In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:



Speaking of Dr. Who and SciFi I started playing the Bab5 DVDs on the big
screen TV instead of the computer monitor and it seems they converted a 4x3
aspect ration to 16x9. The image gets incredibly grainy at times. Also,
it's painfully obvious how much special effects have improved in 20 years.
The FX really suffer because they are blown up to the wider aspect ratio.
However, if they didn't do it during production of the DVDs, I probably
would have done it with the remote's zoom button. I hate watching 4x3
programs on the wide screen TV.

The really sad part is that JMS and Netter did all the SFX in the
bigger aspect ratio and then WB either lost the files or recorded over
them, depending on who you talked to.


How did you get a cynical to survive in captivity? I heard they're hard as
hell to keep alive. (-:

And you call yourself a journalist. Cynicism is a job requirement
(grin).
--
³Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.²
‹ Aaron Levenstein

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...

stuff snipped

The FX really suffer because they are blown up to the wider aspect
ratio.
However, if they didn't do it during production of the DVDs, I probably
would have done it with the remote's zoom button. I hate watching 4x3
programs on the wide screen TV.

The really sad part is that JMS and Netter did all the SFX in the
bigger aspect ratio and then WB either lost the files or recorded over
them, depending on who you talked to.

Yes, I've been reading about that and noticed, among other things that quite
a few issues are in dispute including cast changes/trap doors, plot lines
and "who struck John." I'm using the IMDB to figure out "where are they
now?" and trying to avoid spoilers. I remember a lot, but not enough to
want to know surprises ahead of time. It's engaging. I really like zapping
through a dozen or so episodes when I am zapped out. I have to admit to
using 2X speed on some stuff. JMS does his share of speechifying. (-:

I always liked the Vorlons. They were a refreshing change from the "always
humanoid" aliens of the Star Trek franchise. Of course, the award in the
odd-looking aliens category goes to Farscape and Jim Hensons puppets. But I
still like the Vorlons the best because their "skin" looked like the burled
walnut dash of the Jaguar I restored in college.

Remember when there was the time and energy to look at a beat up old humpty
and see in your mind what it would look like after being restored. And then
to actually do it? I think I tapped my last can of Bondo a long, long time
ago. So long, in fact, it astonishes me. Time sure flies.

And you call yourself a journalist. Cynicism is a job requirement
(grin).

Ex-journo - the difference is like being an alcoholic and being in recovery.

My neighbor is worried that her five year old grandson is going to be a
destructive menace because he takes everything apart. I told her that's
actually a good thing if he's trying to see how things work and not just how
they break.

A lot of successful people were taking things apart at a very early age. I
can't remember the first thing I tried to "fix" when I was a kid. Hmmm.
That's the kind of thing that you can't recall on demand but that will show
up a day from now when I am looking at something and realize it was a clock
or a radio that I did exploratory surgery on.

--
Bobby G.

wrote in message
wrote:
wrote in message

stuff snipped

While the level of expertise seems too much for the Chinese Muslim
separatists to execute, there are helpful intelligence services all over
the
world that would train them just to make the Chinese go through hell.
Russians, Syrians, Iranians, etc.

If the pilot or co pilot were involved, getting any information about
that plane would be fairly trivial, the book is probably ON the plane.

Agreed. Certainly Shah, the pilot with the huge simulator, appears to have
been able to easily acquire that data. I wonder if MS Flight Simulator
teaches users how to disable the transponder. Some of those simulators are
notoriously accurate.

If they were planning this for a while it would make sense that they
found out what they needed to know and touched each one of those
breakers at least once before they started so they could do this
fairly quickly.

I'd say it was pretty well planned since they obviously got away with it -
to some extent. Whether the plane was landing in one of over 600 places
that could handle such a plan remains to be seen. As we've both postulated
before, it may be rammed into silt, sand and mud after a vertical flight
into the ocean.

I had another thought about this.
China may have tracked that plane from the git go, followed it to it's
final resting place and either shot it down or just dropped a bag over
the hijackers when they landed it.
If this was really a political act, covering it up is more like China
than going on CNN and bragging about catching them.

I think that after years of suppressing the Muslim Uighurs in their outlying
districts that the Uighurs, possibly with a little help from a state actor
like Iran or Syria, took the plane. The fact that these two pilots
published photos of themselve frolicking in the cabin with teenage girls
alarms me. A terrorist would seize on that sort of information to trick
those pilots into opening the cabin for some very bad girls.

The guys would be tortured for information and then just
"disappeared"

Well, that's always been an option for China.

If they really wanted to cover this up they would sprinkle a few
bodies and some floating artifacts somewhere in the South Indian Ocean
to be "found" later.

I wonder if we'll ever know. The secrets of this
hijacking/diversion/whatever may have died with the crew and passengers if
they ditched in the Indian Ocean. There's a possibility that the jog south
was just a false lead and that when they were well out of ground radar
range, they set course for their true destination.

--
Bobby G.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
"Robert Green" wrote:

Merely parroting it. So instead of actually trying to find out
what
is happening they are just grabbing onto whatever flotsam and jetsam
wonders by as if it was actually news?

And this is news to you? (-: My J-prof said that news comes from
person A
trying to harm person B through a journalist. It turned out for things
like
Watergate, he was right. Mark Felt disliked Nixon for getting passed
over
to head the FBI, hence he became Deep Throat.

At least Mark Felt had actual information and W&B took sometime
to look for backup material to corroborate. This seems to be just
putting stuff for the same of putting stuff out. There is no apparent
vetting of most of this which leads to all these whackadoodle theories.

This happened a long, long time ago. Now news programs find two people to
argue each side of an issue, unconcerned that one of them might be
criminally insane. "Let the reader/viewer sort it out."

