buttrick:
can you draw a line that ends up in the yellow final search box, with constant but much less speed?
Appears to me ground speed to be more 250 knots than 489 knots.
There is still something missing here.

susier
"The posts relating to the Georesonance stuff have all been removed, rightly"

Why rightly?

Because GeoResonance is either a hoax or a scam or both, and just because a TV station fell for it, we don't need to perpetuate their claims further here.

I suggest to the moderators to leave one edited post in the thread noting why a certain group of posts has been removed so future questions about the issue can be avoided.

Because everyone knows they are searching in the right place and it must be right for something they lost and cannot find.
Last time I lost my wallet I was sure I lost it at home...I did not bother looking at work as I knew it was not there. Cannot help thinking the same thinking applies here. The trace must be right because we say so.

Satellite data and related
 

@ oldoberon

Not challenging the correctness of your statements. Nonetheless, we want to know your basis of knowledge. That is: your statements about the tasks and methods utilized by the individuals and/or entities to determine the satellite-related data are:
(a) derived from first-hand knowledge of how the data were handled, because you were there and participated (in whole or in part), or
(b) derived not from personal knowledge but rather from knowledge about how the pertinent individuals and/or entities do things such as the effort to plot the flight path of the missing airliner, or
(c) derived, somehow, through some other means.

Again I'm not asserting disagreement. What I am saying is we want to know how much reliance may be placed on your statements, as a function of how you acquired the knowledge you have posted.

Now all they need is some legit data.:ok:

I can't believe they are getting any publicity at all, guess it shows how desperate the journos are to turn up new stuff, anything at all, on the fate of the aircraft.

Satellite and related
 

Willow,
The document released by Malaysia on 25/03/14 is titled:
Information Provided to MH370 Investigation by UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB)

The first sentence reads "On 13 March we received information from UK satellie Company Inmarsat...." (my emphasis on "we"

The second sentence reads" Inmarsat UK has continued to refine this analysis and yesterday the AAIB presented it's most recent findings,..."

The Satellite data originated from Inmarsat, and that data (and it's findings) were presented to Malaysia by AAIB.

I'm not certain that any of us can attest that NTSB reviewed or approved the Inmarsat analysis.

You could question whether AAIB reviewed the Inmarsat data, but it is reasonable to presume that the AAIB did so.

About the ping data
 

Instead of arguing about how the data should have been or might have been handled and how official ..

Why not simply go to Inmersat at

Malaysian government publishes MH370 details from UK AAIB - Inmarsat

Right or wrong - I am sure they have had multi- experts and some equivalent tracking data for flights by 777 in the general areas.

PLease forget- the Diego garcia and wazooistan theories unles one has better data from credible sources.:ugh::ugh:

That sort of leaves out CNN for many issues.:rolleyes:

Seems like the Malaysians are not dismissing GeoResonance's claim out of hand - but they want a properly-outlined presentation.
To me, it appears that the GeoResonance director is backing away from the initial claims that they actually found MH370.
Whether that claim was actually made by the company, or was made by the media in an unwarranted extrapolation of the initial information, is a moot point at this stage.

I can accept that GeoResonance has found all the materials that they have spoken of - but whether they come from MH370 or another crashed jet aircraft that has never been found, is something that needs to be investigated promptly, by researching aircraft crash records.

It could definitely be worth a check as apparently the depth is not too great there. If it does turn out to be an aircraft wreck and not the right one it is another mystery solved. If it does prove to be a wreck the technique may be worth a try in the deeper water where they think MH370 crashed.

Just joined to say Georesonance has a CEO who lives in Sevastapol.
The technigues they use have not been able to find a ship sunk in the Black sea in WW2.So what chance MH370.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/dub...nd-mh370.3558/

On their page "georesonance.com/georesonance-geophysical-survey-projects.html", they pretend having found the wreck of the ship Armenia in 2005 (press the "button" SUNKEN SHIP UKRAIN 2005).
But in 2008 the University of Texas was looking for the same ship:
Archaeologists unearth a graveyard of ancient shipwrecks in the Black Sea | Feature Stories :
"This fall, the team returned to the Black Sea on a mission to locate the Armenia, a Soviet hospital ship sunk by German aircraft in 1941. The President of Ukraine, Viktor Yushchenko, is eager to locate the wreck to honor those who died, Davis says."
They didn't find it (the article title is for another ship) and there is not a single word about the geothing company researches on the page...

One of their patents here: UA2011000033 SYSTEM FOR REMOTELY PROSPECTING MINERAL RESOURCE DEPOSITS (AHMA, it is absolute crap)
Another there: Patents : Its reading will be a good abdominals exercise for any scientific...

Try googling Georesonance
 

I did a google search on Georesonance and could only find links relating to MH370 - they seem to have not existed before MH370 disappeared :ugh:

You are mistaken. Their website appears to date back to June of last year:

http://web.archive.org/web/201306041...resonance.com/

Their company was registered in January last year according to the Australian Securities and Investment Commission. Link

Hmm. Looked at Georesonance's images and based on the scale that plane looks like it's almost twice the size of a T7.
If these images are of anything real, I'd bet these could turn out to be images from an entirely different site and plane: the prototype for the experimental Ekranoplan (aka Caspian Sea Monster) which lies at the bottom of the Caspian sea.
Any other bets?

