Flight MH370 Inmarsat data online

Flight MH370 Inmarsat data online:

formatting link

These are the communication handshakes. A quick look shows some outage for a while, then a new reply.

Reply to
Jan Panteltje
Loading thread data ...

So, now the question is, can someone spot something in there that Inmarsat et. al. have missed? And, if they do, can they manage to get the attention of the relevant authorities? The latter might be the bigger problem - for every person with a concrete useful idea, there are probably any number of crackpots.

Sylvia.

Reply to
Sylvia Else

On a sunny day (Tue, 27 May 2014 06:26:53 GMT) it happened Jan Panteltje wrote in :

OK, what I make of it: After only a short period plane landed on water, contact lost, bit later plane floating on water contact re-establised. Plane kept floating for awhile (hours), then contact lost.

That means the plane cannot be where they are looking now, it MUST be where that Australian geo commpany says it is.

page 20, take off:

16:41

page 36, first lost contact, After 26 minutes flight time contact lost!:

17:07

page 39, contact re-established:

18:25

page 41, end of contact:

0:49

I wonder.... Oh I wonder, was it shot down?

Its a cover up!

I did not speculate anywhere in this timing. The issue is: Where is that unit located and will it work when floating on water, and if they still had power how come no transmissions?

Somebody should look where geo says it is, they should release those coordinates!

mm

Reply to
Jan Panteltje

On a sunny day (Tue, 27 May 2014 17:17:42 +1000) it happened Sylvia Else wrote in :

See my evaluation in the other reply. yes if it is a cover up then authority will declare any sane observation invalid.

Reply to
Jan Panteltje

There is a general trend in the variation of the burst timing offset that, if interpreted as a change of distance from the satellite, mean that the aircraft must have been still in flight, since it could not have moved fast enough if floating on the water.

Sylvia.

Reply to
Sylvia Else

That bunch of quacks and moon howling cowboys with their unmitigated multispectral imaging MRI pure bullshit. You are utterly barking mad!

What is the point?

Innmarsat are the only people who come out of this at all well. They did a damn good job of computing an arc of last known contact from the very limited information that the ping timings provided.

--
Regards, 
Martin Brown
Reply to
Martin Brown

On a sunny day (Tue, 27 May 2014 09:33:10 +0100) it happened Martin Brown wrote in :

Well you are also insulting a bunch of professors, I doubt you know better.

Inmarsat has a problem, I am into celestial navigation and sight reduction stuff at this moment.

Their sat is 40,000 km up (geo stationair). The resolution of the timing is not that great (ping times, look at the pdf). use a globe imagine a point way way way above it, use a piece of cord, fixed line, draws a circle. Now depending where on earth you are, moving one way or the other in a right angle to that circle does not change the path a whole lot, and also depends on ALTITUDE of the plane. So they assume either it was on the ground or still flying. else there should be 2 arcs to begin with, and with error bars. So their ping times are not that conclusive, and cannot be, the only thing that is SURE is that contact was lost for a long time after some minutes in flight, in the BEGINNING of the flight, and then much later came back, and lasted a long time. Looks like a water landing after half an hour or so to me. A women reported seeing a plane on the sea, and even reported it to the police on arrival, she was immediately ignored. And mil exercises caused a near miss of a rocket with a plane in that area in the same week. And half an hour into flight is a good time for disaster to happen, I have been in an engine fire situation after about 15 minutes after take off, the time for leaking oil to ignite I guess, or the bearings running dry (was an oil leak).

After the first loss of contact the rest of the data is probably of no value. It is the same as programming in C, make an error and you get a thousand lines of compile errors, in 99% of the cases it is the first one, and ignore the rest.

It is simple. On top of that they found nothing where their theories make them look now.

The clowns 'found' pings from the black (or red) box at locations >600km apart... I mentioned before if you listen long enough to noise you will hear anything you like. Or do you think a whale swallowed those boxes and swam 600 km south at max speed? Come on, this thing stinks!

There is more.

