Duhbunkers try to explain ACARS and fail Options

[onesliceshort]

Let's not forget the "other Flight 93" identified as airborne by ATC controllers and witnesses in the area after the alleged crash.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10770583

and



Reheat and Beachnut are the real "tinfoil hat" bearers (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[rob balsamo]

Reheat and Beachnut are the real "tinfoil hat" bearers (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Wow, they're getting really desperate too. I just took a stroll over there, they're getting vicious.... apparently I am now a "Ballsucker".... lol.

Seems Retreat is going through his second childhood years.

Now, I'm not gay nor do I have a problem with gays, but Retreat may want to think twice about using such a term as derogatory among the .J.REF. I hear many of them are in fact gay.

Not only is Retreat a belligerent drunk, but apparently also a bigot.

Is anyone surprised why he never puts his own name to his claims?

[singing] "The walls are closing in... the walls are closing in.... hi-ho the derry-o.. .the walls are closing in..."

lol

[rob balsamo]

I had some time tonight to take another stroll through the cesspool....

I found this quite comical...

"The one good thing about aviation is those who do do and those who don't make it up.
May the cockpit door ever remain a stupidity filter !"

Aside from the atrocious lack of punctuation in the above statement... the above was written by a person who calls himself "George152".

Here is a 152...

(IMG:http://www.homegrown-software.com/ntw/_assets/Images/Cessna-152-Single-Engine-High-Wing-Airplane-N49419.jpg) .

George152, I wholeheartedly agree with you.

lol

By the way, please thank beachnut for quoting at J.REF all the praise we are receiving, based on our research. If only he could see my email inbox... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

As to beachnut "sock" accusations, I don't need to use socks here, I can use my real name, matter of fact, you can find my address and knock on my door knowing my name alone.... I welcome any reader here to knock on my door...

With that said....

I have no problem admitting that i register to other forums with a pseudonym, not using my real name, mainly due to the fact that some other forums will not let me use my real name. Can any of the idiots at J.REF say the same? lol

Enjoy your "cockpit door" on your 152 . When you wish to speak with real pilots... come on over... perhaps we won't even charge you for instruction.

[scott75]

Hey everyone. People over at Unexplained Mysteries have realized what it would mean if the second time stamp actually does mean the time that the aircraft received the message. So they're doubting that this is what it means. They know that Ballinger said it, but they either think that he may have been mistaken (which I've told them is unlikely, but they won't even acknowledge that much) or that, somehow, his statement was misinterpreted; on that one, I haven't read their explanation for how this might be, I doubt it could withstand scrutiny. Here's a comment from someone named booNy on the second time stamp in response to onesliceshort's post #17 in this thread:
*******
Nobody ever said that the significance of the second time stamp had to make sense. Just because a specific function is, or was, currently defined with a specific piece of information does not mean that the function in question could later be used for a different piece of information. In other words, the secondary time stamp could have been included with multiple possible uses and the actual implementation of that could vary between carriers and over time. The manual quote which gman1972 presented could have merely been the default setting for that particular field by the telex equipment manufacturer. Without the full manual and access to the equipment itself it would be hard to say.

At any rate, it isn't as definitive as onesliceshort is attempting to represent.
*******

I've emailed ARINC concerning this, but they have yet to reply with an answer (I've gotten 2 "we'll get back to yous" though -.-). So if anyone here knows someone from United Airlines who might know the answer to this, that'd be great. I looked at their web page, but you can apparently only ask them questions if you're customer and I'm not. At this point, I'll take the word of the poster regardless if the person who works or worked for United Airlines isn't directly available for comment.

This post has been edited by scott75: Dec 10 2011, 05:42 AM

[Sergio]

Hey everyone. People over at Unexplained Mysteries have realized what it would mean if the second time stamp actually does mean the time that the aircraft received the message. So they're doubting that this is what it means. They know that Ballinger said it, but they either think that he may have been mistaken (which I've told them is unlikely, but they won't even acknowledge that much) or that, somehow, his statement was misinterpreted; on that one, I haven't read their explanation for how this might be, I doubt it could withstand scrutiny. Here's a comment from someone named booNy on the second time stamp in response to onesliceshort's post #17 in this thread:
*******
Nobody ever said that the significance of the second time stamp had to make sense. Just because a specific function is, or was, currently defined with a specific piece of information does not mean that the function in question could later be used for a different piece of information. In other words, the secondary time stamp could have been included with multiple possible uses and the actual implementation of that could vary between carriers and over time. The manual quote which gman1972 presented could have merely been the default setting for that particular field by the telex equipment manufacturer. Without the full manual and access to the equipment itself it would be hard to say.

