Another Airliner Missing

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9772465].message }}

Banned 11 years ago

Originally Posted by tagiscom

But, yeah, the news channels are milking the death out of this one, it seems that the more downed planes the better!

Just doing their bit to spread holiday cheer. They mentioned the 17 children on board 7 times in 10 minutes.

At that point I turned off the TV.

Cheers. - Frank

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9772470].message }}

11 years ago

Originally Posted by BigFrank

Just doing their bit to spread holiday cheer. They mentioned the 17 children on board 7 times in 10 minutes.

At that point I turned off the TV.

Cheers. - Frank

Right l don't watch tv, but did see a yellow line down the bottom of the tv image giving constant updates, which l ignored!

But the news will be on tomorrow so l will ignore that as well, and read about it on Tuesday, without all the hype and BS!

Thanks

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9772492].message }}

boydstone

11 years ago

Originally Posted by BigFrank

Just doing their bit to spread holiday cheer. They mentioned the 17 children on board 7 times in 10 minutes.

At that point I turned off the TV.

Cheers. - Frank

Could have been worse. It could have been 18 children. Let's try to see the silver lining, I always say.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9773389].message }}

11 years ago

Maybe there is an ASIAN "Bermuda triangle"? For those that don't know, it is the triangular area covered between Florida, Puerto rico, and Bermuda, where things like this have been happening for a very long time. The current popular LEO theory about the BT is that smugglers hijack vehicles to smuggle. Although one couldn't explain the military vehicles, etc.... I guess it can make sense since ALL are Spanish, and it would be a good way for a Mexican to ship stuff from and to the US.

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9772570].message }}

11 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

Maybe there is an ASIAN "Bermuda triangle"? For those that don't know, it is the triangular area covered between Florida, Puerto rico, and Bermuda, where things like this have been happening for a very long time. The current popular LEO theory about the BT is that smugglers hijack vehicles to smuggle. Although one couldn't explain the military vehicles, etc.... I guess it can make sense since ALL are Spanish, and it would be a good way for a Mexican to ship stuff from and to the US.

Steve

just a space, time portal created by pyramid power deep underwater with left over Atlantis Tech, but l might be wrong?

But on a more serious note if the Americans are successful in creating a wornhole with the lazer idea, then past civilizations or even aliens using our planet as a safe testing area, could have created one, that is still here to this day, and munching up all the ships, etc. Unless we find advanced ship artifacts, then higher dimensions or the future is more likely.

Maybe the Bermuda triangle is nothing more than one or more ancient wormholes, that munch up things on occasion!

Phew, got through that without mentioning fluffy bunnies once, (proud)!

Thanks

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9772654].message }}

Claude Whitacre

11 years ago

Originally Posted by BigFrank

. . . . . and CNN is off and running. Already, the speculation is running rampant. I wonder how long before they blame it on extraterrestrials?

Oh, well. No TV, today!

Cheers. - Frank

That's silly. It's a sinister plot to create political chaos..resulting in an invasion of the US, and the destabilization of the world's currency.

The plane was on auto pilot. Flown by remote control.
The families of the passengers had their memories wiped.
The jet is now in a different dimension.
And every psychic has predicted that this flight would go down, but nobody listened.

In fact, if you follow the tachyon trail. CNN caused this jet to go down, by reporting that it happened. Am I missing anything?

Seized By The Fifth Dimension.

[ 2 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9772679].message }}

BigFrank Banned 11 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

Am I missing anything?

Only one thing - that it's president Obama's fault. :-)

Cheers. - Frank
- [ 1 ] Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9772686].message }}

lanfear63

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

That's silly. It's a sinister plot to create political chaos..resulting in an invasion of the US, and the destabilization of the world's currency.

The plane was on auto pilot. Flown by remote control.
The families of the passengers had their memories wiped.
The jet is now in a different dimension.
And every psychic has predicted that this flight would go down, but nobody listened.

In fact, if you follow the tachyon trail. CNN caused this jet to go down, by reporting that it happened. Am I missing anything?

Seized By The Fifth Dimension.

You have been hacking my Ouija Board again. There's no other explanation for such concise knowledge.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Feel The Power Of The Mark Side

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9772752].message }}

Claude Whitacre

11 years ago

Originally Posted by lanfear63

You have been hacking my Ouija Board again. There's no other explanation for such concise knowledge.

There is another explanation. I have inside information. And by "Inside information", I mean that the amount of information I have...would fit inside a thimble.

And I can't hack your Ouija Board. You don't have it plugged in. I'm on to your tricks.

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9772773].message }}

lanfear63

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

There is another explanation. I have inside information. And by "Inside information", I mean that the amount of information I have...would fit inside a thimble.

And I can't hack your Ouija Board. You don't have it plugged in. I'm on to your tricks.

Thimble being secret agent terminology for a 256 gigabyte thumb drive, Mr Napoleon Solo, the Man From Monkey's U.N.C.L.E. Give my regards to your partner Illya Riffle.

Us guys from Thrush are on to your little game. You know full well that Ouija stands for Operational. Universal. Intelligence. Juice. Appliance.

And,we have changed the password.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Feel The Power Of The Mark Side

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9772802].message }}

Midnight Oil 11 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

Am I missing anything?

Originally Posted by BigFrank

Only one thing - that it's president Obama's fault.
- [ 1 ] Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9772901].message }}

MikeAmbrosio 11 years ago

Originally Posted by BigFrank

Only one thing - that it's president Obama's fault. :-)

Cheers. - Frank

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

There is another explanation. I have inside information.

I always suspected you were part of Obama's "insider" crowd...
- Thanks
Signature

Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9775255].message }}

WalkingCarpet

Banned 11 years ago

Fifth one this year

[ 1 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9772767].message }}

Banned 11 years ago

162 people never owned a TV.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9773417].message }}

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

That's silly. It's a sinister plot to create political chaos..resulting in an invasion of the US, and the destabilization of the world's currency.

The plane was on auto pilot. Flown by remote control.
The families of the passengers had their memories wiped.
The jet is now in a different dimension.
And every psychic has predicted that this flight would go down, but nobody listened.

In fact, if you follow the tachyon trail. CNN caused this jet to go down, by reporting that it happened. Am I missing anything?

Seized By The Fifth Dimension.

You forgot to mention the fluffy bunnies on the wing tips, trying to total the engines!

Originally Posted by BigFrank

Only one thing - that it's president Obama's fault. :-)

Cheers. - Frank

Or Justin Biebers pet monkey?

He recently bought himself a jet for his Birthday or whatever, so he is behind this, monkey, monkey-Obema, obviously a conspiracy, or l am still getting over the Xmas pudding?

Originally Posted by lanfear63

You have been hacking my Ouija Board again. There's no other explanation for such concise knowledge.

Yes, there is he just used a good Stephen King novel, or the movie where a plane that disappeared into the future and had large and nasty time eating creatures go on a rampage!

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9773481].message }}

Kay King 11 years ago

We could start a betting pool for how long CNN devotes 90% of it's airtime to "the missing plane" on the other side of the world if the plane is not found.

