Evan Burton

The FDR / CVR. A normal submarine could locate but not recover the "black boxes". That would require a specialist submersible. They dropped buoys to give them an indication of surface current. The objects were on the surface so they would need such data to determine where they might be when surface vessels get into the area. Likewise, that data can help indicate where an aircraft may have impacted the surface: any wreckage may have been drifting for weeks and so where it is now is not necessarily where it originated from. A regular ping.

I'd just remind everyone that we still do not have any confirmed wreckage. We have satellite images which appear to show something. When we have wreckage that is confirmed as being from an airliner then we can say there is a reasonable chance that it is from MH370. When we have wreckage that is confirmed as being from a B777 the we can be reasonably certain it is the wreckage of MH370. Once we have those items, only then we can start to speculate how it got there. If I were one of the countries involved, though, and was intent on mounting a serious search, I would have submarines in the area trying to detect the FDR / CVR signal. The sub couldn't retrieve them and I would most certainly not tell other countries that I had those assets in the area but it would mean I could retrieve them at a later date (as part of a public recovery operation). Why? Because the "black boxes" emit a sonar signal which is growing weaker by the day. If the aircraft went down in the South China Sea then it would be difficult to pick up that signal - despite the fact we know its frequency - because the South China Sea is a noisy place. Alternatively, the southern Indian Ocean is a relatively quiet place: limited traffic, large area. Factor in that the boxes are likely deep and therefore you want a sensor that is: a. Sensitive & designed to pick up weak sonar signals, and b. Able to go below any thermal layers which might hide and / or distort the location of any detected signals. On the other hand, if you want to get wild conspiracy theories, then go visit the Deep Bullxxxx Forum. One of the few people there who makes sense is Dawn Meredith; note how she bases her assessments on facts and makes reasonable speculation based on limited knowledge. Compare that to some of the loons there who speculate (e.g. Peter Lemkin) when they have no background in aviation at all*; their credo seems to be "if it is posted by an internet expert it must be true". * I'd remind people I have over 20 years in military and civil aviation

I'm waiting to see if what the air assets have located is actual wreckage of MH370. I won't be satisfied until we have verifiable pieces of an aircraft.

Hmm - didn't Hitler annex areas, claiming to be trying to protecting the rights of German citizens? Some interesting parallels here.

Okay, I've come up with two conspiracy theories... none of which I believe, it should be noted. I post them for comedic value only. Conspiracy theory No 1 It's the Russians. They had Su-30 aircraft, painted in Malaysian or Vietnamese livery, intercept and divert MH370; they had jammers nearby to stop all transmissions from the airliner. The Su-30s would have told them there was an air defence emergency or such to explain why they were being escorted off their planned track. The fighters escorted the B777 to a remote area then shot it down. They have also left false trails so the search won't be conducted in the area where it was downed. Why? They want to divert world attention from the Crimea crisis (this is a reversal of the typical "US false flag op" the CTs love so much). Conspiracy theory No 2 The other is that it's the Malaysians; the flight crew were secret members of the Kor Risik DiRaja, the Malaysian secret intelligence agency which specialises in psyop and propaganda ops for the Malaysian Army. The passengers - with the exception of the four Chinese nationals who were part of the hi-tech company - were killed. The cabin crew were probably killed and the aircraft was flown along a pre-determined route so that when the Malaysians call for "assistance" in finding out where the aircraft went, the neighbouring countries would unwittingly reveal their air surveillance radar capabilities. MAS itself is complicit in the op, as they are going to claim insurance on the aircraft. The aircraft itself will be de-constructed, all parts cleansed of any identifying marks and they cycled back through MAS to be re-birthed for MAS use or sold on the aircraft parts black market. The Chinese nationals will be forced to work for the Malaysian government, helping to develop their technological base.

The wheel well fire scenario is possible but I don't buy it myself; if a fire caused smoke that disabled the comms and incapacitated the flight crew then why was the autopilot still working? Time may reveal this scenario correct but personally I don't think it is likely.

Another excellent site to get real - not bogus - information: http://avherald.com/h?article=4710c69b

If you want FACTS - unlike most of the uninformed speculation that is rife on the internet - have a read of this post: http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/6027829/#13 It will be updated regularly and is by far and away the best summary of what may have happened, what is known, what is not known, what is possible and what is not possible. I love the very accurate summary of one claim: The US hijacked the 777 using onboard FBW technology to fly it like a drone to Diego Garcea (this one wins the insanity case)

Why on earth has the Malaysian government waited this long before telling the world that the aircraft changed course? Is the fact they have primary radar coverage in that area that secret? Could they have not have found a plausible way to get the information out, to stop wasting time searching in a low probability area? Or is this yet another bogus claim?

Hang on - are you saying the people are not informed enough to vote wisely and therefore we have to make sure they vote in their best interests? Please tell me I have misunderstood.

I wouldn't be too concerned about the difference in place ratings; the actual difference in years is not that large. For example, mean life expectancy: Australia - 83 UK - 81 USA - 79.8 In this example we are only talking a difference of 3.2 years between 9th and 35th.

I'm not impressed by the wording of the referendum: Option 1: Do you support Crimea joining Russian Federation as a federal subject? Option 2: Do you support restoration of 1992 Crimean Constitution and Crimea's status as a part of Ukraine?The second gives the parliament the power to join the Federation... which they have already announced they'll do. So no-one can say "No - let's keep the status quo!". It's heads I win, tails you lose. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2579012/Crimean-parliament-offers-two-options-referendum-voting-slips-Join-Russia-join-later.html

The crash of MH370 is bringing out the wackos with all sorts of crackpot theories: - CIA black op - Time Vortex - Making of 'Lost 2' TV series as reality programme At this stage there are numerous reasons that could explain the disappearance; until wreckage is found none can be verified. Depending on the circumstances of the incident, it might be a couple of weeks before wreckage is sighted.

It's a good point, John. But is it legal? Can the Crimea secede from the Ukraine? If not, should it be?

Russia sinks ships and blocks exit from port The Russian Black Sea Fleet sank a mothballed cruiser in the inlet to Crimea's Donuzlav Lake on March 5, effectively blocking access to the sea from Ukraine's primary naval installation on the peninsula. Seven of the Ukrainian navy's estimated 25 ships are reportedly trapped in the port of Novoozerne. This action serves several purposes for the Russian forces operating in Crimea, but most important, blocking the channel further limits Ukraine's already weak naval capabilities. Analysis Around midnight on March 5, the Russian navy used tugboats to maneuver the 9,000-ton hulk of the anti-submarine ship Ochakov into position, placing the hull broadside -- side-on -- to the roughly 220-meter-wide (720-foot-wide) channel that leads to Donuzlav Lake. Using explosives, they scuttled the 173-meter-long ship, leaving it partially submerged and on its side, preventing large ship traffic from using the inlet. Though the entrance itself is 400 meters wide from jetty to jetty, ships must use the center of the cleared channel to avoid running aground. Click to Enlarge Since the beginning of March, Russian ground, air and naval forces have isolated Crimea from mainland Ukraine. Across the peninsula, all Ukrainian military installations have been systematically taken over or surrounded and contained, with the purpose of rendering them useless as a coordinated fighting force. To neutralize any ability to oppose Russian forces, Moscow has relied on overwhelming numbers of military assets. Prior to scuttling the Ochakov, the Russian navy had utilized 10 ships to contain the Ukrainian navy element in Donuzlav Lake. The improvised blockage is an efficient, semi-permanent way for Russia to free up military assets for other uses. Although the Ukrainian navy is relatively weak compared to the Russian Black Sea Fleet, the Kremlin's operational planners still want to deny Ukraine the ability to concentrate force. Isolating Donuzlav Lake thus is a prudent move while Russia, Ukraine and the West haggle over Crimea. The removal of a scuttled ship in shallow waters can be very complex, expensive and time consuming. Given the present circumstances, with Russian forces in de facto control of Crimea, the Ukrainian navy has little to no ability to remove the obstacle. A large portion of Ukraine's naval forces will thus be sidelined from the ongoing tensions for at least the near future. Click to Enlarge Trapping Ukraine's warships may also give Russia a new bargaining option. Much of the present-day Ukrainian navy was appropriated from the former Soviet navy after the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991. In time, Russia might choose to retake part of its "lost fleet," depending on how negotiations play out with Ukraine. Reports from Crimea indicate that Russian ships have demanded Ukrainian sailors disembark in Sevastopol -- orders that so far have been refused. Russia has refrained from taking hostile action, possibly because boarding a ship can become complex and bloody if resistance is encountered. Russian forces have carefully avoided violence so far, seeking to bypass any incidents that could undermine Moscow's deeper geopolitical aspirations in Crimea. Russia seems content to keep the besieged ships at Novoozerne contained as bargaining leverage. Ultimately, the main goal for Russia appears to be keeping all Ukrainian forces in Crimea paralyzed while deterring any military operation that seeks to alter the status quo on the peninsula. Dividing the Ukrainian fleet achieves this neatly. ************************************************************************************************ Ukraine's Increasing Polarization and the Western Challenge By Eugene Chausovsky Just days before the Ukrainian crisis broke out, I took an overnight train to Kiev from Sevastopol in Crimea. Three mechanics in their 30s on their way to jobs in Estonia shared my compartment. All ethnic Russians born and raised in Sevastopol, they have made the trip to the Baltic states for the past eight years for seasonal work at Baltic Sea shipyards. Our ride together, accompanied by obligatory rounds of vodka, presented the opportunity for an in-depth discussion of Ukraine's political crisis. The ensuing conversation was perhaps more enlightening than talks of similar length with Ukrainian political, economic or security officials. My fellow passengers viewed the events at Independence Square in an overwhelmingly negative light. They considered the protesters camped out in Kiev's central square terrorists, completely organized and financed by the United States and the European Union. They did not see the protesters as their fellow countrymen, and they supported then-President Viktor Yanukovich's use of the Berkut security forces to crack down on them. In fact, they were shocked by the Berkut's restraint, saying if it had been up to them, the protests would have been "cleaned up" from the outset. They added that while they usually looked forward to stopping over in Kiev during the long journey to the Baltics, this time they were ashamed of what was happening there and didn't even want to set foot in the city. They also predicted that the situation in Ukraine would worsen before it improved. A few days later, the protests in Independence Square in fact reached a crescendo of violence. The Berkut closed in on the demonstrators, and subsequent clashes between protesters and security forces throughout the week left dozens dead and hundreds injured. This spawned a sequence of events that led to the overthrow of Yanukovich, the formation of a new Ukrainian government not recognized by Moscow and the subsequent Russian military intervention in Crimea. While the speed of these events astonished many foreign (especially Western) observers, to the men I met on the train, it was all but expected. After all, the crisis didn't emerge from a vacuum. Ukraine was a polarized country well before the EuroMaidan movement took shape. I have always been struck by how traveling to different parts of Ukraine feels like visiting different countries. Every country has its regional differences, to be sure. But Ukraine stands apart in this regard. Ukraine's East-West Divide Traveling in Lviv in the west, for example, is a starkly different experience than traveling in Donetsk in the east. The language spoken is different, with Ukrainian used in Lviv and Russian in Donetsk. The architecture is different, too, with classical European architecture lining narrow cobblestoned streets in Lviv and Soviet apartment blocs alongside sprawling boulevards predominating in Donetsk. Each region has different heroes: A large bust of Lenin surveys the main square in Donetsk, while Stepan Bandera, a World War II-era Ukrainian nationalist revolutionary, is honored in Lviv. Citizens of Lviv commonly view people from Donetsk as pro-Russian rubes while people in Donetsk constantly speak of nationalists/fascists in Lviv. Lviv and Donetsk lie on the extreme ends of the spectrum, but they are hardly alone. Views are even more polarized on the Crimean Peninsula, where ethnic Russians make up the majority and which soon could cease to be part of Ukraine. The east-west Ukrainian cultural divide is deep, and unsurprisingly is reflected in the country's politics. Election results from the past 10 years show a clear dividing line between voting patterns in western and central Ukraine and those in the southern and eastern parts of the country. In the 2005 and 2010 presidential elections, Yanukovich received overwhelming support in the east and Crimea but only