Malaysian Plane Missing After Take Off

[Glenn]

 Zombies

[peejman]

Jimmy Hoffa highjacked it. 

 

 

They've never been able to find him either.

Edited March 26, 2014 by peejman

[leroy]

Let me see if i can get this right...  We have a system of geo-stationary satellites that cover the globe, can watch the Nantz nuclear facility in Iran and tell when the Iranians bulldoze and clean up a single plant entrance at that plant; and we cant find a 777.... ??? 

 

I'm sorry, but Ive got a bit of a problem with the idea that we somehow didn't know what happened 'cause we didn't see nothin...

 

I'm like some other folks have opined... I'll believe that the plane is not a danger when the pesky jews stand down from their high alert... I fully understand why the Malaysian government cant reveal it's possible actions (...if there were any....); they are tryin to keep the peace within their country and with other neighboring countries in their own way...

 

Of late (...from the 60's on...) Uncle Sam has decided to lie about everything... As an old 8 th grade grammar school teacher used to say: "....believe nothing you hear and half of what you see..." and you will most likely get a fair picture of what is really goin on... I heard that in 1960... It's even more true today in my opinion... 

 

By the way; where's Bin Laden and Jimmy Hoffa???... I aint seen them either...

 

suspicious leroy

[Chucktshoes]

Do not blame the victim Muslim hatred of "the west"goes back centuries - and its support of israel goes back to the beginning of the 20th century. If you want a good history lesson, read to first couple Chapters of The Farhud" by Edwin Black The Farhud: Roots of the Arab-Nazi Alliance in the Holocaust by Edwin Black http://www.amazon.com/dp/0914153145/ref=cm_sw_r_udp_awd_O3Imtb10HEXPQ

Recognizing and acknowledging that US foreign policy does not exist in a vacuum is not a case of blaming the victim. Too often we picture the US as some God-ordained, global cop on a mission to set the world to right when it is really just looking after its own selfish interests in a short sighted and destructive manner. 

[TMF]

[quote name="Chucktshoes" post="1130151" timestamp="1395847550"]Recognizing and acknowledging that US foreign policy does not exist in a vacuum is not a case of blaming the victim. Too often we picture the US as some God-ordained, global cop on a mission to set the world to right when it is really just looking after its own selfish interests in a short sighted and destructive manner. [/quote] US foreign policy most certainly does not live in a vacuum. However, as we have seen, a lack of US foreign policy doesn't exist in a vacuum either. Kind of the zen master and the horse thing. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Oh Shoot]

Let me see if i can get this right...  We have a system of geo-stationary satellites that cover the globe, can watch the Nantz nuclear facility in Iran and tell when the Iranians bulldoze and clean up a single plant entrance at that plant; and we cant find a 777.... ???

 

My layman's take is that "they" (hodgepodge of systems and governments and technologies and capabilities) don't actually see and record everything that happens on the face of the planet in enough detail to be useful for most purposes. Unless manually aimed and zoomed on an area of interest don't show the detail folks assume.And yet the data is still far too much for human eyes alone to search if you don't already know exactly where to look.

 

That's main reason the different countries are not very forthcoming about some of the images they release (or don't) -- much of it is part of a larger spy game about who's watching who with what and when and how closely. And I don't reckon any are watching the regions of the oceans where there aren't even regular sea lanes in any detail.

 

Anyway, it's not just a big Walmart security tape where you can spot most everything happening in the "store" in both real time and replay.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if all this stuff they're "seeing" but not "finding" in the southern Indian Ocean isn't just the normal accumulation of flotsam and jetsam that accumulates there normally, might find much the same in most parts of the oceans of the world if folks decided to look this closely at any given time. We'll see.

 

- OS

[Oh Shoot]

Let me see if i can get this right...  We have a system of geo-stationary satellites that cover the globe, can watch the Nantz nuclear facility in Iran and tell when the Iranians bulldoze and clean up a single plant entrance at that plant; and we cant find a 777.... ???

 

My layman's take is that "they" (hodgepodge of systems and governments and technologies and capabilities) don't actually see and record everything that happens on the face of the planet in enough detail to be useful for most purposes. Unless manually aimed and zoomed on an area of interest don't show the detail folks assume.And yet the data is still far too much for human eyes alone to search if you don't already know exactly where to look.

 

That's main reason the different countries are not very forthcoming about some of the images they release (or don't) -- much of it is part of a larger spy game about who's watching who with what and when and how closely. And I don't reckon any are watching the regions of the oceans where there aren't even regular sea lanes in any detail.

