Grounded by the ash

That’s exactly it, a matter of trust. But that’s also where the critical details are more interesting than the dramatization or sensational reporting of corporate media. And the source of information. I’ll give you an example of the details that I think are major factors that show this. :-)

I’m the first who’ll always take up a bet against the MET office given how they’ve proven to produce unreliable results based on just theory. There’s some personal experience in that area that would be too lengthy to go into but technically I would sooner assume the reverse of their data to be closer to true. Of course it’s a moot point now since it’s been shown that they used assumptions as input data on a model that itself was pure theory while various other (independent) organizations (like German and Dutch aerospace, meteo, etc. groups couldn’t detect or see the things that were projected to be there in the skies.

When talks were taking place of reopening the media reported on an F16 that was damaged and showed severe ash/glass formation in the engine. All the “trusted” big names in media did and implied that this flight took place that day. Yet the flight took place 3 days before at the height of all the volcanic ash. When pressed for details it wasn’t disclosed where the aircraft flew. When I see details that are quite important being omitted I usually get the impression there’s something more going on. Especially considering that flight radars only had a few flights being tracked, one of them being a classified one. Usually that means it’s a military plane. If that was the F16 it’s clear where it was flying, pretty much straight over Iceland. But people were led to believe it just flew through “some” airspace “somewhere” when it incurred that damage.

Then BA did a test flight and major “trusted” news sites and governments (in particular the UK and Belgium) reported the results were that it was still unsafe. Yet that was not the result at all according to BA and Willie Walsh the CEO of BA clarified that several times. Of course you can’t just take the word of a single airline for that, given their (financial) interests involved. But that wouldn’t explain why the governments and media would report something that was contrary to the actual findings and what was presented. That actually looks more like various other interests were at work because while something can always be misquoted, an inversion of the content is quite remarkable. Of course, if you then tag the few corporate media sites and put them on a watch for changes and see that some 3 hours later they edited the story without mentioning the edit you really have to start wondering what’s going on.

In just those two examples it was also clear none of the media provided sources for the information used. Thanks to the internet that’s not too hard to find but it does show that to get actual details one has to look beyond the corporate media. And this whole ash business certainly shows yet again why it shouldn’t be a surprise that so many people have lost or are losing trust in the corporate/mainstream media.

In the end all this will blow over (including the presumed ash) but what’s more interesting now, after all this, is that according to the MET projections there should be high concentrations of ash in the contoured areas they produced, yet physical test done everywhere inside those regions, now also conducted by more independent research, are showing none of it. I would question not just the interests and agendas of airlines and airports but also those who for several days have stuck to a monopoly position of perceived authority of information.