[slats11]

One other thing. From KL the bearing to the search area is approximately the reciprocal bearing to Beijing. That is, KL is approximately mid-point between Beijing and the search area.

So plane should have ended up NNE in Beijing. It was last tracked heading WNW. And may have ended up SSW. That may have appealed to the person responsible. To end up as far as possible in the opposite direction as Beijing.

Furthermore, this reciprocal bearing crosses the 7th arc a little to the east of the solar terminator at the time of the final partial ping.

Could be a coincidence of course. But an innocent explanation for MH370 appears to require a lot of coincidences.

Slats11


[quote='slats11' pid='94' dateline='1424614191']
We have to theorise without sufficient data in many walks of life, from particle physics to clinical medicine. If we waited for all the facts we wouldn't have much to think about.

Sherlock Holmes is great when there is sufficient evidence (data) to allow 100% proof of a conclusion. You proceed from evidence to a certain conclusion.

When there is insufficient evidence however (as with MH370), you need to employ a different mode of thinking. This is inductive reasoning, where the data is such that it provides some evidence or support for a conclusion. However the conclusion is not certain - merely probable on the basis of the above evidence.

Where Sherlock comes in is that inductive reasoning requires intellectual honesty. If you come across incontrovertible evidence that contradicts the presumptive conclusion drawn, you need to throw out the theory rather than twist the facts. Often the opposite happens - people can be convinced the theory or conclusion is right and overlook new evidence. This is a great trap with inductive reasoning. But used properly, inductive reasoning can help solve problems that are otherwise impossible to solve.

Bayesian analysis can be used to assist inductive reasoning. If new evidence comes to light that supports the conclusion, this evidence increases the likelihood of the theory being correct.

With MH370, there are many possible explanations. But the facts that radio, transponder and ACARS all went dead near simultaneously, that this occurred at the FIR boundary, and that the plane flew for another 7+ hours all increase the probability of maleficence by someone from within the flight deck.

In our desperation, we may have reached too far with the Inmarsat data. The fact the plane flew on for many hours seems solid. The BTO data (the arcs) seems pretty solid. The BFO data however produces a myriad of possible solutions that collectively create an enormous search area. Furthermore, the BFO analysis relies on a number of assumptions, which further reduces its usefulness.

If the current search is not successful, it may be useful to
1. Take the duration of the flight and the BTO data
2. Consider the most likely scenario that are consistent with this information. That is, why would a plane disappear and then fly another 7 hours?
3. To make assumptions about current unknowns (e.g. the location of the turn south) that fit best with the most likely scenario, and use this to define a search area.
4. To check the "calculated" area is reasonably consistent with the BFO data. That is, the BFO data alone doesn't make the area highly improbable.



[quote]
WHY go to all the trouble of waiting for the hand over (Good night) then reverse tracking, carefully navigating along the FIR boundaries only to ditch in the middle of nowhere SOI?
[/quote]


Several reasons I believe
1. Is clearly wasn't a simple suicide. There was some other goal. Suicide may have been the inevitable outcome, but it wasn't the goal. Many mass shootings end with the death of the perpetuator, and the perpetrator accepts that death is likely inevitable. However death (suicide) is an accepted outcome rather than the goal. The goal is to express anger.
2. The chances of detection would have been much higher continuing into the Pacific. With Guam, Hawaii, plenty of focus on Korea, and the US Pacific Fleet, the chances of being observed would have been much higher. Plus there is a lot more marine traffic in the Pacific that could eventually find any debris. Plus he would have been flying into daylight. There was much less chance of being discovered in the SIO, plus the flight was in darkness.
3. I believe we were meant to see the course reversal and an objective was to make it quite clear something sinister had happened. An experienced pilot would have known the course reversal would have been seen - although likely not acted on in sufficient time.
4. Crossing Malaysia and Malaysia doing nothing about it certainly embarrassed Malaysia on the world stage - more so than flying out into the Pacific.
5. If we did not have Inmarsat, we would be seriously considering a scenario of the plane flying south of India to the Middle East somewhere. That would be deeply disturbing to many, would have put much pressure on Malaysia, and may have been the real goal.