i simply stated the news of debris spotted several days ago was likely false
you and your dopey e-buddy have been attacking me over that statement ever since

yet i've been proven right by time and both of you have been proven wrong, yet you still wont admit it

who now is the twat?

And in news just to hand. Science works....bitches.

Apparently the Southern Indian Ocean is in a different location to the Southern Indian Ocean.

Are you seriously suggesting that when you wrote "most likely false" you meant the area 1100km's away from where they were actually looking? I've reread the posts and it actually sounds to me like you were trying to be a smarmy twat rather than actually putting forward any kind of actual hypothesis.


Edited by munrubenmuz: 28/3/2014 05:32:53 PM

and how is your trigonometry and doppler effect looking now given the original data was deemed inaccurate?

you see, let this be a lesson...all of the formulas, equations and scientific gymnastics in the world is useless without the necessary data in the first instance to feed into

you simply take some huckster's word as faith because he's dropping science into his sales pitch

at the end of the day you're nothing more than a gullible new-age religious cultist believing this crap without viewing any credible proof and the absence of any credible circumstantial evidence...which in any case you'd be too slow-witted to analyse

1100 km is a different location
is Melbourne in a different location to Sydney?

once again a stupid argument from you. yes they're both on planet earth and in the milky way galaxy...therefore by your logic its the same location

i said the claim they'd spotted debris of the plane was likely false, as the evidence was lacking and the probability was minuscule. i've been proven true as it was 1100 km away from where they're now looking.

you've been proven wrong. deal with it.

Edited by ricecrackers: 28/3/2014 05:40:46 PM

So by the statement "they're searching in the wrong area" you meant that out of a 21,237,166 square mile search area you meant just 680 miles away.

:lol: Just so we're clear, that's a 0.0032% margin of error.

Edited by afromanGT: 28/3/2014 05:48:41 PM

you're talking in miles now to make the number seem less
typical afrodope spin doctoring

Ok, So out of a 33,979,465.6 square kilometer search area, you meant just 1,100km away.

That's still a 0.0032% margin of error.

another thing that this proves is that your single inmarsat satellite is useless without the radar data to feed into it to fill in the missing variables

however, that plane allegedly made several turns on its journey and this speed indicator is merely supposition based on a small sample of the entire journey

in other words some giant leaps of faith are being made here. that's not very scientific, it seems more like trickery to keep mouth breathers like afro occupied

you do realise that 1100 x 1100 is over 1.2 million square kilometres of area dont you?

You'd have a point if they were searching the entire area between point A and point B. But they aren't.

Ooooh I was too slow. Had to laugh at the mathematical genius on show by RC.

you have no idea what their search area is... they're not searching along a single line. if they were they'd have found it 2 days ago

your margin of error is purely arbitrary to support your failed position. you may as well give yourself an award as that what it amounts to.

nothing will change the fact that my initial statement was correct and your attacks were baseless
(and you've been proven wrong... again)

was i correct about the spotted debris claim being false? YES or NO... simple one for you

have they found the plane yet?

Edited by ricecrackers: 28/3/2014 06:13:32 PM

The search area is based off the fuel load and could be anywhere within the potential flight radius of the plane at it's fuel consumption rate of the 777-300's cruise speed 490 knots, given that it could have changed baring at any point.

Again, so the basis of not finding the plane was enough for us to be wrong, but enough for you to not be wrong. Ok.

again i simply stated it was likely false that the initial debris siting was positive and i was pilloried for that by the other idiot and later by you

now you admit the plane could've changed its direction at any point and you claim it was lost to radar at the straits of Malacca

however you didnt realise that the missing 'x' is the very speed the plane was alleged to have been travelling... and that has been extrapolated from a small sample of radar detection.

its all guess work and the search area is not a point on the map, its quite a large square representing hundreds of thousands of square kilometres at least

meanwhile the elephant in the room that is being ignored is, how does a plane en route to Beijing end up West of Perth?

no one has been able to answer me that simple question

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudder#Aircraft_rudders

:lol:

weak attempt at humour. you must be quite a dullard.

lost for words without a link to tell you what happened?

You're the arsewipe who thinks he knows better than the experts, you should already know what happened.

yawn

just as i thought

Don't put the onus of explanation on the other forum members when all you're going to dismiss their opinion because you obviously think you know better.

You're one of the biggest fucking wankers I've ever had the displeasure of interacting with. And I used to work for James Packer.

Edited by afromanGT: 28/3/2014 08:02:41 PM

what ever you say i am is what you are. you're projecting your own failings onto me and it shows.

you think you're an expert on so many things you dont have a clue about and i've called you out on it and only because of your persistent hostility toward me.

if you were a decent person in any way i'd leave you be however i've not seen any evidence of that.

creating fake quotes and attributing them to me
standard afrodope lying 101 :^o

what a child you are

These arguments need more Hitler comparisons plz

I thought you'd have recognised me paraphrasing, since you're so fond of accusing me of stealing other people's words.

Not taking sides here but creating fake quotes and attributing them to the person you're arguing with is part of your MO, Afro.