What happened to the "ten second radar data" ?
![[Image: attachment.php?aid=193]](http://auntypru.com/forum/attachment.php?aid=193)
But then, there is this:
#00:22:27-5# Right. Okay. It’s not.
From 18:02, let’s imagine that, let’s just go from 18:02 because you’ve got continuous track up to that point, and then just use BTO only. #00:22:39-8#
From what Neil says (he even hedges his bets by going back to IGARI for Christ's sake !) as per this passage of his, from #00:12:24-1# to #00:14:03-2#
<Quote>
#00:12:24-1#
Neil Gordon:
Ah, we’ve based—you’ve got to understand what our job in this investigation is.
Our job is to take the data as presented to us, by the accident investigators and they —
Jeff Wise - interviewer:
‘what do you project as a trajectory from that?’
Neil Gordon:
I guess from our point of view as data processors we would always want to inject more uncertainty than—we don’t like anything that’s got, “This is exactly the — where it was at this time.’
We’re always going to be a bit more careful about applying some realistic notion of uncertainty to that.
And that’s why, rather than take this delta function truth about that final radar point, you’ve got to be realistic and say, ‘Okay, that’s actually not quite true, there is a spread of uncertainty around it.’
One of the things you’ll also see in the book, I think, is, we did run the analysis without using any of the primary radar data.
Because you can just take the final secondary radar, when it was still heading northeast towards China.
You can start the analysis from there.
And you’re just going to end up with a more uncertain distribution that covers a bigger area, but it’s all down in the South China Sea. Sorry the southern Indian Ocean.
#00:13:53-2#
Jeff Wise - interviewer:
But if it’s more constrained, then the distribution will be tighter. #00:13:57-9#
Neil Gordon:
Yes. The danger is, if you make it more constrained in the wrong way, then you’ll miss it.
#00:14:03-2#
<End Quote>
So, reading between the lines, Neil is effectively saying - without actually saying it, is that "we were DIRECTED" to start our analysis from a "NORTHERN FMT".
He is also saying, QUITE POINTEDLY, AND QUITE DELIBERATELY, ALMOST AS "A THROWAYAY LINE", that if you work from the "last secondary radar contact" ie, at IGARI, you still end up in the SIO, but your search area is "much bigger".
Taken all together, I am calling a spade a spade.
I am more and more convinced, that the whole Malacca Strait radar story is total Malaysian Government Bullshit, deliberately designed to keep the search north of where it really went, to ensure that it is never found.
The only theory that makes sense is "my - SOUTHERN FMT - via Medan theory", as previously published in this blog, over on the "Criminal Act" thread.
But then, there is this:
#00:22:27-5# Right. Okay. It’s not.
From 18:02, let’s imagine that, let’s just go from 18:02 because you’ve got continuous track up to that point, and then just use BTO only. #00:22:39-8#
From what Neil says (he even hedges his bets by going back to IGARI for Christ's sake !) as per this passage of his, from #00:12:24-1# to #00:14:03-2#
<Quote>
#00:12:24-1#
Neil Gordon:
Ah, we’ve based—you’ve got to understand what our job in this investigation is.
Our job is to take the data as presented to us, by the accident investigators and they —
Jeff Wise - interviewer:
‘what do you project as a trajectory from that?’
Neil Gordon:
I guess from our point of view as data processors we would always want to inject more uncertainty than—we don’t like anything that’s got, “This is exactly the — where it was at this time.’
We’re always going to be a bit more careful about applying some realistic notion of uncertainty to that.
And that’s why, rather than take this delta function truth about that final radar point, you’ve got to be realistic and say, ‘Okay, that’s actually not quite true, there is a spread of uncertainty around it.’
One of the things you’ll also see in the book, I think, is, we did run the analysis without using any of the primary radar data.
Because you can just take the final secondary radar, when it was still heading northeast towards China.
You can start the analysis from there.
And you’re just going to end up with a more uncertain distribution that covers a bigger area, but it’s all down in the South China Sea. Sorry the southern Indian Ocean.
#00:13:53-2#
Jeff Wise - interviewer:
But if it’s more constrained, then the distribution will be tighter. #00:13:57-9#
Neil Gordon:
Yes. The danger is, if you make it more constrained in the wrong way, then you’ll miss it.
#00:14:03-2#
<End Quote>
So, reading between the lines, Neil is effectively saying - without actually saying it, is that "we were DIRECTED" to start our analysis from a "NORTHERN FMT".
He is also saying, QUITE POINTEDLY, AND QUITE DELIBERATELY, ALMOST AS "A THROWAYAY LINE", that if you work from the "last secondary radar contact" ie, at IGARI, you still end up in the SIO, but your search area is "much bigger".
Taken all together, I am calling a spade a spade.
I am more and more convinced, that the whole Malacca Strait radar story is total Malaysian Government Bullshit, deliberately designed to keep the search north of where it really went, to ensure that it is never found.
The only theory that makes sense is "my - SOUTHERN FMT - via Medan theory", as previously published in this blog, over on the "Criminal Act" thread.