Cyprus-Forum.com

[Pyrpolizer]

Now coming back to GIG's informative post that says the ship was dragging the ping locator at a depth of 1.9 miles (3040 m) one can obviously understand 2 reasons for them doing so
a)To get rid of whatever distortion and diversion "the sound fixing and ranging layer" would have caused to the signal and b) to lower the pinger as closer to the source of the pings as possible.

So from that the obvious conclusion is that the pings that they detected were within 1.12 miles DIRECTLY away from the location of the pinger.
Was that so? We will see later.
For the moment just review some facts.
A)the 4 verified pings are these

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/04/09/world ... hpt=ias_c1

The first signal, at 4:45 p.m. Perth Time on Saturday, lasted 2 hours 20 minutes.

The second, at 9:27 p.m. Saturday, lasted 13 minutes.

The third signal was picked up Tuesday at 4:27 p.m. That lasted 5 minutes 32 seconds.

The fourth, at 10:17 p.m. Tuesday, was 7 minutes long.
A)all 4 verified pings were detected by Ocean Shield and the sonar it dragged at 3040m below sea level.
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/259515
All four pings were picked up by the Australian Defence Vessel (ADV) Ocean Shield at the northern end of the defined underwater search area of about 75,423 square kilometres.

[Pyrpolizer]

Not the big question is: WHAT WAS THE EXACT LOCATION of each one of the 4 signals received?
The images below tell it all:









I beleive this 4th picture is the most reliable one as it has the Australians seal on.

Now combine the info from GIG's post that the pinger locator could only hear pings coming from max 1.12 miles (1800m), that all 4 signals were detected by Ocean Shield, and that all four were detected by the same device been dragged at a depth of 1.9 miles below sea level (3040m) to avoid the problemwith the sound fixing annd ranging layer.
What do the distances between the pings ranging from 10 to 30 Km away from the other tell you?

They tell me one thing guys: That each and everyone of those pings is MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE to ALL OTHERS.
That the only way possible for that happening could be if the the beacon emitting the signals WAS MOVING.
If ping No 1 is correct then all others are wrong.If more than 1 pings is correct, then the "man made device" was moving

[Paphitis]

I hope you are aware that the Chinese detection was over 300nms from where the Australians detected their pings.

This one has been investigated and rejected as being a credible detection.

Also, they did mention that the signal does some strange things in the water. It can bend and refract in all kinds of directions. They also have very sophisticated sonar. The Australians are pretty much at the cutting edge in a Anti Submarine Warfare. They always perform very well at RIMPAC.

One year they were hunting an Australian Submarine HMAS Waller. This sub was being hunted by an entire US Navy Battle group which had the task to search and destroy HMAS Waller. The submarine was tasked with getting as close as possible to the US Navy Aircraft Carrier and to sink as many US Navy ships as possible. The Americans were never able to detect HMAS Waller. The Americans would not believe HMAS Waller got anywhere near any American Ships or their Aircraft Carrier until a few days later when the The Australian DoD sent the Pentagon photographs of all the American Ships from the periscope signed by the Sub's Captain including a shot of the Aircraft Carrier's Bridge.

Basically, kills for the Australian sub.

The only way the Australian Sub was detected was from Australian AP-3C Orion sonobuoys.

Always this country punches well above its weight. Seen it for myself so many times.

I also know they can pick up very weak signals in the ocean utilizing the most sophisticated of equipment. If there is a Submarine underwater and one if the sailors has a crap, the Aussies can detect it.

[Paphitis]

Back to the topic, I have been doing some calculations of my own.

If MH370 is not found, then it's back to looking for the haystack. So how can they do that? Well, the only lead now is the Inmarsat Handshake Arc!

So in order to search for the haystack, the Aussies are going to need Bluefin-21 and another more sophisticated Robotic AUV capable of going deeper. They will also require ADV Ocean Shield, HMAS Success, another Australian Frigate or Destroyer. Also required would be HMS Echo or another Survey Ship from the USN or RAN.

Now this is going to be painstaking and extremely expensive. Costs will easily exceed a Billion USD.

The AUV and RAUV will then begin daily sweeps along the handshake arc. One submersible can survey 10 kms to the one side while the other surveys 10 kms to the other side thus covering a span width of 20 kms. Assuming they can survey about 40 sq kms per day each or 80 sq kms combined they would be able to move approximately 4 kms along the arc each day.

Therefore to cover 4000 kms of the arc, it will take approximately 1000 days.

Now add about 20% for AUV issues and break downs as well as Ship rotations and redeployments. That gives us 1200 days of painstaking searching.

It is feasible but terribly expensive.

The Australians have done this before. They only recently found HMAS Sydney that was sunk in the Indian Ocean during WW2 only slightly south if the MH370 search area. The Navy was looking for this wreck for decades and eventually they found it.

So the experience is there!

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Sydney_(D48)

[Pyrpolizer]

I hope you are aware that the Chinese detection was over 300nms from where the Australians detected their pings. 1

This one has been investigated and rejected as being a credible detection.

Also, they did mention that the signal does some strange things in the water. It can bend and refract in all kinds of directions. 2 They also have very sophisticated sonar. The Australians are pretty much at the cutting edge in a Anti Submarine Warfare. They always perform very well at RIMPAC.

One year they were hunting an Australian Submarine HMAS Waller. This sub was being hunted by an entire US Navy Battle group which had the task to search and destroy HMAS Waller. The submarine was tasked with getting as close as possible to the US Navy Aircraft Carrier and to sink as many US Navy ships as possible. The Americans were never able to detect HMAS Waller. The Americans would not believe HMAS Waller got anywhere near any American Ships or their Aircraft Carrier until a few days later when the The Australian DoD sent the Pentagon photographs of all the American Ships from the periscope signed by the Sub's Captain including a shot of the Aircraft Carrier's Bridge.

