The reliance upon FR24 data as an investigative, diagnostic or even theorizing tool is significantly beyond its design, conception and utility.
While "realistic" results may obtain on occasion, its equivalence to reality is largely stochastic.
The process of building a theory and then going to data to find support is essentially what is occurring through the use of FR24 data. The method is faulty simply because the data isn't good enough to do so. FR24 data is not validated through testing to the same precise standards & legal requirements that DFDR data is. It has its uses, but not in the manner being sought here.
The only tools registered and recognized for such work are the SSCVR & SSFDR, and even then, as we have seen, from such a point there can still be a number of valid theories & interpretations, some ultimately critical to understanding what actually occurred.
If scientists had gone about validating MRNA vaccines in the same manner, we would not be as eager to use them and the FDA would have trouble justifying their wide public use. The principle here and elsewhere in other investigative endeavours is the same.
Respect for the data and for accuracy is paramount as many lives have been affected.
PJ2
Of course, that invites its own study. Take the last 10-20 incidents discussed on PPRUNE for which a final report is available. How do the publicly available ADS-B data match the DFDR readout and the reconstruction? What percentage of posts mention technical details or theories considered by the final report, compared to issues not mentioned (and thus probably irrelevant noise)?
How much should we respect the data?
data?
Since Traditional and Internet news outlets routinely raid forums like this one, maybe we should scientifically assess the information that comes out here. I won't even ask to be principal author.