Flight AF 447 Upward Jets, More Evidence

Continuing on From…  What Killed Flight AF 447

Air France A330-200
Air France A330-200

Since the search for the ‘black boxes’ of Flight 447 was abandoned a few days ago (20th Aug 2009 – see news item),  only 3 days later, Nature’s On-line version has published reports of the jet things I was going on about in my first article about my thoughts on the disaster.  A free synopsis is here:

Quantification of the troposphere-to-ionosphere charge transfer in a gigantic jet

The article points out the currently known differences between the various electrical strikes, or jets, but two common things are stated in the summary:

  1. They all go upwards from the weather tops towards the edge of space.
  2. They all have massive amounts of charge.
Gigantic jets can travel more than 60km (40 miles) into the ionosphere
Gigantic jets can travel more than 60km (40 miles) into the ionosphere

Furthermore, the BBC has published a photo of this rarely seen phenomenon, “upwards lightning”.!

It turns out that the work (by Duke University), was done last year, but has only come to light in Nature today.

And Now?

For now, because there’s been no real extra evidence produced, jets or lightning strikes like this one (and others in the YouTube videos on my first article), I still think are a very good candidate for an explanation of the plane’s demise.

There are several reasons for this:

  • Air France Flight 447
    Air France Flight 447

    Several other planes were in the same area of the (large scale and not unusual) storms.  They were basically untroubled by the storms.

  • The other planes  saw nothing (apart from one which saw a possible flash of an explosion), which only adds fuel to the elusive quality of these electrical discharges.
  • This rarity of the strikes (as in the recent image above), coupled to their speed, all helps to confirm that if such a strike happened, it would be unlikely to have been seen.
  • The recent Duke research proves that such a strike, would be very powerful.
  • Modern planes are tested for many eventualities.  But a rare, high-power bolt of energy, is, by definition, very hard to test against.  Probably, the only way it could be done, would be to wheel a plane to a high power underground physics lab – but could it fit? !!
  • AF447 Rudder
    AF447 Rudder

    The plane crashed into the sea almost certainly in one piece (i.e. – no air break-up) because ,

    • unlike some other air-break-up crashes, the passenger bodies were not seriously damaged by a high-speed blast of air and rapid decompression.
    • large pieces of the aircraft were found – high altitude break-ups normally increase fragmentation and the bits aren’t large
    • the tail-fin damage proves it was attached when the plane hit the water
  • Apart from garbled radio alerts from the confused auto system, there were no human alerts from the crew of any kind…. ?    This means that either,
    • all of the crew were very busy
    • all (or most) of the crew were incapacitated
    • none of the normal communication systems worked
  • This suggests, to me, that the plane went into a flat spin or shallow dive, but not so extravagant as to snap the wings, tail or fuselage.
  • Coupled to the lack of messages, it suggests that most, if not all, electrical systems were dead.
    • It also suggests that the auto reporting system was more robust and had an independent power supply – which is true.  It, however, was getting duff information from the plane’s sensors, hence the garbled and conflicting automatic radio reports.
  • This all suggests a massive electrical strike, so fast and rare that no-one else in the area saw it.
    • If this incapacitated the crew, no-one is saying…  the reports I’ve read make no mention.

Ergo, upwards lightning, a blue jet or some other similar thing, but just enough to incapacitate the plane and most of it’s electrics…

Flat Spin

There’s an interesting video below, of a trained fighter pilot (arguably more proficient and clear-headed than an airline pilot), flying an F14 Tomcat into a flat spin.

The pilot says virtually nothing, even though comms were working.  The plane just spins and spins, dropping 15,000 feet until the guy bales out.

But notice how the plane does not break up in ‘flight’….

Q. So what does it mean?

A. It means the F14 was notorious for this and that even the best of pilots get spun into speechless confusion.


Murderous Robot Wars


Robot Wars TV
Robot Wars TV

Professor Noel Sharkey from Sheffield, better known as one of the judges on the BBCTV show “Robot Wars” knows a thing or two about robots and artificial intelligence.  He’s made a plea for more debate about the use of robot planes in warfare. (see link)

BAE Mantis
BAE Mantis

He’s said, “An international debate is needed on the use of autonomous military robots.  A push toward more robotic technology used in warfare would put civilian life at grave risk.”

Watchkeeper Drone
Watchkeeper Drone

Actually, when you look at the statistics objectively and compare them to large conflicts, like WW1 for instance, a war that kicked off mechanised slaughter, then it’s bloomin’ obvious!


The BBC report says that,

Between January 2006 and April 2009, he estimated, 60 such “drone” attacks were carried out in Pakistan. While 14 al-Qaeda were killed, some 687 civilian deaths also occurred.

What this means is that 49 times as many civilians as combatants were killed!

This is truly horrendous.

WW1 Montage
WW1 Montage

Now lets look at the statistics from the dawn of mechanised slaughter, the war to end all wars, the war where the Last Tommy has just died….?

World War 1 Stats

In WW1, Germany invaded France, and the war was largely fought in Belgium and France.  On the battlefields and surrounding areas, many civilians died, as well as combatants, (source statistics here).  Here we go:

  • France:
    • Military Deaths = 1,397,800
    • Civilian Deaths = 300,000
  • Belgium:
    • Military Deaths = 58,637
    • Civilian Deaths = 62,000

Even including all countries involved, the statistics are stark.  Forget about the actual (huge) numbers – look at the proportions:

  • Total Military Deaths in WW1 = 9,721,937
  • Total Civilian Deaths in WW1  = 6,821,248

So overall, 0.7 civilians died for each soldier.

Terminator: Rise of the Machines
Terminator: Rise of the Machines

If we scale up the drone usage deaths into a global conflict sized scenario (and knowing the military, this is exactly what they’d do), and using the military deaths in WW1 as a starting point, how many civilians would die as the armchair pilots sought their foes?


9,721,937 x 49 = 476,374,000

This is about the whole population of Europe!


Professor Starkey is completely correct.  If this is not a definition of the term putting civilian life at grave risk, then what is?

…and this is without attaching nuclear weapons to the planes…!!!

Of course, the effect of the usage of these machines and tactics is hardly likely to win over the Pakistani and Afghan tribesmen (the current targets) when every time one flies over a whole family is wiped out, is it?  So you have to ask yourselves,

If ‘The West’ is really trying to ‘win hearts and minds’ as they say, then what the fuck are they playing at?

in other words,

It looks like the real game is to continue the ‘war against terror’ to ensure that our people stay cowed and afraid and to justify the existence of the ‘military industrial complex’.


Just like the government in the film, “V for Vendetta”.

V for Vendetta
V for Vendetta

Garbage Summer Science

Is This the Worst Science Project Ever?

Pitt JolieThe Daily Telegraph, short of stories this summer now that the expenses scandal is dead, has published a picture of Angelina Jolie under the heading:

Women getting more beautiful, say scientists: (see link)

According to some work done by  Finnish Philosopher/PsychologistYliopistotutkija – University Researcher Degree: Doctor of Philosophy Department of Psychology University of Helsinki P.O. Box 9 (Siltavuorenpenger 20 D) FIN-00014 University of Helsinki” http://web.archive.org/web/20100115033346/http://www.helsinki.fi:80/psykologia/english/introduction/personnel.htm Markus Jokela,

…attractive women have more children than their less attractive counterparts and that a higher proportion of those children are female…

The methodology was to look at 2000 Americans, and then decide that ‘beautiful‘ women had 16% more children.  How this ‘beauty‘ decision was derived, is unknown, save for the comment that,

“attractiveness was assessed from photographs taken during the study”

The article continues in the same vein by quoting the results of yet more “scientists” from the London School of Economics taken in 2006.  They had the same ‘results‘.

The gaffa in charge of this, Mr Kanazawa, said…,

“Physical attractiveness is a highly heritable trait, which disproportionately increases the reproductive success of daughters much more than that of sons.”

Rubbish Science

Dunce's Hat
Dunce’s Hat

The point is that the above statement is produced with absolutely NO backing.  It’s an opinion, that’s all. 

It could be equally well said about men.

Remember, it takes two to tango and make a child.   The fact that attractive men can rapidly spread their seed faster than any woman proves that this statement is bunkum…

Look at it like this…
  • In 9 months, a woman can parent one child.
  • In 9 months, with one successful shag per day, a man can parent 270 children.

Who is having the greater initial reproductive success?  Obviously, the man.

I’m sure that someone like Brad Pitt, Jolie’s husband, if let loose into the wild, would procreate many more children than Jolie could!  If he came to Bridgwater, it’d be legs akimbo for weeks followed by lots of little Brad lookalikes!  Apart from the jollity, this will seriously slew the statistics wholly against the research’s argument! It only takes one rampant male to break the ‘hard work’ of hundreds of ‘beautiful’ women taking a lifetime to improve the gene pool!

Or look at it like this…

DNAThis ‘research’ assumes that attractiveness is a one-way process and that women passively sit around waiting to choose the best mate (using what criteria, are we to wonder?).  Again, this is plain garbage.  Women aren’t passive.  If one of a woman’s criteria for mate choice is the appearance of the man, then it chucks out the research findings right out of the window.  Indeed, the ‘beauty’ gene, if it exists, could be being selected for because the man holds it (he having half of his mother’s genes, after all) without actually expressing it himself.

Note to Researchers: check out the difference between a genotype and a phenotype before spouting this muck.

Or Look at it This Way…

My Observation of many UK towns tells me that there are a lot of fat munters on the estates (call them endomorphs, please).  They all have appear to have heaps of children despite any perceived lack of ‘beauty‘.  So what does this mean to a ‘scientist‘ in this calibre of research?

A.  Using their specious logic, I could say that fat munters are the most successful breeders in the country.  I could say that only fat people breed fast.   I could make all sorts of scurrilous accusations about them and the reason(s) for the perceived fecundity.  Just like boys-nights-out on a Friday eyeing up the talent?   But I won’t….

Because Any Logic with like this is seriously flawed.

CrowdIt’s not logic, it’s just opinion dressed as fact.  What the Telegraph (and other media organisations) has done by publishing this rubbish as summer titter, is to denigrate the hard work of real scientists with the mumbo-jumbo claptrap from pseudo-scientists looking for job justification.

There’s a heap of proper evolutionary and genetic research that disproves this tripe, so why do the Telegraph publish it?  A.  To fill space.


Even defining beauty with the narrow bounds of appearance is hard enough – but beauty and appearance, the attractiveness of an individual – these are all complex concepts that have provided artists and writers material for millenia

The trouble with the ‘research’ and it’s reporting, is that it demeans the real work to titillate the lowest common denominators in society, with the result that scientists, striving for humanity’s betterment, are made to look like pariahs and idiots, which in the long run, is very, very bad.

Flight AF 447 Ocean Floor

Atlantic Ocean Floor Profile

Atlantic Ocean Floor

Following the (as yet unresolved) crash of the Air France airbus on flight AF 447, much has been made about the ocean floor having huge cracks and being very uneven.  Most atlases, online and TV news reports say this and back the statement up with visual imagery of the bathymetry.  See this website for instance which has extensive large scale imagery.

It thus enters the perception of people that this is what the bottom of the ocean looks like.  Like in the picture to the left for instance.

Atlantic Floor False Scale
Atlantic Floor False Scale

This image at right is the one usually shown (e.g. on the Wikipedia article) for the sea floor profile in the vicinity of the AF 447 crash.  It has a greatly exaggerated vertical scale – and everyone says this.

But the thing is that the mental picture we have IS that of the picture – it’s how our brains work!  We conveniently forget the reality!

Atlantic Floor Rea lScale
Atlantic Floor Rea lScale

For comparison, I’ve reworked the image here.  I estimate the vertical exaggeration at 85x so all I’ve done is re-sized the picture’s vertical dimension by that amount, keeping the horizontal scale the same!  Be aware that the real scale image is ~2500 pixels wide!

Click on both thumbnails for comparisons! The real scale image now shows the ocean floor to be more like gently rolling hills, not precipitous chasms…

How this affects the continuing search for clues, I don’t know.  I’m sure the guys in the submarines are well aware of the ocean floor – after all, it’s their job and their working environment.

I’ve done this rescale of a popular image for my own, and others benefit, that’s all.