 

Anyway, it's not just a big Walmart security tape where you can spot most everything happening in the "store" in both real time and replay.

 

Beginning to wonder if all this stuff they're "seeing" but not "finding" in the southern Indian Ocean isn't just the normal accumulation of flotsam and jetsam that accumulates there normally, might find much the same in certain sections of all the oceans of the world if folks decided to look this closely at any given time. We'll see.

 

- OS

Edited March 26, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[TMF]

[quote name="Oh Shoot" post="1130155" timestamp="1395848595"]My layman's take is that "they" (hodgepodge of systems and governments and technologies and capabilities) don't actually see and record everything that happens on the face of the planet in enough detail to be useful for most purposes. Unless manually aimed and zoomed on an area of interest don't show the detail folks assume.And yet the data is still far too much for human eyes alone to search if you don't already know exactly where to look. - OS[/quote] Yeah, like I think back to Iraq when we had to go through a nutroll to get updated imagery of enemy locations/compounds. Like, we had to have intelligence and stuff. I don't suppose there are 1 million geostationary satellites to take pictures of every 100m square area of the Indian Ocean. I think people forget how big the world is, or never had a comprehension of it in the first place. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Chucktshoes]

US foreign policy most certainly does not live in a vacuum. However, as we have seen, a lack of US foreign policy doesn't exist in a vacuum either. Kind of the zen master and the horse thing. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

If you are referring to the events with Russia and Ukraine, what makes you think that is due to a lack of our foreign policy? The US government fomented and funded the revolution that ousted Yanukovych. Putin almost definitely had designs on Crimea and Ukraine, we just served them up to him on a golden serving platter.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

If usa or others have real accurate imaging or data storage to explain what happened, they may not be able to announce the data for fear of divulging capabilities?

[TMF]

[quote name="Chucktshoes" post="1130165" timestamp="1395849516"]If you are referring to the events with Russia and Ukraine, what makes you think that is due to a lack of our foreign policy? The US government fomented and funded the revolution that ousted Yanukovych. Putin almost definitely had designs on Crimea and Ukraine, we just served them up to him on a golden serving platter.[/quote] Perhaps it is true that we had a hand in stirring up the opposition with financial support and promises of some kind to a potential new regime, but it can't be argued that our perceived weakness due to a general lack of foreign policy and repeatedly not making good on idle threats didn't invite such aggression. I'd say there's a pretty good chance that if we had a man of his word in office we could have effected such events in Ukraine without concern of Russia making an opportunistic land grab. Point is, we can't say that our actions invite hostile intent while at the same time saying a lack of action doesn't. Otherwise Neville Chamberlain would be a hero in the history books. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Chucktshoes]

Perhaps it is true that we had a hand in stirring up the opposition with financial support and promises of some kind to a potential new regime, but it can't be argued that our perceived weakness due to a general lack of foreign policy and repeatedly not making good on idle threats didn't invite such aggression. I'd say there's a pretty good chance that if we had a man of his word in office we could have effected such events in Ukraine without concern of Russia making an opportunistic land grab. Point is, we can't say that our actions invite hostile intent while at the same time saying a lack of action doesn't. Otherwise Neville Chamberlain would be a hero in the history books. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

A lot of that is determined by what one's position is on what a proper foreign policy would look like. It shouldn't be a big surprise that I take the non-interventionist view. I agree that idle threats are a bad course of action as they do invite future aggression. The question I would pose is should we have been making threats (idle or otherwise) on events that are not happening within our borders in the first place? I say no. What went on in Syria is no business of ours, so we shouldn't have been drawing "red lines" for Assad to cross when he used chemical weapons against the opposition forces that we armed with weapons funneled from Libya. The land grab Putin is going for in Ukraine also isn't our business. Well other than the fact that we helped depose a legitimately elected government that was friendly to Russia in an attempt to install one we liked better. I think the common factors should be evident and it isn't a lack of foreign policy, but a bad one.

