Crowd sourcing aircraft search

[Sylvia Else]

Been taking a look at the imagery provided by

http://www.tomnod.com/nod/challenge/malaysiaairsar2014

Seems to me that at that resolution, it would be easy to spot an entire
777 on the surface, or a large part of one, but much more difficult to
distinguish the much more likely smaller wreckage from the huge number
of random wave crests.

It does suggest, though, that having guys looking out of aircraft
windows may not be the most effective way of searching. High resolution
imagery taken from an aircraft could be processed by the crowd much more
quickly.

Sylvia.

[Petzl]

I think drones are being used in search as .well
Maybe it's in Nort Korea?
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/travel/travel-news/malaysia-airlines-plane-mh370-missing-new-hostage-theory/story-fniztvnh-1226853195656
--
Petzl
I started with nothing and I am proud to say I still have most of it left

[Sylvia Else]

Whether or not engine data continued to be received for some hours after
contact was lost is something that should surely be quickly capable of a
definitive determination.

I suspect this will turn out to be another piece of misinformation.

Sylvia.

[Rod Speed]

Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote

> Been taking a look at the imagery provided by
> http://www.tomnod.com/nod/challenge/malaysiaairsar2014

No thanks.

> Seems to me that at that resolution, it would be easy to
> spot an entire 777 on the surface, or a large part of one,

If it was that easy, China would have done that already.

> but much more difficult to distinguish the much more likely
> smaller wreckage from the huge number of random wave crests.

It isnt the wave crests that are the problem.

> It does suggest, though, that having guys looking out of aircraft
> windows may not be the most effective way of searching.

That might be why china has moved their satellites into that area.

> High resolution imagery taken from an aircraft could
> be processed by the crowd much more quickly.

Even sillier.

[Rod Speed]

Petzl <pet...@gmail.com> wrote

> Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote

>> Been taking a look at the imagery provided by
>> http://www.tomnod.com/nod/challenge/malaysiaairsar2014

>> Seems to me that at that resolution, it would be easy to spot an entire
>> 777 on the surface, or a large part of one, but much more difficult to
>> distinguish the much more likely smaller wreckage from the huge number
>> of random wave crests.

>> It does suggest, though, that having guys looking out of aircraft windows
>> may not be the most effective way of searching. High resolution imagery
>> taken from an aircraft could be processed by the crowd much more quickly.

> I think drones are being used in search as .well

Clearly they haven't found anything.

> Maybe it's in Nort Korea?

Not a chance. The plane never had the range to get
there and avoid being seen in the radar doing that.

And why would either pilot want to do that anyway ?

> http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/travel/travel-news/malaysia-airlines-plane-mh370-missing-new-hostage-theory/story-fniztvnh-1226853195656

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304914904579434653903086282
doesn't explain why it was never seen on radar, and doesn't include North
Korea anyway.

[Sylvia Else]

On 13/03/2014 7:30 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
> Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote

>> High resolution imagery taken from an aircraft could be processed by
>> the crowd much more quickly.
>
> Even sillier.

Why is it silly?

Sylvia.

[Petzl]

On Thu, 13 Mar 2014 19:19:43 +1100, Sylvia Else

You are right, the engine data stopped the same time communication was
lost. The engine data showed they were running normally with 5 more
hours running time at point of communication loss

[Petzl]

On Thu, 13 Mar 2014 19:37:25 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Petzl <pet...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote
>
>>> Been taking a look at the imagery provided by
>>> http://www.tomnod.com/nod/challenge/malaysiaairsar2014
>
>>> Seems to me that at that resolution, it would be easy to spot an entire
>>> 777 on the surface, or a large part of one, but much more difficult to
>>> distinguish the much more likely smaller wreckage from the huge number
>>> of random wave crests.
>
>>> It does suggest, though, that having guys looking out of aircraft windows
>>> may not be the most effective way of searching. High resolution imagery
>>> taken from an aircraft could be processed by the crowd much more quickly.
>
>> I think drones are being used in search as .well
>
>Clearly they haven't found anything.
>
>> Maybe it's in Nort Korea?
>
>Not a chance. The plane never had the range to get
>there and avoid being seen in the radar doing that.
>
>And why would either pilot want to do that anyway ?
>

Not discounting Iranian terrorists and Iran's "friendly" status!

>> http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/travel/travel-news/malaysia-airlines-plane-mh370-missing-new-hostage-theory/story-fniztvnh-1226853195656
>
>http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304914904579434653903086282
>doesn't explain why it was never seen on radar, and doesn't include North
>Korea anyway.

Radar does not identify aircraft. The engines were fine at loss of
comunication "Engine Data" showed they were easily capable of a futher
5 hours flight

[Rod Speed]

Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote

> Rod Speed wrote
>> Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote

>>> High resolution imagery taken from an aircraft could
>>> be processed by the crowd much more quickly.

>> Even sillier.

> Why is it silly?

Because it isn't done by humans.

[Rod Speed]

Petzl <pet...@gmail.com> wrote

> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Petzl <pet...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote

>>>> Been taking a look at the imagery provided by
>>>> http://www.tomnod.com/nod/challenge/malaysiaairsar2014

>>>> Seems to me that at that resolution, it would be easy to spot an entire
>>>> 777 on the surface, or a large part of one, but much more difficult to
>>>> distinguish the much more likely smaller wreckage from the huge number
>>>> of random wave crests.

>>>> It does suggest, though, that having guys looking out of aircraft
>>>> windows
>>>> may not be the most effective way of searching. High resolution imagery
>>>> taken from an aircraft could be processed by the crowd much more
>>>> quickly.

>>> I think drones are being used in search as .well

>> Clearly they haven't found anything.

>>> Maybe it's in Nort Korea?

>> Not a chance. The plane never had the range to get
>> there and avoid being seen in the radar doing that.

>> And why would either pilot want to do that anyway ?

> Not discounting Iranian terrorists

I just don't believe its possible to hijack
a plane full of passengers now post 9/11.

And what would be the point of doing that
and not announcing you have done it anyway ?

You seriously believe that Iran wants to just waste
lots of first and second world country's money
doing the massive search effort for what they
know will never be found because they arent
searching North Korea and make the west look
silly/incompetent ?

> and Iran's "friendly" status!

Why would North Korea be interested in your conspiracy ?

>>> http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/travel/travel-news/malaysia-airlines-plane-mh370-missing-new-hostage-theory/story-fniztvnh-1226853195656

>> http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304914904579434653903086282
>> doesn't explain why it was never seen on radar, and doesn't include North
>> Korea anyway.

> Radar does not identify aircraft.

Doesn't need to, there are no unidentified
aircraft moving to North Korea at that time.

> The engines were fine at loss of comunication
> "Engine Data" showed they were easily capable
> of a futher 5 hours flight

It's the fuel that determines how long it can fly for,
not the engine data. And if the plane ended up in
a situation where it was unflyable, it doesn't matter
a damn what the engine data had to say either.

