Quoting 777Jet (Reply 94):
No, the Inmarsat data did not 'Confirm' such thing. We must be precise here ....
Then what do you think the usual hourly pings followed by the final ping at a time consistent with when fuel exhaustion would have occurred actually mean?
I know you question the data and the direction the plane supposedly went as that fits in with your pet theory, but are you actually now saying that the pings are not even enough evidence to confirm that the plane flew for X hours??? |
The ‘usual hourly pings’ you are referring to are no more than just line items in a computer; ... somewhere.
Interestingly, after IGARI, according to the Factual Information Report, there are only ten such lines.
That being the case, there is a distinct possibility that the original record after IGARI was deleted and replaced with changed data. It could even be, and nobody from the public would know anything different, that there may have been a lot more entries (after IGARI), phone calls and whatever else.
All those records were then deleted and replaced with only the (Edit: fabricated) handshake data.
If you want to put it this way, it could have been a case similar to reverse engineering; except that in this case, the reverse part was up-front. In other words, once it happened that flight MH370 disappeared, those responsible for that action would have drawn the circles on a map, do the necessary reverse calculations (up-front) and then present the lines (we now know as the ‘handshakes’ after 18:25) as having been received from MH370.
They would have had ample time to do this.
The experts, then, for whom I have a very high regard, worked with the data and, as we all know, came to the conclusion that the aircraft must have ended up over the SIO, as mysterious and inexplicable that seemed; it had to be because the data told them so.
If we consider the above as a possibility, however slight it may be, then, by definition, we cannot say that the Inmarsat data ‘confirms’ how long the plane flew for or, indeed, ‘what its final destination was’.
It riles a fair few people here on A.net if the satellite data is questioned or, worse, not believed; why?
Why, and this is an important question.., why should the satellite data be accepted blindly as true and correct?
Put the same question differently ....
How can we judge the veracity of the satellite data for ourselves?
What is the path and/or the procedure of verification, letting us (the public) know that the data is true and correct?
If there is none, then we can only half-believe what the authorities are telling us.
(I should think, these are not light hearted or frivolous questions ..!)
Unless there are good and solid answers to these questions, i.e. until it has been confirmed as fact that those lines in the computer are the original log of the actual communications to and from the aircraft, the data cannot be deemed to 'confirm' anything.
It can only serve as a basis for assumptions. And much of life is based on assumptions ...
Quoting 777Jet (Reply 94):
If you need "absolute certainty" on things before you accept them as fact then there must be many, many more things than just the MH370 Inmarsat data that you question, correct? |
“Absolute Certainty” is not the issue.
The point is, the Inmarsat data cannot be accepted as ‘confirming something, anything’ when we (the public, A,netters, anyone) have no way of verifying whether the data is in fact true and correct or not.
In science this would be a big No-No ....
I really don’t know how much clearer I can make this point.
I can only repeat the question:
What exactly tells any of us that the satellite data is true and correct? *)
On what exact grounds can one believe it is?
*) We won't know the answer to this, I reckon, unless either the authorities are much more forthcoming with the real truth or a variety of items are found which are then confirmed, verifiably, to be off 9M-
MRO.
[Edited 2015-03-31 03:45:38]
