Frontlines

They say summary

Claim
Warrant


First they say search waste of time, but their card is wrong because the source for
the search being a cover up is a former prime ministers conspiracy theory that the
CIA might be withholding information, with the only evidence for him being correct
being that the media wont publish anything about boeing or the CIA. This isnt
evidence.
Also finding the plane isnt what solves for our advantage, unless the coverup means
we dont map the ocean floor, we still solve overfishing. Also extend Austin 14 here,
orion can find this thing.

Then they say its buried under ocean sentiment, but there are several problems
with that. First, the ocean doesn't have sentiments, it has sediment. Then, the card
just mentions that a huge avalanche could have happened, not that it has happened.

Then they say searching in wrong place, but
( ) Search is in the right vicinity Inmarsat data independently verified.

Quest 14
Richard Quest is an English journalist and a CNN International anchor and reporter based in New York. He
anchors Quest Means Business. In addition to anchoring the five-times-weekly business program, Quest hosts
the monthly program CNN Business Traveller[2] and "CNN Marketplace Europe MH370: Is Inmarsat right?
CNN May 27
th
http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/27/world/asia/mh370-is-inmarsat-right-quest-
analysis/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

In the aviation mystery which has baffled the world there is one fundamental question which continues to swirl: Has
Inmarsat got its numbers right? It was these very calculations which led the search for MH370 far from
the plane's original route across South East Asia and deep into the southern Indian Ocean, off the west
coast of Australia. No piece of work is more important in the search for the plane. I was given exclusive access to the satellite
experts who did the ground-breaking work. Time and again, I would ask them the toughest question: "Are you right?" But
before we get there ... How did the data come to light in the first place? Once the plane went missing, the ground station in
Perth checked the logs and discovered that while the aircraft's communications systems were switched off, the plane and the
satellite still kept saying "hello" to each other, every hour. "Having messages for six hours after the plane is lost is probably the
biggest disbelief," admits Inmarsat's vice president of satellite operations Mark Dickinson. These messages are the raw data
upon which everything rests. After the alert had been raised at the company's London headquarters, engineers began urgently
interpreting the raw data. Dickinson explains: "We have some timing information ... that allows you to essentially work out the
distance from the satellite ... and in addition to that there were some frequency measurements." Using the discrepancy of
satellite frequency known as the Doppler Effect, the team spent ten days refining their work before they briefed the Malaysian
Prime Minister Najib Razak, who stunned the world by revealing the plane's flight had ended in the South Indian Ocean.
Dickinson says that when he realized what had probably happened, his reaction was: "Let's check this and let's check it again,
because you want to make sure when you come to a conclusion like that you have done the right work... As good engineers we
are trained to check and check again." So why is Dickinson so sure he is right? Because the model they created
showing arcs and Doppler readings was rigorously tested, initially on other aircraft on the
satellite at the same time, and then against previous flights by the same aircraft. With
minor disagreements both the position and the Doppler reading of those aircraft was predicted accurately. Other
organizations created their own models, ran the comparisons and came to the same
conclusions. It is essential to understand: This is not just Inmarsat's frolic. "No-one has come
up yet with a reason why it shouldn't work with this particular flight when it has worked with others," Dickinson told me.
"It's very important that this isn't just an Inmarsat activity." So why haven't they found
the plane where Inmarsat says it should be? Simply put, it's a big ocean, the ocean floor is very deep, with
valleys and hills. In the bigger picture, the search has really only just begun.

( ) Pinger mishap irrelevant Sat data still means the plans in the Indian
Ocean.

Topham 14
Gwyn Topham, transport correspondent for The Guardian MH370: what next for the search? The Guardian
May 29
th
, 2014 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/29/malaysia-airlines-mh370-search
Two sets of signals have been described as pings during the search: the electronic "handshake" from the Boeing 777's
(switched off) tracking systems, recorded by satellite firm Inmarsat; and the sounds apparently picked up in early April in an
underwater search, initially believed to have been emitted by an aircraft's black box flight recorders. The second pings
have now been more or less discounted as a false lead, with Australia announcing it has
comprehensively searched the zone they indicated without success. The satellite data, in contrast, is
regarded by search authorities as sound, and will form the basis for the continuing
search the new area follows the arc of the projected southern flight path. Inmarsat made the data fully
available for public scrutiny earlier this week, as families and others had expressed scepticism.



And again, we dont need to find the plane to solve for our advantages. As long as we
map the indian ocean, we solve for overfishing and malnutrition for a billion people.