Originally Posted by
andrasz
To quote another famous line "once you eliminate all that is impossible, what remains, no matter how improbable, must then be the truth".
So far there is only ONE scenario that fits all the facts as we know them, even though is indeed a very improbable one. You may only dismiss it if you can provide an alternate explanation that fits the facts, not ignores them. It is that simple.
What we have is something that might be called "the scenario of least resistance". To arrive at this scenario, we accept each fact given to us without questioning it, and, whenever we find a gap in facts, we insert the most straightforward supposition.
It is not by any means a unique scenario. It is not even the most internally consistent scenario, because we construct it by mechanistically applying Occam's razor at each stage until we have a story answering the question "what happened" and we completely ignore the "why it happened" and "why it happened this way but not some other way". So, we can't explain why either pilot would have done this (both pilots' lives were supposedly went over with a fine toothed comb by Malaysian investigators), or why it had to be ditched in the South Indian Ocean rather than, say, the Philippine Sea, or why it had to be flown by waypoints around the tip of Indonesia rather than heading straight for the ditch point, or why the SATCOM unit was so conveniently powered back on at 18:30 after being shut down for an hour, minutes after MH370 was lost by ground radars.
What it means is that we can improve internal consistency by abandoning some of the assumptions, and that gives us a whole spectrum of valid alternative theories that fit the facts.