I thought your likening mh370 to the curious incident of the dog that didn’t bark a great comparison. I think it would be interesting to use that same model in each episode. What would have been expected that was missing? Identify all the holes. I know you do that around each episode. I’m saying put all those holes together and what do you get. Mh370 is like Lord of the Rings, it’s a tale that grows in the telling.
That's a really great point, Trip, thanks for making it. Time and again we have experts saying that the data doesn't paint the picture we'd expect -- I'm thinking in particular of marine biologists puzzling over the young age of the fouling organisms on the debris, or hydroacoustic scientists wrangling over the failure to detect an impact -- but that it's probably no big deal, we shouldn't necessarily expect to see a clear picture.
Should we have expected to see more of a clear pattern in the debris breakage? I think few experts in any particular field, having heard just how certain the authorities are that the plane went into the ocean, are comfortable standing up and saying, "the evidence here actually contradicts that." Instead we hear, "There must be a reasonable explanation."
I should note that there have been some exceptions -- David Dall'Osto, for instance, thinks that the acoustic signal he studied suggests that the plane actually crashed in the northern Indian Ocean.
BTW I love your analogy of MH370 being like Lord of the Rings. It certainly is epic!
I thought your likening mh370 to the curious incident of the dog that didn’t bark a great comparison. I think it would be interesting to use that same model in each episode. What would have been expected that was missing? Identify all the holes. I know you do that around each episode. I’m saying put all those holes together and what do you get. Mh370 is like Lord of the Rings, it’s a tale that grows in the telling.
That's a really great point, Trip, thanks for making it. Time and again we have experts saying that the data doesn't paint the picture we'd expect -- I'm thinking in particular of marine biologists puzzling over the young age of the fouling organisms on the debris, or hydroacoustic scientists wrangling over the failure to detect an impact -- but that it's probably no big deal, we shouldn't necessarily expect to see a clear picture.
Should we have expected to see more of a clear pattern in the debris breakage? I think few experts in any particular field, having heard just how certain the authorities are that the plane went into the ocean, are comfortable standing up and saying, "the evidence here actually contradicts that." Instead we hear, "There must be a reasonable explanation."
I should note that there have been some exceptions -- David Dall'Osto, for instance, thinks that the acoustic signal he studied suggests that the plane actually crashed in the northern Indian Ocean.
BTW I love your analogy of MH370 being like Lord of the Rings. It certainly is epic!