[matt weber]

On Thu, 13 Mar 2014 19:37:25 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Petzl <pet...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote
>
>>> Been taking a look at the imagery provided by
>>> http://www.tomnod.com/nod/challenge/malaysiaairsar2014
>
>>> Seems to me that at that resolution, it would be easy to spot an entire
>>> 777 on the surface, or a large part of one, but much more difficult to
>>> distinguish the much more likely smaller wreckage from the huge number
>>> of random wave crests.
>
>>> It does suggest, though, that having guys looking out of aircraft windows
>>> may not be the most effective way of searching. High resolution imagery
>>> taken from an aircraft could be processed by the crowd much more quickly.
>
>> I think drones are being used in search as .well
>
>Clearly they haven't found anything.
>
>> Maybe it's in Nort Korea?
>
>Not a chance. The plane never had the range to get
>there and avoid being seen in the radar doing that.

You are clueless about geography. There isn't much difference between
the distance form Kuala Lumpur (KUL) and Beijing(PEK), and
the distance for KUL to Pyongyang (KPY). IF they could reach PEK,
it would indeed be surprising if they couldn't reach KPY, the
difference in distance is only about 300km, 20 minutes at cruise....,
probably even less than that because the great circle route from KUL
to PEK covers some airspace many airlines would prefer to avoid.

[matt weber]

There is an old adage.
Those that are talking are not the ones that are knowing, and those
that are knowing, aren't talking. I suspect either the US or the
Russians know exactly where the aircraft ended up. Both keep their
mouths shut because admission would disclose capabilities that they do
not wish to be publicly known.

I seriously doubt there is a 'good' outcome on this one. Had they put
down in the water sucessfully, they would have depoyed the life rafts
and the escape slides, which do double duty. Generally on contact with
the water, they will activate the 406 Mhz Emergency beacon, which is
picked up by both Low Earth Orbit sats, and more importantly,
Geosynchronous sats. The time from turning on the beacon, the
reception and alert (even with location) is on the order of seconds.
Since beacon payload contains an ID that must be registered, it would
take at most a few minutes to recognize that the beacon was from a
commercial aircraft.

[Rod Speed]

matt weber <jmw...@verizon.net> wrote

> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote

>>> Been taking a look at the imagery provided by
>>> http://www.tomnod.com/nod/challenge/malaysiaairsar2014

>> No thanks.

>>> Seems to me that at that resolution, it would be easy to
>>> spot an entire 777 on the surface, or a large part of one,

>> If it was that easy, China would have done that already.

>>> but much more difficult to distinguish the much more likely
>>> smaller wreckage from the huge number of random wave crests.

>> It isnt the wave crests that are the problem.

>>> It does suggest, though, that having guys looking out of aircraft
>>> windows may not be the most effective way of searching.

>> That might be why china has moved their satellites into that area.

>>> High resolution imagery taken from an aircraft could
>>> be processed by the crowd much more quickly.

>> Even sillier.

> There is an old adage.

Nope, just more mindless glib waffle.

> Those that are talking are not the ones that are
> knowing, and those that are knowing, aren't talking.

> I suspect either the US or the Russians
> know exactly where the aircraft ended up.

They clearly didn't with the Air France fiasco.

> Both keep their mouths shut because admission would disclose
> capabilities that they do not wish to be publicly known.

Or they don't know because that isn't knowable.

> I seriously doubt there is a 'good' outcome on this one.

Depends on what you call a good outcome.

Bet we do find out what happened eventually,
just like with the Air France fiasco.

Much easier to find the plane in this
case and the black boxes in spades.

> Had they put down in the water sucessfully,

Yeah, its certain that didn't happen. Its somehow
ended up in the water without anyone able to do
anything once it has. Most likely because it hit the
water instead of ditching, but not at a high enough
speed to see the plane break up on hitting the water.
It just sank without leaving any important debris on
the surface at all.

> they would have depoyed the life rafts and
> the escape slides, which do double duty.

But if no one is in a fit state to do that, that
would explain why none of that has been found.

> Generally on contact with the water, they will
> activate the 406 Mhz Emergency beacon,
> which is picked up by both Low Earth Orbit sats,
> and more importantly, Geosynchronous sats.

Sure, but if no one is in any fit state to even get any
doors open, there would be no one to do that either.

> The time from turning on the beacon, the reception
> and alert (even with location) is on the order of
> seconds. Since beacon payload contains an ID that
> must be registered, it would take at most a few
> minutes to recognize that the beacon was from a
> commercial aircraft.

Sure, but that clearly didn't happen, most likely
because it never ditched, it just crashed at a low
enough speed so it didn't breakup significantly and
then sank very quickly. They don't float that well.

[Rod Speed]

matt weber <jmw...@verizon.net> wrote

> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Petzl <pet...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote

>>>> Been taking a look at the imagery provided by
>>>> http://www.tomnod.com/nod/challenge/malaysiaairsar2014

>>>> Seems to me that at that resolution, it would be easy to spot an entire
>>>> 777 on the surface, or a large part of one, but much more difficult to
>>>> distinguish the much more likely smaller wreckage from the huge number
>>>> of random wave crests.

>>>> It does suggest, though, that having guys looking out of aircraft
>>>> windows
>>>> may not be the most effective way of searching. High resolution imagery
>>>> taken from an aircraft could be processed by the crowd much more
>>>> quickly.

>>> I think drones are being used in search as .well

>> Clearly they haven't found anything.

>>> Maybe it's in Nort Korea?

>> Not a chance. The plane never had the range to get
>> there and avoid being seen in the radar doing that.

> You are clueless about geography.

The problem isnt the geography, it's the radar.

> There isn't much difference between the distance
> form Kuala Lumpur (KUL) and Beijing(PEK), and
> the distance for KUL to Pyongyang (KPY).

There is a hell of a difference in the fuel needed
to get to North Korea at a low enough altitude
to avoid being seen by any primary radar.

It isnt the distance that matters, it's the fuel.

> IF they could reach PEK, it would indeed be surprising
> if they couldn't reach KPY, the difference in distance is
> only about 300km, 20 minutes at cruise....,

But they would have been seen in the radar doing that.

> probably even less than that because the
> great circle route from KUL to PEK covers some
> airspace many airlines would prefer to avoid.

Again, you're forgetting what they would have
needed to do to avoid showing up on any radar.

[Sylvia Else]

On 14/03/2014 4:35 AM, Rod Speed wrote:
> Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote
>
>>>> High resolution imagery taken from an aircraft could be processed by
>>>> the crowd much more quickly.
>
>>> Even sillier.
>
>> Why is it silly?
>
> Because it isn't done by humans.
>

What is that meant to mean?

Sylvia.

[Rod Speed]

Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote

>>>>> High resolution imagery taken from an aircraft
>>>>> could be processed by the crowd much more quickly.

>>>> Even sillier.

>>> Why is it silly?

>> Because it isn't done by humans.

> What is that meant to mean?

Its automated, stupid.

You don't seriously believe that all the spy satellites have
vast numbers of humans staring at computer screens do you ?

Maybe you actually are that stupid.

[Sylvia Else]

On 14/03/2014 1:01 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
> Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote
>
>>>>>> High resolution imagery taken from an aircraft could be processed
>>>>>> by the crowd much more quickly.
>
>>>>> Even sillier.
>
>>>> Why is it silly?
>
>>> Because it isn't done by humans.
>
>> What is that meant to mean?
>
> Its automated, stupid.

Yes, and they're sending aircraft out there with people on board with
binoculars because they just like wasting the fuel.

Sylvia.

[Rod Speed]

Those in the planes with binoculars are completely different.
With those its possible to circle the debris close up and get
a much better idea whether it is likely debris from a downed
plane when something is found. That's nothing like what
happens with the spy satellites, stupid.

[Sylvia Else]

If spy satellites with automatic analysis were capable of identifying
potential debris, then the search planes would be flying point to point
to check on specific items, rather than flying a grid pattern, which is
what they're actually doing.

Sylvia.

[Petzl]

On Fri, 14 Mar 2014 04:55:05 +1100, "Rod Speed"

Even if there was a decompression knocking everyone out it is too
coincidental that the transponder was turned off at same time?
The plane was flying 5 hours later
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/2014/03/14/05/12/missing-malaysia-airlines-flight-mh370-vanished-into-thin-air-say-malaysian-authorities
http://tinyurl.com/nquweuy
As for radar there is a lot of air traffic in area, be hard to
distinguish MH370
http://www.flightradar24.com/34.89,118.47/3

As to why terrorists would hijack a plane ??
But done all the time

[Petzl]

On Fri, 14 Mar 2014 10:44:32 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>> Maybe it's in Nort Korea?
>
>>> Not a chance. The plane never had the range to get
>>> there and avoid being seen in the radar doing that.
>
>> You are clueless about geography.
>
>The problem isnt the geography, it's the radar.
>
>> There isn't much difference between the distance
>> form Kuala Lumpur (KUL) and Beijing(PEK), and
>> the distance for KUL to Pyongyang (KPY).
>
>There is a hell of a difference in the fuel needed
>to get to North Korea at a low enough altitude
>to avoid being seen by any primary radar.
>
>It isnt the distance that matters, it's the fuel.
>
>> IF they could reach PEK, it would indeed be surprising
>> if they couldn't reach KPY, the difference in distance is
>> only about 300km, 20 minutes at cruise....,
>
>But they would have been seen in the radar doing that.

Boeing recieved Sat data showing engines running 5 hours later
This shows the planes potentail range
http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/WO-AR663_MALMAP_G_20140313184212.jpg
Picture From Wall Street Journal story
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304914904579434653903086282
http://tinyurl.com/qauzgss

[Rod Speed]

Not as well as aircraft can, because the aircraft can get a
much closer look at the debris that looks like it might be
from the plane, as I said.

> then the search planes would be flying point to point
> to check on specific items, rather than flying a grid
> pattern, which is what they're actually doing.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you don't
actually have a fucking clue about how its actually done.

[Rod Speed]

Not when the failure that made the plane unflyable is what
turned off the transponder and the ACARS system etc.

> The plane was flying 5 hours later

Like hell it was.

> http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/2014/03/14/05/12/missing-malaysia-airlines-flight-mh370-vanished-into-thin-air-say-malaysian-authorities
> http://tinyurl.com/nquweuy

Just what some fool journo claims they said.

> As for radar there is a lot of air traffic in area,

All the rest has their transponders active, stupid.

> be hard to distinguish MH370

Bullshit.

> http://www.flightradar24.com/34.89,118.47/3

> As to why terrorists would hijack a plane ??
> But done all the time

But not with the terrorists not even bothering
to mention that they had done it. What would
be the point in hijacking it, taking it North
Korea, which isnt even possible undetected,
and then saying nothing about it ?

And there hasn't been a successful hijack since 9/11 anyway.

Your North Korea line is completely fanciful.
A MUCH more likely possibility is that either
the plane became unflyable for some reason,
and is now under the water in the Gulf etc
or one of the pilots chose to suicide and its
now under the water in the Gulf etc.

The second is MUCH more statistically likely.

Your hare brained fantasy isnt even possible radar wise.

[Rod Speed]

Petzl <pet...@gmail.com> wrote

> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote

>>>>> Maybe it's in Nort Korea?

>>>> Not a chance. The plane never had the range to get
>>>> there and avoid being seen in the radar doing that.

>>> You are clueless about geography.

>> The problem isnt the geography, it's the radar.

>>> There isn't much difference between the distance
>>> form Kuala Lumpur (KUL) and Beijing(PEK), and
>>> the distance for KUL to Pyongyang (KPY).

>> There is a hell of a difference in the fuel needed
>> to get to North Korea at a low enough altitude
>> to avoid being seen by any primary radar.

>> It isnt the distance that matters, it's the fuel.

>>> IF they could reach PEK, it would indeed be surprising
>>> if they couldn't reach KPY, the difference in distance is
>>> only about 300km, 20 minutes at cruise....,

>> But they would have been seen in the radar doing that.

> Boeing recieved Sat data showing engines running 5 hours later

Wrong.

> This shows the planes potentail range

Wrong, because it never happened.

While it is possible for the plane to fly for that long at altitude,
it is going to be visible on primary radar when doing that.

It never had the fuel to fly for that long under the radar.

> http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/WO-AR663_MALMAP_G_20140313184212.jpg
> Picture From Wall Street Journal story
> http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304914904579434653903086282
> http://tinyurl.com/qauzgss

Just some fuckwit journo that has never had a fucking clue about the basics.

Just because the ACARS data said that it could fly for 5 hours
doesn't mean that it actually did under the radar, stupid.

[Petzl]

The story is written by a Journalist, Based on expert opinion
The manual shutting down of communications looks likley
http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/03/13/us-officials-malaysia-airplane-communications-shut-down-separately
http://tinyurl.com/ku8buk5
The range of aircraft
http://tinyurl.com/qdzgg4v
Story
http://tinyurl.com/qauzgss

The passengers phones would also work which they were
http://www.khou.com/news/Families-Cellphones-of-missing-Malaysia-Airlines-passengers-still-ring-249713111.html
The denial
http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/543034/20140313/malaysian-flight-370-tech-expert-downplays-ringing.htm

[Rod Speed]

Petzl <pet...@gmail.com> wrote

And is just another steaming turd that so many fuckwit journos produce.

> Based on expert opinion

Bullshit.

> The manual shutting down of communications looks likley

More bullshit. There is no way to work out whether it was
deliberately shut down or whether an electrical implosion
did that. And we know that the 777 has done that before.

> http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/03/13/us-officials-malaysia-airplane-communications-shut-down-separately
> http://tinyurl.com/ku8buk5

Just another of Murdoch's steaming turds. They
don't even have the balls to name the 'officials',
because it is in fact straight from that fuckwit
journo's arse. We can tell from the smell.

Its completely stupid to use a surface navy vessel
to search the fucking Indian Ocean. Bet that never
happened either and that is straight from that
fuckwit journo's arse as well.

The satellite 'ping' in spades.

> The range of aircraft
> http://tinyurl.com/qdzgg4v

Not when it's flying under the radars, stupid.

> Story
> http://tinyurl.com/qauzgss

Even sillier. How odd that no one ever saw it on primary radar.
It didn't even have the fuel to do anything like that.

> The passengers phones would also work which they were

Bullshit. ALL that is is various mobile phone systems that
give the caller a ringing tone so they don't hang up the
call while the system trys to work out where the phone is.

> http://www.khou.com/news/Families-Cellphones-of-missing-Malaysia-Airlines-passengers-still-ring-249713111.html
> The denial
> http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/543034/20140313/malaysian-flight-370-tech-expert-downplays-ringing.htm

That aint denial, that's how the system works.

[Sylvia Else]

This article seems to sum up the present state of play on that. Quick
summary - it's all very uncertain.

<http://hotair.com/archives/2014/03/13/cnn-source-yes-the-malaysian-jet-sent-systems-data-hours-after-it-disappeared-ap-source-no-it-didnt/>

Sylvia.

[Bonza]

On 14-March-2014 6:34 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
> Petzl <pet...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote

> Bullshit. ALL that is is various mobile phone systems that
> give the caller a ringing tone so they don't hang up the
> call while the system trys to work out where the phone is.
>
>> http://www.khou.com/news/Families-Cellphones-of-missing-Malaysia-Airlines-passengers-still-ring-249713111.html
>>
>> The denial
>> http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/543034/20140313/malaysian-flight-370-tech-expert-downplays-ringing.htm
>>
>
> That aint denial, that's how the system works.

geeez rod, you sound just like phil allison. are you the evil twin?

the sum total of your response to everyone is nothing but abuse of every
comment made.

you speak like you 'know it all'

why not share your wisdom with us. what do YOU think REALLY happened.

[Rod Speed]

Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote

Nope.

> Quick summary - it's all very uncertain.

Nope. There are only two possibilitys.

The plane became unflyable for some reason.
That's happened plenty of times before.

One of the pilots chose to suicide when
the other one was out of the cockpit.

The second is very unlikely statistically, but certainly possible.

Once the plane is found, and it will be
eventually, we will know which it was.

> <http://hotair.com/archives/2014/03/13/cnn-source-yes-the-malaysian-jet-sent-systems-data-hours-after-it-disappeared-ap-source-no-it-didnt/>

Just another completely silly journalistic steaming turd.

[Rod Speed]

Bonza <bea...@nuke.au> wrote

> Rod Speed wrote
>> Petzl <pet...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote

>> Bullshit. ALL that is is various mobile phone systems that
>> give the caller a ringing tone so they don't hang up the
>> call while the system trys to work out where the phone is.

>>> http://www.khou.com/news/Families-Cellphones-of-missing-Malaysia-Airlines-passengers-still-ring-249713111.html

>>> The denial
>>> http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/543034/20140313/malaysian-flight-370-tech-expert-downplays-ringing.htm

>> That aint denial, that's how the system works.

> geeez rod, you sound just like phil allison.

Then you need to get those ears tested, child.

<reams of your puerile shit any 2 year old could
leave for dead flushed where it belongs>

[Bonza]

yep, thought so. pretty much clueless.

[Petzl]

The two transponders were shut down at different times a power failure
would have them down together

>> http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/03/13/us-officials-malaysia-airplane-communications-shut-down-separately
>> http://tinyurl.com/ku8buk5
>
>Just another of Murdoch's steaming turds. They
>don't even have the balls to name the 'officials',
>because it is in fact straight from that fuckwit
>journo's arse. We can tell from the smell.
>
>Its completely stupid to use a surface navy vessel
>to search the fucking Indian Ocean. Bet that never
>happened either and that is straight from that
>fuckwit journo's arse as well.
>
>The satellite 'ping' in spades.
>

Engine data was not being sent just a sat ping from the Boeing
indicating plane was in flight

>> The range of aircraft
>> http://tinyurl.com/qdzgg4v
>
>Not when it's flying under the radars, stupid.
>

Don't know why you think this plane run by hijackers would want to fly
under Radar? It's a VERY busy air route

>> Story
>> http://tinyurl.com/qauzgss
>
>Even sillier. How odd that no one ever saw it on primary radar.
>It didn't even have the fuel to do anything like that.
>
>> The passengers phones would also work which they were
>
>Bullshit. ALL that is is various mobile phone systems that
>give the caller a ringing tone so they don't hang up the
>call while the system trys to work out where the phone is.
>
>> http://www.khou.com/news/Families-Cellphones-of-missing-Malaysia-Airlines-passengers-still-ring-249713111.html
>> The denial
>> http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/543034/20140313/malaysian-flight-370-tech-expert-downplays-ringing.htm
>
>That aint denial, that's how the system works.

Bit different if like I do use Skype (VOIP) and get my calls over the
planes WiFi system I don't use Cell towers when WiFi is available also
the Chinese use QQ which showed passengers phones online (as Skype
does)

[Rod Speed]

[Rod Speed]

Yes.

> a power failure would have them down together

Not if there is a short in the wiring that produced a
fire and the fire progressively shut down various stuff.

>>> http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/03/13/us-officials-malaysia-airplane-communications-shut-down-separately
>>> http://tinyurl.com/ku8buk5

>> Just another of Murdoch's steaming turds. They
>> don't even have the balls to name the 'officials',
>> because it is in fact straight from that fuckwit
>> journo's arse. We can tell from the smell.

>> Its completely stupid to use a surface navy vessel
>> to search the fucking Indian Ocean. Bet that never
>> happened either and that is straight from that
>> fuckwit journo's arse as well.

>> The satellite 'ping' in spades.

> Engine data was not being sent just a sat ping
> from the Boeing indicating plane was in flight

Bet that is straight from some journo's lard arse too.

>>> The range of aircraft
>>> http://tinyurl.com/qdzgg4v

>> Not when it's flying under the radars, stupid.

> Don't know why you think this plane run by
> hijackers would want to fly under Radar?

That's the only way it would not have
been seen going to North Korea, stupid.

> It's a VERY busy air route

Not at a low enough height so it doesn't
get seen by any primary radar, stupid.

>>> Story
>>> http://tinyurl.com/qauzgss

>> Even sillier. How odd that no one ever saw it on primary radar.
>> It didn't even have the fuel to do anything like that.

