AUSTRALIA FINDS POSSIBLE OBJECTS LINKED TO MH370

Australian authorities combing the Indian Ocean for missing Malaysian
Airline Flight MH370 have found two objects and diverted surveillance
aircraft to locate them, Prime Minister Tony Abbott said.

“The Australian Maritime Safety Authority has received information based
on satellite imagery of objects possibly related to the search,” Abbott
told lawmakers in parliament today. “Following specialist analysis of
this satellite imagery, two possible objects related to the search have
been identified.”

A Royal Australian Airforce Orion has been diverted to the area to
locate the objects and three more aircraft will follow, Abbott said.

AMSA is scheduled to hold a media briefing at 3:30 p.m. Sydney time
today, according to an e-mailed statement.

============================

MH370: two objects may have been found in Australian search zone - live

* Australian prime minister announces possible findings related to
search mission in Indian Ocean
* Two possible objects may have been found in Indian ocean based on
“credible” information
* Maritime authorities to hold press conference shortly
* Search area near Australia had earlier halved in size

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/...3-620x372.jpeg

Search area for the Australian search has been reduced to 300,000 square
kilometres from 600,000 square kilometres

Two possible objects related to the search for the missing Malaysia
Airlines plane have been found in the southern Indian Ocean, the
Australian prime minister, Tony Abbott, says.

“I would like to inform the house that new and credible information
has come to light in relation to the search for Malaysia airlines flight
MH370 in the southern Indian Ocean,” he told parliament on Thursday.

“The Australian Maritime Safety Authority has received information
based on satellite imagery of objects possibly related to the search.

“Following specialist analysis of this satellite imagery, two
possible objects related to the search have been identified.

“I can inform the house that a Royal Australian Air Force Orion has
been diverted to attempt to locate the objects. This Orion is expected
to arrive in the area at about this time. Three more aircraft will
follow this Orion. They are tasked for more intensive follow-up search.

“I have spoken to my Malaysian counterpart … and informed him of
these developments. I should tell the house – and we must keep this in
mind – the task of locating these objects will be extremely difficult
and it may turn out that they are not related to the search for flight
MH370. Nevertheless, I did want to update the house on this potentially
important development.”

On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 11:53:35 PM UTC-4, Walter Cronkite wrote:
AUSTRALIA FINDS POSSIBLE OBJECTS LINKED TO MH370



Australian authorities combing the Indian Ocean for missing Malaysian

Airline Flight MH370 have found two objects and diverted surveillance

aircraft to locate them, Prime Minister Tony Abbott said.



From the pics I've seen, it could be anything. Also, seems kind of hard
to imagine that a 75ft section of aircraft is still floating almost
2 weeks later. They didn't find it today during daylight, so unlikely
they will find it now until tomorrow and that assumes that it's
still floating. The pics were from 2+ days ago too.

It's very possible though that they have better images than they are
disclosing to the public.

On Wed, 19 Mar 2014 23:53:35 -0400, Walter Cronkite
wrote:

AUSTRALIA FINDS POSSIBLE OBJECTS LINKED TO MH370

Australian authorities combing the Indian Ocean for missing Malaysian
Airline Flight MH370 have found two objects and diverted surveillance
aircraft to locate them, Prime Minister Tony Abbott said.

They said they were too long to be from containers, that sometimes fall
off container ships.

That's how we could make good money, if any of you want to go in with
me.

We could get a ship and follow these freighters around, waiting until a
container falls off and we could salvage them.

Walter Cronkite wrote:
AUSTRALIA FINDS POSSIBLE OBJECTS LINKED TO MH370


FOAD you morphin' piece of moose ****

On Wed, 19 Mar 2014 23:19:24 -0600, "PV" not4utono@ spamzone.org
wrote:

micky wrote:
On Wed, 19 Mar 2014 07:19:11 -0600, "PV" not4utono@ spamzone.org
wrote:

micky wrote:
Boy is it exciting to watch a skilled juggler juggle running chain
saws. He's got to be really good to do that....

But it finally occurs to me. The engine's running but the chain's
not moving, is it? So the only chance of getting hurt is stubbing
a finger a little by bumping it against the case or getting a
little burn brushing the hot muffler against the jugger's skin,
right?

The good juggler catch the handle at the trigger and rev it up so
the chain is moving before tossing it up again

How long does it take the chain to stop after that? Before he
catches it again or after?

Not for the faint of heart

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbMvxLRdpm0

Here you go, chains still spinning while being juggling, super slow motion
to prove the point

Wow. You found the perfect video. You're right, the chain is running.

Of course he added those 14 inch handles to each saw.

I think the idea is, If it spins around but the handle is not about to
land in the juggler's hand, he should control himself and just not grab
it, let if fall on the ground, rather than grab the moving chain.

But I can't juggle at all. I've tried tennis balls, and if I can't do
them, I don't think I can do anything. Kudos to this guy.

Hi Chairman!

(waves)

It seems you're upset. Well, let's turn that frown upside down!

Here are two stories that maybe you'll find toe-lik'n, cock-suk'n good!

See what your fellow american countrymen are sticking in their mouths:

====================================

Walmart Weirdo Sought In Toe Sucking Scheme

MARCH 20-- Police are searching for a man who posed as a podiatry
student and sucked the toes of a woman trying on shoes at a Walmart in
North Carolina.

-------
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/sites/d...almartpod1.jpg

Photo of typical, average american guy arriving at work. He can almost
taste the toe-jam.
-------

The suspect, seen in the above store surveillance photo, approached the
35-year-old victim Monday morning inside a store in Lincolnton, a city
about 40 miles northwest of Charlotte.

Claiming to be a podiatry student, the man struck up a conversation with
the victim and “talks [her] into trying on several pair of shoes in the
shoe department," according to police. “At one point the suspect took
the victim’s foot, put it into his mouth and sucked the victim’s toes,”
cops added.

The suspect, a black male wearing a sweater and tan pants, departed the
Walmart after the woman extricated her toes from his clutch.

Lincolnton Police Department officers have asked anyone who recognizes
the suspect (or has details about the toe sucking) to call cops or Crime
Stoppers. Information leading to the man’s arrest could result in a
reward of up to $1000.

And, no, this is not the first time police have investigated an unwanted
Walmart toe sucking:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documen...-sucker-356129

---------------

What's that Seatman?

You want to know more about what your fellow american countryMEN are
doing with their mouths?

How about this:

-------------

Man Busted For Craigslist Sex Barter Offer

MARCH 13--Meet Stan Syring.

In need of a 16-foot trailer for a flat-bottom boat, the Iowa man went
on Craigslist and posted an ad proposing a barter deal in the site’s
“For Sale/Wanted” section.

What Syring allegedly offered in exchange for the trailer resulted in
his arrest this week, according to police.

--------------
http://i.cdn.turner.com/dr/teg/tsg/r...stansyring.jpg

Photo of average american guy, just doing what the average american
man does in an incredible recovering US economy - offer a blowjob
or his anus in return for a used boat trailer.
---------------

The Craigslist post by Syring, a married, 37-year-old father, noted that
the boat trailer was needed “asap,” and that the poster “will trade for
sex if need be.”

After Marion Police Department officers learned of the online ad, they
exchanged e-mails with the Craigslist poster discussing whether the
offered act would be oral or anal sex. The parties agreed that detail
would be settled when they met in person, according to police.

During a subsequent meeting with a male undercover officer, Syring
“offered his services as a partner in a sex act in exchange for a boat
trailer,” according to a District Court criminal complaint.

Investigators allege that Syring also agreed to give the cop $25 (in
addition to the sex act, which is not further described in court
papers). A used 16-foot boat trailer typically sells for several hundred
dollars.

Syring was subsequently arrested and charged with prostitution. He was
booked Monday into the Linn County jail on the misdemeanor count, and
was released from custody the following day.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documen...-arrest-345761

================

So tell me Chairlady - do these heartwarming and inspirational stories
about what your fellow countrymen are doing make you smile with pride?

On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 20:30:52 -0400, Otto Man wrote:

Chairman = 1

He got you Goat = 1

Home Goy = 0

Posting to a non-existent by Home Guy = 0

Suck on that!

Oren wrote:
On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 20:30:52 -0400, Otto Man
wrote:

Chairman = 1

He got you Goat = 1

Home Goy = 0

Posting to a non-existent by Home Guy = 0

Suck on that!

LOL
You can put lipstick on moose ****, but it's still moose
****.
When *they* morph your nick like Boi has, you know *its*
****ed
I just can't understand why anyone responds to this trolling
piece of moose ****
But, Bammy got in twice and he hates America, too

Getting back to the topic at hand:

I dunno about that. Commercial airplanes store their fuel in their wings. A wing from a 757 could easily be about 75 feet long and the empty fuel tanks would behave like flotation devices.

