Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Lt. Gen. McInerney Says MH370 Is In Pakistan – ‘I Got A Source That Confirmed It Yesterday’ (Video)
Counterjihadreport.com ^ | March 22, 2014 | Jim Hoft

Posted on 03/23/2014 1:06:32 PM PDT by txgirl4Bush

“LIGNET put out a report, substantiated yesterday, that there sources got their information from Boeing sources, which is covert. Not that they got their information from the Boeing Company because they’re involved in the investigation, that the airplane was in Pakistan. That was confirmed by LIGNET on Monday and I got another source at LIGNET that confirmed it yesterday… I do believe that those people in Pakistan, in the ISI, those people who knew where Osama Bin Laden was and didn’t tell us. I believe those same elements could be involved with getting that airplane into a Pakistan air force base.”


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: boeing; iran; lignet; malaysia; mcinerney; mh370; pakistan; planehijack; postit9moretimes; thomasmcinerney; waronterror; wot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-220 next last
To: beckett; txgirl4Bush; old curmudgeon

Your thought police attitude is well known.

If you’ve disdain for any thread, you are free to ignore it.
.


101 posted on 03/23/2014 4:06:39 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: B212

“surely the aircraft would have been detected...assuming it flew over the Indian Ocean”

A question for those with knowledge of commercial aviation, but what prevents a pilot from punching a different code into the transponder that would change the planes identity and thus disguise itself as a different flight?


102 posted on 03/23/2014 4:12:30 PM PDT by bitterohiogunclinger (Proudly casting a heavy carbon footprint as I clean my guns ---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

>> “Why steal a Boeing 777 when anyone with the resources to steal it could go out and buy one without attracting all this attention?” <<

.
Would that unit come equipped with passengers the happen to be the world’s foremost experts on digital warfare like this one is?
.


103 posted on 03/23/2014 4:13:31 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox

What happened to the passengers?


104 posted on 03/23/2014 4:17:47 PM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

You have a point except that I doubt that Israel believes the General. They’re not that gullible.

True, but this notion has been on the hot back burner since the last time they had to swat flies.


105 posted on 03/23/2014 4:18:42 PM PDT by Battle Axe (Repent: for the coming of the Lord is soon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: varyouga

It’s well known that Alberta’s children travel by the short bus.

It always perks my ears up when the thought police jump on a thread.


106 posted on 03/23/2014 4:19:29 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip; Battle Axe

You’ve got it backwards.

The general is believing Israel this time.
.


107 posted on 03/23/2014 4:22:40 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: txgirl4Bush

http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/thomasmcinerney/index


108 posted on 03/23/2014 4:22:56 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

Suppose there was a Chinese version of Snowden on that airplane who had on disk everything involving their work...all of the code, all of the manufacturing process....

And this was planned long enough ahead to make the arrangements needed to get the information to Iran via Pak?

That would make it worth the money and effort and explain why renting a beater 747 was not an option.


109 posted on 03/23/2014 4:24:40 PM PDT by old curmudgeon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: fso301

>> “Then why not steal a 747 cargo plane? Wouldn’t that be a whole lot easier?” <<

.
Sans useful personnel. You miss the whole purpose.
.


110 posted on 03/23/2014 4:27:35 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: B212

Far better than radar, that particular part of the world is the most heavily covered by photo surveillance satellites.

You can bet that every bit of this caper was picked up. (and fully analysed within 24 hours)


111 posted on 03/23/2014 4:31:40 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: old curmudgeon

A much more expensive, but permanent, technology for acoustic exploration is the installation of a hydrophone array connected to an underwater communications cable. Since the 1960s, the U.S. Navy has operated such a SOund SUrveillance System (SOSUS) for military applications in many areas of the world ocean. With the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the end of the Cold War, the U.S. Navy offered the civilian scientific community “dual use” of SOSUS to evaluate its value in ocean environmental monitoring. Since 1991, NOAA has successfully used these arrays to detect submarine volcanic eruptions in the northeast Pacific and blue whale movements in the same area. The range of the system is such that volcanic tremors from south of Japan have been successfully detected and located using SOSUS arrays deployed off the coasts of Oregon and Washington. Access to SOSUS is restricted, both in the sense that the data are classified and can only be used in a secure facility, and also by the fact that the arrays are deployed only in areas of military need. The cabled nature of SOSUS allows real-time acquisition of the acoustic data, but at a high cost; the total investment in SOSUS is estimated at more than $16 billion.

Sonobuoys come in a variety of configurations. Above are examples of three deployed sonobuoys with floats at the surface and the ceramic hydrophone portions hanging in the water column.

This map shows the location of the submarine cable off the central California coast that is being used for the Sound in the Sea Project. This cable stretches from Pillar Point Air Force Station to an underwater seamount (Pioneer Seamount) and is approximately 100 km long. A passive underwater hydrophone will be installed on the seaward end of the cable. Data on recorded sounds will be sent along the cable to a station on land for processing, then made available over the Internet. Click image for larger view.

In the mid-1990s, NOAA developed portable hydrophones that can be deployed anywhere in the world ocean. This device consists of a single ceramic hydrophone attached to a water-proof “pressure case” that contains all of the batteries, computers, clocks, and other electronics required to maintain the hydrophone for several years. They have been used successfully in marine mammal studies and seismic studies, and have even been used to detect landslides on the south shore of Hawaii from a range of more than 5,000 km. These instruments have the advantage of portability; that is, they can be deployed anywhere in the world ocean, but cannot currently provide the data in real time; one must wait until a ship revisits the deployment site and recovers the instrument. Another advantage is that these instruments are relatively inexpensive compared to a cabled system such as SOSUS.

http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/sound01/background/technology/technology.html

Would these pick up a jet crashing into the ocean?


112 posted on 03/23/2014 4:33:00 PM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: old curmudgeon

Certain of the passengers were the objective; not the plane.

But I’m sure that the plane won’t go unused.


113 posted on 03/23/2014 4:34:58 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

Quite a collection you have there.


114 posted on 03/23/2014 4:41:18 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

“Your thought police attitude is well known.”

Easily the silliest accusation I’ve ever received on Free Republic. I’ve posted to this website just a few times in the last five or six years. Nothing about me could possibly be “well known” here.

I should have remembered that long ago I learned better than to engage in these useless flame wars. The level of debate, not just on Free Republic, but on myriad places around the web where anonymous persons expose a bottomless supply of ignorance, is consistently weak and uninteresting.


115 posted on 03/23/2014 4:44:28 PM PDT by beckett (Amor Fati)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: beckett; All

I agree. The General may have sources but this thread has no legitimacy.


116 posted on 03/23/2014 4:49:12 PM PDT by mulder1 ("The past is prologue")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: beckett

This isn’t a flame war.

It is simply an objection to your attempt to stifle discussion of an important event.
.


117 posted on 03/23/2014 4:52:01 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: mulder1

Then leave the thread!

Simple, huh?
.


118 posted on 03/23/2014 4:52:57 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_03_13_2014_p0-672073.xml


119 posted on 03/23/2014 4:53:22 PM PDT by B212
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012

>> “Would these pick up a jet crashing into the ocean?” <<

.
Without a doubt, if it crashed within its range.
.


120 posted on 03/23/2014 4:55:24 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: B212

How to comment without commenting.
.


121 posted on 03/23/2014 4:58:58 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: txgirl4Bush

The other alternative route that the flight, whose communication system is now believed to have been deliberately disabled, is to the Indian Ocean south of the Malacca Strait where the plane was last sighted on a Malaysian military radar. According to Pillai, this would have taken the aircraft south of the Andamans.

Speaking to TOI, air traffic controllers’ guild secretary Sugata Pramanik said that while flight MH370 could have avoided detection on the Secondary Surveillance Radar, the blip by the huge Boeing 777-200 ER aircraft would surely have been spotted by the Indian Air Force that uses primary surveillance radars to detect such intrusions.

“If an aircraft wants to avoid being seen, they can easily become invisible to civilian radar by switching off the transponder. But it cannot avoid defence systems. The IAF has radars in multiple installations across the country and it is inconceivable that none of them spotted the odd blip with no flight clearance,” he said. There are nine air defence identification zones in the country that are manned 24x7 to prevent an enemy aircraft from violating Indian airspace.

READ ALSO: Satellites scour Earth for clues

According Guild member Sushil Mondal, all hell would break loose if the IAF detected an aircraft that did not have air defence clearance. Any plane flying through Indian airspace is first required to submit the flight plan and manifest to the air traffic controls in its flight path. This is then relayed to the air force for permission.

“There are times when the Air Force finds a blip that does not match a flight plan. That usually happens when flight plans going missing at their end due to a system or link failure. They then immediately contact us for information. If the plane flight plan isn’t of suspicious nature, a clearance is granted. Or else, it is asked to return to wherever it came from. In case, we too don’t have any information of the aircraft, there will be trouble and the Air Force scramble jets to take the plane down. Nothing of the kind happened last Saturday,” said Mondal.

Recently, the IAF scrambled a Su-30MKI in the western sector after noticing an unidentified ‘blip’ crossing over from Pakistan, It turned out to be a weather balloon.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Missing-aircraft-couldnt-have-entered-our-airspace-undetected-India/articleshow/32093403.cms


122 posted on 03/23/2014 5:01:54 PM PDT by B212
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

Quite a collection *we’ve* all got there, but apparently it’s going to continue to grow each day, regardless.


123 posted on 03/23/2014 5:02:54 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

Pure baloney — the General says that he has Boeing sources but he has none — NONE.

This Arc of the Last Ping is most definitely from Boeing sources and it puts the final position of the plane at 8:11, if it had flown the northern route, a long way from Pakistan.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3135643/posts?page=28#21


124 posted on 03/23/2014 5:03:59 PM PDT by Uncle Chip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

Don’t know what your angle is in this, but you are buying nonsense. The pings can more or less establish the temporal length of the flight, but are useless in finding any trace of route.

Positioning has been my business for over thirty years. I know the limits of time in establishing position.
.


125 posted on 03/23/2014 5:12:06 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
“This isn’t some comic book character.”

He is now.

Is it possible that the Regime has schemed to feed him false info in order to turn him into a comic book character?

If the Inmarsat northern locus is correct, MH370 would barely have been able to make it from Kazakhstan or wherever it was at the 8:11 ping south to Pakistan before time for the 9:11 ping, which was never received.

126 posted on 03/23/2014 5:14:21 PM PDT by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: All

Just like A.T.C. and Norad could locate the planes on 911?


127 posted on 03/23/2014 5:14:40 PM PDT by mulder1 ("The past is prologue")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

Are you saying that the Boeing people who gave us this Arc were mistaken???


128 posted on 03/23/2014 5:25:14 PM PDT by Uncle Chip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: cynwoody

You are misunderstanding the meaning of those arcs.

They represent an approximate maximum distance from the receiver, but absolutely nothing else.

In fact, if you draw the line from the receiver to the 8:11 position on the arc, it is strong evidence that the flight ended somewhere along the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan.
.


129 posted on 03/23/2014 5:27:47 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

I’m saying that you do not understand the limits of what that arc tells us.
.


130 posted on 03/23/2014 5:28:46 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

>>They represent an approximate maximum distance from the receiver, but absolutely nothing else.<<

No, you are misunderstanding the meaning of those arcs. They indicate that, at 8.11, the plane was located on the arcs somewhere, but that’s it. It has nothing to do with “maximum distance from the receiver” and everything to do with “approximate distance from the satellite.” In other words, it’s not a maximum distance, it’s a more or less exact distance from the satellite (or receiver as you call it). And it would be very difficult to land the plane in Pakistan before 9.11 from that distance, even assuming it were anywhere near the northern part of the upper arc at the time.

In fact, the searchers seem to have enough information to be concentrating on the southern arc in the Indian Ocean instead.


131 posted on 03/23/2014 5:35:47 PM PDT by Norseman (Defund the Left-Completely!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012; Ouderkirk
What happened to the passengers?

I don't know.

132 posted on 03/23/2014 5:37:05 PM PDT by Slyfox (When Jesus sees a momma holding her little baby, it reminds him of his own momma.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

I understand it quite well, thank you.

The Malaysian Airlines understood it when it smacked them upside the head.

The Malaysian military understood it when it forced them to admit that they did catch the plane on radar which they previously denied.

The 14 nations that were looking for the plane in the Sea of China but are now looking off the Australian coast
understand it.

Are you sure that you and the General understand it???


133 posted on 03/23/2014 5:38:19 PM PDT by Uncle Chip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

>>n fact, if you draw the line from the receiver to the 8:11 position on the arc, it is strong evidence that the flight ended somewhere along the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan.<<

There is no apparent reason to draw a line from the satellite’s position toward Pakistan. There is, in fact, no 8:12 position on the arc. The entire southern and northern arcs describe the approximate location of the plane as being somewhere along those arcs. Nothing on the picture justifies assuming the plane is any closer to Pakistan than to the South Indian Ocean.


134 posted on 03/23/2014 5:39:03 PM PDT by Norseman (Defund the Left-Completely!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Norseman

You simply do not even understand the problem.

No place on this thread to educate you.

The plane most certainly did not travel along either of those arcs.


135 posted on 03/23/2014 5:39:16 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Norseman

I meant to say there is no single 8:11 position on the arc, not 8:12.


136 posted on 03/23/2014 5:40:54 PM PDT by Norseman (Defund the Left-Completely!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

Time of operation is the only vector that you can obtain from the pings.

The arcs represent the capability of the receiver, not the course of the aircraft.


137 posted on 03/23/2014 5:43:50 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
In fact, if you draw the line from the receiver to the 8:11 position on the arc, it is strong evidence that the flight ended somewhere along the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

That statement tells me that you don't know diddly squat. The plane was not flying from the satellite.

138 posted on 03/23/2014 5:43:54 PM PDT by Uncle Chip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

Fine, but you don’t understand the calculation of the arc. It’s a single arc actually. I have no idea why the discontinuity in the center. According to the original description, the ping at each hour plus 11 minutes could be used to calculate how far the plane was from the satellite’s location.

The plane was located on the 8:11 arc at 8:11, but where on the arc, and what direction it was moving cannot be determined from the pinging of the satellite, just the distance.


139 posted on 03/23/2014 5:45:02 PM PDT by Norseman (Defund the Left-Completely!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
The arcs represent the capability of the receiver, not the course of the aircraft.

Wrong -- the arcs represent the distance the plane was from the satellite at a certain point in time.

140 posted on 03/23/2014 5:47:01 PM PDT by Uncle Chip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Norseman

No, the distance from the sat is a gross approximation.

Time of engine operation is all there is to gather there.


141 posted on 03/23/2014 5:47:27 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

>> “the arcs represent the distance the plane was from the satellite at a certain point in time” <<

.
No!


142 posted on 03/23/2014 5:48:22 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip; Norseman

All we are talking about here is a VHF radio transmission.

There is no way that the sat can give us position.

Time is the vector that it gives us.


143 posted on 03/23/2014 5:51:36 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

You’re correct. He seems to think we don’t understand, but he just doesn’t understand the meaning of the arc. The statement you highlighted clearly indicates that.

In fact, I’ve seen the 7:11 arcs and they would indicate that the plane would have been flying away from Pakistan in the hour between 7:11 and 8:11 if it were in that area at all. In other words, the 7:11 ping arc is closer to Pakistan than the 8:11 ping arc.

Personally I think he circled around intending to return to Malaysia with ill intent, but ended up in the ocean somewhere south of Malaysia though I’m skeptical of the debris reports. After all, if it’s down in the ocean, it’s been over two weeks now. But the fact that they’re searching down there makes me suspect that they have additional information indicating that he went south rather than north.


144 posted on 03/23/2014 5:51:38 PM PDT by Norseman (Defund the Left-Completely!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

>>No, the distance from the sat is a gross approximation.<<

Why don’t you take a deep breath and do some googling. You’re wrong.

The distance is anything but a “gross approximation.” It’s a mathematical calculation that specified the distance of the plane from the satellite when it was pinged. This is according to the operators of the satellite.

They said something about the angle from the satellite when they revealed the information, but it might have something to do with the time it took the ping to reach the satellite. I don’t know if they derived the angle from that, or if they have the angle as direct information, but they indicated that the plane would have been somewhere ON the arc at 8:11.


145 posted on 03/23/2014 5:59:32 PM PDT by Norseman (Defund the Left-Completely!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
In fact, if you draw the line from the receiver to the 8:11 position on the arc, it is strong evidence that the flight ended somewhere along the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The 8:11 arc depicts the places the airplane could have been at 8:11 Kuala Lumpur time. The question then is, starting from a point on the 8:11 arc, could it have made it to Pakistan before time to draw the 9:11 arc? Parked and powered down (or crashed) — mustn't talk to Inmarsat again!

The shaded area on the map I posted represents the places it could have flown with one minute to spare before the next satellite ping.

146 posted on 03/23/2014 6:01:54 PM PDT by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Norseman; Uncle Chip

>> “You’re correct. He seems to think we don’t understand, but he just doesn’t” <<

.
LOL!

Do you understand what it would take for a vhf signal to offer range information?

I’m quite sure that you do not, but here it is:

It would have to be generating a coded signal in addition to the data transmission, and in addition to that, a precise time signal would also have to be received and identified by at least 3, and preferably four receivers of precisely known position.

Code phase measurement is something I use constantly, and it is easy to see when someone hasn’t the slightest clue of what is involved. The vhf transmitter on the plane sends a very limited data signal that definitely does not contain a constant code rhythm.
.


147 posted on 03/23/2014 6:09:09 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
They represent an approximate maximum distance from the receiver, but absolutely nothing else.

The ping arcs are calculated the absolute, not the maximum, distance from the satellite to the airplane.

The satellite cannot sense direction. But, by measuring the ping return time, it can estimate the distance from itself to the airplane. That defines an imaginary sphere in space, which intersects with the earth's surface at the possible locations of the airplane at the time in question.

148 posted on 03/23/2014 6:09:41 PM PDT by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Norseman

Yep — the link at #124 shows clearly that at 7:11 it would be flying right past Pakistan on its way to Kazakistan.

If you notice the 1:11 arc corresponds to where the plane was shortly after takeoff, and then the 2:11 at the time it was painted by Malaysian radar heading for the Andamans. Those two points told the Malaysians that their data was right on the mark and forced their hand.

It turned direction between 2:11 and 3:11 and was closest to the satellite at 4:11. From 1:11 to 4:11 the plane kept getting closer to the satellite then at 4:11 it began moving away. I think that’s how they knew it was heading south.

Finding where it was on the arc was done by estimating its cruising engine speed at 525 mph.


149 posted on 03/23/2014 6:10:27 PM PDT by Uncle Chip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: cynwoody

No the arcs cannot be the course of the aircraft.

The sat cannot generate a range vector from a simple vhf signal.


150 posted on 03/23/2014 6:11:04 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-220 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson