Thread Rating:
  • 3 Vote(s) - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
MH370 - time to think of it as a criminal act
And is it possible to overlay the searched areas, and the areas planned to be searched?
Reply
(12-06-2017, 10:10 AM)ventus45 Wrote: If the intention was simply to let it run out of fuel and crash, west of the terminator would be prefered to minimise the probability of discovery.

Hi, Ventus45,

I have a hard time to believe that - IF that had been "his" plan we must assume he was not aware of Pine gap radar installations or he had found out somehow that it was switched off, as we all shall believe. Both are not credible IMO.
So his plan would have been to vanish while flying in direction of one of the highest end radar of the world, not knowing if ON or OFF, with a high likelyhood for ON.
Reply
Pine Gap is not a radar, it is a satellite control base, and it is in Central Australia near Alice Springs.  

I think you are confusing it with JORN.

The issue of JORN being active or inactive on the night has been hotly debated.  The Australian Government released a statement saying it was not operating on the night.

In any case, the flight paths proposed would be at the outer sectors of it's coverage anyway (which is about 3,000 km) from Laverton in Western Australia), and, depending on the "ionospherics" on the night, the aircraft might have been missed, even if JORN was active.

JORN 2 Receiver Station

JORN 2 Receiver Station
Laverton WA
28.326747°S 122.005234°E

28°19'40.83"S 122° 0'27.03"E
-28.328008° 122.007508°

Official 180 Degree Coverage (260 to 080 true)
Official Range = 3,000 km

Unofficial 210 Degree Coverage (245 to 095 true)
Unofficial Range - 3,700 km = 2,000 nautical miles

Left Arm 035 - 215 Beam Axis 305

Right Arm 125 - 305 Beam Axis 035

Total Array axis is 350
Coverage is 90 degrees either side of axis = 260 to 080

So each arm has a minimum of 45 degree coverage each side of broadside beam axis.

Design would be for useable beamwidth of 60 degrees either side of broadside axis.
So left arm coverage would be 245 degrees to 365 degrees (005 degrees)
So right arm coverage would be to 335 degrees to 095 degrees

Array Lengths = 92 arc seconds = 2840 metres = 20 towers = 19 spaces = 150 metres between towers.

[Image: attachment.php?aid=380]


Moreover, the radar does not "sweep" 360 degrees like a normal radar, it looks at specific designated areas - called "tiles" - one at a time. In other words, the operators have to choose where to look, and that means having a reason to look at some particular area.  No reason - no  look - no find.

Re the Air Search areas - perhaps - there was a kml set somewhere on the net.
I will have to search for it.
(Update: - Found it again.)
http://www.marine.csiro.au/~griffin/MH37...202014.kmz

[Image: attachment.php?aid=381]



   
   
Reply
@Ventus45 said:

"Re the Air Search areas - perhaps - there was a kml set somewhere on the net.
I will have to search for it.
(Update: - Found it again.)
http://www.marine.csiro.au/~griffin/MH37...202014.kmz"

Not sure if your reply was aimed at my question (which was asking about areas already searched/planned to be searched by *sonar*) in relation to the terminators but still very interesting.

Do the two brown lines on the air search graphic also represent the two terminators?

Is the graphic is showing the two terminators indicating day & night were just outside of JORN's range?

If so, that's quite a coincidence, and similar to the coincidence of the 18.25 reboot just being outside of radar range.

Are the two 'NTSB-east' and NTSB-west' pins yours or CSIRO's?

(The 'east' pin is spot on the surface daylight terminator?)
Reply
@Fori362 said:

Not sure if your reply was aimed at my question (which was asking about areas already searched/planned to be searched by *sonar*) in relation to the terminators but still very interesting.
I thought you were asking for the AIR Search zones to be plotted, and that is what is presented.

Do the two brown lines on the air search graphic also represent the two terminators ?
YES, the 00:00 UTC terminators at sea level and FL350

Is the graphic is showing the two terminators indicating day & night were just outside of JORN's range?
YES, the purple arc is the JORN coverage limit.

If so, that's quite a coincidence, and similar to the coincidence of the 18.25 reboot just being outside of radar range.
YES, I agree.

Are the two 'NTSB-east' and NTSB-west' pins yours or CSIRO's ?
They are the end points of the two NTSB tracks (east was 400 knots, west was 450 knots) ) from the early AMSA Slides.

(The 'east' pin is spot on the surface daylight terminator ?)
YES, and that is an interesting coincidence.

What is also a coincidence, is that both those end points were determined by someone on the net (I have forgotten whom) to be equidistant from the SSP at 00:19, which is yet another "coincidence".

In anycase, I got this off twitter - may be of some interest to you.

