Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Skepticism Grows Over Claims That MH370 Lies In the Bay of Bengal

timothy posted about 3 months ago | from the homeopathic-jet-fuel dept.

The Media 126

Sockatume (732728) writes "The latest episode of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Mediawatch program addresses GeoResonance's claims to have found the lost Malasia Airlines MH370 in the Bay of Bengal. They attribute the company's sudden prominence to increasing desperation amongst the press. Meanwhile, the Metabunk web site has been digging into the people and technology behind GeoResonance and its international siblings, finding noted pseudoscientist Vitaly Gokh and a dubious variation on Kirlian photography."

cancel ×

126 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Where's Waldo? (4, Insightful)

p51d007 (656414) | about 3 months ago | (#46927503)

The poor families of those that were on this airplane. If it wasn't for that aspect, the media "coverage" of this would be a huge joke.

Re:Where's Waldo? (4, Interesting)

jerpyro (926071) | about 3 months ago | (#46927591)

Yeah I don't really understand what the big deal is. I realize that there are a lot of families that may be suffering but because they were on an airplane it is somehow more newsworthy than a cruise ship with 10 times as many people, or genocide in Malaysia or doctors being killed giving polio vaccines in Afghanistan? Oh it's an airplane, let's tap into the 9/11 terrorist fear mongering so that we can get ratings!

*sigh*

Re:Where's journalism? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46927653)

The deal is that CNN has become a massive piece of shit. I have no idea either why this plane has translated to huge ratings, but it's a sad state of affairs when the news, which is supposed to tell the public what it needs to know, instead tells it what it WANTS to know-- which is apparently pandering, sensationalist, exploitative bullshit.

Bread and circuses. Watching these people who went to journalism school cover the missing plane, you can see their souls dying and the spark of integrity extinguished from their eyes.

The line differentiating magazine tabloids and CNN has blurred so badly in the last oh, 2 years (coinciding with this waste of space [wikipedia.org] , btw), and CNN has completely trashed its brand, but does news have to be this slimy and gross to survive?

Re:Where's journalism? (5, Insightful)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 3 months ago | (#46927737)

The problem is 24 hour news stations. It would take a global army of non-lazy old-school journalists to get enough fresh content for a 24 hour news station (costing tens of millions of dollars in salaries alone - coming straight out of some exec's megayacht fund!), and then a lot of people wouldn't care about news of what's happening in some place that has no relevance to their lives so it wouldn't pay off.

So news stations are always hungry for generic filler content (human interest stories, or intense discussion over inconsequential BS such as almost everything on MH370), and when they're not, they spend their time trying to whip up interest over something people don't currently care about one iota - the Blackfish movie is a perfect example. Funded by and premiered on CNN. They throw these things at the wall often but most don't stick, and amount to nothing but more filler content, which is OK for them.

Re:Where's journalism? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46927867)

But the plane wasn't filler-- it dominated their 24-hour network for months. They sold it as a thriller mystery. It pushed out all kinds of real news-- the invasion in Ukraine, for example.

The plane episode to me really was the symbolic death rattle for mainstream American news media, a clear message that it is completely dead. We deserve much better-- as the last superpower (at least for another few years) it should be the citizen's duty to stay well-informed, but we're so ill-served by the mass media and have accepted/embraced this cartoonish excuse for news-- it's setting the stage for serious and dramatic systemic problems in our democracy.

I remember the shock right after 9/11 when we heard how those "backwards" middle eastern countries like Saudi Arabia believed the attack was perpetrated by the Israelis. And everyone in the US was laughing at how uninformed and ignorant those fools were, but of course they're ruled by dictatorships and have no free media, not like us.

Then like 3 years later a huge majority of Americans thought 9/11 was Iraq's doing. So who are the fools?

This plane thing is an insult and an attack on the very notion of an informed public. The fact that CNN's ratings exploded is as much an indictment of the public itself-- if we wanted something close to actual news enough to watch it, they'd give it to us... So for me, this plane is the symbolic end of a free press in America in any kind of corporate, institutional form. Maybe it died a long time ago, but for me, this travesty really sealed CNN's reputation as just not giving any kind of fuck in the most apparent and sad way.

blame who (2)

tleaf100 (2020038) | about 3 months ago | (#46928173)

you keep blaming your american news services of reporting crap,so stop using them,do what others do,look else where and try to get news from as many different sources as possible,most folk can afford internet access

Re:Where's journalism? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46928185)

The problem is 24 hour news stations. It would take a global army of non-lazy old-school journalists to get enough fresh content for a 24 hour news station (costing tens of millions of dollars in salaries alone - coming straight out of some exec's megayacht fund!), and then a lot of people wouldn't care about news of what's happening in some place that has no relevance to their lives so it wouldn't pay off.

So news stations are always hungry for generic filler content (human interest stories, or intense discussion over inconsequential BS such as almost everything on MH370), and when they're not, they spend their time trying to whip up interest over something people don't currently care about one iota - the Blackfish movie is a perfect example. Funded by and premiered on CNN. They throw these things at the wall often but most don't stick, and amount to nothing but more filler content, which is OK for them.

Typical of the Liberal Press.

They should have been devoting all that coverage to something that people really care about: Benghazi.

Re:Where's journalism? (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 3 months ago | (#46932973)

Don't be silly. Most Americans don't even know who Ben Ghazi is.

Re:Where's journalism? (4, Interesting)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 3 months ago | (#46928267)

That doesn't really explain CNN's obsession with mh370 though: CNN's nonstop coverage of "A plane is missing" has been going on for months. In that time, Ebola has broken out, some celebrity somewhere has undoubtedly died, and Russia invaded Ukraine. Yet CNN KEEPS coming back to "BREAKING FUCKING NEWS, HOLD ON TO YOUR SEAT: THE PLANE!!! IT'S STILL MISSING!!!" It's clearly not about filler. Ebola would have made a much sexier story. Since it's all pundits, they wouldn't need to change anything, just ask the people in front of the camera to speculate on whether we're all going to die of Ebola rather than where they think the plane crashed.

