[ventus45]

On the "thorny" subject of BFO's.

There now seems to be some uncertainty about the previous certainty of the original uncertainties.
Confused ?
Good.
Read On.





Now, if you have understood the implications of that, consider Paul Smithson's post:



Please Note Paul's LAST PARAGRAPH.


Perhaps it is time to begin considering the possibility that the “possible turn” we learned about in late March 2014 might not have occurred at all; that the trajectory south arose from initial turnback, and that the “radar data” that many hold so dear arose from “looking for what we ought to see [per initial ISAT analysis]”.


Now I might be so bold as to re-raise the possibility of the turnback waypoint error (UPROB instead of UPRON), but I will not, I will let that particular sleeping dog (of that breed of "via Medan's") lie slumbering (for now).

What is more pertinaet, is Paul's suggestion of iterative circular bias with regard to matching radar data (any data) to what they "initially thought" the ISAT data was telling them.  If that "understanding" of the BFO's turns out to be in error, then the credibility of the "presented radar narrative" goes out the window - at M0.84+ !

However, airlandseaman fires back at Paul with this:



Then, Dennis Waterman chimed in with this:

airlandseaman.JPG Size: 167.54 KB  Downloads: 110

AirLandSeaMan-Mike Exner.JPG Size: 173.03 KB  Downloads: 106

Paul Smithson.JPG Size: 124.39 KB  Downloads: 101

airlandseaman-2.JPG Size: 46.77 KB  Downloads: 94

Dennis Waterman 1.JPG Size: 161.64 KB  Downloads: 88