[TMF]

[quote name="Chucktshoes" post="1130180" timestamp="1395851609"]A lot of that is determined by what one's position is on what a proper foreign policy would look like. It shouldn't be a big surprise that I take the non-interventionist view. I agree that idle threats are a bad course of action as they do invite future aggression. The question I would pose is should we have been making threats (idle or otherwise) on events that are not happening within our borders in the first place? I say no. What went on in Syria is no business of ours, so we shouldn't have been drawing "red lines" for Assad to cross when he used chemical weapons against the opposition forces that we armed with weapons funneled from Libya. The land grab Putin is going for in Ukraine also isn't our business. Well other than the fact that we helped depose a legitimately elected government that was friendly to Russia in an attempt to install one we liked better. I think the common factors should be evident and it isn't a lack of foreign policy, but a bad one.[/quote] Having an ambassador murdered by terrorists then minimizing it and blaming it on a con artist in California purdy much told the world what kind of leader we have. We didnt need Syria to prove that. But I do agree, many of these scenarios we should have left to the EU and Arab nations to lead. Obama just tried to look like he had a tough foreign policy, but it was all fluff which he was called on. You can't play just the tip. As much as I didn't want us to have any part of Syria, once he made those threats he should have backed it up with some bombs at a minimum. That isn't to say I think we should be involved, just saying that we have to back up our smack talk or else it will be meaningless in the future... as we see. Would have been a lot easier if Obama hadnt said anything, or deferred such rhetoric to the EU and Arab nations. But we're getting off topic. Somehow we've managed to take a completely unrelated issue and attempt to connect it to a tragedy that just happened to occur in our lifetime. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[TMF]

[quote name="Chucktshoes" post="1130180" timestamp="1395851609"]A lot of that is determined by what one's position is on what a proper foreign policy would look like. It shouldn't be a big surprise that I take the non-interventionist view. I agree that idle threats are a bad course of action as they do invite future aggression. The question I would pose is should we have been making threats (idle or otherwise) on events that are not happening within our borders in the first place? I say no. What went on in Syria is no business of ours, so we shouldn't have been drawing "red lines" for Assad to cross when he used chemical weapons against the opposition forces that we armed with weapons funneled from Libya. The land grab Putin is going for in Ukraine also isn't our business. Well other than the fact that we helped depose a legitimately elected government that was friendly to Russia in an attempt to install one we liked better. I think the common factors should be evident and it isn't a lack of foreign policy, but a bad one.[/quote] Having an ambassador murdered by terrorists then minimizing it and blaming it on a con artist in California purdy much told the world what kind of leader we have. We didnt need Syria to prove that. But I do agree, many of these scenarios we should have left to the EU and Arab nations to lead. Obama just tried to look like he had a tough foreign policy, but it was all fluff which he was called on. You can't play just the tip. As much as I didn't want us to have any part of Syria, once he made those threats he should have backed it up with some bombs at a minimum. That isn't to say I think we should be involved, just saying that we have to back up our smack talk or else it will be meaningless in the future... as we see. Would have been a lot easier if Obama hadnt said anything, or deferred such rhetoric to the EU and Arab nations. But we're getting off topic. Somehow we've managed to take a completely unrelated issue and attempt to connect it to a tragedy that just happened to occur in our lifetime. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Chucktshoes]

Having an ambassador murdered by terrorists then minimizing it and blaming it on a con artist in California purdy much told the world what kind of leader we have. We didnt need Syria to prove that. But I do agree, many of these scenarios we should have left to the EU and Arab nations to lead. Obama just tried to look like he had a tough foreign policy, but it was all fluff which he was called on. You can't play just the tip. As much as I didn't want us to have any part of Syria, once he made those threats he should have backed it up with some bombs at a minimum. That isn't to say I think we should be involved, just saying that we have to back up our smack talk or else it will be meaningless in the future... as we see. Would have been a lot easier if Obama hadnt said anything, or deferred such rhetoric to the EU and Arab nations. But we're getting off topic. Somehow we've managed to take a completely unrelated issue and attempt to connect it to a tragedy that just happened to occur in our lifetime. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

:rofl: I've been off topic for quite a while in this thread. What we are talking about doesn't have much if anything to do with this jet going missing, as far as we know. Now if that jet ends up reappearing and flying into something else that might change. Still, good conversation to have.

[tnguy]

Let me see if i can get this right...  We have a system of geo-stationary satellites that cover the globe, can watch the Nantz nuclear facility in Iran and tell when the Iranians bulldoze and clean up a single plant entrance at that plant; and we cant find a 777.... ???

Just to point out that spy satellites are not geostationary. The orbit is too high.

[peejman]

Just to point out that spy satellites are not geostationary. The orbit is too high.

... and there aren't hundreds of nuclear power plants simultaneously flying all over the world at 500 mph.

