[Peetwo]

  : "V"...

"...Tin hat on, and furiously digging foxhole !!..."

Hey Ventus I'd suggest you ease up on the Kool-aid but then again your 'ghost' theory is no worse and in some cases more credible than most out there. However even the self-appointed auditor of the ATSB SIO search & fellow MH370 truth-seeker, Brock McEwan seems to think you've gone a bridge too far this time (see above).

My questions on this latest contribution from the IG is how come it has taken this long for them to come to this conclusion; & was it the Tanzanian flap discovery the 'straw that broke the Camel's back' - so to speak?

In light of Victor's analysis it is worth reflecting on this post from the DOI series... : The DOI (debris of inconvenience) - Part II


Especially from about here:

From Mike Chillit blog - Australia’s Drift Model

...It is only necessary to examine real-time wind and current visualizations to realize that CSIRO’s drift model has problems. A relatively new entity uses the “nullschool dot net” domain and gets its data from NASA’s GEOS-5; the data is classified as experimental, but it tends to be very consistent with traditional visualizations. So let’s take a look at 60-second clip for the southern Indian Ocean. Perhaps this is what CSIRO used as its source:

 

It’s easy to see that the “current” shown in this high-tech model using data from March 25, 2016 moves from the search area southwest of Perth to the Madagascar and Mascarene Island areas. But wait! Something’s wrong with that. It has already been shown that drift does not move from the search area to the northwest. It can’t.

I used a little slight-of-hand with the clip above. It was important to show how nature works in that part of the world. What is depicted in the video clip above is wind current, not ocean water current. So let’s see what happens when we use ocean water current in another visualization.

Much different outcome. These two clips are both correct: one shows wind, the other water. It is what really happens out there. Wind currents frequently move from the southeast to the northwest in the southern Indian Ocean. But ocean currents behave much differently. Most debris flows from the area between Java and Exmouth, Australia (inflow from Timor Sea) to the west or northwest; debris south of Exmouth will slowly drift in circles, eventually being pulled into the circumpolar current that flows west-to-east south of the Australian continent. Debris in the mid-latitude areas between Java and Exmouth invariably drifts toward Madagascar and the Mascarene Islands. But debris in the search area cannot do that because it cannot escape endless eddies west of Australia caused by the Coriolis effect.

But, when debris turned up in the Mozambique Channel in February, and similar debris was then reported dating back to December 2015, CSIRO decided it had to rethink its position. That’s when it came up with this model that does exactly what Geomar did 9 months earlier. But neither CSIRO nor ATSB nor the Australian Prime Minister’s office acknowledged they suddenly realized they were searching the wrong part of the Indian Ocean. In fact, they still insist they are in the right location.


It is fairly clear at this point that Australia will do whatever Australia decides to do. It will not be reasoned with or cajoled into making changes that put the search where Australia doesn’t want it to be.

So, it doesn’t really matter what is or what is likely to be. The search will go on in a part of the Indian Ocean that cannot possibly be hiding a passenger plane.

Nevertheless, there is encouraging recent news. Malaysia has independently indicated that it intends to mount a search for surface debris through the Mozambique Channel and perhaps south of there along the South African coast. That may be the single most important decision since we learned the Reunion Island flaperon definitely came from MH370. So now we wait for Malaysia to lead the search in a more fruitful direction; perhaps with assistance from China.

 
Despite the Chillit comment,..

"..But I have the distinct impression David and his work have been heavily influenced by the internal national politics of this search: possibly by the Abbott administration early on, but certainly now by the Turnbull administration. Mr. Turnbull seems determined to prove ATSB has been right about something all along, even if it has been mostly wrong about everything..."


..I would argue this 'passing strange' disparity with popular opinion & empirical evidence is nothing new for the Infrastructure & Transport Ministry and it's agencies.
You only need look at the Civil Aviation Act regulatory reform program, where the bureaucracy has been lording the 'mystique of aviation safety' over governments (of both persuasions) and industry for 30+ years and at a cost of $300 + million (& counting) for little to no benefit, except possibly the decimation of a vital industry..
 
..It could be that the Turnbull government and it's agencies are privy to some vital cog of information that reinforces their belief that the ATSB SIO search priority area, is indeed correct; or it could be that they are passed the PNR, where to withdraw now is no longer an acceptable alternative - who knows? Still it will be fascinating to see how the government directs the narrative and extricates itself between now and the SIO search conclusion...

{Note: That post was dated the 27 March 2016 }


Now consider this blog post by Mike Chillit, again note the date:

Triangulating MH370

Posted on May 3, 2016 by Mike Chillit — 12 Comments ↓

Note the last comment:

[/url]Mike Chillit on [url=http://www.seventharc.net/2016/05/03/triangulating-mh370/#comment-78]May 6, 2016 at 4:47 pm said:FWIW, I have checked the accuracy of the BTO values for areas where we have independent GPS coordinates. Such areas include KLIA and elsewhere. I’m happy to say, those particular pings are accurate to within a couple dozen kilometers. Close enough for me.

In addition to that, I have mathematically shown how easy it is to fabricate BTO values IF we are not permitted to examine the source record. Inmarsat, as you may know, has not permitted the digital record to be examined by others. So, if there was any criminal or mischievous intent on Inmarsat’s part, it would have been very easy to provide BTO values that place the plane wherever “they” want it to be “on paper”. I published all of that via Twitter more than a year ago. It remains valid and accurate.

Having said that, I do not currently have evidence BTO is inaccurate, other than the fact that it is not a precise metric to begin with. But no one who has worked on this so far has had illusions about perfect accuracy other than some of the early contributors to Jeff Wise’s blog who infamously claimed they knew where the plane was to within 5 nmi. That is the very same area that has been searched thoroughly now and does not now nor has it ever harbored anything remotely resembling a Boeing 777. But he, and a few others, were just Peacocks from the very beginning.
More interested in getting personal attention than in making a contribution to the search effort.

We are all aware that the earth hasn’t been flat since the Church got out of the astronomy business. Nevertheless, our calculations are not wildly inaccurate. They can be confirmed with GPS to within a very narrow range. The margin of error is not large.

I’ll finish here, and ask if you know I published an updated “triangulation” article yesterday? Here is a direct link to it on this blog: http://www.seventharc.net/2016/05/05/ref...ngulation/
Cheers. Welcome

Still in the trenches with my Tin Hat donned...MTF - P2 

Ps Those QON aside, I do so hope that the latest from the IG does prompt one or all of the 'Tri-parties' to reassess their thinking on a) the termination of MH370 SIO search and; b) their currently defined priority IO search area - yep I know wishful thinking.