If you had bothered to thoroughly read the article you're so roundly condemning, before casting aspersions and pointing fingers, you would have realized that all of the "defects" you mention in your last post are explained in clear and plain English in that article.
Right, actually I did read your silly article. Including your "explanation". to wit:
However, we chose to keep the groundspeed of the FlightAware end-point because doing so does not affect our analysis.
Not an explaation at all, just "we're keeping it even though it's wrong".
Then your "analysis" says
UPS1354 apparently collided with terrain while flying at 191 knots,
Even though you have no sound basis for making that claim, given that the 191 knots is lifted from a clearly defective data record.