09-08-2016, 05:20 AM
Below is the full text of a comment I just submitted to the latest jeffwise.net article of his interview with DTSG's Dr. Neil Gordon. Each of my previous (hundreds of) posts have appeared immediately - this is the second in a row not to appear. I'm posting it here merely for documentation purposes, since I know many of you share my drive to uncover the truth behind MH370's fate - as well as my concern over the quality of the search effort to date. Apologies to all others for the long and relatively off-topic post (which also requires you read the jeffwise article, for context).
* * *
Yes, thanks much, Jeff. Very revealing. For instance:
1) Search box width
- The IG's original Sep/14 search box width recommendation was ~20nmi
- by Mar/15, this had widened to ~30nmi ("high probability")
- by Apr/15, my stochastic model, calibrated to IG flight sim results, suggested the ~40nmi width already scanned contained 99% of the statistical likelihood
Each of the above took both of Dr. Gordon's points about BTO uncertainty into consideration. Yet:
- in Dec/15 - with the search already ~60nmi wide - the DTSG "book" - without any stated justification - paved the way for a FURTHER widening of the scan zone
- now, here in Sep/16 - after 9 months spent (wasted?) widening the search to ~70nmi - Dr. Gordon deflects Jeff's invitation to reconsider zone width, suggesting only 70% of the recommended zone has yet been searched, and pretending that BTO errors account for much more than a TENTH of this width.
Perhaps a greater proportion of density near the arc COULD have been searched by now, had his organization's "book" not in essence told the ATSB to go wide instead.
2) Debris found to date
Interestingly, it was the NORTHERN half of the DTSG's 34-40°S zone (per above graphic) which my Apr/16 IPRC data-based drift study suggested should have resulted in significant quantities of debris hitting Australian shorelines by Dec/14. While the IPRC study which generated the shoreline hit probabilities was not publicized until after the flaperon sparked interest in drift analyses, such data was not dependent on any found debris - it could have been generated as soon as the priority search zone was set, back in Sep/14. And the absence of debris on Oz shores could have been used to force a rethink of this zone by as early as Jan/15.
Hiding behind the uncertainty factor of drift analyses is a cop-out. If the entire WIDE distribution of, e.g. the "Roy" piece's possible starting points misses your search zone by a wide margin, it is time for a re-think.
This reminds me of the two months spent searching the Wallaby plateau, despite the obvious counter-indications of the FDR's frequency and range, the BFO data fit, and the ridiculously trigonometric path curvature required to access it. Deaf ears + failure of media to hold anyone accountable = dysfunctional search. Highly suspicious.
@Jeff: can you please request from Dr. Gordon...
A) concrete support for the DTSG's baffling decision to push the scan zone width past 60nmi - and now past 70nmi, and
B) a reason (better than the one given) to ignore what IO shorelines cry out to us (OZ seemingly empty to Sep/16, SA seemingly "full" by Dec/15)?
Thanks in advance for your consideration of these requests.
* * *
Yes, thanks much, Jeff. Very revealing. For instance:
1) Search box width
- The IG's original Sep/14 search box width recommendation was ~20nmi
- by Mar/15, this had widened to ~30nmi ("high probability")
- by Apr/15, my stochastic model, calibrated to IG flight sim results, suggested the ~40nmi width already scanned contained 99% of the statistical likelihood
Each of the above took both of Dr. Gordon's points about BTO uncertainty into consideration. Yet:
- in Dec/15 - with the search already ~60nmi wide - the DTSG "book" - without any stated justification - paved the way for a FURTHER widening of the scan zone
- now, here in Sep/16 - after 9 months spent (wasted?) widening the search to ~70nmi - Dr. Gordon deflects Jeff's invitation to reconsider zone width, suggesting only 70% of the recommended zone has yet been searched, and pretending that BTO errors account for much more than a TENTH of this width.
Perhaps a greater proportion of density near the arc COULD have been searched by now, had his organization's "book" not in essence told the ATSB to go wide instead.
2) Debris found to date
Interestingly, it was the NORTHERN half of the DTSG's 34-40°S zone (per above graphic) which my Apr/16 IPRC data-based drift study suggested should have resulted in significant quantities of debris hitting Australian shorelines by Dec/14. While the IPRC study which generated the shoreline hit probabilities was not publicized until after the flaperon sparked interest in drift analyses, such data was not dependent on any found debris - it could have been generated as soon as the priority search zone was set, back in Sep/14. And the absence of debris on Oz shores could have been used to force a rethink of this zone by as early as Jan/15.
Hiding behind the uncertainty factor of drift analyses is a cop-out. If the entire WIDE distribution of, e.g. the "Roy" piece's possible starting points misses your search zone by a wide margin, it is time for a re-think.
This reminds me of the two months spent searching the Wallaby plateau, despite the obvious counter-indications of the FDR's frequency and range, the BFO data fit, and the ridiculously trigonometric path curvature required to access it. Deaf ears + failure of media to hold anyone accountable = dysfunctional search. Highly suspicious.
@Jeff: can you please request from Dr. Gordon...
A) concrete support for the DTSG's baffling decision to push the scan zone width past 60nmi - and now past 70nmi, and
B) a reason (better than the one given) to ignore what IO shorelines cry out to us (OZ seemingly empty to Sep/16, SA seemingly "full" by Dec/15)?
Thanks in advance for your consideration of these requests.