At any rate, it isn't as definitive as onesliceshort is attempting to represent.
*******

I've emailed ARINC concerning this, but they have yet to reply with an answer (I've gotten 2 "we'll get back to yous" though -.-). So if anyone here knows someone from United Airlines who might know the answer to this, that'd be great. I looked at their web page, but you can apparently only ask them questions if you're customer and I'm not. At this point, I'll take the word of the poster regardless if the person who works or worked for United Airlines isn't directly available for comment.

Scott,
if they don't believe to Ballinger, who was the dispatcher, i.e. the author of most of uplinks sent to United 175, United 93 and many other UAL aircrafts on the morning of 9/11, I guess they won't believe to anyone who will not confirm their bias.

Anyway, what's the point? They don't accept that the second timestamp indicates the time when a message is received by the aircraft as confirmed by Ballinger? No problem. Ask them whether they believe to the Commission (MFR 04017215) then:

1259:19Z A dispatcher-initiated message that reached the plane but not crewacknowledged from Jerry tsen stating "I heard of a reported incident."

No matter what the second timestamp refers to, this message is officially confirmed as received by the Commission. How do they explain that? Which is their best assumption as to how United 175 could receive such message from MDT, while flying in the New York area below FL29, at no more than 20 miles from RGS' with much stronger signal? Did they bother to present some plausible theory for that? Did they bother to call ARINC to ask some explanations? Did they bother to present any source which confirms that ACARS are routed based on flight plan? Did they bother to prove that United 175 was not being sending any media advisory message for more than 12 minutes?

Also, do they believe to Winter and Knerr (FBI 302) who state that United 93 received messages from Champaign, IL, more than 500 miles far away from Shanksville at 10:10 EDT?
Did they bother to present some plausible theory for that?

So their claim is basically the following: Ballinger is mistaken, Winter is mistaken, Knerr is mistaken, the MFR is mistaken, the UAL ACARS list is mistaken.
Great.

This post has been edited by Sergio: Dec 10 2011, 07:40 AM

[onesliceshort]

So their claim is basically the following: Ballinger is mistaken, Winter is mistaken, Knerr is mistaken, the MFR is mistaken, the UAL ACARS list is mistaken.
Great.

It's surreal watching GLs trying to debunk the official narrative (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Scott, why doesn't booNy come over here and debate? That's not a confrontational request, it just seems juvenile that we have to resort to "he says, she says".

What I find totally illogical is that all of the information shown on the ACARS messages relate to useful (and necessary) information like the aircraft tail number, RSG used to transmit the message, time the message was sent, the aircraft route, the actual message itself....and then another timestamp to show when it was "printed out". What practical purpose would that serve?

Why with all of the useful information printed on the ticket would a time be shown that adds nothing to the information??

Ballinger is old school. He was there at the inception of ACARS technology. His normal duties included weather updates/diversions for years. Is booNy seriously trying to tell us that somebody who has worked with this system day in, day out didn't actually know what the two timestamps signified??

[Sergio]

It's surreal watching GLs trying to debunk the official narrative (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

I forgot to mention that their claim also includes that ARINC is mistaken and BTS database is mistaken as to the wheels-off time for United 175 and 93.
Laughable? No. Tragic.

[scott75]

Scott,
if they don't believe to Ballinger, who was the dispatcher, i.e. the author of most of uplinks sent to United 175, United 93 and many other UAL aircrafts on the morning of 9/11, I guess they won't believe to anyone who will not confirm their bias.

Maybe. But maybe they would believe it if someone else at UAL said that what Ballinger said was true.

Anyway, what's the point? They don't accept that the second timestamp indicates the time when a message is received by the aircraft as confirmed by Ballinger? No problem. Ask them whether they believe to the Commission (MFR 04017215) then:

1259:19Z A dispatcher-initiated message that reached the plane but not crewacknowledged from Jerry tsen stating "I heard of a reported incident."

