Sunday, March 29, 2015

Analysis: Why cycling needs to improve its TV product



  • By Andrew Hood
  • Published Nov. 6, 2014
  • Updated Mar. 18, 2015 at 9:02 AM EDT
image: http://cdn.velonews.competitor.com/files/2014/11/2014-Giro-dItalia-659x440.jpg
Television coverage of professional cycling needs to be beefed up, writes Andrew Hood. Photo: Tim De Waele | TDWsport.com

Here is cycling’s great paradox as it moves deeper into the new millennium: relevance to the TV audience.

Perhaps there is no sport in the world that’s as exciting to participate in yet is as boring to watch on television as bike racing.

Sometimes that’s hard to comprehend. Anyone who’s raced, or stood on the side of the road to watch a race, can attest to cycling’s passion, speed, and thrills. In many ways, the sport has all the ingredients to be one of the most compelling TV sports in the world, yet it is not. Why? In part because television broadcasting product has remained static for 20 years.

After watching another season of thrilling bike racing yet largely incomprehensible TV coverage to go along with it, a recent trip back to the United States drove home the point of just how non-compelling watching cycling on TV has become, and how much it could be, and needs to be, vastly improved.

For nearly a month back in the U.S., I was clubbed over the head by SportsCenter, Monday Night Football, the World Series, and such contrived events as the Red Bull Air Race with acrobatic planes.

As bombastic, loud, and commercialized American sports have become, it helped me realize how just anachronistic and woefully out of touch cycling has become in the TV landscape.

Five simple ways to make cycling more compelling on TV

Graphics
There are many ways to tell a story with on-screen graphics, and cycling needs to catch up. The simple use of tickers and graphic boxes could go a long way. These info graphics could display all kinds of relevant information to engage the viewing audience. Beyond critical data about the race, such as distances, time gaps, and even prevailing wind direction, sidebar graphics could provide history, palmares, and factoids about riders in breakaways. Insider data could also be revealed, such as power numbers, heart rate, telemetry, and climbing rates. It could be argued that some of these on-screen graphics are gimmicky and even distracting; but why, after nearly 20 years of watching the Tour on TV, do I still not know how far it is to the finish line? Because the graphics suck.

GPS technology
The UCI finally began this season to experiment with GPS technology in races. It’s imperfect, and sometimes inexact, but it provides critical information for viewers. Riders and teams are resistant to bike-mounted GPS, in part due to weight issues and tactical questions, but if the technology could be worked into their time sensors — and some power meters already include GPS technology — every rider should have a universal GPS system mounted to their bikes. Not only could information be used in TV broadcasts, but the technology could be expanded to smartphone apps — think real-time Strava during the race— or for imaginative TV images of aerial shots of the peloton, with GPS sensors indicating where the major riders are in the peloton. Similar technology has been used for years in motor sports. Cycling simply needs to step into the 21st century, and exploit the technology that already exists.

Permanent numbers
I don’t know if it was Peter Stetina’s original idea, but I heard the BMC Racing rider talking about it this season and it makes perfect sense. Instead of random numbers plucked from a hat, or based on some inane ranking system, give riders permanent numbers to be placed on their jerseys.

The idea of the No. 1 bib of the defending champion holds little relevance once the bike race is underway. Instead, riders should have permanent numbers they would carry from race to race. It’s a great way for fans not only to identify the riders, but also to feel linked with them throughout the entire season, or careers. Just like football has its No. 12 for the quarterback or soccer has No. 9 for the lead striker at Real Madrid, Chris Froome should have his numbered jersey that he races throughout his career at Sky. And who cares if there are a dozen riders in the peloton with number 7? The team jerseys would be the differentiating factor. These permanent race numbers would quickly become synonymous with greatness, and cycling needs that. Imagine if Eddy Merckx had raced with the same number throughout his whole career. It would rank up there with Hank Aaron’s 44, or Michael Jordan’s 23.

In-race cameras and audio
Like GPS, the sport started to experiment with both of these throughout the season with stunning success. Some of the most compelling video came from Shimano’s bike-mounted camera footage of Giant-Shimano sprinter John Degenkolb and his leadout train during stage 5 at the Tour de Suisse. Everyone who watched that video came away impressed not only with the speeds, bike-handling skills, and danger, but just how cool it was to be inside the peloton.

Another highlight came with the use of cameras and audio mounted inside team cars, particularly during the spring classics. Nothing captured the tension, and ultimate disappointment, at Gent-Wevelgem for Lotto-Belisol more than watching the reactions of sport directors, and later, a dejected André Greipel, who stepped from inside the team car after crashing and breaking his collarbone.

Another idea would be to put cameras on the front and back of photographers’ motorcycles — someone like Tim De Waele, who truly has a front-row seat.

And race radio? Instead of banning it, keep it and embrace it. I’d love to hear the chatter between Matt White and Simon Gerrans in the final run into Liège-Bastogne-Liège, or hear what Bjarne Riis is really saying to his troops.

Some of that technology is difficult to provide in real-time, due to size and weight issues, but many lightweight cameras are already capable of being fed into a live broadcast. Other sports have embraced it, so cycling should too.

TV producers who know the sport
Perhaps there should be a crash course on bike-racing tactics for TV directors and producers. I am not privy to the inside process of who calls the shots of what eventually is broadcast, but the quality of images is often inconsistent, haphazard, and without focus. Each country has a host broadcaster that handles the production from their respective countries, so the French handle the Tour, the Italian the Giro, and the Spanish the Vuelta. It’s maddening for viewers as TV images will invariably cut away from the decisive attacks at the front of the major climb to the suffering face of Thomas Voeckler or some other non-contending Frenchman languishing off the back. Fans want to see Alberto Contador attacking Froome, not some random shot a director is selecting on a whim. The sport does a good job of selling the beauty of France during the Tour, with sweeping shots of the countryside, the castles, and the fans, but there is still a feeling that more could be done with how the narrative of the actual race action unfolds.

Sporza leading the way

To see how good bike racing on TV can be, watch Sporza during the spring classics. Without question, the best European TV production comes from the Belgians, and more specifically, the Flemish broadcasters during the spring classics. The TV producers and directors clearly know the sport, and they’re packaging a product for an informed public. You don’t see feel-good features about why riders shave their legs on Sporza. Instead, the Flemish have been on the cutting edge of cycling broadcasting, putting TV cameras inside team cars, utilizing GPS technology mounted on TV camera motorcycles, and providing accurate, real-time information that makes the TV not only more comprehensible but infinitely more engaging.

No easy feat

Having said all that, it must be pointed out that no sport is as complicated and expensive to broadcast as cycling. Most sports have the luxury of unfolding inside stadiums, where fixed camera positions and hard-wired lines assure the best shots and a clear signal. That’s obviously not the case in cycling. Production facilities must be moved from stage to stage. Platoons of technicians work day and night during the Tour to ensure everything unfolds without a glitch. Not only is the race moving at breakneck speed over open roads, the technical difficulties of beaming TV signals from the back of motorcycles or helicopters flying across the Alps present a major technological and logistical hurdle each and every stage. Add rain, snow, wind, and heat, and it’s probably easier to cover a war than a three-week stage race across Europe.

Who’s gonna pay?

A major problem is money. To modernize cycling’s TV image requires investment, but that’s not so easy to do in cycling’s ever-dwindling pie. The Tour de France keeps a close lid on how much it earns off TV rights, but it’s nowhere near the billions that soccer or major U.S. sports bring in. GPS sounds great, but who’s going to pay for it? TV production is always a labor-intensive endeavor, and a very expensive one at that. The broadcasting budget for a race such as the Tour runs in the millions of dollars, and with today’s struggling economy, there’s not much money left to spend on fancy computer graphics or new gizmos like bike-mounted cameras.

More headwind for cycling’s TV product stems from the fact that the TV rights are sold largely on a race-by-race basis. There is not one universal contract, such as the NFL season or the Champions League, that can be packaged, marketed, and invested in. Instead, the Giro sells its races, the Tour theirs, while smaller races must pay for the TV production out of their own operating budgets because there are no rights to even sell.

Keeping up with Red Bull

In an ever-competitive TV landscape, cycling clearly needs to shake things up to stay relevant. The UCI deserves credit for broadening the horizon, and there is discussion of some of these issues as part of its revision of how the sport will look moving forward. Some can be quick, low-cost fixes, such as numbers on jerseys or cameras inside team cars, while others, such as the GPS tracking and on-bike cameras, remain a work in progress. But something needs to be done, especially when the foundation of the existing sponsor model for teams — media exposure — is dependent on quality TV. Yet cycling’s television product has barely evolved in two decades, while other sports have completely eclipsed cycling due to technological innovation.

In many ways, cycling is a perfect TV property, a virtual high-speed chess match set against the world’s most dramatic landscapes. Yet cycling is fast becoming a “grandpa” sport, with younger viewers drawn to more slick, well-produced, and enthralling TV products.

Cycling’s major problem remains its credibility, but as the sport struggles to find its new identity, it could go a long way to bring back disenfranchised fans, and win new ones, by making the sport as compelling, engaging, comprehensible, and exciting as possible for television viewers.

Cycling doesn’t have to change completely; just the way it’s marketed, presented, and broadcast. The sport needs to do a much better job selling itself in a highly competitive marketplace, where not only traditional ball sports, but made-for-TV events such as the X-Games and Red Bull-anything, are offering a much more viewer-friendly product than how cycling looks today.
And it still makes my skin boil when I hear that bull riding draws better TV ratings than cycling. Some things just shouldn’t be.


Read more at http://velonews.competitor.com/2014/11/analysis/analysis-why-cycling-needs-to-improve-its-tv-product_352280#iQjFIKhJKbY8t3L2.99

THE GEOENGINEERING SCRAPBOOK: US SCIENTISTS: WE NEED AN INTERNATIONAL GEOENGINEERING REGULATORY BODY

This one came from N.B., and it is one of thos articles that highlights the glaring and growing hypocrisy of the technocratic elites running (and probably ruining) this planet. American scientists are now calling for an international regulatory agency with teeth to oversee geoengineering projects:
Scientists call for international authority on climate geoengineering
Now, as someone who lives in the USA and who has seen, within the past few months, direct evidence of this type of aerosol and spraying activity firsthand, it strikes me as both odd and hypocritical, for such activity could not be conducted in American skies without, at somepoint, someone in the government knowing, and approving, of it. INterestingly, the article mentions none of these activities, but seems weirdly concentrated only upon more fantastic schemes:
"Geoengineering includes all man-made interventions from reflecting sunlight from the Earth's surface to sucking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. Technologies range from simply painting roofs white, to proposals to launch mirrors into orbit."
But hidden within the article is another agenda, and when I read this, I must confess, I shuddered. What's the real reason for this call for international regulation of geo-engineering? It's very simple:
"But geoengineering should be explored in depth, in case of need in the future, the committee said.
"Marcia McNutt, who led the 16-person committee, told the AAAS conference that 'the governance mechanism should be open, be transparent and should involve the civil society on deciding where is the dividing line for these experiences.'
(Interjection: note the babblling claptrap: "these experiences"!?!?  Geoengineering is "an experience"?)
"'If the US starts to talk about this, we can have other nations joining in,' said McNutt, editor in chief of the journal Science and the former president of the American Geophysical Union.
"Such institutions are necessary before large-scale geoengineering experiments can be conducted, she said, adding that small-scale research could be carried out in the meantime."(Emphasis added)
In other words, we're going to conduct large-scale geoengineering, whether anyone wants to do so or not. Note, the aptly-named Ms. McNutt wants society only to be able to determine "the dividing line" between acceptable and non-acceptable techniques. What has been ruled out of the picture is the decision not to have geoengineering at all.
THe real question is why geoengineering is needed on a planetary scale at all. I've never bought, for a moment, the global warming meme, and the climate change meme is simply a useful tautology: of course the climate is changing, and it always will. So why the rush to "regulate"?
If the stories of the chemical composition of chemtrails is any indicator, heavy metals are being aerosolized. And that increases the electrical conductivity of the atmosphere, and alters local and regional geomagnetic characteristics. And the mischief to which this can be put should be self-evident, from everything from weather modification (another way of rigging the market for those "weather derivatives"), to uses in military application.
So for my part, when I hear the "experts" talking about climate change and geoengineering, I remain skeptical, because what I'm hearing is "military, weapons, directed energy, weather modification." A regulatory agency would simply seem to be a way merely of ensuring that the West remains the big boy on the block.

