18 18
quade

DB Cooper

Recommended Posts

ParrotheadVol

The problem Robert, is that there is no evidence whatsoever to back up that story. It's just that...a story. Even if Christiansen and Geestman did disappear that weekend (which I doubt), that does not tie them to the hijacking. It does not even remotely suggest involvement in the hijacking in the slightest way. There is absolutely nothing that suggests they were doing anything other than camping.



There are a few things that point to these guys.

Margie Geestman's claim that her husband WAS involved...in six separate interviews.

Mr Geestman saying on television that Kenny could be Cooper...when he was with Kenny the entire week.

A $5,000 cash loan to Mr Geestman's sister within five months of the hijacking...money there is no way to explain due to his poor income.

The fact that Kenny definitely knew how to use a parachute under difficult conditions...even though he had not done so in a while.

According to Helen Jones, the trailer Mr Geestman bought allegedly for 'camping' was only used twice before it was finally sold. First time was the week of the hijacking, second time was when the Jones' family was allowed to use it while fire repairs were being made on their house in late 1972.

Bernie Geestman's string of lies, all of which attempt to distance himself from any possible involvement in the hijacking.

Florence Schaffner's hesitant identification on KC. She told Geoff Gray that KC's picture was the closest she's ever seen to the hijacker. Gray says her hands started to shake while touching his picture.

There's more, but everyone's heard this all before. The real details are in the KC report anyway.

Let's examine another suspect for a minute. I have a few comments on William Gossett, for example. Besides all the leads that Cook has chased into dead-ends, one of my knocks on Gossett is that he just doesn't resemble the sketch in any reasonable way. Cook has made a habit of using pictures of Gossett for comparisons that were taken long before the date of the hijacking. I will attach one that was taken in May of 1973, just 18 months after the crime. There isn't the slightest resemblance, in my opinion. It also looks like Gossett is missing half of the eyebrow over his left eye, something that would be noticed by anyone looking at him.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have been reading media news about the missing plane - it sounds like Cooper World out there . You read the theories and the supposed facts - and it is just unbelievable.

How in this day and time could a plane just go POOF with no trace? That was NO small plane. No phone messages because they didn't have WiFi systems. Just hope the passengers did NOT know what was going on and that no one died in fear. Better yet, that they find the plane so the families can rest in peace that their loved one is dead or alive.

I cannot even imagine what these families must be going thru....Perhaps we should cease posting until something is reported, because everytime one keys in Skyjack or Skyjacking they are sent to this thread.

Also concerned about what is going on in WA state, but that is insignificant at this time. All any of us can do is PRAY to a higher souce for new information about the missing plane - VERY soon!
Copyright 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 2013, 2014, 2015 by Jo Weber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Blevins: Margie Geestman's claim that her husband WAS involved...in six separate interviews.

Jo has claimed, way more than six times, that Duane was involved. Marla claimed that her uncle was involved. Gossett's family says that he was involved. The Foreman's claim that their close friend Dayton was involved. Why is Margie any different than any of these? She is saying this now, but was she saying it then? I doubt it. Her claim of Geestman's involvement is speculation on her part, with no supporting evidence.

A $5,000 cash loan to Mr Geestman's sister within five months of the hijacking...money there is no way to explain due to his poor income.

Even if true, this does not link him to the hijacking. There are plenty of other ways to get cash than hijacking an airplane. Perhaps he borrowed the cash from someone?

The fact that Kenny definitely knew how to use a parachute under difficult conditions...even though he had not done so in a while.

According to the FBI, this would point away from him being Cooper. In any case, this does not point to KC any more than it does any other paratrooper, especially when considering that KC does not match the description of Dan Cooper.

According to Helen Jones, the trailer Mr Geestman bought allegedly for 'camping' was only used twice before it was finally sold. First time was the week of the hijacking, second time was when the Jones' family was allowed to use it while fire repairs were being made on their house in late 1972.

Again, I fail to see how this connects KC to being DB Cooper. Plenty of people buy things and never use them like they plan on. Happens all the time. I've done it myself.

Bernie Geestman's string of lies, all of which attempt to distance himself from any possible involvement in the hijacking.

Huge assumption here. How do you know that his lies is an attempt to distance himself from any involvement in the hijacking? Perhaps he is distancing himself from something else. Perhaps he is distancing himself from KC. Ask yourself this: Is there anything at all, any other reason, besides the hijacking that would make him want to lie. My guess is that there could be plenty of things. Maybe he's just a liar. That doesn't make him a criminal.

Florence Schaffner's hesitant identification on KC. She told Geoff Gray that KC's picture was the closest she's ever seen to the hijacker. Gray says her hands started to shake while touching his picture.

Schaffner also positively identified Coffelt as the hijacker. And to be fair, she never said Kenny was the guy.

Let's examine another suspect for a minute. I have a few comments on William Gossett, for example. Besides all the leads that Cook has chased into dead-ends, one of my knocks on Gossett is that he just doesn't resemble the sketch in any reasonable way. Cook has made a habit of using pictures of Gossett for comparisons that were taken long before the date of the hijacking. I will attach one that was taken in May of 1973, just 18 months after the crime. There isn't the slightest resemblance, in my opinion. It also looks like Gossett is missing half of the eyebrow over his left eye, something that would be noticed by anyone looking at him.

The later sketch that is used to compare to Gossett is a very good match. Not that it matters, because it don't. Kenny has some baldness going on that isn't depicted on the sketch. I know you answer to that is that Kenny wore a toupee, but ckret also stated earlier in the forum that there was never any mention that Cooper may have been wearing a toupee.

The whole case against Kenny Christiansen is based on a whole bunch of possible, maybe "facts", that even if true, does not connect the guy to the hijacking. There is not one single piece of hard evidence that makes the connection. This is not personal, I just feel that everyone with a suspect should be challenged. Especially if they are moving forward with a screenplay and possible movie that will portray their suspect as a master criminal. A highly slanderous charge, if untrue.

While on the subject I have to ask, when did you move away from "The truth is the only thing that matters with KC", to writing a screenplay depicting KC is Cooper? Even though the FBI has said that he isn't even a suspect.
"They were saying he was never gonna make it now, now that daylight had set in. But later that night, they were shining those lights back down on that mountain again." - Todd Snider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jo wrote
Quote

How in this day and time could a plane just go POOF with no trace?



There will be plenty of traces if it crashed at sea. They just need to look in the right place. There are also acoustic pingers attached to the flight data and cockpit voice recorders. Most have a battery life of roughly 30 days. You have to have hydrophones to hear them and range is only a few miles at best.

http://www.rjeint.com/pdf/DK-100revB.pdf

http://www.rjeint.com/beacons.htm

377
2018 marks half a century as a skydiver. Trained by the late Perry Stevens D-51 in 1968.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
377

Jo wrote

Quote

How in this day and time could a plane just go POOF with no trace?



There will be plenty of traces if it crashed at sea. They just need to look in the right place. There are also acoustic pingers attached to the flight data and cockpit voice recorders. Most have a battery life of roughly 30 days. You have to have hydrophones to hear them and range is only a few miles at best.

http://www.rjeint.com/pdf/DK-100revB.pdf

http://www.rjeint.com/beacons.htm

377



One of the BIG questions that I have not seen asked is this:

If the plane flew on for hours...why didn't a single person ever try using one of the on-board satellite phones? In Boeing 777's that Malaysia Airlines uses, there is sat phone access in Business Class (it's on their website) and it's probably the same thing in First Class. I don't know if this is restricted to a single phone on a wall in each section, or if it is an in-seat feature for these passengers.

Even if the plane was constantly out of cell range, you would think someone would have at least tried to make a sat phone call or IM/email through the onboard wifi. I have also wondered whether this sat-phone system could be disabled from the cockpit. It's just a mystery how a plane could fly along for hours and with today's travelers...hell, half of them are on the laptop checking their email or on their smart phones. Yet...not a single peep, a single email, call, NOTHING. For hours? These planes are connected to the internet, (edit: at least for email).

It's just weird. And I think they are doing the right thing by starting to look at the pilot and co-pilot. It's possible that hijackers could have disabled all these systems if they had the proper flight training, but if this flight was diverted it seems like it was done by the pilots themselves.

Transponder switched off just minutes after the plane's last communication. Then the ACARS system turned off. No emails, IM's, anything from the economy class passengers that anything was wrong. No sat phone calls from business or First Class, as if all internet or access via the sat phones was disabled, and quickly. Imagine a takeover done by outside hijackers. In this case, you are trying to gain control of nearly 300 people. There will be screaming, panic, some people will start making calls, doing emails, whatever. Instead, stealthy silence from the plane and absolutely NO outside coms. This sounds more like the pilots disabling all outside communications, sat phones and internet access, and then perhaps telling the passengers 'sorry the system has gone down'. Like your cable company does. THEN they divert the flight west. Otherwise, chances are almost certain that someone would have gotten out a message or two before the hijackers can collect phones and gain total control. Remember Flight 93? The coms back then were not as good as now, but people got out calls and messages anyway.

I think it's possible this plane was STOLEN, no kidding. Not hijacked exactly, but PIRATED. And done in a rather sneaky and planned fashion. And right now it could be sitting in a hangar in SE Iran, via going over the ocean around the south side of India and then NW to Iran. Either that or something went wrong and it crashed into the Indian Ocean.

Slight Edit: A caveat. According to the Malaysian Airlines website, this is the satellite-based com capability offered to First Class and Business passengers. (There is no mention of Economy class having direct internet access)

Quote

'Stay connected
Communicate with loved ones or workmates via calls or text messages using your seat entertainment controller that also works as an air-to-ground phone. You can even send and receive emails mid-flight...'




Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RobertMBlevins

***Jo wrote

Quote

How in this day and time could a plane just go POOF with no trace?



There will be plenty of traces if it crashed at sea. They just need to look in the right place. There are also acoustic pingers attached to the flight data and cockpit voice recorders. Most have a battery life of roughly 30 days. You have to have hydrophones to hear them and range is only a few miles at best.

http://www.rjeint.com/pdf/DK-100revB.pdf

http://www.rjeint.com/beacons.htm

377


One of the BIG questions that I have not seen asked is this:

If the plane flew on for hours...why didn't a single person ever try using one of the on-board satellite phones? In Boeing 777's that Malaysia Airlines uses, there is sat phone access in Business Class (it's on their website) and it's probably the same thing in First Class. I don't know if this is restricted to a single phone on a wall in each section, or if it is an in-seat feature for these passengers.

Even if the plane was constantly out of cell range, you would think someone would have at least tried to make a sat phone call or IM/email through the onboard wifi. I have also wondered whether this sat-phone system could be disabled from the cockpit. It's just a mystery how a plane could fly along for hours and with today's travelers...hell, half of them are on the laptop checking their email or on their smart phones. Yet...not a single peep, a single email, call, NOTHING. For hours? These planes are connected to the internet.

It's just weird. And I think they are doing the right thing by starting to look at the pilot and co-pilot. It's possible that hijackers could have disabled all these systems if they had the proper flight training, but if this flight was diverted it seems like it was done by the pilots themselves.

Transponder switched off just minutes after the plane's last communication. Then the ACARS system turned off. No emails, IM's, anything from the economy class passengers that anything was wrong. No sat phone calls from business or First Class, as if all internet or access via the sat phones was disabled, and quickly. Imagine a takeover done by outside hijackers. In this case, you are trying to gain control of nearly 300 people. There will be screaming, panic, some people will start making calls, doing emails, whatever. Instead, stealthy silence from the plane and absolutely NO outside coms. This sounds more like the pilots disabling all outside communications, sat phones and internet access, and then perhaps telling the passengers 'sorry the system has gone down'. Like your cable company does. THEN they divert the flight west. Otherwise, chances are almost certain that someone would have gotten out a message or two before the hijackers can collect phones and gain total control. Remember Flight 93? The coms back then were not as good as now, but people got out calls and messages anyway.

I think it's possible this plane was STOLEN, no kidding. Not hijacked exactly, but PIRATED. And done in a rather sneaky and planned fashion. And right now it could be sitting in a hangar in SE Iran, via going over the ocean around the south side of India and then NW to Iran. Either that or something went wrong and it crashed into the Indian Ocean.

Slight Edit: A caveat. According to the Malaysian Airlines website, this is the satellite-based com capability offered to First Class and Business passengers. (There is no mention of Economy class having direct internet access)

Quote

'Stay connected
Communicate with loved ones or workmates via calls or text messages using your seat entertainment controller that also works as an air-to-ground phone. You can even send and receive emails mid-flight...'



BS!

Blevins, why don't you call in your ACARS technical info to
Rockwell at Cedar Rapids - here's the number: 319-295-1000.
Be sure to give them your full name and contact info - :D:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have an VHF ACARS decoder Georger. Mine is hardware based. There are modern software based decoders that use your computer sound card. Cheap. http://www.airnavsystems.com/ACARS/

Range on my ACARS reception is about 250 miles max for high flying aircraft. There are HF ACARS systems but I have not checked out if it's used much. SAT comms have put a big dent in HF traffic but I still hear trans oceanic airliners giving position reports on HF. http://www.hamuniverse.com/aerofreq.html

Want something really cool? Check this out. It's not really radar but rather a transponder receiver-decoder that can be assembled dirt cheap. http://www.rtl-sdr.com/adsb-aircraft-radar-with-rtl-sdr/

377
2018 marks half a century as a skydiver. Trained by the late Perry Stevens D-51 in 1968.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RobertMBlevins

***Jo wrote

Quote

How in this day and time could a plane just go POOF with no trace?



There will be plenty of traces if it crashed at sea. They just need to look in the right place. There are also acoustic pingers attached to the flight data and cockpit voice recorders. Most have a battery life of roughly 30 days. You have to have hydrophones to hear them and range is only a few miles at best.

http://www.rjeint.com/pdf/DK-100revB.pdf

http://www.rjeint.com/beacons.htm

377



One of the BIG questions that I have not seen asked is this:

If the plane flew on for hours...why didn't a single person ever try using one of the on-board satellite phones? In Boeing 777's that Malaysia Airlines uses, there is sat phone access in Business Class (it's on their website) and it's probably the same thing in First Class. I don't know if this is restricted to a single phone on a wall in each section, or if it is an in-seat feature for these passengers.

Even if the plane was constantly out of cell range, you would think someone would have at least tried to make a sat phone call or IM/email through the onboard wifi. I have also wondered whether this sat-phone system could be disabled from the cockpit. It's just a mystery how a plane could fly along for hours and with today's travelers...hell, half of them are on the laptop checking their email or on their smart phones. Yet...not a single peep, a single email, call, NOTHING. For hours? These planes are connected to the internet.

It's just weird. And I think they are doing the right thing by starting to look at the pilot and co-pilot. It's possible that hijackers could have disabled all these systems if they had the proper flight training, but if this flight was diverted it seems like it was done by the pilots themselves.

Transponder switched off just minutes after the plane's last communication. Then the ACARS system turned off. No emails, IM's, anything from the economy class passengers that anything was wrong. No sat phone calls from business or First Class, as if all internet or access via the sat phones was disabled, and quickly. Imagine a takeover done by outside hijackers. In this case, you are trying to gain control of nearly 300 people. There will be screaming, panic, some people will start making calls, doing emails, whatever. Instead, stealthy silence from the plane and absolutely NO outside coms. This sounds more like the pilots disabling all outside communications, sat phones and internet access, and then perhaps telling the passengers 'sorry the system has gone down'. Like your cable company does. THEN they divert the flight west. Otherwise, chances are almost certain that someone would have gotten out a message or two before the hijackers can collect phones and gain total control. Remember Flight 93? The coms back then were not as good as now, but people got out calls and messages anyway.

I think it's possible this plane was STOLEN, no kidding. Not hijacked exactly, but PIRATED. And done in a rather sneaky and planned fashion. And right now it could be sitting in a hangar in SE Iran, via going over the ocean around the south side of India and then NW to Iran. Either that or something went wrong and it crashed into the Indian Ocean.

Slight Edit: A caveat. According to the Malaysian Airlines website, this is the satellite-based com capability offered to First Class and Business passengers. (There is no mention of Economy class having direct internet access)

Quote

'Stay connected
Communicate with loved ones or workmates via calls or text messages using your seat entertainment controller that also works as an air-to-ground phone. You can even send and receive emails mid-flight...'



Actually some site did talk about this and I believe the consensus was that in-flight passenger communication is controllable. Malaysian authorities are essentially saying now that this is a passenger or crew hijacking and/or act of piracy piracy -- and two separate communication systems were cut off deliberately 14 mins apart. To me, it would come as no surprise that in-flight phones would be cut off (if they even worked to begin with - have you ever tried one? The last time I paid extra for inflight internet it didn't work. Additionally, the ones that I've seen aren't available generally until a certain altitude and cruising has commenced so that alone makes me think that it is controllable from the cockpit. I also think Flight 93 might have been a little different being primarily over land and periodically over heavily commercialized and populated areas with probably more coverage.

But like you, my knowledge is only coming from opinion and what we read and hear from a dozen different sources that change hourly and not from any expertise of the subject matter.
but....A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.....Winston Churchill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Georger says in part:

Quote

'BS!

Blevins, why don't you call in your ACARS technical info to
Rockwell at Cedar Rapids - here's the number: 319-295-1000.
Be sure to give them your full name and contact info -



Not really sure which part you are referring to when you say 'BS'. It's a fairly long post. You'll have to be more specific.

BBC report, one hour ago, partial excerpt:

Quote

'The new satellite information, Najib said, leads authorities to be fairly certain that someone disabled the Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System, or ACARS, just before the aircraft reached the east coast of peninsular Malaysia.

"Shortly afterward, near the border between Malaysian and Vietnamese air traffic control," Najib said, "the aircraft's transponder was switched off."



Then...you have other reports saying ACARS wasn't turned off. But still, it's true there were no satellite phone calls made from the aircraft, and it's also true that there is sat phone access in Business and First Class, as I said. And anyone can use their game/video controllers to email back and forth from the ground in both those seating classes. No one did. (The Malaysia website says you can email anyone in the world from that controller.) That was the main point of my previous post, i.e. that there was certain access available to some passengers, even WITHOUT a cell signal, but no one attempted any messages. As if they couldn't, or as if someone disabled all coms onboard in use by passengers, the ones provided by the airline.

As Spock said in Star Trek - The Wrath of Khan:

Quote

'There are only two possibilities. They are unable to respond, or they are unwilling to respond...' ;)



Smokin99 says in part:

Quote

'Actually some site did talk about this and I believe the consensus was that in-flight passenger communication is controllable. Malaysian authorities are essentially saying now that this is a passenger or crew hijacking and/or act of piracy piracy -- and two separate communication systems were cut off deliberately 14 mins apart. To me, it would come as no surprise that in-flight phones would be cut off (if they even worked to begin with - have you ever tried one? The last time I paid extra for inflight internet it didn't work. Additionally, the ones that I've seen aren't available generally until a certain altitude and cruising has commenced so that alone makes me think that it is controllable from the cockpit. I also think Flight 93 might have been a little different being primarily over land and periodically over heavily commercialized and populated areas with probably more coverage.

But like you, my knowledge is only coming from opinion and what we read and hear from a dozen different sources that change hourly and not from any expertise of the subject matter...'



I will certainly agree. The reports are extremely conflicting sometimes. One recent report claims that for the part of the flight where they were headed west, that the maneuvers indicate a purposeful effort to avoid radar from the mainland countries. I don't know...

It really bothers me that if this were a forceful, dramatic takeover of the plane, that not ONE SINGLE PEEP went out from that aircraft from any passenger. It's almost like the crew cut everything off in a very sneaky, very quiet way. You know...maybe like this...

Quote

"Ladies and gentlemen. We apologize for any inconvenience ('cause your game controllers won't email and you can't make calls on them) due to some minor electrical issues. We are diverting to...'(maybe SW Iran, but maybe we won't make it and end up crashing)



And then a few hours of whatever. That's the big mystery. The whatever. It's also possible that this jet WAS in cell range if it DID actually go back over Malaysia. And if it was a violent takeover at the time the coms were switched off...why no one attempted any cell calls from tourist class.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only comm systems that cannot be shut off from the cockpit are the ELT crash beacon and the acoustic locator pinger attached to the flight data recorder. Both have internal batteries that are not connected to the aircraft power buss.

The ELT is usually activated by a G impact switch in a crash. The pinger is activated by a submersion switch.

377
2018 marks half a century as a skydiver. Trained by the late Perry Stevens D-51 in 1968.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ParrotheadVol

Blevins: Margie Geestman's claim that her husband WAS involved...in six separate interviews.

Jo has claimed, way more than six times, that Duane was involved. Marla claimed that her uncle was involved. Gossett's family says that he was involved. The Foreman's claim that their close friend Dayton was involved. Why is Margie any different than any of these? She is saying this now, but was she saying it then? I doubt it. Her claim of Geestman's involvement is speculation on her part, with no supporting evidence.

A $5,000 cash loan to Mr Geestman's sister within five months of the hijacking...money there is no way to explain due to his poor income.

Even if true, this does not link him to the hijacking. There are plenty of other ways to get cash than hijacking an airplane. Perhaps he borrowed the cash from someone?

The fact that Kenny definitely knew how to use a parachute under difficult conditions...even though he had not done so in a while.

According to the FBI, this would point away from him being Cooper. In any case, this does not point to KC any more than it does any other paratrooper, especially when considering that KC does not match the description of Dan Cooper.

According to Helen Jones, the trailer Mr Geestman bought allegedly for 'camping' was only used twice before it was finally sold. First time was the week of the hijacking, second time was when the Jones' family was allowed to use it while fire repairs were being made on their house in late 1972.

Again, I fail to see how this connects KC to being DB Cooper. Plenty of people buy things and never use them like they plan on. Happens all the time. I've done it myself.

Bernie Geestman's string of lies, all of which attempt to distance himself from any possible involvement in the hijacking.

Huge assumption here. How do you know that his lies is an attempt to distance himself from any involvement in the hijacking? Perhaps he is distancing himself from something else. Perhaps he is distancing himself from KC. Ask yourself this: Is there anything at all, any other reason, besides the hijacking that would make him want to lie. My guess is that there could be plenty of things. Maybe he's just a liar. That doesn't make him a criminal.

Florence Schaffner's hesitant identification on KC. She told Geoff Gray that KC's picture was the closest she's ever seen to the hijacker. Gray says her hands started to shake while touching his picture.

Schaffner also positively identified Coffelt as the hijacker. And to be fair, she never said Kenny was the guy.

Let's examine another suspect for a minute. I have a few comments on William Gossett, for example. Besides all the leads that Cook has chased into dead-ends, one of my knocks on Gossett is that he just doesn't resemble the sketch in any reasonable way. Cook has made a habit of using pictures of Gossett for comparisons that were taken long before the date of the hijacking. I will attach one that was taken in May of 1973, just 18 months after the crime. There isn't the slightest resemblance, in my opinion. It also looks like Gossett is missing half of the eyebrow over his left eye, something that would be noticed by anyone looking at him.

The later sketch that is used to compare to Gossett is a very good match. Not that it matters, because it don't. Kenny has some baldness going on that isn't depicted on the sketch. I know you answer to that is that Kenny wore a toupee, but ckret also stated earlier in the forum that there was never any mention that Cooper may have been wearing a toupee.

The whole case against Kenny Christiansen is based on a whole bunch of possible, maybe "facts", that even if true, does not connect the guy to the hijacking. There is not one single piece of hard evidence that makes the connection. This is not personal, I just feel that everyone with a suspect should be challenged. Especially if they are moving forward with a screenplay and possible movie that will portray their suspect as a master criminal. A highly slanderous charge, if untrue.

While on the subject I have to ask, when did you move away from "The truth is the only thing that matters with KC", to writing a screenplay depicting KC is Cooper? Even though the FBI has said that he isn't even a suspect.



Lol...Parrothead, you are wasting your bandwidth and risking carpal tunnel for nothing. Most of the folks with a pet "suspect" cannot admit the truth.
If it's got a bill, likes the water, quacks, and is named Daffy, it could still be a chicken if you'd only listen to their list of reasons why it could be - even though they have to circumvent the globe to go from point a to point b. And most will not entertain the suggestion that THIS was more than likely a result of THAT and had absolutely nothing to do with a hijacking.

Fraid the G man had this one nailed . All we've got are a bunch of stories and speculation about (mostly) dead people with, so far, nary a bonafide, verifiable claim to be found. B|:D ...but where there's life, there's hope.
but....A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.....Winston Churchill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
377

The only comm systems that cannot be shut off from the cockpit are the ELT crash beacon and the acoustic locator pinger attached to the flight data recorder. Both have internal batteries that are not connected to the aircraft power buss.

The ELT is usually activated by a G impact switch in a crash. The pinger is activated by a submersion switch.

377



Yeah. It's hard to believe a violent takeover PRIOR to the time the transponder was switched off. Especially if you find out the plane DID cross back over a part of Malaysia (temporarily regaining cell signal) and went west into the Indian Ocean. (cell signal probably lost) SOMEONE out of those 200+ passengers is going to try and ET Phone Home.

Not a frickin' peep out of anyone. Maybe the passengers were not worried at that point, thought everything was normal except the sat service was down. It's suspicious, and I think it points to crew involvement, at least one of them. If the story is true about rapid changes in altitude, etc this could point to a conflict between the crew members. Or if only the crew was involved, passengers attempting to enter the cockpit.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RobertMBlevins



And then a few hours of whatever. That's the big mystery. The whatever. It's also possible that this jet WAS in cell range if it DID actually go back over Malaysia. And if it was a violent takeover at the time the coms were switched off...why no one attempted any cell calls from tourist class.



They have also said that purposeful maneuvers of the plane could have caused temporary disorientation or blackout or enough confusion to give whoever time to take over.

While we are speculating, I have wondered - just wondered - if someone could have sabotaged/ hacked into the airplane's computers. I don't even know if this is possible except in the movies....377?
but....A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.....Winston Churchill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The conspiracy nuts will like this. The plane has already been stripped. The Israelis got the flight data recorder. The parts are available on eBay. See attached. :)
377

2018 marks half a century as a skydiver. Trained by the late Perry Stevens D-51 in 1968.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you so much for pointing these things out to Blevins, Your post is worth a repeat & repeat over and over. In fact maybe it should be echoed every time Blevins keeps on keeping on with the same old same old.

As tiring as my posting have been for some of you - I do not just repeat the same old same old over and over! Most postings are original and NOT copies of other posting I have done in the past.

Maybe we should repeat your post everytime Blevins makes a statement.
Just playing around on the computer today - I noted that when you key in D.B.Cooper - you get Blevins over & over & over...Nothing on Weber!

I just shrugged my shoulder because they were Blevins own pages he created & I have never ever done that. He makes sure if you key in D.B.Cooper you will get KC over and over and over - & they are pages he created. What does that tell you - it is all about promotion and selling his book - probagating a scam?

If for NO OTHER REASON than to get Blevins to shut up - I wish the FBI would suddenly find another reason to look back at Weber.... ALL I do is talk about Weber versus Cooper in this thread & in personal emails with others who have helped me with things -NOT all over the internet media.
Copyright 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 2013, 2014, 2015 by Jo Weber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really, Jo? I make up all the Cooper pages? They're all about KC?

I don't think so. See attached picture from my 30-second google search...;)

Weber is extremely well-represented on the internet going back more than a dozen years, and that was just the FIRST page of many.

On the Malaysia Airlines front: I keep wondering whether the flight's intended destination could have been changed to Bandar Abbas International Airport in Iran. The runway is plenty long enough there for a 777. It is located on the southern edge of Iran. (See attached map)



Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
georger


Blevins, why don't you call in your ACARS technical info to
Rockwell at Cedar Rapids - here's the number: 319-295-1000.
Be sure to give them your full name and contact info - :D:D



I love U guys tonight. Some of us made short casual comments about the missing plane - and then BLEVINS does a detailed know it all essay! Whew!

I don't feel so well tonight - definitely don't feel like dealing with Blevins. I don't know if it is the screen - stars & zigzags & my head hurts. I pulled the ice mask and if that doesn't help think I will just go to bed

GOOD NIGHT!
Copyright 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 2013, 2014, 2015 by Jo Weber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
377


Want something really cool? Check this out. It's not really radar but rather a transponder receiver-decoder that can be assembled dirt cheap. http://www.rtl-sdr.com/adsb-aircraft-radar-with-rtl-sdr/

377



Trying to read the rest of the posting.
Was there anything like that in 1971 - of course I have not a clue what you are talking about!
Copyright 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 2013, 2014, 2015 by Jo Weber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RobertMBlevins

Really, Jo? I make up all the Cooper pages? They're all about KC?

I don't think so. See attached picture from my 30-second google search...;)

Weber is extremely well-represented on the internet going back more than a dozen years, and that was just the FIRST page of many.



YOU are SMART enough to know anyone researching Cooper - keys in D.B. Cooper not DAN Cooper!
Copyright 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 2013, 2014, 2015 by Jo Weber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Amazon

If you turn off the people... they will certainly not respond.