Basically, kills for the Australian sub.

The only way the Australian Sub was detected was from Australian AP-3C Orion sonobuoys.

Always this country punches well above its weight. Seen it for myself so many times.

I also know they can pick up very weak signals in the ocean utilizing the most sophisticated of equipment. If there is a Submarine underwater and one if the sailors has a crap, the Aussies can detect it.

1--> yes I am. I am only referring to the 4 veryfied pings detected by Ocean Shield
2--> "The sound fixing and ranging layer" occurs 1/2 miles (800m) below sea level.
cyprus41865-780.html#p785569
The sonar was dragged be Ocean Shield at 1.9 miles below sea level (3040 m), to EXCLUDE those strange things that happen in the water (not everywhere in the water but at the specific depth of 800m)

[Paphitis]

I hope you are aware that the Chinese detection was over 300nms from where the Australians detected their pings. 1

This one has been investigated and rejected as being a credible detection.

Also, they did mention that the signal does some strange things in the water. It can bend and refract in all kinds of directions. 2 They also have very sophisticated sonar. The Australians are pretty much at the cutting edge in a Anti Submarine Warfare. They always perform very well at RIMPAC.

One year they were hunting an Australian Submarine HMAS Waller. This sub was being hunted by an entire US Navy Battle group which had the task to search and destroy HMAS Waller. The submarine was tasked with getting as close as possible to the US Navy Aircraft Carrier and to sink as many US Navy ships as possible. The Americans were never able to detect HMAS Waller. The Americans would not believe HMAS Waller got anywhere near any American Ships or their Aircraft Carrier until a few days later when the The Australian DoD sent the Pentagon photographs of all the American Ships from the periscope signed by the Sub's Captain including a shot of the Aircraft Carrier's Bridge.

Basically, kills for the Australian sub.

The only way the Australian Sub was detected was from Australian AP-3C Orion sonobuoys.

Always this country punches well above its weight. Seen it for myself so many times.

I also know they can pick up very weak signals in the ocean utilizing the most sophisticated of equipment. If there is a Submarine underwater and one if the sailors has a crap, the Aussies can detect it.

1--> yes I am. I am only referring to the 4 veryfied pings detected by Ocean Shield
2--> "The sound fixing and ranging layer" occurs 1/2 miles (800m) below sea level.
cyprus41865-780.html#p785569
The sonar was dragged be Ocean Shield at 1.9 miles below sea level (3040 m), to EXCLUDE those strange things that happen in the water (not everywhere in the water but at the specific depth of 800m)

Yes but I am sure the ping detector can still pick up noise from above. It would pick up thousands of noises that would mask the pings from the Black Box and make it difficult without specialist software.

Over all it would be a very noisy environment.

Let's not forget that the Australian detections have been deemed credible and consistent with a Black Box. It does not mean they are and it will only be verified when they detect the wreckage.

I however am fairly confident because these signals are very unique and there is no known natural source that can emulate this frequency range.

Wait and see now.

[Pyrpolizer]

Paphitis did you read my post here?
cyprus41865-790.html#p785572
Did you understand it? I WOULD expect you to understand it because you are dealing with much more complicated things be it aircraft performance etc.
In a nutshell: They lower a device at 3km depth.That device can pick up signals coming from max 1800m away. It did get signals.They checked them and verified to be correct. They called them verified ping No1.
Using exactly the same device at exactly the same depth with exactly the same capabilities of detecting signals coming from max 1800m away they picked another signal that they verified to be correct. They called Verified ping No 2, or 3, or 4. However this new signal was 10-30Km away from the previous one.

From all these do you disagree with my conclusions mentioned here cyprus41865-790.html#p785572 and if yes state the reasons.

[Pyrpolizer]

To make it as simple as possible I have used picture No 4 to draw circles within which the emmitter has sent the signals that were received and verified.
Here it is.



Do you have to be a rocket scientist to conclude that:

They tell me one thing guys: That each and everyone of those pings is MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE to ALL OTHERS.
That the only way possible for that happening could be if the the beacon emitting the signals WAS MOVING.
If ping No 1 is correct then all others are wrong.If more than 1 pings is correct, then the "man made device" was moving

[Paphitis]

To make it as simple as possible I have used picture No 4 to draw circles within which the emmitter has sent the signals that were received and verified.
Here it is.



Do you have to be a rocket scientist to conclude that:

They tell me one thing guys: That each and everyone of those pings is MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE to ALL OTHERS.
That the only way possible for that happening could be if the the beacon emitting the signals WAS MOVING.
If ping No 1 is correct then all others are wrong.If more than 1 pings is correct, then the "man made device" was moving

It was ADV Ocean Shield that was in the area. On top of that, Australian AP-3C Orions blitz the entire area. If anything was moving underwater, the Australians would pick it up 100% guaranteed!

[Paphitis]

Paphitis did you read my post here?
cyprus41865-790.html#p785572
Did you understand it? I WOULD expect you to understand it because you are dealing with much more complicated things be it aircraft performance etc.
In a nutshell: They lower a device at 3km depth.That device can pick up signals coming from max 1800m away. It did get signals.They checked them and verified to be correct. They called them verified ping No1.
Using exactly the same device at exactly the same depth with exactly the same capabilities of detecting signals coming from max 1800m away they picked another signal that they verified to be correct. They called Verified ping No 2, or 3, or 4. However this new signal was 10-30Km away from the previous one.

From all these do you disagree with my conclusions mentioned here cyprus41865-790.html#p785572 and if yes state the reasons.

No sorry it does not mean anything conclusive to me.

I believe the Australians are able to detect these signals up to 20 kms away. Probably even more.