Certainly, people that know much more about it than us have taken a look at the best resolution pictures available and have decided it's worth sending out some planes for a closer look.

Satellite imagery on a clear day is excellent. But, where you have an object floating in the water it's going to be partially, if not mostly submerged, and that fact alone is going to make it's edges and hence it's shape hard to discern, and that makes any photo of it seem to be of lesser quality than it actually is.

See, what that woman in the Wal-Mart store should have done is pulled her toes out of that guy's mouth and kicked him real hard in the face. That way, the police could narrow their search from black men wearing sweaters and tan pants to black men wearing sweaters and tan pants with fresh blood all over their face. I'm guessing there couldn't be more than three or four black men matching that description in your average Wal-Mart store.

On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 23:09:18 -0700, nestork
wrote:

...snip...
I dunno about that. Commercial airplanes store their fuel in their
wings. A wing from a 757 could easily be about 75 feet long and the
empty fuel tanks would behave like flotation devices.


Come on, sealed tank of fuel? now why would anybody do that? Everyone
knows that fuel is carried around like an open tumbler.

a gallon of water weighs approx 8 pounds. a gallon of fuel weighs around 6
pounds, therefore a 10,000 gallon tank full of fuel will float, slightly
submerged. Don't airliners traditionally FILL their fuel tanks before
taking off? I used to. It's difficult to go back later and get the fuel
you left behind.

...snip...

See, what that woman in the Wal-Mart store should have done is pulled
her toes out of that guy's mouth and kicked him real hard in the face.
That way, the police could narrow their search to black men wearing
sweaters and tan pants with blood all over their face.

Actually better to tear your assailant's ear off. Easy to do, tends to
take the fight out of the them, and definitely makes them identifiable -
they are missing na ear. You have their DNA. Can even find their family
and localize your search.

NEVER bite anyone, unless you're tightly holding on to them. It is well
known that teeth pull out quite easily from your mouth. For example, one
of the Baldwin sons did that to their mother - she bit his hand, the act
of retrieving his hand removed one of her teeth. Yes, they all felt very
bad about it. If they'd been in China instead of the US, the dentist could
have promptly replaced the tooth and had it survive.

On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 08:41:13 -0700, RobertMacy
wrote:

NEVER bite anyone, unless you're tightly holding on to them. It is well
known that teeth pull out quite easily from your mouth. For example, one
of the Baldwin sons did that to their mother - she bit his hand, the act
of retrieving his hand removed one of her teeth. Yes, they all felt very
bad about it. If they'd been in China instead of the US, the dentist could
have promptly replaced the tooth and had it survive.

Mike Tyson bit Evander Holyfield's ear and still has his teeth. Bit
him twice in the same fight

http://nonstriker.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/holyfield-ear.jpg

On Friday, March 21, 2014 2:09:18 AM UTC-4, nestork wrote:
Getting back to the topic at hand:



Also, seems kind of hard to imagine that a 75ft section of aircraft is

still floating almost 2 weeks later.



I dunno about that. Commercial airplanes store their fuel in their

wings. A wing from a 757 could easily be about 75 feet long and the

empty fuel tanks would behave like flotation devices.


Maybe if the wing separated from the aircraft and then somehow
managed to stay intact so that it didn't fill with water. Chances
of that IMO are slim.






Certainly, people that know much more about it than us have taken a look

at the best resolution pictures available and have decided it's worth

sending out some planes for a closer look.


I didn't say it wasn't worth taking a look. Of course they should
go check it out, if they can find it again. Just that from the
moment I heard this and saw the pics, I thought it was doubtful.
Have you seen the pics? I'm not sure that it's even anything other
than waves and maybe some foam. As for the pic resolution, it's not
a spy satellite or something with secret resolution. It's the
DigitalGlobe commericial satellite, same one used by Google Earth
and the same one you can go search yourself on the Tomnod website.
I'm taking bets that they never find whatever this was.





Satellite imagery on a clear day is excellent. But, where you have an

object floating in the water it's going to be partially, if not mostly

submerged, and that fact alone is going to make it's edges and hence

it's shape hard to discern, and that makes any photo of it seem to be of

lesser quality than it actually is.


