Yeah, but…
Ben makes several sound, valid points, all with merit and persuasive. But has missed one important factor - the complete lack of faith around the world for anything that is published or said in relation to MH 370 being credible. The last missive from the Maldives being a classic example. Most were ‘happy’ with the official version; that the Maldives claims had been investigated, properly and discounted. Then, for no discernible reason, up pops this ‘press release’, long after it could have been reasonably expected. You could be forgiven for wondering why the Maldives civil aviation authority did not publish a definitive report, shortly after the claims of ‘sighting’ were made; one which stated that ‘they’ had investigated the claims and found them to be inaccurate, provide proof positive that an identified (company and tail number) aircraft had been in the vicinity at the time. Full stop, walk away.
But no; we get this badly drafted ‘statement’ which is tardy and incites the theorists. Few doubt the 'sighting' claims were invalid; logic seems to indicate and support that. So, why add fuel to a dead fire, so late in the day? Must be a reason, the public response to the Maldives ‘report’ just indicts the total lack of faith in anything published or said which is presented as ‘official’. Sad state of affairs.
I reckon if they found the bloody thing tomorrow - someone would say it was a fake.
Ben makes several sound, valid points, all with merit and persuasive. But has missed one important factor - the complete lack of faith around the world for anything that is published or said in relation to MH 370 being credible. The last missive from the Maldives being a classic example. Most were ‘happy’ with the official version; that the Maldives claims had been investigated, properly and discounted. Then, for no discernible reason, up pops this ‘press release’, long after it could have been reasonably expected. You could be forgiven for wondering why the Maldives civil aviation authority did not publish a definitive report, shortly after the claims of ‘sighting’ were made; one which stated that ‘they’ had investigated the claims and found them to be inaccurate, provide proof positive that an identified (company and tail number) aircraft had been in the vicinity at the time. Full stop, walk away.
But no; we get this badly drafted ‘statement’ which is tardy and incites the theorists. Few doubt the 'sighting' claims were invalid; logic seems to indicate and support that. So, why add fuel to a dead fire, so late in the day? Must be a reason, the public response to the Maldives ‘report’ just indicts the total lack of faith in anything published or said which is presented as ‘official’. Sad state of affairs.
I reckon if they found the bloody thing tomorrow - someone would say it was a fake.