02-23-2015, 12:09 AM
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.
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.
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?
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.
(02-22-2015, 10:51 AM)kharon Wrote: When Sherlock Holmes said:-'It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.' - He may well have been talking about the brouhaha surrounding MH 370. There are as many persuasive, carefully worked out, 'supported' theories floating about in cyber-space as there are looney-tune ones. The fact that the 'media' don't report any longer, just rehash and repeat statements, without questioning helps the white noise created by the information vacuum. Have a look at Paper-Li, the same story (give or take) on every banner, a slightly edited press release, served up 100 different ways.
Any analysis the 'credible' independent working groups offer is an interesting study, standing alone. The same 'facts' all woven into different theory, with some elegant mathematics thrown in to support. The great thing about numbers is that like the camera, they can be manipulated to support the deception. So we find the start of calculation data speculatively, albeit honestly, with all good intentions being 'guesstimated'. Some of the reasoning is so sound and you could easily find a plausible, persuasive version to adopt as your very own. The arguments put up by the IG, Legerwood, Wise, Feline Nut and the like all have very sound, sensible, reasoned rationale, supporting the argument and they do provide for lively debate. BUT, when push comes to shove, that's all they are. To formulate a theory you must be able to find the 'right' starting point if your calculations are to be 'nice', just like navigation; if you identify a fix as ABC when, in fact it is DEF; you are position uncertain, if not lost.
Holmes also stated - 'How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?' -. I believe it's time for the 'thinking' man (or manette) to dust off the thinking tackle and set to work, eliminating that which is impossible; or nearly so.
For example - CI - "Previously, when questioned on why MH370 was not intercepted although its identity could not be ascertained at the time, Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak replied that air defence officers were certain that the aircraft was not hostile. This was because although the identity of the aircraft was unknown, it behaved like a commercial airliner, he said."
Using the statement above, I could with very little effort, 'workshop' it to suit our tongue in cheek movie script to suit, for it supports the theory that the aircraft was always seen acting in a routine manner like any other airliner trudging down the airways at Silly o'clock am. Routine systems cock up, not conspiracy. Was it all done deliberately? to avoid drawing any 'serious' attention, whatsoever. But I digress: today it's debunking the ridiculous. Firstly lets have a look at one of the more outrageous myths clinging to the tail end of the mystery. Suicide and/or religious fervour.
For the diehard suicide believers; answer me but one question; and don't say suicides are not rational, that, like the Nuremberg defence is a crock.– 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? The Marianas trench and the whole, wide, wild Pacific, with little to fly over except ocean from Indonesia to South America was available without all of bother of back tracking, masking and camouflaging to appear as normal routine traffic while taking advantage of the four hour head start. The hand off - between one FIR and the next was 'casual' and routine. Wait a while, then from Northern control– "you still got 370 ?" – Southern control "Ah, Nope – you got him 30 minutes ago". Both together, after a while "Oh crap! – where is it". (Aside), I do wonder when the console operators changed seats for a rest break; would after releasing the last aircraft on screen not be a fine time?.
Let's give control an hour to confirm no coms, no contact, another hour to work out where it should be, and do all the usual things for lost communications; another hour to realise the aircraft has 'disappeared', round up the brass and tell the tale - there is your four hour start for the 'missing' aircraft: four x 460 = 1760 nms clear head start on any search effort, which must start along track from the last, confirmed radar sighting – not from a radio report.
If you want to find the aircraft, you must clearly define where and when it was first 'lost', with absolute certainty.
So, to reiterate – why all the back tracking?, what's wrong with a no fuss swim in the mid pacific over the deepest water in the world? - if you wanted to do 'the water thing' that is. Nope: on balance, the crew suicide/ crew hi-jack scenario is #Bollocks for my $00.20 worth.
So little we do know for certain sure; and, so much we don't.
We have tried, very hard to develop a systems / equipment 'failure' scenario which accounts for all the known facts but cannot get to a consensus of any description; not one worth the words or time to discuss. This mostly due to the absence of 'hard' data, nothing makes complete sense; for each and every 'technical' proposal there is an equally valid counter argument. What we could agree on is that IF whatever occurred was of a 'technical nature' then it went well beyond passing strange, well into the realms of the bloody weird.
This all leads us toward considering a deliberate criminal act; now I may watch too many movies but if this is the case then someone, somewhere knows something. My old friends Holmes and Watson would be able to glean a clue here a hint there and develop a working hypothesis to cover the facts. If it is to be treated as a deliberate act then Shirley the combined resources of the worlds intelligence agencies should be able to winnow at least a starting point to work from. And yet here we sit, no further along than we were the day it all happened, except we at least know MH370 is not in the area searched.
I have said, the ET encounter works as well for me as any; of course it ain't real; but, whimsically, it pleases me. Aye well; on goes the tin foil hat transmitting my pre recorded message into outer space "Bring it back ET, you know you want to". Well, it makes as much sense as some of the rubbish being officially and unofficially released......