Earthlinggb's Blog

MH370: KL to Mauritius Flying time

Why are the officials trying to keep this search in the two arcs (quite massive arcs by the way, suggesting that the satellite really doesn’t have a clue)? A wild goose chase? You see, the likelihood of the plane taking the northern arc and not being spotted is damned unlikely no matter what all the “Talking Heads” say.

Further, the plane would not turn back on itself heading in a south westernly direction right back over Malaysia and Malacca if it just intended to go back up toward that arc. It really doesn’t make much sense if you think about it. Further, yes they can say but then it took another sharp turn pointing, once more, in a more northernly direction. Yes it did but it was flying between waystations for a purpose and then it just disappeared off military radar but it had come way south to then head north again?? Plus, heading northwest from that point (assuming from then on pretty straight) would take it over Indian airspace and there are enough people saying it is highly doubtful it would get through and I, for one, agree with them.

So, my theory (and that is all it is but it’s based a little more on logical reasoning from my perspective) is that it turned south once more, once it evaded radar (AWACS helped or not) and it flew in the direction of Mauritius.

We’re told it was active (flying or otherwise) for another 7 hours after it was lost from radar. Well, here’s the flying time to Mauritius:

KL to Mauritius

 

I’m just saying it didn’t go to Mauritius – it went to Diego Garcia and was led there.

Here’s the “arc” of the covenant they keep showing us:

MH370_Mar17This is based on Inmarsat “pings” to the below cabin ACARS so we are told. Now, Inmarsat is tied to military and government contracts. Yes it provides commercial services but, if the British government says “jump” in the name of “national security”, Inmarsat will do just that.

Here’s what David Coiley had to say:

David Coiley, a vice president of Inmarsat, a British satellite telecommunications provider, said the missing plane had been equipped with an Inmarsat signaling system that sends out a “keep-alive message” to establish that the plane’s communications system is still switched on.

The plane sent out a series of such messages after civilian radar lost contact, he said. Those messages later stopped, but he declined to specify precisely when or how many messages had been received. Mr. Coiley said Inmarsat was sharing the information with the airline and investigators.

“It does allow us to determine where the airplane is relative to the satellite,” he said of the signal, which he likened to the “noises you might hear when a cellphone sits next to a radio or a television speaker.” He said: “It does allow us to narrow down the position of the aircraft” — at the moment when the signal was sent.

Such equipment automatically checks in to satellites, much as a mobile phone would check in to a network after passing through a mountain tunnel, he said. Because the pings go over a measurable distance at a specific angle to one of the company’s satellites, the information can be used to help calculate the trajectory of an aircraft and narrow its approximate location — though not necessarily its resting point.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/15/world/asia/missing-malaysia-airlines-flight-370.html?_r=0

So let’s just consider what he’s saying here:

In the same article, it states those pings went on for hours after the plane disappeared from all radar. Some reports have said 7 hours. However, why would Mr Coiley decline to say how many messages had been received and yet, we are provided the “arcs” by the officials? These arcs are the same as saying for how long and how many pings were received but Mr Coiley doesn’t wish to provide that detail. Why? What is so “classified” about such information considering what is at stake and that people wish to know? What could, if anything, such detail give away (either to “bad men” or just the public and, perhaps, other pilots or aircraft engineering people who could then work something out from them?).

He then goes on to say it allows us to determine where the plane is relative to the satellite….narrow down the position. Well does it? Two arcs, thousands of miles long is all we are given and even they are suggested as being the last point or outer edge of where the plane could have flown to. Why just give the arc for the final ping while not being willing to say how many pings? Also, where was the plane, approximately, at the points earlier pings were sent? While, if, as said below, the aircraft could have been hijacked using a mobile phone and a USB stick, then to suggest AWACS taking over is a walk in the park. You see, the “anti terror” expert, Aunty Sally (I once had an Aunty Sally) will promote such ideas because that suits the narrative. Suggesting a British/American/Globalist plot just doesn’t fit does it? And never will of course. But a terrorist may be smart (although I don’t believe they are and very few such entities actually exist. Al Qaeda being CIA for example) but not this smart.

Seems to be an element of planning? Sure honey, you can be sure of that! And sophisticated systems engineering understanding? I have no doubt. You’re actually making it even clearer that this was a sophisticated operation and that’s what was said on 9/11 – that it was believed it took governments to be involved – the Israelis said that to have a pretext to target the governments they wished to target of course, but noone ever wishes to consider that THEY could be that government, or UK or America. Nope! You consider that and you’re crazy. Then I’m batshit nuts!

