05-19-2016, 06:32 AM
[quote pid='4314' dateline='1463543105']
Brock: I've now had a chance to read the WSJ article. It is helpful, but is not what we need to determine how likely or unlikely it is that MH370 satellite ping ring data may have been SPOOFED.
In the US Court environment (and most Western courts), there is something known as "Chain of Custody" for court-related evidence. It is basically a formal record of everyone who has access to evidence / testimony as it moves through the system. At each stage, a person is identified as "responsible" for ensuring the integrity of the evidence (or whatever). It is not uncommon to have lapses during early stages, but such lapses should quickly disappear as a case / investigation becomes formal. With regard to MH370, everyone knew there were life and death implications within 8 hours of the plane's departure from KLIA. But there is no evidence anyone treated it with emphasis on preserving chain of custody information.
A lot of things would have happened in most Western countries that did not or may have not happened in this instance. I do not see, for example, any evidence there were chain of custody concerns in the investigation into the loss of MH370. For example, we do not have information about who transcribed the digital record, or if multiple parties transcribed their own versions. I am inclined to suspect that Inmarsat owns the only keys to the digital record. That is, it is at least partially encrypted or password protected. If true, it means all requests for transcriptions / copies had to pass through Chris Ashton or one of his colleagues. It also means there was ample opportunity for Inmarsat employees / technicians to make directed or freelance changes to the digital record. In other words, what we have may not be what Inmarsat saw when it first examined 3-F1 data. No way to know without a formal Chain of Custody process.
But that is the worst-case scenario. My inclination is to accept as valid the BTO data Inmarsat gave us. I've checked BTO values against GPS values in several instances and they are within a few kilometers. There is no way to check the seven pings we tend to be most concerned with, but the BTO dataset as a whole makes sense to me.
I have published an explanation of how BTO data can be manipulated, but until we have ancillary evidence that that might have happened, I don't see much value in going down that path. What would convince me we have a problem with BTO data integrity is finding debris in a location I personally consider unlikely, such as Sri Lanka, the Maldives, Bangladesh, Amsterdam Island, Saint Paul Island, Western Australia, or either side of the moon. To name a few.
The other data element we obtained from 3-F1 is BFO (Doppler). I don't believe it is important to even care if BFO could have been spoofed. It hasn't been shown to measure anything useful; no one has ever tried to use it before to find a missing plane; and no one will ever try to use it again to find a missing plane. More importantly, it would NEVER have been used in this instance if not for a handful of unemployed Dowsers who claimed they could find the plane with BFO Dowsing Rods. With moistened fingers held high in the air, they said the plane traveled at 942.6857 kph and was located 231.89765 meters northwest of ATSB's estimate. But, after blowing through $200 million, wasting two years, and telling NOK to kiss-off, it appears that criminal charges against them will be dropped because rank stupidity is not a crime. (Yet people laughed at GeoResonance when it claimed to have similarly effective but unproven tools.)
With that, I'll conclude by saying the obvious. It looks like we will have to wait a little longer to refine the plane's terminal location. No new debris has surfaced in a while, but we know it's out there somewhere. NOAA, Geomar, and others believe Reunion Island drift was likely to have come from the Zenith Plateau area where it intersects the 7th Arc. A lot of my work suggests the same location. But it is still a long arc of up to 1,500 km. It need not take as long as Australia took to reach it's conclusion it was in the wrong place, but it would take up to 3 months. People have to decide if it's worth the expense. Most of us think it is.
[/quote]
Brock: I've now had a chance to read the WSJ article. It is helpful, but is not what we need to determine how likely or unlikely it is that MH370 satellite ping ring data may have been SPOOFED.
In the US Court environment (and most Western courts), there is something known as "Chain of Custody" for court-related evidence. It is basically a formal record of everyone who has access to evidence / testimony as it moves through the system. At each stage, a person is identified as "responsible" for ensuring the integrity of the evidence (or whatever). It is not uncommon to have lapses during early stages, but such lapses should quickly disappear as a case / investigation becomes formal. With regard to MH370, everyone knew there were life and death implications within 8 hours of the plane's departure from KLIA. But there is no evidence anyone treated it with emphasis on preserving chain of custody information.
A lot of things would have happened in most Western countries that did not or may have not happened in this instance. I do not see, for example, any evidence there were chain of custody concerns in the investigation into the loss of MH370. For example, we do not have information about who transcribed the digital record, or if multiple parties transcribed their own versions. I am inclined to suspect that Inmarsat owns the only keys to the digital record. That is, it is at least partially encrypted or password protected. If true, it means all requests for transcriptions / copies had to pass through Chris Ashton or one of his colleagues. It also means there was ample opportunity for Inmarsat employees / technicians to make directed or freelance changes to the digital record. In other words, what we have may not be what Inmarsat saw when it first examined 3-F1 data. No way to know without a formal Chain of Custody process.
But that is the worst-case scenario. My inclination is to accept as valid the BTO data Inmarsat gave us. I've checked BTO values against GPS values in several instances and they are within a few kilometers. There is no way to check the seven pings we tend to be most concerned with, but the BTO dataset as a whole makes sense to me.
I have published an explanation of how BTO data can be manipulated, but until we have ancillary evidence that that might have happened, I don't see much value in going down that path. What would convince me we have a problem with BTO data integrity is finding debris in a location I personally consider unlikely, such as Sri Lanka, the Maldives, Bangladesh, Amsterdam Island, Saint Paul Island, Western Australia, or either side of the moon. To name a few.
The other data element we obtained from 3-F1 is BFO (Doppler). I don't believe it is important to even care if BFO could have been spoofed. It hasn't been shown to measure anything useful; no one has ever tried to use it before to find a missing plane; and no one will ever try to use it again to find a missing plane. More importantly, it would NEVER have been used in this instance if not for a handful of unemployed Dowsers who claimed they could find the plane with BFO Dowsing Rods. With moistened fingers held high in the air, they said the plane traveled at 942.6857 kph and was located 231.89765 meters northwest of ATSB's estimate. But, after blowing through $200 million, wasting two years, and telling NOK to kiss-off, it appears that criminal charges against them will be dropped because rank stupidity is not a crime. (Yet people laughed at GeoResonance when it claimed to have similarly effective but unproven tools.)
With that, I'll conclude by saying the obvious. It looks like we will have to wait a little longer to refine the plane's terminal location. No new debris has surfaced in a while, but we know it's out there somewhere. NOAA, Geomar, and others believe Reunion Island drift was likely to have come from the Zenith Plateau area where it intersects the 7th Arc. A lot of my work suggests the same location. But it is still a long arc of up to 1,500 km. It need not take as long as Australia took to reach it's conclusion it was in the wrong place, but it would take up to 3 months. People have to decide if it's worth the expense. Most of us think it is.
[/quote]