Conan-Doyle logic
Quote from andrasz:
"To quote another famous line "once you eliminate all that is impossible, what remains, no matter how improbable, must then be the truth."
Yes, and I've always subscribed to that assertion by Conan Doyle. What makes me uneasy in this case is, as I thought I had explained in my post, any tendency to close down debate on alternative theories; more importantly, a reaction against those who are trying to test or challenge specific points in the complex, but generally-accepted scenario summarised by Ian W.
When experts are working long and hard on the minute detail of such a hypothesis, I would respectfully suggest that it is difficult for them to "look outside the box". In fact, I'd argue that it is quite unnecessary for those same experts to do so; provided others are able and willing to risk unpopularity by doing it.
To cite one example: for me the biggest stretch of the imagination required in the popular hypothesis is the fact that, in whatever manner the aircraft came to rest, only one piece of debris has so far been recovered. I have argued that - regardless of whether the a/c approached contact with the inevitably rough surface of the southern Indian Ocean in a well-controlled ditching configuration and speed, or perhaps in an uncontrolled descent at high speed - large portions of floatable material are likely to have been torn off before the rest of the a/c sank. I've also argued that, accordingly, more debris is likely to be washed ashore on Madagascar and the African mainland (including Zanzibar). Any argument that this flaperon floated alone to make a landfall on a relatively tiny speck in the Indian Ocean must be challenged, IMO.
That does not mean I'm either a pre-event or post-event conspiracist (i.e., conspiracy theorist, as opposed to conspirator). It does not mean that I think the flight was abducted by aliens, or hijacked to a remote island and hidden there for some malign purpose. Interestingly, the current hypothesis itself is predicated on a pre-event plot or conspiracy, as I've pointed out previously. In the absence of overwhelming evidence for that, I'm trying to keep an open mind.
Others may be interested in different weaknesses in the hypothesis from mine. In my case, the recovery of other debris attributable to MH370 would in all probability satisfy the doubt.
Quote:
"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."
The burden of proof rests with the theorists, not those who challenge aspects of their theory. A scientist should welcome any challenge to his/her theory as an incentive for improving it. Only when all reasonable stones have been upturned (maybe literally, in this case!) can the Sherlock Holmes logic be applied.