I Think I Saw MH370

[Cavalier]

Originally Posted by MAP Waves

I think we start best and worst reporting thread!
The worst so far I have seen......

Amazing some of the bull added in - I have had less than 6 beers in the last 6 months and Kate drinks even less than I do! As for dope - not a chance!

The comment posted below the video tells you everything you need to know about the report. Save yourselves 30minutes....

....and I quote:


"There will be an event. Only when that event happens they can usher in the New World Order. Not with anything else..."



[coughs and hands reefer back to boatie]

[SaltyMonkey]

Originally Posted by SaucySailoress

You guys know that I asked a question here, which is something I do often, and that we are all here for. When it got serious and there were many questions, I chose to keep them here where I had started, so as to keep it in the open and in one place. Fear played a large factor in that. Fear of media, and fear of conspiracy.

Saucy. I agree and understand. Just realise you can't escape it. I agree with MarkJ. Your report speaks. Relax.

Anything more just puts a focus and an influx of pressures from the media and the nimrods on you. Agree stated, the news groups are in it for the money, via shock, and rarely ever care for the truth.

[SaltyMonkey]

Originally Posted by MAP Waves

I think we start best and worst reporting thread!
The worst so far I have seen......

Amazing some of the bull added in - I have had less than 6 beers in the last 6 months and Kate drinks even less than I do! As for dope - not a chance!

Wow.

You guys actually had 30 whole minutes to watch this guy?

[Dreaming Yachtsman]

Originally Posted by weavis

As a child I was abducted by extra-terrestial Teddy bears.
I had a close encounter of the furred kind.

Perhaps the comedians on this thread could take their humor to the "Joke Thread" (http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f80/the-joke-thread-10204.html).

[MESSI2014]

Hello again, Saucy, as I prepare for the World Cup I want to ask you about the smoke trail. What is the most similar to what you saw? Number 1 or Number 2

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by MAP Waves

I think we start best and worst reporting thread!
The worst so far I have seen......

Amazing some of the bull added in - I have had less than 6 beers in the last 6 months and Kate drinks even less than I do! As for dope - not a chance!

That one takes the prize. I got about 6 minutes into it and felt my brain was going to explode. This is the kind of thing that gives the US such a bad name.

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by Dreaming Yachtsman

Perhaps the comedians on this thread could take their humor to the "Joke Thread" (http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f80/the-joke-thread-10204.html).

Yes...this is a serious violation...smiling with intent to laugh.

[SaucySailoress]

Originally Posted by MESSI2014

Hello again, Saucy, as I prepare for the World Cup I want to ask you about the smoke trail. What is the most similar to what you saw? Number 1 or Number 2

Number 2

[Pete7]

Originally Posted by MESSI2014

Hello again, Saucy, as I prepare for the World Cup I want to ask you about the smoke trail. What is the most similar to what you saw? Number 1 or Number 2

Why, what are you planning for the World Cup

[rydberg]

europaflyer,

First of all: a word of appreciation, both to the reporter of this sighting (who is hopefully far from a computer at this moment), and to you, for going through the details of correlating the finding with the assumed whereabouts.

> I will just reiterate that given an offset of UTC+7 I believe the boat tacks too late (1920) for the sighting to be MH370, given that the second Inmarsat ping occurs at 1941, 380nm south of the Aaza Dana.

Respectfully: Unless you are part of the official investigation, possessing information that has not been released, or reverse-engineered, by the public, you cannot know that. In fact, I registered on this site only to say this. People have been referring to a possibility of a northern detour before heading south (on Duncan's site). Those possibilities are based on a detailed model of the BFO and BTO data, taking every piece of information extracted from the Inmarsat log data into account. We simply do not know where the aircraft was at 19:15 UTC.

Moreover, the time around 19:00 is critical to distinguishing between different solutions along the 0:11 arc. Therefore, this sighting, if correct, could turn out to be very valuable. I cannot speculate in what, if any, additional data the official investigation holds in this regard. I can say that if the aircraft was indeed still northwest of sumatra at 19:15(ish), it would lead to a different final position along the 0:11 (and 0:19) ping arc.

I am finding the lack of record of other aircraft in the area more disturbing. I am unsure as to what the current status of that matter is, given what has been said so far. Or maybe I just have not read carefully enough.

Thanks!
Henrik

[category4jay]

Originally Posted by rydberg

europaflyer,

First of all: a word of appreciation, both to the reporter of this sighting (who is hopefully far from a computer at this moment), and to you, for going through the details of correlating the finding with the assumed whereabouts.

> I will just reiterate that given an offset of UTC+7 I believe the boat tacks too late (1920) for the sighting to be MH370, given that the second Inmarsat ping occurs at 1941, 380nm south of the Aaza Dana.

Respectfully: Unless you are part of the official investigation, possessing information that has not been released, or reverse-engineered, by the public, you cannot know that. In fact, I registered on this site only to say this. People have been referring to a possibility of a northern detour before heading south (on Duncan's site). Those possibilities are based on a detailed model of the BFO and BTO data, taking every piece of information extracted from the Inmarsat log data into account. We simply do not know where the aircraft was at 19:15 UTC.

Moreover, the time around 19:00 is critical to distinguishing between different solutions along the 0:11 arc. Therefore, this sighting, if correct, could turn out to be very valuable. I cannot speculate in what, if any, additional data the official investigation holds in this regard. I can say that if the aircraft was indeed still northwest of sumatra at 19:15(ish), it would lead to a different final position along the 0:11 (and 0:19) ping arc.

I am finding the lack of record of other aircraft in the area more disturbing. I am unsure as to what the current status of that matter is, given what has been said so far. Or maybe I just have not read carefully enough.

