Wednesday, June 11, 2014

#1994: Marine Links Serco Red Switch P.A.T.H. of Crime to 68 Shadow Track, 370 Cat Bond Time

Plum City – (AbelDanger.net). United States Marine Field McConnell has linked Maureen Baginski’s apparent use of the Serco Red Switch Network to move her agents through Prisons, Airport Towers and Hotels on a 'P.A.T.H.' of crime – to the shadow track of SIA Flight 68, allegedly imputed with navigation timing signals needed to trigger a Catastrophe Bond (Cat Bond) after MH Flight 370 had been hidden at its Cat IIIc-landing crime scene.

McConnell notes that Red Switch Network operations to hide planes and trigger bonds requires the synchronization of patented devices from different companies (e.g. Boeing, Honeywell and Inmarsat) to guide, control and track the SIA and MH aircraft and he is therefore totally un-surprised that Serco agents operate the communication systems along a P.A.T.H. of crime including the Acacia Prison near Perth; the Malaysian ATC tower; the Starwood Hotel Group KL; the United States Patent and Trademark Office and the NPL cesium clock facility!

Prequel 1:
#1993: Marine Links Clinton's Serco Red Switch Contract Towers to 370 Cat Bond, GLONASS Track



Demonstrate Shadow Theory at night MH370

“Serco to pay back £69m over fraudulent tagging contracts [Abel Danger makes the spoliation inference that Serco is operating the Red Switch Network to move agents and assets through Prisons, Airport Towers and Hotels on an international P.A.T.H. of crime]
 WHITEHALL EDITOR
Thursday 19 December 2013
More than two-thirds of Government contracts held by the controversial outsourcing giants Serco and G4S are open to fraud and error, ministers have admitted.

An official investigation into £5.9bn of outsourcing contracts held by the firms found evidence on Thursday of "inconsistent management" in 22 out of the 28 deals across eight Government departments and agencies. In the majority of the contracts, the review found that there were "key deficiencies" in invoice and payment processes that could lead to overcharging.

The review was ordered in the wake of the scandal involving Serco and G4S's tagging contracts.

Serco on Thursday agreed to repay the Government £68.5m. The scandal concerned the Ministry of Justice being charged for tagging people who were found to be dead, back in prison or overseas. Both Serco and G4S are currently being investigated by the Serious Fraud Office.

It was those disclosures earlier this year that sparked the review of all contracts held by both companies. It found that in 17 of the contracts, the civil servants in charge of them did not have the "knowledge and capacity required to ensure the contract is being delivered effectively".

It also ordered further investigation into several "Work Programme" contracts where "the possibility of errors or irregularities and their impact was potentially more significant".

Bill Crothers, chief procurement officer for the Government, who led the review, said it was clear the Civil Service needed more skills to ensure value for money in such contacts. "We need the very best commercial skills to be able to make the most of these opportunities, and we know that these skills are not yet strong enough across Government," he said.

In a separate report, the Justice Secretary, Chris Grayling, said that problems with two further contracts held by G4S, for facilities management in the courts, has been uncovered. These related to invoicing, delivery and performance reporting and have been referred to the SFO.

Serco also agreed to repay £2m to the MoJ following the discovery that members of Serco staff had been recording prisoners as having been delivered to court when they had not.

As a result, Mr Grayling said, both G4S and Serco have decided to withdraw from the MoJ competition for rehabilitation services.

Frances Crook, chief executive of the Howard League for Penal Reform, said this was a welcome development: "Given the abject failure of the ministry to look after taxpayers' money when managing contracts, this must surely be the death-knell for the Government's dangerous gamble with justice privatization."

Questions/Answers Follow-Up #1 - How Did Malaysian Airlines 370 disappear using SIA68/SQ68?
Published: Thursday, March 20th, 2014 6:30AM EDT

Hi everyone,

Over the past two days, I have been overwhelmed with an onslaught of emails, Twitter messages, and phone calls from around the world.  Thanks to everyone that has sent additional information corroborating this theory.  In addition, I have received numerous journalistic and interview requests from CNN, NBC, Fox News, WSJ, various online media, and numerous radio talk shows.  To date I have been declining these interviews, as my goal for this work was to expose a very real and dangerous situation that can be exploited again for a terrorist attack.  I may accept a couple specific interview requests in the near future where I feel that I can add to the conversation and help add international pressure.