Submerged, not submerged, what you're left with is what you can
see in the pic. The pics the Chinese had, whatever they were,
at least it was clear that there were in fact objects there that
did have defined edges, features, etc. These new pics of "objects"
could be anything. And it was pretty dumb for the PM to even bring
this up in front of Parliament, which the media immediately took
to mean that it had more credibility than it did. The CNN folks
for example were running amock with it, saying that if the PM brought
it up before PM, it must have significance to the crash, etc.






See, what that woman in the Wal-Mart store should have done is pulled

her toes out of that guy's mouth and kicked him real hard in the face.

That way, the police could narrow their search to black men wearing

sweaters and tan pants with blood all over their face.









--

nestork

On Friday, March 21, 2014 11:41:13 AM UTC-4, Robert Macy wrote:
On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 23:09:18 -0700, nestork

wrote:



...snip...

I dunno about that. Commercial airplanes store their fuel in their

wings. A wing from a 757 could easily be about 75 feet long and the

empty fuel tanks would behave like flotation devices.





Come on, sealed tank of fuel? now why would anybody do that? Everyone

knows that fuel is carried around like an open tumbler.



a gallon of water weighs approx 8 pounds. a gallon of fuel weighs around 6

pounds, therefore a 10,000 gallon tank full of fuel will float, slightly

submerged. Don't airliners traditionally FILL their fuel tanks before

taking off? I used to. It's difficult to go back later and get the fuel

you left behind.


The site they are searching is where the fuel would have been either
almost all gone or close to it. It was 7 1/2 hours after takeoff for what
was supposed to be a 6 hour flight. Even at takeoff, the plane had less
than half of it's max load of fuel.

Still, this story has had so many twists and turns, it's premature to say that anything that would shed light on the fate of that plane has been found.

And, the kicker here is that flight data recorders only record flight DATA, like heading, speed, altitude, and that sort of stuff, which is not going to explain WHY the plain appeared to intentionally veer off course and crash.

Perhaps there'll be something on the cockpit voice recorders that would shed light on whether the pilots crashed the plane, or whether or not the plane was highjacked.

Further to that story about the guy that put the ad on Craigslist for a used boat trailer in exchange for oral or anal sex. What happens if the police go to his house and find 14 used boat trailers? Could the other 13 trailers be used as evidence against him?

Still, this story has had so many twists and turns, it's premature to say that anything that would shed light on the fate of that plane has been found.

And, the kicker here is that flight data recorders only record flight DATA, like heading, speed, altitude, and that sort of stuff, which is not going to explain WHY the plain appeared to intentionally veer off course and crash.

Perhaps there'll be something on the cockpit voice recorders that would shed light on whether the pilots crashed the plane, or whether or not the plane was highjacked.

I was wondering about the guy that put the ad on Craigslist for a used boat trailer in exchange for oral or anal sex. What happens if the police go to his house and find 14 used boat trailers? Could the other 13 trailers be used as evidence against him?

On Friday, March 21, 2014 6:05:21 PM UTC-4, nestork wrote:
trader_4;3213305 Wrote:



The site they are searching is where the fuel would have been either

almost all gone or close to it. It was 7 1/2 hours after takeoff for

what

was supposed to be a 6 hour flight. Even at takeoff, the plane had

less

than half of it's max load of fuel.



Still, this story has had so many twists and turns, it's premature to

say that anything that would shed light on the fate of that plane has

been found.



It's not premature. It's a fact that as of now no wreckage from the
plane has been found.





And, the kicker here is that flight data recorders only record flight

DATA, like heading, speed, altitude, and that sort of stuff, which is

not going to explain WHY the plain appeared to intentionally veer off

course and crash.



Nonsense. They record a lot more data than just that and have been
extremely helpful in determining what exactly happened. For example,
they record the position of the flight controls, the control surface
positions,whether the autopilot was engaged etc. A simple example is
we'd know a lot more about the mysterious climb to 45,000 ft, including
if that did indeed happen. And if it did, was it commanded by an
autopilot run amock? A fire that was slowly disabling systems? One
pilot pulling back on the stick and advancing the throttles? One
pilot pulling on the controls and one attempting to pull back on the
stick, etc.

That type of data showed what happened to AirFrance off Brazil and
Egypt Air off Cape Cod.





Perhaps there'll be something on the cockpit voice recorders that would

shed light on whether the pilots crashed the plane, or whether or not

the plane was highjacked.


