

robbieVan

Colser wrote: »

Thanks for the medical advise Robbie...any chance you might answer my question as well?

I did answer it if you just had sense you would understand what I'm saying, who gives you or me the right over the professionals to assume what happened to it?

They wouldn't be putting all this time and effort into it if they didn't think it flew how it did, where it did, and crashed.

What I think, if that is what you are looking for, is that it was a massive failure on the plane itself, everyone was knocked out and it flew till it ran out of fuel.

I also think closely it could've been the captain losing his nut but that is a second for me.

Flying undetected from military radar was probably massive incompetence on Malaysia's part imo

Nonoperational

warren44 wrote: »

The plane landed on solid ground. After it was stripped of its top secret cargo it was destroyed. Unfortunately the passengers expired due to hypoxia.

warren44 wrote: »

Aww so now you are going to start with the personal attacks / insults because youre a typical follower with the blinders on who takes the medias word for it instead of thinking outside of the box.

It's so disappointing this great forum is being bombarded with fantasy portrayed as fact.

It is just as disillusional to believe unfounded conspiracy theories as it is to blindly believe everything that we are told, yet it is a common tactic of the conspiracy theorists to ridicule people who tend to side with the mainstream view as opposed to jumping head-first into a sea of conspiracy theories, none of which have any evidence produced for them.

You see, Warren, the simple fact of the matter is that you don't know at all that the plane landed and the occupants dies of hypoxia. You are in fact clueless about the incident, as are we all.

robbieVan

warren44 wrote: »

Aww so now you are going to start with the personal attacks / insults because youre a typical follower with the blinders on who takes the medias word for it instead of thinking outside of the box.

Because this forum used to have people who had informed opinions and this thread started with people in the know helping those like me who didn't have much idea of aviation understand what might have happened...
but people who have no idea and are dying to throw on their tinfoil hats cause they have nothing better to do with their time jumped on and everyone who's opinion is actually worth something stopped posting because they couldn't deal with this crap constantly and having their opinions belittled by people who wouldn't know a rudder from a flap

So it was **** for us who actually have an interest in aviation to lose people who could help us understand because dumbos jumped on and started spouting **** like they knew what they are talking about.

So this whole crap like 'oh think outside of the box' means absolutely nothing when you don't even know the first thing about the box

Colser

robbieVan wrote: »

I did answer it if you just had sense you would understand what I'm saying, who gives you or me the right over the professionals to assume what happened to it?

They wouldn't be putting all this time and effort into it if they didn't think it flew how it did, where it did, and crashed.

What I think, if that is what you are looking for, is that it was a massive failure on the plane itself, everyone was knocked out and it flew till it ran out of fuel.

I also think closely it could've been the captain losing his nut but that is a second for me.

Flying undetected from military radar was probably massive incompetence on Malaysia's part imo

We all have a right to assume what happened Robbie until proven otherwise...Also if you think that all the effort is being put purely on a sea search and that the professionals arent also concentrating on other possibilities (call them conspiracies if you wish)then I think its you who are being very naieve.

Jack1985

We all have a right to assume what happened Robbie until proven otherwise

But assume with what credible evidence? That's where the last I'd estimate 300 pages have taken up nothing but un-informed and un-conclusive theories driven by an idea of a cover-up.

Read posts #5628 and #5629. There'd probably be a lot more answers/theories and informed speculation in this thread otherwise, if as advised we were not driven out by frankly the biggest load of crap I've read in my life.

robbieVan

Colser wrote: »

We all have a right to assume what happened Robbie until proven otherwise...Also if you think that all the effort is being put purely on a sea search and that the professionals arent also concentrating on other possibilities (call them conspiracies if you wish)then I think its you who are being very naieve.

Christ you can't even spell naive, give me proof they are searching elsewhere on land? .. do you think that would go unnoticed ? seriously?.. thousands of people working on this and it's completely covered up.. if they thought it was landed somewhere we'd know all about it trust me

stuar

robbieVan wrote: »

They wouldn't be putting all this time and effort into it if they didn't think it flew how it did, where it did, and crashed.

MH370 Did Not Crash? Investigation Team Now Says Plane...

International Business Times, India Edition-4 hours ago
MH370 Did Not Crash: Investigation Team are now saying that plane has possibly landed somewhere else instead of crashing in Indian Ocean.

Missing Malaysian jet MH370 may have landed and not ended in ...
Economic Times-1 hour agoMalaysian Flight MH370 May Not Be In Southern Indian Ocean ...
Huffington Post UK-4 hours agoMissing Malaysian MH370 plane may have landed and not crashed ...
Financial Express-1 hour agoMH370 probe team: Missing jet may have landed somewhere else
Shanghai Daily (subscription)-15 hours ago

Colser

robbieVan wrote: »

Christ you can't even spell naive, give me proof they are searching elsewhere on land? .. do you think that would go unnoticed ? seriously?.. thousands of people working on this and it's completely covered up.. if they thought it was landed somewhere we'd know all about it trust me

Robbie..I have no proof but it is something that I would guess is being looked into as well as the visible sea search...I am saying that I feel there is no actually proof that it crashed and if it did is there any proof that it was an accident?

No need to reply if you cannot be polite as I find your tone to be extremely condescending for someone who is making alot of noise but actually saying nothing constructive.

robbieVan

Colser wrote: »

Robbie..I have no proof but it is something that I would guess is being looked into as well as the visible sea search...I am saying that I feel there is no actually proof that it crashed and if it did is there any proof that it was an accident?

