WDS> The NY Times right now (sunday 1pm) http://graphics8.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2014/03/15/satellite-contact-map/0... still has not managed to perform the deduction (intersecting 2 circles) I suggested. All they have deduced is the plane had to have come down somewhere within the two bent-sausage-shaped regions. In fact, we CAN deduce (subject merely to the assumption those flying the plane were not idiots) fairly exactly where on the two red circular arcs the plane was at 811pm, plus then deduce from the then-known direction of flight plus the known fuel-remaining, a small region where the plane had to have come down. Upon then finding every suitable landing strip within that small region, one can probably deduce its exact location. The NY Times still has not made that deduction. Has anybody? I hope it does not require a math PhD to tell the Great Expert Panels in the press and/or govt how to intersect two circles, but this one tried, and as far as I can tell, not a soul in the US govt or media has listened to me. But we can tell from the NYT graphic already that it did not land in Australia, and (again subject to its flyers not being idiots) therefore had to be on the more northern of the two red arcs. <WDS It took NYT until the Moon Landing to retract a decades-earlier editorial ridiculing Robert Goddard for proposing space travel with rockets, when there is no air for them to push against. --rwg