Yes, there may be, but they only hold the last two hours of
recording, so there is a good chance the most interesting part,
what happened when the plane first went off course, could very
well be gone.

"nestork" wrote in message
...

trader_4;3213305 Wrote:

The site they are searching is where the fuel would have been either
almost all gone or close to it. It was 7 1/2 hours after takeoff for
what
was supposed to be a 6 hour flight. Even at takeoff, the plane had
less
than half of it's max load of fuel.

Still, this story has had so many twists and turns, it's premature to
say that anything that would shed light on the fate of that plane has
been found.

And, the kicker here is that flight data recorders only record flight
DATA, like heading, speed, altitude, and that sort of stuff, which is
not going to explain WHY the plain appeared to intentionally veer off
course and crash.

If there's evidence of a fire on the data recorder, it would explain a lot.
A fire can cause a pilot to change altitude rapidly - up to extinguish the
flames, down to breathable air when it's out. It would also cause him to
look for the nearest airport to make a crash landing. I think the flight
data recorder has the potential to tell us a lot - if it's ever found. The
Malaysians screwed the pooch long and hard enough that it's very likely the
trail's gone too cold to ever find the wreckage.

Perhaps there'll be something on the cockpit voice recorders that would
shed light on whether the pilots crashed the plane, or whether or not
the plane was highjacked.

Two hours of eerie silence perhaps punctuated by automatic warning signals
and possibly the sounds of the plane breaking up when it hit the water.

A two hour looping recording on a 6+ hour flight won't be telling us very
much except that we need a new standard for cockpit voice recorders: "they
need to run for as long as the plane can with a maximum fuel load." The
current mismatch is stupid and hard to understand given the amount of audio
data that can be stored in a shirt pocket digital recorder.

--
Bobby G.

On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 09:48:08 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 08:41:13 -0700, RobertMacy
wrote:

NEVER bite anyone, unless you're tightly holding on to them. It is well
known that teeth pull out quite easily from your mouth. For example, one
of the Baldwin sons did that to their mother - she bit his hand, the act
of retrieving his hand removed one of her teeth. Yes, they all felt very
bad about it. If they'd been in China instead of the US, the dentist
could
have promptly replaced the tooth and had it survive.

Mike Tyson bit Evander Holyfield's ear and still has his teeth. Bit
him twice in the same fight

http://nonstriker.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/holyfield-ear.jpg

The idea is that what is in the mouth is robust enough to be removed
easily, like fingers. Elsewhere in that post [I think] I said just reach
up and tear off your assailant's ear, comes right off. The ear is just not
robust enough to be inserted into an assailant's mouth, be bitten, and wih
the action of pulling that ear out expect to pull out teeth with it.

I've not heard of anybody attacked with an ear. except maybe by Dumbo
look-alike winners.

All in all, I would much more prefer 'defense' classes that truly teach
defense, where not a single action can be interpreted as some offensive
move. Best example is if mugged, throw your money one direction, run the
other. Attacker goes after money. You get away.

On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 11:31:02 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

...snip...
The site they are searching is where the fuel would have been either
almost all gone or close to it. It was 7 1/2 hours after takeoff for
what
was supposed to be a 6 hour flight. Even at takeoff, the plane had less
than half of it's max load of fuel.

Great, now we have 'fuel exhaustion' as a potential cause. Airline trying
to save a few bucks in mpg by running light, puts in too little fuel for
the trip, and voila!

On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 11:27:43 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

...snip...
I didn't say it wasn't worth taking a look. Of course they should
go check it out, if they can find it again. Just that from the
moment I heard this and saw the pics, I thought it was doubtful.
Have you seen the pics? I'm not sure that it's even anything other
than waves and maybe some foam. As for the pic resolution, it's not
a spy satellite or something with secret resolution. It's the
DigitalGlobe commericial satellite, same one used by Google Earth
and the same one you can go search yourself on the Tomnod website.
I'm taking bets that they never find whatever this was.
....snip...

It's possible the pictures shown to the public were not the ones used.

On Saturday, March 22, 2014 11:01:06 AM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:
"nestork" wrote in message

...



trader_4;3213305 Wrote:



The site they are searching is where the fuel would have been either

almost all gone or close to it. It was 7 1/2 hours after takeoff for

what

was supposed to be a 6 hour flight. Even at takeoff, the plane had

less

than half of it's max load of fuel.



Still, this story has had so many twists and turns, it's premature to

say that anything that would shed light on the fate of that plane has

been found.



And, the kicker here is that flight data recorders only record flight

DATA, like heading, speed, altitude, and that sort of stuff, which is

not going to explain WHY the plain appeared to intentionally veer off

course and crash.



If there's evidence of a fire on the data recorder, it would explain a lot.

A fire can cause a pilot to change altitude rapidly - up to extinguish the

flames, down to breathable air when it's out. It would also cause him to

look for the nearest airport to make a crash landing.

Which this plane did not do. Also the odds that a fire just happened
to disable the VHF radios, the transponders, AFAIC, all the communication
systems, just at the point between ATC's which is the perfect spot to
go missing, yet leave the plane controllable, able to fly for 7 hours,
etc are near zero.



I think the flight

data recorder has the potential to tell us a lot - if it's ever found. The

Malaysians screwed the pooch long and hard enough that it's very likely the

trail's gone too cold to ever find the wreckage.


I'd say maybe 20% chance at this point.




Perhaps there'll be something on the cockpit voice recorders that would

shed light on whether the pilots crashed the plane, or whether or not

the plane was highjacked.



Two hours of eerie silence perhaps punctuated by automatic warning signals

and possibly the sounds of the plane breaking up when it hit the water.



A two hour looping recording on a 6+ hour flight won't be telling us very

much except that we need a new standard for cockpit voice recorders: "they

need to run for as long as the plane can with a maximum fuel load." The

current mismatch is stupid and hard to understand given the amount of audio

data that can be stored in a shirt pocket digital recorder.



I agree. They store the recording on flash, which is exactly what's
in your cheap $50 Sansa device. Hard to explain why they would not
have 20 hours recording required by now. And even though the current
min reqt is 2 hours, IDK why aircraft manufacturers would not have
gone well beyond that long ago.

On Saturday, March 22, 2014 11:11:37 AM UTC-4, Robert Macy wrote:
On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 11:31:02 -0700, trader_4 wrote:



...snip...

The site they are searching is where the fuel would have been either

almost all gone or close to it. It was 7 1/2 hours after takeoff for

what

was supposed to be a 6 hour flight. Even at takeoff, the plane had less

than half of it's max load of fuel.



Great, now we have 'fuel exhaustion' as a potential cause.

Airline trying

to save a few bucks in mpg by running light, puts in too little fuel for

the trip, and voila!

No one has suggested fuel exhaustion as a cause. Only that given that
we know the plane was still flying at 8:11AM, it was near it's max
fuel range. Airlines never fill a plane to the max. They fill it to
either required minimums or somewhat above that, depending on the airline,
policies, conditions, etc. That fuel load this plane had was consistent
with it's 6 hour flight to Beijing.

I expect the airlines know how much fuel to put into each plane to not only make it to the destination, but also to fly to an alternate airport if necessary.

You never know when or where bad weather or a terrorist attack is going to occur, so planes have to have enough fuel on board to fly to alternate airports to land.

But, it also makes sense that they don't put more fuel on the plane than they may reasonably need. The extra weight makes the plane heavier and requires more fuel for the flight. That extra weight could be earning money for the airline as cargo capacity.

OT: Now I know that commercial aircraft fly at about 35,000 feet altitude. And I know the reason for this is that they use less fuel per mile at 35,000 feet than they do at 1000 feet. But, does anyone know why flying high is more fuel efficient? Is it simply because the thinner the air the less air resistance the engines have to overcome to push the airplane forward?

Would the same argument apply to internal combustion/propeller driven airplanes?

On 3/22/2014 11:13 AM, RobertMacy wrote:
On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 11:27:43 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

...snip...
I didn't say it wasn't worth taking a look. Of course they should
go check it out, if they can find it again. Just that from the
moment I heard this and saw the pics, I thought it was doubtful.
Have you seen the pics? I'm not sure that it's even anything other
than waves and maybe some foam. As for the pic resolution, it's not
a spy satellite or something with secret resolution. It's the
DigitalGlobe commericial satellite, same one used by Google Earth
and the same one you can go search yourself on the Tomnod website.
I'm taking bets that they never find whatever this was.
....snip...

It's possible the pictures shown to the public were not the ones used.

