A Startling Simple Theory About The Missing Plane
Interesting-and if proven correct, why wasn't this brought up sooner by possibly hundreds of pilots keeping tabs on the developments?
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
As a pilot and student of aviation mishaps, I even penned a fictional account of the loss of United 585 in 1991 and US Air 287 in 1994 entitled “Lady Laughing”, I will now bring you the final results of this current investigation.
The Boeing 777 will be found undamaged, undergoing a new paint job, complete with new registration numbers in a locked hanger at the airport of origination.
Baggage and cargo will have been sold piece by piece at the open air markets in downtown Kuala Lumpur.
All 279 people on board will have been provided new identification documents and allowed to immigrate into the US along the Mexican border with instructions to register to vote Democratic to save Obama’s failing socialist experiment.
Just like Air France 447, a few years back, you know?
Look at the CNN coverage if you really want to turn your stomach.
Finally, regardless of what is eventually uncovered...Hollywierd will still manage to screw the story up while making a movie out of it (for which, none of the grieving families will receive a dime).
The "goodnight" statement may not have come from this particular aircraft. Unless the comm systems have really evolved since I stopped flying (about 15 years ago), the air traffic controllers wouldn't know where it came from.
One simple fact that disproves the fire theory And makes it almost certain that the disappearance was a deliberate act of foul play.
I believe the pieces will start to fall into place (pun not intended) when wreckage is found. If the aircraft went into the ocean, that will happen sooner or later. An aircraft diving into the ocean after running out of fuel would break into pieces when it hit the water. And some of those pieces would float.
I’m waiting for some Christian to claim it was the Rapture of the Second coming of Christ that took the plane, right?
Another brilliant commentary by a follower of that great religion, Atheism. Why do you people continue to come up with these absurd statements about Christians? I believe that you will have a very long wait until you will see suach a statement as you expect above.
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
http://www.plusaf.com/falklaws.htm#13th
There's a great history and track record of that kind of nonsense appearing, so just live with it.
:)
and ps... i'm an atheist, and no, it's not a 'religion.' Unless, of course, you're a Believer AND your 'definition of religion' is designed to include atheism, large or small 'A.'
:))))
On the matter of Atheism as a religion, by that I mean that proponents argue for Atheism as strongly if not more so than any Christian ever would on behalf of Christianity. When was the last time Christians went to court to stop Atheists from proselytizing? Despite what you may argue, proselytizing is exactly what they're doing.
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
http://www.plusaf.com/falklaws.htm
My reference to Atheism being a religion was made because so many atheist treat it as such and proselytize just as many religious believers do as well. Most Christians tend to be willing to share their faith if asked to do so and some certainly can be somewhat overbearing when they do. I would say that certainly most atheist are overbearing when they insist that their belief is the only truth. Perhaps it is, but Christians believe that they atheist are wrong just as atheist believe that Christians are wrong. I, as a Christian believe that we are each entitled to our beliefs but not entitled to condemn the other as atheist tend to do. Feel free to choose to continue this debate at my email below.
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
While some atheists may 'proselytize' their 'belief' (wait.. is that an oxymoron?), there are certainly many religious folks of all kinds of flavors that do the same. That's where my 13th "Law" came from.
Sure, some atheists may be overbearing or claim that 'their belief is the only right one,' but that's certainly true of Believers and proselytizers of several of the world's 'major religions,' too!
I don't ever claim that any religion is 'wrong.' I don't know if their beliefs are correct or not, and for most of the litany, neither I nor anyone else might ever find out until we die, and ... bummer that it is, so far... we really haven't gotten any really good 'letters from beyond' to clearly prove or disprove any post-life 'realities' either!
Personally, I think THAT 'jury will be out' forever.
On the other hand, one of my favorite indoor sports is to ask Believers to try to offer REAL 'proof' that their beliefs are grounded in any kind of reality. Maybe it's my engineering training. Maybe it's genetics. I don't know.
But when Believers use circular 'reasoning' to 'prove' they're 'right' and seem to be unable to understand that their 'reasoning' IS circular, it just becomes an amusing pastime for me.
Some years back, some folks came to my door ... three adults and a young child, maybe of ten or so years.
They started a discussion with me about religion and I engaged them in a very pleasant conversation for something close to an hour! It was delightful!
And after about 45 minutes or less, they asked one of the adults to take the young child out of earshot of the conversation. <big grin>
And then they took their leave and went down the block to someone else's house.
Pisses me off that I don't sit down and write some kind of book about it, though I do have several themes in mind.
Cheers!
Fred
"Faith = Any strongly held belief, especially in the absence of proof."
When a discussion ends up with "I know it's true [that God exists, or whatever...] BECAUSE I know that it's true that [repeat]," that's what I call circular, no matter what Wiktionary might say.
I think that for many atheists, the "I believe that the bible is God's word because the bible says it's God's word" or similar words to that effect, is what we're trying to say about religion and circular reasoning.
In a similar vein, arguing for God's role in Creation from a position of "everything is so complex [or perfect or whatever] that a Creator MUST have been involved" is, imnsho, circular, too.
I think of myself as, amongst other things, a scientist/engineer. We're taught and trained that observation of events is critical to 'truth and understanding.'
Since it's been (so far) impossible to 'observe' the "creation event" or the 'start of the universe,' any and every theory is just that: a theory.
From the engineering/scientific point of reference, if a theory has some predictive value (ie, accuracy,) that can be TESTED, then it may evolve into a Law that accurately describes what is expected to happen in the future if the specified conditions of the theory are in place.
While 'science' is still collecting information and observations of events closer and closer to 'the creation moment,' there's no testable theory or collection of observations anywhere that fully and clearly describe ALL of the observed phenomena we're able to 'detect' NOW. Let alone explain the stuff we don't have explanations for yet, either!
Now, on a point by point basis, few atheists campaign to prevent religious folks from 'practicing their faith,' UNLESS that 'practice' crosses the line of becoming intrusive into the lives or practices or beliefs of OTHERS who don't SHARE those beliefs.
I think Christmas trees are gorgeous. I make some turned ornaments for friends and neighbors and gift them in mid-December. I put lights around the front of our home when I can. I love the parties and festivities.
But when any religious group crosses 'my bright red line' of "this is the only way to do it" or "ours is the right way and yours isn't" I will argue and protest against their intrusion into OTHER people's lives and beliefs.
The proverbial "your space extends as far as my nose or my toes, whichever stick out the furthest." Many religious people of various groups cross that line regularly and intrusively and I oppose that. But I never tell anyone to 'not believe what they believe.'
Of course, if they're also open to being questioned about their beliefs, I still love that as an indoor or online sport.
Cheers!
The bottom line that I come to after reading your last message is that you are at worst a polite agnostic. The types of people who tend to cross the line of telling others what to do with their belief system are certainly not people that I consider true Christians. They are in my mind not clear on the concept.
I can't quite agree that your belief that, “Now, on a point by point basis, few atheists campaign to prevent religious folks from 'practicing their faith,' UNLESS that 'practice' crosses the line of becoming intrusive into the lives or practices or beliefs of OTHERS who don't SHARE those beliefs.” Of course that statement is open to interpretation as to what intrusive means.
Leaving that aside, I must say that you do sound very reasonable in your note to me which is an honorable way of disagreement. Not exactly what I have experienced with most Atheist.
While I've always been amused by people who speak about “circular” arguments, I do think that I understand your meaning. Most people who use that word usually are only trying to put down the other person but offer no proof of their own.
I would like to put a question to you, the answer to which is a form of truth for me. As an engineer, I would think that you don't believe in chance. Do you believe that mathematics could be the result of chance? In nature there is much proof of mathematics functioning as the cleanest form of design.
As to the argument about creationism versus evolution, there is no argument needed because evolution could be just the form that creationism took. They can co-exist among reasonable people.
Furthermore, I have never heard a Christian use "I believe that the bible is God's word because the bible says it's God's word" as any argument to explain their faith.
Christians believe in God because they have faith, pure and simple.
Respectfully yours,
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
To your question of 'chance'... um, no, I don't 'believe in chance' at all. With my engineering and math background, I can look at events that have happened and see that there might be statistical probabilities of their having happened that way or not, and the math may, again, predict the PROBABILITY (not 'chance, per se) of a recurrence, given similar 'initial conditions.'
Some of the examples of 'math in our world,' such as the common occurrence of Fibonacci Series numbers in architecture and plants... well, I don't have a problem thinking that there is or was some 'survival value' or benefit to plants that evolved to include those ratios... the more successful ones squoze out the less successful ones that happened (by chance or random mutation) to have been 'born' with sub-optimal arrangements. e.g., the sunflower and pine cone examples. When things 'pack better' or 'fit better' they might have a better chance of surviving and reproducing. I do not require a Guiding Hand or External Force to have set those wheels in motion.