It struck me this morning that if the plane had crashed it would probably get less coverage on CNN. That's sad.
- [ 2 ] Thanks
Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
***
One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
what it is instead of what you think it should be.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9774984].message }}

Banned 11 years ago

In case of an emergency this thread becomes a flotation device.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9775352].message }}

11 years ago

Ah yes - 2015 arrives. The year we can find a lost Ipod no matter where on earth it is, but whole jetliners can get lost.

Whenever I see this stuff I always wonder exactly what my attention is being diverted from.

[ 2 ] Thanks
3 replies

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9775472].message }}

11 years ago

Originally Posted by HeySal

Ah yes - 2015 arrives. The year we can find a lost Ipod no matter where on earth it is, but whole jetliners can get lost.

Whenever I see this stuff I always wonder exactly what my attention is being diverted from.

Probably credible eye witness reports that the first Palm tree was spotted at the Artic circle!

But it was later on shown that it was an inflatable one, sniff!

This is all crap by the way!!! <:0.

Thanks

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9775678].message }}

11 years ago

Sal,

Let a phone hit the water in the middle of an ocean with the force of a crashing jet and then sink to those depths and see if you can sit at your desk and find it with an app.

Whenever I see this stuff I always wonder exactly what my attention is being diverted from.

Possibly the fact that you have severed all contact with reality?

Paul

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

.
Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9776663].message }}

Banned 11 years ago

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

Sal,

Let a phone hit the water in the middle of an ocean with the force of a crashing jet and then sink to those depths and see if you can sit at your desk and find it with an app.Possibly the fact that you have severed all contact with reality?

Paul

I think the point was it's silly that HUGE $94 million dollar planes with high tech equipment can get lost in 2014.

Those planes should have streaming video from the cockpit via satellite. The whole black/box concept is outdated.

[ 1 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9776953].message }}

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

Sal,

Let a phone hit the water in the middle of an ocean with the force of a crashing jet and then sink to those depths and see if you can sit at your desk and find it with an app.Possibly the fact that you have severed all contact with reality?

Paul

No - I'm not saying there was a plot to make a plane disappear to cover up something else. I'm saying the news is using it to ignore a lot of other things we should be hearing about. LOL.

I'm not comfortable with whole planes being able to disappear without a trace in these days of constant surveillance, but I'm also not rounded the bend to thinking someone would actually "disappear" one just to turn our attention from some other uncomfortable news.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9777867].message }}

11 years ago

Sal,

I'm not saying there was a plot to make a plane disappear to cover up something else.

I remain unconvinced.

I'm saying the news is using it to ignore a lot of other things we should be hearing about.

So, the whole media establishment is using disasters as a means to pursue a conspiracy to hide more important news from the public. Even though the ones that broke/covered the more important stories would benefit?

Mmmm.... Nah.

Paul

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

.
Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9777936].message }}

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

Sal,I remain unconvinced.So, the whole media establishment is using disasters as a means to pursue a conspiracy to hide more important news from the public. Even though the ones that broke/covered the more important stories would benefit?

Mmmm.... Nah.

Paul

Paul - they don't just "cover" the story. It should be a story that is covered. That said - they don't just cover the story, they milk it for everything it's worth.

Conspiracy? Corporate owned media reporting things like Kardashian's humungus ass instead of a few moves made in congress at the time that they ignored? CORPORATE........if people can't figure out the difference between "free press" and "corporate" owned news, I don't know what to say about that one. Serious.

There's a big difference between the investigative reporter of the Watergate era and the news anchors of today that are handed what they will report on with no investigation whatsoever.

David Rhoades, the current president of CBS News, is the brother of Ben Rhoades, a White House national security advisor.
Claire Shipman, a senior national correspondent at ABC News, is married to Jay Carney, the White House Press Secretary.
President of ABC News, Ben Sherwood, is brother to Dr. Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, a special advisor to Barack Obama.
Virginia Moseley is a CNN Vice President and Washington Bureau Chief married to Tom Nides, a Deputy Secretary of State under Barack Obama.
Chelsea Clinton was a special correspondent for NBC News (2011-14) Her husband's mother was a correspondent for NBC News

But, of course, our news is completely uncensored or biased. Right.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9778129].message }}

Banned 11 years ago

Originally Posted by HeySal

Paul - they don't just "cover" the story. It should be a story that is covered. That said - they don't just cover the story, they milk it for everything it's worth.

It was obvious from the beginning that this was not a mysterious airplane is missing story, like the other one. It was apparent from the start that this plane had encountered a big problem and this was a tragedy in the making and that most likely the debris would be found rather than the airplane simply vanished from the face of the earth.

It's what they are paid to do. We have freedom of the press and I'm very glad that we don't live in a society where that isn't the case. There are countries that people only get censored and biased news as a matter of course and they know only what the government chooses for them to know.

We also have the freedom to not read or watch the news if we don't want to, but the same people who constantly rail against our free press are the ones that are constantly up on every little news tidbit.

You would think that they would prefer to be in the dark rather than be poisoned by a constantly updating and reporting news cycle.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9778597].message }}

Karen Blundell 11 years ago

Originally Posted by HeySal

Whenever I see this stuff I always wonder exactly what my attention is being diverted from.

right, I wonder that myself - it gets to the point that I am often torn between wanting to stay informed and wanting to not know anything - they say ignorance is bliss, don't they?
- Thanks
Signature
---------------
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9781101].message }}

11 years ago

Yeah, The average iphone couldn't be tracked even a few miles off shore, and probably couldn't be tracked on much of the rest of the planet, even if it were on a raft. The FCC actually requires that their range be limited.

STILL, planes use satellite technology that has FAR better coverage. You would have thought that they would have a beacon, that couldn't be disabled within the plane, that sent out a unique ID, and the only setting would be one with the airline ID. That SHOULD have made tracking the aircraft simple, and each aircraft could have a secret worldwide unique number, so the plane could be tracked even if the call letters and fuselage were changed.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9776771].message }}

TLTheLiberator

11 years ago

Sorry to hear about it.

Accident statistics

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/...aviation-data/

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9776788].message }}

Kay King 11 years ago

I think we forget there are places in the world where iphones don't work - where not everything is tracked or visible. We've become technologically spoiled and are expectations are unreasonable.

Flying is safer than any other mode of transportation. Problem is - when a plane goes down a LOT of people die at one time.

We want to believe we can do anything - we can track anything - we can find anything....truth is, we can't.

There are tracking devices but the cost is enormous. Is it worth increasing ticket prices yet again for a piece of equipment designed to locate a crashed plane? Wouldn't it be smarter to focus on better management of flights in extreme weather conditions?
- Thanks
Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
***
One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
what it is instead of what you think it should be.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9776921].message }}

11 years ago

Yukon,

I think you and Steve both missed my main point.

Paul

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

.
Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9776960].message }}

ThomM 11 years ago

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

Yukon,

I think you and Steve both missed my main point.

Paul

I think I get your point Paul, not everything is meant as a distraction. I also think that most things aren't meant to be a distraction, but are used as one if the opportunity is there.
Case in point quietly passing what is possibly the worse budget in U.S. history while everyone is getting all worked up over a movie.

By the way I believe they found the plane this morning.
- [ 1 ] Thanks
Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9777147].message }}

11 years ago

Thom,

You're close. Sal's comment suggests belief in a deliberate action to down the plane as a "distraction" from some imagined and unknown other thing.