I admittedly don't know much about satellite photos, except for looking
at my house occasionally on Google Earth. If these photos from the
various countries were taken at different times and different systems,
could they all be looking at the same few objects? Are the various
satellite systems' calibration the same? (Like could an object look one
size on system A and a different size on system B, so both discoveries
are actually the same object?).

On Monday, March 24, 2014 8:05:23 AM UTC-4, Lee B wrote:
On 3/22/2014 11:13 AM, RobertMacy wrote:

On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 11:27:43 -0700, trader_4 wrote:



...snip...

I didn't say it wasn't worth taking a look. Of course they should

go check it out, if they can find it again. Just that from the

moment I heard this and saw the pics, I thought it was doubtful.

Have you seen the pics? I'm not sure that it's even anything other

than waves and maybe some foam. As for the pic resolution, it's not

a spy satellite or something with secret resolution. It's the

DigitalGlobe commericial satellite, same one used by Google Earth

and the same one you can go search yourself on the Tomnod website.

I'm taking bets that they never find whatever this was.

....snip...



It's possible the pictures shown to the public were not the ones used.



I admittedly don't know much about satellite photos, except for looking

at my house occasionally on Google Earth. If these photos from the

various countries were taken at different times and different systems,

could they all be looking at the same few objects? Are the various

satellite systems' calibration the same? (Like could an object look one

size on system A and a different size on system B, so both discoveries

are actually the same object?).

It's possible they are the same. Or they could be different. No
one knows. The photos from the Chinese satellite were about 75 miles
away from those of the DigitalGlobe one. Also, IDK how far apart they
were in time. The DG ones were about 3 days old when the possible
objects were spotted. Looking at the DG ones, I'm not even convinced
there is an object. What is supposed to be an object looks a lot like
the rest of the surrounding sea/waves to me. Yesterday they said France
has spotted something now too, I haven't seen any actual pics of what
they have. So, it's anyone's guess at this point.

Last night was just unbelievable on CNN. Apparently they got a military
"source" to tell them that the plane "made a sharp turn to the left at
the time it went missing and flew as low as 12,000 ft". They turned that
into a huge breaking news story, complete with their panel of 6 live experts
and a 777 simulator. If you listened long enough, you finally figured out
that the "sharp turn" didn't necessarily mean a sudden, tight, 40 deg
turn. It could just mean that they meant that it was a distinct turn
away from their correct course toward Beijing, ie ~90 deg to the left
which we already knew. And then their reporter finally admits that all
the source said about the 12000 ft, was that it was flying that low
somewhere along it's route to the Straits of Malacca over the next hour.

Yet, there they are with the simulator, with that anchor idiot Don Lemon
asking them to show what a max hard turn to the left would be like. How
would the passengers feel, would they notice it, etc. Then he has them
do the same thing with a gradual, slow turn. Then he has them do a max
dive to 12000 ft. Then he has them do a gradual, slow decent to 12,000.
Good grief. How dumb are these idiots? They think they have to show
people what a gradual decent in a plane is like? And why speculate about
the sudden plunge to 12000, when their source, even according to them,
never said that? That crap went on for hours, I was watching other
channels, but flipped back once in a while to see it continue.

I will say that the 777 instructor in the simulator did do one
good thing. He said several times how even if he was doing a
12000 ft emergency decent, it would be easy to also be communicating
with ATC, to get off an emergency mesg, all you have to do is push a
button on the yoke, and he would have done so.

"trader_4" wrote in message
news:42b6989a-b04c-49fb-a36b-

stuff snipped
Last night was just unbelievable on CNN. Apparently they got a military
"source" to tell them that the plane "made a sharp turn to the left at
the time it went missing and flew as low as 12,000 ft". They turned that
into a huge breaking news story, complete with their panel of 6 live
experts
and a 777 simulator. If you listened long enough, you finally figured out
that the "sharp turn" didn't necessarily mean a sudden, tight, 40 deg
turn. It could just mean that they meant that it was a distinct turn
away from their correct course toward Beijing, ie ~90 deg to the left
which we already knew. And then their reporter finally admits that all
the source said about the 12000 ft, was that it was flying that low
somewhere along it's route to the Straits of Malacca over the next hour.