Reply to
Jan Panteltje

On a sunny day (Tue, 27 May 2014 18:21:59 +1000) it happened Sylvia Else wrote in :

Yes I thought about that. Do you remember that CERN detected faster than light particles, a few years back? It turned out to be a bad connected coax. Now imagine a plane in water and the sea water gradually easting at the wiring. After the first blackout, one they so conveniently simply ignore, none of the following data should be trusted,

Reply to
Jan Panteltje

Airplanes don't float very long after ditching, even with a competent pilot at the controls and in calm water.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs 
Principal Consultant 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Phil Hobbs

e

yeh, you don't hear of many aircrafts that are in one piece after attemptin g a crash landing on water

afair the crew on Flight 1549 didn't have time to active the ditch valve th at closes openings on the underside of the aircraft, But it didn't really m atter since the impact had made bigger holes anyway and even after that per fect landing it barely stayed afloat

-Lasse

Reply to
Lasse Langwadt Christensen

It's not amazing that those who first assume a conspiracy always tend to find a conspiracy.

Reply to
krw

On a sunny day (Tue, 27 May 2014 13:30:29 -0400) it happened snipped-for-privacy@attt.bizz wrote in :

This was more about finding that plane.

Reply to
Jan Panteltje

What amazes me is that why don't they support the doppler data by letting a plane travel the same estimated route to see if they can duplicate the data/path

AFAIU the data showed a 80km/h offset when the plane was stationary at the terminal which does not seem to have been corrected

Cheers

Klaus

Reply to
Klaus Kragelund

No, it was just more ramblings from a conspiracy nutcase.

Reply to
krw

Once the engines stop in the water, there is very little power available (batteries), and that power is not available for very long. I cannot see how a plane in the water could continue to transmit ACARS data for many hours.

Sylvia.

Reply to
Sylvia Else

On a sunny day (Wed, 28 May 2014 13:00:46 +1000) it happened Sylvia Else wrote in :

Yes, good point, but the Tx is only impulse. Depends on what is powering what.

So, if your take on it is correct, then I have an other theory that matches the facts as presented by govs, MERMAIDS, I watched pirates_of_the_caribbean_on_stranger_tides_2011.ts , well the first part, until they caught the mermaid, last night. Good movie, some good acting, you cannot tell special effects from real anymore, good work, anyways, at least not in normal (not HD) resolution, so mermaids were singing the first pings, and then the second ones. As I stated before here very recently: The proof of the pudding is in the heating, they have NOT found the plane.

And if it was shot down it should never been found, and where better to look then than in the deepest most deserted part of the ocean.

You know, when looking for your screwdriver, after looking in every drawer twice, consider it is in the car or some place totally other from where you were looking. History is full of that 'we know where it is not' statements, and the earth was flat too. They FAIL. Now the hits have been published (by geo company), 'NO WE DO NOT LOOK THERE IT IS NOT ON THE ARC (from Inmarsat)'. Inmarsat's arc does not match my simple navigational understanding at all.

So, maybe Malaysia shot it down, and is scared as hell for China finding out and the interests are worth keeping the dead buried, as bringing up that plane would reveal who shot it, or any other conspiracy or technical theory, but it is INSANE not to look - , say refuse to look where that Australian company says it sees something. that is the 'and I told you earth is flat cant you see it' attitude. Geo should publish the coordinates, and then for sure some private hunters, maybe even sponsored by China or relatives of the people on that flight, could send a ship and look. Seems normal to me, a lot more normal than what happens now.

Reply to
Jan Panteltje

On a sunny day (Tue, 27 May 2014 20:59:07 -0400) it happened snipped-for-privacy@attt.bizz wrote in :

You are lying!

Reply to
Jan Panteltje

On a sunny day (Tue, 27 May 2014 14:44:52 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Klaus Kragelund wrote in :

Yes the whole thing is full of thecnical flaws, and any sane verification is not done.

Reply to
Jan Panteltje

Correcting it involves assumptions about its origin. I think they're trying to provide the raw data.

On another note, on page 2, the document says that the mobile terminals are designed to correct for aircraft Doppler effects, based on an assumed stationary position of the satellite. This seems to imply that if the satellite were actually at that stationary position all the time (it isn't quite) then there would be no Doppler effect observable due to the Aircraft's motion.

That seems to imply to me that the burst frequency offset is a secondary effect arising from the difference between the satellite's actual position and velocity in the sky, and its presumed position and velocity (the latter being zero).

Sylvia.

Reply to
Sylvia Else

If one posits that it was shot down, then that must have happened when its tracking data ceased. Note that that data came from private individuals in the area who had appropriate equipment. There is no possibility of a cover-up in that regard. In turn that would mean that it would have hit the sea in the area where the first searching was done. It's implausible that no debris would have been found.

The company could publish the coordinates. Certainly nothing's stopping them. If they haven't, then that rather suggests that their claim was a sham.

Sylvia.

Reply to
Sylvia Else

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.