The folks at Metabunk have serious doubts about GeoResonance:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/dub...nd-mh370.3558/

Not extravagant? Maybe to put a suitable analogy here, their claims are equivalent to "We built a prototype airliner for 500 passengers that can travel at Mach 8, does not create any sonic boom and needs 100 kg of fuel for a transatlantic flight. We are not saying how we are doing it, but we have 23 or 47 people working it, 12 of which have a PhD and 5 of which are professors. The plane was built using secret Soviet military technology. We sent a presentation to both Boeing and Airbus and are very surprised not to have heard back from them. We are not saying that this is the aeroplane of the future. But they should at least follow up as a potential lead for future airline technology!". Why? It is for three reasons of physics, military technology and economics:

(1) No electromagnetic wave can travel through water very far before being absorbed. Only ELF waves with a frequency of less than 100 Hz used for communication with nuclear submarines can penetrate a few hundred metres. The transmitters and antennas used for these waves are huge, expensive and power hungry so that there are only two or them in the US and Russia. Nothing on a plane wreck sitting on the ground of the ocean can create such waves so no electromagnetic detector on a aeroplane or satellite can detect any electromagnetic waves originating from the wreck.

(2) This technology could be used to spot submarines. If such technology exists, why do the nuclear powers still build hunter-killer attack submarines that try to sniff out the location of the enemy nuclear ballistic missile submarines? And why bother having nuclear ballistic missile submarines, the threat of which relies on being stealthy, if they can simply be detected from space?

(3) This technology would instantly reveal all mineral and oil deposits of the whole world. Why do the oil and mining companies then rely on other expensive, unreliable, methods to find valuable resources?

The JACC are refusing to give any weight to GeoResonance's claim, and insist that the search area they have been looking at is correct, and the search will continue in that region as it enters its next phase - using deep-sea specialist contractors such as Woods Hole.

The only thing to be agreed on now, is who picks up the contractors tab for their efforts.
Obviously, the nations with pax on board the ill-fated flight will be asked to foot a portion of the new, expanded, underwater search bill.
Up to now, the expenditure has largely been military expenditure that would have been spent, anyway (with some of that expenditure brought forward).

The air search winds up today without a single item relating to MH370 being found - so the search effort from now on will be purely underwater, with an expanded search area that is estimated to be around 700km long and 40km wide.
The JACC estimates that the new search phase will possibly take up 8 or 9 months.

Search for missing MH370 to enter new phase: JACC - Xinhua | English.news.cn

Pingology.........
 

The more I look at the Inmarsat BFO chart the more it seems to be wrong...........almost as if the function is inverted , and the higher values towards the top of the chart are when the satellite and aircraft are approaching each other , and the pings nearer the bottom line are when they are moving apart...........e.g.........
.forgoing the maths for a moment , the aircraft was supposed to takeoff on a heading of 341 degrees for 11 nautical miles , before turning right to proceed on their planned route (latest/current departure chart), so the ping at 16.43UTC is about right for the turn at the end of climbout . So the takeoff represents initially , close to a radial arc from the satellite base position , ie , neither flying toward or away from the satellite , but the BFO value increases , so this has to mainly be from the aircaft motion vertically , climbing at an average of 2000 feet per minute .The satellite vertical motion is a much smaller proportion of this and is decreasing as it approaches its high point . So the aircraft is ascending faster than the satellite and the net effect is the distance is closing .....ie.doppler increase . After the turn the BFO increases at close to the same rate (the next ping at 16.55UTC)..... although the aircraft is now flying 032/025 degrees which includes a large component away from the satellite base position., this can only be from the vertical motion still , as the aircraft is increasing speed and continuing to climb......
Then at 17.07UTC the BFO value reduces and the only thing that has happened then , is that the aircraft has reached the top of its climb to the assigned cruising level and leveled off , ie. the vertical motion towards the satellite has stopped , and so the BFO correction value is reduced to suit.........
Then we have the large gap which looks wrong , I suspect that some part of the Satphone system has been powered off here at the same time the radios and transponder went off......
Then when the pings re-appear at 18.25UTC , we have several in quick sequence , which suggest to me that perhaps the satellite has assigned an idle transponder , or at least one where the 'default' value of max. BFO has been set , and so there is a fairly rapid adjustment in order to sync and lock on to the signal from MH370 , which it may regard as a new contact now.......this seems more likely than extreme aircraft motion ....
So now the last five pings would appear to be from motion towards the satellite instead of away from it , so it suggests moving in from outside the final ping arc............until you consider the satellite motion.........
.......... there is the unlikely symmetry in the three pings 18.29UTC , 19.40UTC , and 20.40UTC , and now this matches the relative motion of the satellite too closely to be co-incidence for me........From the data provided by STK , the satellite reaches its highest point close to 19.40UTC , then starts to descend again , so one might almost expect the chart of pings to have the same slope even if the aircraft were stationary and the BFO values were changing purely from the satellite position.....????????........ hmmmmmmmm????.......