U.S. Pays Most for Healthcare of Any Industrialized Nation … But Ranks Worst for Healthcare    ~ just like the rest of  the ... bang fer a buck   or fuck we get ? Huh  hey America hows that "ass~hole ~O ~bam~ma ~ care" work~in  ...hows that go~in Hummmmmm :O Oops .... u's kooky crazy fucks (that's ALL u's dummycocks/republipubs)..ya's "voted" a fucking real live walk~in/talk~in fucking zomb ...into office ..yea that's right no shit a fuck~in zomb  Lol & wanna "know" the crazy~est  shit of ALLLLLLLL ...nobody in "zombie land" (that U.S. folks)  stood the FUCK up & said sit DOWN  !!! u crazy bitch & shut the fuck up LOL  we R fuck~in a  done ,folks   hehehehe   ..done :o

Pelosi: "We Have to Pass the Bill So That You Can Find Out What Is In It"

Region:

healthcare
According to Some Metrics …
The Commonwealth Fund reported last year:
The United States health care system is the most expensive in the world, but this report and prior editions consistently show the U.S. underperforms relative to other countries on most dimensions of performance. Among the 11 nations studied in this report—Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States—the U.S. ranks last, as it did in the 2010, 2007, 2006, and 2004 editions of Mirror, Mirror. Most troubling, the U.S. fails to achieve better health outcomes than the other countries, and as shown in the earlier editions, the U.S. is last or near last on dimensions of access, efficiency, and equity. In this edition of Mirror, Mirror, the United Kingdom ranks first, followed closely by Switzerland
While UK residents averaged $3,405 per year on healthcare costs (the second-lowest, trailing only New Zealand), Americans paid $8,508 per year. And yet Commonwealth ranked the UK as number 1 for healthcare, and the U.S. dead last … 11th out of 11 industrialized nations.
Of course, Commonwealth’s main complaints with U.S. healthcare are access, efficiency and equity:
Overall health care ranking
In other words, America’s extreme inequality – and lack of socialized medicine – means that healthcare is only good for those who have enough cash to pay for it.        ~ aren't the American "ass~payer" pay~in 4 ????slice_jeff_bridges_dude_big_lebowski_01.jpg

THE THIRD AMERICAN ON FLIGHT 4U 9525 CRYPTIC CLUE

Posted by George Freund on March 28, 2015


Tragic: Married father Robert Oliver Calvo,37, was the third American to die in the Germanwings crash

Third American victim in Germanwings crash identified as 37-year-old married father-of-two who was on business trip

- U.S. State Department confirms Robert Oliver Calvo as third victim
- He was born in Spain and lived in Barcelona with wife and children
- Worked for design form Desigual, was on business trip to Dusseldorf
- His father said their family are trying to 'think about the good moments'
- Other two U.S. victims were Yvonne Selke, a contractor for Booz Allen Hamilton, and her daughter Emily

By MIA DE GRAAF FOR DAILYMAIL.COM and REUTERS
PUBLISHED: 22:32 GMT, 26 March 2015 | UPDATED: 11:30 GMT, 27 March 2015

The third American killed in the Germanwings plane crash in the French Alps has been identified as Robert Oliver Calvo.

Calvo, 37, was a U.S. citizen who lived with his wife and children in Barcelona, where he worked in real estate for Spanish design firm Desigual.

A frequent traveler, he was embarking on a business trip to Dusseldorf with Spanish colleague Laura Altamira when he boarded the doomed Airbus A320 on Tuesday.

The two other U.S. citizens among the 150 victims on the flight operated by Lufthansa's budget carrier were named yesterday as Booz Allen Hamilton contractor Yvonne Selke and her daughter, Emily.

http://conspiracy-cafe.blogspot.ca/2015/03/third-american-victim-in-germanwings.html

The above photo struck me as a bit odd from the moment I first saw it. The State Department was slow off the mark in identifying the third American on the Germanwings doomed flight. However, the writing on Mr. Calvo's shirt inspired some interest. GIESSEN is NOT THE SAME. Giessen is a town in Germany. It is about 90 kilometers from co-pilot Andreas Lubitz' parents' home in Montabaur. We show them on a Google map. Is this a cryptic clue that the pilot is not the same person as alleged or that the victim is not the same. Has the third person been created to conceal a more desired target of the NWO? However you mark it, GIESSEN is NOT THE SAME.


Giessen is pegged home. Montabaur is pegged work.

Black box memory card stolen from crash site of Germanwings jetliner? Plausible cover-up theories now taking shape

Posted by George Freund on March 28, 2015


Wednesday, March 25, 2015
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger

black box

(NaturalNews) For some reason we have yet to fully understand, jetliners keep disappearing or falling out of the sky with disturbing regularity. Air travel is amazingly safe, of course. Statistically, it produces far fewer injuries and deaths than vaccine shots which injure so many children that the United States Congress was forced to set up a special "vaccine court" just to handle all the injury claims and billions of dollars in compensation payouts.

But the circumstances under which jetliners keep disappearing smack of conspiracy and cover-ups. Flight MH370, for example, has still never been located. In July of last year, I was the first independent media journalists to suggest the plane had been hijacked. Mainstream media outlets like CNN ridiculed the theory, but just this month CNN began rolling out the exact same explanation, now claiming the jetliner was, indeed, hijacked. (Funny how CNN's narratives completely flip-flop over time, isn't it?)

Now with the Germanwings jetliner incident, we have the New York Times "pulling a CNN," you might say. According to this NYT story, the memory card of one of the airplane's two black boxes is missing, and the story claims it must have been "destroyed by the impact."

"Investigators have so far been unable to retrieve data from one black box, and the other was badly damaged and its memory card was missing," reports the New York Times.

If you read the logic of that sentence, it seems to state that no data was recovered from either black box, right?

But then in the exact same story, the NYT also reports, "Remi Jouty, director of France's Bureau of Investigation and Analysis, confirmed that audio of voices had been recovered from the black box in the crash of the Germanwings plane in the French Alps."

So, wait: there WAS voice recording data recovered from one of the black boxes? Confusing things even further, another paragraph in the same story says:

At the crash site, a senior official working on the investigation said, workers found the casing of the plane's other black box, the flight data recorder, but the memory card containing data on the plane's altitude, speed, location and condition was not inside, apparently having been thrown loose or destroyed by the impact.

So what we really have here is a story about two black boxes: one which either has voice data on it or doesn't have voice data on it, and the other black box which we are supposed to believe was located but the memory card it protects was missing because it was destroyed even though it was surrounded by a black box that's almost impervious to destruction.
Black boxes are designed to survive plane crashes... DOH!

Now, those of you who understand the laws of physics -- which obviously makes you a terrorist in modern America where any real grasp of scientific reality is widely condemned -- know that black boxes are designed for the precise purpose of making sure nothing inside them gets destroyed even in a violent airplane explosion or impact crash.

If black boxes did not survive plane crashes, there would be no real point in having them in the first place.

It's nearly impossible to destroy these black boxes -- which are really orange -- without resorting to extreme methods of destruction. As this NPR story explains, "The black box must be able to withstand an acceleration of 3,400 Gs (3,400 times the force of gravity)..."

To test the structural integrity of a black box, "[a]t 3,400 Gs," adds HowStuffWorks.com, "the CSMU hits an aluminum honeycomb target at a force equal to 3,400 times its weight. This impact force is equal to or in excess of what a recorder might experience in an actual crash."

What the New York Times is now asserting, against all known laws of physics, is that a black box was found, it was opened, the memory card was missing and therefore it must have been "thrown loose or destroyed."

Consider the unlikelihood of such a claim being true. It mirrors the similarly ludicrous claim after 9/11 that the terrorist's passports survived the crash and were found on the sidewalk below the building... but the aircraft black boxes were all destroyed in the crash, of course. And like magic, we're all supposed to believe that U.S. passports will survive an extremely hot explosion that melts steel girders and collapses buildings, but a black box -- which is DESIGNED to be blown up and still survive -- somehow "lost" its memory card as a jetliner descended into terrain.

How convenient.

The far more reasonable explanation, of course -- which also happens to be aligned with the laws of physics -- is that someone took the memory card out of the black box, which is why it's no longer in the black box.

If you scan a quick history of mysterious plane crashes that might be linked to rogue nations or government-run operations, you'll notice that the black boxes are missing from ALL such plane crashes: 9/11, Malaysia Airlines, this Germanwings flight and no doubt many others. Black boxes, it seems, are only found intact when governments want to find them intact.
Why would someone want to take the memory card out of the black box?

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that the only reason someone who remove the memory card from the black box is because they won't want the world to find out what's on the memory card.

And what is stored on these memory cards, exactly? Audible recordings of the flight deck and a detailed digital log of every flight command, environmental variable, flight control surface, altitude, heading, airspeed and everything else you might imagine is important in an airliner crash investigation. Black boxes contain all the data needed to entirely reconstruct the accident and find out what happened.

If someone carried out the attack on purpose, they could have easily been pre-positioned on the ground, ready to rush to the wreckage and pull the memory card. Black boxes are not terribly difficult to find if the wreckage is sufficiently broken apart. They're bright orange and unmistakable to identify, even in a pile of wreckage. They are designed to scream out "FIND ME!" in a mass of rubble. Because of the rugged terrain, it took rescue workers many hours to even arrive at the scene, leaving plenty of time for someone with a pre-positioned ground-based scout team to reach the wreckage first.
Why were the pilots apparently unconscious?

One reasonable working theory in all this is that some rogue government wanted to kill someone on the plane but make it look like an accident. Somehow they managed to incapacitate the pilots and then put the plane into a controlled descent into terrain, the theory goes.

"Among the theories that have been put forward by air safety analysts not involved in the investigation is the possibility that the pilots could have been incapacitated by a sudden event such as a fire or a drop in cabin pressure," reports the NYT. "A senior French official involved in the investigation, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that the lack of communication from the pilots during the plane's descent was disturbing, and that the possibility that their silence was deliberate could not be ruled out."

On this point, I concur. Commercial pilots are incredibly well trained and tend to be very intelligent people. If they were conscious, they would have absolutely noticed the altitude descent, especially when flying among high-altitude mountains. All pilots who are still living are fully aware that if your aircraft altitude goes LOWER than the height of the nearby mountains, you probably need to go full throttle and climb. Monitoring your altitude is one of the very first things all pilots are taught (airspeed, altitude and heading, actually), and commercial pilots are taught to scan their instruments on a regular basis to watch for unexpected readings.

On top of that, pilots tend to be people who prefer to be living rather than dead. In fact, one of the best assurances of pilots doing a good job flying commercial airliners is the inescapable fact that they are on board that same airliner. (Never fly in an aircraft remotely piloted via drone technology, if it ever comes to that...)

Thus, pilots tend to keep passengers alive because they want to keep themselves alive, too. It is almost inconceivable that the two pilots of this Airbus A320 would have both failed to notice the descent in mountainous terrain. The fact that the aircraft obviously did not suffer a sudden flight control failure also means it was not blown up in mid-air.
The list of plausible theories narrows

So what's left in the realm of deductive logic? The list of possibilities narrows rapidly:

• Pilot murder-suicide.

• On-board hijacking that incapacitated the pilots.

• A sophisticated cyber war hack attack that somehow took control of the plane and its communications capabilities.

• A bizarre coincidence of mechanical failures (such as a loss of oxygen) combined with highly unlikely aircraft control failures (loss of altitude calibration or electronics glitches). This possibility is almost certainly ruled out, as all commercial pilots are trained in emergency oxygen mask deployment when noticing signs of hypoxia.

• An unusual electromagnetic attack of some kind -- perhaps a "pulse" weapon that selectively disabled some functionality of the aircraft. (Extremely unlikely.)

The award for the most bizarre theory of all belongs to the "CERN brought down the aircraft" explanation you can read about at All News Pipeline.

We still don't have enough information to know with any degree of certainty what really happened, but we do have enough information to know that the "official narratives" being put out by the media just don't hold water. Not if you believe in the laws of physics, anyway. And if you don't, then how do you think airplanes fly in the first place?

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/049124_Germanwings_black_box_cover-up.html#ixzz3VY1h0X14




Professional pilots have been reporting on online forums that the black box had already been analysed and revealed that the plane may have crashed because the windscreen cracked, causing a sudden drop in oxygen that rendered the pilots unconscious



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3010610/French-alps-crash-French-alps-Germanwings-plane-crash-Lufthansa-GWI9525-4U9525-Airbus-A320-Barcelonnette-Alpes-Hautes-Digne-Les-Bains.html#ixzz3VgcirSbO

Hacked: Did You Really Think Cockpit Door Was Locked?

Posted by George Freund on March 28, 2015 at 7:50 AM
Posted by Gordon Duff, Senior Editor on March 27, 2015


In the interest of humiliating the lying press



By Gordon Duff and Jeff Smith, Editors

In all likelihood, the cabin crew of the ill fated GermanWings flight could simply have entered the cockpit at any time. If the plane were programmed specially to disallow this normal capability of the Airbus320 series, the airline has failed to inform the public of this.

