MH370 - "new" news
Wait a minute - they want Interpol to go after a comedian because she made a bad joke? Seriously?
OK, she's not that funny - I get it. But what are they going to do, arrest her for it? Interpol isn't busy enough going after actual criminal behavior that they need to go after bad comedians now?
OK, she's not that funny - I get it. But what are they going to do, arrest her for it? Interpol isn't busy enough going after actual criminal behavior that they need to go after bad comedians now?
Interpol?.........Naaah, I don't think so.
The Malays are not very tolerant of criticism; deserved or otherwise.
Human Rights Watch - (Bangkok) – Malaysian authorities are increasingly responding to criticism of the government by initiating criminal investigations, Human Rights Watch said today. Journalists, civil society activists, and ordinary people have all recently faced police questioning for peaceful speech under broadly worded laws that violate the right to freedom of expression.
“Malaysia’s Perikatan Nasional government is increasingly responding to public criticism by carrying out abusive investigations on specious charges,” said Phil Robertson, deputy Asia director.
“Malaysia’s Perikatan Nasional government is increasingly responding to public criticism by carrying out abusive investigations on specious charges,” said Phil Robertson, deputy Asia director.
The following 5 users liked this post by dr dre:
Based on extensive drift analysis of confirmed MH370 debris, the Independent Group has recommended a search area around 34.23S 93.79E out to +/-140 nautical miles.
https://mh370.radiantphysics.com/202...ons-for-mh370/
NOTE: This “new” location is also compatible with the accident scenario endpoint first suggested in 2016 (34.3S 93.0E)
Recall: Autopilot diversion to Banda Aceh via NILAM and SANOB at M0.84/FL340 with left HGA / left Autothrottle inoperative and unresponsive crew.
This new site is compatible with:
1. Malaysian Primary Radar Data
2. Timing of FO mobile phone log on at Penang
3. Satellite data (BTO and BFO)
4. Known aircraft fuel load
5. Autopilot modes at route discontinuity
6. Actual winds and temperatures recorded
7. Debris drift analysis and beach timings
8. Observed debris damage
9. Optimum sea temperature for barnacle growth
10. And was never fully searched.
https://mh370.radiantphysics.com/202...ons-for-mh370/
NOTE: This “new” location is also compatible with the accident scenario endpoint first suggested in 2016 (34.3S 93.0E)
Recall: Autopilot diversion to Banda Aceh via NILAM and SANOB at M0.84/FL340 with left HGA / left Autothrottle inoperative and unresponsive crew.
This new site is compatible with:
1. Malaysian Primary Radar Data
2. Timing of FO mobile phone log on at Penang
3. Satellite data (BTO and BFO)
4. Known aircraft fuel load
5. Autopilot modes at route discontinuity
6. Actual winds and temperatures recorded
7. Debris drift analysis and beach timings
8. Observed debris damage
9. Optimum sea temperature for barnacle growth
10. And was never fully searched.
KUALA LUMPUR: The search for missing Malaysian Airlines Flight MH370 may restart if there is new credible evidence.
Transport Minister Anthony Loke said if there is new credible evidence, the government would first hold discussions with China and Australia on the possibility of resuming the search for the plane.
"The goal of finding MH370 will not be ignored.
"But the ministry does not have new credible evidence to resume the search for MH370.
Transport Minister Anthony Loke said if there is new credible evidence, the government would first hold discussions with China and Australia on the possibility of resuming the search for the plane.
"The goal of finding MH370 will not be ignored.
"But the ministry does not have new credible evidence to resume the search for MH370.
The last line says it all.
This object has washed up on a beach in Western Australia. Looks very similar to a Boeing 777 waste tank??? (based on a quick Google search)
Someone who knows what they are talking might be able to comment.
KLM Blog: https://blog.klm.com/this-is-what-ha...ur-number-two/
Someone who knows what they are talking might be able to comment.
KLM Blog: https://blog.klm.com/this-is-what-ha...ur-number-two/
The following users liked this post:
This object has washed up on a beach in Western Australia. Looks very similar to a Boeing 777 waste tank??? (based on a quick Google search)
Someone who knows what they are talking might be able to comment.
KLM Blog: https://blog.klm.com/this-is-what-ha...ur-number-two/
Someone who knows what they are talking might be able to comment.
KLM Blog: https://blog.klm.com/this-is-what-ha...ur-number-two/
https://i.imgur.com/JLKc3An.png
https://imgur.com/a/pPxxH
The following 4 users liked this post by MechEngr:
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Skating away on the thin ice of a new day.
Posts: 1,116
Received 13 Likes
on
8 Posts
It's part of an Indian rocket and I'm quite sure those tanks in the photo are not on a 777. That looks more like an Airbus airframe to me. In addition I think the 777 has 3 waste tanks side by side.
Video B777 crapper tanks:
Video B777 crapper tanks:
Last edited by ampclamp; 17th Jul 2023 at 07:40. Reason: video link added
Tell the truth: They are all chemical containers for the chemtrail systems.
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Looking forward to returning to Japan soon but in the meantime continuing the never ending search for a bad bottle of Red!
Age: 69
Posts: 2,971
Received 96 Likes
on
55 Posts
Tell the truth: They are all chemical containers for the chemtrail systems.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Warrnambool
Age: 17
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ross Coulthart has just started a new show on news nation (Youtube) called “Reality Check with Ross Coulthart.”
He said his next show was on MH370 however, no date or time has been given.
He makes the statement at Approx 4’ 20” mark
He said his next show was on MH370 however, no date or time has been given.
An interesting article in The Australian written by a former colleague of mine who may well still have a presence here on Pprune.
However, what is not widely known is that evidence has since emerged that the simulator co-ordinates into the Southern Indian Ocean do not refer at all to the disappearance of MH370 but to a flight to Saudi port city Jeddah, MH150, that flew five weeks before the disappearance of MH370 on March 8, 2014……
The article is too long to copy here and even extracting excerpts would not retain the context of the thought provoking piece.
If you have a subscription or can get your hands on the paper newspaper, it's worth a read.
However, what is not widely known is that evidence has since emerged that the simulator co-ordinates into the Southern Indian Ocean do not refer at all to the disappearance of MH370 but to a flight to Saudi port city Jeddah, MH150, that flew five weeks before the disappearance of MH370 on March 8, 2014……
The article is too long to copy here and even extracting excerpts would not retain the context of the thought provoking piece.
If you have a subscription or can get your hands on the paper newspaper, it's worth a read.
Mentour Pilot
An interesting article in The Australian written by a former colleague of mine who may well still have a presence here on Pprune.
However, what is not widely known is that evidence has since emerged that the simulator co-ordinates into the Southern Indian Ocean do not refer at all to the disappearance of MH370 but to a flight to Saudi port city Jeddah, MH150, that flew five weeks before the disappearance of MH370 on March 8, 2014……
The article is too long to copy here and even extracting excerpts would not retain the context of the thought provoking piece.
If you have a subscription or can get your hands on the paper newspaper, it's worth a read.
However, what is not widely known is that evidence has since emerged that the simulator co-ordinates into the Southern Indian Ocean do not refer at all to the disappearance of MH370 but to a flight to Saudi port city Jeddah, MH150, that flew five weeks before the disappearance of MH370 on March 8, 2014……
The article is too long to copy here and even extracting excerpts would not retain the context of the thought provoking piece.
If you have a subscription or can get your hands on the paper newspaper, it's worth a read.
Mentour Pilot has just published what is probably the definitive overview of MH370 to date:
Mentour Pilot - MH370
Mentour Pilot - MH370
Basic physics (the inverse-square law) dictates that any perturbation of an already weak radio signal by an aircraft at the distances proposed would be undetectable. The work is rank nonsense.
And to neatly illustrate that it is truly useless, on the three occasions its proponents have applied their approach to MH370, they have come up with a markedly different end point each time. Every time those fellows have pulled the handle on their WSPR slot machine, they have produced a different result. The chronology runs as follows:
30 November 2021. "... 33.177°S 95.300°E ... ."
8 September 2022. "... 30.57°S 98.75°E."
30 August 2023. "... 29.0°S 99.5°E ..."
As someone in the MH370 community noted, with their guesses moving progressively north-east each time, if they keep going they'll eventually end up with a terminus on land, which would make the whole search effort so much easier.
This is the thing with junk science - it produces junk results.
It is also worth noting that the new search area recently proposed by Ocean Infinity does not include the WSPR crew's latest end point at near 29°S 99.5°E.
The following 7 users liked this post by MickG0105:
It was proceeding generally quite well up to the 47 minute mark. When talking about the fellow who invented Weak Signal Propagation Reporter (WSPR), Nobel laureate, Dr Joe Taylor, it should have been noted that he has stated quite emphatically that his technology CANNOT be used to track aircraft...
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Roguesville, cloud cuckooland
Posts: 1,197
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes
on
5 Posts
WSPR as used by RG has several inbuilt facets that make it unsuitable for aircraft tracking.
A WSPR link with an "anomaly" cannot ever be confirmed as having been caused by the target aircraft. There is nothing in a WSPR link that identifies whatever caused the "anomaly". In the case of the track of MH370, the position of the WSPR links being used to "track" MH370 are guesses based on Godfrey's latest guess. If you have access to his reports, you can see that every time a handshake is due, the track he plots lurches towards the ping ring. Its almost as if he knows the position of the ping ring. This is because he can cherry pick the WSPR links he needs to make a viable track... with no way to verify if the anomaly it contains was caused by MH370.
I had to correct him about his use of fixes to determine the position of the aircraft. He was using single lines from a WSPR transmitter with an anomaly to create a "position" of MH 370. " He called them "Progress Indicators" where a single line from a WSPR transmitter thousands of kilometers away was assumed have travelled that distance with the properties of a laser beam and reveal the precise position of MH370. In the First technical analysis there is a "holding pattern" based on either single line "Position Indicators", or nothing at all followed by a turn.
He was ignoring that WSPR transmitters and recievers can be anywhere in their home grid and was assuming their default position was dead in the centre of that grid, thus eliminating any possible signal azimuth error after travelling thousands of kilometres from their transmitters.
After being called out on these and other compounding errors, he did what any scientist would do. He stopped publishing the technical analysis that provided all the details needed to verify the track and the technique used to create it.
There is a phenomenon apparent in some sections of the MH370 community. The drive to be right and be the person who found the wreckage. RG has it in spades. Helped and abetted by Geoffrey Thomas.
A WSPR link with an "anomaly" cannot ever be confirmed as having been caused by the target aircraft. There is nothing in a WSPR link that identifies whatever caused the "anomaly". In the case of the track of MH370, the position of the WSPR links being used to "track" MH370 are guesses based on Godfrey's latest guess. If you have access to his reports, you can see that every time a handshake is due, the track he plots lurches towards the ping ring. Its almost as if he knows the position of the ping ring. This is because he can cherry pick the WSPR links he needs to make a viable track... with no way to verify if the anomaly it contains was caused by MH370.
I had to correct him about his use of fixes to determine the position of the aircraft. He was using single lines from a WSPR transmitter with an anomaly to create a "position" of MH 370. " He called them "Progress Indicators" where a single line from a WSPR transmitter thousands of kilometers away was assumed have travelled that distance with the properties of a laser beam and reveal the precise position of MH370. In the First technical analysis there is a "holding pattern" based on either single line "Position Indicators", or nothing at all followed by a turn.
He was ignoring that WSPR transmitters and recievers can be anywhere in their home grid and was assuming their default position was dead in the centre of that grid, thus eliminating any possible signal azimuth error after travelling thousands of kilometres from their transmitters.
After being called out on these and other compounding errors, he did what any scientist would do. He stopped publishing the technical analysis that provided all the details needed to verify the track and the technique used to create it.
There is a phenomenon apparent in some sections of the MH370 community. The drive to be right and be the person who found the wreckage. RG has it in spades. Helped and abetted by Geoffrey Thomas.
The following 7 users liked this post by Capt Kremin:
Ah, the man of the hour.
To be fair, since that criticism was first raised they have made some attempts to better fix the true locations of the transmitter and receiver antenna.
