Firmly in the NFI camp.
Gee whizz Joe; it is difficult to discount your theory as it is any of the other ‘sane’ theories kicking about. But it goes to what is IMO the heart of the airborne matter. Our mate Byron is adamant that ‘the pilot’ did the whole thing, we have equally qualified mates who are equally as adamant that the pilot incapacitation theory is spot on; then there are those who believe that there were ‘others’ involved; or, ‘electronic’ jiggery-pokery was the weapon of choice. All have merit and non can be proven. That’s the rub. ‘Prove it’; even on the balance of probabilities is the only sensible reply. You pay your money and take your pick; Australia and Malaysia have laid down a massive bet on ‘their’ theory; educated, informed and tested as best they can - but it is still a punt, albeit, made in good faith.
It would be helpful to both armchair experts and those at the coal face if they had answers to many of the ‘tricky’ questions. Aunty Pru has a short list of several ‘questions’ which, to date, have not been satisfactorily answered. It is the lack of definitive information which creates the speculation. For example; it seems to be a given that the aircraft went ‘dark’. This is one of the very few areas where ‘fact’ is available – but how? By what method, in which manner and by whom? We don’t know how, let alone why.. If we knew that then we may find out the purpose of it. A couple of our ‘electronic’ friends have been examining the circuitry and systems, they are not amateurs; and yet they are still scratching their heads, muttering curses and wearing out pencils to understand how selected, deep system ‘avionics’ were nullified.
Then there’s folk who, like myself, cannot get past the ‘ground’ investigation and believe that without land based ‘assistance’ non of the current, best-guess’ airborne theories can be tested, let alone ‘proven’. My own pet theory, unproven, is that someone, somewhere knows exactly what happened. Find that ‘someone’ and find the aircraft. Would I take the stand, hand on heart and swear that I am correct?– No: I neither could, nor would. Idle speculation over a few pints with friends is not quite the same as empirical evidence.
So, the range spectrum remains nebulous; anything goes, from a simple pilot suicide all the way to governmental involvement and on to James Bond rides again. Fact is often stranger than fiction; we seem to have an abundance of fiction, but very little in the way of hard fact. There is even less in the way of ‘technical’ information.
So mate, your theory is as valid as any other notion, reasoned and reasonable. Something happened, that is for certain sure. I have NFI what; but if pushed to bet a beer, I’d bet against ‘the pilot’ doing it, but I wouldn’t back much else, not without answers. Cheers.
Toot toot.
Gee whizz Joe; it is difficult to discount your theory as it is any of the other ‘sane’ theories kicking about. But it goes to what is IMO the heart of the airborne matter. Our mate Byron is adamant that ‘the pilot’ did the whole thing, we have equally qualified mates who are equally as adamant that the pilot incapacitation theory is spot on; then there are those who believe that there were ‘others’ involved; or, ‘electronic’ jiggery-pokery was the weapon of choice. All have merit and non can be proven. That’s the rub. ‘Prove it’; even on the balance of probabilities is the only sensible reply. You pay your money and take your pick; Australia and Malaysia have laid down a massive bet on ‘their’ theory; educated, informed and tested as best they can - but it is still a punt, albeit, made in good faith.
It would be helpful to both armchair experts and those at the coal face if they had answers to many of the ‘tricky’ questions. Aunty Pru has a short list of several ‘questions’ which, to date, have not been satisfactorily answered. It is the lack of definitive information which creates the speculation. For example; it seems to be a given that the aircraft went ‘dark’. This is one of the very few areas where ‘fact’ is available – but how? By what method, in which manner and by whom? We don’t know how, let alone why.. If we knew that then we may find out the purpose of it. A couple of our ‘electronic’ friends have been examining the circuitry and systems, they are not amateurs; and yet they are still scratching their heads, muttering curses and wearing out pencils to understand how selected, deep system ‘avionics’ were nullified.
Then there’s folk who, like myself, cannot get past the ‘ground’ investigation and believe that without land based ‘assistance’ non of the current, best-guess’ airborne theories can be tested, let alone ‘proven’. My own pet theory, unproven, is that someone, somewhere knows exactly what happened. Find that ‘someone’ and find the aircraft. Would I take the stand, hand on heart and swear that I am correct?– No: I neither could, nor would. Idle speculation over a few pints with friends is not quite the same as empirical evidence.
So, the range spectrum remains nebulous; anything goes, from a simple pilot suicide all the way to governmental involvement and on to James Bond rides again. Fact is often stranger than fiction; we seem to have an abundance of fiction, but very little in the way of hard fact. There is even less in the way of ‘technical’ information.
So mate, your theory is as valid as any other notion, reasoned and reasonable. Something happened, that is for certain sure. I have NFI what; but if pushed to bet a beer, I’d bet against ‘the pilot’ doing it, but I wouldn’t back much else, not without answers. Cheers.
Toot toot.