But then perhaps they can now concentrate on how the french can insert faulty data in the recovered SSFDR
Conspiracy hawkers, (they cannot be called theorists) express both the need to control information and the need to limit, not expand understanding.
This is opposite to an investigator's primary goal which is to discover and follow evidence where it leads, no matter where or to whom it leads and then to build a story based upon what is demonstrated to be true.
Conspiracy hawkers have an easy job because all they need to do to is create doubt then leave it to others to build upon the insecurity of not knowing.
Investigators have a much more difficult job because they must convince experts and doubters alike.
We needn't guess which method withstands tough scrutiny, experience and expertise and which deserves our attention.
Another point: Creating flight and system data for credulous consumption as well as reading by experts (NTSB included, I would think), presumes a rational, detailed theory of what happened. In just over three million views and over five thousand contributions in four threads, 99% of contributions being knowledgable, thoughtful and informative, we have many theories but none of which are complete in every single detail.
Conspiracy hawkers need to explain how anyone creating false data, ostensibly to support the views of powerful interests of one persuasion or another, is going to create a plausible theory and then turn it into 1300 digital parameters, without a trace of intervention.
The A330 AFS and other aircraft systems and AF 447's flight conditions may be inferred, perhaps even accurately so, but, assuming this CSMU is readable, (and I believe it will be), flight data accounts for every second and every digital value these 1300 flight and system parameters, until the end of the recording. No theory presented here has been able to do that.
None of this denies the fact that strong interests are involved and that the expertise exists to be able to make the claim that manufacturing data is possible. But the possibility is not the problem.
Manufacturing such data such that its falsified pedigree is invisible while still making complete sense to those who do this work in their sleep, and keeping this within the necessary confines of a few, is virtually impossible.
It is those who know the airplane, accident investigation processes, flight data, human factors, weather, sea states, software and hardware design, communications and organizational factors who deserve the attention of those who wish to find things out. While doubt is always good because it leads to advances in understanding, doubt without an explanation which so leads, is not worth reading.