Who to believe?
lynw: "....I am not saying eyewitnesses should be ignored I am simply pointing out that eyewitness testimony is proven to be unreliable and much more unreliable than technical evidence....technical evidence is unlikely to change and the validation comes from....A company like Inmarsat is not going to put their reputation on the line over data they are not sure of.
Excerpting above for brevity, not cherry picking your post. The fact is (not my opinion) that changes in tech conclusions from initial did occur and were sufficient to those spending money searching to significantly shift search locations two or perhaps four times (S China Sea, to Malacca Straits, to W of Adaman Isl, to west of Aus, then repositioning W of Aus).
I don't think anyone is arguing that eyewitnesses don't make mistakes or their memories are unchanging, or that refinements in analysis (or announcements of new information, postponed for whatever reason) don't later suggest more probable conclusions. The acceptance of an evolution of tech analysis begs the question of whether a parallel witness-based investigative evolution has similarly continued. There is a lot of differing certitude about where MH370 ended up, but only one of those conclusions will be accurate, and everyone else will be wrong. Focus should be on the highest probability, but absent any debris, now is no time to be closing doors.