02-10-2016, 03:48 AM
MH370's various raging debates ("piloted vs not", "fast/straight vs slow/curved", "South vs [spoof+North]", "Fugro vs other") all distract - perhaps intentionally - from what are, to me, much more important lines of inquiry:
1) Why does the actual physical evidence (Indonesian radar, surface debris, deep-sea debris, acoustic sensors) counter-indicate the Inmarsat data?
2) Why does all CLAIMED supporting physical evidence (primary radar, "flew faster", "co-pilot's mobile phone", acoustic ping fiasco, LANL acoustic analysis, flaperon) fail basic sniff tests?
3) Why did the US delay 4 days before publishing its Inmarsat-indicated path - and why did it take 2 more months before the log data supporting it was released (as a redacted pdf)?
4) Why are search officials refusing to address glaring contradictions between key decisions taken, and what their own published data supports?
5) If officials in France and the US are sitting on data (flaperon buoyancy tests and pilot's flight sim paths, respectively) which could narrow the search zone - as has been reported by high-ranking journalists - then why has this data not been shared with search directors?
If - I stress, IF - we are witnessing a cover-up of MH370's true fate, then manufactured debates aimed at cementing the public perception that "it definitely flew to the middle of nowhere, but we can't agree on exactly where, so that's why we can't find it" would make perfect sense.
1) Why does the actual physical evidence (Indonesian radar, surface debris, deep-sea debris, acoustic sensors) counter-indicate the Inmarsat data?
2) Why does all CLAIMED supporting physical evidence (primary radar, "flew faster", "co-pilot's mobile phone", acoustic ping fiasco, LANL acoustic analysis, flaperon) fail basic sniff tests?
3) Why did the US delay 4 days before publishing its Inmarsat-indicated path - and why did it take 2 more months before the log data supporting it was released (as a redacted pdf)?
4) Why are search officials refusing to address glaring contradictions between key decisions taken, and what their own published data supports?
5) If officials in France and the US are sitting on data (flaperon buoyancy tests and pilot's flight sim paths, respectively) which could narrow the search zone - as has been reported by high-ranking journalists - then why has this data not been shared with search directors?
If - I stress, IF - we are witnessing a cover-up of MH370's true fate, then manufactured debates aimed at cementing the public perception that "it definitely flew to the middle of nowhere, but we can't agree on exactly where, so that's why we can't find it" would make perfect sense.