[Image: attachment.php?aid=382]

   
Reply
(12-06-2017, 11:03 PM)ventus45 Wrote: Pine Gap is not a radar, it is a satellite control base, and it is in Central Australia near Alice Springs.  

I think you are confusing it with JORN.

The issue of JORN being active or inactive on the night has been hotly debated.  The Australian Government released a statement saying it was not operating on the night.

In any case, the flight paths proposed would be at the outer sectors of it's coverage anyway (which is about 3,000 km) from Laverton in Western Australia), and, depending on the "ionospherics" on the night, the aircraft might have been missed, even if JORN was active.
@ventus45

You are right, i mixed it up with Jorn - sorry for that.

And being on the edge of JORNs coverage weakens my argument, yes.

So it would only be a valid argument for other scenarios with a plan by the pilot to vanish the plane more northerly on the 7th arc, more inside the possible coverage.

Thanks much, Ventus, for the founded input. Much appreciated.

Cheers.
Reply
For those still wrestling with the BFO's, recent developments over on Victor's Blog are very interesting.

Note the disturbing aspect of the "GAG ORDER".

[Image: attachment.php?aid=387]

[Image: attachment.php?aid=383]

[Image: attachment.php?aid=384]

[Image: attachment.php?aid=385]

[Image: attachment.php?aid=386]

References:

Mike Exner's latest study at:-
https://goo.gl/KcAhp7 which is:-
https://www.dropbox.com/s/8bekyh6pthcp0q...t.pdf?dl=0

The Equipment Manufacturer's web data at:-
https://squarepeg.ca/index.php?page=mcp-channel-unit
https://squarepeg.ca/uploads/images/Data...0Sheet.pdf

                   
Reply
[Image: attachment.php?aid=393]
[Image: attachment.php?aid=394]
       
Reply
[Image: attachment.php?aid=395]
[Image: attachment.php?aid=396]
[Image: attachment.php?aid=397]
[Image: attachment.php?aid=398]
[Image: attachment.php?aid=399]

                   
Reply
And the MYG, as expected, delayed the start of the search thus shortening the good weather window.

Good weather seems to be especially important for OI since it intends to use small, light surface craft that cannot work in the same level of strong wind, large waves and swell as Fugro's large vessels could.

Then they imposed a 90-day time limit for some illogical reason.

They really do not seem to want it found.
Reply
Fori - “They really do not seem to want it found”.

Gee whizz Fori – no kidding. If and IMO it is a very big IF the aircraft is anywhere near where we have been led to believe it is; I’d be happy to be wrong. To me, fee for a ‘cure’ is as safe as houses. I believe this was a criminal act; where either the aircraft was destroyed as threat to an important place; or, it was ‘hi-jacked’ - either electronically or by other means. In either event, the notion of finding the aircraft is questionable. 'They' really don't want the answers to be found.

I hope they do find it – I wish ‘em all the luck in the world – but: I am not holding my breath. Simply from an operational point of view, the story don’t hold water – no of it. I will however be first to buy a round and cheer if they do manage to find the remains.
Reply
I find it odd, very odd, that given that this is publicly, supposedly, a "no find - no pay" deal, that apparently, conditions imposed by Malaysia included that:-
(a) an operations room be set up in Malaysia, and that all data is to be fed directly to the Malaysians, in real time, and:
(b) that two Royal Malaysian Navy Officers, are apparently embarked on Seabed Constructor, as "official observers".

It begs the question, if they don't find it, why should Malaysia get anything else, like sea bed data, for free ? Why have "official observers" at all, let alone naval officers, for what is supposedly, a "search" for a "civil" aircraft ?

Ocean Infinity has sprung up out of nowhere for this job. Why ? It is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma, but perhaps there is a key. What is the key ?

One can't help wonder if there are shades of something else behind the scenes. Is thsi all a cover story, for something out of the cold war history books, like Global Marine Development Inc, the research and development arm of Global Marine Inc, a pioneer in deepwater offshore drilling operations, which was contracted by the CIA to design, build and operate the Hughes Glomar Explorer, in order to secretly salvage the sunken Soviet submarine K129 from the ocean floor ?

See:
Project Azorian, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Azorian
Glomar Explorer, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glomar_Explorer
https://www.pri.org/stories/2015-09-07/s...-scrapyard
https://maritime-executive.com/features/...r-explorer
https://www.maritime-executive.com/featu...rer-part-2
And a VERY interesting video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FK9KpGO3ClM
Reply
Ventus said:

"What is the key ?"

Perhaps the 'key' is simply that: there is a cover-up being (both past & present tense) put into place?

