[FelineNut]

|Developing| Nothing they told you was "Real" regarding #MH370. Inmarsat & others have used "nominal" & presumed methods. 

 "Ehh, What's Up Doc" Investigation Laughable!

The AuntyPru motto "Any man can make mistakes, but only an idiot persists in his error. Cicero" along with "The first method for estimating the intelligence of a ruler is to look at the men he has around him. (Niccolo Machiavelli)" will ring many bells in this posting.

Recently, I was overwhelmed when I came back from a break to see the "mindless duck" was still in charge of not only the ATSB but oversight to the infamous Peter Foley who heads the MH370 investigation which in itself  "the investigation" is Laughable, I was overwhelmed with shock.

Let me shed light here in AuntyPru, the oversight of the persons who oversee these matters in aviation not only in Australia but Globally to see the overall picture of the MH370 circus clowns.

Jeopardy "What is a Fact"

• Somewhere in the Merchant of Venice, one of Shakespeare's characters is made to say: "his reasons are as two grains of wheat hid in two bushels of chaff, you may seek all day ere you find them and when you have them they are not worth the search".

• "We need nothing in the record or the briefs but the wheat, the chaff should be let go" and the Facts matter, Kneale v. Kneale, 67 So. 2d 233 - Fla: Supreme Court 1953. The MH370 wheat is so embedded & hidden in the chaff that no amount of argument or reading may reveal that it exist. Less chaff is more wheat! Also, the MH370 Investigation is currently based on LIES not Facts. A "Presumed Theory" on an Event is NOT Fact. "Where are YOUR Actual Facts" I have asked over and again.

• A fact is simple as defined or is it? Lets see the definition of a fact and I will leave this section to speak for itself and move on to the next issue as "facts are non-argumentative" and are "actual" and speak for themselves without debate.,
  

With that being said, I will begin addressing the issues that are of the AuntyPru motto in relation to Cicreo and Machiavelli, supra analogy as stated above. I do not go into this analysis unarmed.

In fact, Myron Hanch has allowed me to use his name in relation to the communications involved between the Independent "IG" Group, Myron and myself in a recent long ongoing discussion of the "actual" facts vs the "presumed theory".

Additionally, the analysis by the leading experts and Beaker; Foley; and the recent NOVA / PBS documentary "Why Planes Vanish" a 3-part series narrated by Miles Obrien all of which measures the intelligence of the ruler(s) that we dealing with and have entrusted surrounding the tragic event of MH370 on March 8th, 2014 is warranted.

It is well known that I have from the outset have not only been in search for the truth and the facts in this matter, but have exposed them time and again. Now it's time to show the International flying public exactly who and what we are dealing with that holds back the truth from being revealed. I have respectfully refrained from going head on publically to show these common errors that are the chaff that buries the wheat being the facts hidden deep, also known as the needle in the haystacks, however it is time to pull the wheat from the chaff or the needles from the haystacks. I state again as a reminder infra,

"Somewhere in the Merchant of Venice, one of Shakespeare's characters is made to say: "his reasons are as two grains of wheat hid in two bushels of chaff, you may seek all day ere you find them and when you have them they are not worth the search".

Jeopardy

• "What is an Arc Second?"
  

In the ATSB Inmarsat (ACARS) signal data logs can be found the instructions and header that identifies what "Inmarsat" believes to be the data interpretation. The logs can be easily viewed here:

https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5185657/Up...ec2014.pdf

On page 2 of that pdf file it states the following,

• "The BTO is a value (in microseconds) relative to a terminal at a nominal fixed location. Only R-Channel messages are used."

In part this statement is correct and the remaining is vauge at best. I will explain briefly below.

"The BTO value in "microseconds" also known and abbreviated as us or uniseconds is defined as: "

• Definition: Microsecond

• The SI prefix "micro" represents a factor of 10^-6, or in exponential notation, 1E-6. So 1 microsecond = 10-6 arcseconds also know as the "Microarcsecond" 0.001 mas (0.000001 arcsecond) abbrivated as μas in radians 4.8481368 prad.

• The definition of a second is as follows:

• A second of arc or arcsecond is a unit of angular measurement which comprises one-sixtieth of an arcminute, or 1/3600 of a degree of arc or 1/1296000 (approximately 7.7×10-7) of a circle. It is the angular diameter of an object of 1 unit diameter at a distance of 360×60×60/(2pi) (approximately 206,265 units), such as (approximately) 1 cm at 2.1 km, or, directly from the definition, 1 astronomical unit at 1 parsec.

• Definition: Second

• The second (symbol s) is a unit for time, and one of seven SI base units. It is defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom at zero kelvins.

So the arcsecond [is] the microsecond or "microarcsecond." It is one in the same, however when discussing this with the so called brightest minds, they reply in the following manner when presented with the facts on the matter in reference to the term and use of the "arcsecond" per the Boeing and Honeywell manuals for the FMC and tracking functions that "are" in the data logs.

