Malaysia Airlines Plane "Loses Contact"
Discussion
Steffan said:
From the start the Malaysians have been less than forthright in confirming the details that they presumably must know by now?
I have some experience of Malaysians and found them to be generally very dishonest.What matters to them more than anything is appearances, they will lie to your face and deny having done something when you both know they have. They never admit anything that will make themselves look bad in any way and will tie themselves in knots to cover up anything that appears bad.
This is what we are seeing in this situtation.
Edited by Martin4x4 on Sunday 16th August 11:32
The Maldives sighting is the most credible even though nothing was seen on radar - there was some suspicious wreckage washed up near the time that was perhaps discounted too quickly, a lot of people independently described a very loud very low jet with the right markings. If it crashed nearer the Maldives (i.e. the calculated search zone is wrong) it would make the flap find much more probable.
Jimboka said:
Interesting that if the calculactions are correct, the plane went down somewhere else in all likelihood . As suspected all along. So the much maligned eye witnesses on the Maldives could have been right all along?
Hmmmm, not sure about that. Some of the people he quotes have arrived at a completely different conclusion. Reunion was projected to be a possible site for debris to wash up, so I can't see how the fact that it has should change anything. Certainly not on the basis of a single find, anywayTheSnitch said:
I wonder if you can explain something to me?
Only one piece of confirmed wreckage has been recovered. The location is therefore the equivalent of a single data point on a graph.
The location is within the projected range suggested by the various models, assuming a crash site as previously modelled.
The author of this unpublished, non peer-reviewed paper, however seems rather confused, claiming that other destinations for drift of wreckage are ''more probable''
If, however, the location is within the hypothesized zone then the model is valid. Any re-evaluation would only be possible with the recovery of numerous pieces of wreckage. It would be a different matter if it had washed up in Norfolk, or anywhere else highly unlikely given the drift projections and calculated crash site.
I think what I am trying to get at is that it's a heap of crap, but I'm trying to go about it nicely.
the thing is if you had put 1000 pieces of anything in current search area and 1000 of those some 1000 miles to the north, tough chance that any would wash ashore on Reunion Island from the current search area while hundreds of those would from the northern area (after given amount of time)Only one piece of confirmed wreckage has been recovered. The location is therefore the equivalent of a single data point on a graph.
The location is within the projected range suggested by the various models, assuming a crash site as previously modelled.
The author of this unpublished, non peer-reviewed paper, however seems rather confused, claiming that other destinations for drift of wreckage are ''more probable''
If, however, the location is within the hypothesized zone then the model is valid. Any re-evaluation would only be possible with the recovery of numerous pieces of wreckage. It would be a different matter if it had washed up in Norfolk, or anywhere else highly unlikely given the drift projections and calculated crash site.
I think what I am trying to get at is that it's a heap of crap, but I'm trying to go about it nicely.
Edited by TheSnitch on Saturday 15th August 10:02
Jimboka said:
Interesting that if the calculactions are correct, the plane went down somewhere else in all likelihood . As suspected all along. So the much maligned eye witnesses on the Maldives could have been right all along?
no, the plane is along the 7th arc which is too far from Maldives, who knows what they saw there (if they say anything)Martin4x4 said:
Steffan said:
From the start the Malaysians have been less than forthright in confirming the details that they presumably must know by now?
I have some experience of Malaysians and found them to be generally very dishonest.What matter to them more than anything is appearances, they will lie to your face and deny having done something when you both know they have. They never admit anything that will make themselves look bad in any way and will tie themselves in knots to cover up anything that appears bad.
This is what you are seeing in this situtation.
AreOut said:
the thing is if you had put 1000 pieces of anything in current search area and 1000 of those some 1000 miles to the north, tough chance that any would wash ashore on Reunion Island from the current search area while hundreds of those would from the northern area (after given amount of time)
As I have already said, the location is within the projected area for debris to wash up, and you cannot determine anything significant based on a single find, other than confirmation that the plane ended up in the watermotomk said:
Thank you very much for that.I think it goes to show there is often a simple explanation
Steffan said:
I appreciate your comments. In circumstances such as these where hundreds of innocent passengers have lost their lives one would hope honesty would be the automatic approach. Clearly not in this case.
I too would hope so, but I don't think that would be the case.The magnitude of the situation, results in a big loss of face, likely increasing the vehemence.
This is also why I'm highly sceptical of the Malaysian Military Radar data, which appeared sometime after the international media were incredulous about early reports of the inability to track planes accuratly.
Edited by Martin4x4 on Sunday 16th August 12:35
Martin4x4 said:
This is also why I'm highly sceptical of the Malaysian Military Radar data, which appeared sometime after the international media were incredulous about early reports of the inability to track planes accuratly.
It's entirely normal behaviour for military organisations to be incredibly shy about revealing how good(or bad) their radar coverage and tracking ability is. This information is kept secret for sensible reasons.TheSnitch said:
motomk said:
Thank you very much for that.I think it goes to show there is often a simple explanation
AreOut said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
OK, just a mass hallucination then!
noone from that mass had a simple smartphone to take the picture/video of the plane that shouldn't be there?in reality couple of people probably saw some plane that wasn't MH370, that's all
TTmonkey said:
AreOut said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
OK, just a mass hallucination then!
noone from that mass had a simple smartphone to take the picture/video of the plane that shouldn't be there?in reality couple of people probably saw some plane that wasn't MH370, that's all
motomk said:
That isn't really 'news' as it was almost certain to belong to it.motomk said:
No sh!t Sherlock!! They have taken all that time to say that!! 
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff