Look back at Takata's post #2050 on 21st June 10 in the original thread. The bodies are all clearly in a NS line drifting north over the period 6 through 10 June. Despite the surface current charts for that time and that location showing that the current was somewhat N of E around 3.5 degrees N, and then less strong and probably E of N around 4.5 degrees N.
So do we believe the recorded positions and times that the bodies were recovered? Or do we believe the surface current charts. Because it does not appear that both can be correct. .
If the bodies did not drift in accordance with these charts when they were being discovered (6-10 June), then how can we be sure they did for the first 6 days? A lot has been made of a presumed eastward as well as northward drift of bodies. All I am saying is that I am not sure this is correct. They were drifting north when they were found. Maybe they had been since impact.
These charts are very low resolution. Maybe 180,000 square miles. Summarized by 50 average vectors. I am not sure that these charts are that reliable at the scale we are trying to use them.
The most similar objects in the water were all the bodies. Pretty much the same size, shape and density, and all pretty much the same balance of current and wind affected drift (mostly current). The bodies therefore are the signal. The other wreckage is all dissimilar and the relative proportions of wind and current effects will differ significantly. This wreckage is the noise.
mm43, I get your example with 2 bodies. Eddy currents could do anything with just 2 bodies. But 20 or so bodies as in Takata's map? That is a pretty impressive line.
On a separate question, I think most of us would agree that we really have no idea where inside (or even outside) the circle AF447 lies. Is any area really more likely than another? The search to date has been in accordance with the accepted theories as to where it is most likely. Either it was missed, or it is elsewhere. As we enter phase 4, maybe each point has a similar probability. Given the heterogeneous nature of the terrain, perhaps the best chance is to focus on the relatively flat areas and hope we are lucky. If the search experts estimate that the chance of finding given wreckage in a fairly flat area was 2 x (or 3 x, or 4 x) that of finding the same wreckage among mountains and ravines, then maybe this weighting is more important than any particular theory as to where it was more likely to be.