The only piece of journalism that *wasn't* like that was the NYT series on
Benghazi. They sent a fairly large team of reporters and researchers there
as well as using local sources. They talked to everyone that might have a
connection to what happened there. They're one of the only news
organizations left that have those kinds of resources.

What's left is now millions of connected "eyes" on the net feeding into
Google which reporters use to research their topics which leads to the
flotsam phenom you've noticed. As the data from RadarFlight (or is it
FlightRadar?) 24 is a perfect example of the new news gathering and it's got
its pluses and minuses, like anything else.

The law of unintended consequences is quite a powerful one.

I am not sure that this really rises to that level.

In regards to a locked cabin door preventing the passengers from
overwhelming the hijackers instead of keeping the hijackers out?

No. At least to my mind you can't invoke law of unintendened
consequences without a line of similar occurrence (my fave discussion of
tax policy for instance). In this case it appears to be a one off that
is specific to this happenstance (of course assuming it actually
happened this way of which there is little or no real evidence just
bloviation on an international scale.

This is what humans do and have always done when faced with a situation that
defies rational explanation.

In the long run, I don't see much good coming out of the passengers
taking
over the cockpit. It would probably cause the plane to crash sooner.

Don't have to be scared as long...

Some wag elsewhere said the reason there's no video in the cabin or the
cockpit is that no one would ever fly again if they saw a *really* bad
airplane crash in vivid HD. Apparently it's often (but not always)
pandemonium. You must have experienced the contagion of the screaming
crazies in one of your career tracks. Once someone goes into full blown
panic, it typically lights up at least a few more.

I still think
that is much more related to what is orders of magnitude more likely
to
happen. This is a random occurance.

I think this is anything but random. Latest working theory: China
wants to
"pacify" their Muslim extremists and what better way than to whip up a
fury
about a suicidal Muslim pilot killing a plane load of innocent Chinese
people. This is the kind of operation spooks love. Very few but highly
trained people are involved, little chance of compromise, plausible
deniability and if push comes to shove, the bosses can always
assassinate
the actors. How do you say "Jack Ruby" in Mandarin?

How do you say more unsubstantiated BS.

Because it bothers you so much! (-: I don't understand why, this is just
how things play out. Look at all the supposition that came about after the
Challenger disaster, the OK city bombing, etc. When people have incomplete
information on a newsworthy subject they resort to "what if" scenarios.
Perhaps it's not classic textbook journalism (which I think no longer
exists) but it does give people (and the authorities) lines of inquiry to
follow. It doesn't upset me too much until you get to the "Israel was
behind the 9/11 crashes" sort of BS.

Geez Louise we can't leave any fanciful theory unturned?

It's why we have think tanks - sometimes it's "out of the box" that leads to
the answer. Do you know how long it took the Navy to figure out the
Thresher didn't sink because of bad welds but a very unusual problem where
the ballast tank valves froze shut? A *very* long time. They fixed on a
cause and tried very hard to bend all the fact to fit their preordained
conclusion. That's at least as bad as examining fanciful theories and maybe
even quite a bit worse.

This is just getting sadder.

Certainly for the families. CNN said it was a "tortuous" experience for
them (in an early version of an article). Someone must have pointed out
they meant "torturous" because it was fixed in subsequent articles.

I wonder what today's newest theory is - my wife is saying it's that the
hijackers were ability to cyberjack the plane's controls through the wifi
and entertainment network not having a strong enough firewall. (-:

--
Bobby G.

Robert Green wrote:

Certainly Shah, the pilot with the huge simulator, appears to have
been able to easily acquire that data. I wonder if MS Flight
Simulator teaches users how to disable the transponder.

If Shah put the simulator to any use as part of the hijacking, it
wouldn't have involved stuff like how to turn off the transponder -
because turning on or off the transponder is routinely done by pilots
and they know where those switches are.

What Shah would have done is practice landing the plane at a particular
remote airstrip in VFR conditions.

I would be looking at his simulator to see if he manually added an
airstrip to the simulator's stock or built-in list of airfields. Did he
create a new airfield, input the parameters (type of surface, length and
width, height above sea level) and maybe some topo features, surrounding
buildings, antenna's, etc.

And as I mentioned in the other post -

What was the complete list of cargo being carried on that flight?

Or, to ask that question another way -

How much gold was central bank of China buying that week?

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:

Agreed. Certainly Shah, the pilot with the huge simulator, appears to have
been able to easily acquire that data. I wonder if MS Flight Simulator
teaches users how to disable the transponder. Some of those simulators are
notoriously accurate.

Wouldn't tell us anything either way. (1) being checked out on the
plane, he would know where the switch it. (2). It would also be in the
manuals that are carried in their flight bags (or flight iPads depending
on the airline.

I think that after years of suppressing the Muslim Uighurs in their outlying
districts that the Uighurs, possibly with a little help from a state actor
like Iran or Syria, took the plane. The fact that these two pilots
published photos of themselve frolicking in the cabin with teenage girls
alarms me. A terrorist would seize on that sort of information to trick
those pilots into opening the cabin for some very bad girls.

I can't see Iran or Syria doing that to China. First of all, China has
consistently sided with both on the Security Council. Secondly, China
has fewer concerns about retaliation than even our most hawkish people
in the US have. Doesn't make sense for those two to risk it.
--
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital."
-- Aaron Levenstein

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:



Because it bothers you so much! (-: I don't understand why, this is just
how things play out.
Which sure as hell don't make it right. This is a long-standing
windmill for me to tilt at. I just think that journalists should be held
to some sort of standard that indicates that they don't put out a real
anything that happens to float past and looks like a couple extra
minutes are filled.
Look at all the supposition that came about after the
Challenger disaster, the OK city bombing, etc. When people have incomplete
information on a newsworthy subject they resort to "what if" scenarios.
Pretty much makes my point. I have no problem with people doing
that, but journalists should not just pass along the latest rumor.

Perhaps it's not classic textbook journalism (which I think no longer
exists) but it does give people (and the authorities) lines of inquiry to
follow. It doesn't upset me too much until you get to the "Israel was
behind the 9/11 crashes" sort of BS.
But isn't that an obvious (note I don't say "rational") extension of
what you are saying is perfectly okay. Sorta indicates that every theory
and supposition should get the same weighting unless it personally
offends the journalist??


Geez Louise we can't leave any fanciful theory unturned?

It's why we have think tanks - sometimes it's "out of the box" that leads to
the answer. Do you know how long it took the Navy to figure out the
Thresher didn't sink because of bad welds but a very unusual problem where
the ballast tank valves froze shut? A *very* long time. They fixed on a
cause and tried very hard to bend all the fact to fit their preordained
conclusion. That's at least as bad as examining fanciful theories and maybe
even quite a bit worse.
But that is acknowledged as out of the box and not some actual
occurrance UNTIL the actual facts back it up. I get a chuckle out of
the next line fixing a cause and then bending facts. Isn't that exactly
what you are doing with the supposition that it the thing was hijacked
and then either flown into the sea or landed somewhere?
--
³Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.²
‹ Aaron Levenstein

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
"Robert Green" wrote:

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2014/03...ectrical-fire/

A must read article by a pilot who posits a completely logical scenario that
explains everything we know so far. There was a fire on the plane, the
pilots climbed as high as possible to extinguish it and then turned towards
the longest, "best chance" airport.

The left turn is the key here. Zaharie Ahmad Shah1 was a very experienced
senior captain with 18,000 hours of flight time. We old pilots were drilled
to know what is the closest airport of safe harbor while in cruise. Airports
behind us, airports abeam us, and airports ahead of us. They're always in
our head. Always. If something happens, you don't want to be thinking about
what are you going to do-you already know what you are going to do. When I
saw that left turn with a direct heading, I instinctively knew he was
heading for an airport. He was taking a direct route to Palau Langkawi, a
13,000-foot airstrip with an approach over water and no obstacles. The
captain did not turn back to Kuala Lampur because he knew he had 8,000-foot
ridges to cross. He knew the terrain was friendlier toward Langkawi, which
also was closer.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:

Agreed. Certainly Shah, the pilot with the huge simulator, appears to
have
been able to easily acquire that data. I wonder if MS Flight Simulator
teaches users how to disable the transponder. Some of those simulators
are
notoriously accurate.

Wouldn't tell us anything either way.

It would tell me if there were idiots at MS that valued realism over common
sense. (-"

(1) being checked out on the
plane, he would know where the switch it. (2). It would also be in the
manuals that are carried in their flight bags (or flight iPads depending
on the airline.

No doubt. But I've read that disabling the ACARS (incompletely, it turns
out) takes a lot more knowledge and access to an electronics bay. I'm
bowing out all this supposition because of this article:

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2014/03...ectrical-fire/

For me, the loss of transponders and communications makes perfect sense in
a fire. And there most likely was an electrical fire. In the case of a fire,
the first response is to pull the main busses and restore circuits one by
one until you have isolated the bad one. If they pulled the busses, the
plane would go silent. It probably was a serious event and the flight crew
was occupied with controlling the plane and trying to fight the fire.
Aviate, navigate, and lastly, communicate is the mantra in such
situations.

I feel a little guilty at how many people are ready to turn a pilot who
apparently is a community minded guy who does home repair(!!!!!) videos into
a sucidal monster and a mass-murderer. For karmic reasons, I am preferring
to believe that he did everything humanly possible to get the aircraft to a
safe landing zone and failed.

I think that after years of suppressing the Muslim Uighurs in their
outlying
districts that the Uighurs, possibly with a little help from a state
actor
like Iran or Syria, took the plane. The fact that these two pilots
published photos of themselve frolicking in the cabin with teenage girls
alarms me. A terrorist would seize on that sort of information to trick
those pilots into opening the cabin for some very bad girls.

I can't see Iran or Syria doing that to China.

Yeah, who would expect the US to spy on Merkel's cell phone and the whole
EU. We're allies for God's sake! (-:

First of all, China has consistently sided with both on the Security
Council.

I believe that's readily explained by China just being a dick. Same reason
they support NK.

Secondly, China has fewer concerns about retaliation than even our most
hawkish people
in the US have. Doesn't make sense for those two to risk it.

They can always claim "rogue operators." It works for the big banks, why
not countries?

--
Bobby G.

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Mar 2014 12:54:26 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
"Robert Green" wrote:

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2014/03...ectrical-fire/

A must read article by a pilot who posits a completely logical scenario
that
explains everything we know so far. There was a fire on the plane, the
pilots climbed as high as possible to extinguish it and then turned
towards
the longest, "best chance" airport.

The left turn is the key here. Zaharie Ahmad Shah1 was a very
experienced
senior captain with 18,000 hours of flight time. We old pilots were
drilled
to know what is the closest airport of safe harbor while in cruise.
Airports
behind us, airports abeam us, and airports ahead of us. They're always in
our head. Always. If something happens, you don't want to be thinking
about
what are you going to do-you already know what you are going to do. When
I
saw that left turn with a direct heading, I instinctively knew he was
heading for an airport. He was taking a direct route to Palau Langkawi, a
13,000-foot airstrip with an approach over water and no obstacles. The
captain did not turn back to Kuala Lampur because he knew he had
8,000-foot
ridges to cross. He knew the terrain was friendlier toward Langkawi,
which
also was closer.


