The link to Paul Howard’s analysis is – HERE – There are eleven pages, each worth the time taken to read. But, it is not for the skim reader or the quick grab headline seeker; it is a serious work and requires some thought and effort from the reader.
Underpinning the press hysteria; the snake oil salesmen; visionaries, governmental spin doctored clap-trap and the ATSB latest embarrassment, there has been a quiet, persistent, compelling drum beat of logic and genuine quest for a solution to the mystery. Folk like Chillit, Howard, McEwan and several others have, without fanfare or much external assistance just got on with it. Testing, questioning, eliminating the dross and pony-pooh, sorting the sheep from the goats. The thing that impresses most is the modest, quiet, determined persistence and the unselfish, unsupported investment of time, effort and intelligence.
This is no mean feat; the smoke, mirrors, shredded information, disinformation, distractions and half baked theory make developing, testing and proving a logical line of reasoning to conclusion almost impossible; one needs to stay strong. Each false trail needs to be walked before being discarded and even then, a small element of doubt must be held – just in case there was a vital clue along the way.
It is reassuring to know that after the dust settles and the crowd vanishes to live vicariously through the next event, that there are those quiet people who are prepared to test a rational theory to breaking point; have the integrity to admit doubt, prepared to discuss the work and the confidence to admit that they may be wrong.
For me; Paul Howard sums up the situation very well.
"I'm firmly convinced that the only way this aircraft can be found, is by continuing revision and analysis of the existing data. That includes Inmarsat. Appendix 1 and 2 (below) show the complexity of the system and the potential for error. Only by acknowledging where errors and false assumptions have occurred is there any possibility of progression. It must be understood that from the outset there was so little data, that to embark on a submarine search was a brave and possibly foolhardy mission. Historically, there is a very fine line between the two."
How else are we to discover what happened to the 239 people and a large, serviceable aircraft that night?
Selah.
Underpinning the press hysteria; the snake oil salesmen; visionaries, governmental spin doctored clap-trap and the ATSB latest embarrassment, there has been a quiet, persistent, compelling drum beat of logic and genuine quest for a solution to the mystery. Folk like Chillit, Howard, McEwan and several others have, without fanfare or much external assistance just got on with it. Testing, questioning, eliminating the dross and pony-pooh, sorting the sheep from the goats. The thing that impresses most is the modest, quiet, determined persistence and the unselfish, unsupported investment of time, effort and intelligence.
This is no mean feat; the smoke, mirrors, shredded information, disinformation, distractions and half baked theory make developing, testing and proving a logical line of reasoning to conclusion almost impossible; one needs to stay strong. Each false trail needs to be walked before being discarded and even then, a small element of doubt must be held – just in case there was a vital clue along the way.
It is reassuring to know that after the dust settles and the crowd vanishes to live vicariously through the next event, that there are those quiet people who are prepared to test a rational theory to breaking point; have the integrity to admit doubt, prepared to discuss the work and the confidence to admit that they may be wrong.
For me; Paul Howard sums up the situation very well.
"I'm firmly convinced that the only way this aircraft can be found, is by continuing revision and analysis of the existing data. That includes Inmarsat. Appendix 1 and 2 (below) show the complexity of the system and the potential for error. Only by acknowledging where errors and false assumptions have occurred is there any possibility of progression. It must be understood that from the outset there was so little data, that to embark on a submarine search was a brave and possibly foolhardy mission. Historically, there is a very fine line between the two."
How else are we to discover what happened to the 239 people and a large, serviceable aircraft that night?
Selah.