Malaysia Airlines flight MH370-Updates and Discussion

BlackEdelweiss

Im not saying they should accept it or the investigators should stop, im saying this thread should stop. Have some respect for the families and stop speculating how their loved ones died. People trying to make themselves sound intelligent with their knowledge of the indian ocean or how far and fast debris should travel.

KoolKid wrote: »

A commercial airliner disappears, presumed crashed... People dead. There is no way they will not find out what happened . You really want people to just accept that?
If you had family or friends on that flight would you just accept it??

BlackEdelweiss

Believe me, I haven't looked in this thread for months. Move along people, there is nothing to see here!

h3000 wrote: »

^^^^^^^

Duiske

BlackEdelweiss wrote: »

Have some respect for the families

Do you remember making the comment below, on this thread about 5 months ago ?

BlackEdelweiss wrote: »

On the plus side of all this, it is $700 cheaper to fly to new Zealand with malasiyan airlines!

How respectful to the families was that ?

BlackEdelweiss wrote:

im saying this thread should stop

To be honest, you just appear to have a chip on your shoulder regarding this thread. It was just a wrist slap. Move on.

BlackEdelweiss

Probably not very respectful alright but I was looking to buy flights to New Zealand so it was a valid point. My main point of this thread was not about respecting the families of the victims it is that this thread has carried on for 9 months and there is still not one bit of concrete information either on here or in the general media. This thread is full of rehashed speculation, people arguing on points that they know nothing about and that neither they nor those they are arguing with have any proof that their point is valid. I dont have a chip on my shoulder about this thread, I enjoyed it as much as anybody at the time but it has dragged on now.

lord lucan

BlackEdelweiss wrote: »

Probably not very respectful alright but I was looking to buy flights to New Zealand so it was a valid point. My main point of this thread was not about respecting the families of the victims it is that this thread has carried on for 9 months and there is still not one bit of concrete information either on here or in the general media. This thread is full of rehashed speculation, people arguing on points that they know nothing about and that neither they nor those they are arguing with have any proof that their point is valid. I dont have a chip on my shoulder about this thread, I enjoyed it as much as anybody at the time but it has dragged on now.

We're a forum for discussion and until an answer or reasonable explanation for what happened to MH370 is forthcoming then i see no problem in the discussion continuing within the bounds of decency. There's plenty of other things being discussed all over Boards,from murders to paedophelia that some may see as lurid or tasteless but people have an interest and like to discuss these things.

Simon_Gunson

The claim MH370 flew west from IGARI and through the Straits of Malacca appears to be based on a hoax. The Malaysian Government released what they claimed was a radar image of MH370 flying through the Straits from military radar at RMAF Butterworth.

Butterworth uses a Thales Raytheon GM400 radar and the official image is just a photo-shopped civil SSR radar.

The Thai radar at Surat Thani had a range limited to 200nm therefore could not even see aircraft flying over Malaysia, much less one flying low over Kota Bharu. The Earth's curvature means MH370 would have to be flying at 37,000ft over Kota Bharu for it to be seen from Surat Thani.

Simon_Gunson

kippy wrote: »

So why exactly do you think nothing has been found so far?

I am genuinely interested to hear why people think no "Floating" debris has been found thus far.

You asked for an explanation:

Kippy between the satellite signal exchange at 00:11 UTC and the partial ping at 00:19 UTC there is no signal offset. With all other signals previously there was a velocity offset but not with the final two signals.

This infers the aircraft was stationary over the same location.

What it actually implies is MH370 was going down in a spiral from 35,000ft over the same spot.

This being the case it is likely to have struck the sea with great force and penetrated under the surface. You may recall that Swissair flight 111 did the same off Nova Scotia in 1998 in quite shallow water.

Very little floating debris was found on that occasion.

Simon_Gunson

In my view MH370 never turned west or ever flew through the Straits of Malacca. I dispute that it ever turned south around the northern tip of Sumatra (Aceh).

I believe pilots suffered cascading electrical failures which disabled their transponder and ACARS. I believe the pilots were already pointed from IGARI to BITOD and beyond BITOD was a radio beacon at Con Son island not far from the oil rig where Mike McKay sighted an aircraft on fire high to the west of his oil rig.

I assume the pilots selected a course change in their autopilot before reaching Con Son Island for a turn back to Singapore.

Singapore is logical because a range of 7,000ft hills stood between them and Kuala Lumpur and you would not wish to descend through mountains at night with several electrical failures degrading navigational instruments. Singapore is relatively flat and bright, easily seen from miles away.

A descent into Ho Chi Minh from 35,000ft might have been too steep a descent and the emergency may not have appeared too severe at first.

I believe at some point whilst turning above Con Son island at 17:49-17:50 UTC a blaze broke out in the avionics bay beneath the cockpit and quickly engulfed the cockpit. I believe the heat melted a hole in the fuselage hull which vented flames until all pressure inside the cabin was gone.

This would correlate very closely to what the oil rig worker Mike McKay sighted off Vietnam. He saw a bright flame which self extinguished after 10-15 seconds. That also makes sense because oxygen starvation would kill any blaze and leave the aircraft intact, able to continue flying.

eatmyshorts

Simon_Gunson wrote: »

In my view MH370 never turned west or ever flew through the Straits of Malacca. I dispute that it ever turned south around the northern tip of Sumatra (Aceh).

I believe pilots suffered cascading electrical failures which disabled their transponder and ACARS. I believe the pilots were already pointed from IGARI to BITOD and beyond BITOD was a radio beacon at Con Son island not far from the oil rig where Mike McKay sighted an aircraft on fire high to the west of his oil rig.

I assume the pilots selected a course change in their autopilot before reaching Con Son Island for a turn back to Singapore.

Singapore is logical because a range of 7,000ft hills stood between them and Kuala Lumpur and you would not wish to descend through mountains at night with several electrical failures degrading navigational instruments. Singapore is relatively flat and bright, easily seen from miles away.

A descent into Ho Chi Minh from 35,000ft might have been too steep a descent and the emergency may not have appeared too severe at first.

I believe at some point whilst turning above Con Son island at 17:49-17:50 UTC a blaze broke out in the avionics bay beneath the cockpit and quickly engulfed the cockpit. I believe the heat melted a hole in the fuselage hull which vented flames until all pressure inside the cabin was gone.

This would correlate very closely to what the oil rig worker Mike McKay sighted off Vietnam. He saw a bright flame which self extinguished after 10-15 seconds. That also makes sense because oxygen starvation would kill any blaze and leave the aircraft intact, able to continue flying.

Some many errors in your theory that I wouldn't even know where to start.

Simon_Gunson

jamesdiver wrote: »

Just wondering if the mh370 flight positions that helped them predict the current search area are available to the public? I'm talking about lat/lon and time.

Cheers,

James

James on 28 August 2014 investigators announced that analysis of the attempted satellite phone call to MH370 at 18:39 UTC has helped establish the position and direction of flight during that Satcom connection.

What they have not disclosed in public is where that location was nor the course it revealed. What they have said however is that MH370 turned south much earlier than previously thought (ie not near northern Sumatra)

They have a very good idea now what happened, but will not share that until after the wreckage is located on the seabed.

Simon_Gunson

eatmyshorts wrote: »

Some many errors in your theory that I wouldn't even know where to start.

Do try otherwise it tells us nothing of your profound wisdom

Simon_Gunson

eatmyshorts wrote: »

Some many errors in your theory that I wouldn't even know where to start.

It is profoundly disappointing when someone hurls insults and then runs away rather than staying to argue their point. That is the least I would expect.

Not even sure what point eatmyshorts was trying to make and very mych doubt he can back it up?

here is a point upon which all those proponents that MH370 flew south from the Straits of Malacca fall flat on their faces with:

The Burst Offset Frequency, or BOF chart plotting velocity vectors of MH370 from infrequent satellite contact insinuates that from 19:41 UTC until the last ping, MH370 flew a track with relatively steady velocity towards INMARSAT.

The problem is if you plot the courses suggested by David Steel and others from northern Sumatra to the Southern Arc where THEY say it intercepted the Southern Arc then by their track it flew a steady velocity away from INMARSAT.

Below are distances growing between INMARSAT and the track plotted by David Steel's satellite tracking group:

@ 19:41 UTC / 1,759nm
@ 20:41 UTC / 1,797nm
@ 21:41 UTC / 1,950nm
@ 22:41 UTC / 2,187nm
@ 00:11 UTC / 2,608nm

Even using their own data their own claims do not stack up.

So please eatmypants

eatmyshorts

Simon_Gunson wrote: »

Do try otherwise it tells us nothing of your profound wisdom

At 5am in the morning, after commanding a 777 on an 8 hour flight across Africa, my efforts at telling you my "profound wisdom" are lacking.

Simon_Gunson

Ping Rings used to calculate the vector additions from northern Sumatra are also based upon an assumption that MH370's last known position was over MEKAR at 18:22 UTC. This one distance has been used to calibrate all other estimates.

If that is in doubt then it also throws in doubt all other calculations and estimates of the track.

When MH370 flew northeast from Kuala Lumpur to waypoint IGARI under radar guidance, the BOF chart published by the Malaysian Government displayed increasing frequency which implies velocity towards the satellite, yet MH370 was known to be flying away from INMARSAT.

What this infers is that the frequency values in the official Burst Offset Frequency chart are inverted. This being the case, then it follows the only two values on the BOF chart which a re credible are the first and the last ones.

Satellite engineer Mike Exner realised after I pointed this out to the Duncan Steel group that when INMARSAT re-transmitted MH370's signal back to earth, the frequency values were inverted. Exner reversed the data values and when you apply those corrections the track correlates to a flight from the coast of Vietnam passing right over Singapore at 35,000ft.

Technoprisoner

this is a brave statement coming from the CEO of emirates. http://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/world/airline-boss-mh370-may-not-be-in-indian-ocean/ar-BB8IBp3

smurfjed

Vietnam passing right over Singapore at 35,000ft.