marginal support in the west. Ukraine does not have "swing states." Such internal political and cultural divisions would be difficult to overcome under normal circumstances, but Ukraine's geographic and geopolitical position magnifies them exponentially. Ukraine is the quintessential borderland country, eternally trapped between Europe to the west and Russia to the east. Given its strategic location in the middle of the Eurasian heartland, the country has constantly been -- and will constantly be -- an arena in which the West and Russia duel for influence. Competition over Ukraine has had two primary effects on the country. The first is to further polarize Ukraine, splitting foreign policy preferences alongside existing cultural divisions. While many in western Ukraine seek closer ties with Europe, many in eastern Ukraine seek closer ties with Russia. While there are those who would avoid foreign entanglements altogether, both the European Union and Russia have made clear that neutrality is not an option. Outside competition in Ukraine has created wild and often destabilizing political swings, especially during the country's post-Soviet independence. Therefore, the current crisis in Ukraine is only the latest manifestation of competition between the West and Russia. The European Union and the United States greatly influenced the 2004 Orange Revolution in terms of financing and political organization. Russia meanwhile greatly influenced the discrediting of the Orange Regime and the subsequent election of Yanukovich, who lost in the Orange Revolution, in 2010. The West pushed back once more by supporting the EuroMaidan movement after Yanukovich abandoned key EU integration deals, and then Russia countered in Crimea, leading to the current impasse. The tug of war between Russia and the West over Ukraine has gradually intensified over the past decade. This has hardened positions in Ukraine, culminating in the formation of armed groups representing rival political interests and leading to the violent standoff in Independence Square that quickly spread to other parts of the country. The current government enjoys Western support, but Moscow and many in eastern and southern Ukraine deny its legitimacy, citing the manner in which it took power. This sets a dangerous precedent because it challenges the sitting government's and any future government's ability to claim any semblance of nationwide legitimacy. It is clear that Ukraine cannot continue to function for long in its current form. A strong leader in such a polarized society will face major unrest, as Yanukovich's ouster shows. The lack of a national consensus will paralyze the government and prevent officials from forming coherent foreign policy, since any government that strikes a major deal with either Russia or the European Union will find it difficult to rightfully claim it speaks for the majority of the country. Now that Russia has used military moves in Crimea to show it will not let Ukraine go without a fight, the stage has been set for very difficult political negotiations over Ukraine's future. Russian-Western Conflict Beyond Ukraine A second, more worrying effect of the competition between the West and Russia over Ukraine extends beyond Ukrainian borders. As competition over the fate of Ukraine has escalated, it has also intensified Western-Russian competition elsewhere in the region. Georgia and Moldova, two former Soviet countries that have sought stronger ties with the West, have accelerated their attempts to further integrate with the European Union -- and in Georgia's case, with NATO. On the other hand, countries such as Belarus and Armenia have sought to strengthen their economic and security ties with Russia. Countries already strongly integrated with the West like the Baltics are glad to see Western powers stand up to Russia, but meanwhile they know that they could be the next in line in the struggle between Russia and the West. Russia could hit them economically, and Moscow could also offer what it calls protection to their sizable Russian minorities as it did in Crimea. Russia already has hinted at this in discussions to extend Russian citizenship to ethnic Russians and Russian-speakers throughout the former Soviet Union. The major question moving forward is how committed Russia and the West are to backing and reinforcing their positions in these rival blocs. Russia has made clear that it is willing to act militarily to defend its interests in Ukraine. Russia showed the same level of dedication to preventing Georgia from turning to NATO in 2008. Moscow has made no secret that it is willing to use a mixture of economic pressure, energy manipulation and, if need be, military force to prevent the countries on its periphery from leaving the Russian orbit. In the meantime, Russia will seek to intensify integration efforts in its own blocs, including the Customs Union on the economic side and the Collective Security Treaty Organization on the military side. So the big question is what the West intends. On several occasions, the European Union and United States have proved that they can play a major role in shaping events on the ground in Ukraine. Obtaining EU membership is a stated goal of the governments in Moldova and Georgia, and a significant number of people in Ukraine also support EU membership. But since it has yet to offer sufficient aid or actual membership, the European Union has not demonstrated as serious a commitment to the borderland countries as Russia has. It has refrained from doing so for several reasons, including its own financial troubles and political divisions and its dependence on energy and trade with Russia. While the European Union may yet show stronger resolve as a result of the current Ukrainian crisis, a major shift in the bloc's approach is unlikely -- at least not on its own. On the Western side, then, U.S. intentions are key. In recent years, the United States has largely stayed on the sidelines in the competition over the Russian periphery. The United States was just as quiet as the European Union was in its reaction to the Russian invasion of Georgia, and calls leading up to the invasion for swiftly integrating Ukraine and Georgia into NATO went largely unanswered. Statements were made, but little was done. But the global geopolitical climate has changed significantly since 2008. The United States is out of Iraq and is swiftly drawing down its forces in Afghanistan. Washington is now acting more indirectly in the Middle East, using a balance-of-power approach to pursue its interests in the region. This frees up its foreign policy attention, which is significant, given that the United States is the only party with the ability and resources to make a serious push in the Russian periphery. As the Ukraine crisis moves into the diplomatic realm, a major test of U.S. willingness and ability to truly stand up to Russia is emerging. Certainly, Washington has been quite vocal during the current Ukrainian crisis and has shown signs of getting further involved elsewhere in the region, such as in Poland and the Baltic states. But concrete action from the United States with sufficient backing from the Europeans will be the true test of how committed the West is to standing up to Moscow. Maneuvering around Ukraine's deep divisions and Russian countermoves will be no easy task. But nothing short of concerted efforts by a united Western front will suffice to pull Ukraine and the rest of the borderlands toward the West. "Ukraine's Increasing Polarization and the Western Challenge" is republished with permission of Stratfor.

