El recuadro en rojo dice:
"Area aproximada dónde un radar militar
detectó avión no identificado"
Ni que decir tiene que con la tecnología actual
todos los aviones en el aire
estan identificados,
de lo contario no podrían
estar volando.
(Al menos que no sean
del Cartel del narcotrafico...y tampoco)
Por lo que en otras noticias,
en lugar de "avión no identificado"
se dice "objeto no identificado"
¿Es éste azimut del asunto
el que se está taponando?
(Porque como vivimos
en un mundo de taponadores,
uno tiene "la mosca detrás de la oreja"
...y detrás de otros organos sensoriales)
(Porque como vivimos
en un mundo de taponadores,
uno tiene "la mosca detrás de la oreja"
...y detrás de otros organos sensoriales)
Es una pregunta, nada más.
quería que los hombres preguntasen
como primer paso en el camino del saber.
Pués eso es lo que hemos hecho, nada más.
PD:
Hemos querido plantear esta cuestión, no por folklore "ovnístico", sino por principium rationis, por el principio de la razón que nos dice que, según MUFON, todos los años se reportan docenas de miles de avistamientos de OVNI's, y aúnque solo el 10 % de todos ellos sean verídicos, ésto sólo hace albergar en los cielos un gran número de extraños cacharros, y si es verdad lo que se lee de que todas las posibles causas son estudiadas al respecto, es totalmente coherente y verosimil que ésta posibilidad también se tenga que incluir hasta que se esclarezcan los hechos...Pero no somos naïve, claro, porque éste es el azimut al que los taponadores le ponen el tapón. (Hay mucho en juego)
Claro que una explicacion mas terraquea pudiera ser la que dá Peter Symonds , Global Research, March 13, 2014
World Socialist Web Site:
World Socialist Web Site:
"One possible explanation for the MH370 disappearance has received little press coverage. Last year, the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) warned of a serious technical flaw in Boeing 777s, one of which was used in the flight. The FAA issued a worldwide alert over the dangers of cracking in the fuselage skin underneath the aircraft’s satellite antenna that could lead to decompression and render the occupants, including the crew, unconscious.
As reported in the Sydney Morning Herald, a posting on the Professional Pilots Rumour Network explained: “A slow decompression (e.g. from a golfball-sized hole) would have gradually impaired and confused the pilots before cabin altitude (pressure) warnings sounded… If the decompression was slow enough, it’s possible the pilots did not realise to put on oxygen masks before it was too late.” The site of the flaw could also account for the failure of satellite communications, including the aircraft’s transponder. If that happened, the plane could continue to fly on automatically or veer off course, with the crew and passengers unconscious.
The theory, of course, is speculative, but there are obvious reasons for both Boeing and Malaysian Airlines to downplay such a mechanical flaw. The FAA directive was issued after an inspection of a 14-year-old Boeing 777 discovered a 16-inch crack. The agency called for “repetitive inspections of the visible fuselage skin and doubler” to be incorporated into the routine maintenance schedule for the Boeing 777s worldwide.
When contacted by Fairfax Media, a Boeing spokeswoman declared that it was up to individual airlines, not the manufacturer, to follow FAA directives. The article indicated that it was not known if Malaysia Airlines had incorporated the directive into the maintenance schedule for its Boeing 777 fleet. The airline made substantial losses over the past three years and last year cut its maintenance costs. It has emphasised its good safety record and the experience of the crew flying MH370."
As reported in the Sydney Morning Herald, a posting on the Professional Pilots Rumour Network explained: “A slow decompression (e.g. from a golfball-sized hole) would have gradually impaired and confused the pilots before cabin altitude (pressure) warnings sounded… If the decompression was slow enough, it’s possible the pilots did not realise to put on oxygen masks before it was too late.” The site of the flaw could also account for the failure of satellite communications, including the aircraft’s transponder. If that happened, the plane could continue to fly on automatically or veer off course, with the crew and passengers unconscious.
The theory, of course, is speculative, but there are obvious reasons for both Boeing and Malaysian Airlines to downplay such a mechanical flaw. The FAA directive was issued after an inspection of a 14-year-old Boeing 777 discovered a 16-inch crack. The agency called for “repetitive inspections of the visible fuselage skin and doubler” to be incorporated into the routine maintenance schedule for the Boeing 777s worldwide.
When contacted by Fairfax Media, a Boeing spokeswoman declared that it was up to individual airlines, not the manufacturer, to follow FAA directives. The article indicated that it was not known if Malaysia Airlines had incorporated the directive into the maintenance schedule for its Boeing 777 fleet. The airline made substantial losses over the past three years and last year cut its maintenance costs. It has emphasised its good safety record and the experience of the crew flying MH370."