>>> The passengers phones would also work which they were

>> Bullshit. ALL that is is various mobile phone systems that
>> give the caller a ringing tone so they don't hang up the
>> call while the system trys to work out where the phone is.

>>> http://www.khou.com/news/Families-Cellphones-of-missing-Malaysia-Airlines-passengers-still-ring-249713111.html
>>> The denial
>>> http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/543034/20140313/malaysian-flight-370-tech-expert-downplays-ringing.htm

>> That aint denial, that's how the system works.

> Bit different if like I do use Skype (VOIP)

Hardly any of the passengers would do that
because of the lack of a data service, stupid.

> and get my calls over the planes WiFi system

There was no working plane wifi system once the
transponder and ACARS system was off, stupid.

If a pilot had turned off the transponder and the
ACARS system, he wouldn't have left the plane's
wifi on, stupid.

> I don't use Cell towers when WiFi is available

It wasn't when the plane was still in the air and
wouldn't be if they had landed somewhere unseen
by radar and no one has remarked on a 777 on
some very obscure road that no one ever uses
in 6 days.

> also the Chinese use QQ which showed
> passengers phones online (as Skype does)

Just a comprehensively fucked up system, stupid.

Skype does that at times too.

[Peter]

How could that happen!

More shite from a journo...

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hZNSH8JQ4yQ


--
:-P

[Rod Speed]

Peter <som...@microsoft.com> wrote

Trouble with stuff like that tho, you never know how
much of that stuff was done by those union arseholes
to make Qantas look bad. Bet all of it was.

[Sylvia Else]

On 13/03/2014 5:10 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> Been taking a look at the imagery provided by
>
> http://www.tomnod.com/nod/challenge/malaysiaairsar2014
>
> Seems to me that at that resolution, it would be easy to spot an entire
> 777 on the surface, or a large part of one, but much more difficult to
> distinguish the much more likely smaller wreckage from the huge number
> of random wave crests.
>
> It does suggest, though, that having guys looking out of aircraft

> windows may not be the most effective way of searching. High resolution

> imagery taken from an aircraft could be processed by the crowd much more
> quickly.
>

> Sylvia.

I have to admit that there are some clear limitations on the
effectiveness of this. Comments on FB for tomnod show that there are an
awful lot of people who haven't a clue. The crowd could still identify
those images that don't just show an empty stretch of water, but, as Rod
has already indicated, some automation is possible, and that level would
be reasonably easy.

Sylvia.

[Rod Speed]

Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote

> Sylvia Else wrote

>> Been taking a look at the imagery provided by
>> http://www.tomnod.com/nod/challenge/malaysiaairsar2014

>> Seems to me that at that resolution, it would be easy to spot an entire
>> 777 on the surface, or a large part of one, but much more difficult to
>> distinguish the much more likely smaller wreckage from the huge number
>> of random wave crests.

>> It does suggest, though, that having guys looking out of aircraft
>> windows may not be the most effective way of searching.

The obvious advantage with an aircraft is that you can have a closer
look at what looks like it might be what you are looking for.

>> High resolution imagery taken from an aircraft
>> could be processed by the crowd much more quickly.

But can't have a closer look.

> I have to admit that there are some clear
> limitations on the effectiveness of this.

Yeah, like not being able to get the plane to have a closer look.

> Comments on FB for tomnod show that there
> are an awful lot of people who haven't a clue.

You clearly don't on how aircraft operate.

> The crowd could still identify those images that don't
> just show an empty stretch of water, but, as Rod has
> already indicated, some automation is possible, and
> that level would be reasonably easy.

But still isnt as good as the aircraft which can have a
closer look at what looks like it might be relevant debris.

[Sylvia Else]

We now have the prospect of trying to search a large part of the
southern Indian ocean. Indeed, it appears that Australia is going to
take responsibility for that, and, of course, for the cost of it.

Some of that area is very remote. Search aircraft will be spending a
good part of their total endurance just getting to and from the place to
be searched. It would make sense for satellites to be used, and I hope
the USA, in particular, realises that releasing, say, 8cm resolution
imagery of the ocean wouldn't really be revealing any secrets.

That said, I have some doubts about how fast the USA can collect imagery
over such a large area. There are bandwidth and issues of storage in the
satellite. The USA's spy satellites may be quite limited in that
respect, because imaging large areas wasn't what they were designed for.

Sylvia.

[Rod Speed]

Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote

Bullshit.

> Indeed, it appears that Australia is going to take
> responsibility for that, and, of course, for the cost of it.

Bullshit.

> Some of that area is very remote. Search aircraft will be spending
> a good part of their total endurance just getting to and from the
> place to be searched. It would make sense for satellites to be used,
> and I hope the USA, in particular, realises that releasing, say, 8cm
> resolution imagery of the ocean wouldn't really be revealing any secrets.

It would reveal what their capability is.

Makes a hell of a lot more sense to just do what they always
do, automate an analysis of that imagery themselves.

> That said, I have some doubts about how fast the
> USA can collect imagery over such a large area.

Got to be a hell of a lot faster than anything we can do.

> There are bandwidth and issues of storage in the satellite.
> The USA's spy satellites may be quite limited in that respect,
> because imaging large areas wasn't what they were designed for.

They aint the only satellites available.

It makes a hell of a lot more sense to analyse the primary radar
logs for planes of that size flying without the transponder turned
on in the area we know the plane was, and concentrate on looking
for debris where those logs show the plane could have been when
it disappeared from the primary radar logs for whatever reason.

[Nick O'Tyme]

"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bonri2...@mid.individual.net...
> Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote

>> We now have the prospect of trying to search a large part of the southern
>> Indian ocean.
>
> Bullshit.
>> Indeed, it appears that Australia is going to take responsibility for
>> that, and, of course, for the cost of it.
>
> Bullshit.

I know we have a wanker of a PM, but why would he announce that Oz will be
responsible for the southern Indian Ocean search if it wasn't so.

Methinks you like the word 'bullshit' too much.

[Rod Speed]

Nick O'Tyme <nick....@hotmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote

>> Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote

>>> We now have the prospect of trying to search
>>> a large part of the southern Indian ocean.

>> Bullshit.

>>> Indeed, it appears that Australia is going to take
>>> responsibility for that, and, of course, for the cost of it.

>> Bullshit.

> I know we have a wanker of a PM,

He leaves gutless cowards like you for dead, child.

> but why would he announce that Oz will be responsible
> for the southern Indian Ocean search if it wasn't so.

That's nothing like Else's original, child.

A large part of the southern indian ocean isnt even within
range of that 777 flying below the primary radar, stupid.

Its certainly possible that our Jindalee system was turned
off at the time, but just a tad unlikely that it wouldn't have
shown up on that if it had not been given that that is the
whole point of it. Sure, given that it was done by Telstra,
its certainly possible that it just doesn't work.

> Methinks you like the word 'bullshit' too much.

