you insulted me first and have done so several times since. i have every right to insult you back if you insult me.
see how this works?

anything you dont agree with is outrageous huh? perhaps thats your problem

you're being insulting again in the above post. you really dont have a point to make other than to attack.

who's cherry picking now?
i posted the complete article and highlighted that the pieces were so small they couldnt pick up on radar.
do you have a problem with that fact? ie that they're small, because thats part of the article and the point they are making

why are you shouting on all caps?

Insult away I don't give a shit.

How about you put a disclaimer before everything you post that says something like;

WARNING: OPINION AHEAD.

That way we'll know that it's your opinion and an opinion only.

I get the hump when you......well I explained it 3 times already.

PS Afro is right, you did cherry-pick the data by highlighting only the bit that backed your argument, presumably hoping no one had the gall to read the whole article.

Too bad for you that you're dealing with literate, seemingly erudite, people.

The guy is trolling. Surely. Even morons like Davis Patik and Blyth knew when to shut the hell up.

you seriously are mentally ill.

i posted the whole article, its a short article and you congratulate yourself for being able to read it. wow :roll:

you're really clutching at straws (you might want to look that up because it applies here in more ways that you may even understand) claiming i cherry picked anything when that's exactly what your mate afrodope did

FACT: the article claims they couldnt find anything because the pieces were too small.
are you telling me it doesnt say that?

once again this is an easy YES or NO answer for you

i know you've had problems answering these in the past, but take a stab at it this time

Yes the article says that. Correct. 100%

Not to split hairs so I will. You're not applying context to your argument.

I posted up an article to show that a Thai satellite had likely found debris from MH370. In rebuttal you posted an article, and highlighted the bit, that essentially said that ships couldn't pick up the debris.

You posted that article specifically to draw doubt that debris could be found to support the hypothesis that MH370 had likely crashed in the vicinity of where they are looking.

All the article essentially says is that at water level the ships radar can't pick up the debris. That's all.



Edited by munrubenmuz: 28/3/2014 12:07:30 AM

you're making a lot of assumptions here

we've had 3 weeks, nearly 4 weeks now of red herrings
i've reached a point where i dont believe anything until i see some solid evidence

so far we have none, nothing positively identified as belonging to that plane

until such time as we do i'm not believing any speculation

^^ That's why I said not 55 minutes ago this;





Edited by munrubenmuz: 28/3/2014 12:20:57 AM

that Inmarsat 'evidence' was sketchy at best
that didnt even tell them whether it flew north or south. only that they couldnt find it north so they assumed it must be south.

if thats the best they can do thats quite pathetic

if the ADF cant track a plane of that size that's flown thousands of miles off course and into their airspace, what hope do they have of repelling an attack of any sort via air?

Edited by ricecrackers: 28/3/2014 12:35:49 AM

Um...no?

The immersat evidence used the doppler effect from satellite pings used for the aircraft to track time as it changes time zones. They used this to calculate the approximate position of the aircraft. Much the way they can triangulate the position of a mobile phone by the signal pings off reception towers.

The ADF's defence radar is trained to the north. The most probable origin of a potential air attack, not west into one of the most isolated areas on earth.

Edited by afromanGT: 28/3/2014 12:44:45 AM

oh dear, here we go again #-o
i will reply to that, just wanted to quote it so that gem of a post is retained for posterity

I wouldn't bother replying. This article shoots down anything you could say:
http://physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com/2014/03/how-did-inmarsat-really-find-flight.html

they couldnt triangulate the position you dope because they only had one satellite tracking it. your mobile phone analogy is completely wide of the mark. you've missed the entire point which again makes me question if you've read the entire article or truly understand it. they had to use mathematical equations and they only had pings every hour which given the speed a plane travels makes a lot of assumptions about its course

psst, dont tell the Indonesians we're not expecting any attacks from the north west because we're not looking there at all :-$

Did you read the link? You don't need multiple satellites tracking it. Only one.

They had hourly pings from the plane, if you know the frequency of the original ping, they can calculate the velocity of the plane with respect to the satellite. Velocity alone can't tell you direction or orientation, but if you have a reference point you can calculate the object's position with respect to that reference point. So they know the height of the satellite (A) and the doppler effect tells them the distance the ping is directly from the satellite (C). Since Pythagoras' theorem states that A squared + B squared = C squared they can calculate the difference in B, the horizontal displacement.

So if you know the velocity of the satellite and the velocity of the plane you can now calculate the position of the airplane using some basic trigonometry. In a two dimensional plane it's very simple, in a three dimensional plane it's a little more elaborate,

But basically using this information combined with the information of known flight paths from Malaysian Airlines and some more trigonometry they were able to calculate to within 100 miles the search area for the plane. Taking a search radius of some 2500 miles and narrowing it down to 100 miles is quite an effort.

Edited by afromanGT: 28/3/2014 02:20:24 AM

:roll:

"information of known flight paths from Malaysian Airlines" LOL
it obviously wasnt on any known flight path. i dont see what possible use that information could provide here

Because if you know the location of a plane on a fixed route you can use that to establish comparison to calculate baring.

It's ok to admit that you don't understand how this works, because clearly you don't.

you dont even understand the articles you post and you proved it by referring to triangulation like mobile phone towers #-o

and your previous comment was just bullshitting. you dont have a clue, that much is obvious to me
if you did you would be able to explain it instead of pretending to be some know it all

It's exactly the same. You're using trigonometry to calculate positioning. The only difference is that in this case the Satellite receptor is fixed and the transmitters are moving.

I've just broken it down in great detail as to how they did it, and you think I "don't have a clue". Seriously, just get the fuck off the forum.

bullshit. its not exactly the same. mobile phones require several towers to approximate the position.

They require two. And they calculate your position based around your proximity in relation to Tower A and Tower B.

In this case the satellite is the mobile phone, and you're dealing with the proximity of Ping A and Ping B. It's the same concept but you're working backwards.

Edited by afromanGT: 28/3/2014 03:45:42 AM

bullshit. fs you talk some bullshit here :oops:

in the case of a mobile phone a single tower can only approximate the distance of the phone from the tower. it could be anywhere on 360 degrees. at least one more is required to determine an approximate location.

the location of the towers are known and you're only dealing with a 2 dimensional plain

you dont know the location of the plane, hence why a lot of assumptions are made here.

Seriously? You still don't understand?

OK, so let's ignore the angles here, that's not what's important.

In the case of a mobile phone, say A is the mobile phone, B and C are the towers where all vectors are on a horizontal plane.

In the case of the plane you're trying to determine horizontal displacement based on a vertical known. So in this case, the Satellite is A and Ping 1 is B and Ping 2 is C.

By comparing this data to known flight paths they can then calculate approximate position based on subsequent variances.

Edited by afromanGT: 28/3/2014 11:18:58 AM

talking bullshit. what known flight path? the plane flew off course by thousands of miles if you believe this
you dont know the altitude and you dont know the location. you cannot make a comparison with mobile phone towers.

you've already proven you didnt understand the article now you're making it up as you go along looking for google to bail you out

standard afrodope

Edited by ricecrackers: 28/3/2014 11:25:20 AM

Holy shit. You're literally too stupid to converse with.

anyone who doesnt believe your lies is stupid according to you
i'm calling you out afrodope for the bullshit artist you are

Hmmm let me see. On the one hand I can take the word of Afro and the bunch of physicists that calculated the probable location of the plane, had it peer reviewed, checked with Boeing on their assumptions and published their best estimate or I can believe an internet troll.

It's a conundrum.

You've learnt some big words this week RC.