At this point, I think CNN is staying with the flight because they think anyone still watching CNN is actually hooked on the dizzying highs that come along with watching yet another computer generated line over the indian ocean while some self-proclaimed expert on airplanes guesses about what was going on when the plane hit the water. Meanwhile people who actually want to know the news have switched over to the internet. It's the same approach other specialized cable channels are taking: The Learning Channel has realized that anyone who wants to learn anything tuned out long ago, but they can cling to some viewers with stupid shows like Honey Boo Boo. Not just filling time: addictive to some moron with eyeballs.

Ratings (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46928501)

The plane is getting the ratings - thats the explaination.

Just as with Fox's obsession with Benghazi. All the old people watching Fox News need something that "proves" Obama stinks and considering the fialings in his admin (NSA spying for one), it kind gives you an idea the values of that generation.

Re:Where's journalism? (1)

OglinTatas (710589) | about 3 months ago | (#46931935)

Perhaps reporters don't want to go on location to cover an ebola outbreak.

Second thing is, speculation and computer graphics probably cost less than actual investigative reporting.

Aside: a couple of months ago I was called to be in a jury pool and I sat in the jury room with CNN on the TV. It was absolute torture. I could try to read, or look at the floor or at the other potential jurors, but I just couldn't block out the audio. People watch that voluntarily?

Re:Where's journalism? (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 3 months ago | (#46933081)

I thought that once when stuck in a waiting room with Fox with the constant interspersion of editorial comments when reporting news. But then in the meantime all the cable channels have followed them down to lowest level. Now I can't think of any modern American news channel I'd want to be forced to listen to in a waiting room, they're all essentially crap.

Re:Where's journalism? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46928491)

"So news stations are always hungry for generic filler content (human interest stories, or intense discussion over inconsequential BS"

There are +-200.000 rapes and sexual assaults per year over 500 a day, if they need some "human interest" stories.
And those have 'sex' in it.

Re:Where's journalism? (2)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about 3 months ago | (#46929213)

I was with you until your Blackfish comment. That IMO is *exactly* what CNN should be focusing on. If I want breaking news nowadays I'm not getting it from CNN scroller. TV news networks have the ability to take on long form documentaries that can go indepth and be visual and appealing. Blackfish and Pandora's Promise were fantastic and a hell of a lot of people cared about the former.

Re:Where's journalism? (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 3 months ago | (#46932937)

The thing is, CNN made it big initially because of this format. However what they did was repeat the main news of the day continuously rather than only at 5pm and 11pm. So it was good for travellers in hotels, or if you wanted to get caught up in the news in the morning, and so forth. Even better for genuine stories that take lots of time to tell, such as breakout of war in Iraq or 9/11. But over time CNN and other stations kept trying to recreate the big story format out of stuff that wasn't a big story. Then they added the loud but unstable talk show hosts, like Nancy Grace. And today there's nothing left of it. For a while it was still almost worth the effort to turn on the TV _only_ to watch the scrolling text that had some news (enough to tell you to use the internet to get more info), but even that scrolling bar turned into fluff.

The question is, does cable news merely pander to what the average American wants from news, so that the fault lies with the viewers, or are the news outlets genuinely stupid?

Re:Where's journalism? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46927821)

The deal is that CNN has become a massive piece of shit. I have no idea either why this plane has translated to huge ratings, but it's a sad state of affairs when the news, which is supposed to tell the public what it needs to know, instead tells it what it WANTS to know-- which is apparently pandering, sensationalist, exploitative bullshit.

Bread and circuses. Watching these people who went to journalism school cover the missing plane, you can see their souls dying and the spark of integrity extinguished from their eyes.

The line differentiating magazine tabloids and CNN has blurred so badly in the last oh, 2 years (coinciding with this waste of space [wikipedia.org] , btw), and CNN has completely trashed its brand, but does news have to be this slimy and gross to survive?

Why are you limiting this to just CNN?

MSNBC isn't a massive pieces of shit?

FOX isn't a massive piece of shit?

The New York Times isn't a massive piece of shit?

They're ALL massive pieces of shit.

The shit they shovel might just match the shit your brain likes to feed on, though.

Re:Where's journalism? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46927979)

I used CNN as an example because of the plane thing.

I actually think NYT is still okay, but maybe only relatively speaking, given the alternatives. You can't compare it to CNN or FOX or MSNBC. It has a variety of articles with SOME depth. Not perfect, but not at the level of depravity of the others

NYTimes talks to us like we're in maybe 8th grade. CNN talks to us like we're in preschool. That's not to say NYTimes is without HUGE problems, the worst that comes to mind being its negligence in the ramp up to Iraq war- Judy Miller, who really is a bloody stain on the history of journalism. But relatively speaking, the NYTimes is still the best of what's out there in the larger mass media organizations.

Re:Where's journalism? (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 3 months ago | (#46932855)

CNN hasn't had news for about 8 years now. Or at least on "headline news" there's no news and only talking heads and you had to head to main CNN site to get headlines, but even that has declined. Somebody high in CNN management seems to want to recreate a tabloid style of journalism, and believes that this missing plane story is the next OJ Trial.

Re:Where's Waldo? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46927693)

It's because of the mystery. Everyone knows how those doctors are dying.
Ships sink, shit happens.
Airplanes don't usually disappear into thin air without a trace.

Re:Where's Waldo? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46928231)

Airplanes don't disappear into thin air either. They sink just like ships, first they sink through the air, then they sink through the water...

Re:Where's Waldo? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46927715)

funny, i just finished watching anchorman 2

Re:Where's Waldo? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46928437)

That movie sucked during the entire middle. The beginning was funny. The end was funny. And even in the opening and ending, they took the humor too far at times. All and all, it was a travesty compared to the original Anchorman.

Re:Where's Waldo? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46927723)

Yeah I don't really understand what the big deal is. I realize that there are a lot of families that may be suffering but because they were on an airplane it is somehow more newsworthy than a cruise ship with 10 times as many people, or genocide in Malaysia or doctors being killed giving polio vaccines in Afghanistan? Oh it's an airplane, let's tap into the 9/11 terrorist fear mongering so that we can get ratings!