The pot calls the kettle black below:

• Mike Exner @ Airlandseaman replies to the use of arc seconds:
  

• "Thank you for your interest in MH370. However, the BTO values are round trip measurements of time delay from the Perth GES to MH370 and return (both paths via the IOR spacecraft). They do not have anything to do with WMKK airport. The science is well known and it has been in use since Sputnik. So there is no question about how to interpret the values. I published the formula required to convert BTO to range 2 days after the log referenced below was published."

• Victor Iannello (@RadiantPhysics) replies to the use of arc seconds:
  

• "This contradicts all we know. I have no additional feedback."

• Dr. Bobby Ulich @DrBobbyUlich replies to the use of arc seconds:
  

• "BTO is not in arc seconds. It is a round-trip propagation time in microseconds between ground station & airborne terminal and back."

• Granted Doc took interest further thereafter on the other issues, but failed even deeper into the rabbit trap in reference to satellite velocity versus aircraft velocity, infa:
  

I have found the previous and following comments comical towards the indivuals in theory as they have not only defied the laws of physics but also said over and again and I quote statements on "actual" facts when presented having foundation are given the reply "it has been prepared by someone who has insufficient knowledge of the problem at hand."

That is the pot calling the kettle black, I would certainly say there. They didnt even know that the "microsecond and arcsecond" also know as the "microarcsecond" are one in the same.

There is much more on these issues and others below. At this point in the article, I ask "What do you [really] know?" There has only been "nominal" methods and "unreal" applications distorting the truth and facts with mathematical laws of physic being defied in "untrue" methodology in "extreme radical ideology."

The reason these issue are important are further explained below on the importance of the problem at hand and the "actual" facts being distorted from persons being the "ruler(s)" have prepared a theory, (using their words) "prepared by someone who has insufficient knowledge of the problem at hand."

Why is this important?

Let me shed more light on this issue here.

Again, on page 2 of that pdf file it states the following;

"The BTO is a value (in microseconds) relative to a terminal at a "nominal" fixed location. Only R-Channel messages are used."

The distinction between real value and nominal value occurs in many fields. From a philosophical viewpoint, nominal value represents an accepted condition which is a goal or an approximation as opposed to the real value, which is always present. Often a "nominal" value is "de facto" rather than an exact, typical, or average measurement

In measurement, a nominal value is often a value existing in name only; [1] it is assigned as a convenient designation rather than calculated by data analysis or following usual rounding methods. The use of nominal values can be based on de facto standards or some technical standards.

All real measurements have some variation depending on the accuracy and precision of the test method and the measurement uncertainty. The use of reported values often involves engineering tolerances.

One way to consider this is that the real value often has the characteristics of an irrational number. In real-world measuring situations, improving the measurement technique will eventually begin yielding unpredictable least significant digits. For example, a 1 inch long gauge block will measure to be exactly 1 inch long until the measuring techniques reach a certain degree of precision. As techniques improve beyond this threshold, it will become clear that 1 inch is not the real value of the gauge block length, but some other number approximates it.

In various subfields of engineering, a nominal value is one for which the "name" for the value is close to, but not the same as, the actual value. This reference can be found at  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_versus_nominal_value

So the issue is the [terminal] at a "nominal" [fixed] location vs a "real" [fixed] location. Therefore, being the "real" "[fixed] location and the "real" value always exist, we ask what is the "real" [fixed] location to take that measurement from?

Additionally, the "conversion" method and information provided by Inmarsat is also "nominal" in value as the "real" value is not used in the method.

So in order to use the "real" values [that always exist] vs "nominal" values we must find the "real" [fixed] location of the [terminal] to use the "real" values in FACT that are recorded in the ACARS logs aka the Inmarsat Signal data logs.

Keep in mind that Inmarsat conducted "nominal" values and methods versus using the "real" values. Any 5 year old can locate MH370 by using Google Earth and can grab a measurement using the "real" values of the BTO from the "real" [fixed] "terminal" location setting the unit properties to [arc seconds] aka microseconds or the "microarcsecond" and measure from the "real" [fixed] "terminal" location "being KL WMKK ATC tower" [NOT I3F-1] using the "real" face value of the BTO  as is exist for the arc circumference perimeter as shown in the logs.

Then of course the question remains what is the "real" value of the timestamp versus the "nominal" value and method used in application by Inmarsat being the "nominal" use is stated as the time of day or the hours in flight time. However, the "real" value is actually the Bearing or Heading "out" in Degrees from the "real" [fixed] location KL WMKK ATC tower, the center of the clock, and the "True Trac" Compass Bearing as the "hand" of the clock in direction to the "real" [fixed] Aircraft Location in "real" value of the BTO being measured in distance from the "real" [fixed] location.

In other words, the timestamp is a simple compass reading and 1º = 60 minutes or 1 hour, therefore you have 15º 16º 17º 18º 19º 20º 21º 22º 23º 00 or 24º 01 or 25º in Hour format being the "real" value of the timestamp.

For example: Grabbing a measurement using real BTO value of 18040 μas or Converted being 558km measured in distance from the "real fixed terminal location"  of KL WMKK at the timestamp of 00:10 or 24:10º in Bearing is roughly 6.60N 103.71E in the Gulf of Thailand  and South China Sea Territorial water boundary line in the "real" value and interpretation of the data signal logs.