You get to like it or lump it, fuckwit child.

[Sylvia Else]

On 18/03/2014 3:27 AM, Rod Speed wrote:
> Nick O'Tyme <nick....@hotmail.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote
>
>>>> We now have the prospect of trying to search a large part of the
>>>> southern Indian ocean.
>
>>> Bullshit.
>
>>>> Indeed, it appears that Australia is going to take responsibility
>>>> for that, and, of course, for the cost of it.
>
>>> Bullshit.
>
>> I know we have a wanker of a PM,
>
> He leaves gutless cowards like you for dead, child.
>> but why would he announce that Oz will be responsible for the southern
>> Indian Ocean search if it wasn't so.
>
> That's nothing like Else's original, child.
> A large part of the southern indian ocean isnt even within range of that
> 777 flying below the primary radar, stupid.

That's not a reasonable response. The southern Indian Ocean search will
obviously be limited to places that the 777 could have reached. Nothing
in the wording suggests otherwise.

Sylvia.

[Nick O'Tyme]

"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:bopcga...@mid.individual.net...

Don't worry Sylvia. People who know fuck-all usually resort to bluster.

[Rod Speed]

Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote

> Rod Speed wrote
>> Nick O'Tyme <nick....@hotmail.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote

>>>>> We now have the prospect of trying to search
>>>>> a large part of the southern Indian ocean.

>>>> Bullshit.

>>>>> Indeed, it appears that Australia is going to take
>>>>> responsibility for that, and, of course, for the cost of it.

>>>> Bullshit.

>>> I know we have a wanker of a PM,

>> He leaves gutless cowards like you for dead, child.

>>> but why would he announce that Oz will be responsible
>>> for the southern Indian Ocean search if it wasn't so.

>> That's nothing like Else's original, child.

>> A large part of the southern indian ocean isnt even within
>> range of that 777 flying below the primary radar, stupid.

> That's not a reasonable response.

Bullshit.

> The southern Indian Ocean search will obviously
> be limited to places that the 777 could have reached.

Which is nothing even remotely like a LARGE PART of
the southern indian ocean with that 777 deliberately
being flown at a height that would allow it to avoid
being seen on the primary radar.

> Nothing in the wording suggests otherwise.

You're lying thru your teeth as you always do when you
have been caught on your completely mindless silly stuff.

And it makes absolutely no sense to be crowd sourcing
what the P3Cs are doing when its been automated for
a long time now and those can have a closer look at
anything that the automated system turns up.

[Rod Speed]

Nick O'Tyme <nick....@hotmail.com> wrote

> Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote

>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Nick O'Tyme <nick....@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote

>>>>>> We now have the prospect of trying to search
>>>>>> a large part of the southern Indian ocean.

>>>>> Bullshit.

>>>>>> Indeed, it appears that Australia is going to take
>>>>>> responsibility for that, and, of course, for the cost of it.

>>>>> Bullshit.

>>>> I know we have a wanker of a PM,

>>> He leaves gutless cowards like you for dead, child.

>>>> but why would he announce that Oz will be responsible
>>>> for the southern Indian Ocean search if it wasn't so.

>>> That's nothing like Else's original, child.

>>> A large part of the southern indian ocean isnt even within
>>> range of that 777 flying below the primary radar, stupid.

>> That's not a reasonable response. The southern Indian Ocean
>> search will obviously be limited to places that the 777 could
>> have reached. Nothing in the wording suggests otherwise.

> Don't worry Sylvia. People who know fuck-all usually resort to bluster.

People who know fuck all ALWAYS cower desperately behind
a pathetic excuse for a nick, child.

[Nick O'Tyme]

"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:bopih7...@mid.individual.net...

n't worry Sylvia. People who know fuck-all usually resort to bluster.
>
> People who know fuck all ALWAYS cower desperately behind
> a pathetic excuse for a nick, child.

Go and take your pills Phil. Oops, I mean Rod.

[Rod Speed]

Some gutless fuckwit know nothing desperately cowering behind
Nick O'Tyme <nick....@hotmail.com> wrote just the puerile
shit that's always pouring from the back of it.

[Nick O'Tyme]

"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:boppi9...@mid.individual.net...

> Some gutless fuckwit know nothing desperately cowering behind
> Nick O'Tyme <nick....@hotmail.com> wrote just the puerile
> shit that's always pouring from the back of it.

Keep taking your pills Phil/Rod.

[Rod Speed]

[Nick O'Tyme]

"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:boq1iv...@mid.individual.net...

> Some gutless fuckwit know nothing desperately cowering behind
> Nick O'Tyme <nick....@hotmail.com> wrote just the puerile
> shit that's always pouring from the back of it.
>

[Rod Speed]

[Nick O'Tyme]

"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:boqb5c...@mid.individual.net...

> Some gutless fuckwit know nothing desperately cowering behind
> Nick O'Tyme <nick....@hotmail.com> wrote just the puerile
> shit that's always pouring from the back of it.
>

[Rod Speed]

[Nick O'Tyme]

"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:boqglv...@mid.individual.net...

> Some gutless fuckwit know nothing desperately cowering behind
> Nick O'Tyme <nick....@hotmail.com> wrote just the puerile
> shit that's always pouring from the back of it.
>

[Bonza]

is there a echo in here?

[Rod Speed]

[Rod Speed]

"Bonza" <bea...@nuke.ru> wrote in message
news:lg96lc$uur$3...@speranza.aioe.org...

Just between your ears.

[Nick O'Tyme]

"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:boqn6t...@mid.individual.net...

> Some gutless fuckwit know nothing desperately cowering behind
> Nick O'Tyme <nick....@hotmail.com> wrote just the puerile
> shit that's always pouring from the back of it.
>

[Bonza]

you funni boi :-)

[Rod Speed]

[Nick O'Tyme]

Some gutless fuckwit know nothing desperately cowering behind

"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> should really learn to take his pills.
:-)

[Rod Speed]

Some gutless fuckwit know nothing desperately cowering behind

[Nick O'Tyme]

Some gutless fuckwit know nothing desperately cowering behind

"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> needs to keep taking his pills.

[Rod Speed]

Some gutless fuckwit know nothing desperately cowering behind

[brad...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 11:10:29 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> Been taking a look at the imagery provided by
>
> http://www.tomnod.com/nod/challenge/malaysiaairsar2014
>
> Seems to me that at that resolution, it would be easy to spot an entire
> 777 on the surface, or a large part of one, but much more difficult to
> distinguish the much more likely smaller wreckage from the huge number
> of random wave crests.
>
> It does suggest, though, that having guys looking out of aircraft
> windows may not be the most effective way of searching. High resolution
> imagery taken from an aircraft could be processed by the crowd much more
> quickly.
>
> Sylvia.


Since the Malaysia Airlines Flight-370 was most likely diverted to Diego Garcia, and the search plus news media had been totally and intentionally snookered into looking in the opposite direction for the past week, whereas by now it has likely been modified, refueled and moved to practically any location on Earth.

