I have previously laid out the analysis "voluminously" - even posting annotated map sections.
I have pointed out many parameters that had not been explained properly or dismissed as having no significance “officially” and attempted to put them in context in the light of information from other sources – hoping that “you” (“”=plural/many posters here) on this thread would hopefully recognise them and confirm their meaning in that context or otherwise give a reasoned, plausible explanation why they were not significant.
The altimeter settings and the RADALT alarm setting were good examples - another is the call sign – and so on.
As I have said so often, the evidence for their having been involved in something extra is that analysis – the specific equipment you seem to be hung up on is just my suggestion for a candidate that could explain them being misled in range, that a helo pilot would trust more than a TANS in approaching a point location, that could also have given them the bearing that the HP had on his course selector which they followed from the position of waypoint change to the crash site.
It is “you” that have failed to confirm or contradict the meaning of so many parameters that could have established beyond reasonable doubt whether they had been involved in an extra activity or not – I believe that I have presented more than enough to justify informed debate into this suggested possibility – I came to this site to get answers – and it will be to “your” shame if it was the case and you helped obstruct and delay the exposure of this.