Look, I love the reporting and respect the integrity you are bringing to these questions about whether the discovered piece of plane could really be part of the missing flight. But at this point, I worry that you are being deliberately evasive. You have demonstrated better than anyone that the discovered flaperon is inconsistent with a crash that occurred in March 2014. But now is the time to move past the barnacles and directly address the questions your own research raises: was the flaperon planted? By whom? How? When? How much of this was part of an elaborate distraction? Or was it a last minute effort to redirect focus? Who was in on this ruse? The superb research of your post make these questions inescapable (and you have partly addressed them in your book.). But now you must help us understand the central issue: why would someone place fake and misleading evidence in the middle of this story?
I appreciate your feeling of impatience, but as you express here yourself, this is both a very complicated case and one in which there is both a lot of misunderstanding and a lot of misinformation. You're familiar enough with my work to know what answers I'd give to the questions you ask, and once all the details have been nailed down I do want to take one last run at the mystery that's both concise and comprehensive, maybe a documentary feature or a short series of episodes on YouTube. But before I do that I want to make sure that the evidence is as solid as I can plausibly get it.
Look, I love the reporting and respect the integrity you are bringing to these questions about whether the discovered piece of plane could really be part of the missing flight. But at this point, I worry that you are being deliberately evasive. You have demonstrated better than anyone that the discovered flaperon is inconsistent with a crash that occurred in March 2014. But now is the time to move past the barnacles and directly address the questions your own research raises: was the flaperon planted? By whom? How? When? How much of this was part of an elaborate distraction? Or was it a last minute effort to redirect focus? Who was in on this ruse? The superb research of your post make these questions inescapable (and you have partly addressed them in your book.). But now you must help us understand the central issue: why would someone place fake and misleading evidence in the middle of this story?
I appreciate your feeling of impatience, but as you express here yourself, this is both a very complicated case and one in which there is both a lot of misunderstanding and a lot of misinformation. You're familiar enough with my work to know what answers I'd give to the questions you ask, and once all the details have been nailed down I do want to take one last run at the mystery that's both concise and comprehensive, maybe a documentary feature or a short series of episodes on YouTube. But before I do that I want to make sure that the evidence is as solid as I can plausibly get it.