07-23-2016, 05:31 AM
Something smells.
If the BFO and fuel analyses are so bad at definitively narrowing impact - yet the BTO values appearing in the late-arriving pdf file from Inmarsat remain sacrosanct - then 120,000 km^2 could have been "spent" searching Arc 7 (MH370's BTO-indicated position 3 or so minutes after fuel exhaustion) to a width of 37 km for a distance of 3,243 km. Such a search would have covered the 7th Arc from 19°s to 40.7°s - and falsified any unpiloted-spiral-to-impact theory that came anywhere CLOSE to fitting the BFO and fuel indications.
Why would 37km (20nmi) have been enough width? The Independent Group (IG) seemed to think it was. And they did not just cite the BFO values in support of this: the flight simulator results reported by Mike Exner a) validated this choice of search box width, and b) gave much the same answer as independent tests by the ATSB. The "steepening-descent-indicating" BFO values at 00:19 were merely icing on the cake - an extra data point which at least nominally corroborated the simulator experience (and vice versa).
But they did NOT search like this (restrict width to that indicated by the theory, and keep adding length to the box). They asked us to trust the BFO and fuel analyses they had performed, which significantly narrowed the search. I for one trusted the work of the IG, which seemed to be almost a citizen's version of the official analyses; since the Fall of 2014, they've been in almost perfect lock-step regarding interpretation of emerging evidence.
But my motto all along has been: "trust, but verify". I set out to monitor emerging evidence, compare it to search strategy, and note gaps. Here's how I went about it:
In early 2015, I calibrated a stochastic model to Mike Exner's reported simulator trials, generated the indicated "distance from arc" distribution, and compared it to the box width already searched. It suggested that further widening of the search box was of no value toward falsifying the "unpiloted steep dive" theory.
Did they stop widening the search box, and start significantly lengthening it? No, they did not.
In late 2015, I showed that nine of nine drift studies suggested the search box appeared inconsistent with a flaperon (whose barnacles indicated low buoyancy) turning up in Réunion on 16.7 months later.
Did they stop widening the search box, and start significantly lengthening it? No, they did not.
In early 2016, I used IPRC data to show that the search box was inconsistent with lack of debris on Australian shores.
Did they stop widening the search box, and start significantly lengthening it? No, they did not.
In mid-2016, I used Adrift data to try to learn what all debris finds - taken TOGETHER - could tell us about drift-indicated impact points. It counter-indicated the search box.
Will they stop widening the search box, and start significantly lengthening it? No, it now appears they will not.
Perhaps, I can hear you proposing hopefully, the decision to widen instead of lengthen would have fringe benefits: perhaps by searching out so wide, at least OTHER theories (e.g. piloted glide) could be falsified...?
No, of course they weren't - how silly of you to have hoped for something that useful. Their current search box - even when completed - by their own calculations falls well short of the total distance from the 7th Arc a B777 would be expected to travel under control of a pilot attempting to maintain a controlled glide.
Bottom line: search leaders have spent millions of tax dollars - and more than two years - without managing to falsify a SINGLE theory involving an Indian Ocean impact:
- they clearly haven't searched enough width to falsify a piloted, and thus long, glide
- they clearly haven't searched enough length to falsify an unpiloted, and thus steep, dive
Even if your spider sense isn't tingling over the possibility of a search designed to PRESERVE mystery (or at least DELAY its solution), the sheer resource waste alone should be enough to make your blood boil. This kind of waste is all too common. The tax-paying general public is fed up with this kind of wasteful dysfunction.
And emotionally tortured next of kin deserve better than this. Running the clock (and the tab...) for this long without falsifying a single one of their theories is simply inexcusable.
The root CAUSE of this waste is the apathy of citizens. I believe the general public should boycott air travel until such time as full transparency and accountability is achieved on the MH370 file. We need to hit these people in the pocketbook, if we hope to make an impression.
This is not about conspiracies or cover-ups. Nor is it about a witch hunt directed at any one nation - there appears plenty of blame to go around.
This is about accountability. Period.
If the BFO and fuel analyses are so bad at definitively narrowing impact - yet the BTO values appearing in the late-arriving pdf file from Inmarsat remain sacrosanct - then 120,000 km^2 could have been "spent" searching Arc 7 (MH370's BTO-indicated position 3 or so minutes after fuel exhaustion) to a width of 37 km for a distance of 3,243 km. Such a search would have covered the 7th Arc from 19°s to 40.7°s - and falsified any unpiloted-spiral-to-impact theory that came anywhere CLOSE to fitting the BFO and fuel indications.
Why would 37km (20nmi) have been enough width? The Independent Group (IG) seemed to think it was. And they did not just cite the BFO values in support of this: the flight simulator results reported by Mike Exner a) validated this choice of search box width, and b) gave much the same answer as independent tests by the ATSB. The "steepening-descent-indicating" BFO values at 00:19 were merely icing on the cake - an extra data point which at least nominally corroborated the simulator experience (and vice versa).
But they did NOT search like this (restrict width to that indicated by the theory, and keep adding length to the box). They asked us to trust the BFO and fuel analyses they had performed, which significantly narrowed the search. I for one trusted the work of the IG, which seemed to be almost a citizen's version of the official analyses; since the Fall of 2014, they've been in almost perfect lock-step regarding interpretation of emerging evidence.
But my motto all along has been: "trust, but verify". I set out to monitor emerging evidence, compare it to search strategy, and note gaps. Here's how I went about it:
In early 2015, I calibrated a stochastic model to Mike Exner's reported simulator trials, generated the indicated "distance from arc" distribution, and compared it to the box width already searched. It suggested that further widening of the search box was of no value toward falsifying the "unpiloted steep dive" theory.
Did they stop widening the search box, and start significantly lengthening it? No, they did not.
In late 2015, I showed that nine of nine drift studies suggested the search box appeared inconsistent with a flaperon (whose barnacles indicated low buoyancy) turning up in Réunion on 16.7 months later.
Did they stop widening the search box, and start significantly lengthening it? No, they did not.
In early 2016, I used IPRC data to show that the search box was inconsistent with lack of debris on Australian shores.
Did they stop widening the search box, and start significantly lengthening it? No, they did not.
In mid-2016, I used Adrift data to try to learn what all debris finds - taken TOGETHER - could tell us about drift-indicated impact points. It counter-indicated the search box.
Will they stop widening the search box, and start significantly lengthening it? No, it now appears they will not.
Perhaps, I can hear you proposing hopefully, the decision to widen instead of lengthen would have fringe benefits: perhaps by searching out so wide, at least OTHER theories (e.g. piloted glide) could be falsified...?
No, of course they weren't - how silly of you to have hoped for something that useful. Their current search box - even when completed - by their own calculations falls well short of the total distance from the 7th Arc a B777 would be expected to travel under control of a pilot attempting to maintain a controlled glide.
Bottom line: search leaders have spent millions of tax dollars - and more than two years - without managing to falsify a SINGLE theory involving an Indian Ocean impact:
- they clearly haven't searched enough width to falsify a piloted, and thus long, glide
- they clearly haven't searched enough length to falsify an unpiloted, and thus steep, dive
Even if your spider sense isn't tingling over the possibility of a search designed to PRESERVE mystery (or at least DELAY its solution), the sheer resource waste alone should be enough to make your blood boil. This kind of waste is all too common. The tax-paying general public is fed up with this kind of wasteful dysfunction.
And emotionally tortured next of kin deserve better than this. Running the clock (and the tab...) for this long without falsifying a single one of their theories is simply inexcusable.
The root CAUSE of this waste is the apathy of citizens. I believe the general public should boycott air travel until such time as full transparency and accountability is achieved on the MH370 file. We need to hit these people in the pocketbook, if we hope to make an impression.
This is not about conspiracies or cover-ups. Nor is it about a witch hunt directed at any one nation - there appears plenty of blame to go around.
This is about accountability. Period.