If they have the flight path right, this dies not fit the facts.

That, of course, is a big if. I wonder if they were even *watching* the
radar. After a big disaster like this, lots of people in the "chain of
events" go into pure "cover your ass" mode.

Why would they head out into the Indian Ocean if they were looking for
a place to land?

Because they overshot the landing strip they were heading for. That might
be due to incapacity of the crew, the controls or both. It fits more of the
facts than any of the other theories presented, doesn't turn a 18,000 hour
pilot into a mass-murderer and is consistent with the plane flying off into
the sunset. Why would a hijacker do that? It smacks of a plane without
human control of any kind. It also explains the brief excursion to 45K feet
and then the reduction of altitude to a (barely) breathable height.

--
Bobby G.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
"Robert Green" wrote:
stuff snipped

Because it bothers you so much! (-: I don't understand why, this is
just
how things play out.

Which sure as hell don't make it right. This is a long-standing
windmill for me to tilt at. I just think that journalists should be held
to some sort of standard that indicates that they don't put out a real
anything that happens to float past and looks like a couple extra
minutes are filled.

By all means, let's have the government license them and publish
journalistic standards . . . no, wait, that's not such a good idea afterall.

Look at all the supposition that came about after the
Challenger disaster, the OK city bombing, etc. When people have
incomplete
information on a newsworthy subject they resort to "what if" scenarios.

Pretty much makes my point. I have no problem with people doing
that, but journalists should not just pass along the latest rumor.

In most cases, they properly indicate that it's conjecture and not fact. I
think a greater problem is how many news sites co-mingle opinion with
reporting and deliberately "mark up" the former so it looks like the latter.

Perhaps it's not classic textbook journalism (which I think no longer
exists) but it does give people (and the authorities) lines of inquiry
to
follow. It doesn't upset me too much until you get to the "Israel was
behind the 9/11 crashes" sort of BS.

But isn't that an obvious (note I don't say "rational") extension of
what you are saying is perfectly okay. Sorta indicates that every theory
and supposition should get the same weighting unless it personally
offends the journalist??

In an age where Bill O'Reilly considers Darryl Hannah an "expert" on solar
energy and Katie Couric gives ex-Playmate Jenny McCarthy a forum for her
anti-vaccination views, anything goes. You are indeed Don Quixote, tilting
at windmills. The Golden Age of journalism has come and gone.

It's why we have think tanks - sometimes it's "out of the box" that
leads to
the answer. Do you know how long it took the Navy to figure out the
Thresher didn't sink because of bad welds but a very unusual problem
where
the ballast tank valves froze shut? A *very* long time. They fixed on
a
cause and tried very hard to bend all the fact to fit their preordained
conclusion. That's at least as bad as examining fanciful theories and
maybe
even quite a bit worse.

But that is acknowledged as out of the box and not some actual
occurrance UNTIL the actual facts back it up. I get a chuckle out of
the next line fixing a cause and then bending facts. Isn't that exactly
what you are doing with the supposition that it the thing was hijacked
and then either flown into the sea or landed somewhere?

But I am not a news organization or even a journalist. I am allowed to
posit possibilities. (-:

--
Bobby G.

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
"Robert Green" wrote:
stuff snipped

Because it bothers you so much! (-: I don't understand why, this is
just
how things play out.

Which sure as hell don't make it right. This is a long-standing
windmill for me to tilt at. I just think that journalists should be held
to some sort of standard that indicates that they don't put out a real
anything that happens to float past and looks like a couple extra
minutes are filled.

By all means, let's have the government license them and publish
journalistic standards . . . no, wait, that's not such a good idea afterall.

Gee, it was really nice of you to succinctly make my point about
taking whatever floats by and mangling it until it fits what you want it
to. Never was there any mention of government intrusion (especially from
me of all people). There used to be internal standards that you had to
meet that were imposed by your bosses, their bosses, or just plain old
peer pressure to get it right instead of merely filling up time with
whatever weirdness happens to pass by or calls looking for air time.


Look at all the supposition that came about after the
Challenger disaster, the OK city bombing, etc. When people have
incomplete
information on a newsworthy subject they resort to "what if" scenarios.

Pretty much makes my point. I have no problem with people doing
that, but journalists should not just pass along the latest rumor.

In most cases, they properly indicate that it's conjecture and not fact. I
think a greater problem is how many news sites co-mingle opinion with
reporting and deliberately "mark up" the former so it looks like the latter.

Sometimes, although I have noticed that CNN tends to get somewhat
inconsistent on that, especially after the first iteration. I'd have to
agree with the other part, and it is indicative of how the mighty have
fallen.


But isn't that an obvious (note I don't say "rational") extension of
what you are saying is perfectly okay. Sorta indicates that every theory
and supposition should get the same weighting unless it personally
offends the journalist??

In an age where Bill O'Reilly considers Darryl Hannah an "expert" on solar
energy and Katie Couric gives ex-Playmate Jenny McCarthy a forum for her
anti-vaccination views, anything goes. You are indeed Don Quixote, tilting
at windmills. The Golden Age of journalism has come and gone.
And that is the direct result of the journalists themselves. And I
have mentioned earlier and numerous times, that don't make it right...

But that is acknowledged as out of the box and not some actual
occurrance UNTIL the actual facts back it up. I get a chuckle out of
the next line fixing a cause and then bending facts. Isn't that exactly
what you are doing with the supposition that it the thing was hijacked
and then either flown into the sea or landed somewhere?