A ghost 777 could be made into the biggest and most bad-ass WMD, easily cloaked as simply another conventional passenger aircraft, except capable of packing multiple(3+) 50 MT nukes, or 150 tonnes worth of toxic VX as well as something biological if not simply a load of nuclear spent-fuel Pu238 (of which there's no shortage of). If modified for in-flight refueling, there's no telling of how much range it'll have.

There's simply no possible way our highly secretive MIC/DoD outpost with its 3200+ as highly trained and skilled personnel with loads of the most advanced and specialized technology at the isolated island outpost of Diego Garcia, is as such without full radial radar and multiple surveillance via satellites that couldn't possibly miss detecting a very hot 777 that's clearly reported as being off-grid and most likely way the hell off course, and recently disclosed as having been flown evasively.

Once again (as in the 9-11 fiasco), those red flags are all over the place, and the best authority has been tap-dancing like crazy. Namely our NSA and GCHQ seem to be unusually silent on this one. Oddly they know exactly where those of us are at any moment, and they seem to know most everything about us, as well as with whomever we've been speaking or otherwise communicating with, and yet along with everything Pentagon, DoD, NSA, GCHQ and Mossad are totally dumbfounded on this one.

Perhaps this one is more like a River Dance performance by all those in charge of protecting us. Now there seems to be a rogue B777 out there, as fully capable of its being modified for taking out a hundred million of us. Gee whiz, what could possibly go wrong?

[Brad Guth]

On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 11:10:29 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> Been taking a look at the imagery provided by
>
> http://www.tomnod.com/nod/challenge/malaysiaairsar2014
>
> Seems to me that at that resolution, it would be easy to spot an entire
> 777 on the surface, or a large part of one, but much more difficult to
> distinguish the much more likely smaller wreckage from the huge number
> of random wave crests.
>
> It does suggest, though, that having guys looking out of aircraft
> windows may not be the most effective way of searching. High resolution
> imagery taken from an aircraft could be processed by the crowd much more
> quickly.
>
> Sylvia.

5th graders should be used for this task of image interpreting, because they'll spot stuff that most adults could never interpret as unusual or unexpected.

[Brad Guth]

The use of young minds with keen eyes and no preconceived notions of
what should be considered as unusual or out of place within any given
image, in this case would have been a great value.

Unfortunately, the money grubbing and essentially cheapskates of the
Malaysian government and their insider run airlines impeded their own
response and disclosure process.

In the future, perhaps all commercial passenger aircraft will be
required to have full-time satellite tracking and data transponding, as
could have been mandated a decade ago.

[Rod Speed]

Brad Guth <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Brad Guth wrote

>> Sylvia Else wrote

>>> Been taking a look at the imagery provided by

>>> http://www.tomnod.com/nod/challenge/malaysiaairsar2014

>>> Seems to me that at that resolution, it would be easy to spot
>>> an entire 777 on the surface, or a large part of one, but much
>>> more difficult to distinguish the much more likely smaller
>>> wreckage from the huge number of random wave crests.

>>> It does suggest, though, that having guys looking out of aircraft
>>> windows may not be the most effective way of searching. High
>>> resolution imagery taken from an aircraft could be processed
>>> by the crowd much more quickly.

>> 5th graders should be used for this task of image interpreting,
> because they'll spot stuff that most adults could never interpret
> as unusual or unexpected.

> The use of young minds with keen eyes and no preconceived
> notions of what should be considered as unusual or out of place
> within any given image, in this case would have been a great value.

Bullshit. They just don't have the attention
spans needed to do anything useful.

> Unfortunately, the money grubbing and essentially
> cheapskates of the Malaysian government and their
> insider run airlines impeded their own response and
> disclosure process.

They aint the ones doing the searching now.

> In the future, perhaps all commercial passenger aircraft will be
> required to have full-time satellite tracking and data transponding,

That's what ADS-B is.

> as could have been mandated a decade ago.

There was no point given how infrequently
we see this sort of disappearance.

Now that the world is moving towards ADS-B for other
reasons, it certainly makes sense to use it for the rare
situations in which its useful for this sort of event.

But it makes absolutely no sense to mandate it for
all heavys tomorrow.

[Brad Guth]

With substantial fleets of UAVs by the thousands going every which-way, Satellite tracking and full 100% data packs for each and every second should be required of anything but ultralites flying below 500'. Anything going above 500' should be required to be full-time satellite tracked anyplace around this world.

Screw the individual cost, as in fu*k them if they want to play or especially make profits in our skys without full satellite tracking for each and every second. Anything not officially tracked and verified becomes fair game for being shot out of the sky unless it can be otherwise identified and cosigned for.

Remember that you're the one claiming we can no longer trust pilots.

[Brad Guth]

On Monday, March 17, 2014 5:29:49 PM UTC-7, Rod Speed wrote:
> Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote
>
> > Rod Speed wrote
>

> >> Nick O'Tyme <nick....@hotmail.com> wrote
>

> >>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> >>>> Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote
>
>
>
> >>>>> We now have the prospect of trying to search
>
> >>>>> a large part of the southern Indian ocean.
>
>
>
> >>>> Bullshit.
>
>
>
> >>>>> Indeed, it appears that Australia is going to take
>
> >>>>> responsibility for that, and, of course, for the cost of it.
>
>
>
> >>>> Bullshit.
>
>
>
> >>> I know we have a wanker of a PM,
>
>
>
> >> He leaves gutless cowards like you for dead, child.
>
>
>
> >>> but why would he announce that Oz will be responsible
>
> >>> for the southern Indian Ocean search if it wasn't so.
>
>
>
> >> That's nothing like Else's original, child.
>
>
>
> >> A large part of the southern indian ocean isnt even within
>
> >> range of that 777 flying below the primary radar, stupid.
>
>
>
> > That's not a reasonable response.
>
>
>

> Bullshit.

>
>
>
> > The southern Indian Ocean search will obviously
>
> > be limited to places that the 777 could have reached.
>
>
>

> Which is nothing even remotely like a LARGE PART of
>
> the southern indian ocean with that 777 deliberately
>
> being flown at a height that would allow it to avoid
>
> being seen on the primary radar.

>
>
>
> > Nothing in the wording suggests otherwise.
>
>
>

> You're lying thru your teeth as you always do when you
>
> have been caught on your completely mindless silly stuff.
>
>
>
> And it makes absolutely no sense to be crowd sourcing
>
> what the P3Cs are doing when its been automated for
>
> a long time now and those can have a closer look at
>
> anything that the automated system turns up.

Yes, we know that you don't really give a shit about others.

Nowadays it's each and every passenger for themselves (packing heat if possible), because of others like yourself are not going to budge an inch until well after they're all dead and costing us billions.

You don't even consider flaming 777s a problem as long as they're not on fire while flying.

