Missing planes

[peterms]

You give the US far too much credit.

It is not an omniscient beast. At best, it is a corrupt entity that regularly overrides domestic and international laws to keep power.

But it is not some all seeing eye that monitors everything in the world. There are no land radars in the southern Indian Ocean. If there are submarines, they would only register the impact of the plane crash IF they were within a good vicinity of the crash site. Listening posts underwater have limited range and encounter tons of data considering the volatility of the southern Indian Ocean.

Just because you can't disprove a theory doesn't give it validation.

Or is all the satellite data wrong and Inmarsat is in on the cover up as well?

 

The US is certainly doing its very best to become an omniscient beast, and I imagine you like others are staggered by the mindbendingly vast amounts of information they are relentlessly gathering in, far more than can ever be analysed, requiring the creation of enormous new storage facilities to keep it in.

 

In that context, the idea that despite their great and continually increasing capability, their insatiable appetite for ever more information, and their designation of the entire world as an area over which they have legitimate interest in data collection, they have no way of spotting a plane flying around for several hours and failing to identify itself seems a little naive.

 

And when I hear that no-one was able to spot this aircraft for all that time but it's now been tracked using a previously undiscovered technique by a firm 28% owned by Harbinger, a CIA-linked firm with a long history of things going way back to the Bay of Pigs, I think that's an interesting notion.  Because we do know, don't we, that firms active in these fields co-operate closely with the security services.  Doesn't make it necessarily false information; does mean you have to be more than a little trusting to accept it purely at face value, if other parts of the story seem unlikely.

[tonyh29]

....The aim is to find the plane, not work out why some people saw/reportedly saw "not the one we're looking for" near their houses....

Surely the first question would be whether it was the one they are looking for, and if it's not, then be able to say why it's not?

Hold on. It was a report in an Indian online Newspaper that some people saw a plane nowhere near where they're looking. They'd be spending all day everyday knocking down theories, witness reports, cranks and whatever else. There's no end to it. "Why didn't they say why they've discounted this report as well then...ah, so it must be true..."

The point is to find the plane, perhaps saying why they're looking in a particular area, not to explain why every individual other area/alleged sighting/theory/rumour is not being followed up on.

While people can validly comment on poor comms at times, delays and such like, and on the humanity of some of the media stuff, I'm not sure that picking individual bits off the internet and asking why this or that hasn't been specifically addressed gets anyone anywhere.

Wow. Quite a jump to go from what I've said to having to explain every rumour that's out there. A truly Olympian leap, in fact.

A number of witnesses are reported to have seen a plane with markings the colour of that airline, in a place which is in the direction the missing plane was last known to be flying in, at a time consistent with how long it would have taken to get there (as I understand), flying in a manner which attracted comment, in an area obviously well covered with radar (even if you believe that vast other areas of the sea are invisible to the US spy apparatus, which I have to say I don't).

Why would such a set of reports not be investigated? It beggars belief.

It's not exactly diverting the search effort for someone to be able to say "No, we've identified it, it was flight xxx, from a to b, that's all". Perhaps this has been done, and I and many others have simply missed it.

Guess you didn't see my post that suggests the plane would have been there at 3am rather than 6:15... Had it delayed by 3 hrs by zig zagging and taking into account the low altitude would it then have had enough fuel to reach its likely crash zone ? Edited March 26, 2014 by tonyh29

[peterms]

Guess you didn't see my post that suggests the plane would have been there at 3am rather than 6:15... Had it delayed by 3 hrs by zig zagging and taking into account the low altitude would it then have had enough fuel to reach its likely crash zone ?

I don't know. I've seen other comments to the effect that the time would be about right, though I don't know if there are issues about time zones which complicate matters.

But the basic question is simple and straightforward, and can be answered by someone sitting behind a desk: was there a plane in that location at that time which can be definitively identified, and if so, what was it? Given the worldwide interest in every tiny detail of this episode, it seems a simple and reasonable question to expect to be answered. Since mainstream media have discussed all sorts of other stuff up to and including black holes, why the problem with identifying what was presumably a known plane on a known route, which would give a simple explanation?

[Kwan]

You give the US far too much credit.

It is not an omniscient beast. At best, it is a corrupt entity that regularly overrides domestic and international laws to keep power.

But it is not some all seeing eye that monitors everything in the world. There are no land radars in the southern Indian Ocean. If there are submarines, they would only register the impact of the plane crash IF they were within a good vicinity of the crash site. Listening posts underwater have limited range and encounter tons of data considering the volatility of the southern Indian Ocean.

Just because you can't disprove a theory doesn't give it validation.

Or is all the satellite data wrong and Inmarsat is in on the cover up as well?

The US is certainly doing its very best to become an omniscient beast, and I imagine you like others are staggered by the mindbendingly vast amounts of information they are relentlessly gathering in, far more than can ever be analysed, requiring the creation of enormous new storage facilities to keep it in.

In that context, the idea that despite their great and continually increasing capability, their insatiable appetite for ever more information, and their designation of the entire world as an area over which they have legitimate interest in data collection, they have no way of spotting a plane flying around for several hours and failing to identify itself seems a little naive.

