I had fairly well concluded that the most likely cause was a fire disrupting the electrical and control systems, when CNN now say the sharp left turn was pre-programmed 12 minutes before sign off from Malaysian Air Traffic control, which was followed fairly quickly by that left turn.
CNN claim to have this from an US official, from data sent back before the reporting systems went off. It is hard to know what to make of it: obviously there are large economic interests that much prefer blame to lie with the pilots rather than the aircraft. But if it is true then the move was not a response to an emergency. (CNN went on to say the pilot could have programmed in the course change as a contingency in case of an emergency. That made no sense to me at all – does it to anyone else?)
I still find it extremely unlikely that the plane landed or crashed on land I cannot believe it could evade military detection as it flew over a highly militarized region. Somewhere there is debris on the ocean. There have been previous pilot suicides that took the plane with them; but the long detour first seems very strange and I do not believe is precedented. However if the CNN information on pre-programming is correct, and given it was the co-pilot who signed off to air traffic control, it is hard to look beyond the pilots as those responsible for whatever did happen. In fact, on consideration, the most improbable thing is that information CNN are reporting from the US official.
Morning all.
Tim, I have watched the evolution of Woods supposed text. I didn’t believe it at the beginning & still don’t believe it to be true.
Mainly because again only yesterday his girlfriend was interviewed & it was not mentioned.
Also does anyone believe the kidnappers would not have taken his phone ?
How in a darkened room with his hands tied…as he said they were & presumably behind his back, could he have typed a message on a phone ?
Then there’s the odious Galloway vigorously promoting it.
I say it’s a hoax.
Re;Donald.
I very much doubt he knows Ben, he’s here because we are blogging buddies of some years I suggested he came here because he had posted on this topic.
I don’t recall which part of OZ he lives .
As for his name, I don’t see why you need to be personal or why it should interest you ?
BB.
You are certainly making a case for that route,the more I think about it the more I’m thinking there could be something in this new route,is it still inside the radar arc ?
The new code of 318 was mentioned by the Malaysians, for obvious reasons.
Q,
‘Would a terrorist or a rogue pilot be considered a “third party”?’
Almost certainly I’d say.
“Malaysia’s Minister of Transport Datuk Seri Hishammuddin gave hints of Malaysia’s difficulties (as his hands were tied by intelligence protocols and or refusal by the relevant foreign intelligence services and diplomatic reluctance) but media failed to appreciate the nuances of his statements by not directing their questions at the parties that have failed Malaysia as their neighbour and in their duties under various defence treaties and arrangements.”
I do feel sorry for this man & that is why.
http://linkis.com/b4in.info/4hY5w
Tim, you responded, after I wrote: “I’ve had helicopters flying around my house. I don’t mean just passing. But actually coming in over, and then circling back and comning in another time.”
So it seems that it is after I’ve gone “international” on this site (and on Icke) that they have become interested. It seems a deliberate tactic, to show that an eye is kept of you, the same thing intelligence services do when they keep people under surveillance physically, i.e. a guy following you. Have any of you others experienced similar stuff? An obvious person to ask first, would be Bluebird, because all 3 of us are on the same side in the M/E conflict.
Tim, sorensen
I have no side in any conflict. My side is the truth. I hate to live in a world that is based on lies because then i feel embarrassed when politicians believe that i am stupid enough to accept their BS of lies and false flags as a coincidence. The world doesnt get any better as long as we are governing us with lies. However, i am no party of any side.
However, those who lie more than others might feel that i am their enemy. I am not. I am just an enemy of their lies.
Apologies. What I posted above does not contain the full links – now rectified.
Both Tim V and Kenneth Sorensen have made reference to some of the following much earlier in this thread but I was unaware of that when I wrote it. I have also posted some of it elsewhere.
In 2003, Boeing filed patents for an uninterruptible autopilot that would lock out control from the cockpit of an aircraft in times of emergency. Thereafter, the aircraft would continue on a predetermined flight path to touchdown, or could be controlled remotely, flown and landed at an appropriate place. The Grant was published in 2006 and described in the media shortly afterwards, including the now-defunct Standard (03-03-2007), under the title ‘New autopilot will make another 9/11 impossible’:
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/new-autopilot-will-make-another-911-impossible-7239651.html
Boeing stated that it was intending to fit all of their aircraft with the system by 2009; it is now 2014. I think we have to accept that MH370 had such an autopilot fitted, which would make it impossible for any of the current scenarios to occur. The Application and Grant for the patent can be found here:
http://www.google.com/patents/US20040162670
and here:
http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US7142971
TheAbstract in the Grant states:
“The method and system for automatically controlling a path of travel of a vehicle include engaging an automatic control system when the security of the onboard controls is jeopardized. Engagement may be automatic or manual from inside the vehicle or remotely via a communication link. Any onboard capability to supersede the automatic control system may then be disabled by disconnecting the onboard controls and/or providing uninterruptible power to the automatic control system via a path that does not include the onboard accessible power control element(s). The operation of the vehicle is then controlled via the processing element of the automatic control system. The control commands may be received from a remote location and/or from predetermined control commands that are stored onboard the vehicle.”
Under the heading ‘Brief Summary of the Invention’, the following is included:
“The methods and systems of the present invention therefore provide techniques for automatically navigating, flying and/or landing an air vehicle in such a manner that unauthorized persons may not gain access to the flight controls of the air vehicle. In addition, once the automatic control system provided by the present invention is initiated, no one on board the air vehicle is capable of controlling the flight of the air vehicle, such that it would be useless for anyone to threaten violence in order to gain control of the air vehicle.”
If MH370 was (is?) fitted with this system and subject to its control, the pilots would have become surplus to requirements at the moment of remote activation. Unless it can be proved conclusively that this system was not fitted to MH370, all of the current activity must be seen as a complete waste of time and resources and may well be engineered distraction.
One possibly significant piece of information, the only eyewitness account after the event, appeared in the online version of Haveeru Daily, a newspaper based in the Maldives since 1979. Several individuals on a remote island reported seeing a white jumbo jet – with red stripes – flying very low about six and a quarter hours after MH370 disappeared:
http://www.haveeru.com.mv/news/54062
The Malaysian transport minister later denied all reports of sightings of the plane in the Maldives.
http://www.haveeru.com.mv/news/54081
– maybe because it was not in the script.
Once remote takeover is factored in to the situation, the number of external players in the frame becomes very small and it is easier to concentrate on the real reasons why the aircraft vanished – and it won’t be ‘conventional’ terrorism.
Now for some pure speculation: The two main players in terms of satellite, air, ground and sea surveillance on this planet are the United States and Russia. The Russians have been pretty quiet about the loss of MH370, at least as far has been reported in the media, but may well be aware of what happened to it and where it is now. They are unlikely to have been involved in the ‘loss’ because the US and Western media would have given it massive coverage for weeks if they were complicit.
The remote access facility of the uninterruptible autopilot could only have been linked to external sources designed for that purpose, suggesting that there must be a US association. If the Russians are aware of the ‘diversion’ and know where the aircraft and passengers are now, they would also have rapidly worked out a strategy for exploiting that knowledge to the full. Have they done anything of any significance since MH370 vanished? Well, yes, they organised a referendum and annexed Crimea.
You can almost imagine the threats behind the scenes when Vladimir Putin made his move, easily countered by the simple words, “You know that we know something that you would prefer the world not to hear.” That situation can be played out a little more before the information is given out anyway, with an international crisis unfolding rapidly when it is.
Just musing on that little scenario, of cour
When I see these helicopters, I always think to myself. Boy, its good this is not Iraq and Afghanistan, then a rocket could very possibly come this way. And seen in this context, it is really small beer.
But those helicopters in all likelyhood have the same wquipment as the ones in Afghanistan, i.e. heat seeking sensors and infrared and probably some form of penetrating radar (what do ypu know?) — so it’s no use if one ducks away from the window, they can see that you’re there – and thats basically what they want, as an assurance that you’re not anywhere else.
And this could be the reason they don’t use drones. Because there are limits as to how much equipment a drone can carry. They do not have all the detecting equipment — to detect that a human is there — like helicopters do. In Afghanistan that doesn’t seem to matter, – one gets the impression that they fire rockets indiscriminately; verifiability (if its the right target) is not as important when you have declared war on the target, as it has to be in a peaceful country.
@nick turner
Thank you for that report. Very good information. But i have a question:
You write:
Boeing stated that it was intending to fit all of their aircraft with the system by 2009; it is now 2014
—-
Do you have a link for that statement? Thanks.
TimV – Yes, “Donald” is a very unconventional name for me, first of all there is not a drop of Scottish blood in me and secondly I was born in Montevideo … I’ve lived South of Sydney for the last four decades. I am an Engineer and Computer Scientist, freshly retired.
Kenneth – Thankfully I have no helicopters following me as I do not live near a helipad flight path although the odd dark BlackHawk full of balaclava clad men dangling their feet over the side does on occasion fly directly above me at an altitude of 200 feet … at least once a week. 🙂
I posted this comment on the wrong thread. Better here.
I actually thought when the Malaysian passenger plane went missing that the pilot had committed suicide and taken the passengers with him. However no wreckage has been found and this does not any longer fit with that theory. Also, as was pointed out yesterday, it is inconceivable that the super high-tech US base on the UK-owned island of Diego Garcia, has no record of this flight. Yesterday I got accused by one of the trolls/sock-puppets of conspiracy theory. This is always a cop-out for not being able to argue an alternative case and this sock-puppet uses the phrase ‘conspiracy theory’ on a regular basis for any argument against our governments which have the worst human rights’ and bloody adventures in the history of the planet. This short 6 minute documentary presents at least 4 government theories as to what happened to the plane. You might ask who are the real conspiracy theorists. It is a must watch from which I learnt something about Osama Bin Laden and his family I did not previously know. So not to disappoint here it is.
http://www.trueactivist.com/gab_gallery/this-is-the-real-reason-flight-370-disappeared/
Monash University supports the Malaysian government in Malaysia in terms of dealing with MH370. Today the MH318 (formerly MH370) flight to Peking had been cancelled.
Quote
“He is trying to show that he is concerned about the search and rescue operations because ever since the crisis started he only appeared twice at a press conference. The rest of the time it was handled by the minister of transport,” said James Chin, a political science professor at Monash University in Malaysia.
Chin said Najib’s visit also aimed to show the world that Malaysia is the leader of the search, despite being pilloried in foreign media for allegedly bungling the multinational operation as well as the investigation.
@Katie 8:51 am: That is essentially the same article I posted yesterday. Note the synthetic aperture (cloud-penetrating) radar and Vandenberg Air Force Base. Call it geomatics or remote sensing, if you like. Many months ago in one of the al-Hilli threads, I posted a link to an SSTL satellite of a similar nature being developed with the U.S. military.
Here is an article about an old SSTL satellite. This technology has advanced in leaps and bounds in the past 30 years. SSTL set up an DMCii subsidiary in the U.S. in 2008, and has continued to work with the U.S. Are the al-Hilli and MH370 stories connected? Saad al-Hilli had worked for DMCii in France, and we know that one of their customers is China. Russia is also a customer. SSTL also worked on the Galileo satellite constellation.
http://www.sstl.co.uk/News-and-Events/2014-News-Archive/UoSAT-2-clocks-up-an-outstanding-30-years-of-in-or
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_constellation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disaster_Monitoring_Constellation
DMC International Imaging is the name we’re familiar with in the al-Hilli threads. Here’s a catchy headline for you:
http://www.punchng.com/feature/did-french-alps-murder-victims-secret-work-on-space-satellite-contract-make-him-prime-assassination-target/
The article is worth a read for anyone who has not followed the al-Hilli saga. It is also interesting to note that SSTL seems to work with countries that are at odds with each other in current world politics.
Q
Iran obviously knew how to take over an american drone remotely. Somebody must have told them that secret and the necessary keys.
If somebody also knew the secret about how to take over a 777 remotely (perhaps with the pilot helping them – read nick turner’s interesting links! – then that system might be the “devil’s egg” and create more dangers than without that system. Boeing would get blamed and their patent getting worthless.
Probably that is sufficient for a death penalty requested by secret services and Boeing if somebody forwards that secret and the necessary software keys to terror organisations like e.g. hezbollah.
In that regards your SSTL theory has some good points.
@Nick Turner 10:52 am: Some call it FADEC. The image of someone storming a flight deck door with battering rams is outdated. Technology can be used to seize control of an airplane through the “back door” by way of its autopilot, or uninterruptable flight controls. With MH370, it seems various sources are blaming the pilots for erratic behavior on the flight deck. Is there any evidence to back this claim? Some here on this forum have pointed to the possibility of outside interference with the flight controls. It is hard to imagine that this has not been at least considered by those who are investigating this incident. I can only think of one explanation for not considering this possibility. If a “third party” is found responsible, legal liability is limited for the airline. Since most people in the world would not be pleased to know that a jet they are flying on could be controlled from outside the flight deck by parties intent on malice, it is easier to find fault with mysterious (unproven) hijackers, or dysfunctional pilots. A “third party” from outside the flight deck is not something that the airline companies want the public to consider, is it? Far easier and more acceptable to blame the pilots, then say that the plane disappeared over a signatory nation to the Montreal Convention of 1999. Liability limited, Malaysia Airlines effectively silenced. They wouldn’t want unlimited liability, would they?
Everything you ever wanted to know about the EgyptAir Boeing 777-200 aircraft cockpit fire but were too afraid to ask.
http://www.civilaviation.gov.eg/accident/Reports/B777_SU-GBP_cockpit_fire_accident%20final%20Report%20responding%20to%20boeing%20comments%2019-09-2012a.pdf
The fire did this kind of damage in 3 minutes:
http://avherald.com/img/egypt_b772_su-gdb_cairo_110729_2.jpg
http://avherald.com/img/egypt_b772_su-gdb_cairo_110729_1.jpg
I will ask a slightly different question: which aircraft carriers were in the area at the time of MH370’s disappearance? Does anyone know, exactly?
Rolls Royce was involved with FADEC at the beginning:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FADEC
On the ‘uninterruptible autopilot system’ from Nick Turner’s London Evening Standard link:
“Once this system is initiated, no one on board is capable of controlling the flight, making it useless for anyone to threaten violence in order to gain control.”
Very interesting about the “passenger monitoring device” that captures every blink. Is this already in place on the flight deck?
This is worth a read:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/diagrams-boeing-patents-anti-terrorism-auto-land-system-for-hijacked-210869/
“The “uninterruptible” autopilot would be activated – either by pilots, by onboard sensors, or even remotely via radio or satellite links by government agencies like the Central Intelligence Agency, if terrorists attempt to gain control of a flight deck….
“Another option is a remote link whereby airline or government workers in ground facilities would monitor and aircraft and command the automatic control mode “once it is determined that the security of the air vehicle is in jeopardy.” Radio links could also be used to inform ground facilities and nearby aircraft that an aircraft has been placed in the automatic flight mode.”
So we know now that it is false to assume that the pilots were needed to turn on or turn off any of the equipment on the flight deck. Any equipment that was turned off or on could have been deactivated or activated remotely, by a sensor, a computer or a human.
Is it acceptable to the public that commercial airliners do not necessarily need pilots at the controls? A future filled with commercial airline drones is not something that John Q. Public is ready to accept currently. The disappearance of MH370 will not help to convince anyone that this is a good idea.
Q – For you, naval exercise on the South China seas March 8-31 in support of exercise Foal Eagle 2014.
http://www.c7f.navy.mil/
Info is very sketchy, highly classified stuff … however it must also be said that the South China Seas are the most heavily militarized waters in the world, navies from all the South East Asian nations are always there as well as China, the US and Britain; Even Nth Korea
“Is it acceptable to the public that commercial airliners do not necessarily need pilots at the controls?”
I’ve heard that FBW has, for years made a flight crew redundant. The reason they are there is for public assurance.
Q – Some more stuff, US Naval forces in the area were:
Four U.S. Aegis-equipped warships, a U.S. nuclear attack submarine, and the U.S. Seventh Fleet’s flagship were sent to South Korean ports for Exercise Foal Eagle 2014.
Naval exercise off Long Island when TWA 800 went down.
http://prorev.com/twa800.htm
“. He recently said in an interview that I recorded that he was on the deck of a Navy submarine very close to the crash site and saw TWA 800 shot down. He was brought to my attention by an acquaintance of his who told me that this retired Navy petty officer had said he was “underneath TWA 800 when he saw a missile hit it and the 747 explode overhead.” He had told this acquaintance that he had given a statement to the FBI when they returned to their port, and that the FBI had checked all their torpedo tubes and all their missile silos to make sure they had all the missiles on board that they had when they left port. Asked if there were other military vessels in the area, he had said, “Yes, several.” . . “
SSTL’s 2011 satellite deal with China:
http://www.satnews.com/story.php?number=652822455
I am not certain if this includes the satellite launched by China in March 2014. I am also not certain if the parasitic spy satellites developed by SSTL and two Chinese universities could attach to the newer micro-satellites, or if they could do so without being detected.
This was published last month about anti-satellite missiles developed and tested by China:
http://eandt.theiet.org/news/2014/mar/china-asat.cfm
“Weeden also analysed US comments about debris from China’s May 2013 launch re-entering the atmosphere above the Indian Ocean, and said they were in line with US claims that the Chinese launch reached a high point or apogee of 18,600 miles, rather than the 6,200 miles that the Chinese had claimed.”
(On an aside, for anyone interested in exploring the relationship between ionospheric charges (from solar flares, etc.) and earthquakes:
http://europe.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2014-04/03/content_17401458.htm)
In case anyone missed this:
“The article includes a previously undisclosed satellite image taken by DigitalGlobe that shows a mobile missile launcher, or “transporter-erector-launcher” (TEL) – used for mobile ground launches of ballistic missiles instead of a fixed pad – at China’s Xichang missile launch site.”
Also from: http://eandt.theiet.org/news/2014/mar/china-asat.cfm
Just as a side note, an Aegis system may be set to auto-attack mode and it will automatically engage a target if so set
Q; That EM sat seems to be a response to Electric Universe theory, which is considered pseudo-science by the mainstream. I happen to think it has some merit.
As you can see, viewers have already asked how today’s satellite technology cannot find a missing airliner:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCrB1t8MncY
If there was a plume of smoke, it likely would have been bigger than the plume from the factory on the video.
More amazing high-resolution satellite imagery from GeoEye-1:
http://hothardware.com/News/Worlds-HighestResolution-Satellite-Imagery/
The satellite can capture images down to 16 inches on the ground, but this type of image is not available to the public.
I went back to this paper titled “Threats to United States Space Capabilities”:
https://www.fas.org/spp/eprint/article05.html
Refer to the section titled “Microsatellites–An Example of the Proliferation of Long-Duration-orbital Interceptor Technology”, in which SSTL gets a write-up.
“Placed on an interception course and programmed to hone-in on a satellite, a microsatellite could fly alongside a target until commanded to disrupt, and then disable or destroy the target. Detection of and defense against such an attack would be difficult.”
SSTL has been involved in technology transfer and training programs with Malaysia via the TiungSAT-1 (http://www.sstl.co.uk/Missions/TiungSat-1–Launched-2000). Perhaps it is coincidence that the satellite was launched from Kazakhstan, which was asked to help in the search for MH370.
From the link:
“The reason behind the development of the “parasitic satellite” system is strategic balance between China and the U.S. According to the sources:
Beijing’s decision to develop and deploy the ASAT system has both long-term and short-term strategic objectives. The long-term objectives are to establish a strategic balance among the larger nations, and to break up the monopoly on utilization of space that large space systems of the superpowers are holding; thus weakening their capabilities in information warfare. In the short-term China would strengthen its capabilities in controlling the usage of space globally, and change drastically the Chinese-American military balance so that the U.S. would not intervene easily in the event of a conflict in the Taiwan Strait and at the Chinese perimeter.”
The papers says that SSTL’s microsatellites and others are examples of plans to “develop and deploy long-duration orbital ASAT interceptors”. Types of ASAT weapons are discussed following this section, including lasers, radio frequency and particle beams.
These are very serious allegations against SSTL and others. How can it be that the deaths at Chevaline do not have the satellite connection as top possibility?
@bluebird 3 Apr, 2014 – 3:02 pm: “Q: Iran obviously knew how to take over an american drone remotely. Somebody must have told them that secret and the necessary keys.”
They didn’t need a secret or any keys. It was a clever trick, on the order of, “Why didn’t I think of that?”
Bluebird – 3rd April 2014. 1:28
This is from the ‘Standard’ article linked at the beginning of my post:
“Boeing insiders say the new anti-hijack kit could be fitted to airliners all over the world, including those in the UK, within the next three years.”
which would make it 2010 and is not where I saw the more definite date. I’ve been through my various links again and found that it probably came from here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5C1aYniIFA
‘Boeing Uninterruptible Autopilot’ posted on 9 March 2014. This is a series of captions set against a background of the interior of a devastated building, and with melancholy music playing. I am reproducing the content relevant to this response below:
“I am a retired Delta pilot. On 10 December, 2006 I informed FAA, FBI and NWA of the Boeing Uninterruptible Autopilot. It was used against Adam Air 574 in a manner consistent with the loss yesterday of the B777 enroute Kaula Lampur to China.
Please advise me if Delta ALPA Safety Reps have educated the Delta Pilot Group of the BUAP that I forced Boeing to announce on 3 March, 2007 in response to my lawsuit filed against Boeing and ALPA of 27 February, 2007. That lawsuit was Civil Case 3:07-cv-24 and resulted in Boeing doing the right thing in announcing the deployment of the BUAP to be completed by March, 2009.”
Then the video shows a picture of part of the article in the ‘Standard’ (my previous post), including the graphic.
Later:
“The so called ‘uninterruptible autopilot system’ patented secretly by Boeing in the US last week will connect ground controllers and security services with the aircraft using radio waves and global satellite positioning systems.
After it has been activated the aircraft will be capable of remote digital control from the ground, enabling operators to fly it like a sophisticated model plane manoeuvring it vertically and laterally.
A threatened airliner could be flown to a secure military base or a commercial airport, where it would touch down using existing landing aids known as ‘autoland function’.”
Later:
“My question to DPA and Delta ALPA Safety is on what date did Delta ensure that all Delta pilots are aware of what Boeing has stated 7 years ago would be installed by March, 2009.
The significance is that if any ALPA pilots are not aware of this ‘feature’ they cannot comply with FAR 121.533.”
Later:
“A Malasia Boeing Airlines flight carrying 239 people from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing is missing – Since 1995 Boeing, Airbus etc have had Boeing Uninterruptible Autopilots or Thales Uninterruptible autopilots. This information was not released until 3 March, 2007 when I personally sued Boeing and ALPA (airline pilots association, union). My suit was dated 27 Feb 07. On 3 March 07 Boeing released this confirmation of the existence of UNINTERRUPTIBLE AUTOPILOTS.”
There is some more but what is above is sufficient. Reading through the transcript it seems that some of the text is of recent origin, whilst some of it dates from a much earlier time. The reference to FAR 121.533 is Federal Air Regulation Section 121.533 – Responsibility for operational control: Domestic operations. A copy can be found here:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2011-title14-vol3/pdf/CFR-2011-title14-vol3-sec121-533.pdf
START
(a) Each certificate holder conducting domestic operations is responsible for operational control.
(b) The pilot in command and the aircraft dispatcher are jointly responsible for the preflight planning, delay, and dispatch release of a flight in compliance with this chapter and operations specifications.
(c) The aircraft dispatcher is responsible for—
(1) Monitoring the progress of each flight;
(2) Issuing necessary information for the safety of the flight; and
(3) Cancelling or redispatching a flight if, in his opinion or the opinion of the pilot in command, the flight cannot operate or continue to operate safely as planned or released.
(d) Each pilot in command of an aircraft is, during flight time, in command of the aircraft and crew and is responsible for the safety of the passengers, crewmembers, cargo, and airplane.
(e) Each pilot in command has full control and authority in the operation of the aircraft, without limitation, over other crewmembers and their duties during flight time, whether or not he holds valid certificates authorizing him to perform the duties of those crewmembers.
END
My understanding is that McConnell originally became concerned when he discovered a small component, normally used in missiles, to be present in the system. That is possibly why he, in some reports, speaks of aircraft being ‘vaporized’. The device is the QRS11, more information on which can be found here:
http://www.systron.com/gyroscopes/qrs11-single-axis-analog-gyroscope
However, it has nothing to do with the bit in a missile that goes bang. Nevertheless, it seems to have been the initiator of his investigations that led to his claim of the BUAP being installed in Boeing aircraft. It doesn’t really matter how that was discovered, the known facts now pointing to it being a reality – for a long time.
And remember, a patent holder can always license the technology to another manufacturer or operator in exchange for an agreed fee.