What a fu*king joke you are .......

[Rod Speed]

"Brad Guth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:92109464-9338-4984...@googlegroups.com...

Its nothing like that.

> going every which-way, Satellite tracking and full 100%
> data packs for each and every second should be required
> of anything but ultralites flying below 500'.

Even sillier.

> Anything going above 500' should be required to be
> full-time satellite tracked anyplace around this world.

Even sillier.

> Screw the individual cost, as in fu*k them if they want
> to play or especially make profits in our skys without
> full satellite tracking for each and every second.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of why
no one is actually stupid enough to let you have any
say what so ever on anything at all, ever.

> Anything not officially tracked and verified becomes fair game for being
> shot out of the sky unless it can be otherwise identified and cosigned
> for.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of why
no one is actually stupid enough to let you have any
say what so ever on anything at all, ever.

> Remember that you're the one claiming we can no longer trust pilots.

Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying thru your teeth on that.

[Rod Speed]

"Brad Guth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:e5449a24-2e99-4a66...@googlegroups.com...

Whatever has happened to them, they have been
dead for more than a week now. Knowing exactly
where their corpses are changes nothing.

> Nowadays it's each and every passenger
> for themselves (packing heat if possible),

It isnt on a plane.

> because of others like yourself are not going to budge an
> inch until well after they're all dead and costing us billions.

Because that sort of missing plane is too rare to
warrant mandating everyone has ADS-B tomorrow.

> You don't even consider flaming 777s a problem
> as long as they're not on fire while flying.

I never said anything like that, you silly little pathological liar.

> What a fu*king joke you are .......

Says the clown that was actually stupid enough to
believe that anyone would bother to hijack a plane
full of passengers and take it to Diego Garcia and
do it in a way that attracts immense public scrutiny
instead of just buying one and flying it there empty.

[Brad Guth]

Unlike yourself pointing fingers at the pilots without any shred of objective or forensic evidence, I was offering a constructive line of information by suggesting a viable landing opportunity for whatever the reason(s).

Of course unlike yourself, I do not 100% trust what our MIC run Pentagon is capable of, as there are numerous rogue factions within our government that we as a republic have damn little if any control over.

There were dozens of possible remote landing opportunities, as well as hundreds of viable WMD targets that were apparently missed by those otherwise highly accredited pilots and their perfectly operational aircraft, that which your finger pointing theory had them on some kind of personal suicide mission that somehow not another soul on Earth had any clue about (and still don't seem to know any squat about outside of your information that's equally 100% unfounded).

Perhaps those families of the victims, and especially of the pilots should be suing your socks off, because you've known of stuff before it happened.

[Brad Guth]

Obviously your expertise has no commercial or even private value, as otherwise you'd be in charge of something more important than mainstream status-quo damage control via Usenet/newsgroups.

[Rod Speed]

"Brad Guth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:b24c54fd-0dc5-4fcc...@googlegroups.com...

Just another of your bare faced lies with the evidence
that it must have passed over Malaysia and Indonesia
at a low enough altitude to have not been seen on the
military primary radar and then gone back to normal
cruise altitude to have the range to end up in the mid
Indian Ocean as we know it did from the inmarsat
forensic evidence, you silly little pathological liar.

> I was offering a constructive line of information

Pigs arse you were. All that was was just another
utterly silly conspiracy theory that doesn't even
explain why anyone would actually be stupid
enough to grab a plane full of passengers
which would inevitably attract world wide
attention, instead of just buying an empty
777 and not having anyone notice you did that.

> by suggesting a viable landing opportunity
> for whatever the reason(s).

But can't explain why no one on Diego Garcia
didn't notice the 777 with no transponder working,
showing up there unannounced and not even
telling their ATC that it is landing, and not even
noticing hundreds of passengers wandering
around demanding to know why they ended
up on Diego Garcia instead of Beijing.

> Of course unlike yourself, I do not 100% trust what
> our MIC run Pentagon is capable of, as there are
> numerous rogue factions within our government that
> we as a republic have damn little if any control over.

We aren't a republic, you stupid pig ignorant child.

> There were dozens of possible remote landing opportunities,

Yes, but we have these funky things called satellites that
are perfectly capable of seeing a fucking great 777 sitting
there and we know that the plane ended up in the mid
Indian Ocean and even someone as stupid as you should
have noticed that there isnt actually a single landing
opportunity there for a 777.

> as well as hundreds of viable WMD targets

Not one in the mid Indian Ocean, child.

> that were apparently missed by those otherwise highly
> accredited pilots and their perfectly operational aircraft,

Because they had no intention of flying into them, you silly little fool.

If they had done, there wouldn't have been any point in waiting
until they were halfway across the Gulf of Tonkin before turning
back, they could have just flown into them just after takeoff.

> that which your finger pointing theory had them
> on some kind of personal suicide mission

Which we know has happened at least 4
times before with other heavy pilots alone.

> that somehow not another soul
> on Earth had any clue about

No one did with those other 4 either.

> (and still don't seem to know any squat about

Just as true of the other 4.

> outside of your information that's equally 100% unfounded).

It's the only scenario except a hijacking gone
wrong that explains the known evidence, child.

> Perhaps those families of the victims, and especially
> of the pilots should be suing your socks off,

They aint that stupid, unlike you.

> because you've known of stuff before it happened.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.

[Rod Speed]

"Brad Guth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:bbc3cade-3a6e-474d...@googlegroups.com...

Must be why the industry clicked its heels yesterday when you
proclaimed what must be done and are furiously doing what
you ordered yesterday, child.

[Brad Guth]

My recommendations are simply logical and pragmatic.

[Brad Guth]

5th graders (kids of 9~10 years) are simply better at seeing stuff and interpreting it without predigest, and they'll work really cheap as long as there's another Happy Meal at the end of each shift.

[Rod Speed]

"Brad Guth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:e074ce93-23ad-4531...@googlegroups.com...

They actually INCREASE the risk to the safety of passengers
because it would not be possible to turn off a system that
has failed and is preventing other mission critical systems
from working properly, JUST to reduce the time and cost
of finding a wreck in the very very rare situation where
the crash happens well outside radar coverage and when
the plane does not have ADS-B fitted.

Which might explain why no one will actually be stupid
enough to do what you demanded be done yesterday.

NO ONE.

[Rod Speed]

"Brad Guth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:1dbf5fc2-0fd9-4beb...@googlegroups.com...

Bullshit.

And they don't have the attention spans
to do it for long enough to matter anyway.

> and they'll work really cheap as long as there's
> another Happy Meal at the end of each shift.

They wouldn't last enough shifts to matter.

[Brad Guth]

Food motivated kids have tenfold the stamina of distracted and ulterior motivated adults like yourself.

[Rod Speed]

"Brad Guth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:7417c1a2-44c2-4a57...@googlegroups.com...

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that
you don't have a fucking clue about kids either.