100% of the voters? Not one person disagreed? Can you say 'fraud'? Can you say 'dictatorship'? I can. http://www.smh.com.au/world/north-korean-leader-kim-jongun-enjoys-100-poll-win-with-his-sister-by-his-side-20140311-hvh9d.html

This guy has already been proven wrong:

And don't forget the infamous Bombay Docks explosion of 1944. That was about 1500 tonnes of explosives.

The first generation weapon was a 'gun' type trigger utilising uranium. There was no doubt that it would work. The next generation bomb was the plutonium bomb, which used a shaped charge to 'compress' the plutonium core into a critical mass. The design of the shaped charges were very important, and that's why they needed it to test it at Trinity. Hiroshima was a yield of 16 kt and Nagasaki was 21 kt.

I don't know why you don't check your sources. Dr Aldrich's expertise is in Political Science, not any biological-radiological field. http://daldrich.weebly.com/ https://www.cla.purdue.edu/polsci/directory/?p=Daniel_Aldrich When it comes to the issue of if seafood is safe to eat, etc, I'll still stick with people who are qualified to speak, such as Mr Hirsch. Anyway, it is been demonstrated you are wrong. I think it is futile to try and correct your claims when you have absolutely no desire to do so and are quite happy being incorrect. I'd advise anyone reading the thread to check everyone's sources, check to ensure you get supporting data from multiple sources, the sources are credible, and then use good judgement,

(I'm not a biologist) I'm surprised to find that sardines live to 15 years. They also eat plankton. Whales eat small fish. The blue whale has resumed migrating in the north pacific. They eat 4 tons a day. ... ? Perhaps checking out dead whales can somehow indicate a presence or not of (accumulated/concentrated) radiatiactive elements. They do get melanoma from sunburn. That is something that Mr Hirsch made clear. If contaminants get into the water they get diluted and don't really pose a problem; he has no problem with swimming, etc. The food chain, however, means that sea life can can feed on things like plankton and thus you can get a higher than normal does. Over time this can lead to sea life with unhealthy - possibly dangerous - levels of toxins. That is why he wants increased monitoring and for the monitoring to take place now and for at least several years; I think it is a valid concern. Let's face it - the inverse worst case scenario is that in the years to come we discover that fish stocks are unaffected and there is nothing to be concerned about. I think of it as good insurance.

Sorry Steven - I don't trust what you are posting. The links you provide don't seem to link to the quoted text and once again you use enenews, Once again, Daniel Hirsch is quoted here are saying it is no problem: http://www.sfgate.com/health/article/Coast-getting-little-radiation-from-Fukushima-5125645.php He is also on video saying it is not a concern (though he does make his views clear that he doesn't like nuclear power): http://revision3.com/whatsthebigdeal/fukushima-radiation So where did that text you quote come from? Well, it cam from here: http://www.gtweekly.com/index.php/santa-cruz-news/santa-cruz-environmental-news/5432-the-fukushima-fallout-.html So - again - is he saying there is contamination, that the fish are dangerous to eat? NO. He is saying that there are large risks and that they aren't monitoring the situation properly and that it is vital that levels be monitored using the correct equipment and skillset. He even says how some people are reporting reading which are being misinterpreted. http://www.ksbw.com/news/central-california/santa-cruz/zero-threat-of-fukushima-radiation-at-california-beaches-health-officials-say/23872086 So again it does not support what you are saying. I believe that you are - like many other people who are worried, ill-informed and ill-equipped to understand the situation - are simply scare-mongering. If you're calling for increased monitoring, then I'm on your side. If you believe, like Mr Hirsch, that the limits should not be lowered because cumulative effects can cause problems, then I agree with you. If you are claiming that it is dangerous to eat seafood from California and the cause is radiation from Fukushima, then you are plain wrong.

It would be nice to see the data that the Georgia Straight used; I'm not convinced that it is still valid when one of their sources, Daniel Hirsch, now says there is nothing wrong. Note that his original quote were from 2013 and the one below is from 8 Jan 14: http://www.sfgate.com/health/article/Coast-getting-little-radiation-from-Fukushima-5125645.php