The Golden Mean in architecture dates back to probably Greek and Roman times and turns out to be a common facet of 'what looks nice to humans.' Ratios of width and height for the Parthenon, for example.
I have trouble connecting the ratio with a claim or belief that Someone Made Humans Find That Aspect Ratio to be Beautiful.
One of the other Creationy examples I've heard is that EVERYTHING is what it is and where it is because a Supreme Being Put It There.
In the end, I prefer to examine the Predictive Value of laws, theories or beliefs. If you can't start with TODAY and make a prediction that can be tested some time in the future for its accuracy, I have trouble putting much value onto such predictions.
I have no trouble 'believing' that the bible was written as a kind of guidebook for social and cultural interactions between humans in order to try to maintain stability and predictability for human societies, tribes and cultures.
I consider that the whole "God Layer" laid on top of it isn't necessary or all that helpful, on average.
"Evolution could just be just the form that creationism took"?? Well, may I accuse that statement of being circular, or at least self-referential? :)
Sort of like something I said some years ago...
"I am God. I created the Universe and Everything In it.... I think it was last Thursday.
Yep, I created ALL of your memories and beliefs that you have. I put everything in place to make it look EXACTLY as if all historical events really occurred, though none of it happened before last Thursday.
And there's no real way you can prove that my assertion is wrong! ANYTHING you assert will be responded to by me with the simple answer, "Yep, I Created That, Too."
At which point, I have opened myself to a mass of anger and insults from myriad people who would either disagree with me or blame ME for all of the Evil and Bad Things they 'think' they've ever seen.
So, actually, I lied. I did NOT Create Everything. I am NOT God. He's actually a neighbor of mine who used to live up the road from me in New Jersey. And, dammit, I forget his name. So go find him and pick on Him. He did it. To Everyone.
And there is NO WAY anyone can prove my claim/assertion wrong.
Which makes it, imnsho, to me, exactly as 'useful' as attributing anything OR 'everything' to God (or a god.) No predictive value and purely circular 'proof' of anything in the past.
But I DO love the way more and more theories keep coming up about 'how it all got here' and I love it when the theories describe ways to measure the accuracy of their 'forecasts' of future tests and proofs, AND that theories get changed, proven or thrown out as the result of new measurements or discoveries down the road.
Some of Einstein's theories took decades to verify... OR to prove inaccurate, too!
And thank YOU, too, for the polite conversation. On subjects like these, I rarely experience them.
Just like politics, religion and economics... :)
plusaf@plusaf.com
atheism is not a religion. I don't know why rapture had to make its way into the conversation. I am very worried for all of those passengers and their families...
ps... After The Rapture, can I have your car?
My reference to Atheism as a religion is meant to be a comment on the fact that atheist defend their belief just as strongly as Christians do theirs. It certainly tends to come across with a religious fervor. As to your reference to rapture, that of course was not my use of the word, but the reason for my commenting on the post in the first place.
Having been a pilot for over 45 years, I too am very concerned about the passengers, crew and their families.
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
Fred
Jim Wright
Your question is a ramble of cities without making your point. Are you talking about a hijacking or what? Flight plans are filed for each city pair as it is scheduled. Any airport in a legitimate nation will report the aircraft landing, so your question doesn't make sense. Please elaborate?
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
Jim W.
Having been a pilot for over 45 years I may be able to clarify this for you.
GPS has the ability to find the closest airports at the push of a button. Of course in the case of airliners that ability would be limited by having to find an airport with the required runway length.
There is little question that this particular mystery has the ability to puzzle experts as well as the amateur aviation enthusiast. This of course is not to mention that the nations involved, Few of them can be trusted to provide accurate information for any number of reasons. The only sure thing we know is that the pilots and flight characteristics did not conform with normal flight standards in many different ways. That is the major reason that we have only speculation because few facts are available or can be trusted.
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
Second, perhaps the pilot was designing such a sequential pre-preplanning method, rather than in planning the distruction of the plane, not an advance in pre-planning usage.
Jim
By the way: they've been talking for the last six hours about satellite photos showing very large pieces of flotsam that might be wreckage from MH 370. Those pieces are along at least one of the theorized diverted courses.