But I am not a news organization or even a journalist. I am allowed to
posit possibilities. (-:

How Jenney-esque of you (grin)\
--
³Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.²
‹ Aaron Levenstein

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:

But I am not a news organization or even a journalist. I am allowed to
posit possibilities. (-:

--


Finally a great summation on MH370

The problem is, all of them start out with ³it¹s possible that² (rather
than ³the facts indicate²), from which a thinking person could only
conclude what ³might² have happened*with no better chance of knowing
what actually did. Worse, once the boundaries are stretched to include
³possible² and ³might² as operative terms, you no longer have an
investigation at all; rather, you have a piece of creative writing.

http://jethead.wordpress.com/2014/03...he-land-of-oz/
--
³Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.²
‹ Aaron Levenstein

On Mon, 17 Mar 2014 10:48:38 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:

Agreed. Certainly Shah, the pilot with the huge simulator, appears to have
been able to easily acquire that data. I wonder if MS Flight Simulator
teaches users how to disable the transponder. Some of those simulators are
notoriously accurate.

Wouldn't tell us anything either way. (1) being checked out on the
plane, he would know where the switch it. (2). It would also be in the
manuals that are carried in their flight bags (or flight iPads depending
on the airline.

The manual for a specific plane is probably in the plane's glove box.
Right above the co-pilot's knees.

On Sun, 16 Mar 2014 09:37:35 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:


The length of time that's elapsed since the probable ocean crash of the jet
means that debris has had a lot of time to scatter as well as become
waterlogged and sink. It's conceivable that MH370 stays lost for a very,
very long time like the Titanic.


At least with the Titanic, you had a much better fix of where it went
down and that was more a question of when the tech would develop to let
it happen than IF it would happen.

Yes, the rescue ships knew where it sank within a few miles.

If they don't find the ship before the beeper stops, they won't find it
in our lifetimes.

(Why not put longer-lived batteries in the beeper? I'm willing to
contribue two. )

On Saturday, March 22, 2014 7:33:35 AM UTC-4, micky wrote:
On Sun, 16 Mar 2014 09:37:35 -0400, Kurt Ullman

wrote:



In article ,

"Robert Green" wrote:





The length of time that's elapsed since the probable ocean crash of the jet

means that debris has had a lot of time to scatter as well as become

waterlogged and sink. It's conceivable that MH370 stays lost for a very,

very long time like the Titanic.





At least with the Titanic, you had a much better fix of where it went

down and that was more a question of when the tech would develop to let

it happen than IF it would happen.



Yes, the rescue ships knew where it sank within a few miles.



If they don't find the ship before the beeper stops, they won't find it

in our lifetimes.



It's not very likely the pinging from the black boxes is going
to locate the airplane. It almost always works the other way
around. You find the wreckage, then you can find the black boxes.
The ping only travels a couple of miles underwater. The water
is a couple miles deep so a surface vessel or sub would have to
be very close to it to detect it. You can pull a hydrophone deep
in the sea, but again, given the huge area, there is no way
they are going to cover any significant amount of it using that
method in just a few weeks. How many vessels are at the site now
that are even capable of listening for the ping?



(Why not put longer-lived batteries in the beeper? I'm willing to

contribue two. )

A better system would probably be the streaming data type that
was very helpful in figuring out what happened to AirFrance A330.
Even if we just had the last GPS fix, it would probably be enough
in this case to find the black boxes.

On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 11:10:11 AM UTC-4, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,

"Robert Green" wrote:



But I am not a news organization or even a journalist. I am allowed to

posit possibilities. (-:



--





Finally a great summation on MH370



The problem is, all of them start out with Å‚itÄ…s possible thatË› (rather

than Å‚the facts indicateË›), from which a thinking person could only

conclude what Å‚mightË› have happenedÂ*with no better chance of knowing

what actually did. Worse, once the boundaries are stretched to include

Å‚possibleË› and Å‚mightË› as operative terms, you no longer have an

investigation at all; rather, you have a piece of creative writing.



http://jethead.wordpress.com/2014/03...he-land-of-oz/

--



I agree that's a good article. There has been so much misinformation
and crazy speculation. But it's not just limited to the uninformed.
There is a 777 pilot who's also an aviation magazine columnist who's
been all over TV sticking to his theory that it could have been a fire
that explains it.

A fire? Really? Sure, we all know that fires have brought down
airliners before. But for a fire to have been the cause of this,
you'd have to believe it was a very magical fire from the start.
Everything was perfectly normal until just a few minutes before
all ATC contact was lost. So, you'd have to believe that a fire
somehow resulted in losing the transponders and voice communication
at the same time, without any ability to issue even a short mayday. And
curiously, that occurs at precisely the point where the plane is
handed off from Malaysian ATC to Vietnam ATC, over water, near the
limit of radar, ie the perfect spot to pull a planned disappearance.

Then he says they made that left turn to head to an airport
on the other coast of
Malaysia with a 13,000 ft runway? Other pilots have pointed out
that there were other runways that they would have passed by,
plenty long enough to land the 777, to fly 140 miles farther. Who
would do that with a plane on fire? And then we have radar images
of it at the Straits, performing a zig-zag to waypoints, ending
with it perfectly aligned to the flight paths toward India. That
sounds like a fire? And then said fire, which was so bad that it
incapacitated the crew, killed key communication systems, etc,
left the plane capable of flying on it's own for 6 more hours,
including obviously changing course yet again from the course it
was on when military radar contact was lost?

So, I think you have more than just random people making wild
speculation. You have opinions from experts that don't conform
to logic from the existing facts.

In article ,
micky wrote:


(Why not put longer-lived batteries in the beeper? I'm willing to
contribue two. )

Maybe not. The Air France flight was found at the bottom after 2 years
using side scan sonar. However, they probably had a better fix on where
it went down.
--
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital."
-- Aaron Levenstein

On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 05:31:39 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, March 22, 2014 7:33:35 AM UTC-4, micky wrote:
On Sun, 16 Mar 2014 09:37:35 -0400, Kurt Ullman

wrote:



In article ,

"Robert Green" wrote:





The length of time that's elapsed since the probable ocean crash of the jet

means that debris has had a lot of time to scatter as well as become

waterlogged and sink. It's conceivable that MH370 stays lost for a very,

very long time like the Titanic.





At least with the Titanic, you had a much better fix of where it went

down and that was more a question of when the tech would develop to let

it happen than IF it would happen.



Yes, the rescue ships knew where it sank within a few miles.



If they don't find the ship before the beeper stops, they won't find it

in our lifetimes.



It's not very likely the pinging from the black boxes is going
to locate the airplane. It almost always works the other way
around. You find the wreckage, then you can find the black boxes.
The ping only travels a couple of miles underwater. The water
is a couple miles deep so a surface vessel or sub would have to
be very close to it to detect it. You can pull a hydrophone deep
in the sea, but again, given the huge area, there is no way
they are going to cover any significant amount of it using that
method in just a few weeks. How many vessels are at the site now
that are even capable of listening for the ping?

Yeah, I wasn't saying anything different from any of this. Only that if
they don't find the ship before he beeper stops, they won't find it in
our lifetimes.



(Why not put longer-lived batteries in the beeper? I'm willing to

contribue two. )

A better system would probably be the streaming data type that
was very helpful in figuring out what happened to AirFrance A330.
Even if we just had the last GPS fix, it would probably be enough
in this case to find the black boxes.

On Sunday, March 23, 2014 11:10:44 AM UTC-4, micky wrote:
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 05:31:39 -0700 (PDT), trader_4

wrote:



On Saturday, March 22, 2014 7:33:35 AM UTC-4, micky wrote:

On Sun, 16 Mar 2014 09:37:35 -0400, Kurt Ullman



wrote:







In article ,



"Robert Green" wrote:











The length of time that's elapsed since the probable ocean crash of the jet



means that debris has had a lot of time to scatter as well as become



waterlogged and sink. It's conceivable that MH370 stays lost for a very,



very long time like the Titanic.











At least with the Titanic, you had a much better fix of where it went



down and that was more a question of when the tech would develop to let



it happen than IF it would happen.







Yes, the rescue ships knew where it sank within a few miles.







If they don't find the ship before the beeper stops, they won't find it



in our lifetimes.







It's not very likely the pinging from the black boxes is going

to locate the airplane. It almost always works the other way

around. You find the wreckage, then you can find the black boxes.

The ping only travels a couple of miles underwater. The water

is a couple miles deep so a surface vessel or sub would have to

be very close to it to detect it. You can pull a hydrophone deep

in the sea, but again, given the huge area, there is no way

they are going to cover any significant amount of it using that

method in just a few weeks. How many vessels are at the site now

that are even capable of listening for the ping?



Yeah, I wasn't saying anything different from any of this. Only that if

they don't find the ship before he beeper stops, they won't find it in

our lifetimes.



Just a few years ago they did exactly that. They recovered the Air France
black boxes in a similarly deep ocean without benefit of the pings. It
took 2 years, but they did it.

On Sunday, March 23, 2014 11:55:42 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sun, 23 Mar 2014 08:18:17 -0700 (PDT), trader_4

wrote:





Just a few years ago they did exactly that. They recovered the Air France

black boxes in a similarly deep ocean without benefit of the pings. It

took 2 years, but they did it.



They had a very good idea where the Air France jet was. We still do

not even have a real clue where 370 went down. They are chasing

satellite pictures of junk in the water a couple weeks after the plane

was lost and we are not even sure it is the right junk.


Yes, I agree they had a much better idea of the location in that
case. But what I was responding to was the assertion that if
they don't find the wreckage before the black box pingers stop,
they will never find it. If they figure out where it likely
is, they could still recover black boxes, wreckage, etc long
after the pingers stop, just like Air France. And the pingers
are of limited value in this case, as they aren't likely to
reveal the location, unless by some miracle they get really lucky.
I'm not even sure what assets they have listening for the pings.
Clearly most of the assets are visual, the search planes in particular.






I bet, if they ever find this plane, it will be by accident while

looking for something else decades from now.

... unless it does turn up wadded up against a mountain or the desert

in South Asia

I think there is still a reasonable probability that they will
find debris doing the search. But I agree it's also possible that
someone will just come across something floating or washed up on
a beach somewhere. Even that, if it happend months from now, would
be a major step. We'd at least know for sure which general area
it went down in and that it's not being outfitted with bombs in
Pakistan.

On Sun, 23 Mar 2014 08:18:17 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:



Yeah, I wasn't saying anything different from any of this. Only that if

they don't find the ship before he beeper stops, they won't find it in

our lifetimes.



Just a few years ago they did exactly that. They recovered the Air France
black boxes in a similarly deep ocean without benefit of the pings. It
took 2 years, but they did it.

This case is a lot different and I stand by what I said. If you don't
believe me, so be it.

wrote in message
...

stuff snipped

The problem is, in a few months it might be found on the beach in
Sumatra and ask more questions than it answers.
These are ocean currents in pretty volatile waters, not a rail toad.

What's a "rail toad?"

--
Bobby G.

On Monday, March 24, 2014 1:46:05 AM UTC-4, micky wrote:
On Sun, 23 Mar 2014 08:18:17 -0700 (PDT), trader_4

wrote:







Yeah, I wasn't saying anything different from any of this. Only that if



they don't find the ship before he beeper stops, they won't find it in



our lifetimes.







