Interesting video from Antarctica, a woman opens a door with 60+  mph winds.

.

Geez, how did you get suckered into that, haha?

Can airliner flight paths be reconstructed after the fact? It appears that some can. This wouldn’t help with 305 because the system used to map ionospheric reflections using the Internet and HF ham radio signals wasn’t available in 1971.

This is truly fascinating. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I want to hear from Snowmman, Georger, Tom Kaye and other scientifically inclined Vortex dwellers. What do you think of this technique?

377

Can airliner flight paths be reconstructed after the fact? It appears that some can. This wouldn’t help with 305 because the system used to map ionospheric reflections using the Internet and HF ham radio signals wasn’t available in 1971.

This is truly fascinating. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I want to hear from Snowmman, Georger, Tom Kaye and other scientifically inclined Vortex dwellers. What do you think of this technique?

377

This is nonsense.  The probability of little green men from Mars hijacking the MH370 airliner is greater than the probability that this fellow can reconstruct its flight path several years after the fact.  

The WSPR Protocol:   You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login)

Applications
Raspberry Pi as WSPR transmitter

The protocol was designed to test propagation paths on the LF, MF and HF bands. Also used experimentally at VHF and higher frequencies. Other applications include antenna testing, frequency stability and frequency accuracy checking. Usually a WSPR station contains a computer and a transceiver, but it is also possible to build very simple beacon transmitters with little effort. For example a simple WSPR beacon can be built using the Si 570,[5] or Si 5351.[6] The Raspberry Pi can also be used as WSPR beacon. Density distribution of WSPR spots, January 2014 vs July 2014, using only most distant reception per spot.

Note - an accurate clock is essential both for transmission, and decoding of received signals (native Windows timing is usually inadequate).

MH370
In May 2021, aerospace engineer Richard Godfrey suggested an examination of historical WSPR data to further define the flight path of Malaysian Airlines flight MH370 on 8 March 2014, suggesting that there were "518 unique transmission paths that cross the area of interest around Malaysia, the Malacca Strait and the Indian Ocean. With the WSPR data provided every two minutes and the ability to check against the satellite data every hour it is possible to detect and track MH370 from two independent sources."[7]

However, the method used in this article is highly questionable; The reflected signal energy from aircraft in such distances is very small (inverse square law), much smaller than variance on the regular skywave signal due to multipath propagation, which can vary by tens of dB within seconds. Such difficulties make it necessary to use more advanced methods for radar applications at such distances in this frequency range (Over-the-horizon radar). But, the theory is sound. Better data may provide new insights especially if it agrees with prior techniques utilized which have already defined a general search area. 

One of the controversial claims made by Dr. Edwards in his book is that the timing of the plot points on the FBI flight path map are wrong.

To prove this claim, he references the notes of George Harrison. Dr. Edwards concludes that there are six different authors of the notes. He labels them A through F. He states that Author F made the notation “23 DME PDX” which indicates that Flight 305 was 23 nautical miles south of what is now the Battleground VORTEC. Author F marks this as occurring at 8:18. Two other authors marked the same event, but put this time as 8:22.

Edwards examines the remaining notes and times and concludes that Author F was listening to the radio transmissions in real time and that their time of 8:18 was accurate while the other two authors were reading the teletype printout which had a 2 to 4 minute delay.

Calculating the flight speed and distance in reverse, now puts the 8:11 - 8:13 jump time and drop zone farther south over the Columbia River.

I also tried to do this same thing, but I was unable to square that circle and make it work. Dr. Edwards puts forward compelling evidence, but this is a significant aspect of the case and is only given two pages of explanation. For such an important detail about the case, I would have liked to have seen more elaboration on it.

Lastly, in order to forestall any attacks directed MY way, I am non-committal about Dr. Edwards conclusions regarding this. I’m intrigued by it, but I don’t have an opinion one way or another basically because I don’t know enough about it to hold an opinion. Any of you who are more knowledgeable want to chime in?

Snow has me figured out. Twice in 53 years of jumping, I’ve been down to my last parachute. I didn’t like that feeling at all. Plan B is fine until you are using plan B and realize there is no plan C. At that moment I wanted a reserve for my reserve. Three altimeters makes me feel better than I feel with just one. I think I may need a third canopy. Statistically it’s extraordinarily unlikely that I’ll ever use the tertiary reserve. So I won’t be wishing for a fourth canopy. Three should suffice.

When I mentioned a tertiary reserve to a rigger friend he laughed. He said a few were worn by CRW dogs, jumpers who fly linked canopy formations which occasionally devolve into horrific wraps (entangled canopies). He couldn’t recall any tertiary saves. He suggested humorously that instead of a third canopy I just carry a gun. “If you really need a third canopy and don’t have one at the time, just shoot yourself because it’s clearly your time to die.”

Now where can I put my second spare tire?

377

One of the controversial claims made by Dr. Edwards in his book is that the timing of the plot points on the FBI flight path map are wrong.

To prove this claim, he references the notes of George Harrison. Dr. Edwards concludes that there are six different authors of the notes. He labels them A through F. He states that Author F made the notation “23 DME PDX” which indicates that Flight 305 was 23 nautical miles south of what is now the Battleground VORTEC. Author F marks this as occurring at 8:18. Two other authors marked the same event, but put this time as 8:22.

Edwards examines the remaining notes and times and concludes that Author F was listening to the radio transmissions in real time and that their time of 8:18 was accurate while the other two authors were reading the teletype printout which had a 2 to 4 minute delay.

Calculating the flight speed and distance in reverse, now puts the 8:11 - 8:13 jump time and drop zone farther south over the Columbia River.

I also tried to do this same thing, but I was unable to square that circle and make it work. Dr. Edwards puts forward compelling evidence, but this is a significant aspect of the case and is only given two pages of explanation. For such an important detail about the case, I would have liked to have seen more elaboration on it.

Lastly, in order to forestall any attacks directed MY way, I am non-committal about Dr. Edwards conclusions regarding this. I’m intrigued by it, but I don’t have an opinion one way or another basically because I don’t know enough about it to hold an opinion. Any of you who are more knowledgeable want to chime in?

Chaucer, this has been discussed at length here for the last 10 years or so.  It is as simple as anything can be.  The airliner was at the 23 DME point at 8:18 PM and so reported that over the ARINC telephone patch that had been set up.  Not everyone at the NWA facility at SEATAC, where the Harrison papers originated, was on the telephone patch.

The ARINC telephone patch went through the same ARINC facility that routinely communicated with aircraft through a dedicated VHF radio frequency.  Routinely, the ARINC facility would then type up the communication and send it by teletype to subscribing stations.  In this instance, the phone patch permitted the people in SEATAC and elsewhere to also listen in on the communications between the ARINC station and the airliner. 

Nevertheless, the ARINC facility continued to prepare and transmit over the teletype system the essence of the communications it was receiving.  This required a few minutes to do and the 8:22 PM time at the bottom of the message was the time the ARINC teletype operator pushed the "send" button on his machine.

The people who were on the phone patch got the time as 8:18 PM when the information was actually transmitted and the people who were not on the phone patch got the time as 8:22 PM from the time at the bottom of the teletype printout.

There is no problem with these times.  There has never been a problem with these times.