45000' is some pretty thin stuff and you are gone pretty quick.. Its not painful... you just black out.



Damn...that's extreme. Do you think they would be willing to murder over 200 passengers like that? Sure, they could do it, but geez.

Another possible destination could have been the Maldives. It's out there in the middle of nowhere south of Sri Lanka, and strictly sharia-Muslim law there. Forbidden to practice any other religion. I don't have a problem with Muslim religion, but it might be a friendly stop or a possible destination. Malaysia Airlines also serves the place. Only problem is that they would have been seen, almost without a doubt. Lot of people there on a LOT of islands.

You have to think there is a purpose to even taking the aircraft. What was the motivation? Piracy, theft? Killing a bunch of Chinese passengers? (not real smart if you get caught) If it was a terrorist act, why weren't there any demands made? Why has no one taken responsibility?

Pilot suicide has been mentioned, but in that case why would the pilot feel the need to hide the plane from view? Or fly along for hours first? If he wanted to kill himself he could just do that without a whole lot of trouble and hours of flying off-course. Anybody asked the Iranian government officially if this plane landed at the Bandar Abbas Airport? Not that they would tell the truth, but I would ask officially anyway.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyjack71

***
Want something really cool? Check this out. It's not really radar but rather a transponder receiver-decoder that can be assembled dirt cheap. http://www.rtl-sdr.com/adsb-aircraft-radar-with-rtl-sdr/

377



Trying to read the rest of the posting.
Was there anything like that in 1971 - of course I have not a clue what you are talking about!

No Jo. Not in 71. Not even close.

377
2018 marks half a century as a skydiver. Trained by the late Perry Stevens D-51 in 1968.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What the hell...I tossed another theory into the mix regarding MA-370. Seemed as good as any of the others, and a bit less alien-oriented than some I've read this week. B|

EDIT: I already had to modify the article heavily, due to new developments. Iran is now offering assistance. Link at the bottom of the article.



Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
377

The only comm systems that cannot be shut off from the cockpit are the ELT crash beacon and the acoustic locator pinger attached to the flight data recorder. Both have internal batteries that are not connected to the aircraft power buss.

The ELT is usually activated by a G impact switch in a crash. The pinger is activated by a submersion switch.

377



There seems as usual to be a lot of back story bloviation going
on without any real understanding of the facts involved, or any
attempt to get those facts?

Key point 1: The transponders have nothing to do with the
satellite communications system.

Key point 2: ACARS is an “app” (communications protocol) which
can operate over different (satellite, VHF, and UHF) communi-
cations links involving different devices-equipment.

Key point 3: ACARS reporting can be disconnected, in a sense,
but does not affect the underlying satellite communications link
so long as the devices involved HAVE NOT been disconnected
which is virtually impossible to do short of removing vital aircraft
functions also, in the 777.

Key point 4: The “satellite pings” are due to the Inmarsat
network checking that the ACARS terminal on board the aircraft
is still connected to the Inmarsat satellite system and the
"terminal" responds in the affirmative.

Key point 5: The “satellite pings” indicate the plane is in a cell,
but do not intrinsically give specific position and altitude or other
information, unless that level of subscription applies to the
service but any response involves the ACARS system - which
indicates vital functions of the aircraft were working for several
hours.

Key point 6: The 777 ACARS “satellite pings” were exchanged
with the Inmarsat 3F1 satellite at 64E longitude through the
global beam. However, it is unlikely that the measurements are
more accurate than within say 100 miles.

Key point 7: The position of the aircraft is being estimated based
on the signal timing/power measured at the satellite. Its not
based on the data content of any message and is not highly
accurate.

Key point 8: Of considerable interest is the large lithium battery
shipment in the cargo hold of this plane. Lithium battery fires
have been an issue in the past and might explain facts that are
emerging.

For example: The data reporting system was affected first at
about 1.07 am while the transponder was not affected until
1.21 am just after the the pilot signed off to Malaysian air traffic
controllers. This could indicate a chain of events unfolding which
the pilots were not aware of until the transponder and flight
comms ceased suddenly. However that is even at question
because apparently backup systems were not utilized that we
know if. Its a open question we think."
TMF Associates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

18 18