Yes, perhaps on Mars.
If it had landed on earth there would be some evidence of it by now. I will go so far as to say it is not possible to hide all traces of a plane of that size and 300 people. We know for a fact that planes drop into oceans. There has never been a case of a modern full size passenger jet with 300 people landing without a trace. Lois
On Mars? :lol:
MH370 could be the black swan.
From this article here]
Military secrets are not for civilian TV news:
1.
And there we are faced with a dilemma. Does the military alliance that controls these systems see Malaysia as an ally? Are they willing to reveal the peacetime capabilities of their systems to a foreign power? Ultimately do they have the technical capability to 'hack' an airliner's controls and disable avionics, even steer the plane rendering the pilot? If they can do that do they want to release that information to the world?
2.
The second is that MH370’s pilot was simply called by the military on a frequency not being recorded by Air Traffic Control and told something along the lines of, “Vietnamese and other unspecified airspace is suddenly unsafe to fly in due to a military incident so please change frequency and follow instructions to a distant airstrip where we can put you down safely." The was followed by something like, "Please do not inform passengers as this may alarm them." The pilot would then be likely to simply comply and passengers may never know that anything was wrong. So if one of these is the means, what about the motive?
The geopolitics of Malaysia & China:
Both China and Malaysia are independently strong and that rankles in Washington. Malaysia refuses to do what it is told by the IMF and China is staunchly independent of the US 'vision' for the world in a way that has proved impossible for nations like Britain or, most recently, Ukraine to be.
Psychological warfare – news management:
Both these stories were greeted in the international press by an avalanche of denials from government, military and other ‘expert’ sources, none of whom could possibly have known whether or not the Rolls Royce or the Maldives Islanders were correct or not. This massive and instantaneous reaction is the clear signature of an Information Operations campaign to stop publication and broadcasting of those stories to the world’s public and it largely worked.
Similarities to the 9/11 attacks and Britain's role:
The bizarre zigzag routes followed by MH370 are exactly the sort of flight path demonstrated during the September 11 attacks. On 9/11 we saw the same mysterious switching off, whether remotely or by the pilots, of transponders which should have been reporting the planes’ speed, altitude and position to air traffic control. If anything, the 777 is even more liable to cyber hijacking than the 767s involved in the 9/11 attacks. It was the first production aircraft to have no controls by which the pilot has direct influence over any part of the aircraft. It's all via the flight management system.
Rolls Royce as the star of the piece:
On the other hand, Rolls Royce is the star of the piece, exposing an enormous flaw in the initial ‘lost plane’ theory: that MH370 flew on for over five hours. Airliners in trouble simply do not fly on for five hours and then plunge into the sea.
Kkwan wrote:
Rolls Royce as the star of the piece:
On the other hand, Rolls Royce is the star of the piece, exposing an enormous flaw in the initial ‘lost plane’ theory: that MH370 flew on for over five hours. Airliners in trouble simply do not fly on for five hours and then plunge into the sea.
Bold all added by me.
They also don’t fly for five hours and then land without a trace. (No bold necessary).
Lois
Kkwan wrote:
Rolls Royce as the star of the piece:
On the other hand, Rolls Royce is the star of the piece, exposing an enormous flaw in the initial ‘lost plane’ theory: that MH370 flew on for over five hours. Airliners in trouble simply do not fly on for five hours and then plunge into the sea.
Bold all added by me.
-------
They also don't fly for five hours and then land without a trace. (No bold necessary).
Lois
I can't remember the name of the pro golfer who's Lear Jet depressurized at altitude killing all aboard. The jet flew on...accompanied by military jets to make sure it didn't crash into a high population area until it ran out of fuel and crashed...hours later. I remember watching the horror on tv as the aircraft administration realized everyone on board was dead.
Kkwan wrote:
Rolls Royce as the star of the piece:
On the other hand, Rolls Royce is the star of the piece, exposing an enormous flaw in the initial ‘lost plane’ theory: that MH370 flew on for over five hours. Airliners in trouble simply do not fly on for five hours and then plunge into the sea.
Bold all added by me.
-------
They also don't fly for five hours and then land without a trace. (No bold necessary).
Lois
I can't remember the name of the pro golfer who's Lear Jet depressurized at altitude killing all aboard. The jet flew on...accompanied by military jets to make sure it didn't crash into a high population area until it ran out of fuel and crashed...hours later. I remember watching the horror on tv as the aircraft administration realized everyone on board was dead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_South_Dakota_Learjet_crash
The four passengers on board were golf star Payne Stewart, his agents, Van Ardan and Robert Fraley, and Bruce Borland, a highly regarded golf architect with the Jack Nicklaus golf course design company.
Lois
The article is from http://www.veteranstoday.com/
Scroll down to "Top 50 read articles this week" and click the link "MH370: Evidence of false flag".
We are all actors living in interesting times, in a mad mad mad mad world.
:lol:
It has been 2 months since the disappearance of MH370 with no evidence of what happened to it.
Why is it so fruitless?
From this article here] Why the Official Explanation of MH370’s Demise Doesn’t Hold Up
But now the search of 154 square miles of ocean floor around the signals has concluded with no trace of wreckage found. Pessimism is growing as to whether those signals actually had anything to do with Flight 370. If they didn’t, the search area would return to a size of tens of thousands of square miles.
Even before the black-box search turned up empty, observers had begun to raise doubts about whether searchers were looking in the right place. Authorities have treated the conclusion that the plane crashed in the ocean west of Australia as definitive, owing to a much-vaunted mathematical analysis of satellite signals sent by the plane. But scientists and engineers outside of the investigation have been working to verify that analysis, and many say that it just doesn’t hold up.
Cracking the 'Doppler Code'?
Exner, an engineer who’s developed satellite and meteorology technologies since the early 1970s, noted that the measured frequency shifts might come not just from each ping’s transmission from plane to satellite, but also from the ping’s subsequent transmission from the satellite to a ground station that connects the satellites into the Inmarsat network. In other words, Exner may have found the hidden source that seems to be throwing off the frequency graph.
Inmarsat’s analysis is highly ambiguous about whether the satellite-to-ground transmission contributed to the measured frequency shift. But if it did, a ground station located significantly south of the satellite would have resulted in frequency shifts that could account for the measured shifts being too large at the beginning of the graph and too small at the end. And sure enough, Inmarsat’s analysis states that the ground station receiving the transmission was located in Australia.
Is Inmarsat’s analysis wrong?
If this interpretation—based on the work of Exner, Steel, Farrar, and myself—is correct, it would allow independent experts to fully review Inmarsat’s analysis, verify its work and check to see if Inmarsat might have missed any important clues that could further narrow down the plane’s whereabouts.
But:
It’s possible these outside experts have still erred or missed some crucial detail in their attempts to understand the Inmarsat analysis. But that just means that Inmarsat’s analysis, as it has been presented, remains deeply confusing, or perhaps deeply confused. And there are other reasons to believe that Inmarsat’s analysis is not just unclear but mistaken. (Inmarsat stands by its analysis. More on that in a minute.)
Losing faith?
Inmarsat claims that it found a difference between a southbound and northbound path based on the satellite’s motion. But a graph of the frequency shifts along those paths should look very different from the one Inmarsat has produced.
Losing Faith
Either Inmarsat’s analysis doesn’t totally make sense, or it’s flat-out wrong.
Wrong assumption, mathematical analysis and ocean?
The biggest risk to the investigation now is that authorities continue to assume they’ve finally found the area where the plane went down, while failing to explore other possibilities simply because they don’t fit with a mathematical analysis that may not even hold up.
After all, searchers have yet to find any hard evidence—not so much as a shred of debris—to confirm that they’re looking in the right ocean.
If the Inmarsat data interpretation is wrong, I really want a clear and reasonable statement about what the pings were that were picked up in the current search location.
They also don't fly for five hours and then land without a trace. (No bold necessary).
They can do that now.
Read this article here]
:cheese:
Send me the details of any plane that went off course and disappeared from all radar landing safely without a trace.
It does no good to say "they can do that now" and offer no evidence that it has ever happened.
Lois
If the Inmarsat data interpretation is wrong, I really want a clear and reasonable statement about what the pings were that were picked up in the current search location.
In essence, Mr Meacham thinks that the pings on which Australia based its decisions on MH370 were coming from satellite trackers tagged to marine animals found in Australia.
"For several decades, pingers with frequencies of 30 to 50kHz have been commonly used to track large, deep ocean animals. Location and other data is transmitted to receivers in the ocean or to satellites whenever the animal surfaces. Acoustic pingers are also widely used as fishing net protectors, to drive away predators that would steal fish," he wrote.
And:
"There are several features of the evidence obtained by the TPL that indicates the signals it received came from a tracking device, or pinger attached to a net that is drifting. First and foremost is the signal's frequency of 33.3khz. This is NOT within the manufacturer's specs of 37.5 +/- 1 for the black box pinger," Mr Meacham continued.
He said that an email from oceanographer P.H Nargeolet said that the frequency indicated should have given search officials a hint that the pings were not from the missing plane. Mr Nargeolet was involved in the search for the Air France 447 that crashed in the Atlantic.
Also:
Another major issue to the Australian search is the range of detection from where the pings came from, said Mr Meacham. Apparently, scientists of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution employed a pinger similar to MH370's in order to study baleen whales. The scientists found that the maximum range that such pinger can cover is 2.3 km. But black box pings reportedly coming from MH370 covered the distance beyond 9.5, 12.3 and 13.6km.
"Dr Lee Freitag, one of the scientists in the study that I contacted, expressed scepticism that the pings were coming from the black box, and also confirmed that the frequency of the pinger would not change due to deep sea conditions."
Quoting Dr David Gallo's, senior scientists at Wood's Hole, email to him, Mr Meacham emphasised how problematic it was to base the search on pings alone.
"I don't know any underwater acoustic people that think the pings have anything to do with the plane," Mr Gallo wrote in the email.
Send me the details of any plane that went off course and disappeared from all radar landing safely without a trace.
It does no good to say "they can do that now" and offer no evidence that it has ever happened.
Send me the details of any plane that went off course and disappeared from all radar landing safely without a trace.
It does no good to say "they can do that now" and offer no evidence that it has ever happened.
Apparently, you did not read the article.
I didn't. i couldn't find the one you were referring to. I found a "Top 10" articles, but not a "Top 50' and I couldn't find anything about flights there or elsewhere.
Lois
I didn't. i couldn't find the one you were referring to. I found a "Top 10" articles, but not a "Top 50' and I couldn't find anything about flights there or elsewhere.
Scroll down to the bottom of the web page. The article is still listed (14) under the heading "Top 50 read articles this week".
Alternatively, click No. 13 in "what's hot" on the web page and click the first link in "end notes and references".
If the Inmarsat data interpretation is wrong, I really want a clear and reasonable statement about what the pings were that were picked up in the current search location.
In essence, Mr Meacham thinks that the pings on which Australia based its decisions on MH370 were coming from satellite trackers tagged to marine animals found in Australia.
"For several decades, pingers with frequencies of 30 to 50kHz have been commonly used to track large, deep ocean animals. Location and other data is transmitted to receivers in the ocean or to satellites whenever the animal surfaces. Acoustic pingers are also widely used as fishing net protectors, to drive away predators that would steal fish," he wrote.
And:
"There are several features of the evidence obtained by the TPL that indicates the signals it received came from a tracking device, or pinger attached to a net that is drifting. First and foremost is the signal's frequency of 33.3khz. This is NOT within the manufacturer's specs of 37.5 +/- 1 for the black box pinger," Mr Meacham continued.
He said that an email from oceanographer P.H Nargeolet said that the frequency indicated should have given search officials a hint that the pings were not from the missing plane. Mr Nargeolet was involved in the search for the Air France 447 that crashed in the Atlantic.
Also:
Another major issue to the Australian search is the range of detection from where the pings came from, said Mr Meacham. Apparently, scientists of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution employed a pinger similar to MH370's in order to study baleen whales. The scientists found that the maximum range that such pinger can cover is 2.3 km. But black box pings reportedly coming from MH370 covered the distance beyond 9.5, 12.3 and 13.6km.
"Dr Lee Freitag, one of the scientists in the study that I contacted, expressed scepticism that the pings were coming from the black box, and also confirmed that the frequency of the pinger would not change due to deep sea conditions."
Quoting Dr David Gallo's, senior scientists at Wood's Hole, email to him, Mr Meacham emphasised how problematic it was to base the search on pings alone.
"I don't know any underwater acoustic people that think the pings have anything to do with the plane," Mr Gallo wrote in the email.
If the pings were from tracking devices, then who was tracking the marine animals, and why didn't they report that it was their pinger?
I’d take Occam’s razor to this. It went into the ocean, eveyone was killed, and the plane is sitting on the ocean floor somewhere. There is no way it could have crashed on land or landed without a trace, despite all the conspiracy mumbo-jumbo. The simplest explanation is the best option until some valid evidence appears that something more complicated happened. If all the time and energy that goes into conspiracy theories were put to better use, some of the worst of the world’s problems might be solved. On the other hand, if conspiracy nuts weren’t wasting time on conspiracies, it boggles the mind what they might be doing instead. It wouldn’t be anything good.
With you on this one Lois; they may never find the plane and if they do it is in all likelihood in hundreds of pieces. Could be pilot error or natural causes could have caused it. We can’t solve every mystery. CNN needs to move on to more relevant news, and I don’t mean following “The Donald” around hoping he will pull some gaff or make an off the wall comment about immigrants.
Cap’t Jack
Here is an example of a poor news practice that CNN was frequently guilty of in their non-stop reporting on MH370 around 16 months ago, that I saw today. They had an “expert” assert that it is “very likely” that other pieces of debris will be arriving (presumably to Reunion Island).
Now this “expert” could be correct, but only IF, what seem to me to be, so far, unfounded assumptions are also correct. The “expert” seems to be assuming that the wing part washed up the day it was found, or shortly before. Could he tell, simply from a picture of the barnacles on the wing part, that this is a correct assumption? The wing just happened to be found on a remote, not easily accessible beach, that a group happened to be trying to clean up. Perhaps it has been there for some longer amount of time. If that is the case, then other bits of debris may have already washed up somewhere, where they have not been seen or recognized for what they are. Or they may have been widely dispersed and have already passed by any land mass and are still meandering about somewhere in the vast Indian Ocean.