No need to reply if you cannot be polite as I find your tone to be extremely condescending for someone who is making alot of noise but actually saying nothing constructive.

and the BS you guys are spouting is constructive ? seriously?

explain the black box pings in the exact area where a satellite tracked the airplane? .. The ocean is huge, the search area is huge, the airplane is small, it is gonna take a while to find it, just wait and see

Technoprisoner

robbieVan wrote: »

and the BS you guys are spouting is constructive ? seriously?

explain the black box pings in the exact area where a satellite tracked the airplane? .. The ocean is huge, the search area is huge, the airplane is small, it is gonna take a while to find it, just wait and see

I've already mentioned that during the search for afr447 they said that shrimp give off the same frequency as the flight recorders

stuar

robbieVan wrote: »

explain the black box pings in the exact area where a satellite tracked the airplane? .. The ocean is huge, the search area is huge, the airplane is small, it is gonna take a while to find it, just wait and see

The explanation for the pings is a bit of a riddle, first there was none, then they had 2 pings, 400 miles apart, the immarsat "technique" is an even bigger riddle.

There remains only one publically available piece of evidence linking the plane to the southern Indian Ocean: a report issued by the Malaysian government on March 25 that described a new analysis carried out by the U.K.-based satellite operator Inmarsat. The report said that Inmarsat had developed an “innovative technique” to establish that the plane had most likely taken a southerly heading after vanishing. Yet independent experts who have analyzed the report say that it is riddled with inconsistencies and that the data it presents to justify its conclusion appears to have been fudged.
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/04/mh370_inmarsat_the_fuzzy_math_behind_the_search_for_the_missing_airliner.html

'Encouraging': A total of four signals, matching those of a black box flight recorder, have now been detected by the Australian ship Ocean Shield in the search for flight MH370
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2600350/Two-pings-detected-agonising-search-black-box-signals-believed-related-MH370.html

Colser

stuar wrote: »

MH370 Did Not Crash? Investigation Team Now Says Plane...

International Business Times, India Edition-4 hours ago
MH370 Did Not Crash: Investigation Team are now saying that plane has possibly landed somewhere else instead of crashing in Indian Ocean.

Missing Malaysian jet MH370 may have landed and not ended in ...
Economic Times-1 hour agoMalaysian Flight MH370 May Not Be In Southern Indian Ocean ...
Huffington Post UK-4 hours agoMissing Malaysian MH370 plane may have landed and not crashed ...
Financial Express-1 hour agoMH370 probe team: Missing jet may have landed somewhere else
Shanghai Daily (subscription)-15 hours ago

More dumbos spouting BS Robbie? I hope theres enough tinfoil hats to go around...

Jack1985

Anyone with a clue in aviation knows journo's who sensationalise anything for a headline which in aviation is about 99.9% of the time, are as bad as the conspiracists like yourself. Can guarantee an investigator was probably asked a question like I read last Thursday, ''are all lines of inquiry still open?'' ... ''Yes.'' - Then the paper in question uses that as a free pass to explore the most illegitimate theorem(s) possible to give even further anguish to the families who are ridiculed by interviewers from networks such as CNN to fill their air-time of special programs with no new information now for over 3 weeks, when they should be left to grieve until actual FACTS are found.

stuar

Jack1985 wrote: »

Anyone with a clue in aviation knows journo's who sensationalise anything for a headline which in aviation is about 99.9% of the time, are as bad as the conspiracists like yourself.

Can guarantee an investigator was probably asked a question like I read last Thursday, ''are all lines of inquiry open?'' ... ''Yes.'' - Then the paper in question uses that as a free pass to explore the most illegitimate theorem possible to further give anguish to the families who are ridiculous by interviews when they should be left to grieve until actual FACTS are found.

You can't really guarantee anything, and "guarantee" and "probably" shouldn't really be in the same sentence.

And if they are left to grieve until actual "facts" are found they might be grieving for a very long time.

The simple facts are they know nothing and have been clutching at straws all along.......OR/AND......somebody knows exactly where it is and what happened but choose to say nothing.

EDIT:

Ohh and the families believe they/autorithies know exactly what happened it but are saying nothing, so the missing passengers families are also conspiracy theorists, maybe you should respect their views.

Jack1985

You can't really guarantee anything, and "guarantee" and "probably" shouldn't really be in the same sentence.

Why did journalists suddenly overnight act professionally now with regards to aviation? I don't know how many years and pages of bull I've read from the likes of the biggest networks who place the likes of Kay Burley to head-up coverage of a missing airliner.

So stuar, would you recommend the families are drip-fed unconfirmed bull to further cement their losses? Thankfully when reading reports from the likes of the AAIU, AAIB, NTSB, BEA they have refused to comment on speculation until facts have been found - The result is a much more controlled investigation and less of the hysteria we see on this forum replicated worldwide - This is a direct consequence of the Malaysians changing there tact and actually becoming too forthcoming with unconfirmed reports, falling into the trap of 24hr rolling news.

Jack1985

Ohh and the families believe they/autorithies know exactly what happened it but are saying nothing, so the missing passengers families are also conspiracy theorists, maybe you should respect their views.

A complete contradiction of you're correction to my post, do individuals who were given air-time represent all the relatives now? Foolish of you do throw out such a generic statement. Because plenty of them also have a view that this is, unprecedented and that as nothing has been found there simply is no concrete information as to what happened and the aircraft's location. Also people forget there are colleagues from MAS on that flight, are you really suggesting MAS are colluding in a cover up?

Colser

Jack1985 wrote: »

A complete contradiction of you're correction to my post, do individuals who were given air-time represent all the relatives now? Foolish of you do throw out such a generic statement. Because plenty of them also have a view that this is, unprecedented and that as nothing has been found there simply is no concrete information as to what happened and the aircraft's location. Also people forget there are colleagues from MAS on that flight, are you really suggesting MAS are colluding in a cover up?[/

So it could be anywhere really...even on land?