I believe they've seen that one...

No matter what the second timestamp refers to, this message is officially confirmed as received by the Commission. How do they explain that? Which is their best assumption as to how United 175 could receive such message from MDT, while flying in the New York area below FL29, at no more than 20 miles from RGS' with much stronger signal?

One guy postulated the theory that all the other RGS stations might have been congested. Others have these strange notions on how ACARS works; that it follows the scheduled flight path.. there's a protocol that if no messages are sent out in 12 minutes, the user can configure where to send messages. I think it's from the plane, but it wasn't stated specifically and so they use that. I've been debating them for hundreds of posts. I was just hoping for a short cut and the second time stamp seems like it could be it.

Did they bother to present some plausible theory for that? Did they bother to call ARINC to ask some explanations?

One guy named booN says that he's sent them 5 emails; no responses yet. I sent them one, and I got 2 "we'll get back to you"s, but that's the only response I got.

Did they bother to present any source which confirms that ACARS are routed based on flight plan? Did they bother to prove that United 175 was not being sending any media advisory message for more than 12 minutes?

No, they haven't, but then, they don't have to. They can just say that it could be that that's the case and let it go.

Also, do they believe to Winter and Knerr (FBI 302) who state that United 93 received messages from Champaign, IL, more than 500 miles far away from Shanksville at 10:10 EDT? Did they bother to present some plausible theory for that?

Not that I'm aware of. To be fair, we've been focusing more on UA 175.

So their claim is basically the following: Ballinger is mistaken, Winter is mistaken, Knerr is mistaken, the MFR is mistaken, the UAL ACARS list is mistaken. Great.

Actually, it's more that Ballinger was either misinterprted by PFT, or Ballinger was mistaken. And they actually use Knerr or Winter against Ballinger's statement on UA 175, because they specifically state that no messages were received after UA 175 allegedly crashed at 9:03am. This contradicts Ballinger's claim that the second time stamp represents the time the aircraft received the message, because of the Pittsburgh ACARS message sent at 9:23am and received, if the second time stamp is indeed the marker of the time that the aircraft received the message.

[onesliceshort]

Scott, all of those "responses" are addressed in both UA175 and UA93 ACARS threads.
Pure speculatory claims versus documented evidence and explanations as to how ACARS actually operates.

How the f*** can Ballinger's statement be "misinterpreted"??

And they actually use Knerr or Winter against Ballinger's statement on UA 175, because they specifically state that no messages were received after UA 175 allegedly crashed at 9:03am.

Yet they also dismiss Winters' statement regarding the audible signal being activated in the cockpit of "Flight 93", 500 miles from the alleged crash site, 7 minutes after the alleged impact.

This post has been edited by onesliceshort: Dec 10 2011, 08:15 AM

[scott75]

Scott, why doesn't booNy come over here and debate? That's not a confrontational request, it just seems juvenile that we have to resort to "he says, she says".

His response to that was that he wasn't interested. I myself am not sure that it would be a good idea anyway. One member from Unexplained Mysteries did come over here a long time ago; you may remember him- Q24. He's actually a truther, though he's of the Hoffman et al variety, the kind that believes that the plane crashed into the pentagon. Anyway, he had a post partially deleted here and ever since he's had it in for PFT. Seeing as he's one of the most influential voices there, it was all I could do to curb him from openly dissing PFT. By the end of it, the head admin had gotten involved. So yeah, I think it works better if they stay over there and I act as the interface between the 2 forums.

What I find totally illogical is that all of the information shown on the ACARS messages relate to useful (and necessary) information like the aircraft tail number, RSG used to transmit the message, time the message was sent, the aircraft route, the actual message itself....and then another timestamp to show when it was "printed out". What practical purpose would that serve?

Why with all of the useful information printed on the ticket would a time be shown that adds nothing to the information??

I agree completely. I even quoted your message the first time you brought up this point. But they still want to think that it might have been for something other then 'time received'.

Ballinger is old school. He was there at the inception of ACARS technology. His normal duties included weather updates/diversions for years. Is booNy seriously trying to tell us that somebody who has worked with this system day in, day out didn't actually know what the two timestamps signified??