Do you believe that its feasible for any aircraft to fly over Singapore at 35,000 feet without the military seeing it?

2 stroke

Inmarsat are geostationary as far as I see. Surely they have flown the route they think the plane flew, and re-created the pings to confirm/refine the route.

Tenger

2 stroke wrote: »

Inmarsat are geostationary as far as I see. Surely they have flown the route they think the plane flew, and re-created the pings to confirm/refine the route.

Not 100% sure but I do know that they were able to re-define the southern corridor theory based on ping data analysis on aircraft travelling the same route post disappearance,

MuffinsDa

eatmyshorts wrote: »

At 5am in the morning, after commanding a 777 on an 8 hour flight across Africa, my efforts at telling you my "profound wisdom" are lacking.

This is a classic case of Appeal to Authority logical fallacy.

You may well be right but your above comments does not help your point at all, at least for those with common sense and ability to follow a logical discourse.

eatmyshorts

MuffinsDa wrote: »

This is a classic case of Appeal to Authority logical fallacy.

I wish they taught a bit of logic in flight schools ....

You may well be right but your above comments does not help your point at all, at least for those with common sense and ability to follow a logical discourse.

Waffle.

Tenger

No need for handbags people.


A poster alluded to information and was not in a position at the time to fully explain themselves. I had expected a follow on explanation of their point. It would be a positive step for everyone here to clarify/explain their statements rather than just leaving them hanging and assuming you will be understood. Its saves the back and forth arguing we sometimes see on boards.ie

eatmyshorts

Tenger wrote: »

I had expected a follow on explanation of their point. It would be a positive step for everyone here to clarify/explain their statements rather than just leaving them hanging and assuming you will be understood. Its saves the back and forth arguing we sometimes see on boards.ie

A new poster (10 posts total and nothing since) appears and posts some claptrap. I didnt have the time nor the effort to post a full rebuttal at that moment. Their immediate follow up post is laced with aggressiveness and childish mocking.

Simon_Gunson wrote: »

Do try otherwise it tells us nothing of your profound wisdom

Simon_Gunson wrote: »

It is profoundly disappointing when someone hurls insults and then runs away rather than staying to argue their point. That is the least I would expect.

Not even sure what point eatmyshorts was trying to make and very mych doubt he can back it up?
.....

So please eatmypants

A quick google shows the same username prevalent on certain crackpot conspiracy theory forums.

Therefore I wasnt going to waste my time replying to this idiot.

Simples.

smurfjed

https://www.metabunk.org/members/simon-gunson.4421/

When he answers my question about how the aircraft flew over Singapore at 35,000 feet without the military seeing it, then i might start to pick apart the rest of his postings about how the systems of a B777 work.

Mountainsandh

https://www.google.ie/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=simon%20gunson

I only see one link to Metabunk maybe ?

The others are historical discussion where poster seems to display extended knowledge of wartime aircraft and weaponry ?

Saying "he's an idiot into conspiracy theories" is not very informative, I was interested to read about the errors in his theory.

eatmyshorts

smurfjed wrote: »

When he answers my question about how the aircraft flew over Singapore at 35,000 feet without the military seeing it, then i might start to pick apart the rest of his postings about how the systems of a B777 work.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/mem/sy.gunson

Probably by using a secret Nazi cloaking device!

ProfessorPlum

MuffinsDa wrote: »

This is a classic case of Appeal to Authority logical fallacy.

You may well be right but your above comments does not help your point at all, at least for those with common sense and ability to follow a logical discourse.

Personally, I thought it was an appeal to 'I've been working all night, I'm wrecked, and I couldn't be arsed'.

smurfjed

I was interested to read about the errors in his theory.

How did the aircraft fly over Singapore at 35000 feet without getting tracked by military radar?

MuffinsDa

eatmyshorts wrote: »

A quick google shows the same username prevalent on certain crackpot conspiracy theory forums.

Therefore I wasnt going to waste my time replying to this idiot.

Simples.

The old chestnut: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

You are clearly vesting a lot time and energy on "not replying". It would've been much quicker if you actually replied or else said nothing if you really weren't bothered.

I think smurfjed and Mountainsandh line of questioning is a lot more informative and productive, and I would like to see a clear answer to smurfjed's question. Otherwise I think the argument falls apart.

eatmyshorts

MuffinsDa wrote: »

The old chestnut: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

That could equally apply to your earlier first reply to me. Of course, that is, before you went back and edited out certain bits, to cover your tracks and allow you to throw about some more big words. Eh? Unfortunately for you, you couldnt edit my quote of your original post.

Are you trying to impress someone with all these fancy named theories? Because it comes across a bit David Brent-esque.

Mountainsandh

I have no idea of technicalities so can't answer that Smurfjed.
I think one relevant question to be asked is perhaps : if indeed there was a slim possibility an aircraft may have flown undetected by military radar (anywhere for that matter), would authorities be able or inclined to publicise that ?

Can detection by military radar never/ever fail ? I said i would be interested to read explanations, not that I would be able to answer anything.