*sigh*

It's the issue of who's first.
The missing airliner has our attention so the news slams on that "Instant ratings" button.
It's the same deal with shitty reboots in some cases the only flaw is the title. Giving a story the same name as a well known property makes it an instant win.
I think a lot of the reboots would work a whole lot better as there own stories instead of latching on an existing property.
The other news stories are news worthy but they aren't instant ratings. It's all about going what they knows will sell even when it comes to delivering information.

Re:Where's Waldo? (5, Interesting)

DrXym (126579) | about 3 months ago | (#46927783)

The big deal is it's a story which lends itself perfectly to endless speculation. CNN can waste hours of its news cycle wheeling out pundits to explain how aircraft work, how transponders work, how accidents happen, how terrorists hijack planes, how the planes crash, how planes are found, how blackboxes work, how debris fields spread etc. In the absence of hard information, they and their guests can prattle on for days or weeks like this.

Re:Where's Waldo? (1)

TWX (665546) | about 3 months ago | (#46928717)

it also doesn't help that the news organizations have managed to frame it as a classic, "whodunit," with bad-actors in the forms of the regional governments that wouldn't disclose what they knew, the failure of cooperation by the airline and its poor behavior regarding the families of the passengers, the contrary evidence for what happened, and the rather large number of employees of Freescale.

The problem isn't that the questions are being asked, the problem is that conclusions are being drawn, which are either outrageous and poorly-supported or later demonstrated to be incorrect.

We know that a plane disappeared when transitioning between airspaces controlled by different, somewhat antagonistic governments. We know that the plane's transponder was shut off at just this moment, requiring knowledge of the route and the procedures to turn off the transponder. We know that the plane continued to fly for some time based on the engine reporting systems the parties disabling the transponder neglected to turn off. We know an approximate distance from the satellite that the engine reporting systems reached before not reporting anymore. We think that, several days later, indications of the cockpit voice and data recorders were picked up in the vicinity of a very, very deep part of the ocean, a place that is close to, but not exactly where the engine reporting systems last reported the plane's position.

That's all that we know. We can speculate that the plane may have ditched there and sank mostly intact, or that the hijacker(s) may have figured out that the engines were still talking and found a way to disable that, before heading on to a different destination, then landed, pulled the blackboxes, and dumped them in this deep spot to make it difficult to impossible to determine what happened.

There you go, that's all the speculation that we need until they actually find something conclusive. Now we can go back to our daily lives.

Re:Where's Waldo? (1)

TemporalBeing (803363) | about 3 months ago | (#46931307)

We know that a plane disappeared when transitioning between airspaces controlled by different, somewhat antagonistic governments. We know that the plane's transponder was shut off at just this moment, requiring knowledge of the route and the procedures to turn off the transponder. We know that the plane continued to fly for some time based on the engine reporting systems the parties disabling the transponder neglected to turn off.

That's all we know.

We know an approximate distance from the satellite that the engine reporting systems reached before not reporting anymore. We think that, several days later, indications of the cockpit voice and data recorders were picked up in the vicinity of a very, very deep part of the ocean, a place that is close to, but not exactly where the engine reporting systems last reported the plane's position.

This is more conjecture based on data from the system - possibly accurate, possibly not - as they invented a whole new method of interpretting the data to determine this information. It has yet to be proven a valid method of interpretation.

For all we know, it could (i) be at the bottom of the ocean, or (ii) be shutdown, hidden by a nefrarious force (f.e Al Quaida or similar group; or even a not-so-nefrarious force - North Korea, etc.). Problem is, we won't know until it shows up again - either being found in the ocean, as wreckage on an island or in the jungles of SWA/SEA, or an Al Quaida like group flying it into a building, or some where else.

does our generation really "watch" the news (1)

schlachter (862210) | about 3 months ago | (#46929385)

For at least 5-10 yrs, I don't "watch" the news. I get my fix from new.google.com, slashdot, nytimes, reddit, and several other blogs.

This allows me to allocate my own time to coverage of events.

I assume that most younger people do this these days? Who even watches CNN/FOX/etc for news and not entertainment?

Re:does our generation really "watch" the news (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 3 months ago | (#46933141)

Well, I cut my satellite and now use Roku. And apparently there are no news channels I can get there worth watching (just waiting for the bbc channel to start working). I can get Fox though, or RK, or other innately biased channels. What's surprising though is that I'm not really missing the news channels because their quality had diminished so much. I can read the paper at work, read the bbc RSS feeds, and so on.

Re:Where's Waldo? (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 3 months ago | (#46933113)

Yes, but the problem is that this displaces actual news that matters. Use the prattling as the filler instead of as the main story.

Re:Where's Waldo? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46927829)

Yeah I don't really understand what the big deal is. I realize that there are a lot of families that may be suffering but because they were on an airplane it is somehow more newsworthy than a cruise ship with 10 times as many people, or genocide in Malaysia or doctors being killed giving polio vaccines in Afghanistan? Oh it's an airplane, let's tap into the 9/11 terrorist fear mongering so that we can get ratings!

*sigh*

To an extent I can agree with you, but there is one very large fundamental difference between genocide in Malaysia or a cruise ship with shitters that won't flush.

In those cases, we know what the fuck happened. We know where it is happening regardless if it is ignored or not by the first world.

In the case of one of the largest airliners ever built flying over a planet who's global telecommunications infrastructure is nothing sort of remarkable, we have no fucking clue how it simply vanished.

Tin-foil hat or not, I'd say that's newsworthy. If you're a sheep, I see why you find otherwise. Those in charge rely on you not giving a shit.

Re:Where's Waldo? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46928109)

In the case of one of the largest airliners ever built flying over a planet who's global telecommunications infrastructure is nothing sort of remarkable, we have no fucking clue how it simply vanished.

Tin-foil hat or not, I'd say that's newsworthy

Since 24 hours, weeks on end are apparently warranted to rehash speculation as "news", here's my theory:

There's this thing called gravity, and when one of the bajillion reasons a plane could go down happens, this force pulls the plane down until it hits the surface of the ocean, at which point its higher density causes it to "sink" below the water, until it touches the bottom of the ocean.

Or a black hole of course. Fuck CNN. This isn't news until it's actually news, and endless weeks of sensationalist, speculative "coverage" (ie, ratings grab) is NOT news in any sense of what we used to mean by the word "news".

Re:Where's Waldo? (2)

jerpyro (926071) | about 3 months ago | (#46928181)

I disagree that it's newsworthy. It has nothing to do with being a sheep -- turn your energy to the education, disease (due to anti-vaxxers) or net neutrality issues we're having domestically. We have such larger problems to fix that a missing airplane halfway across the world shouldn't even register on the scale. But it's a convenient distraction from our own problems so it's good 'infotainment'.

If you think I'm a sheep because I don't give a shit about an electrical fire [wired.com] in an airplane, you're amazingly misguided.

Re:Where's Waldo? (3, Insightful)

Will.Woodhull (1038600) | about 3 months ago | (#46929063)

The missing plane story IS newsworthy.

I don't watch CNN so I have no idea how sensationalized their coverage has been. HOWEVER any time you have several nations devoting so much of their resources in a joint effort that was cobbled together as rapidly as their response has been, that IS a major story. CNN was definitely doing the right thing in getting on this, and in following it.

That said, so far they may have missed much of the significance of what was happening. When elements of the USA armed forces and the Chinese armed forces act jointly under the direction of Australia, yes, there are definitely stories there. It might be that CNN missed the boat on where the focus should be. Or it might be that they have been preparing documentary coverage behind the scenes, while using the day to day "infotainment" coverage to pay the enormous daily costs of developing the larger, more noteworthy, stories.

I expect that in the upcoming months we will see a documentary or two describing how a multinational search effort was thrown together on a moment's notice. I think there must have been some fancy dancing going on between Generals and Admirals of different nations, and CNN has-- probably deliberately-- positioned its news-gathering assets where they can document the events as they were happening.

Re:Where's Waldo? (1)

MaWeiTao (908546) | about 3 months ago | (#46928845)

It is newsworthy, but not to the extent that is merits the constant coverage CNN has been giving it.

But it's easy to see why they're stuck on this particular story. It garners ratings but requires minimal financial and personnel commitment on CNN's part. There's nowhere to send reporters but the local harbor to pointlessly demonstrate some bit of tech. They could send reporters to Malaysia, but why bother when other news agencies are doing the real work for them? The fact that it's politically neutral is another bonus. So there's not much left but to endlessly speculate.

There are other stories that offer much more substance and are far more relevant to us. They also require a lot more work on the part of real journalists. Unfortunately, there's no room for those people because we need to pay for presenters who are borderline celebrities. That and the talking head format has gotten far too prevalent for it's own good.

Re:Where's Waldo? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46929115)

It is newsworthy, but not to the extent that is merits the constant coverage CNN has been giving it.

But it's easy to see why they're stuck on this particular story. It garners ratings but requires minimal financial and personnel commitment on CNN's part.

Not exactly, it simply was SOMETHING to talk about that doesn't violate their prime directive of not doing harm to the current administration. Literally EVERYTHING else new worthy during this time was going to be showing the failings, lies or ignorance of the current administration in either foreign or domestic policy. This story was SAFE to cover, not to mention it was cheap. Just keep trotting out "experts" to pontificate about how this might have happened, creating cool animations to back them up and keep scrolling the "BREAKING NEWS" banner - "Local Janitor who used to clean aircraft says 370 may have crashed!"

Re:Where's Waldo? (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 3 months ago | (#46933185)

Is it 24 hours worth of newsworthy? Is it newsworthy enough that it is worth focusing exclusively on that one story while ignoring everything else that's happening in the world? If they can spend all their time on this mystery, then should they also spend all their time on other more mundane mysteries? Can't they just spend 10 seconds every day saying "sorry, no new information on MH370 today, we now return you to our WWIII coverage"?

Re:Where's Waldo? (1)

unimacs (597299) | about 3 months ago | (#46927897)

It's newsworthy because in this age of constant surveillance it's amazing that anything like a commercial airliner can just disappear.

Re:Where's Waldo? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46928643)

While I'm sure that there's some of that going on, I suspect that the larger motivator of general interest is the relevancy to viewers of the method. For instance, the average MSM viewer is less likely to be concerned about potentially dying from genocide or at the hands of Taliban insurgents, than they are about potentially dying in a plane crash, regardless of the actual odds. The level of familiarity with planes is simply higher with most viewers than the other mentioned methods of death.

2390 people died on a cruise ship? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46929559)

> cruise ship with 10 times as many people

2390 people died on a cruise ship? Which one?

Re:Where's Waldo? (4, Informative)

Ceriel Nosforit (682174) | about 3 months ago | (#46927637)

According to the Australians I talk to, all of Australian politics is a bad joke right now.

Re:Where's Waldo? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46928195)

According to the Australians I talk to, all of Australian politics is a bad joke right now.

Australian Politics have always been a bad joke, except for Aboriginals for whom Australian politics have long been a very cruel one.

Re:Where's Waldo? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46929485)

According to the Australians I talk to, all of Australian politics is a bad joke right now.

Good thing I live in the United States. Oh, wait . . .

Re:Where's Waldo? (1)

rossdee (243626) | about 3 months ago | (#46927689)

Where's Waldo?

He had an orbital habitat called Freehold (according to R A Heinlein)

The book "Waldo & Magic Inc is available as an Ebook from Baen

Re:Where's Waldo? (1)

ah.clem (147626) | about 3 months ago | (#46931009)

He had an orbital habitat called Freehold (according to R A Heinlein)

Or "Wheelchair", if being disparaging. Great read - "Waldo & Magic, Inc." has been a constant re-read of mine every 3-4 years since I was a kid.

Why do we still care? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46927569)

Tell me when they find an actual piece of the aircraft. Until then, shut the fuck up.

Hey People! (1)

hackus (159037) | about 3 months ago | (#46927573)

Where is WALDO?

Re: Hey People! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46927621)

He was a passenger wasn't he...?

Re:Hey People! (1)

pla (258480) | about 3 months ago | (#46927775)

Where is WALDO?

Umm... Right here [google.com] ?

Re:Hey People! (1)

camperdave (969942) | about 3 months ago | (#46928201)

That's not Waldo. THAT'S [google.com] Waldo.

Re:Hey People! (1)

bobbied (2522392) | about 3 months ago | (#46929141)

Where is WALDO?

Strapped into his seat.... The question is really "Where is Waldo's seat?"

Re:Hey People! (5, Funny)

drainbramage (588291) | about 3 months ago | (#46927785)

Do you know why Waldo wears stripes?
-
-
He doesn't want to be spotted.

Check the fuselage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46927999)

Check the fuselage

People actually believed them? (4, Insightful)

Megane (129182) | about 3 months ago | (#46927675)

Seriously, how can "skepticism grow" about something that had almost no basis for belief in the first place? It's more like "miniscule belief evaporates".

Re:People actually believed them? (1)

jythie (914043) | about 3 months ago | (#46927691)

Having gotten involved in arguments about it on multiple mainstream news sites, yeah, people really bought into them. Some because they were establishment, some because they described themselves as pro-science, many because they pointed to the company already making money with their technology, etc. The voices saying 'this is bullshit' were mostly drowned out or shouted down.

Re:People actually believed them? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46927797)

many because they pointed to the company already making money with their technology

Reminds me of the company selling cheap dowsing rods to Iraq as "bomb locators"

Re:People actually believed them? (1)

jythie (914043) | about 3 months ago | (#46927809)

Yeah, apparently people were outraged when I brought up that example since I "obviously did not understand their technology".

Re:People actually believed them? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46928333)

Care to cite where you were oh-so-insightful and you got "shouted down" for it? I call BS on this.

Re:People actually believed them? (1)

jythie (914043) | about 3 months ago | (#46928385)

Well, one example would be this gem of a piece: http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/29/... [cnn.com]

Re:People actually believed them? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46933097)

That would be James McCormick's scam. Got ten years for fraud. Deserved life imo. The saddest part is, Iraq and a few other places are still using them.

Follow the scientific method. (1)

mosb1000 (710161) | about 3 months ago | (#46933207)

The company hasn't released enough information for you to know it's bullshit. Scientists aren't supposed to debunk things by saying "well I've never heard of anything like that so it must be impossible." Science has a hard time advancing in a climate like that.

That said, they haven't proven any of their claims. If they had done any of the things they said they've done on their website, they would tell you who their customer was so you could look them up and ask them if it was true. Basic fact-checking like that is a requirement of true journalism. If the company refuses to provide any evidence, the journalist should report the claims as being highly suspicious and call attention to the fact that the company has been unwilling to provide evidence of their claims. Unfortunately, this kind of basic work has been replaced by reporters taking claims made by scammers like this at face value and reporting them as fact.

Re:People actually believed them? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46927699)

When I first heard this my thoughts were that it might be possible. When I started to see just how far off they were from the original site I became a bit more skeptical. I really did not want to believe that people would use this tragedy for nothing more than getting attention. Once again my naivete and hope for humanity turned out to be misplaced.

Re:People actually believed them? (1)

drainbramage (588291) | about 3 months ago | (#46927825)

True words. It might be easier to believe the Korean ferry sank when it struck the wreckage of MH370.
And that it was done on purpose to conceal the jet under the ferry.
This will probably anger Gamera.
You won't like Gamera when he's angry.

Re:People actually believed them? (1)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | about 3 months ago | (#46930783)

Seriously, how can "skepticism grow" about something that had almost no basis for belief in the first place?

I don't understand it either. It is a fact whether or not the plane is where they claim it is. Either it is there, or it is not (or both, depending on who you ask ). Instead of trying to convince people or being skeptical or whatever, how about someone just look? There's not a free sub or boat capable of scanning the ocean floor that can head out there and look? Why bother having a debate about a fact when you can just verify what the actual fact is?

Put up a Deposit (4, Interesting)

RichMan (8097) | about 3 months ago | (#46927709)

If the company is so sure they can put up a refundable deposit on the cost of exploring their location. If they are right then they get the deposit back. If they are not right no deposit refund.

The deposit should cover the cost of putting one unmanned vehicle down on that location.

Would any of the governments be willing to back that compromise?

Re:Put up a Deposit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46927787)

If the company is so sure they can put up a refundable deposit on the cost of exploring their location. If they are right then they get the deposit back. If they are not right no deposit refund.

The deposit should cover the cost of putting one unmanned vehicle down on that location.

Would any of the governments be willing to back that compromise?

Would any government be smart enough to actually come up with that? They'd come under attack instantly from people who do find stuff but have an agenda against the government. It would be more efficient than going to court to recover costs afterwards though.

Can you blaim them? (5, Insightful)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 3 months ago | (#46927759)

Can you blame people for seeking alternative answers? Keep in mind, the agencies discrediting this company were the same agencies that didn't think it necessary to put a simple satellite GPS transponder on jets to keep track of where their quarter of a billion dollar plane is or put about $100 worth of batteries in their blackbox so it would ping for more than a few weeks. This entire mystery wouldn't exist if they'd spent an extra $1000 on a $261 million dollar piece of equipment. It's hard to discredit an idiot when you yourself are an idiot.

Re:Can you blaim them? (3, Insightful)

jythie (914043) | about 3 months ago | (#46927795)

There is a difference between scammers shilling impossible technology and big companies that are too cheap, short sighted, or lazy to install additional equipment for rare situations. One is a lier, the other is playing the odds and just happened to loose this time.

Re:Can you blaim them? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46928495)

Loosen what? God damn, you fucking faggot.

Re:Can you blaim them? (2)

jittles (1613415) | about 3 months ago | (#46927925)

Can you blame people for seeking alternative answers? Keep in mind, the agencies discrediting this company were the same agencies that didn't think it necessary to put a simple satellite GPS transponder on jets to keep track of where their quarter of a billion dollar plane is or put about $100 worth of batteries in their blackbox so it would ping for more than a few weeks. This entire mystery wouldn't exist if they'd spent an extra $1000 on a $261 million dollar piece of equipment. It's hard to discredit an idiot when you yourself are an idiot.

Extra batteries would increase the size and weight of the blackbox. The design costs, testing costs, and fuel costs of transporting a larger box would likely far exceed $1000 for every plane produced. I'm not saying you're being unreasonable, just that you are underestimating the costs involved. The 777 had all of the equipment it needed to report its location to a satellite on a regular basis. Older planes may not have all that equipment, however.