He's just saying that it's "possible" that he didn't know. Before you know it, he starts saying that improbable things are, in fact, probable. Honestly, I've never had someone who supports the official story in forums tell me 'you know, I think you just might be right', that -does- seem rather suspicious. That said, I -have- seen them learn things from me and others. It's nice to see someone like Boony educating people on a few of the fundamentals regarding ACARS atleast. He still gets some things wrong, to be sure, but with time that may well change. And perhaps most importantly, this isn't just about those like boonY who support the official story. There are also others who disagree with it, and even believe that the plane was switched, in the very forum I mention.

Sometimes, it can help to talk to people who disagree with you, if only to see where one's arguments aren't so strong.

[scott75]

I forgot to mention that their claim also includes that ARINC is mistaken and BTS database is mistaken as to the wheels-off time for United 175 and 93.
Laughable? No. Tragic.

Wait, I don't recall them ever saying that ARINC might have been mistaken. But yeah, they definitely think that the BTS database may have been mistaken.

[onesliceshort]

He's just saying that it's "possible" that he didn't know.

That's one weakass response given what I just said about Ballinger's background and credentials.

[scott75]

Scott, all of those "responses" are addressed in both UA175 and UA93 ACARS threads.
Pure speculatory claims versus documented evidence and explanations as to how ACARS actually operates.

How the f*** can Ballinger's statement be "misinterpreted"??

Allow me to demonstrate, laugh :-). This message is how Q24's message begins:

I have not seen Ballinger state such a belief.

He goes on as to his interpretation of what Ballinger meant. I'll spare you the details, but you can see them here if you want:
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...t&p=4140124

You may want to skip that though, and just see my response which I'll quote:
****
Probably because you're not an aviation professional. Seriously, just think about it. Don't you think dispatchers would want to know that their messages are being received? I'll assume you're with me so far. Next step: if the messages are being sent to the aircraft, who do you think would be acknowledging their receipt? Ground control? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif) The only one who can acknowledge that an aircraft has received a message is the aircraft itself. It's just common sense.
****

And they actually use Knerr or Winter against Ballinger's statement on UA 175, because they specifically state that no messages were received after UA 175 allegedly crashed at 9:03am.

Yet they also dismiss Winters' statement regarding the audible signal being activated in the cockpit of "Flight 93", 500 miles from the alleged crash site, 7 minutes after the alleged impact.

Again, we haven't focused too much on Flight 93 yet. Czero said he was going to get back on bubs (someone on PFT's side) a while back but then he left for a while and now that he's back it looks like he may have forgotten.

[9/11 Justice Now]

I had some time tonight to take another stroll through the cesspool....

I found this quite comical...

"The one good thing about aviation is those who do do and those who don't make it up.
May the cockpit door ever remain a stupidity filter !"

Aside from the atrocious lack of punctuation in the above statement... the above was written by a person who calls himself "George152".

Here is a 152...

(IMG:http://www.homegrown-software.com/ntw/_assets/Images/Cessna-152-Single-Engine-High-Wing-Airplane-N49419.jpg) .

George152, I wholeheartedly agree with you.

Rob beachnuts fantasy in that empty skull of his is that you are deliberately lying to us all here over at P4T, and you are also lying
To boost your DVD sales is hilarious.

Beachnut is the biggest fuckwit of all the the govt loyalist site idiotic pseudo skeptic clowns. The fact that remains is Beachnut is liar who will try to say
Anything to discredit P4T, he is the biggest clown out of the whole stupid fucking circus, and I just laughed at what he said about me
Like I really care what that dumbshit numskull moron really says, he is the one with his head the furtherest up that asshole of his.
The true FACT is that the whole lot of them FAIL they have failed to debunk this, they are just like a bunch of retarded school kids, no
Offence intended to retarded people I have nothing against them. Beachnut can say whatever he like, because all that come out of that ugly mouth of his is nothing but the same stuff that comes out of His asshole. I used to post over their by the username, thecritta until I got sick of their bullshit and abused one of the admins and left after I got reported and accused of trying to de rail a thread which I did not. I bet you as soon as Beachnut reads this he will go and post some more bs about me, i bet you he wont be tp wait able to tell everyone at the govt loyalist site that the banned member thecritta is a member of pilotsfor911truth, you just watch I bet you he will.

