There is a difference between probabilities and guesswork. The current known facts do not provide sufficient information to calculate probabilities. The missing evidence has been replaced by assumptions. Assumptions are generally subjective views of likely occurrences from within our own experience.
Earlier in the thread someone suggested the scientific research is underpinned by probabilities. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is the proper and refined understanding of what is possible rather than what is probable that forces back the boundaries of our understanding.
If our understanding of the physical world was based on what was probable, we would still believe Newton's theories to be true. It is only with disciplined thought that the most unlikely can be ruled in or ruled out properly.
It is the unknown unknowns that are the hardest to allow for, as has been quoted a number of times.
What we do know is that without a more restricted search area it will be almost impossible to locate the aircraft. This fact is a known known but emotions are running high.
AF447 had a similar scenario, but after the public gradually lost interest, the search was scaled down and then ended. It was only a proper review of the evidence, and a proper and thorough search of the only area it could have been, that solved the mystery.
This situation is not so easy. As time goes by evidence is lost and overwritten. It is more evidence that is needed, and if the aircraft is to be found, that is where the focus should be.
The SAR process is more of a
PR exercise than anything else.
I hope I am wrong...