A NEW Trace! The FULL MH370 Story...So Far.

Testing at 1-GHz using ADSB will act very differently as compared with high frequencies used by WSPR; 1-GHz has very short wavelengths and reflects differently than the much longer wavelength WSPR frequencies. Note that intercept radar use very short wavelengths (GHz frequencies) most of the time today for a reason, that is resolution. Also, for those mathematically inclined, f(doppler) = 2 * Velocity(aircraft)* COS(theta - angle of intercept) * [frequency(transmitter)/speed of light] in Hertz. Therefore, you can see doppler is directly proportional to frequency.

Furthermore, the WSPR dataset includes only the result over the 1:50-second interval. You cannot parse out the microsecond-to-microsecond frequency shifts, that is , doppler, without that data. Also, many WSPR operators are not time-locked to Stratum 1 clocks; the result is slightly inaccurate timing and frequency center. My WSPR transmitters are all GPS-3D-Fixed (slaved) using the 1PPS pulse to ensure timing and frequency; about half of my receivers, in contrast, are GPS-fixed. The non-GPS-locked receivers use NTP to keep the Raspberry Pi clocks fairly accurate. So my transmit WSPR data is nano-second accurate but my receivers may not be.

This may be more than you want to know. I am just illustrating the facts behind my statement that the WSPR database should not be used, or cannot be used, to determine anything but propagation paths and relative signal strengths.

I can partially test it now with aircraft flying overhead here. I have 100,000's of daily hits to my fixed ADSB receiver with constant daytime air traffic flying from Atlanta to the Florida beaches, day and night east-west traffic to south Florida, and the consistent overflights of rotary-wing students from Fort Rucker (yeah, I know, it has a new girlly name). The biggest problem with aircraft is the Doppler shift caused by the motion of the aircraft; and the faster it goes, the more the frequency shift outside the very narrow WSPR bandwidth window ( a few Hertz wide ).

They have done that already. A problem is how chaotic the ocean currents are/were in that area. The wide area of recovered debris illustrates how difficult that would be.

So, please explain confirmed torn off and damaged parts of the aircraft washing up on shore.

Michael, I watched the MP video and at the six minute mark he states: "On the landing, we always select reverse thrust, always." That seems to contradict your claim regarding only using RT on slippery runways.

MP does appear to have misspoken at 1:55 when he stated: "If it's on a dry runway, the thrust reversers doesn't reduce the landing distance at all." As per NASA Technical Memorandum 109158 (Introduction): "The decelerating forces available on current commercial transports consist of wheel brakes, aerodynamic braking (such as flaps and speedbrakes) and thrust reversers. As shown in figure 1, the contribution of thrust reversers in terms of decreased stopping distance is small on a dry runway, but can be significant on contaminated runways when wheel braking effectiveness is greatly diminished." Looking at figure 1, the difference is indeed small on a dry runway, practically nil. I'll link to the document so you can see for yourself.

Thank you for your comment, it lead to my learning something new today. My fact check on MP's comment is that he was "mostly correct" but technically in error.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19950014289/downloads/19950014289.pdf

I’m not sure why the post was downvoted. I havn’t got through all your links yet but intend on checking them out when I GST time. Thanks for the post and the links.

I agree. Petter researches thoroughly and always lists his source. You plagiarize when you use the words of others and claim them as yours. People should look up the definition of plagiarism before accusing someone of doing that. That's the entire reason that Petter waited so long to voice his opinion on the matter. He wanted to give the facts AS THEY HAVE BEEN REPORTED, and not just add to the speculation of existing hypothesis.

If you cared about facts, you would know it was daylight when the plane contacted the water.
But you don't, so.. have fun Timmy?

The Indian ocean is plenty big enough for two parties to meet up with nobody else seeing, and searching/verifying privacy would explain the figure 8's. or perhaps burning off altitude without wandering too far.

The US military regularly does arctic exercises where planes meet up on the ice sheet where a submarine will pop up through the ice. That sounds harder to me than in the open water where they could just set off a smoke signal or a flare. Though I'd bet they used military radios.

I doubt the goal of the MH370 was for one pilot to disappear.

There were probably some passengers that someone (or some government agency) wanted dead though, in a way that wouldn't look targeted at them specifically. A lot of possible people on that plane. Someone aboard had information or evidence that some government wanted gone. This has happened several times before albeit with smaller vehicles.

We JUST saw that the US government was willing to invest in a three year long operation to (try to) insert a backdoor in all GNU+Linux computers (libxz). I'm sure whoever did MH370 would plan even longer for something that big.

Passenger oxygen masks are for feel good theater and not designed or intended to sustain life above 25,000 feet. The problem is not the lack of oxygen. It's the lack of pressure to move the oxygen into your blood cells. The passenger masks, if used properly, provide an extra oxygen flow for 22 minutes or so to allow time for an aircraft to descend to a livable pressure altitude. If the aircraft doesn't descend as MH370 didn't, it does not matter how much oxygen you breathe in, it isn't going into your system and you will lose consciousness and ultimately die. A properly trained pilot with a cockpit mask which is capable of providing oxygen under pressure can easily outlive everyone else before descending for their own comfort or repressurizing the aircraft.

Some of the pieces recovered were bulkhead, galley, and seat pieces from inside the aircraft. Those only come out with violent breakup. There most likely was a lot of floating debris after impact but by the time searchers reached the middle of the Indian Ocean nothing was left. It's amazing that any of it made it to a beach.

Only thing is; to have a “gentle” impact in water to keep it in a decent enough condition to not break completely apart would require a skilled pilot to pull off. And if so; why didn’t anyone get out on rafts? Was everyone except the pilot already deceased at that point? Just very strange whatever the reason…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIjICTMKqUA