MH370 (cont.)

The key words in the above article are ‘‘most likely’’ (2×), which to me means they don't know anything about what really happened besides some ‘‘experts’’ speculations . .

 

The ‘‘experts’’ in the article are of course 100% right, for everything it's either one speculation, or just the opposite . . .

‘‘ "It's either a series of massive coincidences, which are getting more and more and on top of each other," Mr Hardy said.

"Or it's an intentional act of someone who is doing something very clever." ’’

P.S. - besides this as a whole is just a massive truism, in the last quoted line I would rather say ‘‘sinister’’ instead of ‘‘clever’’ . . .

 

I think it is a bit excessive to say either that "they don't know anything about what really happened" or that their opinion is "speculation". On the contrary, they do know a lot about what happened, and their expert opinion is far from speculation.

(So says someone who doesn't know what happened, and whose opinion is mostly speculation ).

 

How about the example of their ‘‘expert opinion’’ in post #77 . . ?

 

100% righ IN, that's why I don't claim to be an expert on this, and brought it only as my personal opinion in post #76: ‘‘ . . . which to me means . . . ’’

 

I'm not sure I understand your question. Here are some examples of what I'd call non-expert speculation.

Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 unofficial disappearance theories | Wikepedia

• Hijacking
  • 2.1 Electronic hijacking
  • 2.2 "Spoofed" satellite data
  • 2.3 Terrorist attack
  • 2.4 North Korea
  • 2.5 Acquisition of Freescale staff
  • 2.6 Diego Garcia
  • 2.7 Phantom cellphone hypothesis
  • 2.8 Crew suicide/hijacking
• 3 Fire
• 4 Shoot-down hypothesis
• 5 Cyberattack
• 6 Vertical entry into the sea
• 7 MH17 and QZ8501 connections
• 8 Physically improbable theories
• 9 Pitbull and Shakira
• 10 Satire about pilot reappearing
• 11 Claims of responsibility

 

Senior Boeing 777 pilot and instructor Simon Hardy is one of the experts on whose opinion the article is based, the whole quote in post #77 is one of his lines.

The meant question is: Do you consider the in post #77 given example to be an expert opinion, that goes beyond blah-blah . . ?

 

Captain did it.

His was a way to try and shame the Malay government to the Chinese.

Mentally ill guy had irrational thought patterns.

He is just a mass murderer.

They will find the craft.

It will only require finding a debris field; not the fuselage.

The debris field is much larger; if discernable.

The search is pointless; other than to attest to human capability.

 

That's my opinion too.

It's just the ‘‘expert’’ Simon Hardy who want to keep all options open (post #77), so he's always right.

He's the master of the truisms in the article, that's just my view . .

 

Apparently, these are the four people who were members of the "expert" panel:

To me, yes, they seem as competent as any group to evaluate what happened to MH370.

 

If they can find the debris field they will certainly find the fuselage. However, if the panel's evaluation is correct, the plane may have made a relatively soft touchdown and therefore not broken apart into many small pieces. So the debris field may be rather small.

 

I think there will be a debris field and it will be easier to locate than a single object (fuselage). I did not mean to imply they would not find larger pieces. Opinion; not more.

 

When so called experts come up with truisms, then this for me very much devalues their so called expert opinion.

Also I think they used insensitive and grievous wordings in this sensitive matter, about which I've added a P.S. to post #77.

 

truism: ‘‘A statement that is obviously true and says nothing new or interesting.’’​

 

My apologies for posting such trite information. I guess I must be a dullard, as I thought there was both new and interesting information in the statements that were made.