Thanks!
Henrik

If I were an official investigator (I know I'm just an armchair Colombo) I would start examining Saucy's story by comparing it to the "known" Inmarsat data just like many people have done. Problem: that data does not appear to support the Saucy story so end of story right? Not so fast! Think outside the realm here. Re-examine the data. Adjust the times. Find a plausible scenario whereby the data DOES support what Saucy saw. She saw something very unsual that night. Both the glowing plane and the two other planes. Try harder people.

[europaflyer]

Originally Posted by category4jay

If I were an official investigator (I know I'm just an armchair Colombo) I would start examining Saucy's story by comparing it to the "known" Inmarsat data just like many people have done. Problem: that data does not appear to support the Saucy story so end of story right? Not so fast! Think outside the realm here. Re-examine the data. Adjust the times. Find a plausible scenario whereby the data DOES support what Saucy saw.

Trying to adjust the only reliable data that is available on MH370 to suit the scenario seems a questionable way of going about it, but I think I know what you're saying: How much error would there have to be in the Inmarsat data for Saucy's story to work? Answer: as far as I can tell from what has been released so far, rather a lot. People who are saying that I should be cautious about speculating as I do not have access to the latest data as the investigators do are quite right though.

Originally Posted by category4jay

She saw something very unsual that night. Both the glowing plane and the two other planes. Try harder people.

She thinks she saw something unusual on some night. She's not even sure which night. Tired sailors see odd things, everyone's heard the story of the singlehander who dropped anchor in a pleasant lagoon only to find after getting some sleep that he was still in the middle of the ocean with the anchor dangling in the deep!

Investigators should have access to something I don't: accurate data on other flights in the area at the time. If two aircraft were flying close together at Saucy's position at the time then things get interesting, if not then it can be pretty much discounted. Bear in mind that there are no airways running north/south in that area.

The fact rising above all the minutiae of this is that burning aircraft tend not to fly for a further five hours. If I were Saucy, I would not be worrying too much about this whole thing on the strength of that alone.

Speculation is silly, but my bet would be that she saw an aircraft involved in the search effort some days after the disappearance. I suppose time will tell... or perhaps it won't!

[category4jay]

Originally Posted by europaflyer

Trying to adjust the only reliable data that is available on MH370 to suit the scenario seems a questionable way of going about it, but I think I know what you're saying: How much error would there have to be in the Inmarsat data for Saucy's story to work? Answer: as far as I can tell from what has been released so far, rather a lot. People who are saying that I should be cautious about speculating as I do not have access to the latest data as the investigators do are quite right though.



She thinks she saw something unusual on some night. She's not even sure which night. Tired sailors see odd things, everyone's heard the story of the singlehander who dropped anchor in a pleasant lagoon only to find after getting some sleep that he was still in the middle of the ocean with the anchor dangling in the deep!

Investigators should have access to something I don't: accurate data on other flights in the area at the time. If two aircraft were flying close together at Saucy's position at the time then things get interesting, if not then it can be pretty much discounted. Bear in mind that there are no airways running north/south in that area.

The fact rising above all the minutiae of this is that burning aircraft tend not to fly for a further five hours. If I were Saucy, I would not be worrying too much about this whole thing on the strength of that alone.

Speculation is silly, but my bet would be that she saw an aircraft involved in the search effort some days after the disappearance. I suppose time will tell... or perhaps it won't!

You've done areal fine job with what you've done europaflyer. I would like to think that somewhere out there there is radar data that shows the two planes with a third just as Saucy describes but given what we have seen with the investigation of MH370 I am not sure it exists.

[gypsy wanderer]

Originally Posted by chris_gee

hey don't post again and don't answer any questions - You said what you had to say. Responsibility over. The end.
The authorities whose job it is to analyse all the info and who have various experts available can do the rest. That might include checking your gps.
Forget the hypnotist - you are not the only and crucial potential witness and straining for detail is liable to make it worse.
Media want a story. The more sensational (as they make it) the better. Investigator;s well assuming they are independent (and there are enough parties involved without coincident objectives) are more interested in establishing facts.,,

Why do guys here want Saucy to run away and hide? Stop acting like paternal grandpas.
If Saucy wanted to drop it she would have already. In case some of you guys haven't noticed, this is important. The families who lost loved ones
need answers.
What have the authorities figured out?? Not much I'm afraid. They need help, even if they won't admit it.
Yes, we are getting people posting here who have not read the whole thread. We will have to put up with that. What thread doesn't?

We need the star field directly behind the aircraft. It is important.
If there is a snowballs chance in hell that it is in Saucy's subconsous mind
then she should try any means to recall it.

I agree with you Chris about the media, but as to other crucial witnesses,
I haven't heard much.
The only strain with hypnotism would be finding a good, qualified therapist
and arranging a session.

I don't know how to say this with out it sounding dramatic but this sighting may be the only chance we will ever have of finding that plane.

[category4jay]

Originally Posted by gypsy wanderer

Why do guys here want Saucy to run away and hide? Stop acting like paternal grandpas.
If Saucy wanted to drop it she would have already. In case some of you guys haven't noticed, this is important. The families who lost loved ones
need answers.
What have the authorities figured out?? Not much I'm afraid. They need help, even if they won't admit it.
Yes, we are getting people posting here who have not read the whole thread. We will have to put up with that. What thread doesn't?

We need the star field directly behind the aircraft. It is important.
If there is a snowballs chance in hell that it is in Saucy's subconsous mind
then she should try any means to recall it.

I agree with you Chris about the media, but as to other crucial witnesses,
I haven't heard much.
The only strain with hypnotism would be finding a good, qualified therapist
and arranging a session.

I don't know how to say this with out it sounding dramatic but this sighting may be the only chance we will ever have of finding that plane.

Well Said! Especially the "paternal grandpas" part!