If I may offer a respectful thought - these two statements are just rhetoric.
My question to you is, why and upon what basis is this amateur sleuthing work defendable? What is the motivation behind the work when we know that in time, the recorders may tell us what occurred.
The only motivation that is reasonable to consider is that someone just wants to be first, and that is about ego and prestige, not about finding out, and frankly that insults the crew's memory and those who do this work.
That this data may coincide with later findings is beside the point. Dressing up and masquerading Flight Aware data as "what happened" is misleading because the basis upon which the data is created and displayed is not proven as an investigative tool with high and reliable accuracy.
If you want to present an argument for your particular data sources such that the argument garners the respect due such arguments because they are based technical specifics, you might begin by describing/demonstrating the accuracy and robustness of your data sources further based upon your knowledge of flight data analysis.
There are a good number of people here who know their stuff and can argue the details about accident investigation, flight data, human factors as well as terminal and approach chart design. If you wish to convince, be specific about why Flightaware isn't just a consumer-interest entertainment website and can stand beside the recorders as a valid source of aircraft data.
PJ2
I wholeheartedly concur. All of this internet, aviation enthusiast, Google Earth, FlightAware info is total baloney when it comes to professional accident investigation. Bash the NTSB all you want, but they're not running around using Google Earth on their "smart"phones and making stupid, uninformed posts on rumor websites.