The following location #1 in the yellow box below is the "real" [fixed] terminal location to conduct the appropriate method and apply the "real" BTO values to measure from KL WMKK ATC Tower or the "center" of the "clock" or cone and measured outward using the hour hand in Bearing / Heading to crash location in the Red Box as demonstrated below with additional information added, infra.

With that being said in a brief display, I will address the Inmarsat Ashton report so one can see where the missing Mode-S data has been hiding all this time and will come back to address the radar and a few other issues that need light shed in the matter for the NOK to finally get closure, if the "real" application is used vs the "nominal" [presumed] theories being currently applied in error. Less chaff is more wheat!

Jeopardy:

• "What is the velocity on Inmarsat 3F-1 Satellite and is it constant or not and does it matter?"
  
• "What is moving and shifting in position so rapidly?"
  
• "Where is the Mode-S data"?
  
• "How did Beaker become so quaked on this issue?"
  

I have made many jokes about cracking the Inmarsat Egg and the experts aka the "eggsperts". So let me show you like a 5 year old how to crack that egg wide open and shed light on what that data actually is in fact.

We must start with the Ashton report which is the entire basis to search the SIO in error which can be found here:

• http://journals.cambridge.org/download.p...e8bd98cb77
  
• (I am not sure, but I think ATSB has even "dumped" this report off "their" website in relation to MH370, I couldn't find it there today?)
  

|Satire| It's about time to stick a popsicle in Inmarsat's a$$ to cool off this report to shed light on the "actual" facts in the investigation vs "nominal" [presumed] methods when in fact the wheat [is] in the chaff. The needle in the haystacks will sooner or later stick that prick!


Starting with Page 10 Figure 8 of the Ashton Report as displayed below:


BELOW is CURRENTY being edited and worked -- having font issues -- stay tuned --


Table 4. Satellite Location and Velocity (ECEF). Time (UTC)

The above  speed values and ALT shift will be converted below to better shed light and understanding what is happening here and what they actually represent in "real" value vs "nominal" I will use the following to convert so you may also verify these values yourself http://www.convert-me.com/en/convert/speed/km_sec.html

                 

    
 Satellite Location (mi/naut.mi)   5280 feet = 1 mile                        Satellite Velocity  (feet per minute / fpm)
                              X                  Y   (Altitude)                           Z              X                 Y′             Z (Altitude)
16:30:00    18122·9    23661.815       /  20561.555           828·5       425.2      −210.6      12,580
16:45:00    18124·8    23661.2            /  20561.015           884·2       417.3      −224.4      11,770
16:55:00    18126·1    23660.75861  /  20560.63715       919·2       411.4      −232.3      11,210
17:05:00    18127·3    23660.32371  / 20560.25918        952·5       405.4      −236.2      10,620
18:25:00    18136·7    23656.71976  /  20557.12743       1148·5     370.1      −230.3        5,295 

19:40:00    18145·1    23653.737       /  20554.536           1206·3      372         −181.1      -291.3
20:40:00    18152·1    23651.873       /  20552.916           1159·7      393.7      −151.6     -4,768
21:40:00    18159·5    23650.19536  / 20551.45788        1033·8      471.3      −149.6      -8,919
22:40:00    18167·2    23648.33125  / 20549.83801         837·2        415.4     −189         -12,460
00:10:00    18177·5    23644.2302    /  20546.2743           440·0        315        −297.2     -16,120
00:20:00    18178·4    23643.67096 / 20545.78834          390·5        295.3      −311        -16,380 


|





Constant Values are in the Velocity of a Geostationary Satellite at 3.07 km/s (1.91 miles/s. So what is moving?



This along with the other equation can be used to solve for r and v . Upon solving, we only get the values that you have given. Thus, it is NOT possible for a geostationary satellite to be placed at any other height or with any other velocity. This reference can be further reviewed here http://physics.stackexchange.com/questio...-satellite




The following Video shows and Explains the Geostationary Orbit and Orbital Plane of the Celestial Equator vs the Equator being the I3F-1 Orbits the Equator in a Constant Velocity as demonstrated in the Video and hence appears as a wobble sliding North and South in a drift on the Equator however the North South Propulsion maintains the satellites position with North South Station keeping with minimal shift in a years time from the gravitational pull of the sun and moon in constant velocity however the inclination plane shifts and the earth rotates on the Celestial Equator throughout the day and the satellite in its Constant Velocity as illustrated in the above link and shown in the video with Minimal shift of 1º per year for 75 years back to the position it was placed into orbit from day 1, {if} the satellite had a lifespan that long, which it does not.

This article is still being processed and continues |developing| will be completed soon

On Coffee break -& rest my eyes - Much more to come "Here in the Post" edited through the day & night

Just wait, till see what happens to Ashton report and the Doc -- Ehh, what's up Doc --

NOTE: This story is developing and being updated throughout the AUS night as it is being written and a link created for AUS paper to post for a morning coffee and a great laugh that will make you cry foul! It will be completed  shortly. Thank you for your patients.