Mirror 5

But back to the arcs and the position of the satellite (Inmarsat 3F 64.5deg East)

I-3-satellite-coverage-November-2013

Those arcs have been plotted, in fact, by a mix of what we’re told is the last ping on inmarsat and the anticipated running out of fuel. It would seem, from what I’ve read elsewhere, is that all Inmarsat is capable of doing is taking a measurement of the angle and amplitude of the signal it receives and, knowing the output power of the signal from the ACARS equipment in the plane, it works out a relative distance form triangulation. This means that the satellite is, to a great degree, guessing the position of the aircraft AND, furthermore, as you can see from the arcs presented, it cannot locate the actual terrestrial co-ordinates in any way. That means that the reality is that those arcs can be considered to be a complete circle and the plane could have ended up anywhere on that circle. The satellite uses spot beams and a global beam. In this case, it uses it’s global beam which is just one big, massive circle. Now why are they trying to suggested only those two arcs and not a complete circle? Well, I’d guess they want the search area to be as large as possible to keep people searching and searching while they do not wish us to even consider that the plane went south west toward Mauritius, Africa and flying anywhere near Diego Garcia. Because for us to consider that, they know people would be saying “Wait a minute, there is no way that plane would not be spotted by Diego Garcia!” This may just lead people to consider that, in fact, Diego Garcia may have been the destination and was meant to be it’s destination.

If it flew for hours (possibly up to 7.5 hours) then Diego Garcia is no problem to reach.

 

Advertisements

10 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. David said, on March 18, 2014 at 6:06 pm

    I watched much the same thing on CNN today….

    I marveled at how they, and American station, could have an (American) expert on to explain this,
    making a point of saying it’s unlikely the aircraft took a path north without being picked up by radar,
    ….and then pointedly saying that it’s more likely that the aircraft “ran out of fuel and crashed into the ocean somewhere South of India…” WITHOUT MENTIONING DIEGO GARCIA AT ALL!
    So does that mean they are callous enough not to want to mention the possibility that an aircraft (in distress, perhaps) could have made it (probably did!) to the (unmentionable) Diego Garcia?

    That’s lying by omission, isn’t it?

    I’m not in a nice place, to be truthful, being a couple of steps ahead of b******s like this…it’s not good for the soul.

    • cheryl Monti said, on March 18, 2014 at 6:48 pm

      Know what you mean David and it can get so frustrating too. I believe that our soul has led us towards this information for some reason unbeknown to us right now.

  2. Gazz said, on March 18, 2014 at 6:12 pm

    Trying to post a comment on the Nigel Cooper page ~ can’t do it – I think this site is seriously compromised mate.
    Check out Sharon Zaki

    • spartacus said, on March 18, 2014 at 9:40 pm

      She is the one that calls a lot of people shills if I am correct.

  3. Gazz said, on March 19, 2014 at 12:08 am

    That’s correct spartacus, she does however, link to this site so . . . ? Not sure what to make of this Nigel Cooper episode, my interest is his challenge to ‘the crown’. Similarly with Kevin Annett, she also claims him to be a shill. I find his argument does have substance, whether he is truly for those he speaks for is another matter of course.

    Meanwhile . . .

    • spartacus said, on March 19, 2014 at 3:26 pm

      Yeah mate, trying to uncover peoples motives for what they say online is a right bloody nightmare. I do know a few methods for doing it but sadly they are illegal. hehe.
      I will say that one very good method and 100% legal, is to get that person drunk. Not too much of course, but it can be extremely effective.
      Of course i realize this is extremely manipulative, but if the person is a wrong un then TOUGH!!!
      Just be prepared for the 90% BS you will hear as well.

  4. Gazz said, on March 19, 2014 at 4:31 pm

    ‘hic’ . . . I didn’t say that :p

    • spartacus said, on March 19, 2014 at 6:42 pm

      Oh but they did say that. Dont understand what you are saying.

  5. kiers93 said, on March 25, 2014 at 9:35 am

    I have to dispute this whole “ARCS” thing here and now. I haven’t been able to find out on what basis these “arcs” have been released to the media. I Can’ t find any smoking source document or release as such on google. Who is source of this arc info release anyway? It’s just a bit inconsistent.

    Apparently Inmarsat are able to accurately measure the time delay it takes a signal from the plane’s ACARS to reach the nearest Inmarsat sattelite. Imagine a sattelite floating in geosync orbit at the given time of last contact with plane. it gets the ping and engineers establish a radial distance the ping came from.

    This places a 3D cone in space with its apex at the Inmarsat sattelite receiver and the circular base of same cone over the area of the earth half of which goes over to kazakstan and other portion over southern Indian ocean. The “generatrix”/hypotenuse of this cone is the derived distance to the sattelite. Note that this is FLAT and all in ONE PLANE (make a cone out of paper and you’ll see).

    We know “THE EARTH is NOT flat”. The only thing the Inmarsat ping can establish to a given accuracy (and we don’t know what that accuracy is) is the “generatrix”/hypotenuse of the cone. Think deeply over this. The plane is flying at a fixed height over the earth. It can NOT be anywhere along the arcs shown to the world as those different places, following the earths surface, will BE AT DIFFERENT DISTANCES from the Inmarsat sattelite.

    How could this be passed off as the two “wide arcs” of where to look to the media. For ANY given accuracy unless it’s very poor accuracy, you DON’T have arcs as shown. the earths curvature begins to add distance as you move away from the radial center of the cone.

    I may not be expressing myself clearly, but build a cone with a flat base and place that base near a tennis ball and see if what i’m saying is any clearer. Unless there is horrible accuracy, I dont’ think you can rationally claim to search for arcs that long. something is wrong with this media meme being presented repeatedly


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: