Ah, no! I'm reading the space scientist dude's (suggested by tout's journalist) essays on the Inmarsat data and all sorts of good stuff. He's a space scientist, so he knows his math, lol.
I see a BIG problem with scientific inputs, and it may mean Inmarsat was wrong. He thinks so. His calculations involve a different set of starting data regarding the exact position of the satellite. Could the Brits have screwed up their calculations by using the wrong starting position? Not likely, I'd think.
What he used were "the latest unclassified-satellite orbits from the US military". Now that might be a problem. Or not.
Which do y'all think is more likely: Inmarsat knows exactly (like in math terms) where its satellite is at any given time and does those calculations perfectly. You'd think, right?
OR... the most recent US intel data is more precise?
Does anyone know how precise Inmarsat needs its math to be usually, given their real purpose? The only way I could see Inmarsat making any mistake there is if they usually don't need that sort of precision and used old or less precise tables of their own for that data.
I hope it's just that the new, classified US data reflects a slight change. Otherwise, if Inmarsat is wrong, the calculations will be off
This is all along with Inmarsat not having the Malaysian radar readings in enough detail to tell another crucial input 'error'. One of their assumptions was off because they weren't given the exact info. That's why they moved the search location recently. I hope we don't see a repeat
Shoot!
Here's the guy and his work:
http://www.duncansteel.com/
Read past the first big post. He talks about all this in great depth (except for where he has to make assumptions, too, due to lack of released info, but he explains why he chose the assumptions he did at least).