DJ# @SG_Walther *CAPE TOWN* Top 125 Song Chart

DJ@ SG Walther
* Cape Town *	Songs ranked by Chart Playlist
Top 125	& alphabetically by Artist
09 August 2015	within each playlist
Top 10		Rating
Fantasy	Alina Baraz & Galimatias	100
Talking About	Conor Maynard	100
Pressure Off (ft. J Monáe & N Rodgers)	Duran Duran	100
Body Talk	Foxes	100
Hold You Close	Gavin Slate	100
Crossfade	Gusgus	100
Benediction	Hot Natured	100
Stole the Show (feat. Parson James)	Kygo	100
Sunlight (feat. Years and Years)	The Magician	100
Daffodils (feat. Kevin Parker)	Mark Ronson	100
Outlines	Mike Mago & Dragonette	100
Cheerleader (Felix Jaehn Remix)	Omi	100
Wish You Were Mine	Philip George	100
I Had This Thing	Röyksopp	100
Can't Feel My Face	The Weeknd	100
Goodbye	Who Is Fancy	100
King	Years & Years	100
Top 25		Rating
I'm an Albatraoz	AronChupa	80
Generate (Radio Edit)	Eric Prydz	80
Crumbler	Jungle	100
Are You With Me (Kungs Radio Edit)	Lost Frequencies	100
Devil Pray	Madonna	100
It Was Always You	Maroon 5	100
Say My Name (feat. Zyra)	ODESZA	100
Seasons	Olly Murs	80
Drag Me Down	One Direction	80
I Lived	OneRepublic	100
I Will Never Let You Down	Rita Ora	100
Runaway	sElf	60
Faded	ZHU	100
Top 40		Rating
Caution To the Wind	Becky Hill	100
Higher Ground (feat. Charli Taft)	Blonde	100
Break the Rules	Charli XCX	100
Midnight	Coldplay	100
A Sky Full of Stars	Coldplay	100
Lift Off (feat. Pharrell)	Conor Maynard	100
Cool Kids	Echosmith	100
My Silver Lining	First Aid Kit	80
Pumped Up Kicks	Foster the People	60
Here For You (feat. Laura Welsh)	Gorgon City	80
Imagination (feat. Katy Menditta)	Gorgon City	100
Cecilia	Jesse Cook	80
Time	Jungle	100
Hideaway	Kiesza	100
Way We Are Extended Mix	Kove / Melissa Steel	100
ARTPOP	Lady Gaga	80
Ghosttown	Madonna	80
Hold Tight	Madonna	80
Joan of Arc	Madonna	60
Animals	Maroon 5	100
Sugar	Maroon 5	60
Always (HK Miami 2014 Edit)	MK	100
Waves (Robin Schulz Radio Edit)	Mr. Probz	100
Daft Funk (feat. Mr. Talkbox)	Nathan East	80
Cold (feat. Fryars)	Rae Morris	80
Prayer in C (Robin Schulz Remix)	Robin Schulz & LILLYWOOD	100
Sordid Affair	Röyksopp	80
No Good in Goodbye	The Script	100
The Energy Never Dies	The Script	100
Sunrise	Slaptop	60
Paint the Town Green	The Script	100
Happy Little Pill	Troye Sivan	100
Shine	Years & Years	80
Top 80		Rating
Woody Allen	Allo Darlin'	80
Treasure	Bruno Mars	80
Toxic (X Factor Performance)	Chloe Jasmine	80
If U Got It (Radio Edit)	Chris Malinchak	100
Rather Be (feat. Jess Glynne)	Clean Bandit	100
Ink	Coldplay	100
Another's Arms	Coldplay	80
Miracles	Coldplay	80
Can't Say No	Conor Maynard	100
Omen (feat. Sam Smith)	Disclosure	80
Hold On, We're Going Home	Drake	100
One	Ed Sheeran	100
Ghost (Switch Remix Radio Edit)	Ella Henderson	100
Ain't Nobody (Loves Me Better)	Felix Jaehn	80
Go All Night (feat. Jennifer Hudson)	Gorgon City	100
Solo Dancing	Indiana	100
Drops	Jungle	80
Say Something	Karen Harding	100
Jachda	Kaz khan	80
Firestone (feat. Conrad)	Kygo	80
Love Thing	Lady A.M.	80
Brooklyn Baby (Konstantin Sibold Remix)	Lana Del Rey	80
Let Your Hair Down	MAGIC!	80
Maps	Maroon 5	80
All About That Bass	Meghan Trainor	60
Love Never Felt So Good	Michael Jackson	80
Teenage Dirtbag	Mighty Little	100
Destination	Nickel Creek	80
You’re Not Alone (feat. Britt Nicole)	Owl City	80
Wicked Games (feat. Anna Naklab)	Parra for Cuva	100
Flares	The Script	100
Look Right Through	Storm Queen & MK	80
Welcome To New York	Taylor Swift	60
Every Breaking Wave	U2	100
Under the Pressure	The War on Drugs	100
Red Eyes	The War on Drugs	80
Love Is to Die	Warpaint	80
Desire	Years & Years	80
Chocolate	The 1975	100
Top 125		Rating
minipops 67 [120.2] [source field mix]	Aphex Twin	80
Waiting for Love	Avicii	60
Torn Apart (Bastille VS. GRADES)	Bastille & Grades	60
What I Might Do (Radio Edit)	Ben Pearce	100
The Rain	Biffy Clyro	80
Dangerous (feat. Joywave)	Big Data	80
Jealous (I Ain't With It)	Chromeo	80
Always In My Head	Coldplay	100
True Love	Coldplay	80
Animal	Conor Maynard	100
They Don't Know	Disciples	60
Latch (feat. Sam Smith)	Disclosure	100
I Got U (feat. Jax Jones)	Duke Dumont	100
Bloodstream	Ed Sheeran	80
One More Day (Stay with Me) (Extended)	Example	80
Nature Trips	Eyedress	80
Call	Francesco Yates	60
Budapest	George Ezra	60
History (feat. Will Young)	Groove Armada	80
Permission To Love	Hayden James	80
Sweetest Ting	Jahdan Blakkamoore	80
Curse Curse	James	80
Want to Want Me	Jason Derulo	60
Right Here	Jess Glynne	80
Tough Love	Jessie Ware	80
Busy Earnin'	Jungle	100
Crazy	Kat Dahlia	60
The Big Bang	Katy Tiz	80
Happy / Teardrop Mashup	Lauren Platt	80
Pretty Girls	Little Dragon	80
Team	Lorde	60
Living For Love	Madonna	60
Rude	MAGIC!	80
Take Yours, I'll Take Mine	Matthew Mole	60
You and I (Deadmau5 Remix)	Medina	80
Slave to the Rhythm	Michael Jackson	80
Am I Wrong	Nico & Vinz	80
Back and Forth	Operator Please	80
Miss Jackson (feat. LOLO)	Panic! At the Disco	100
Happy (from "Despicable Me 2")	Pharrell Williams	80
Please Forgive Me	The Pierces	80
Me and My Broken Heart	Rixton	60
Paranoia, Ghosts & Other Sounds	Safia	80
Broken English	Scratch Massive	80
Man on a Wire	The Script	60
Aviation High	Semi Precious Weapons	80
Ishq Da Rogh	SK-1	80
No Odda	Tafari	80
Blank Space	Taylor Swift	60
Nobody Love	Tori Kelly	60
Glow In the Dark	The Wanted	100
Bullit	Watermät	60
Got to My Head	WATERS	60
8	Willow	60
compiled by DJ Siegfried Walther of Cape Town  Link to  16 August 2015 chart: http://siegfriedwalther.blogspot.com/2015/08/dj-sg-walth-er-cape-town-top-125-09.html

#MH370 Replies to Duncan Steel's "rebuttal" & to Mike Exner

#MH370 Replies to Duncan Steel's "rebuttal" of 26 June 2015 & to Michael Exner's comments of 16 June 2015 regarding my book #MH370 & #AF447


Let me start by quoting the two articles: Duncan Steel refers to the Michael Exner comment.

Duncan Steel 
http://www.duncansteel.com/archives/category/mh370

"Another recent publication regarding MH370 that is also badly in error is an ebook entitled  “MH370 & AF447″ which has been made available online by the author, one Siegfried Walther. It is a tissue of nonsense.

A few comments from Independent Group (IG) members regarding Walther’s ebook:

It was written by a lawyer and it shows. There were a lot of words and self-promotion but little substance.

Let me say that the article is a rambling mess and hardly the work product of a competent attorney. There are errors of fact as in most of the published work on this subject because the full scenario is complex and unique; further, there are a relatively small number of undisputed facts.

I stopped reading after page 18. That’s when I realized the entire theory rested on the likely-false assumption that ACARS was turned off at 1707…an unlikely assumption …certainly not a known fact.

A more-detailed summary of this egregious mistake in Walther’s purported analysis appears below, written by Mike Exner."

Comments on “MH370 & AF447″ by Siegfried Walther
by Michael Exner
2015 June 16 

"Unfortunately, the analysis of MH370 by Siegfried Walther is fundamentally flawed from the outset by his misunderstanding of how the ACARS system works in conjunction with the Inmarsat AMSS system. Starting on page 16, Walther states:

“The ACARS was switched off or became disabled at 01:07. The Transponder only switched off or became disabled some thirteen minutes later at 01:20 after MH370 signed off from Malaysian ATC.”

This statement is simply not true. There is no evidence whatsoever that the ACARS was switched off or became disabled at 17:07 UTC. All that is known for sure is that the ACARS transmission expected at 17:37 (30 minutes later) did not take place. From this fact, it is known that ACARS or the AES (or both) stopped functioning at some unknown time between 17:07 and 17:37. Absent any other information, it could be said that the probability that ACARS or the AES (or both) were switched off or failed at 17:07 is no more or no less likely than going off line at 17:20 or 17:36 or any other time in between 17:07 and 17:37 UTC.

But we do know something else. We know that the transponder stopped replying to interrogations at about 17:20, and we know the last VHF radio contact was at about the same time. Taking all three facts together, it is actually much more likely that the AES and/or ACARS stopped at the same time (i.e. circa 17:20, not 17:07).

Virtually everything that follows in Walther’s analysis is based on this false assumption that there was a 13 minute gap between the events. Take away that erroneous 13 minute gap assumption and the entire analysis that follows then collapses.

I would encourage Walther to go back and reconsider his theory under the much more likely assumption that the ACARS-AES, VHF and transponder all were switched off or became inoperative at about the same time (circa 17:20). All the evidence taken together suggests this is much more likely.

Note too that there is no evidence whatsoever that the VHF radio failed or was switched off. All we know for sure is that there were no transmissions from MH370 received after about 17:20. The radio may have been working fine, and if there were crew alive and listening, they could very well have heard every call to 9M-MRO (i.e. MH370), but did not respond for unknown reasons. We simply do not know if the VHF was off or on."

MY RESPONSE

At the outset, let me quote something I said in an earlier article on this blog.

"I post blogs to exchange ideas, to share insights I have and to learn from the insights of others.

To this end, replies or responses which agree with the views I posted are not as treasured as those in which questions are posted to me, or those in which my views are challenged or in which it is suggested that I'm wrong.

I welcome any chance to learn, to exchange views, or  even to be proven wrong. If I'm proven wrong, I'll change my view and be glad someone took the trouble to point me in the right way. I welcome all questions raised, which I might not have considered, since these could lead me to confirm a theory held or to realise that it was wrong. "

I thus welcome the fact of Michael Exner's written criticism of my book as well as the tone in which it was written, even though I don't agree with his conclusion.

The same cannot be said about Duncan Steel's ill-informed, mean spirited and entirely unsubstantiated remarks.

I shall deal with each article in date order.

In his article Michael Exner says that there is no evidence to support the assertion in my book that the ACARS was switched off at 17:07 UTC. He invited me to consider his reasons for saying this. I have done so.

I concede that in this he is correct and I readily concede that my statement is wrong. I concede too that he is correct, for the reasons he states, that we can accept it as fact that the ACARS went off some time between 17:07 and 1737 UTC.

His suggestion, however, that this error undermines the validity of the theory I advance or that it changes conclusion I published in the book (and I remind him that this was the same conclusion I published on my blog only 36 hours after the aircraft's disappearance), is completely without foundation.

The fact is that nothing turns on the error I made. On the contrary, if I accept his theory that it is more likely that the ACARS went off at the same time as the transponder i.e. at 1720, all that happens is that I lose one of the weaker arguments out of the ten I advanced in my theory and I gain a ninth, even stronger argument in favour of the theory I advanced. I would also need to re-cast one of the other points I made.

Exner's error is evidently based on the assumption that because the first of my ten reasons dealt in some detail with the 13 minute interval this somehow meant I attached great significance to it. The fact is that I commenced with that point because I thought, admittedly wrongly, that this was the first event to occur. The 13 minute point was first for this reason only.

Indeed, however, Exner's real error is that he fails to appreciate the simple methodology I employed to arrive at the conclusion I did at the outset and in my book.

Instead, in seize upon an ultimately insignificant error in his rush to disprove my theory, he did the very thing some jury members and certain experts do. He failed to see the wood for the trees.

He failed to appreciate the insignificance of the error, the insignificance of the two points which I made in reliance upon that error, failed to read or to understand the methodology I was employing, (despite that I set out the methodology in black and white and then went on to apply it in the paragraphs Mr Exner chose not to quote)

I never once suggested nor implied that my theory was dependent on the 13 minute gap. Yet, this does not stop Mr Exner from coming to the following startling yet completely baseless concussion:

"Virtually everything that follows in Walther’s analysis is based on this false assumption that there was a 13 minute gap between the events. "

Clearly, Mr Exner failed to understand the methodology I said I was going to employ, and failed to understand the paragraphs in which I did employ that methodology.  Alternatively, in his rush to judgment it seems he missed or chose to ignore numerous paragraphs which stated the precise opposite of what he contends they say.

For one. In Chapter 1 of my book, I set out the methodology to which I subscribe. Far from placing reliance on any one fact, as Mr Exner suggests I do, I explicitly tell the reader one has to have regard to the totality of the known facts.  

Only a mindless idiot fixates on one fact bases an entire theory on it.

A favoured theory as to the cause of an air crash can be accepted as being the probable cause, IF the totality of the known facts points towards such favoured theory to such an extent that it renders that theory to be probable, AND provided that the totality of the known facts also serves to undermine or to eliminate all the other likely or common competing theories by rendering each such competing theory to be improbable.

Not only do I tell the reader that my method is to consider the totality of the facts, but I then go on to do precisely that in just about every paragraph. Not once do I say I'm basing my theory on the 13 minute interval, what I DO say clearly demonstrates the precise opposite. 

The content of reason 5 on its own proves just how false and/or how totally inaccurate Mr Exner's conclusion is.

"Reason five: - The timing of the failure to comply with ATC’s handover to Vietnam’s ATC points firmly to one and only one probable cause

It is at this stage that one must consider the single piece of evidence which, even if considered in isolation, increases the probabilities of unlawful human conduct to a point where it must be elevated to the most probable cause, whilst simultaneously pulling the carpet out from most other alternative theories.

If a pilot on that flight, wished to choose ONLY ONE MOMENT which would allow his airliner to avoid been tracked for long enough to ‘disappear’, precisely which moment would he choose?

The answer is simple.

A rogue pilot would choose the five seconds or so after the hand-off from Malaysian ATC, prior to the time when he ought to be making contact with Vietnamese ATC.

When I heard that the hand-off to Vietnamese ATC did not occur, that the aircraft’s transponder had instead been switched off, and that the airliner then changed course, these facts on their own caused me to conclude that a deliberate unlawful act was the most likely cause of the airliner’s disappearance. Why?

Because if one aimed to escape from Malaysian ATC, and wished to avoid being tracked by radar for long enough to avoid being tracked at all, of all the moments in the entire six hour flight between Kuala Lampur and Beijing, those critical five seconds comprise the precise window of opportunity one would choose.

Malaysian ATC would assume that the aircraft was under the control of Vietnamese ATC and Vietnamese ATC would be under the impression that the airliner was late, that it had been delayed at Kuala Lampur for some reason or possibly even that it had been diverted to another destination for any number of reasons. This buys the perpetrator considerable valuable time.

So, if you consider the test I set above, all the pieces of the puzzle fit perfectly. The probabilities of my theory being correct are in the upper nineties at least.

However, that is not enough. One still needs to exclude the possibility of the fire, explosive decompression, catastrophic mechanical or technical failure etc"

There you have it. Couldn't be clearer to any OPEN minded child with grade 2 reading ability. I do attach greater significance to events of one period over all else, and its the five minute or so period AFTER handover and NOT the thirteen minute period relating to the ACARS.

How on earth could anyone reading that single paragraph, on its own, possibly come to such a false, disingenuous and erroneous conclusion as did Mr Exner:

"Virtually everything that follows in Walther’s analysis is based on this false assumption that there was a 13 minute gap between the events. "

I hope he is not a pilot! Since his comprehension simple English is clearly only exceeded by the total absence of any logic.

I should stop, but there are just so many other things which Mr Exner chose to ignore which also demonstrates how delusional and fanciful his version of my theory is.

If you re-read the above paragraph 5, you will note I deal with the evidence I consider to be most compelling and supportive of my theory. I refer to the handover. I refer to the course change. I refer to the transponder. And I proceed to draw my conclusion.

That is what I DO say. And it bears no relation to what Mike says I said. In fact it says the opposite of what Mike says I said.

But here's just another of many points to incinerate the carpet I have already pulled out from under him. Not ONCE in the entire paragraph 5, where I deal with my most compelling evidence supporting my theory, do I mention ACARS or the 13 minute period. NOT ONCE!

This raises the question, how could Mike have read that paragraph and thought, even for a second, that my theory is in any way based upon the 13 minute gap or when the ACARS went off. Even if the first three paragraphs hint at a theory in line with Mike's and even that's a stretch if you read the paragraphs carefully, clearly by paragraph 5 its clear which theory I favour and which facts I rely on!

Now, I want to assume that Mike Exner is a decent honest man, and that he was not deliberately trying to deceive anyone.

Something about his style leads me to conclude that he is decent and honest and I shall give him the benefit of that doubt.

The problem is that he can't hide behind a lack of intelligence. His language skills betray him.

Why? Easy. Read Chapter 1 of my book where I make two points. Some people don't have the ability to see the wood for the trees. They fixate on petty things and miss the big picture in the process.

Another analogy I refer to in Chapter 1 also applies. The part where I explain how in long trials, many lay people reach a point where they allow their initially formed view of the innocence or guilt of a person to become crystallised in the minds and from then on their minds tend to filter any "further evidence" to the contrary.

It is possible Mike spotted my error, misinterpreted the significance I attached to it, assumed that my earlier points where the one's I favoured or considered to be my strongest, and he saw a chance to write an article to put show the "flight sim lawyer" that just how wrong and incompetent he is.

Well, as I have demonstrated, and shall demonstrate with even more compelling arguments below, if that is what he intended, he failed and failed miserably.

Sorry Duncan, you clown. Thought I'd forgotten about you? Well now perhaps you'll see why I needed to write about the wood and the trees and trials in Chapter 1 before I dealt with the air crashes themselves. "Not such a tissue of nonsense after all". Stick around mate. I'll get to you later.

There is of course, one other option. Mike Exner spotted an error, stopped reading after a few pages, and delirious with excitement, rushed to pronounce judgment about the book as a whole based only on what he'd read and without bothering to consider the rest.

Well that would be intellectually dishonest, but it would certainly explain why he got it so thoroughly wrong.

Hey, if that's what happened, and you saw a chance to stick it to a lawyer, and you rushed to take it and got a little carried away, I'll laugh and say I understand. Have the guts to own up and we'll laugh about it and say no more. Better that than admit to being dishonest, dim or lacking in discernment I should imagine.

If the latter is not the case, and you believe you were right, then read on, I'll demonstrate just how wrong you were.

You will recall that your theory about the ACARS is that it went off at the same time as the Transponder rather than earlier. I concede you are probably right. The sad thing is that this only helps me and my theory and does NOTHING to undermine it.

My theory is that the Transponder was deliberately turned off. I rely on the timing of this event the failure of the pilots to comply with the handover instruction and the turn left, all of which occurred in the window of opportunity.

If I'm correct about the Transponder, and I clearly am, then WHY or Why dear Mike would the simultaneous disabling of the ACARS possibly present me with a problem or undermine my theory?

So yes @Airinvestigate , I did make an error and at least I have no problem admitting it. But is it really serious? Turns out to prove my theory more than hinder it don't you think?

Don't tell me the pilot can't disarm part of the ACARS from the cockpit. Two experts air crash investigators / experts, one of whom was an airline pilot, , who appeared on the National Geographic Air Crash Investigation programme on #MH370 would say you are dead wrong about that too!

But it gets even worse. You all claim I'm wrong and clueless. You, Mike Exner, you (You can't apply home simu to how aircraft wired/functions- I didn't you clot, I have studied this area for years and I have yet to deliver an incorrect conclusion, SORRY!)  and you Duncan Steel.

Here's the proof I know what I'm talking about or at the very least that, at the very least, my theory is accepted by many other accredited aviation experts and pilots.

I never attached much significance to the ACARS /13 minute gap. It was an afterthought and I can prove it.

As I point out in Chapter 1, my first article about MH370 came out 36 hours after the aircraft disappeared. 36 Hours. (Check it out on my BlogSpot Blog ) Not bad for a lawyer & home simu educated guy not so @Airinvestigate.

Relying only on logic, and known facts at the time my conclusion is the same as the one in the book. 36 Hours. I didn't mention the ACARS 13 minute theory once! But I did mention most of the factors which I mentioned in reason 5 above. Oh, and in reason 6.

Should I prove  that Exner that his little attempt to misrepresent my theory in his comment missed six too? Why not:

"Reason six: What are the odds fate would pick the same critical seconds of a six hour flight to visit a catastrophic decompression, devastating fire or some other mechanical failure that a rogue pilot would choose to escape detection from ATC and to try to slip away?

The alternative theories assume an aircraft with two innocent pilots. It assumes that just after the airliner had been handed off from Malaysian ATC, and during the very same five second window of opportunity a rogue pilot would take advantage of, the aircraft instead just happened to suffer some non-human crisis serious enough to prevent the handover, yet not serious enough to prevent the aircraft from in fact doing EVERYTHING else one might expect a rogue pilot or hijacker to do in the given circumstances.

The odds of fate choosing the same five second window of opportunity to wreak havoc on the airliner as a rogue pilot would have opted for must be miniscule indeed.

This is all the more so when one considers that fate had many many other five second periods during the six hour flight to choose from. If one considers the window of opportunity as a percentage of the entire flight, it makes up less than one tenth of one percent of the total six hour flying time. That, in my view, represents the odds of the alternative theories being correct. If we allow for a one minute handover time, these odds still remain negligible."

Sorry Mike Exner, not a shred of evidence in 6 to support your interpretation of my theory is there?

I know I'm digressing, but Lord, you guys are just so incredibly wrong I cannot help it. Just one more quote and then I'll return to the KILLER point I was going to make....

"Reason seven: The timing of the aircraft’s turn after handover is telling particularly since it occurred without any ATC transmission

I consider the fact that the aircraft immediately changed course after the hand-off from Malaysian ATC to be particularly significant.

Equally significant is the fact that the change of course was not accompanied by any communication with ATC, which is normal practice for a diversion.

That said, an initial failure to communicate with ATC during an emergency is easily explained, and is not necessarily unusual.

Standard operating procedure during an emergency requires pilots to AVIATE & to NAVIGATE and then only to COMMUNICATE.

However, the fact that such failure to communicate persisted indefinitely remains highly suspicious.

There are various ways for the pilots to communicate an emergency, including using the transponder to enter a transponder code for radio failure or a hijack situation.

Reason eight: - The totality of the known facts point towards ONE AND ONLY ONE CAUSE!

Nothing is impossible I guess, but if one considers the known facts in their totality, these all point in one direction whilst the odds of any other cause fitting these facts or displacing the favoured version are negligible at best.

As stated above , the other theories require one to accept that fate deliberately chose the critical window of opportunity to visit some catastrophic systems failure or structural failure on the airliner as part of some supernatural plot to hide the true cause of the disaster from the world and instead to cast the blame upon two completely innocent pilots. You have only to utter any such theory aloud to discover just how far-fetched, fanciful, and totally implausible it sounds.

It was the combination of all the known facts in one event which lead me to my conclusion.

Reason nine - How can one seriously suggest that a catastrophic event or fire or major technical failure occurred at the hand-off, which prevented any ATC communication but which nonetheless permitted the aircraft to make several course changes over the next hour or so and then finally continue flying for another six or so hours?

The 777 is a very reliable aircraft with backup systems in case certain essential systems fail. I could not, and still cannot conceive of a technical emergency which was so catastrophic that it was capable on the one hand of disabling all the above systems, yet on the other hand it nonetheless permitted the aircraft to stay aloft for five or so more hours, to make several altitude and course changes, all with no attempt to communicate with ATC."

Oops. Mike Exner. I'm sorry. Hell I meant to only copy and past 1 more reason, my hand slipped and two others came along for the ride. 

Guess what, three more reasons, no ACARS, no 13 minute gap. Not a hint of it. And yet you had the gall to mislead people that  my theory depended on my error! How wrong you were!

Duncan Steele. You must be feeling a prize twit now. You clearly never read my book before you published your drivel. If you had you would have seen just how wrong Mike Exner's misrepresentations were.

Even better, if any of you had read on, you'd realise the thing which must be hardest of all for you to swallow.

And here it is. 36 Hours in, I publish my theory using logic, my ability to see the wood for the trees, and my acquired knowledge. Sorry +AirInvestigate

Well, was I right? Yip. My theory is now generally accepted to be correct by most experts. Check out the one's I quote in my book.

Sorry Duncan Steele, not a tissue of nonsense after all. Sorry Mike Exner.

God, it must irritate the living hell out of you clowns to learn how many experts came around to a theory it took me 36 hours to work out;

Oh, another Killer point, the recent National Geographic show which on #MH 370 was featured came to a conclusion. What conclusion do you twits think that was?????? Who do they agree with???


Here's a summary of what was said in that programme. Hope the notes are not too cryptic.


"

3 min after last radio call malaysia made a sharp turn to left off course. Johhn Nance aviation analyst ( former airline pilot and airforce pilot). Says the timing of the turn immediately after the turn - the possibility of hijack jumps into your head. Pilots have several ways to communicate with the ground in hijack. No alert makes hikack unlikeky. He says. Transponder cuts out 2 min after last atc trnsmission. acars switches off after.  Nance says done on purpose  or emergency.  Fire could explain sudden left turn. Fire theory is that no radio call. Cargo bays fire alarm should have sounded before the fire spread. Declare emergency as oxygen masks drop. No emergency declared.  Plane flew for on for seven hours. Hypoxia and disorientation not consistent with turns aircraft made which would never have been programmed into the flight computer even in one's wildest imagination. Plane made 3 turns in the last hour and a half after the radio call. Aviation expert Malcolm Brenner beleives those turns strongly suggest someone in the cockpit deliberately flew the plane off course. 777 is designed to have multiple backups making it extremely unlikely that enough systems could fail to put the flight in jeopardy. Brnner and Nance say multiple failures are inconsitent with evidence the plane kept flying. Brenner says 2 systems whose purpose is to communicate with the ground went out simultaneously. He says no obvious electrical connection other than deliberate human involvement. Nance agrees. Says everything comes down to deliberate action by some body for some reason. Pilot can diable acars from within cockpit but not the handshake function.

 

Cabin pressure can be adjusted manually  to incapacitate everyone else on board. Brenner says it appears this is a carefully thought out effort to evade detection. Nance agrees"

Virtually everything I said in my Blogs last year and in my book this year is supported. Why? Cause its logical! Cause they used the method I set out the book and arrived at the ONLY conclusion which shouted at them.

But....but even if you don't agree with ALL OF THOSE EXPERTS, which you are free to do, at least have the decency to admit that my theory on this accident is shared my many well respected experts.

That must mean I'm not mug when it comes to aviation.

I'm sorry I was right from the outset. Again. But logic, knowledge and the ability to see the wood from the trees will cause you to get it right almost every time (Chapter 1 of the tissue of nonsense in case you were wondering Duncan!)

Ok, I'm bored now. I was going to try to explain how the Window of opportunity works ....but I'm not sure you care about logic or facts....Surprise me. OH, and Duncan, you mention you have a family children in your Blog. Perhaps you might wanna be an example to them and offer a retraction of what you said, or even an apology???

After all, I apologised for the ACARS error even though it ended up proving my case....

One more thing, there are a few people who question whether my expertise as a flight sim pilot qualifies me to write on these issues.

 

Two things: I don't only rely upon flight sim experience.  I have acquired other knowledge through the years Secondly, I keep getting to the correct answers, as I demonstrate in my book. And I do so Before, not after other experts. The answers I arrive at first usually become the generally accepted view of most major experts. Annoying as that may be, the fact that I'm often first and usually correct is a fact that those who criticise my alleged expertise have no answer for.

S G WALTHER....

PS   BOOK UPDATED to deal with error.

Free Download at Smashwords. See link below. iBooks, Barnes & Noble & Kobo Versions of the UPDATE out on Wednesday.

http://siegfriedwalther.blogspot.co.za/2015/08/dj-sgwalther-top125-chart-cape-town-26.html

http://siegfriedwalther.blogspot.co.za/2015/08/dj-sgwalther-top125-chart-cape-town-26.html

1m:

#MH370 & #AF447 by Siegfried Walther UPDATED free #smashwords https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/526079 … … @AlexJayZA @AirCrashReport pic.twitter.com/fNXZwD8RiT

So I can only thank Mike for pointing out my error and for