That said, it still hasn't stopped them from making egregious errors in siting Tx and Rx locations. In their MH370 Flight Path Analysis Case Study 30th August 2023 piece, despite claiming that they had built "a database with transmitter and receiver antenna locations, where the precision of the latitude and longitude is given to 6 decimal places (better than ± 1 m)" and that "Care was taken to check the antenna location in 2014 matched the grid locator in the historic WSPRnet database from 7th/8th March 2014", they still managed to mis-map a Livermore, California station by over 2,500 km by placing it in Texas.
That balls up was all the more laughable as it was included their "worked example", presumably on the basis that it represented their best and most convincing work. You can only wonder what could possibly motivate two PhD holders, one a professor no less, to put their names to such routinely shoddy work.
Yes, the breathless and entirely uncritical regurgitation from that quarter is entirely unhelpful.
...
He was ignoring that WSPR transmitters and recievers can be anywhere in their home grid and was assuming their default position was dead in the centre of that grid, thus eliminating any possible signal azimuth error after travelling thousands of kilometres from their transmitters.
...
He was ignoring that WSPR transmitters and recievers can be anywhere in their home grid and was assuming their default position was dead in the centre of that grid, thus eliminating any possible signal azimuth error after travelling thousands of kilometres from their transmitters.
...
That said, it still hasn't stopped them from making egregious errors in siting Tx and Rx locations. In their MH370 Flight Path Analysis Case Study 30th August 2023 piece, despite claiming that they had built "a database with transmitter and receiver antenna locations, where the precision of the latitude and longitude is given to 6 decimal places (better than ± 1 m)" and that "Care was taken to check the antenna location in 2014 matched the grid locator in the historic WSPRnet database from 7th/8th March 2014", they still managed to mis-map a Livermore, California station by over 2,500 km by placing it in Texas.
That balls up was all the more laughable as it was included their "worked example", presumably on the basis that it represented their best and most convincing work. You can only wonder what could possibly motivate two PhD holders, one a professor no less, to put their names to such routinely shoddy work.
Yes, the breathless and entirely uncritical regurgitation from that quarter is entirely unhelpful.
The following 6 users liked this post by MickG0105:
Amongst those deficiencies is their contention that all electrical generators were isolated at around the time that the aircraft went "dark" while over the Gulf of Thailand, thus triggering the deployment of the Ram Air Turbine. That would be an extraordinary action, unnecessary and irreversible (in terms of RAT deployment).
Much of their proposed flight path is based on the contention that the aircraft was descended to 30,000 feet (FL300) at the time it turned back towards the Malaysian Peninsula. There is no evidence to support this but there is good evidence (the air traffic control primary radar data from Kota Bharu) that roundly contradicts it. The aircraft was likely very much higher than their proposed cruising altitude at that time. This impacts both their speed and fuel consumption assumptions.
Then they run into the standard good many problems with a controlled, unpowered ditching hypothesis.
1. There's the decision to attempt a unpowered ditching in the first place; anyone familiar with the Ethiopian Airlines 961 unpowered ditching would be aware of the hazards associated.
2. The Burst Frequency Offset from aircraft's final log-on to the satellite network showed a high and rapidly increasing rate of descent; that is not consistent with a controlled descent, although it doesn't rule it out.
3. The final SATCOM log-on did not run to completion; that should not have been the case if the aircraft was in a controlled, sustained descent at that time. Their ELMS shedding explanation for the partial log-on does not seem to comport with either the known generating capacity of the APU (identical to an IDG) or the documented ELMS shedding protocols.
4. Their scenario calls for a Flaps 30 ditching; the ATSB evidence is that the flaps were stowed when they were torn off the wing.
5. Then there is the absence of the automatic activation of the aircraft's fixed emergency locator transmitter; something that you would likely expect given their scenario and the wreckage items liberated. Given the fairly ordinary performance of ELTs, I'm not losing too much sleep over this one.
6. Finally, there are the recovered wreckage items, which suggest something other than a "soft controlled ditching" (their words). At least one wreckage item, the section of the vertical stabiliser, is inconsistent with a controlled ditching.
Last edited by MickG0105; 17th Mar 2024 at 03:39. Reason: Tidy up
The following 5 users liked this post by MickG0105:
The following users liked this post: