How crazy am I to think I actually know where that Malaysia Airlines plane is?

Post by ekianjo » Tue, Feb 24, 2015, 7:11 AM UTC

bhouston wrote: post #28

johnloeber wrote: post #17

The difficult thing with this sort of article is that while it generally sounds plausible, the layperson reader doesn't know about the specifics. I don't know anything about BFO spoofing or handshake rings. This means that all I can really judge this article on is its presentation and logical reasoning, and while both seem okay, there's no way for me to evaluate the premises and finer points that the piece critically…

I started reading this and then I thought of Occam's Razor. This theory is appears way too complex to be true, something much simpler likely happened.

Post by ekianjo » Tue, Feb 24, 2015, 7:17 AM UTC

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #64

mikekchar wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a common misinterpretation of Occam's Razor, IMHO. Simple explanations are not more likely to be true. What Occam's Razor says is that if you have 2 theories that fit the same data, you should pick the simplest one. Why? Because it is simpler, not because it is more likely to be true. It is important to remember that when we are dealing with scientific theories, we are not really all that concerned with truth…

The theory goes: the simpler answer is more likely to be true because it is impossible for a series of events to be more likely. The probability of A + B cannot be higher than A or B alone. Of course that doesn't mean that A + B didn't occur, just that it is less likely.

Post by tbabb » Tue, Feb 24, 2015, 7:25 AM UTC

crimsonalucard wrote: post #94

tbabb wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I cannot count the amount of times I've read about scientists in the past getting ridiculed for some "crackpot" theory only to be vindicated later. People love to point to underdog scientists who were later "vindicated" and then compare their own pet theories to them. 1) That's incredibly arrogant. 2) That disregards the 10^n other theories that are discredited correctly every day. 3) The scientists who "nobody bel…

Lets make it clear. I'm not vindicating his theory I'm saying it's equally ignorant to not consider a theory because it just seems improbable.

Post by Klinky » Tue, Feb 24, 2015, 7:27 AM UTC

tbabb wrote: post #87

rdtsc wrote: post #32

I think the main point of the story is not to convince us that he has a good proof. But rather to document how we convince ourselves, and how we latch on to small things and head down a path. Once we are on a path we become commited to it and it becomes hard to turn back. Notice how he talks about the "crazies" on the forum. How they would use aliases, log back in and mention their stupid "lightning" theory, and he h…

I don't think the average reader is going to interpret this as subtle irony, and I have doubts that it was intended to be taken that way. I think an average reader going to see that an airplane expert smells something fishy and has a bunch of technical "knowledge" to back it up. This is how conspiracy theories get started, and if this guy really understands how unlikely all this is, it is arguably irresponsible of hi…

Post by raverbashing » Tue, Feb 24, 2015, 7:34 AM UTC

bobmoretti wrote: post #36

The scenario described in the article could only have gone down with the support of a state level actor. In foreign affairs, states are mostly rational and risk-averse. The risk involved in such an operation would have been astronomical: - It stretches the imagination that in the Post-9/11 world, hijackers could access a panel in the cabin without raising passenger and crew suspicion. So the hijackers would have requ…