And when I hear that no-one was able to spot this aircraft for all that time but it's now been tracked using a previously undiscovered technique by a firm 28% owned by Harbinger, a CIA-linked firm with a long history of things going way back to the Bay of Pigs, I think that's an interesting notion. Because we do know, don't we, that firms active in these fields co-operate closely with the security services. Doesn't make it necessarily false information; does mean you have to be more than a little trusting to accept it purely at face value, if other parts of the story seem unlikely.

I mean, I see I'm not going to change your mind on it.

But technically and scientifically speaking, there is such a remote chance the US knew where plane was.

If you truly believe they did, then I won't try to argue you out of that.

But again, I think you're imagining the fictional find-a-person-in-5-seconds US instead of the real thing.

[blandy]

 

Wow.  Quite a jump to go from what I've said to having to explain every rumour that's out there.  A truly Olympian leap, in fact.

 

A number of witnesses are reported to have seen a plane with markings the colour of that airline, in a place which is in the direction the missing plane was last known to be flying in, at a time consistent with how long it would have taken to get there (as I understand), flying in a manner which attracted comment, in an area obviously well covered with radar (even if you believe that vast other areas of the sea are invisible to the US spy apparatus, which I have to say I don't).

 

Why would such a set of reports not be investigated?  It beggars belief.

 

It's not exactly diverting the search effort for someone to be able to say "No, we've identified it, it was flight xxx, from a to b, that's all".  Perhaps this has been done, and I and many others have simply missed it.

I don't agree with that outlook, Peter.

You found a link to an indian internet newspaper which found a story on another website with a story in it with no attributed quotes and for which as Tony pointed out the timing doesn't tally. You also say you don't know whether it's been subsequently been reported to be gibberish/unrelated.

That seems to be the gist of it. As it is that's fine and adds a little to the coverage and intrigue and so on.

I struggle to see why we should expect the malaysian or other authorities to be repudiating/ruling out etc. that kind of story, or similar blog reports, online stories, newspaper columns and so on. I maybe credulous and naïve, but I don't take it from their failure to comment on it, that it's somehow a slight hint of things being hidden from "us". I think that albeit perhaps tardily, the world has been told where they're looking, why they're looking there, what the sources of the information are for that search area, what's been seen there so far...

People can of course think "why aren't they doing this, or looking there, or why are they seemingly ignoring/not commenting on maldive news agency website stories" but I don't see that as a core thing.

[limpid]

 

 

 

... says the guy with the US flag as his profile pic.

 

No he doesn't. Possibly "a" US flag, but not "the" US flag.

[tonyh29]

 

 

 

 

... says the guy with the US flag as his profile pic.

 

No he doesn't. Possibly "a" US flag, but not "the" US flag.

 

 

 

now you made me count the number of Stars  ...  1912 flag no less

[Kwan]

Hawaii and Alaska aren't real states

[Stevo985]

This is a new level of VT pedantry.

[TrentVilla]

This is a new level of VT pedantry.

 

Actually its a new level of pedantry on VT as it isn't VT that is being pedantic.

[Voinjama]

 

There are over 30 aviation disasters each year, I guess this one is getting more reaction because of the mystery surround it.

But not 30 disasters where a few hundred people die to be fair.

 

 

Most of them did have hundreds die in them. 2010 was a particularly bad year for aviation disasters. Usually if a plane goes down, everyone on board is a goner. 

[tonyh29]

 

 

There are over 30 aviation disasters each year, I guess this one is getting more reaction because of the mystery surround it.

But not 30 disasters where a few hundred people die to be fair.

 

 

Most of them did have hundreds die in them. 2010 was a particularly bad year for aviation disasters. Usually if a plane goes down, everyone on board is a goner. 

 

still 1 in 4.7 million chance of being involved in a fatal air chance 

 

I like those odds

[peterms]

 

 

 

There are over 30 aviation disasters each year, I guess this one is getting more reaction because of the mystery surround it.

But not 30 disasters where a few hundred people die to be fair.

 

 

Most of them did have hundreds die in them. 2010 was a particularly bad year for aviation disasters. Usually if a plane goes down, everyone on board is a goner. 

 

still 1 in 4.7 million chance of being involved in a fatal air chance 

 

I like those odds

 

 

The number of times you seem to have flown, you'd think your odds would be down to about 1 in 3 by now.  Luckily for you, stats don't work that way.

[darrenm]

Not sure if this is going a bit OT but as you're such a frequent flyer Tony, you'll surely have had a few scary moments? Care to divulge any?

[snowychap]

Not sure if this is going a bit OT but as you're such a frequent flyer Tony, you'll surely have had a few scary moments? Care to divulge any?

They almost made him go economy, once.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

I'd rather he did not tell us of any scary moments on board a plane.

 

Tell us of the good times.

[limpid]

I'd rather he did not tell us of any scary moments on board a plane.

 

Tell us of the good times.

But in the travel forum please, not in a thread about a particular story.

[useless]

Sorry got a bit carried away.

Edited March 26, 2014 by useless

[peterms]

Malaysia moves to reassure relatives who think they have been told less than the full truth.

[snowychap]

 

 

There are over 30 aviation disasters each year, I guess this one is getting more reaction because of the mystery surround it.

But not 30 disasters where a few hundred people die to be fair.

 

 

Most of them did have hundreds die in them. 2010 was a particularly bad year for aviation disasters. Usually if a plane goes down, everyone on board is a goner. 

 

That wouldn't seem to tally with the data on this page. How accurate the information is I can't say.