It is important to make some distinctions in the content of this thread. I don't think I have read where anyone has posted that Ocean floor survey is straightforward, or in any way "easy". Of course it is not. For the most part what has been seen is an attempt to put some "perspective" on institutional "mission", and bias.
People use the word "conspiracy" sometimes without regard to its meaning. Any conversation relative to any bias is considered such; scrupulous honesty in an industrial endeavour is too much to ask, it is naive.
I would direct anyone who feels the BEA has been mistreated to review some of my own observations. Lack of openness and transparency is obvious. When divulged, there is inclusion/exclusion of narrow data. Laying off suspicious pronouncements on others (Brazilians?) has no place; the "fuel slick" was deserving of more attention. Any deposit of lights on the sea has a source, and when self contained, is considered "fresh". The autopsies were used predictably, to address only the single "seated" conclusion. I think disagreement is healthy, but to label criticism as "ill-informed", lay, or "conspiratorial" goes a bit far.
I would be the first to abandon my position if what I think is a less than forthcoming and muddled handling of this investigation is found instead to be refreshingly and scrupulously direct and exhaustive.
bearfoil