Flightaware Changed the Flight History Data of MH17.

a reply to: NotADroidUAreLooking4

Because if a flight suddenly flies a totally different flight path, and something happens, then it's an investigative lead. So you want to know if the previous flights were all on the same flight path, or if the accident flight was suddenly flying somewhere else.

a reply to: Zaphod58

If FlightRadar24 and FlightAware was used in an investigation, then this MIGHT be something to look into. They're not, therefore this is a non-story. This is simply a case of you wanting it to mean more than it does.

Now you are changing your tune. So you admit that the change in flight paths is potentially suspect.

How is it a non story in any way? This is proof of disinformation by a source that the public has been looking at a lot after the crash.

It is extremely relevant.

The data gets refined,

You are making stuff up. You have provided not a single piece of evidence for your claims. Pure speculation from your part.

You are also constantly backtracking.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Since this is one of the first times that the history of a flight has mattered,

And why does the history matter in this case? Because the history originally showed that the 17th it took a completely different path, over the warzone.

Why does the history matter so much, in your opinion?

a reply to: NotADroidUAreLooking4

I'm not back tracking anything. Since when does the public investigate plane crashes? This IS a non-story, which is what I have said from the beginning. The public doesn't investigate planes being shot down, just as they don't investigate accidents that happen. It's interesting data, and it's fun to speculate, but that's all any of us can do without access to the real data from the aircraft itself.

Investigators refine data all the time as the investigation goes on. Why wouldn't FlightAware and other tracking sites?

a reply to: NotADroidUAreLooking4

Because it's circumstantial evidence. But the investigators aren't going to get that from FlightAware. It's going to come from previous radar tracks from Air Traffic Control sites along the way.

a reply to: Zaphod58


You just said that flightaware is not for investigative purposes but now you are comparing it to investigators investigating.

Like I said, you are backtracking, speculating, making stuff up, contradicting yourself, basically falling apart.

Offered no proof whatsoever.

You can only offer resistance to the truth for so long Zaphod.

After I while it becomes painfully obvious to real people.

a reply to: NotADroidUAreLooking4

FlightAware compiles, aggregates, and processes data from over 45 government sources (in Europe, North America, and Oceania), dozens of airlines, commercial data providers, as well as hundreds of receivers in FlightAware's ADS-B flight tracking network. FlightAware's proprietary algorithms calculate delay and arrival time estimates to offer the most up-to-date and reliable flight tracking data on the Internet. Not all worldwide data sources (e.g., most European data) or satellite/VDL data are freely available on FlightAware.com due to government regulations or commercial agreements. You can contact us if you have a commercial need for worldwide data.

They say that not all worldwide data sources or satellites are freely available.

Why would you use them for concrete evidence?



flightaware.com...

a reply to: Zaphod58

But the investigators aren't going to get that from FlightAware.

Then who are Flightawre "refining" their history for then?

You keep talking about investigators but this is about the public. This thread is in Deconstructing Disinformation. This is about disinformation aimed at the public, for obvious reasons.

a reply to: thesaneone

Why would you use them for concrete evidence?

The point is, why did they change it to make it look like all flights flew over that area when they first showed something quite different.

a reply to: NotADroidUAreLooking4

Why not call them up and ask them?

a reply to: NotADroidUAreLooking4

I'm not backtracking, or falling apart, or anything else. If you walked up to an NTSB investigator, and showed them the FlightAware data, and suggested it was relevant to their investigation and they should use it as concrete evidence, they would laugh you off the crash site.

But for someone doing a private investigation, or trying to figure out what happened (such as you), then they may look at the data and come to a conclusion based on it. If you took that to court, however, you would rapidly find that it wouldn't win your case, and would probably get thrown out. But for speculating, it's just fine. They try to give you the best data they can, but they can only get things so good right now, because they don't have receivers everywhere.

a reply to: thesaneone

So you acknowledge that there is a valid point?

a reply to: Zaphod58

Completely besides the point, again.

Again with the investigators.

I will say it one more time before I go to bed, this is about disinformation of the public.

I'm sure you know very well how it works.

a reply to: NotADroidUAreLooking4

No I don't.
What I am saying is if you want answers call them direct because you seem to want to only argue with zaphod like you have some kind of past with him.

a reply to: NotADroidUAreLooking4

Wow, so a privately owned site, that admits that their data isn't always accurate, is all about disinformation now. Sure. Whatever.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Cause we all know privately owned sites are never used for such a thing....

*wink wink*

a reply to: NotADroidUAreLooking4

Makes perfect sense. They say in their disclaimer that their data is a best guesstimate in some places, so why not. I mean hey, they've even got the media fooled! You must be on to something. [/sarcasm]

a reply to: Zaphod58

You must be on to something.

Either that or you are wasting a lot of your time for nothing.

a reply to: NotADroidUAreLooking4

Last time I checked it was mine to waste however I chose to.