FGD,
What's that old saying? Never post on the internet after a few reds... Even then, I think I can still point holes in your argument; that, plus I sense a change in tone....
You and one other in this thread have let slip that you feel GT is somehow "one of us", or is "representing" us. You said:
Quote:
He purports to speak on 'our behalf' ...
I don't see how you can say that. He is not one of us, and does not represent us. He does not speak "on our behalf".
FGD, The use of quotations is often a form of sarcasm or a way of saying that something isn't quite right. I certainly meant it in this manner. I don't believe for a second GT is 'one of us', so I apologise to you for the misunderstanding. I will endeavour to be clearer in the future.
GT the writer comes across very differently to GT the TV "aviation expert". This would be entirely due to the different constraints between these two forms of media.
I've covered this point enough I think, so will let you re read my posts on this. Facts don't know the difference between print and TV.
For the TV appearances, you must remember that entertainment is first and foremost. Factual accuracy comes second
Maybe for shows like 'The Bachelor' or 'The Block' or 'Hey Hey a It's Saturday'. However the news is a little different. If GT was building a new kitchen in less that 3 days, perhaps I could agree.....
The TV stations just want somebody that sounds like they know what they are talking about and can explain, in everyday speak, why planes crash. GT carries this off perfectly.
You know there doesn't have to be a difference between someone who "sounds like they know what they are talking about" and someone "who knows what they are talking about".
I'll let you ponder that for a while. Ask a grown up if you are having trouble with this concept.
About that "wreckage" that GT described as "absolutely" coming from an aircraft. On the question of knowing whether something was true or not, you said:
Quote:
He would know what was true or not ...
Really? Nobody else in this world has that power. Why would you expect him to?
You were almost clever for a second then, however, I remembered that the two quotes you posted there were from two DIFFERENT answers! You almost got through my 'red wine filter'.
Quote:
GT would not have been in the ocean himself, personally inspecting those wreckage pieces.
So without being there to confirm, of course he would know that 'absolutely' was the wrong word to use.
The second part about knowing 'what was true or not', was from this exchange:
Quote:
Remember that he is speaking to the camera, and answers must be instantaneous and brief. When doing his research, he may have heard a range of views on that wreckage, but there is no time, on camera, to go over that. He must distil hours of phone calls and discussion down into one 5 second answer.
I call BS on this. A media trained person will control the interview and own the message. If in fact he was an expert with expert knowledge, he wouldn't have to grapple with info he didn't really understand. He would know what was true or not, and what he needed to say to convey the message.
Can you see what I am saying? If you know your stuff, you don't need to make things up because he would know what is true/feasible/realistic and be able to talk about it with authority.
As an example of knowing what is true or not, He would not tell an interviewer that out climbing a TS was 'absolutely the right thing to do"
Some of us have studied things like Aerody and Physics, so I think that your claim "Nobody else in this world has that power" is a little strange. Many humans have the ability to know what is true and what is not.
An expert would be able to say 'we are unsure
You also said:
Quote:
I'm pretty sure that when that debris was classified as general Flotsam, he was proven wrong.
So they recovered ALL the debris that was seen by the satellites did they? I think you will find that only a tiny, tiny percentage was recovered.
As someone with a SAR background, I can categorically tell you that anything that *might* be of interest will be investigated. I can assume (feel free to have a go at me for assuming) that people with great skill in deciphering SAT images, have been sufficiently convinced that the flotsam in the photos *does not* (I can't bold but like your use of asterisk- thanks!) belong to an aircraft. Given the HIGH PROFILE of this accident, I can be doubly sure of that.
I applaud you on your persistence, and as General Melchett says: "If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through."
Coolnames