"using the limited data set to establish a valid search datum."
. . . . . . groping in the dark uncertain
of whether this is the right room or even the right building.
The conclusion of Ari Schulman's aforementioned
article in 'The Atlantic' -
An Inmarsat official told me that to “a high degree of certainty, the proponents of other paths are wrong. The model has been carefully mapped out using all the available data.”
The official cited Inmarsat’s participation in the investigation as preventing it from giving further detail, and did not reply to requests for comments on even basic technical questions about the analysis. Inmarsat has repeatedly claimed that it checked its model against other aircraft that were flying at the time, and peer-reviewed the model with other industry experts. But Inmarsat won’t say who reviewed it, how closely, or what level of detail they were given.
Until officials provide more information, the claim that Flight 370 went south rests not on the weight of mathematics but on faith in authority. Inmarsat officials and search authorities seem to want it both ways: They release charts, graphics, and statements that give the appearance of being backed by maths and science, while refusing to fully explain their methodologies. And over the course of this investigation, those authorities have repeatedly issued confident pronouncements about which they have later quietly given up on or tacitly refuted.
The biggest risk to the investigation now is that authorities will continue to assume they’ve finally found the area where the plane went down, while failing to explore other possibilities simply because they don’t fit with a mathematical analysis that may not even hold up. After all, searchers have not yet found any material evidence—not so much as a shred of debris—to confirm that they are looking in the right ocean.
Last edited by Fantome; 8th May 2014 at 15:52.