[leroy]

My layman's take is that "they" (hodgepodge of systems and governments and technologies and capabilities) don't actually see and record everything that happens on the face of the planet in enough detail to be useful for most purposes. Unless manually aimed and zoomed on an area of interest don't show the detail folks assume.And yet the data is still far too much for human eyes alone to search if you don't already know exactly where to look.

 

That's main reason the different countries are not very forthcoming about some of the images they release (or don't) -- much of it is part of a larger spy game about who's watching who with what and when and how closely. And I don't reckon any are watching the regions of the oceans where there aren't even regular sea lanes in any detail.

 

Anyway, it's not just a big Walmart security tape where you can spot most everything happening in the "store" in both real time and replay.

 

Beginning to wonder if all this stuff they're "seeing" but not "finding" in the southern Indian Ocean isn't just the normal accumulation of flotsam and jetsam that accumulates there normally, might find much the same in certain sections of all the oceans of the world if folks decided to look this closely at any given time. We'll see.

 

- OS

 

I understand... I hadnt thought of the "... aimin, zoomin, and lookin in one place..." thing... It makes sense; but i still dont like the "official" explanation.... The problem with all this is the history of not tellin the truth or not sayin anything at all...

 

leroy

[Dustbuster]

Boeing knows where it's at....I garantee it!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2 of course it ate my spelling.

[DaveTN]

Boeing knows where it's at....I garantee it!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2 of course it ate my spelling.

No they don’t or they would have said where it is.

[TMF]

This is kind of a side topic, but one thing that has irritated me more about this issue beyond the incompetence and misinformation of the Malaysian government or the wild speculation from the media, is the rabid way the media has been in the face of the victims' families.  Just disgusting that the press will crowd and hound grieving people up to within inches of their face to get their emotional pictures to peddle.  Disgusting anyone within that profession who engages in that.  I don't like turning on the TV and seeing those vultures feeding on the grief of those people.

[leroy]

Dustbuster raises an interesting point.... Ya got the engine telemetry and the radio sensors that hear the telemetry... If more than one sensor hears the same telemetry; ya can do some math and get a good guess as to location... The more sensors that hear, the more precise the calculation... All that bein said; i could see how Boeing could keep their mouth shut... The data is part of a legitimate business transaction between Boeing and whomever purchased the plane... The telemetry is part of that deal...

 

leroy

Edited March 27, 2014 by leroy

[peejman]

Boeing knows where it's at....I garantee it!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2 of course it ate my spelling.

 

 

No they don’t or they would have said where it is.

 

Yes.

 

 

Dustbuster raises an interesting point.... Ya got the engine telemetry and the radio sensors that hear the telemetry... If more than one sensor hears the same telemetry; ya can do some math and get a good guess as to location... The more sensors that hear, the more precise the calculation... All that bein said; i could see how Boeing could keep their mouth shut... The data is part of a legitimate business transaction between Boeing and whomever purchased the plane... The telemetry is part of that deal...

 

leroy

 

 

Technically no it's not Boeing, its Rolls Royce. 

 

Boeing makes the airframe, Rolls Royce made the engines.  Typically, Boeing sells the airframe to some holding company that then leases the airframe to the airline.  Then either the airline or the holding company leases the engines from the manufacturer (Rolls Royce in this case).   The engine data is transmitted back to Rolls Royce, Boeing likely never sees it.  And as has been stated several times previously, that data is only engine operating parameters.  It contains no information related to the aircraft's location.  I presume triangulating the source of the transmission would be possible, but only if the transmission was received by more than one receiver and that's not likely in the middle of the Indian Ocean. 

[Guest Lester Weevils]

How many low power two way worldwide satellite nets are there nowadays?  I don't keep up with it. The geosync hi altitude sats, I thought they need aimed microwave dishes, which the engine telemetry likely does't have.

 

The expensive sat phone net of low satellites, handheld sat phones high rollers like OBL used-- I assumed such as the emergency handheld trekking signalers piggyback on that net, or a similar low altitude two way net if there is more than one in private hands. That would seem the logical place to piggyback engine telemetry, no need for an aimed dish. Purt sure there would be more than one sat over the horizon about everywhere on earth, especially to an airliner at altitude?

 

Since the lo sats go round and round, there ought to ba as many of em over the indian ocean as anywhere else, at any particular time?

Edited March 27, 2014 by Lester Weevils

[Dustbuster]

Boeing knows where it's at, they're not allowed to "tell"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2 of course it ate my spelling.