It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Sorry that's not logical it's impossible. It would have to fly underwater to fly in a straight line instead of the great circle. The great circle is the closest to a straight line path it can fly at a constant altitude (meaning without flying underground or underwater like it would have to do in a straight line).
originally posted by: earthling42
it would be logical that it traveled in a strait line, not a great circle.
originally posted by: roadgravel
So the report says it went off radar at way point BITOD, which is east of IGARI after a turn.
Weren't the officials always stating it turned west at IGARI or what that just the way they drew the graphics and felt the eastward part was 'meaningless'.
originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: sy.gunson
I thought one of the last data points from FR24 showed the turn. Flying farther east would make the rig sighting even more realistic.
I have to wonder if the plane on Malaysian radar was MH370 unless they turned later and headed back. Guess checking the times would tell if that was possible.
2:35:03
MAS OPS Centre informed KL-ATCC MH370 in normal condition based
on signal download giving coordinate N14.90000 E109 15 00 at time
2:35:54
KL-ATCC relayed to HCM the latitude and longitude as advised by
Malaysian Airlines Operations.
originally posted by: roadgravel
This in report
2:35:03
MAS OPS Centre informed KL-ATCC MH370 in normal condition based
on signal download giving coordinate N14.90000 E109 15 00 at time
2:35:54
KL-ATCC relayed to HCM the latitude and longitude as advised by
Malaysian Airlines Operations.
Nothing about the time the info was received if true. Signal download? This has to have been determined as wrong.
edit:
I see now it was a projection, not real data.
Did Malaysia provide exact coordinates for the start and end of what they said took nearly 20 minutes? If not how do you know there's not some discrepancy in what they're saying versus what you're calculating that would explain the 12 minutes difference?
originally posted by: sy.gunson
There was a reported explosion detected on the seabed along the same flightpath 85 minutes into the flight. It was detected on the seabed by seismic sensors but was not an earthquake.
I have measured the distance to Penang from the location at 17:24 UTC which is 250nm and flying back at 35,000ft would take 32 minutes. Malaysia claims it covered the distance in "nearly 20 minutes" ata conference in Beijing on 29 April.
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Did Malaysia provide exact coordinates for the start and end of what they said took nearly 20 minutes? If not how do you know there's not some discrepancy in what they're saying versus what you're calculating that would explain the 12 minutes difference?
originally posted by: sy.gunson
There was a reported explosion detected on the seabed along the same flightpath 85 minutes into the flight. It was detected on the seabed by seismic sensors but was not an earthquake.
I have measured the distance to Penang from the location at 17:24 UTC which is 250nm and flying back at 35,000ft would take 32 minutes. Malaysia claims it covered the distance in "nearly 20 minutes" ata conference in Beijing on 29 April.
originally posted by: qmantoo
[speculation] I think anything told to the relatives in the hotels is going to be highly suspect. It is probably based on truth, but 'bent' a little.
When you have a group of very emotional people together, they probably tend to work each other up and in a situation like a briefing it is bound to get heated. I feel that the authorities were 'economic' with the truth and probably said what was expected or convenient. If this "about 20 minutes" thing was said at a briefing, I think it might have been changed somewhat. I can imagine someone saying "Well, 40 minutes is 'nearly 20 minutes' isn't it?" and then they go with the 20-minutes thing. On the other hand of course, it could be a misunderstanding or a mis-communication along the line. [/speculation]
Previous accident preliminary reports have been far, far longer (like 50-100+ pages) and I have seen it reported that this one is the minimum the Malaysians could get away with.
The New Straits Times is a pretty good resource and if you enter
site:nst.com.my inurl:font-color-red-mh370-tragedy-font
into Google you get all the MH370 articles
The natural inference I make from an offhand remark unsupported by any documentation is that it was an offhand remark. They did release a pictorial timeline in the latest batch of docs, so if the 20 minutes conflicts with that then the 20 minutes is most likely in error, but it seems to assume that MH370 was the UFO and they've admitted that they're not 100% certain it was.
originally posted by: sy.gunson
No they did not but Malaysia has been resisting disclosure of an exact timeline for weeks and suddenly let slip a scrap of information which does identify the timeline.
Nobody put words in their mouth. Malaysian Authorities released the claim to relatives. In the absence of Malaysai taking steps to clarify further we are entitled to take a natural inference from it.