Tuesday, 18 March 2014

Speculation [updated]

When the facts reported change every day, then on what facts can you base any hypothesis?

On what actual facts are you basing your speculations?

UPDATE:  “Frankly at this point, you’d be better off reading Tintin than watching the cable news reports.”


  1. I am keeping an open mind on it despite following the story fairly closely on Sky News and Fox News during the last week.

    I would like to think the plane landed on some island somewhere and everyone is alive, if not well, but who knows.

    Something which made my blood run cold was a retired pilot on Fox News the other day suggesting a scenario whereby if the pilot took the plane up to 45,000 feet he would have killed the passengers in a matter of seconds. Chilling thought!

    I prefer to wait and see, but am certainly deeply concerned about that New Zealander on board.

  2. If this incident has proven anything, it's that speculation does not require facts. All you need are a few assumptions and a computer to run your model.

    But then, this was proven by AGW years ago.

  3. This was interesting:


    Based on knowledge, facts, and experience.

  4. Given that it took almost 2 years to find Air France flight 447, it could be months before anything is found, as for any speculation, your guess is as good as mine & equally worthless.

    B. Whitehead

  5. Greig, That's the most intelligent possible scenario, that fits the given facts, that I've read so far.

    B Whitehead

  6. They're saying the first turn was programmed into the flight computer, which probably blows the fire theory.

  7. "They're saying..."? Since the one fact we do have is that what "they're saying" changes daily, seems to me speculation is pointless. Speculation on the basis of what?

  8. The stand out part for me was when the Media were running with the idea that flying at 5,000 feet meant you were under the radar and some how fly dangerously. And they were confusing feet with metres. They needed to be at 250 feet to avoid radar.

  9. It was the Russians. They did it!


  10. I don't see anything wrong with mulling over the possibilities. It's such an extraordinary event it's only to be expected. The writer that Grieg links to starts his piece by saying how disturbed he is by all the speculation, but then he immediately proceeds to speculate. I think it isn't the speculation that disturbs him so much as the terrible potential alternative to his theory. If what's happened is jihad related, then it would be truly disturbing. It is a real possibility. The evidence you ask for? the current state of the world with the rise of Islam and global jihad, and the fact that both pilots are muslims, is more than enough of a starting point.


1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.