I agree the satellites were not in position ( had to be 18:40 UTC) to view MH370 if using Kates data. I also agree the viewing angle of the video is incorrect unless it was turning to the north. The video if real would have been taken from another device.
Thank you for adding that. Somehow I missed that flight data. Agree that it may circumstantially support her sighting around 19:45 to 20:10 UTC. The skyvector map didn't show an airway that looked to me like it would be directly above where she was but hard to say for sure. There was also a good point in that thread that her night watch didn't definitively start at 2am. They change posts when tired. She was honest that she had no idea what time it was. Based on the flying times and other data, I'm most comfortable with 20:00ish.
thank you for your effort to shed light on this event
in my idea, our rational faculties, in a context of people - entities - coalescing patterns - egrogores far beyond our comprehension, fall short of comprehending or communicating what factually happened
"unless these videos were faked in advance. That seems unlikely given that the mission likely emerged in the days or couple of weeks before execution."
Why does this seem unlikely. Like 9/11, a psy-op of this nature could have been years in planning. It seems very likely to me.
It could all be as fake as the fantasy planes that 'hit' the Twin Towers. In fact, that is the simplest solution. All CGI and crisis actors, as usual.
It's been a while since I've focused on this topic, so my memory may be a little rusty, but it seemed to me that it was a response to intelligence gathered about an impending technology or knowledge transfer. The alternative, that the whole event was planned years in advance using CGI and crisis actors, makes less sense to me in light of what I view as the facts and uncertainty around the objectives of doing so. 9/11 was clearly part of the problem-reaction-solution framework, where we got the Patriot Act and went to war. Not sure I see the same thing with MH370
Congratulations on disentangling all that detailed information!
Just a few comments:
1. It is perfectly normal for a pilot to practice possible flights on a simulator. Part of the discipline of flying is gathering as much information as possible about one's route and destination, including possible emergency landing sites. For example, you're going to want to know what the field looks like when you get there to facilitate a safe landing. Flight simulators do a good job with that.
2. Primary radar is not typically used by ATC because all the planes have transponders, which is used with what is called secondary radar or ATC Radar Beacon System. Primary radar is rather poor because it is subject to distortion by atmospheric conditions like clouds and temperature inversions. Identifying an aircraft with primary radar is largely limited to factors like speed and altitude. Civilian aircraft AND military aircraft (unless they are sneaking through for some reason) use their transponders continuously through flight and so are easily detected on ATC radar screens. Even those civilian aircraft not controlled by ATC squawk 1200.
3. When transitioning from one ATC to another, it is typically the pilot who initiates contact with ATC, not the other way around. Normally, once the pilot/co-pilot signs off, he or she immediately, within seconds, changes frequency to the new ATC and announces who it is (MH 370 or whatever), the squawk (transponder) code assigned by the prior ATC, heading, altitude, and request for clearance. ACT then responds. If ATC doesn't hear from the pilot, they are unlikely to suspect a problem and reach out, especially if they are busy with other planes. All that to say that at 17:19, whatever happened on the plane happened then and/or one or more of the crew was complicit with whatever happened or they were disabled in some way. There are a number of low tech backup procedures if communications are lost. And high tech, for example, calling ATC with a cell phone.
4. A lot of information is available in this free, downloadable pdf.
I believe there is evidence on Flightradar24 to possibly substantiate the timing of Kates sighting. Later on in the forum (pg 29) 2 flights are listed going overhead at 19:45 UTC. https://cruisersforum.com/forums/f108/i-think-i-saw-mh370-127132-29.html
I agree the satellites were not in position ( had to be 18:40 UTC) to view MH370 if using Kates data. I also agree the viewing angle of the video is incorrect unless it was turning to the north. The video if real would have been taken from another device.
Thank you for adding that. Somehow I missed that flight data. Agree that it may circumstantially support her sighting around 19:45 to 20:10 UTC. The skyvector map didn't show an airway that looked to me like it would be directly above where she was but hard to say for sure. There was also a good point in that thread that her night watch didn't definitively start at 2am. They change posts when tired. She was honest that she had no idea what time it was. Based on the flying times and other data, I'm most comfortable with 20:00ish.
thank you for your effort to shed light on this event
in my idea, our rational faculties, in a context of people - entities - coalescing patterns - egrogores far beyond our comprehension, fall short of comprehending or communicating what factually happened
.
what remains is https://x.com/emilmoller4/status/1738663524220477616?s=20
.
fortunately there are fundamental changes under way, bringing forth life without suffering (but not occasional without pain, this is inevitable)
.
the process resembles labor pains, given humanities addiction to low frequency stuff (Stockholm syndrome)
.
to me, https://burningbright.substack.com/ describes this most eloquently
.
in the mean time, beware of the pied pipers ;) https://emilmoller.substack.com/p/my-experience-with-an-ai-pied-piper
"unless these videos were faked in advance. That seems unlikely given that the mission likely emerged in the days or couple of weeks before execution."
Why does this seem unlikely. Like 9/11, a psy-op of this nature could have been years in planning. It seems very likely to me.
It could all be as fake as the fantasy planes that 'hit' the Twin Towers. In fact, that is the simplest solution. All CGI and crisis actors, as usual.
It's been a while since I've focused on this topic, so my memory may be a little rusty, but it seemed to me that it was a response to intelligence gathered about an impending technology or knowledge transfer. The alternative, that the whole event was planned years in advance using CGI and crisis actors, makes less sense to me in light of what I view as the facts and uncertainty around the objectives of doing so. 9/11 was clearly part of the problem-reaction-solution framework, where we got the Patriot Act and went to war. Not sure I see the same thing with MH370
Congratulations on disentangling all that detailed information!
Just a few comments:
1. It is perfectly normal for a pilot to practice possible flights on a simulator. Part of the discipline of flying is gathering as much information as possible about one's route and destination, including possible emergency landing sites. For example, you're going to want to know what the field looks like when you get there to facilitate a safe landing. Flight simulators do a good job with that.
2. Primary radar is not typically used by ATC because all the planes have transponders, which is used with what is called secondary radar or ATC Radar Beacon System. Primary radar is rather poor because it is subject to distortion by atmospheric conditions like clouds and temperature inversions. Identifying an aircraft with primary radar is largely limited to factors like speed and altitude. Civilian aircraft AND military aircraft (unless they are sneaking through for some reason) use their transponders continuously through flight and so are easily detected on ATC radar screens. Even those civilian aircraft not controlled by ATC squawk 1200.
3. When transitioning from one ATC to another, it is typically the pilot who initiates contact with ATC, not the other way around. Normally, once the pilot/co-pilot signs off, he or she immediately, within seconds, changes frequency to the new ATC and announces who it is (MH 370 or whatever), the squawk (transponder) code assigned by the prior ATC, heading, altitude, and request for clearance. ACT then responds. If ATC doesn't hear from the pilot, they are unlikely to suspect a problem and reach out, especially if they are busy with other planes. All that to say that at 17:19, whatever happened on the plane happened then and/or one or more of the crew was complicit with whatever happened or they were disabled in some way. There are a number of low tech backup procedures if communications are lost. And high tech, for example, calling ATC with a cell phone.
4. A lot of information is available in this free, downloadable pdf.
https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/faa-h-8083-25c.pdf