It would fit with the 'coincidences', the delays, hiding radar data, ATC transcripts and CCTV recordings; the lack of corroborating (or other) data from any other satellites or sources, ignoring data that's inconvenient (flaperon, biofouling, retrieving debris from other countries, eye witness accounts) the less-than-open transparency of all involved (especially the USA and MYG's insistence on classifying data) and the general overall 'vagueness' and unwillingness to quickly do what would be obviously necessary and helpful on each occasion. They would want interest in the story to wither and die; for it to become a mystery that nobody can solve because of the costs of searching deep ocean for an uncertain crash site.

The MYG, on the other hand, while being on the front line with the world's media may not have access to the 'boardroom discussions': they may not have been told where the actual crash site is, or what the state of the recorders are (ie. they may have been told very little; or given a different cover story). Hence their draconian insistence on being the first recipient of (and no doubt making sure they contractually have control and veto of) each and every find and its disclosure. They wouldn't want to be put into more hot water by a (doctored?) FDR being suddenly discovered that might cast doubt on the story they've been forced to create and recount so far.

Fori - “They really do not seem to want it found”.

P7_TOM said: "Gee whizz Fori – no kidding."

That was intentional understatement, a typically English device often unrecognised as such. I agree with your comment:

Possibles... it would need to be something that several countries would agree had to be kept quiet.

1. Intentional diversion by others (not crew) - for something/someone on the aircraft. After which the airframe could be dispatched from 25k (using HALO) on a slow -100ft/min ROD into the long grass of the ocean on 180M using AP.

- Implies planning: knowing the intended target would be on that flight, ability to guarantee seats for operatives, organising a landing place with ground operatives.

- Implies no other (much easier) way of obtaining that end on the ground.

- Has many risks of things going wrong and the resulting (damning) media exposure due to the civilians onboard if they were found to be treated simply as 'collateral'.

2. Shoot down - to prevent the aircraft being diverted and being used as a 'bomb' to hit something, or during exercises by an aircraft or ship.

- Petronas towers or similar ground target in populated area: possible, but no need to hide that: perfectly reasonable to shoot it down to prevent much greater death on the ground - newspaper editorial reaction: 'Regrettable loss of life, but what decision would you have taken in the circumstances if you were the MYG?'

- Diego: perfectly possible someone might try, although the chances of successfully reaching there across open ocean must surely have been known to be slim. It's the control/download centre for the US INTEL satellite above that area - it would be the first to know of unwelcome and unscheduled incomings (including a 777 heading for the SIO way to the east of it, no doubt).

- Accidental shoot down at IGARI/BITOD, mistaken for another target / accidental lock-on during exercises?

- Wreckage would be in the SCS. Difficult to conceal and retrieve given busy waterway (fishing boats especially). And since search started there, people on surrounding shores would be more aware of any missed debris.

- Possible target: leader of NK (or one of his close family) on another aircraft that crossed paths? (Echoes here of the Air Italia incident referred to in posts above). Given that MH17 seems like it may have been targeted due to one particular person being on board, MH17 would match as retribution.

- Kate and William's holiday at a villa at the Cheval Blanc Randheli Hotel on Noonu Atoll, Maldives (started Thursday 6th March for a week) ... now that's maybe a more viable possibility. The Commonwealth (and the US, due to the special relationship) would surely stick together and keep 'Mum' on preventing something like an attempted suicide attack on the recently married Royals becoming known.

And on the 'embarrassing' side, they might have found it difficult to justify why two rich Royals having a very privileged holiday (apparently, 45 villas on the island were closed for the duration of their holiday for 'security' reasons) were seen as more important than 200+ 'ordinary' people in the aircraft. You'd especially expect China not to be amused by such an equation.

In a remote location like that, apart from special forces stationed on the island, there would likely be Navy ships with helicopters and a Royal Marines squadron located discreetly offshore giving local radar coverage and ground-to-air fire power, and/or armed fighter jets on standby just in case - the nearest base being Diego (800 miles away) or India? The Five Powers base at Butterworth might have been one of the peripheral land (radar) bases on Royal alert during their stay, if so there would have been plenty of advance warning it was on its way there. And a darned good reason for waking up Hishy and Najib rather than letting MAS deal with it. The remaining decision then might have been at which point to shoot it down if warnings/communications failed - deep water, of course.

And you'd expect the Royal pair to be flown out to the nearest protected UK/US base for safety asap afterwards in case a follow-up attack had been planned - could that be that low-level mystery jet that crossed Kudahuvadhoo (heading to Diego?) seen by islanders early that morning?

Or maybe not? Just some musings.

The learning might be ... if you look at all that we've been told happened at the time, and what we know has happened since from the viewpoint of it being a cover up, does it all make more sense?
Reply
Great comment, Fori362!

Agree with all of it.

And very good idea re the Royals brought hastily to safety. Which also may have happened if it was not clear if they were target or not. We should check if the described path by the witnesses fits to any reasonable runway and if flying very low over Islands could make sense somehow.

Cheers
Curtis
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)