It's the difference between using an accident as cover and causing one for that purpose.

Normally I would read such things in a more benign light, but there's enough background here to lead me to believe the latter is what she meant, or at least considers plausible.

Either way, using a disaster like this as an excuse to promote a conspiratorial outlook is ... unpleasant.

Paul

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

.
Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9777302].message }}

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

Thom,

You're close. Sal's comment suggests belief in a deliberate action to down the plane as a "distraction" from some imagined and unknown other thing.

It's the difference between using an accident as cover and causing one for that purpose.

Normally I would read such things in a more benign light, but there's enough background here to lead me to believe the latter is what she meant, or at least considers plausible.

Either way, using a disaster like this as an excuse to promote a conspiratorial outlook is ... unpleasant.

Paul

No that's what I meant Paul. There's no reason to purposely cause something like this plane crash to cover up something else going on.

Thanks

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9777456].message }}

Banned 11 years ago

I made no comment on the newsworthiness of this one because it was obvious to me that this would end in tragedy and huge loss of life. There was the weather ... there was the denial to allow the plane to rise above the storm clouds ... there was the disappearance. Now it has been found.

A silver lining to a dark cloud was the Greek ferry story. I fully expected to read that over 400 people burned to death on that thing. The rescue operation was nothing short of heroic and amazing and as a result, most of the lives were saved.

So we have a sad ending and a happy ending.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9777319].message }}

Banned 11 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

I made no comment on the newsworthiness of this one because it was obvious to me that this would end in tragedy and huge loss of life. There was the weather ... there was the denial to allow the plane to rise above the storm clouds ...

So - I heard, today that in spite of that denial that ultimately the captain can, at his prerogative, overrule the tower and do whatever he feels is necessary to save his plane and passengers.

I don't know if that's true or a universal concept, but I'm sure one of our resident experts will chime in if any debate surfaces at all.

Let the countdown, begin. :-)

Cheers. - Frank

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9777608].message }}

Banned 11 years ago

Originally Posted by BigFrank

So - I heard, today that in spite of that denial that ultimately the captain can, at his prerogative, overrule the tower and do whatever he feels is necessary to save his plane and passengers.

I don't know if that's true or a universal concept, but I'm sure one of our resident experts will chime in if any debate surfaces at all.

Let the countdown, begin. :-)

Cheers. - Frank

Don't know but the news report said that when it was requested, that space was full. I don't know that risking a mid-air collision and risking two jets and their passengers is a viable option.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9777647].message }}

Banned 11 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Don't know but the news report said that when it was requested, that space was full.

Well, I'd love to see some numbers on that. It's not like they were flying over Newark. I'm sure that with a little oversight, they could have accommodated the request. It just meant that someone would have had to actually work for their paycheck.

Full? C'mon! That's bogus, if not totally ludicrous.

Cheers. - Frank

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9777666].message }}

Banned 11 years ago

Originally Posted by BigFrank

Well, I'd love to see some numbers on that. It's not like they were flying over Newark. I'm sure that with a little oversight, they could have accommodated the request. It just meant that someone would have had to actually work for their paycheck.

Full? C'mon! That's bogus, if not totally ludicrous.

Cheers. - Frank

Don't really know. I'm not an air traffic controller nor do I play one on TV. If it was human error, it was human error. In the end, it's all the same result. I have no idea what the reasons for the denial were but I'm sure that there will be a full investigation. There always is.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9777699].message }}

Banned 11 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

I have no idea what the reasons for the denial were but I'm sure that there will be a full investigation.

All I'm saying is, I need charts and graphs illustrating how many planes were flying at that time, the altitude they were flying at and the distance between them.

Cheers. - Frank

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9777746].message }}

Banned 11 years ago

Originally Posted by BigFrank

All I'm saying is, I need charts and graphs illustrating how many planes were flying at that time, the altitude they were flying at and the distance between them.

Cheers. - Frank

Took some research but I found the diagram of the airspace involved.

[ 3 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9777770].message }}

BigFrank Banned 11 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Took some research but I found the diagram of the airspace involved.

OK. Although that information has not been authenticated by the powers that be run the show, here, I commend you on your effort to present a plausible presentation of the facts as we currently understand them to be.

It would be hard to refute that data, unless one were simply trying to be argumentative. I'm the first one to admit that 'facts are facts.'

Kudos. :-)

Cheers. - Frank
- [ 1 ] Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9777845].message }}

Banned 11 years ago

The connection between these flights is lack of good judgement but that doesn't necessarily mean pilot error when a superior demands a fatal action, case in point flying over a known war zone or flying through deadly weather.

The last pilot obviously knew he was in trouble or he wouldn't have asked for help changing altitude.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9777955].message }}

11 years ago

Sigh...

Has it occurred to you as possible that the media are giving people what they've shown they want, rather than what they need?

That's just good marketing. The fault isn't with the media, it's with the market. And that has nothing to do with media bias or conspiracies or trying to distract people from more important news.

Paul

[ 4 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

.
Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9778180].message }}

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

Sigh...

Has it occurred to you as possible that the media are giving people what they've shown they want, rather than what they need?

That's just good marketing. The fault isn't with the media, it's with the market. And that has nothing to do with media bias or conspiracies or trying to distract people from more important news.

Paul

Um............and if it were a free press, it would be the news they need because that's what a free press is. It's being corporated that turns it into an industry. If we had a free press, it would be talking about the new financial laws written 80% by Citi Bank - or the TTPN that's looming close now. Don't know what those are? Thank your corporate news.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9779515].message }}

Banned 11 years ago

Originally Posted by HeySal

Um............and if it were a free press, it would be the news they need because that's what a free press is. It's being corporated that turns it into an industry. If we had a free press, it would be talking about the new financial laws written 80% by Citi Bank - or the TTPN that's looming close now. Don't know what those are? Thank your corporate news.

I assume that you are talking about TTP (The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement) rather than TTPN. Well, I've read both of those along with the NRA dictates gun laws, corporate polluters dictate environmental laws. and yada yada yada. All that in the free corporate press. Guess you just have to look for it.

That's what comes of a system that allows politicians to be influenced by lobbyists and their money. Grease my palms with green stuff and let's sit down and write law together. I worked for a lobbyist. Anyone who thinks that voters influence legislation is sadly mistaken.

On the TTP, we have The NY Times, the Boston Globe, Forbes, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and the Guardian without doing a real in depth search ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/31/bu...rtnership.html
Undaunted by the odds, Obama’s trade chief backs 12-nation deal - Business - The Boston Globe
A Free Trade New Year's Resolution For Congress and the White House - Forbes
The U.S. might sign a huge trade deal this year. Could it actually work for the middle class? - The Washington Post
Charles Boustany and Robert B. Zoellick: A Trade Opportunity for Obama and the New Congress - WSJ
Obama says he willing to defy Democrats on his support of Trans-Pacific Partnership - The Washington Post
How about a

Now, moving on to Citigroup writing financial law, we have, the New York Times, Business Insider, the Washington Post, Forbes and numerous others

With Dodd-Frank Rollback, The Big Bad Banks Are Back - Forbes
Jamie Dimon himself called to urge support for the derivatives rule in the spending bill - The Washington Post
Citigroup Writes House Financial Bill - Business Insider
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/05/...nancial-bills/

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9779632].message }}

11 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

I assume that you are talking about TTP (The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement) rather than TTPN. Well, I've read both of those along with the NRA dictates gun laws, corporate polluters dictate environmental laws. and yada yada yada. All that in the free corporate press. Guess you just have to look for it.

That's what comes of a system that allows politicians to be influenced by lobbyists and their money. Grease my palms with green stuff and let's sit down and write law together. I worked for a lobbyist. Anyone who thinks that voters influence legislation is sadly mistaken.

On the TTP, we have The NY Times, the Boston Globe, Forbes, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and the Guardian without doing a real in depth search ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/31/bu...rtnership.html
Undaunted by the odds, Obama’s trade chief backs 12-nation deal - Business - The Boston Globe
A Free Trade New Year's Resolution For Congress and the White House - Forbes
The U.S. might sign a huge trade deal this year. Could it actually work for the middle class? - The Washington Post
Charles Boustany and Robert B. Zoellick: A Trade Opportunity for Obama and the New Congress - WSJ
Obama says he willing to defy Democrats on his support of Trans-Pacific Partnership - The Washington Post
How about a

Now, moving on to Citigroup writing financial law, we have, the New York Times, Business Insider, the Washington Post, Forbes and numerous others

With Dodd-Frank Rollback, The Big Bad Banks Are Back - Forbes
Jamie Dimon himself called to urge support for the derivatives rule in the spending bill - The Washington Post
Citigroup Writes House Financial Bill - Business Insider
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/05/...nancial-bills/

Kewl. Although I'm thinking the TPNN is being talked about because it's being globally enacted and a lot of countries are involved. Once they start reporting overseas, America almost has to fall in line since people find out anyway at that point, and then they get lambasted for not reporting.

If you do see something on the news, it's because the corporation allowed it. Just as Thom pointed out about the Fox firings. These aren't the only actual investigative reporters to have been ousted over the last few years. A few quit over it, and I turned down a journalism position over it.

As far as the missing plane - while it's tragic that it happened, at least it didn't happen over terrorism or like events. That is good news even though wrapped in bad news.

Thanks

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9784114].message }}

Banned 11 years ago

Just found this news regarding the ATC tower's instructions. They did not deny his request. They modified it.

CLIMBING TOO SLOWLY?
At 6.12 a.m. on Sunday, 36 minutes after taking off from Surabaya’s Juanda Airport on a flight to Singapore, the pilot asked for permission to climb to 38,000ft from 32,000ft and deviate to the left to avoid bad weather.

Two minutes later, Jakarta responded by asking QZ8501 to go left seven miles and climb to 34,000ft. There was no response from the cockpit.

This looks like it might possibly be pilot error.

Radar data being examined by investigators appeared to show that AirAsia Flight QZ8501 made an “unbelievably” steep climb before it crashed, possibly pushing it beyond the Airbus A320’s limits, said a source familiar with the probe’s initial findings.

The data was transmitted before the aircraft disappeared from the screens of air traffic controllers in Jakarta on Sunday, added the source, who declined to be identified.

“So far, the numbers taken by the radar are unbelievably high. This rate of climb is very high, too high. It appears to be beyond the performance envelope of the aircraft,” he said.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9779452].message }}

Banned 11 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Just found this news regarding the ATC tower's instructions. They did not deny his request. They modified it. This looks like it might possibly be pilot error.

I'm wondering if the sheer power of the storm itself might have possibly lifted the plane in that fashion. From some comments I have heard by the meteorological experts, this is most definitely within the realm of possibility in relation to the power contained in these storms.

Hard to imagine a captain with 21,000 hours making a bad move like that, unless what he saw before him caused him to make a move that he knew was dangerous, but that he perceived as less dangerous than what he was facing.

Hey, this speculation crap is kinda fun. Now I know why everyone on TV, does it. Hell, they even get paid to do it. Hard to top that.

I am accepting donations for my meaningless contribution to the discourse via PayPal.

Cheers. - Frank

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9779473].message }}

Banned 11 years ago

Originally Posted by BigFrank

I'm wondering if the sheer power of the storm itself might have possibly lifted the plane in that fashion. From some comments I have heard by the meteorological experts, this is most definitely within the realm of possibility in relation to the power contained in these storms.

Hard to imagine a captain with 21,000 hours making a bad move like that, unless what he saw before him caused him to make a move that he knew was dangerous, but that he perceived as less dangerous than what he was facing.

Hey, this speculation crap is kinda fun. Now I know why everyone on TV, does it. Hell, they even get paid to do it. Hard to top that.

I am accepting donations for my meaningless contribution to the discourse via PayPal.

Cheers. - Frank

Yep ... of course it's possible that the storm forced his plane up in that manner. All they have is the radar and now they have the black boxes which they will investigate, but they can only speculate with the data they currently have. We could call the Psychic Hotline for more accurate information, but hell, that costs $$$$ per minute.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9779483].message }}

BigFrank Banned 11 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

We could call the Psychic Hotline for more accurate information, but hell, that costs $$$$ per minute.

A small price to pay for expert analysis!

Cheers. - Frank
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9779493].message }}

Banned 11 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Just found this news regarding the ATC tower's instructions. They did not deny his request. They modified it.

I have heard 4 different versions of this.

1. They denied it.
2. They denied it, then granted it as originally requested.
3. They denied it, then modified the initial request.
4. They modified the initial request.

I'm sure 5 and 6 are right around the corner.

Cheers. - Frank

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9779484].message }}

Banned 11 years ago

Originally Posted by BigFrank

I have heard 4 different versions of this.

1. They denied it.
2. They denied it, then granted it as originally requested.
3. They denied it, then modified the initial request.
4. They modified the initial request.

I'm sure 5 and 6 are right around the corner.

Cheers. - Frank

I've only read two versions. All of the initial reports said the request was denied

SURABAYA, Indonesia - The plane sought permission to climb above threatening clouds. Air traffic control couldn't say yes immediately - there was no room. Six other commercial airliners were crowding the surrounding airspace, forcing AirAsia Flight 8501 to remain at a lower altitude.
AirAsia Flight 8501: Request to climb initially denied - CBS News

In crowded skies, AirAsia
Lost AirAsia Plane's Request to Change Course Was Denied | TheLedger.com
Lost AirAsia plane's request to change course was denied

and this version, which actually isn't much different than the other versions. It just adds in further conversation with ATC, allowing them to climb to a lower level than requested. After that conversation, all communication was lost, so nothing is really known about why.

The air traffic controllers denied permission to the pilot of the AirAsia aircraft that was found after went missing on Sunday to climb from 32,000 to 38,000 feet as there was another plane flying at that height, local media said Tuesday.

Nonetheless, according to the last conversation between the missing aircraft's pilot and the air traffic controllers published by the media, the control tower allowed the plane to ascend to 34,000 feet but did not receive a response from the plane.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9779589].message }}

11 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

I've only read two versions. All of the initial reports said the request was denied

In crowded skies, AirAsia
Lost AirAsia Plane's Request to Change Course Was Denied | TheLedger.com
Lost AirAsia plane's request to change course was denied

and this version, which actually isn't much different than the other versions. It just adds in further conversation with ATC, allowing them to climb to a lower level than requested. After that conversation, all communication was lost, so nothing is really known about why.

Then there's this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsglbfZLc_0#t=219

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9779729].message }}

sbucciarel Banned 11 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

Then there's this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsglbfZLc_0#t=219

Bandwidth. I don't have it. lol. What does the video say?
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9779735].message }}

Banned 11 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

Then there's this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsglbfZLc_0#t=219

Ok ... couldn't watch the video but saw the title of it so googled it. Shame on Fox is all I got to say, but that doesn't surprise me.

Two Fox journalists were recently fired for exposing milk that is 'unfit for human consumption' due to Monsanto GMO meddling. Reporters Steve Wilson and Jane Akre revealed the shocking truth that natural foodists have suspected for quite some time - that almost all of the milk sold in the United States is a cancer-causing concoction full of a growth hormone manufactured by Monsanto called 'Posilac,' or 'BGH,' otherwise known as 'rBGH' or bovine growth hormone.

Both reporters were hired by FOX News as investigative journalists to ask tough questions, and to get to the 'truth' of the matter. As soon as they covered this story; however, both reporters were fired.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9779761].message }}

11 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Ok ... couldn't watch the video but saw the title of it so googled it. Shame on Fox is all I got to say, but that doesn't surprise me.

It's not any different with the other news stations either.
When you think about it ( and it was a threat monsanto used) stations depend on advertising revenue. If a corporation doesn't like a news article that will air, all they have to do is threaten to pull their ads. This incident happened at a fox news affiliate station in Fl. Monsanto threatened to pull its ads from all of fox's affiliate stations.
I think more then anything money controls what news we get, more then many people think.

[ 3 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9779784].message }}

Monsanto Forced Fox TV to Censor Coverage of Dangerous Milk Drug*|*Jeffrey Smith

Banned 11 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

It's not any different with the other news stations either.
When you think about it ( and it was a threat monsanto used) stations depend on advertising revenue. If a corporation doesn't like a news article that will air, all they have to do is threaten to pull their ads. This incident happened at a fox news affiliate station in Fl. Monsanto threatened to pull its ads from all of fox's affiliate stations.
I think more then anything money controls what news we get, more then many people think.

I found more on this story here.

Monsanto Threatens Fox

On the Friday before Monday's air date, Monsanto's lawyer faxed a letter to Roger Ailes, the head of Fox News in New York, claiming that the series was biased and unscientific. It threatened, "There is a lot at stake in what is going on in Florida, not only for Monsanto, but also for Fox News and its owner." Rupert Murdoch, of course is the owner, and part of what was at stake was lots of Monsanto advertising dollars--for the Florida station, the entire Fox network, and Murdoch's Actmedia, a major advertising agency used by Monsanto. Fox pulled the series for "further review."

After the Florida station's general manager, who had a background in investigative reporting, meticulously vetted the show, he verified that every statement was accurate and unbiased. The station re-scheduled the series for the following week.

Monsanto's attorney immediately sent another, more strongly worded letter to Ailes, this time indicating that the news story "could lead to serious damage to Monsanto and dire consequences for Fox News." The airing was postponed indefinitely.

The Florida station's general manager and news manager were soon fired, and according to Wilson, the new general manager was a salesman with no news experience. Wilson tried to convince him to run the rbGH story on its merits. He said Monsanto's whole PR campaign was based on the false statement that milk from rbGH-treated cows is "the same safe wholesome product we've always known." But even Monsanto's own studies showed this to be a lie, and it could be endangering the public. Wilson recounted to me,

"I tried to appeal to his basic sense of why this is news. He responded, 'Don't tell me what news is. We paid $2 billion for these television stations and the news is what we say it is. We'll tell you what the news is.'"

According to Wilson, the manager offered hush money to the two reporters. They would be paid the full amount of what was remaining in their contract, but they were free to go--essentially fired. But there was a catch. They were to agree never to talk about rbGH again--not for any other news organization.

Wilson responded, "I'm never going to agree for any amount of money you offer me to gag myself from revealing in some other time and place what's going on here." Wilson told me,

"He looked at us with this blank stare like he'd never heard such a thing. And he said, 'I don't get it. What's with you people? I just want people who want to be on TV. . . . I've never met any people like you before.' He just offered us 6 figures and to him what we were being asked to do in exchange was no big deal. Why in the world would we turn it down? And lose a chance to continue to be on TV--as if that is such a big deal that one would sell one's soul to continue to do it."

.......

[ 2 ] Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9779795].message }}

Midnight Oil

11 years ago

Why We Still Can't Track an Airplane

The overarching problem with tracking planes is the vast expanse of earth devoid of radar coverage: Most of the oceans, polar regions, and areas of Africa, Asia, and South Africa--as much as 80 percent of the world--are "a blind spot to surveillance," the director of Nav Canada, the company that runs the country's air traffic control system, told the National Post last week.

The task force recommended that any tracking protocol provide an airplane's "4D position"--latitude, longitude, altitude, and time--to within one nautical mile at least every 15 minutes. Any system should also be able to increase its reporting rate if certain triggers are detected during a flight, such as a dramatic change in speed or altitude. The task force also said airlines should upgrade their systems to track aircraft within the next year--a schedule that almost certainly won't be met.

But precise tracking involves a greater expense for airlines, and most are unlikely to respond quickly. The task force recommendations are not mandatory for continued membership in the group. Naturally, airlines aren't keen to assume the costs for tracking systems that are almost never needed--the industry stresses repeatedly that some 100,000 daily flights occur without incident.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9779859].message }}

Why We Still Can't Track an Airplane

11 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

I found more on this story here.

Originally Posted by Midnight Oil

Radar is fallible. It was NEVER made to track planes! It started out as a defense to merely say planes were a certain distance away. NOW, at best, they may track transponders within a limited area to handle traffic. If a plane has no transponder, they may have a hard time associating it with a flight. They also don't currently care where it came from, or where it is going to. It would be silly to ask them to follow all traffic in an area, that they have no responsibility for, simply to track it. The planes COULD have a special box communicate via satellite. They ALREADY have the communication in commercial aircraft, from what I understand, to communicate everywhere. They used to allow use by passengers, though it was expensive.

ALSO, we are PAST the 1970s! They could EVEN have a coded flightplan setup, by the airline at the airport, to trigger an update with the manufacturer if the plane goes more than say 1000 miles off course(Should allow for major course changes), or lands at a place more than 3 miles from where it should land(3 miles should allow for most airports, and it would be within the ATC tower). ALSO, we are PAST 2010, so it could be done for less than $200 a plane! Possibly even far less, since airplanes SHOULD have a lot of the hardware installed ALREADY! It is cheap, and likely required for autopilot and instrument landings. Things have gotten THAT cheap! But HEY, in the 1970s, they complicated systems a LOT to save $1.50USD in manufacturing costs, for a $2000USD computer! I guess $200 added to a $78,300,000USD(The lowest cost Boeing sells the 737 for now! Boeing: Jet Prices ) plane is considered just as meaningful.

But intelligent warn as needed control, like I described, would limit any communication costs, and any bandwidth needs.

They could EVEN have a validation check built in so ATC can send a signal, before takeoff, and the box can send back the coordinates. If they don't match, or it fails, the ATC could stop the plane. If the plane ignores them, the military could be informed, and they would FORCE the plane down. That last part is actually a government/FAA rule created after 9/11. And the FAA requires ALL pilots within the US to comply with ATC.

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9781720].message }}

Banned 11 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

Radar is fallible. It was NEVER made to track planes! It started out as a defense to merely say planes were a certain distance away. NOW, at best, they may track transponders within a limited area to handle traffic. If a plane has no transponder, they may have a hard time associating it with a flight.

The military has radar systems that were designed to track planes (and even some missiles) very, very accurately --> starting with fire control radar (and some air control radar) systems.

A fire-control radar (FCR) is a radar which is designed specifically to provide information (mainly target azimuth, elevation, range and velocity) to a fire-control system in order to calculate a firing solution (i.e. information on how to direct weapons such that they hit the target(s)). Such radars typically emit a narrow, intense beam of radio waves to ensure accurate tracking information and to minimise the chance of losing track of the target. Some modern radars have a track-while-scan capability enabling it to function simultaneously as a fire-control radar and a search radar. This works either by having the radar switch between sweeping the search sector and sending directed pulses at the target to be tracked, or by using a phased-array antenna to generate two (or more) discrete radar beams and dividing them between both tasks.

Fire-control radar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The SPY-1 radar was state of the art when I was in (1980s), and since I was an ET, I had many friends that were radar techs, fire control techs, and fire control and radar operators.

The AN/SPY-1 (Army Navy Joint Electronics Type Designation System / S - Water (surface ship), P - Radar, Y - Surveillance (target detecting and tracking) and Control (fire control and/or air control), model number[4]) is a US naval radar system manufactured by Lockheed Martin. The array is a passive electronically scanned system and is a key component of the Aegis Combat System. The system is computer controlled, using four complementary antennas to provide 360 degree coverage.

The first production model of SPY-1 series is SPY-1A, forms the baseline configuration of all subsequent SPY-1 radars. SPY-1A has four antenna arrays in two separate deckhouses, with each antenna array contains 148 modules.[5] Each module contains up to 32 radiating element and phase shifters, and modules are paired to form transmitting and receiving sub-arrays, which are grouped into 32 transmitting and 68 receiving arrays.[5] Transmitting arrays are driven by eight transmitters, each with four Crossed-field amplifiers (CFAs), and each CFA produces a peak power of 132kW.[5] There are a total of 4096 radiators, 4352 receivers and 128 auxiliary elements on each antenna array.[5] The power requirement of SPY-1A is four times that of AN/SPS-48 and SPY-1A is controlled by AN/UYK-7 computer.[5]

AN/SPY-1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I served on a Guided Missile Cruiser in the 1980's and the USS Vincennes was in my battlegroup --> they were equipped with Aegis...

The Aegis Combat System is an integrated naval weapons system developed by the Missile and Surface Radar Division of RCA, and now produced by Lockheed Martin. It uses powerful computer and radar technology to track and guide weapons to destroy enemy targets.

Initially used by the United States Navy, Aegis is now used also by the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force, Spanish Navy, Royal Norwegian Navy, and Republic of Korea Navy. Over 100 Aegis-equipped ships have been deployed in five navies worldwide. The Royal Australian Navy has selected the Aegis system for placement on its new Air Warfare Destroyers, and it is part of NATO's European missile defence system.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Combat_System

Vintage large screen displays aboard the Vincennes back in the late 80's.

Note --> the Vincennes accidentally shot down an Iranian airliner in 1988, so firing mistakes can be made, especially without proper IFF systems and proper IFF operation during combat or hectic and/or tense situations.

Later systems were the SPY-2, SPY-3 and SPY-4. The SPS-49 was one of the systems that came prior to the SPY-1, it was introduced in 1975.

Known as the High Power Discriminator (HPD), it gives long-range detection, tracking and discrimination of advanced theater ballistic missile (TBM) threats.[1] Radar targets associated with such threats are very different in speed, geometry, and distance than the aircraft and cruise missile targets for which AN/SPY-1 is optimized.

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/SPY-2

Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR) is the new kid on the block.... Instead of just being able to provide air control and targeting information to missile, gun, and rocket systems --> these systems can be outfitted to fire offensive electronic pulses to blind ships, aircraft and missiles.

The AMDR (Air and Missile Defense Radar) is an active electronically scanned array[1] air and missile defense radar under development for the United States Navy.[2] It will provide integrated air and missile defense, and even periscope detection, for the Flight III Arleigh Burke class destroyers.[3]

In 2013, the Navy cut almost $10 billion from the cost of the program by adopting a smaller less capable system that will be challenged by "future threats".[6] As of 2013 the program is expected to deliver 22 radars at a total cost of $6,598m; they will cost $300m/unit in serial production.[7] Testing is planned for 2021 and Initial operating capability is planned for March 2023.[7] The Navy then was forced to halt the contract in response to a challenge by Lockheed.[8] Lockheed officially withdrew their protest and the Navy lifted the stop work on January 10th, 2014.[9]

The AMDR system consists of two primary radars and a radar suite controller (RSC) to coordinate the sensors. An S-band radar is to provide volume search, tracking, ballistic missile defense discrimination and missile communications while the X-band radar is to provide horizon search, precision tracking, missile communication and terminal illumination of targets.[5] The S-band and X-band sensors will also share functionality including radar navigation, periscope detection, as well as missile guidance and communication. AMDR is intended as a scalable system; the Burke deckhouse can only accommodate a 14-foot version but the USN claim they need a radar of 20 foot or more to meet future ballistic missile threats.[7] This would require a new ship design; Ingalls have proposed the San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock as the basis for a ballistic missile defense cruiser with 20-foot AMDR. To cut costs the first twelve AMDR sets will have an X-band component based on the existing SPQ-9B rotating radar, to be replaced by a new X-band radar in set 13 that will be more capable against future threats.[7] The transmit-receive modules will use new gallium nitride semiconductor technology.[7] This will allow for higher power density than the previous gallium arsenide radar modules.[10]

Although it was not an initial requirement, the AMDR may be capable of performing electronic attacks using its AESA antenna. Airborne AESA radar systems, like the APG-77 used on the F-22 Raptor, and the APG-81 and APG-79 used on the F-35 Lightning II, F/A-18 Super Hornet, and EA-18G Growler have demonstrated their capability to conduct electronic attack. The contenders for the Navy's Next Generation Jammer all used Gallium Nitride-based (GaN) transmit-receiver modules for their EW systems, which enables the possibility that the high-power GaN-based AESA radar used on Flight III ships can perform the mission. Precise beam steering could attack air and surface threats with tightly directed beams of high-powered radio waves to electronically blind aircraft, ships, and missiles.[11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMDR

Cheers

-don

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9781753].message }}

11 years ago

Originally Posted by ForumGuru

The military has radar systems that were designed to track planes (and even some missiles) very accurately --> starting with fire control radar (and/or air control radar) systems.

And they have limited range, etc... They may have some strategically placed around some threatening sites, like Russia, to track launches, and they may have ones locally for defense, but there is no reason to track them all the way. THAT is why those planes are missing, and why they couldn't track the 9/11 event better, etc...

Note --> the Vincennes accidentally shot down an Iranian airliner in 1988, so firing mistakes can be made, especially without proper IFF systems and proper IFF operation during combat or other tense situations.

YEP, ANOTHER problem. As I said, it would be hard to match a blip with a particular plane.

I wasn't saying radar doesn't work, etc... Obviously, it DOES. HECK, the old basic system they came up with in WWII was INSTRUMENTAL in a lot of things, and probably protected most of the allies from a LOT of deaths. It also gave the Nazis a run for their money. They had surprise attacks and SUDDENLY, the allies seemed to have advanced notice.

And radar is FAR better now. It is better able to give details about size, type, location, and distance. STILL, it wasn't meant to track a plane going a distance of thousands of miles, etc..., and air traffic controllers are in the midst of a potentially VERY busy area and are responsible for tracking each plane there and making sure everything is safe. If they have a plane coming in on a runway, they have to make sure they have a certain space tolerance over that required for the plane. The planes have to be a certain distance from one another, etc... And even on the ground, they have to direct the traffic. And if they have a problem, or a ground stop, they may have DOZENS of planes circling, etc... that have to land.

I looked at several sites, talking about different radars, military and civilian, etc... They seem to go from maybe 75miles to maybe 300miles. And they did mention about ambiguous targets. Still, whatever the military has, it is generally about the average ATC tower, the ability to identify, and bandwidth. The bandwidth includes human as much as anything else.

And we ALL know several planes were lost.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9781870].message }}

11 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

I found more on this story here.

When a company, like Monsanto, gets SO big that it can shut things down to that degree, it should be considered a monopoly, and dismantled brick by brick, as they TRIED to do with SO and AT&T!

Speaking of which, the US used to declare ANY patent, or related item, ILLEGITIMATE if it was preceded by society, common sense, or GOD! So the idea of copyrighting "JUST DO IT", or patenting the idea of the wheel, or patenting DNA, or restricting the planting of seed purchased, collected from plants, or being spread by the wind, was JUST NOT RIGHT! HECK, intel was told they could NOT copyright 386, because it was JUST A NUMBER!

So where does Monsanto come off patenting seed, and demanding that all farmers somehow analyze the DNA of their seed to verify that NONE ever came from Monsanto? Although they never put it in those terms, that is the ONLY way to properly prevent a suit from them. If they SUSPECT you have "stolen" their seed, they may simply bring suit. They may otherwise TEST the seed, and one testing positive is enough proof. IMAGINE, a loaf of bread might cost HUNDREDS of dollars, because a test would have to be run against EVERY seed planted. Is that even possible?

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9781609].message }}

11 years ago

So where does Monsanto come off patenting seed

Here's the head scratcher there Steve.
The FDA and U.S.D.A. (and monsanto) say that G.E. seeds are not substantially different from regular seeds. Monsanto is able to get patents for their seed because they claim (and the Patent Office agrees) that they are substantially different from regular seeds.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9781699].message }}

Banned 11 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

Here's the head scratcher there Steve.
The FDA and U.S.D.A. (and monsanto) say that G.E. seeds are not substantially different from regular seeds. Monsanto is able to get patents for their seed because they claim (and the Patent Office agrees) that they are substantially different from regular seeds.

Monsanta is a prime example and maybe the worst example of corporations running the show rather than politicians and government. Powerful lobby, big money ... ticket to do anything they want to, even when the voters do not want it or it is proven to be bad for their health and well being or even when it encroaches on farmers and other food suppliers right to do business. Case in point: Monsanto sued several small dairies that labeled their Milk as NON-rBGH.

[ 2 ] Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9782370].message }}

11 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Monsanta is a prime example and maybe the worst example of corporations running the show rather than politicians and government. Powerful lobby, big money ... ticket to do anything they want to, even when the voters do not want it or it is proven to be bad for their health and well being or even when it encroaches on farmers and other food suppliers right to do business. Case in point: Monsanto sued several small dairies that labeled their Milk as NON-rBGH.

Yeah, regarding the seeds, GREAT! Monsanto CAN patent the novel way to produce them from the beginning, but NOT the use of them or any progeny. And, as I showed, trying to prevent that would be ludicrously expensive. Heck, even a cost of a dollar would be too much. But consider the effort! WOW!

And YEAH, unfortunately the courts DON'T CARE how reasonable a case is. I was in a very unreasonable one, and asked the court to drop it, and they said simply that they wouldn't, and that only the "plaintiff" could. So basically a court case can be created on the TERMS of the plaintiff at the TIME of the plaintiff, and be under effectively 80% control of the plaintiff. In my case, the timing put me at a geological and logistical disadvantage so I could no better defend the case than a stranger in the next city.
Since I had enough money to simply settle, I did.

The idea that a person could not say that their product is free of a problem, that it is free of, is LUDICROUS. It is restraint of trade, and a violation of free speech. But HEY, you can't say that
Vitamin C cures scurvy, even though it has been PROVEN to cure scurvy, and scurvy was found
to be a reaction to a deficiency of Vitamin C! I wonder! Does such a law exist ELSEWHERE?

And there IS evidence to suggest that such things hurt babies. Even somewhat similar drugs given to women come with a warning not to take them if you are pregnant or breast feeding. Some anti enzyme drugs that men can take come with a warning that no crushed tablets should be used, and they shouldn't be touched by women that are, or may become, pregnant. And there is the idea of precocious puberty, and theories about IT. So there ARE concerns. Whether growth hormone, antibiotics, xeno estrogens, or enzymes. HECK, some testosterone replacement cremes come with the same warnings. And cows HAVE been given growth hormones, sex hormones, antibiotics, and who knows what else.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9782970].message }}

First Identified Victim From AirAsia Flight 8501 Crash Returned To Her Family

11 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Monsanta is a prime example and maybe the worst example of corporations running the show rather than politicians and government. Powerful lobby, big money ... ticket to do anything they want to, even when the voters do not want it or it is proven to be bad for their health and well being or even when it encroaches on farmers and other food suppliers right to do business. Case in point: Monsanto sued several small dairies that labeled their Milk as NON-rBGH.

They're currently suing Vermont over the labeling law the state passed. I think Vermont did it the smart way though and should win (if they don't get a judge that's in monsantos pocket). They almost passed the law a couple years ago, but backed down when monsanto threatened them. The reason then being that they didn't see the lawsuit coming and didn't have the money to defend against it.
When they passed it last year they also added a defense fund into the bill for over 1 million dollars.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9782996].message }}

reln

11 years ago

With all this technology you would think that nowadays it would be harder to lose and airplane.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9779691].message }}

TLTheLiberator

11 years ago

Thanks

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9780596].message }}

11 years ago

BTW MOST radar in the US, and likely the planet, is for ATC. The FOLLOWING is what Wikipedia says ATC is responsible for:

Air traffic control (ATC) is a service provided by ground-based controllers who direct aircraft on the ground and through controlled airspace, and can provide advisory services to aircraft in non-controlled airspace. The primary purpose of ATC worldwide is to prevent collisions, organize and expedite the flow of traffic, and provide information and other support for pilots.[1] In some countries, ATC plays a security or defensive role, or is operated by the military.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9781727].message }}

Banned 11 years ago

Steve, you said radars were not designed to accurately track planes and that information was not accurate. Some radar systems are designed specifically to very accurately track planes and missiles.

The Aegis system is widely deployed these days, and even the old SPY-1 could track hundreds of targets simultaneously. It's easy to match blips to planes with relatively cheap transponders, and as far as tracking at distance goes, planes are "handed-off" zone-to-zone. Let us not forget that some air traffic and terminal control systems are quite sophisticated these days.

Initially used by the United States Navy, Aegis is now used also by the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force, Spanish Navy, Royal Norwegian Navy, and Republic of Korea Navy. Over 100 Aegis-equipped ships have been deployed in five navies worldwide. The Royal Australian Navy has selected the Aegis system for placement on its new Air Warfare Destroyers, and it is part of NATO's European missile defense system.

The bottom line is $$$$. If the industry would spend the dollars (and force compliance) all commercial airliners could be tracked point-to-point with the use of a combination of radar and satellite technologies.

FYI, back in the day I was a Link (Tactical Digital Information Links) tech and the Link system transmits all of the ships tracking and targeting information to other stations hundreds of miles away in milliseconds, automatically. This means the next station down the line could receive the information and use the information, and/or re-transmit it in milliseconds, so the information could be sent hundreds (or thousands) of miles down the line in a matter of milliseconds and a station or installation that was equipped with the proper weapons system (and authorization) could blast the target out of the sky.

It's sorta similar to the "proposed" star wars defense initiative, but it already exists with the use of radar and HF & UHF transmitters and receivers.

Cheers

-don

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9781895].message }}

11 years ago

Originally Posted by ForumGuru

Steve, you said radars were not designed to accurately track planes and that information was not accurate. Some radar systems are designed specifically to very accurately track planes and missiles.

The Aegis system is basically "standard" these days, and even the old SPY-1 could track hundreds of targets simultaneously. We are not talking about just a few systems, and it's easy to match blips to planes with relatively cheap transponders. As far as tracking at distance, planes can be "handed-off" zone-to-zone.

The bottom line is $$$$. If the industry wouldspend the dollars (and force all to comply) all commercial airliners could be tracked point-to-point with the use of a combination of radar and satellite technologies.

FYI, back in the day I was a Link (Tactical Digital Information Links) tech and the Link system blasts all of the ships tracking and targeting information to another station hundreds of miles away in milliseconds, automatically. This means the next station down the line could receive the information and use the information, and/or re-transmit it in milliseconds, which means the information could be sent hundreds (or thousands) of miles down the line in a matter of milliseconds so a station or installation that was equipped with the proper weapons system (and authorization) could blast the target out of the sky.

It's sorta similar to the "proposed" star wars defense initiative, but it already exists with the use of radar and HF & UHF transmitters and receivers.

Cheers

-don

OK, I meant track in the sense we are talking about tracking this lost plane. And blips to planes WITH transponders, yeah. I think the radars all do that automatically. Without transponders, they don't. I believe the transponders actually give the flight numbers. Without them, they would have trouble matching. And YEAH, the military could communicate across systems like that. Obviously, they even have the SHIPS hooked up with bases, etc... And the military WOULD be interested in certain types of objects, like rockets, missiles, maybe fighters. They would certainly be interested in things aimed at the US, allies, possessions, etc.... But if a commercial jet were headed to say kiev or france, would they even care?

Considering how they talk about ground stops on COMMERCIAL planes, I imagine they have a FAR slower way there. They even talk about CALLING! Then again, in one terminal, they actually TOLD me that two gates(SAME AIRLINE, SAME AIRPORT, SAME TERMINAL) couldn't communicate! I was DUMBFOUNDED! I was like HUH? What about the network? What about the PHONE? What about the RADIO? If someone knocked out ALL the power, and destroyed the phone company, they SHOULD have been able to use those radios they carry around. They can get a wheel chair for a person, but can't satisfy their promise to hold a plane for a couple minutes to get a passenger, THEY delayed, onto a connecting flight.

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9781975].message }}

Banned 11 years ago

Of course aircraft do not need to have transponders to be accurately tracked (and targeted) by certain types of radar systems, only to be properly identified more easily. The military does have some systems in-place to help identify enemy and other aircraft by radar signatures and other characteristics, but you don't have the clearance to learn about those sorts of things.

Back in the day I used to have a great clearance that allowed me access to upper and lower CIC, Radio Central, the Data Room, Transmitters, Radar, the Bridge etc. etc. My systems were spread out all over the ship in key places so I was able to see a lot of stuff while I was working.

I used to watch guys ID enemy craft and I can guarantee you those aircraft were not always pinging us to help with identification. Sure it's easier and more reliable to have a transponder aboard the aircraft, and I assume all commercial aircraft use transponders.

Basically if we ping the craft and it does not respond then it could be considered hostile or a potential threat. If they don't respond to the ping then we will try coms, and if they still don't respond then the threat may be escalated.

The system that will rule the sky one day is a radar - satellite - radar, and then some years down the road it may be virtually all satellite, or something even more sophisticated.

And yes, with the military of all countries positioned all over the globe, and millions of civilian flights, I can guarantee you installations are basically tracking (not targeting) everything that flies within range with whatever they have. Just think about how many ships, bases, etc. etc. etc exist around the globe...the number is quite large and of course they must be alert to all potential threats, including civilian threats.

Check out what a few Boeing E-3 Sentry aircraft can do...

Modern AEW&C systems can detect aircraft from up to 250 miles (400 km) away, well out of range of most surface-to-air missiles. One AEW&C aircraft flying at 30,000 feet (9,100 m) can cover an area of 120,460 square miles (312,000 km2). Three such aircraft in overlapping orbits can cover the whole of Central Europe. AEW&C systems communicate with friendly aircraft, vectoring fighters towards bogeys, providing data on threats and targets, help extend their sensor range and make offensive aircraft more difficult to track, since they no longer need to keep their own radar active to detect threats.

Airborne early warning and control - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A little history on older systems --> back in the day we used quite a bit of long range Over-the-Horizon Radar which for the most part has been replaced by the airborne early warning and control systems mentioned above.

The United States Navy created their own system, the AN/TPS-71 ROTHR (Relocatable Over-the-Horizon Radar), which covers a 64 degree wedge-shaped area at ranges from 500 to 1,600 nautical miles (925 to 3,000 km). ROTHR was originally intended to keep track of ship and aircraft movement over the Pacific, and thus allow coordinated fleet movements well in advance of an engagement.

OTH-B coverage from Oregon and Maine.

And a newer Australian version...

A more recent addition is the Jindalee Operational Radar Network developed by the Australian Department of Defence in 1998 and completed in 2000. It is operated by No. 1 Radar Surveillance Unit of the Royal Australian Air Force. Jindalee is a multistatic radar (multiple-receiver) system using OTH-B, allowing it to have both long range as well as anti-stealth capabilities. It has an official range of 3,000 kilometres (1,900 mi), but in 1997 the prototype was able to detect missile launches by China over 5,500 kilometres (3,400 mi) away.

Over-the-horizon radar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cheers

-don

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9781995].message }}