This information is “confidential” as it would be a theoretical aid to hijackers. Problem is, there are no hijackers, only security agencies that seem to enjoy stealing planes, shooting them down or taking control of their guidance systems. The hijack scenario makes for good TV and convenient cover stories where “dead men tell no tales” and crash scenes are always quickly secured and “seeded” as needed.

Our suicide story is just a new twist on an old tale.

In order to add to the explosion of information about the recent air event over France, we have done some simple research on the operation of the cockpit door of an A320. We have published, below, the operations manual. We also have the following language, taken from the flight crew manual used by Royal Jordanian Airlines, an organization kind enough to have passed this on:

Ident.: DSC-25-11-10-00001006.0001001 / 09 OCT 12

Applicable to: MSN 2649-3685, 4670-5367

A forward-opening hinge door separates the cockpit from the passenger compartment. It has three electric locking strikes, controlled by the flight crew. In normal conditions, when the door is closed, they remain locked. When there is a request to enter the cockpit, the flight crew can authorize entry by unlocking the door, that remains closed until it is pushed open.

When the flight crew does not respond to requests for entry, the door can also be unlocked by the cabin crew, by entering a two to seven-digit code (programmed by the airline) on the keypad, installed on the lateral side of the Forward Attendant Panel (FAP).

Scribd Server Hacked and Crashed

The minute we posted the operating plans of for the A320 cockpit door on Scribd, the site was hacked and crashed. This is a screenshot showing the hack:



We changed IP addresses to from the UK to US, Canada, Switzerland, Germany and France, the hack is worldwide. Until Scribd is able to be restored, this is a screen print of the offending page from the flight manual:




https://www.scribd.com/doc/260119041/a320-Operating-Manual-Cockpit-Door

There are additional questions as to the possibility of a time delay that could disable the keypad, one that can be programmed by the airline itself but it not required and totally optional.

This would mean that it is likely, based on the level of informality at Germanwings, no delay was programmed into the keypad. This would mean that the cabin crew, by this we mean flight attendants, would have the entry code for the cockpit and would most likely be able to enter at will even if the door were in the lock position.

There is a reason we are publishing this, information that previously was not allowed to be in public hands:

The moment, over 24 hours ago, it was mentioned that the “pilot” was “pounding and screaming,” in an attempt to enter the cockpit, this information became of vital public interest. Additionally, as soon as the false information was released that air controllers were unable to contact the crew of the plane, it should have been mentioned that crew members have satellite phones available.

Rather than pounding on a door, the pilot might well have been on the phone asking NORAD to land the plane for him.

These phones are usually in each of the crew areas, fore and aft galleys and often sitting out in the open. A reference is made in this aero-medical flight manual:

Diagnosis

For anything other than a very minor medical complaint, the Purser or In-Charge Flight Attendant will normally make a PA announcement asking if there is a doctor or other qualified medical professional (nurse, paramedic etc) on board. If there is a positive response, the medical professional will be asked to assess the patient and to advise the crew of the best course of action.

In the absence of a medical professional (or as a concurrent protocol), many air carriers have a standing arrangement with emergency medical service providers such as Med Link, Stat MD or Med Aire. These service providers can be used both pre-flight and in-flight and can be contacted via satellite phone, high frequency (HF) or very high frequency (VHR) radio phone patch through an ARINC station or by means of Aircraft Communications, Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS) equipment. By one of these methods, direct communication with an emergency room/trauma centre physician is possible.

Anti-Hijack System

Again, we mention the same thing we brought up during the disappearance of MH370: Modern “fly by wire” planes have, for years, had auto-land systems onboard that are in place to keep planes from being hijacked and crashed into nuclear power plants. We are told the planes can land using this system in winds up to 30 knots.

We also know that a controlled crash in an area that would cause minimal collateral damage is the second course of events this system is programmed for.

With stories about depression and girl friends being pushed onto the public and very little salient information being given out, information which as usual inexorably leads to unpleasant answers, we have decided to broaden the debate.

All reporting, which for awhile seemed almost rational to a point, has been replaced by agenda driven lies and cover stories. It has begun again.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/03/27/350535/

RUSSIAN FIRM KASPERSKYP: NSA INFECTED HARDRIVES, AND THE IMPLICATIONS

Ms. D.P shared this, and when you read it, you'll see why I'm passing it along to you, with my own cautionary observations. According to this article from Rueters Canada, the American NSA has been doing a whole lot more than just eavesdropping in on your emails of phone conversations. It has, apparently, been able to infect your computer harddrives straight from the factory:
Russian researchers expose breakthrough U.S. spying program
The key points are may be found in these paragraphs, and ponder their implications carefully:
"The U.S. National Security Agency has figured out how to hide spying software deep within hard drives made by Western Digital, Seagate, Toshiba and other top manufacturers, giving the agency the means to eavesdrop on the majority of the world's computers, according to cyber researchers and former operatives.
"That long-sought and closely guarded ability was part of a cluster of spying programs discovered by Kaspersky Lab, the Moscow-based security software maker that has exposed a series of Western cyberespionage operations.
"Kaspersky said it found personal computers in 30 countries infected with one or more of the spying programs, with the most infections seen in Iran, followed by Russia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, China, Mali, Syria, Yemen and Algeria. The targets included government and military institutions, telecommunication companies, banks, energy companies, nuclear researchers, media, and Islamic activists, Kaspersky said. (reut.rs/1L5knm0)
"The firm declined to publicly name the country behind the spying campaign, but said it was closely linked to Stuxnet, the NSA-led cyberweapon that was used to attack Iran's uranium enrichment facility. The NSA is the agency responsible for gathering electronic intelligence on behalf of the United States.
"A former NSA employee told Reuters that Kaspersky's analysis was correct, and that people still in the intelligence agency valued these spying programs as highly as Stuxnet. Another former intelligence operative confirmed that the NSA had developed the prized technique of concealing spyware in hard drives, but said he did not know which spy efforts relied on it."
And this a little further on in the article:
"According to Kaspersky, the spies made a technological breakthrough by figuring out how to lodge malicious software in the obscure code called firmware that launches every time a computer is turned on.
"Disk drive firmware is viewed by spies and cybersecurity experts as the second-most valuable real estate on a PC for a hacker, second only to the BIOS code invoked automatically as a computer boots up.
"'The hardware will be able to infect the computer over and over,' lead Kaspersky researcher Costin Raiu said in an interview."
There is a line from George Lucas' first Star Wars movie that is applicable here, and which shows the implications to which the USA, in its mad scramble to be "secure," seems to be falling prey. It is in a line uttered by the character Princess Leia to the imperial governor (of the Death Star), Tarkin. Leia says something to the effect that the more the Empire tightens its grip, the more inevitably slips through its fingers.
This policy of unrestrained electronic spying has already seen economic consequences hit: Brazil and Europe both began to talk, and Brazil to do something about, the US based internet by launching parallel systems. China has already introduced regulations curtailing the purpose of computer hardware directly from the USA. And don't forget that story that appeared in the aftermath of the Snowden scandal and the failure of the Russian space probe Phobos II, which was blamed on faulty computer chips. Russia, you'll recall, placed a similar ban on chip imports, and even went so far as to announce that it was considering a return to the typewriter in order to avoid the NSA's snooping. More recently we've seen Russian announcements of its own internal domestic financial clearing network, and its insistence that Visa and Mastercard locate their clearing centers for Russia in Russia. And my own hypothesized idea that the BRICSA bloc will have to build their own counterpart to SWIFT is based, in part, on the growing suspicion within the BRICSA bloc about the security and privacy of western mechanisms of clearing.
Now add to this the admission that harddrives are also infected, and we can see another economic consequence looming, one with potentially dire consequences for the American microchip and computer hardware industry (not to mention Toshiba in Japan): if you were Frau Merkel, or Mr. Putin, would you be inclined to place a major order for computers with Toshiba? Or IBM? Or Cray?
Probably not.
But there is yet another "flip side" to all this, and here comes the high octane speculation of the day: suppose you needed, for whatever unstated reason, to build a worldwide redundancy into global communications networks, including those of international financial clearing, and you had to do so in a climate where some nations do not fall into the "trusted partners" part of the ledger. How would you go about inducing them to do their part to build in that redundancy that you have determined - again for whatever reason - to be necessary? One way, of course, would be to convince them that you yourself, and your products and "services" could not be trusted, and that they had to build their own parallel industries and services to mimic your own.
The question, of course, is why one would need such redundancies... but that's high octane speculation for another day...