Yet, there they are with the simulator, with that anchor idiot Don Lemon
asking them to show what a max hard turn to the left would be like. How
would the passengers feel, would they notice it, etc. Then he has them
do the same thing with a gradual, slow turn. Then he has them do a max
dive to 12000 ft. Then he has them do a gradual, slow decent to 12,000.
Good grief. How dumb are these idiots? They think they have to show
people what a gradual decent in a plane is like? And why speculate about
the sudden plunge to 12000, when their source, even according to them,
never said that? That crap went on for hours, I was watching other
channels, but flipped back once in a while to see it continue.

I will say that the 777 instructor in the simulator did do one
good thing. He said several times how even if he was doing a
12000 ft emergency decent, it would be easy to also be communicating
with ATC, to get off an emergency mesg, all you have to do is push a
button on the yoke, and he would have done so.

Well, they're unbelievable, dumb idiots about everything except the one
thing they said that appears to bolster your hijack theory. (-:

I've been in some serious car crashes. I can be easily convinced that a
pilot of a huge jetliner full of people can become so thoroughly engaged in
trying to save everyone's life that he does *exactly* what a growing number
of pilots keep saying he would: "aviate, navigate, communicate." He would
performs them in that very important order because it's the order most
likely to save lives. Number three, in this case, would have helped
officials recover remains. Not as useful to the presumed still-living
passengers and crew of MH370 as rules one and two when whatever happened,
happened.

It's just as easy for us to postulate a hijacker preventing comms as it is
for a disaster preventing comms or a suicidal pilot preventing comms based
on the paltry, confusing and ever-changing evidence we're being fed. Not
enough evidence to make any kind of a case yet. Instead, it's a slow and
steady stream of "factoids" because we really can't call them data points.
Anyone basing their presumptions on the order of events given us by the
authorities, who have recanted so many times they can't be trusted, is
likely to come to false conclusions.

I don't see them mentioning a climb to the operational ceiling anymore -
why? Discarded? Disproved? Never happened? Forgotten? Who knows?
Without concrete information it's all educated guesswork, and in the case of
the people guessing "it went orbital", it's not even very educated.

I did read an interesting post about how when a pilot pulls busses in the
panel to try to put out an electrical fire, he can end up resetting a number
of devices inadvertently. It's tempting to assume because a transponder
stopped sending, it was a nefarious event. That's because it's an event
that communicates with the outside world. We on the ground would have no
way, short of the FDR, of knowing if the pilot reset every electronic device
on the plane and even the FDR might not help tell us that.

At this point, there's no way anyone can be sure of what caused anything to
happen on that plane. We have lots of puzzle pieces and even some that
appear to fit nicely together. But there's still no "defining image"
recognizable. The worst part is that there may never be many more clues
than the ones we have now.

There's a good reason not to credit hijackers - why give them the publicity
and the added extra perception of "power?" The best public position to take
is "accident" and let DHS or the FBI work the potential terrorist angle
quietly. Otherwise it sounds like we're celebrating their cunning ability
to steal a plane without any interference. That's a mistake.

Hijackers are always looking for attention. We shouldn't gratify them -
it's the steroid-sized version of not feeding trolls. I also think it's a
very bad idea to broadcast, world-wide, that the tortuous security
procedures we put passengers through can be (easily?) breached. It gives
bad people ideas. It's pretty obvious one unfortunate outcome of this
investigation is a perfected "hijack checklist" - what things a hijacker
needs to do to make a plane invisible. That's not good for them to have.

What still bothers me is if this was a hijack, what was the goal? Some say
it was mostly likely aimed at the Petronas Towers. It makes sense because
they wanted a huge landmark target close enough to expend a large fuel load
on impact in a fireball. Maybe the group that did it is staying mum because
they intend to try again. But why at night? Maybe it's because all that
jet fuel for a trip to Beijing would have really lit up the night sky over
all Malaysia. All we have are theories. We had them with Earhart - even
that she was a spy eaten by cannibals. It doesn't get any less tranger the
longer the mystery goes unsolved.

Islamic terrorists made two significant passes at the WTC, many years apart.
It's their MO. What this incident proved is that the Malaysian AF would
have been powerless to stop such an attack on the towers, one of the tallest
in the world.

The best we can hope for here is that this spurs some serious change in the
air transport industry. How much more would you pay per ticket to keep your
loved ones off a roller coaster ride like this one? Multiply that by the
number of flights and there's your budget for more satellite time, GPS
transponders and other hijacker UNfriendly controls and interlocks.

--
Bobby G.