Beachnut is compulsive liar along with the rest of them, umong other things no wonder none of them is willing to put their names to any claim,
I wonder why when they have members like reheat who is an abusive alcoholic, i wonder how many other members over their have problems
like he does, ie substance drug abuse, among other mental problems that most of them probably have. Reheat should try doing himself a favor
and joining A.A maybe that way he will be able to have a better life and not one as a retarded drunk who fails at life, you never know but he should
proably stop drinking before he suffers liver failure or ends up with the syndrome known as wet brain which occurs in some people who heavily abuse alcohol.

What Is Wet Brain?

http://hamsnetwork.org/wetbrain/

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/yes1.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/yes1.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/blahblah1.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/blahblah1.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/cleanup.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/cleanup.gif)

This post has been edited by 9/11 Justice Now: Dec 10 2011, 09:25 AM

[rob balsamo]

I tried a little experiment just for fun...

I just asked my 10 year old nephew to read this statement and tell me what he thinks it means....

"Mr. Ballinger stated that the ACARS messages have two times listed: the time sent and the time received. He stated that once he sends the message it is delivered to the addressed aircraft through AIRINC immediately. He is not aware of any delay in the aircraft receiving the message after he sends it. "

He replied that it means a message is sent to... and received by the airplane. I asked him, "How do you know it was received"? He replied, "Cause it says it right there"... and pointed to the words "time received".

I asked, "Does that statement mean a message was received by a printer in some office?" , he laughed, "What? No... it says airplane".

I corrected him, "Well, technically it says, aircraft.. .but ok".

I asked, "Does that statement 'time received' mean it is the time received by ARINC?", he replied, "No, the message goes THROUGH ARINC, but is received by the airplane..."

I thanked him, he went back to playing Red Dead Redemption.

The above statement made by Ballinger references "the aircraft" as the noun with an action word of "received". Ballinger does not reference a "printer" as the noun affected by the verb, he doesn't reference ARINC as the noun affected by the verb "received", he references "the aircraft".

He does reference ARINC as the message going "through", not "received". The word "aircraft" is the noun referred to by the verb "receive" throughout the entire above statement.

If anyone is still confused by basic English comprehension, please ask a friendly ten year old to interpret the statement for you.

And again, when the FOIA documents refer to a printer, they are referring to this type of printer. (just a quick search I did)

(IMG:http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j106/dgor/ATWC%20Leg%2080/fsscr026-5.jpg)

This is perhaps why gman1972 is confused by the word "printer", thinking it is the printer in his office, but in reality it is the printer on the flight deck.

Dispatcher's couldn't care less when a document is printed in their office. They want to know when it was printed on the airplane. As referenced multiple times in the FBI interviews linked above.

Hope this helps.

[9/11 Justice Now]

I tried a little experiment just for fun...

I just asked my 10 year old nephew to read this statement and tell me what he thinks it means....

"Mr. Ballinger stated that the ACARS messages have two times listed: the time sent and the time received. He stated that once he sends the message it is delivered to the addressed aircraft through AIRINC immediately. He is not aware of any delay in the aircraft receiving the message after he sends it. "

He replied that it means a message is sent to... and received by the airplane. I asked him, "How do you know it was received"? He replied, "Cause it says it right there"... and pointed to the words "time received".

I asked, "Does that statement mean a message was received by a printer in some office?" , he laughed, "What? No... it says airplane".

I corrected him, "Well, technically it says, aircraft.. .but ok".

I asked, "Does that statement 'time received' mean it is the time received by ARINC?", he replied, "No, the message goes THROUGH ARINC, but is received by the airplane..."

I thanked him, he went back to playing Red Dead Redemption.

The above statement made by Ballinger references "the aircraft" as the noun with an action word of "received". Ballinger does not reference a "printer" as the noun affected by the verb, he doesn't reference ARINC as the noun affected by the verb "received", he references "the aircraft".

He does reference ARINC as the message going "through", not "received". The word "aircraft" is the noun referred to by the verb "receive" throughout the entire above statement.

If anyone is still confused by basic English comprehension, please ask a friendly ten year old to interpret the statement for you.

