[MikeChillit]

F. de Changy - “something happened which cannot be admitted”.

Speaking of Brock -  Here he is commenting on the latest JW blog - The SDU Re-logon: A Small Detail That Tells Us So Much About the Fate of MH370.

Brock McEwen
Posted May 16, 2016 at 9:33 AM

@Jeff: great piece, as always. But it baffles me that “sophisticated abduction” is the only explanation you feel is worth mentioning, when falsified ISAT data – starting from either 18:25 or earlier – is so much simpler, opens the door to far more believable scenarios, and explains so much more of the observable evidence.

If we are now leaning – as I hope we finally are – towards “something happened which cannot be admitted” (F. de Changy’s phrase), a falsified ISAT data log explains…

– the observed delays in its publication

– the timing of this “logon”: 18:25 makes perfect sense as a place to punch in with falsified data AFTER determining that 18:22 is the last radar return anyone wants published; as the IG’s 2014 radar coverage chart made crystal clear, it makes no sense at all to think sophisticated highjackers would expect to be clear of all primary radar while still in the Malacca Strait.

I’ve left out of my argument any specific elements of the disinformation campaign carried out by search leadership, because I expect we will all scale the scope of any such campaign to fit our theory. But in general, a disinformation campaign carried out by the same people who caused the “logon” (simply by appending it to the data log) has fewer moving parts. To me, such a scenario is more rational than supposing a group of sophisticated highjackers took the plane, with an unconnected group – search leadership – risking a disinformation campaign merely to conceal incompetence.

Sorry. Not on a 'real' computer at the moment. Still learning to navigate this website. But this is relevant to Brock's line of reasoning:

..it is not necessary to physically alter the SDU or anything else to fake BTO data. It is only necessary to say 'x data' was recorded, when in fact it was 'y data'.

Remember that the digital record has been withheld by Malaysia and Inmarsat under a 'proprietary' claim. As a result, we have no way of knowing if we were given the real 'x dataset'. For all we know, someone connected with the 'proprietary' group published a totally forged 'y dataset', claiming it is the 'x dataset'. This means that any effort to spoof us would be pretty easy.

The math required to invent alternative BTO data is junior high school level stuff.

Cheers, Mike