Just a few years ago they did exactly that. They recovered the Air France

black boxes in a similarly deep ocean without benefit of the pings. It

took 2 years, but they did it.



This case is a lot different and I stand by what I said. If you don't

believe me, so be it.

That's real definitive. The pingers have typically not been involved
with finding the crash site, only in helping find the black boxes
after you know where the crash site is. Again, they only transmit
2 miles under water. The water in the search ares is 2 miles deep.
You'd have to be right on top of it and the chances of doing that with
the limited number of vessels that move at 20 MPH, in the huge area is
slim to none. The Air France case isn't
different in the aspect you're talking about. They didn't find the
wreckage from the pingers and the pingers were long dead when they
finally found the wreckage and the black boxes 2 years later.
There is no reason that the same thing couldn't happen here, if they
find floating wreckage tomorrow and start working backwards.

If they never have a good idea of where the wreckage is, then I
agree, they may never find it, but the pingers going dead isn't the
determining factor that makes it impossible, as proved by Air France.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
"Robert Green" wrote:

Seat cushions and bits of foam are not really very big targets
And there's always an enormous amount of junk floating in the ocean
everywhere. I wonder what the bottom line $ cost will be for this
effort
and how much US taxpayers will spend. It costs a lot of $ per hour to
operate those big Navy ships.

I wonder how much is sunk costs

Oh, I hadn't notice that groaning pun before! (-:

and how much is marginal. Some of this
could also be used as training for some of the specialties.

We've got commercial ships joining in now - we've gone well into the
marginal costs - the question is who typically pays them? I haven't been
able to find as much information about that as I thought I might. The
AirFrance crash had duelling deep pockets, with AF and Airbus each paying to
look for evidence that the other was "on the hook" for the crash.

--
Bobby G.

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
"Robert Green" wrote:

Seat cushions and bits of foam are not really very big targets
And there's always an enormous amount of junk floating in the ocean
everywhere. I wonder what the bottom line $ cost will be for this
effort
and how much US taxpayers will spend. It costs a lot of $ per hour to
operate those big Navy ships.

I wonder how much is sunk costs

Oh, I hadn't notice that groaning pun before! (-:

As much as it pains me to admit this on lose a little respect from
you on my prowess with verbiage, I hadn't noticed the pun before either.


and how much is marginal. Some of this
could also be used as training for some of the specialties.

We've got commercial ships joining in now - we've gone well into the
marginal costs - the question is who typically pays them? I haven't been
able to find as much information about that as I thought I might. The
AirFrance crash had duelling deep pockets, with AF and Airbus each paying to
look for evidence that the other was "on the hook" for the crash.

Probably the same here. Although I also have to wonder about whether
the airlines and makers have sorta come to the conclusion that there is
NO liability for either until it is found. Sorta like trying to convict
for murder without a body OR evidence.
--
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital."
-- Aaron Levenstein

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message "Robert Green"
wrote:

stuff snipped

I wonder how much is sunk costs

Oh, I hadn't notice that groaning pun before! (-:

As much as it pains me to admit this on lose a little respect from
you on my prowess with verbiage, I hadn't noticed the pun before either.

A subconscious "submarine" pun. Hmm.

and how much is marginal. Some of this
could also be used as training for some of the specialties.

We've got commercial ships joining in now - we've gone well into the
marginal costs - the question is who typically pays them? I haven't
been
able to find as much information about that as I thought I might. The
AirFrance crash had duelling deep pockets, with AF and Airbus each
paying to
look for evidence that the other was "on the hook" for the crash.

Probably the same here. Although I also have to wonder about whether
the airlines and makers have sorta come to the conclusion that there is
NO liability for either until it is found. Sorta like trying to convict
for murder without a body OR evidence.

Oh, they've convicted people of murder without a body before. People v.
Scott. It's messy, but it can be done. Boeing would certainly love the
outcome to be a hijacking rather than any on-board mechanical defect. Air
Malaysia, not so much because a hijacking means they were asleep at the
switch and allowed hijackers to board the plane. Probably by NOT checking
their luggage just as thoroughly as they failed to check for stolen
passports.

But it's all pure speculation until (if ever) the wreckage is found. The
time on the pingers is running out, too. All we've really learned so far is
what I mentioned weeks ago - the ocean is just chock full of garbage big
enough to be pieces of a downed jet. This really is a technological "fail"
as bad as any we've seen in recent years.

--
Bobby G.

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:


Oh, they've convicted people of murder without a body before.

Which is why I also included evidence. Nothing here until we get the
black boxes and/or wreckage except conjecture and enough conflicting
testimony to confuse the situation. It probably is in neither Boeing's
nor MA's best interests to find anything.
--
³Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.²
‹ Aaron Levenstein

On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 8:36:19 AM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message "Robert Green"

wrote:



stuff snipped



I wonder how much is sunk costs



Oh, I hadn't notice that groaning pun before! (-:



As much as it pains me to admit this on lose a little respect from

you on my prowess with verbiage, I hadn't noticed the pun before either.



A subconscious "submarine" pun. Hmm.



and how much is marginal. Some of this

could also be used as training for some of the specialties.



We've got commercial ships joining in now - we've gone well into the

marginal costs - the question is who typically pays them? I haven't

been

able to find as much information about that as I thought I might. The

AirFrance crash had duelling deep pockets, with AF and Airbus each

paying to

look for evidence that the other was "on the hook" for the crash.



Probably the same here. Although I also have to wonder about whether

the airlines and makers have sorta come to the conclusion that there is

NO liability for either until it is found. Sorta like trying to convict

for murder without a body OR evidence.



Oh, they've convicted people of murder without a body before. People v.

