Slashdot Mirror
Skepticism Grows Over Claims That MH370 Lies In the Bay of Bengal
Sockatume (732728) writes "The latest episode of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Mediawatch program addresses GeoResonance's claims to have found the lost Malasia Airlines MH370 in the Bay of Bengal. They attribute the company's sudden prominence to increasing desperation amongst the press. Meanwhile, the Metabunk web site has been digging into the people and technology behind GeoResonance and its international siblings, finding noted pseudoscientist Vitaly Gokh and a dubious variation on Kirlian photography."
The poor families of those that were on this airplane. If it wasn't for that aspect, the media "coverage" of this would be a huge joke.
Seriously, how can "skepticism grow" about something that had almost no basis for belief in the first place? It's more like "miniscule belief evaporates".
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
If the company is so sure they can put up a refundable deposit on the cost of exploring their location. If they are right then they get the deposit back. If they are not right no deposit refund.
The deposit should cover the cost of putting one unmanned vehicle down on that location.
Would any of the governments be willing to back that compromise?
The problem is 24 hour news stations. It would take a global army of non-lazy old-school journalists to get enough fresh content for a 24 hour news station (costing tens of millions of dollars in salaries alone - coming straight out of some exec's megayacht fund!), and then a lot of people wouldn't care about news of what's happening in some place that has no relevance to their lives so it wouldn't pay off.
So news stations are always hungry for generic filler content (human interest stories, or intense discussion over inconsequential BS such as almost everything on MH370), and when they're not, they spend their time trying to whip up interest over something people don't currently care about one iota - the Blackfish movie is a perfect example. Funded by and premiered on CNN. They throw these things at the wall often but most don't stick, and amount to nothing but more filler content, which is OK for them.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Can you blame people for seeking alternative answers? Keep in mind, the agencies discrediting this company were the same agencies that didn't think it necessary to put a simple satellite GPS transponder on jets to keep track of where their quarter of a billion dollar plane is or put about $100 worth of batteries in their blackbox so it would ping for more than a few weeks. This entire mystery wouldn't exist if they'd spent an extra $1000 on a $261 million dollar piece of equipment. It's hard to discredit an idiot when you yourself are an idiot.
Do you know why Waldo wears stripes?
-
-
He doesn't want to be spotted.
No brain, no pain.
I've already posted that before, but anyway, I'll tell it again:
A search on their patent refs leads nowhere except to their site.
This remind me the Great Oil Sniffer Hoax
Besides, if they were able to do what they claim, they would better look for gold in sunken ships and tell no one.
Their imaginary references are as old as 2003 with a site born in 2014... really ?
Face it: this is a hoax, at best, and more likely a scam.
That doesn't really explain CNN's obsession with mh370 though: CNN's nonstop coverage of "A plane is missing" has been going on for months. In that time, Ebola has broken out, some celebrity somewhere has undoubtedly died, and Russia invaded Ukraine. Yet CNN KEEPS coming back to "BREAKING FUCKING NEWS, HOLD ON TO YOUR SEAT: THE PLANE!!! IT'S STILL MISSING!!!" It's clearly not about filler. Ebola would have made a much sexier story. Since it's all pundits, they wouldn't need to change anything, just ask the people in front of the camera to speculate on whether we're all going to die of Ebola rather than where they think the plane crashed.
At this point, I think CNN is staying with the flight because they think anyone still watching CNN is actually hooked on the dizzying highs that come along with watching yet another computer generated line over the indian ocean while some self-proclaimed expert on airplanes guesses about what was going on when the plane hit the water. Meanwhile people who actually want to know the news have switched over to the internet. It's the same approach other specialized cable channels are taking: The Learning Channel has realized that anyone who wants to learn anything tuned out long ago, but they can cling to some viewers with stupid shows like Honey Boo Boo. Not just filling time: addictive to some moron with eyeballs.
Interesting theory, but Occum's razor says (and I paraphrase) "The simple answer is preferred until the more complex one is proven."
An in flight fire in the forward avionics bay makes a lot less assumptions than your theory.
IMHO, the most likely, less complex scenario is as follows...
1. In flight fire, forward avionics bay (under the pilot's seats), Forward galley, forward cargo bay, started for some reason (tire fire, electrical fault, etc) Such events are not unheard of.
2. Emergency procedures are "Fly the plane, Navigate, Communicate" (in that order). So the pilots did the following tasks, in this order:
a. Pull all the breakers they could in hopes of stopping the fire, disabling the radios and transponder.
b. Turn towards the nearest suitable landing location by punching in two way-points in to the flight director.
c. Gain altitude if the fire is not going out, to try and starve it of O2.
3. At this point, I assume they lost control of the cabin altitude or where driven from their seats by smoke/flames or where disabled by fumes. There is only about 20 min of supplemental O2 for passengers, slightly more for crew. Everybody was unconscious in about half an hour and dead within two if the cabin altitude went too high, or everybody died from smoke inhalation as the fire/smoke spread.
4. The plane files on the flight director's last instructions, passes though/over the two way-points then just flies on unguided until the fuel was exhausted,
5. When the engines stop, the plane descends into the water and sinks relatively in tact.
This is simple, straight forward, and matches what we know. The only assumption being made is the in flight fire and the damage it caused leading to the disabling of the passengers/crew. Everything else is either standard procedure, or based on how the aircraft's systems function.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101