Re:Can you blaim them? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46928819)

People saying that "The plane needed a GPS to tell others where it was!" dont get aviation technology, especially the fact that every single bit of electrical equipment needs to be able to become turned off incase of emergency like a fire, this can be done easily from the cockpit(except with fighter jets, but those are hidden for maintenance only).

Re:Can you blaim them? (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 3 months ago | (#46929517)

No it doesn't. Give me a couple hundred dollars and I'll run down to radioshack and get enough parts to make you an always-on, fire proof, self charging GPS transponder that phones in its location every few minutes. Self-contained, inside an insulated box with 10 year batteries and you could glue it anywhere on the plane not accessible to passengers or crew while in flight. Make it charge via induction and viola, it's not even part of the planes induction system. Hell, you could do the entire thing with Arduino parts. I had to check to make sure they had a 2-way satellite link but sure enough they do. My creation would weigh under a pound and be extremely cheap... if I actually etched my own boards and what-not I could get it smaller than a cellphone. This is a very simple problem to solve.

(ok, radioshack doesn't have shit anymore... in reality I'd go to mouser)

Re:Can you blaim them? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46933005)

I mostly accept the feasibility of your solution but what I'm a little skeptical of is how it would handle the elements. I mean, I have a sailboat and for instance the electronics in such a simple thing as a life buoy lamp that is supposed to be waterproof and not in continuous use, become corroded beyond repair in just a couple of years due to moisture. I cannot imagine that the temperature changes an aircraft goes through all the time make it any easier...

Re:Can you blaim them? (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | about 3 months ago | (#46928169)

Can you blame people for seeking alternative answers?

Yes. But then, unlike you, I'm dealing in facts rather than pulling nonsense out my my nether regions.

Re:Can you blaim them? (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 3 months ago | (#46929393)

Can you blame people for seeking alternative answers?

Yes. But then, unlike you, I'm dealing in facts rather than pulling nonsense out my my nether regions.

I see no facts in your post. :-p

Also, if you had a missing relative lost at sea, you might start dealing in lots of nonsense. Tragedy has that affect on people when they are left with little to no information about what's happening to them. Which was the point of my post.

Re:Can you blaim them? (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | about 3 months ago | (#46929553)

I see no facts in your post.

If you can't grasp what I implied about your statements, it becomes even easier to grasp why you posted such nonsense.
 

Tragedy has that affect on people when they are left with little to no information about what's happening to them. Which was the point of my post.

If that was your point - why did you say nothing whatsoever to indicate that was your point? Instead you relied on made up bullshit to throw baseless mud at the agencies.

Re:Can you blaim them? (1)

MozeeToby (1163751) | about 3 months ago | (#46929083)

$100 worth of batteries will cost several million dollars worth of fuel over the life of an aircraft. Plus a few hundred thousand for the added maintenance, testing, and engineering. It's not the unit cost of the equipment, it's the cost it takes to actually fly that equipment halfway around the world on a regular basis. There is a reason next day air shipping on a 50 lb box is a couple hundred dollars.

Re:Can you blaim them? (1)

bobbied (2522392) | about 3 months ago | (#46929227)

Can you blame people for seeking alternative answers? Keep in mind, the agencies discrediting this company were the same agencies that didn't think it necessary to put a simple satellite GPS transponder on jets to keep track of where their quarter of a billion dollar plane is or put about $100 worth of batteries in their blackbox so it would ping for more than a few weeks. This entire mystery wouldn't exist if they'd spent an extra $1000 on a $261 million dollar piece of equipment. It's hard to discredit an idiot when you yourself are an idiot.

It's actually worse than that. ALL the stuff you need (except for the extra batteries for the black boxes) was already on the aircraft. The only thing they needed was to pay the $15K/year subscription fees so they could get the maintenance data from the aircraft in flight, anywhere in the world.

Re:Can you blaim them? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46929307)

I'm not sure why this is modded insightful.

1. The aircraft did have GPS and was able to send its position. Someone, or some complex electronic failure, turned that off. If you're demanding they fit a separate transmitter which the pilots can't turn off, what do you plan to do when that system shorts and starts a fire?
2. The regulations at the time the aircraft was built said the pingers had to operate for 30 days. So they did.

And I doubt there's much of anything you can buy for $100 that's certified to be built into an airliner. A couple of rivets, maybe.

Re:Can you blaim them? (1)

twotacocombo (1529393) | about 3 months ago | (#46929719)

put about $100 worth of batteries in their blackbox so it would ping for more than a few weeks.

When was the last time we lost a large commercial jetliner for so long that the batteries ran out before we picked up the ping? When was the last time we had one fly so far off its planned flight path, intentionally evading radar, and probably crashed half way around the globe from its intended destination? This case is so out of the ordinary, it wouldn't have made sense to plan for it (up until now). Sure, lets throw another $100 worth of batteries into it. But what if that wasn't enough? Lets throw another $100 in to be sure. But is that really enough? Let's keep piling batteries onto the thing until it barely gets off the ground, because you never know when some asshole is going to pull another stunt like this. While we're at it, lets make them all fly around with gigantic inflatable bumpers attached to the front, in case one tries to fly into a skyscraper again...

Re:Can you blaim them? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46930869)

Nothing on an airplane costs a $100, especially not batteries, and for good reasons. Some people might disagree, but I think the FAA generally does a great job in finding balance between efficiency and safety.

For reference see the batteries problems with the 787...

Re:Can you blaim them? (1)

tompaulco (629533) | about 3 months ago | (#46932319)

This entire mystery wouldn't exist if they'd spent an extra $1000 on a $261 million dollar piece of equipment.

That's not true. There are already several things on the plane and off that could have been used to determine where the plane was. On the plane, they were turned off. Who's to say they wouldn't have turned off another piece of installed equipment?
Off the plane, nobody bothered to track it with information that was available. Probably because nobody thought it would disappear, and it wasn't about to run into somebody else's plane.

Scam ! Definitely a HOAX like oil sniffer : (4, Interesting)

advid.net (595837) | about 3 months ago | (#46927827)

I've already posted that [slashdot.org] before, but anyway, I'll tell it again:

A search on their patent refs leads nowhere except to their site.