And again, when the FOIA documents refer to a printer, they are referring to this type of printer. (just a quick search I did)

(IMG:http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j106/dgor/ATWC%20Leg%2080/fsscr026-5.jpg)

This is perhaps why gman1972 is confused by the word "printer", thinking it is the printer in his office, but in reality it is the printer on the flight deck.

Dispatcher's couldn't care less when a document is printed in their office. They want to know when it was printed on the airplane. As referenced multiple times in the FBI interviews linked above.

Hope this helps.

Rob we gotta get this evidence into a court room so we can laugh when their asses are hauled off to jail to await execution,
and then we can point and laugh at all the stupid duh bunkers who so viciously defended their precious OCT we will laugh as
they fail and finally realise that they where the tin foil hatters all along, and realise that they where the ones with real mental
issues all along. But as if that is going to happen anytime soon, because most people like to just put their fingers in their ears
and sing "La la la la" sad really isnt it the FACT that anyone refuses to acknowledge this evidence?

Thanks for the update mate when ever you visit the govt loyalist site just remember to point and laugh at their idiotic stupidity, i am glad
i dont hang out in such a shithole anymore for a place that claims to promote critical thinking lol. I would rather sit in a dirty
room and cover myself with urine and feices than be a member over there, it would be a much more pleasant and enjoyable
experience.

Now we also have hard evidence that the steel did in FACT melt on 911 and that the firefighters and other witnesses
who where their during the clean up operation in the following months did in FACT see molten steel in the rubble, we
finally have evidence thats supports and corroborates their testimonies, with that said we can make this a double whammy
we can wipe the court room floor with their asses, and send the people responsible (The real Perpetrators) To Jail Where they
will eventually be summarily executed.

Oh the fun it would be watching them all being executed one by one, and seeing all of our hard work paying off at long last.

(IMG:http://img862.imageshack.us/img862/9922/theboatissinking.jpg)

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/sob.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sob.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/yes1.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/yes1.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif)

[scott75]

I tried a little experiment just for fun...

Thanks a lot Rob. I quoted your post in a message to illustrate that it's quite easy to come to the interpretation that the time stamps refer to when the aircraft was sent and received the ACARS messages.

[rob balsamo]

Thanks a lot Rob. I quoted your post in a message to illustrate that it's quite easy to come to the interpretation that the time stamps refer to when the aircraft was sent and received the ACARS messages.

lol.... yeah.. .those who interpret that ARINC is the "receiver" based on the statement made by Ballinger, must also think that the air above the football field is the "receiver" when an NFL Quarterback throws a football...


hilarious...

[rob balsamo]

I took a stroll through your link Scott... good work.

However, i cannot let this pass unnoticed.... (i'm a bit bored tonight waiting on the game)

One of the posters in your link states....

Balsamo lost the privilege of my attention...

Yes, because all I wanted to do in life was gain the attention of some anonymous idiot on some forum who blindly supports anything the govt tells him/her, instead of gaining the respect of real people (many who have more experience than me in aviation) who put their name to their claims and are experts in their relevant fields.

You might want to tell "Czero" to look up the term, "Delusions Of Grandeur". Then again, he clearly has no respect for himself enough to put his own name to his claims, so he might just want to look up the definition of "delusional".

It's amazing the amount of bravado and sense of entitlement some people demand when they themselves aren't able to put their own name to their claims, yet feel it is some sort of "privilege" to gain their attention. "Czero" reminds me of a belligerent drunk in a bar who is pissed off that his girl is paying more attention to me than him.

lol

Anytime you want to play with the big boys "Czero", feel free to stop by. But I assure you, we're are not seeking your attention.

New nickname for "Czero" = Chump Zero

[onesliceshort]

Scott, boony says...

You think the first time stamp is when ARINC (oss: when the ACARS was actually sent by dispatch) sent the uplink to the aircraft and the second time stamp is when the aircraft acknowledged receipt? Seriously?

Good Lord... I'm sorry, but how in the world can you reach that kind of conclusion?

Umm..tell him Ballinger said so? "Two timestamps, one for send, one for receive" and all that. Tell him to go to jail, do not pass go, do not collect.... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

This post has been edited by onesliceshort: Dec 12 2011, 09:56 PM