My original article sparked a lot of great discussion about the plausibility of such an exploit of the world’s aviation systems.  The various “experts” utilized by the media to analyze different theories have expressed many differing views and I have decided to publish additional information and detail that I feel should add to the conversation.   My goal is for the public and journalistic media to take this information and apply appropriate pressure on their own governmental authorities to expose answers and ultimately the truth – regardless if that truth results in discarding my theory or confirming it.

Media note: Permission is granted to use quotes and images from this blog for online, print, radio, and broadcast so long as both original image source credit and MH370Shadow source credit is maintained.  A link-back to www.MH370Shadow.com is required when reproducing any content derived from this site.

I am presenting this article as a list of questions and answers – hopefully some of these can address the questions received in emails, skepticism broadcast on various news networks by “experts”, and various other questions. 

1)   What do you make of the recent news reports about the initial left-hand turn being pre-programmed into the FMS (Flight Management System)?

It has been my theory all along that this initial turn was a nefarious act.  If you look at a charting of the exact point where the transponder was shut-off and the left-hand turn was initiated you see that it lines up EXACTLY with the airspace control border of Malaysia and Vietnam. 

While coincidences do occasionally happen – this in my opinion isn’t one of them, especially now that there are seemingly confirmed reports that the FMS programmed route had been changed prior to the last ACARS report at 1:09AM(1709UTC).

Take a look:

2)   I like simple theories and this “fire theory” sounds like it explains the sudden left turn.  Do you think it’s viable?

Not anymore.   I don’t believe there is any way to reconcile the modification of planned routes in the onboard FMS prior to 1709UTC with a fire that supposedly happened AFTER 17:19UTC.

Remember, the plane lost radar contact and then later we learned it had made the left turn just two minutes after last verbal contact with ATC, correct?   NO – this theory no longer holds unless a fire was pre-planned to occur at 1720UTC and the flight crew knew early enough to plan new routes prior to 1709UTC.

3) Why did the MAS military not observe the merge of the radar echos with SQ68’s location at 1815UTC. If you “realized that SIA68 was in the immediate vicinity as the missing MH370 flight at precisely the same time, why did their operators not notice?

Peter, my friend, bingo…

There is no denying that MH370 and SQ68 were extremely close (perhaps even directly on-top of each other).  I don’t have access to precise military radar data from MAS to analyze (I certainly would welcome anyone that can provide me access), but in my opinion it is a head scratcher why we haven’t heard anything about SQ68 the MAS radar analysts or the additional experts from the US that assisted.  Perhaps no one was paying attention to this identified civil aircraft OR perhaps it has been known for the past 9-10 days and the information has not been shared publicly.

Just a refresher of how close they were at last MAS military radar contact (1815UTC) based on my interpretation of the published radar data:

4)   Could a 777 really fly in formation with another 777 so close?

This has been an incredibly controversial topic in and of itself.  Some ‘experts’ on various news broadcasts have claimed that while this is possible, the skill level to perform such a feat would be beyond that of a typical airliner pilot.   I have heard others claim that it is entirely feasible.

I have had quite a bit of correspondence over the last 72 hours with pilots of 777, 737, Airbus, and others.  A number of these pilots were also military pilots at some point in their careers and have had experience with formations, trailing, visual separation, and radar avoidance tactics.

Key considerations:

a.  Wake Turbulence 

This is not a factor if MH370 is positioned with the appropriate vertical separation BELOW SQ68 OR more likely wake turbulence is not a factor if MH370 is positioned vertically ABOVE SQ68.

NO, I’m not proposing that MH370 simply came up right on the tail of SQ68 and followed it like some crazy New York City driver.

b.  Visual Separation 

By being positioned above SQ68 and slightly AFT (behind), MH370 has the ability to maintain visual contact of SQ68 at all times while remaining in the blind spot visually from any SQ68 crew or passenger.

Such visual separation could also be accomplished by positioning below SQ68 and slightly behind (vertically below and far enough ahead that it stays in-front of the falling wake turbulence from the higher SQ68 flight.)

c.   Altimeter Interference

If MH370 was flying DIRECTLY below SQ68, there would be observable altimeter interference in the cockpit of SQ68 that would have alerted the crew via altitude alerts.   I have heard from several pilots who are familiar with the phenomenon personally while flying over Thailand and other countries in the region; military jets that fly underneath the airliner cause these interferences.

FYI - I am currently working with a list of contacts and attempting to get some details on whether SQ68 actually experienced any altimeter interference in the cockpit during this flight.

d.  Flight Control / Coordination

I’ve heard several objections that this type of maneuver would require both pilots to be in constant communication and coordination; such a viewpoint is derived from a military perspective on formation flying.  I strongly disagree.

SQ68 is an airliner (another Boeing 777 to be precise) that was also being flown throughout its cruise by the autopilot system.  The programmed route in the Flight Management System computer would have been controlling that autopilot system throughout the flight over the Bay of Bengal, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and beyond.  Such a flight would have been incredibly stable as the autopilot system is capable of maintaining course track, altitude, and speed at incredible accuracy (much better than a human).

A pilot on-board MH370 would easily have had pre-flight access to the actual ICAO flight plan for SQ68 (and other potential targets).  In addition to knowing the details of the planned route being flown (by SQ68 autopilot), the pilot of MH370 would have been able to listen to any ATC instructions that were given to SQ68.  If a vector was verbally provided by ATC, both MH370 and SQ68 would have received the same instruction at the same time.

I agree that getting a big bus like the 777 to perfectly coordinate and follow another 777 under hand-flown controls would be very tough for even a highly skilled pilot.  On the other hand, configuring the identical flight plan route into MH370’s FMS system and then using autopilot to hold altitude above SQ68 and maintain appropriate speed (making minor speed adjustments as needed) would effectively yield the same result as very close coordination between pilots.

Establishing and maintaining control of the “shadow” for extended distances is absolutely possible and not as hard as some would like to make it out to be as the 777 is a very stable aircraft with a great autopilot system. 

5)   How about the radar?  Some media ‘experts’ are saying these are sophisticated radar systems and that the military radar systems would have likely spotted such a tactic.

Primary Search Radar (PSR) scans the skies looking for targets and the level of radar accuracy is a function of distance from the radar site and the azimuth resolution (or Beam Width).   This distance would have varied throughout the flight and there are different types of radar technologies employed throughout the regions with different specifications and accuracy.  It has been hard to get very specific details that would make it possible to calculate exactly based on planned routes (for some reason, countries are picky about radar details being public).

Based on several conversations I’ve had with various radar techs and experts as well as my own research, I expect that Primary Search Radar would likely have shown ONE single primary return so long as the two planes were within 500meters of each other.  As distances from radar sites expanded, this tolerance can actually open up to almost .5NM!

Certainly India / Pakistan have additional tracking radar capability well beyond their PSR used by civil and military defense, however I believe that in this case there would have been no reason to activate such military tactics to investigate SQ68.  Keep in mind that SQ68 is a known carrier that flies across these airspaces daily, it was squawking a registered ATC transponder code, and there was nothing suspect about it.  Even if a brief anomaly or two had been observed by radar, I don’t believe it would have been noticed or any alarms raised with the military to do further tracking/investigation.

Certainly this would be a different story if an unidentified aircraft came waltzing into their airspace, but we are looking at something entirely different here! As a final note on radar, I do also know from various sources that in some locations throughout these regions, it is known that there are radar sites that do not function 24/7.

For those interested, here is a brief primer on radar technologies:  
View the Radar Primer


6)   TCAS can’t be used independently from the transponder – turn one off, turn both off!

This has been a fun discussion as I’ve had legitimate data and information showing that indeed the TCAS system can be allowed to continue receiving and in some cases interrogating even with the transponder off/in standby mode.

There seems to be some discrepancy about what can be done vs. what should be done vs. how it typically works.

1st – the transponder and TCAS are very closely linked together and normally transponder interrogations are sent and received by the system.

2nd – if there is a way to disable the transponder but still permit TCAS to listen and display any transponder interrogations it observed, then while SQ68 was in-range of Subang center and other aircraft, it would have been actively responding to transponder interrogations.

Even if for some reason TCAS is completely inoperable (doesn’t read that way in the 777 manuals), the challenge of locating SQ68 in the sky is still extremely easy with the help of a simple hand-held ADS-B receiver and a tablet or laptop.

Here is the Stratus 2, hand-held receiver that can be linked to an iPad.:



As a worst case scenario where none of the two options above fit, the pilot could use the weather radar to pinpoint an echo of the other plane and head towards it OR considering it was a clear night, the plane would have been visible from a long way away.


7)   What could be next, why does this matter for the future?

I am not a conspiracy theorist and live in a very factual, data-driven world 99% of the time.  That said, I do find this scenario very troubling if it indeed pans out to be true as it has huge security implications for the world at large.  I was directed by a reader to the book “Reamde” by Neal Stephenson who writes of this similar scenario to disguise the theft of an airplane!

A reader also informed me that this coming weekend is the Nuclear Security Summit 2014 being held in The Hague, Holland.  While no specific threat or information is known, there are a number of targets that could be exploited by leveraging this tactic to cross air defense radar zones with ease.


8)   At what point on SQ68’s route was the last ping from MH370 received?  Do these match up?

So many people have asked this question! I sat down and mapped it out based on the ground speed reported for SQ68 on that day.   At the last satellite ping time of 00:11UTC (8:11AM), Singapore Airlines 68 was approximately here:
Here is a link to the location in Google Maps: View the Google Map
You’ll see it is just north of Afghanistan and right over the border in Turkmenistan.

9)   Have you contacted the authorities (FBI, MAS, etc…)

Yes, I have personally and a number of people have pushed the issue in front of the authorities on my behalf.  My hope is the journalistic community can keep some pressure on the topic until answers are released!

 
10)   What else do you know?

Hmm… I know that supposedly at the last known military radar contact with MH370 at 1815UTC it was flying at FL295.  It just so happens that SQ68, which was VERY close laterally to MH370, was flying at FL300 at 1815UTC.  I find the alignment of altitudes to be more than a coincidence and believe that MH370 was already hard at work gradually stabilizing and merging the flight paths of the two airplanes together.

11)         What do you need?  What can we do to help? 

a.    Help me continue to put pressure on government authorities and the media to keep the pressure on this theory until either it’s disproved or it is proved and the plane is located.

b.    I am working to obtain some specific details about SQ68 (can’t post the actual details here).  I have a variety of people working to help make that happen, but if you think you can get me in touch (anonymously) with the captain or co-pilot of the flight – please do so!

c.     With the help of another individual, we have gotten the suggestion into Inmarsat (the SATCOM provider) to do a differential analysis of ping times between SATCOM uplink from MH370 and SQ68 for that time period.  The theory being that if the two match or don’t match, it helps bring closure to the mystery.  In addition, if the two pings match for multiple hours and then diverge later (i.e hour 6) we would then know that was the approximate break away point for MH370 from SQ68.

If you have a specific contact at Inmarsat that may be willing to help on this, please let me know!

d.    Finally, I would like to continue doing some deep investigative work throughout the conclusion of the mystery of MH370 and beyond to eventually expose this and some other serious “loopholes” and gaps that can be exploited as security holes in the aviation world, hopefully before we see an attack utilizing such a method.

While large Enterprise IT consulting is my day-job, I try to combine my skills and abilities together to problem solve just about anything I can get my hands on.

Thanks to everyone for all the support this week!


As always - do your own digging into the facts please, I’m still looking for anything to disprove this!

Serco helps organisations in the Banking, Financial Services and Insurance sector ensure products get to market efficiently and effectively. In this way, our customers can focus on their core business.

Currently, more than 8,000 employees handle over 10 million voice calls and process 4 million transactions each month, for major banking and finance customers across the world.
The financial segments we support include:

Retail Banking – customer lifecycle management for front/mid and back office functions, leveraging our multi-lingual and multi-site capabilities to satisfy end -customers’ needs.

Commercial Banking – Business-to-Business (B2B) lifecycle management services that ensure workflows are secure and monitored across different processes.

Wealth Management –the full account management cycle, from data entry to payment, credit and fraud operations.

Mortgages – wide-ranging support across mid/back office functions including data entry, indexing, assessments, underwriting, servicing, rate switches, redemptions and completions.

Credit Bureaux – managing functions from disputes, disclosures, maintenance and fraud management to full technical support for customer account management.

Insurance – based on over 10 years’ experience, more than 1,500 specialist employees deliver a wide range of customer contact and support services covering all aspects of the customer journey from initial underwriting through to through policy administration and claims management.

We deliver our services within secure and robust environments that are fully compliant with the relevant regulatory frameworks. This is a key starting point that has enabled us to build proven experience in complex banking operations across multiple geographies and more than 100 systems.”

“New military hotline [operated by Serco] directly links top brass to U.S.

Canada is installing a hotline that will allow military brass and politicians to talk with their American counterparts during a time of war or in any other crisis.
BY THE OTTAWA CITIZEN JANUARY 14, 2006

Canada is installing a hotline that will allow military brass and politicians to talk with their American counterparts during a time of war or in any other crisis.

About $20 million is being spent on what is called the Defence Red Switch Network. The communications system is already running in some locations, including the defence minister's office and other undisclosed sites for the military's senior leadership. The system will provide a link for the Canadian government to various U.S. military headquarters as well as the North American Aerospace Defence Command, the joint U.S.-Canada alliance that monitors air and space approaches to the continent.

After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, there was criticism that senior Canadian officials, including then-prime minister Jean Chretien, were out of the communications loop during the initial stages of the terrorist strike.

The Citizen obtained documents on the red switch network under the access to information law, but Defence Department officials censored almost all details. They claimed releasing the material would be "injurious" to the defense of Canada, its international relations, as well as the detection of subversive or hostile activities.

The newspaper, however, found the details of the supposedly secret network, including its cost to taxpayers, on the department's own public webpage. Details of a similar system that would allow U.S. President George W. Bush to communicate with his top level commanders was also on a Pentagon webpage.

Canadian military officials were not available to explain why information about the network is considered secret when such details have already been put out in the public domain by both the U.S. and Canada. 

The red switch network is considered secure, meaning that it has technology to prevent its transmissions from being monitored or intercepted [Except for the Heartbleed bug]. Presumably the Canadian system can link up with the president's network. 

Martin Shadwick, a strategic studies professor with York University, said such a system makes sense in that Canada and the U.S. share a common goal in protecting North America. He noted that similar communications systems existed during the Cold War.

But analyst Steve Staples said the hotline is another example of the growing integration of the U.S. and Canadian militaries and the increased involvement of the Canadian Forces in American-led operations. "This system just allows the Canadian military and government leaders to get their orders from Washington more quickly," said Mr. Staples, an analyst with the Ottawa-based Polaris Institute.

The Citizen requested information on the red switch network almost four weeks ago, but military officials have not been available to comment.

But according to the Defence webpage, the network "allows access to the U.S. system (Forces wide) and will enhance north/south and internal connectivity -- particularly during times of crisis."

According to a Pentagon site, the network provides the president, secretary of defence, joint chiefs of staff, combatant commanders and selected agencies with secure voice communications up to the top secret level. The system is for use during war and other emergencies. Other U.S. defence and federal government agencies can access the network if they have approval from the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, according to the site. The website also includes a [Serco!] phone number that U.S. government officials can call to request entry to the network. 

Mr. Staples said the level of secrecy in Canada surrounding the network is disturbing. "I think the Defence Department is worried that Canadians are going to realize the extent our military is being integrated into the U.S. system," he added.

Critics have warned about a new wave of secrecy at the Defence Department. Officials there are censoring information in official documents released to the public even though the same material is already available on government Internet sites. Some critics say this blanket of secrecy raises questions about government accountability and openness. Last week, the Citizen reported the Defence Department is withholding information about the Pentagon's missile shield that is already on the U.S. government's websites, while at the same time claiming the security of Canada could be harmed if the names of senior American officers treated to a taxpayer-financed reception more than a year ago are released.

In addition, the newspaper obtained two missile shield briefing notes sent to Defence Minister Bill Graham. The department had originally told both the newspaper and an investigator with the Office of the Information Commissioner that those records, one of which discusses U.S. efforts to develop space weapons, never existed.

© © CanWest MediaWorks Publications Inc.”

“Catastrophe bonds (also known as cat bonds) are risk-linked securities that transfer a specified set of risks from a sponsor to investors. They were created and first used in the mid-1990s in the aftermath of Hurricane Andrew and the Northridge earthquake.”

Yours sincerely,


Field McConnell, United States Naval Academy, 1971; Forensic Economist; 30 year airline and 22 year military pilot; 23,000 hours of safety; Tel: 715 307 8222

David Hawkins Tel: 604 542-0891 Forensic Economist; former leader of oil-well blowA-out teams; now sponsors Grand Juries in CSI Crime and Safety Investigation

1 comment:

  1. numerous insurance companies provide discounts to be able to careful drivers The item have a amazing driving record. Discounts, like insurance bundling discounts AS WELL AS home owner's discounts, likewise assistance throughout reducing ones monthly premiums. make sure to help obtain the insurance representative regarding about every one of the discounts That You will be eligible for.trucking insurance

    ReplyDelete

Who's visiting Abel Danger
view a larger version of the map below at whos.amung.us

You Too can be a CAPTAIN SHERLOCK