This remind me the Great Oil Sniffer Hoax [wikipedia.org]

Besides, if they were able to do what they claim, they would better look for gold in sunken ships and tell no one.
Their imaginary references are as old as 2003 with a site born in 2014... really ?

Face it: this is a hoax, at best, and more likely a scam.

Image processing (1)

Dan East (318230) | about 3 months ago | (#46927837)

I found it odd that the plane's axis was on a perfect north / south line. To me it looks exactly like there is a few "pixel" (or whatever the individual data points are) anomaly in a vertical line, probably from whatever sensing instrument generated the raw data. It reminds me of the type of wildly divergent data points you see when a gamma ray hits a sensor type thing. Then all the various "shapes" they produce from the data that supposedly represent the different types of metal, etc, are merely the results their algorithms spit out when given the anomalous data point. The real question is how much actual data there is, and how much of it is being extrapolated by what probably amounts to not much more than image processing type filters.

Re:Image processing (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about 3 months ago | (#46927987)

If the patents behind the technique are accurate, the "sensing instrument" is a print-out of satellite imagery that is then put in a bag with some blank film and subjected to abuse at a gamma-ray source. The previously-blank film is then developed.

Posting this to prevent me from exercising mod points on an article I submitted. That's just too much power for one person.

Re:Image processing (1)

camperdave (969942) | about 3 months ago | (#46928305)

I found it odd that the plane's axis was on a perfect north / south line.

Yeah. That was a big "get real" indicator for me as well.

Skepticism grows? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46927871)

Given that I dismissed the original claim because it was so obviously bogus and a complete waste of effort to investigate any further, I don't see how anything has changed.

More like "skepticism grows in the amazingly gullible mass media that originally gave this silly report any attention".

Re:Skepticism grows? (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 3 months ago | (#46928153)

This is just "normal news cycle". First they tout some small report and describe it as an amazing new technology that can solve Mystery X. They bring on pundit after pundit describing the technology and wondering why the officials are ignoring such an obviously useful tool. When they've wrung all the airtime they can out of the story, they switch to "debunk mode" and show how the technology is garbage and the people behind it are scammers who are wasting our time and money. Then pundit after pundit comes out saying why the technology can't possibly work and castigating any politician who said they'd put any stock in it. When that story source is exhausted, they'll move on to something else and repeat the cycle.

"growing skeptism" (1)

tleaf100 (2020038) | about 3 months ago | (#46928105)

so are you honestly trying to tell us that there are folk out there who actualy thought these reports had some kind of weight to them.we realy are screwed long term if there were,it reads like b.s,the company sound like a bunch of shysters and idiot media help circulate crap like this,can we not start fineing press,blogs etc for knowingly circulating b.s ?

And for the next trick (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | about 3 months ago | (#46928497)

Watch as CNN devotes a week of reporting to a company that specializes in clairvoyance and Remote Viewing to tell us where the plane went. Following that, an interview with the leader of the Raëlians to tell us exactly which aliens abducted them, as well as a special segment on lizard people.

Skepticism "Grows" Over georesonnace Claims ? (2)

aepervius (535155) | about 3 months ago | (#46928641)

Skepticism was all high from those which took the extra step of *checking* what georesonnance pretended to be doing. We aren't speaking of P3C flying over the bengal bay and detecting something, we are speaking of a company pretending that magnetic field (as small as needing a P3C boom M.A.D. to be detected in normal usage) left enough trace on a photo to detect something (or heck a negative) that was BS from the start.

Re:Skepticism "Grows" Over georesonnace Claims ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46930983)

I think there should be skepticism that anyone knows where the fuck this plane ended up. Could have flown to East Africa or the Middle East or anywhere for all anyone can really tell. Could have crashed trying to get there or it could have been landed somewhere and the bodies dumped into a mass grave while the plane is stripped for parts. Could be anywhere now. The only solid information is the last radar data. Everything after that is speculation built on shreds of information. Even the so called black box pings were at the wrong frequencies so were more than likely just some equipment on one of the search ships making some mechanical vibrations. Why the hell would a hijacked plane be flown towards the middle of nowhere west of Australia? And if it wasn't hijacked then why would it be making course corrections well past the nearest suitable airport to make an emergency landing?

Add up the facts and let Occum's razor decide (1)

NathanWoodruff (966362) | about 3 months ago | (#46928893)

Fact 1. There were two people on the plane headed to Europe. You don't go to Europe via China.
Fact 2. They were flying under assumed names, stolen/purchase passports. They had money and connections..
Fact 3. The airplane made an unscheduled turn off of the flight path via the pilot. Possibly under duress possibly not..
Fact 4. The two people going to Europe were cleared from terroristic activity. .
Fact 5. The plane flew for another 5 to 7 hours after the unscheduled turn off of flight path..
Fact 6. The only people capable of flying the brand new aircraft where the pilot and co-pilot. Further course corrections verifies that the pilot survived to the end..
Fact 7. The only people capable of knowing the correct sequence of what to turn off to avoid being detected were the pilot and or co-pilot. Under duress that sequence would not have happened. And this is the most important fact, the pilot was not under duress..
Fact 8. For the plane to make it to Europe even if being hijacked, it would need to be refueled. .
.
Simplest answer to all the facts:.
.
Pilot was paid to make the unscheduled change in flight. The pilot after years and years of flying was going after his final payday. And it was probably an offer he couldn't refuse..
.
The pilot knowing that the plane needs to be refueled would know the best places to refuel. The middle east is not the best place to obtain fuel undetected, especially with the presents of military forces and all radar use in the area. They were trying to avoid radar just after takeoff..
.
Best places to land and refuel, Africa. It is only slightly out of the way to Europe. The one problem, The plane didn't have the range that the pilot thought it had. .
.
The plane was ditched 100 or so miles off the coast of Tanzania, or Madagascar. They ran out of fuel..
.
You don't go flying an airplane for 5 to 7 hours just to ditch the plane the farthest place from all human existence. 5 to 7 hours is a long time to contemplate your death. Flying for 5 to 7 hours more, there was a destination to get to. Who knows the final destination but they were flying to get somewhere..
.
If the intention was to commit suicide and take all passengers with you, you do it as quick as you can. People that blow themselves up in a market square, don't walk in order coffee and sit there for 5 to 7 hours waiting for the best time to blow themselves up. You walk in look for the best place and get the job done..
.
Also why do it out over open water when you can do it near land or on land and make a statement too? .
.
I also said this on April 7th... http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org] .

Re:Add up the facts and let Occum's razor decide (3, Informative)

bobbied (2522392) | about 3 months ago | (#46929583)

Interesting theory, but Occum's razor says (and I paraphrase) "The simple answer is preferred until the more complex one is proven."

An in flight fire in the forward avionics bay makes a lot less assumptions than your theory.

IMHO, the most likely, less complex scenario is as follows...

1. In flight fire, forward avionics bay (under the pilot's seats), Forward galley, forward cargo bay, started for some reason (tire fire, electrical fault, etc) Such events are not unheard of.

2. Emergency procedures are "Fly the plane, Navigate, Communicate" (in that order). So the pilots did the following tasks, in this order:

a. Pull all the breakers they could in hopes of stopping the fire, disabling the radios and transponder.

b. Turn towards the nearest suitable landing location by punching in two way-points in to the flight director.

c. Gain altitude if the fire is not going out, to try and starve it of O2.

3. At this point, I assume they lost control of the cabin altitude or where driven from their seats by smoke/flames or where disabled by fumes. There is only about 20 min of supplemental O2 for passengers, slightly more for crew. Everybody was unconscious in about half an hour and dead within two if the cabin altitude went too high, or everybody died from smoke inhalation as the fire/smoke spread.

4. The plane files on the flight director's last instructions, passes though/over the two way-points then just flies on unguided until the fuel was exhausted,

5. When the engines stop, the plane descends into the water and sinks relatively in tact.

This is simple, straight forward, and matches what we know. The only assumption being made is the in flight fire and the damage it caused leading to the disabling of the passengers/crew. Everything else is either standard procedure, or based on how the aircraft's systems function.

Re:Add up the facts and let Occum's razor decide (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46931211)

I think that is the more likely scenario, but in that case the plane flies on its last known heading from radar and doesn't turn south. So they are looking in the wrong place either way. And it sounded like the plane continued to make course corrections to take it further west and avoid controlled airspace after it passed the closest airport with a long enough runway to land, that would be the key point. If it did pass the closest airport with a runway long enough to land safely and continued flying west and made several turns after that for which there is not a good explanation other than someone was intending to fly further west, then it would be hard to accept the idea that someone had intentionally programmed a course to take it out to open sea not near any land... unless it was some sort of fail safe. So perhaps the thinking could have been that if the crew was incapacitated further then it would mean that all hope was lost and the pilot or copilot had the foresight to send the dead plane out over the open ocean and avoid land so it could crash more safely. It could have been the pilots last attempt to save others.... or it could have been an attempt by someone on board to steal a plane fly it to Africa or the Middle East and sell it or use it for smuggling or as a weapon. I think Occum's razor is still missing some key facts like where the plane actually went.

Re:Add up the facts and let Occam's razor decide (1)

NathanWoodruff (966362) | about 3 months ago | (#46932395)

My point again. There was at least one person alive that knew how to fly the airplane that made the course corrections to avoid radar.

You don't avoid radar if you are under duress of a hijacking or looking for an airport to land at because of fire. You are avoiding radar because you don't want to be found. Then again, (as the parent states and the grandparent see differently) maybe the pilot was taking the plane to Africa to sell for parts, and the two people aboard had nothing to do with it.

It will still be found off the coast of Africa because it ran out of fuel.

Re:Add up the facts and let Occum's razor decide (1)

jratcliffe (208809) | about 3 months ago | (#46929603)

"Fact 1. There were two people on the plane headed to Europe. You don't go to Europe via China."

You certainly can, particularly if you're just looking for the cheapest fare. The travel agency in Thailand which booked the tickets said that they got a request for the cheapest tickets. Not for a specific carrier, or even a specific flight.

Just for shits and giggles, I pulled up a Kayak search, one-way, KL to Amsterdam (which is the route they were both booked on), on May 14th. Lo and behold, the second cheapest option is China Southern via Beijing or Shanghai. It's ENTIRELY possible that, for that particular day, it was the cheapest option, particularly if you're talking Asian travel agent with consolidator fare options.

PS - If you're going to rely on Occam's Razor, you should probably learn how to spell Occam.

There is ZERO evidence that the two Iranians on the plane, traveling under stolen passports, were anything but two Iranians trying to claim asylum in the EU and join family there.

Bring me MISC RELAY PANEL #1, the Primary flt ctls (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46929453)

I need to see lots and lots of parts. or stfu

misc relay panels
#1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10

ya kno bitch Wire fsckin harnessezz

Some black boxen too
Com nab, LOX/Oxygeens, Radarz

Tanks, Podz
Shite Stored in Storragezzzz

Som partz Stab actuator, flapz, slatz, taioz, wheel asmz
sheer pins, wing pins, engine boltz

Hydraulic syz
1,2,3,4 aux XX

And I don't even know your piece of CRAP plane!
good grief can nobody think for themselves in 2014?

Economics (1)

ruir (2709173) | about 3 months ago | (#46929839)

A friend of mine, a former pilot, told me an interesting theory. There is no interest whatsoever in "finding" the plane, just for the reason that if not found, there are no compensations due to the family of the victims...

Re:Economics (2)

bruce_the_loon (856617) | about 3 months ago | (#46930249)

There was an article a couple of weeks back around the time the pings were supposedly detected where the Malaysian government wanted to start the process of declaring the passengers dead so the compensation process could start and the families threw their toys out of the cot.

The decision to declare the passengers dead is independent of finding the wreckage and can be done without proof of death, although having the passengers show up alive later can be embarrassing and difficult to correct. There is an agreed upon seven year maximum waiting window, but that can be shortened.

Wreckage or not, compensation will be paid.

Technology was debunked New Scientist 19 Jan 1984 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46932069)

Read the article about out the same scam artist here [google.ca] .

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>