Scott. It's messy, but it can be done. Boeing would certainly love the

outcome to be a hijacking rather than any on-board mechanical defect. Air

Malaysia, not so much because a hijacking means they were asleep at the

switch and allowed hijackers to board the plane. Probably by NOT checking

their luggage just as thoroughly as they failed to check for stolen

passports.



But it's all pure speculation until (if ever) the wreckage is found. The

time on the pingers is running out, too. All we've really learned so far is

what I mentioned weeks ago - the ocean is just chock full of garbage big

enough to be pieces of a downed jet. This really is a technological "fail"

as bad as any we've seen in recent years.



The crazy thing here is that if the ocean is chock full of garbage,
they can't even find that. For about a week now it's been a satellite
or plane spots some big object, but later when someone finally gets
there or the plane returns, they can't find it again. I haven't heard
about them finding a single thing in the search area that they thought
could have been from the plane, but isn't. It's just that they can't
find anything and poor weather isn't helping.

On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 9:29:45 AM UTC-4, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,

"Robert Green" wrote:





Oh, they've convicted people of murder without a body before.



Which is why I also included evidence. Nothing here until we get the

black boxes and/or wreckage except conjecture and enough conflicting

testimony to confuse the situation. It probably is in neither Boeing's

nor MA's best interests to find anything.

--


I would think it's in Boeing's interest to find out what happened.
IMO, it's unlikely an aircraft failure, so finding out what happened
is likely to vindicate them. But if it is an airplane defect then the
same thing could happen to other 777's. One plane they can survive.
But if you have a couple more go down, they could have the whole
company at risk.

The problem with conventional airplane accident investigation is that it presumes that there was no intent to crash the plane.

In this case, that presumption might not be a reasonable one.

On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 08:36:10 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .

stuff snipped

The problem is, in a few months it might be found on the beach in
Sumatra and ask more questions than it answers.
These are ocean currents in pretty volatile waters, not a rail toad.

What's a "rail toad?"

He meant railroad. The plane and its parts won't move in a known
path.

"micky" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 08:36:10 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .

stuff snipped

The problem is, in a few months it might be found on the beach in
Sumatra and ask more questions than it answers.
These are ocean currents in pretty volatile waters, not a rail toad.

What's a "rail toad?"

He meant railroad. The plane and its parts won't move in a known
path.

Thanks. Just wondering if it was related to the "under toad" made famous by
the book/film "The World According to Garp."

http://wordspy.com/words/undertoad.asp

--
Bobby G.

On 03/24/2014 07:36 AM, Robert Green wrote:
wrote in message
...

stuff snipped

The problem is, in a few months it might be found on the beach in
Sumatra and ask more questions than it answers.
These are ocean currents in pretty volatile waters, not a rail toad.

What's a "rail toad?"

A squashed mess on the track?

--
Bobby G.

When I was a kid, me and my friends would put coins on the railway tracks and let the trains run over them. I learned that nickel was much harder than copper.

On 3/26/2014 8:19 PM, nestork wrote:
When I was a kid, me and my friends would put coins on the railway
tracks and let the trains run over them. I learned that nickel was much
harder than copper.




Now, pennies are zinc. I'm not sure how zinc
rates, on hardness. Harder than copper, I'd
guess.

--
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On Thu, 27 Mar 2014 05:21:49 -0700, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

On 3/26/2014 8:19 PM, nestork wrote:
When I was a kid, me and my friends would put coins on the railway
tracks and let the trains run over them. I learned that nickel was much
harder than copper.




Now, pennies are zinc. I'm not sure how zinc
rates, on hardness. Harder than copper, I'd
guess.


Every now and then would find those explosive devices used to strap to the
track that when run over would make a super loud bang to alert the
engineer to stop the train. Ever find those?

Although handy to walk along the tracks, I quickly learned to walk along
the OUTSIDE of the tracks! as in yeccchhh!!!

On 3/27/2014 10:52 AM, RobertMacy wrote:

Every now and then would find those explosive devices used to strap to
the track that when run over would make a super loud bang to alert the
engineer to stop the train. Ever find those?

Although handy to walk along the tracks, I quickly learned to walk along
the OUTSIDE of the tracks! as in yeccchhh!!!


I heard, years ago, to always walk along the
outside, but can't remember why. Maybe that's
it?

--
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"trader_4" wrote in message
news:19ce2cf9-1e57-471e-addb-

stuff snipped

The crazy thing here is that if the ocean is chock full of garbage,
they can't even find that. For about a week now it's been a satellite
or plane spots some big object, but later when someone finally gets
there or the plane returns, they can't find it again. I haven't heard
about them finding a single thing in the search area that they thought
could have been from the plane, but isn't. It's just that they can't
find anything and poor weather isn't helping.

The original search area was equal to the size of the US. Now it's only 3
times the size of France. People just don't realize the incredible amount
of area that has to be searched, often just by bored people with binoculars
looking through the glare of an airplane cabin window. A lot of the
surrounding detritus that marks the typical ocean crash site was dispersed
by winds and waves for almost a week before they got the area right.

This wreckage might not ever get found because there's so much unrelated
junk in the water and because the Indian Ocean is so remote. The planes
spend most of their time and fuel getting to the search area and then have
to turn back after a few hours.

--
Bobby G.

On Thursday, March 27, 2014 8:21:49 AM UTC-4, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 3/26/2014 8:19 PM, nestork wrote:

When I was a kid, me and my friends would put coins on the railway

tracks and let the trains run over them. I learned that nickel was much

harder than copper.



Now, pennies are zinc. I'm not sure how zinc

rates, on hardness. Harder than copper, I'd

guess.



--

.

Christopher A. Young

Learn about Jesus

www.lds.org

.


zinc is farly hard, melts a way lower temperature and corrodes easily. te copper plating may help money last longer