The riddle of the

distorted BTO
Paul Smithson
Work in progress, comment welcome version 20
April 2016

RE-CAP OF ORIGINAL THEORY

REPORT AVAILABLE AT WWW.FINDMH370.COM

Original theory
www.findMH370.com

Emergency near IGARI at time of disappearance

Diversion (within 4 mins) to WMKK & pilots incapacitated
Overflight of WMKK, route discontinuity, constant
HDG(M)
Flight path trajectory determined by initial turn-back
and no pilot inputs for next 7 hours, leads directly
to the best candidate for a MH370 debris field.
This in spite of highly-constrained prior assumption: that
turnback must have happened between IGARI & BITOD
(because after that VVTS was closer). And no fiddling
with path model (speed/alt/turns/hdg) to make it fit

End point red path, cf. original search zone, 18-19

March 2014, NTSB possible routes & satellite
object sightings at 45S

Why 45S cannot be ignored

There should have been debris and it should have been detectable by
satellite

All but one sat detection (16-28 March) located in single zone comprising
2% of [then] search area [in fact, just outside it suggesting wider area
was scanned by satellites]

Multi-spectral satellite, hi-res sat images professionally post-processed

>400 discrete objects detected in spite of cloud cover

Multiple objects >10m; at least 3 separate objects >20m

Not enough wind (period of detection) to produce breaking waves

Highly-clustered (many within 50m of each other). Dispersal compatible

with time & conditions. Drift studies indicate common recent origin

Ocean area renowned for absence of flotsam. No gyre here to aggregate

rubbish. Nearest up-current landmass ~5000kms. Shipping lanes 2000kms
away and down-current.

Drift from this area to Reunion and beyond demonstrably feasible

If there is a plausible explanation (other than MH370 demise) for these

detections, I have yet to hear it

What not to like?

Attempted diversion to WMKK highly plausible (if
it was an accident)
Explains why a/c flew towards SIO at all
Ghost flight from turnback onwards. No pilot
inputs to explain
Single turn produces end point, 6000kms later,
that precisely matches debris zone at 45S
45S sightings are the only thing in SIO that looks
like a debris field and has no obvious alternative
explanation.
Whats not to like?
The ONLY major reason the theory doesnt jive
is because it doesnt match the BTO (or the
radar narrative that is linked to it).

The only reason that objects at 45S have been dismissed out of
hand (without, even, the need to provide an alternative
explanation for their existence) is that they dont match the BTO.
The BTO adherents say we must prove them wrong for alternate
theory to be considered. The reverse, apparently, does not apply.
Nobody has offered a credible explanation for existence of >400
reflective objects, many >10m, clustered at 45S, sighted by
separate hi-res multispectral satellites in an area close to
expected end point.
If we didnt have the BTO predictions, would this not be the first
place to look? It is the best and only candidate for an MH370
debris field.

THE RIDDLE OF THE

DISTORTED BTO

This path should be completely

incompatible with BTO
Path predicted independently of the BTO data, based on
assumption of KLIA diversion
Totally different flight path from turnback: no flight SW
then NW up straits, no FMT.
Path position at 1825-1827 1000kms SE from the 1822
blip or supposed FMT
End point 750kms beyond the 7th arc.
Magnetic track-hold, not rhumb or great circle
No massaging of speed, alt, heading, turns to make it fit
the BTO data simply projection from diversion attempt
This path should have nothing whatsoever to do with the
BTO data and should produce gigantic errors right?

And so it appears: gigantic BTO errors

22000
20000

BTO predicted, observed

18000
16000

predict
observe

14000
12000
10000
18:00:00

3500

20:24:00

22:48:00

1:12:00

BTO error: predicted minus observed

3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
18:00:00

20:24:00

22:48:00

1:12:00

Similar shape
curve but
BTO predicted
>> than BTO
observed
Error magnitude
~1300 to ~3300
microsecs.
Errors smaller in
middle, greater
at the each end
This example for turnback
2 mins after IGARI. Passes
over WMKK 17:59:16 HDG
208.38

But here is the truly bizarre thing

When we plot BTO predicted against BTO observed we get this.

BTO predicted & observed exhibit

perfect correlation
R2 linear
correlation of
0.99885

IGARI +0s
19000
18000
17000

R = 1

2241

0011

16000

0019

2141
1825
15000
1828

BTO Observed
2041

R2 polynomial
correlation of
0.99983

14000
13000
12000
1941
11000
10000
12000

17000

22000

BTO predicted

27000

The fit matches

on BOTH sides of
the closest point
of approach
(BTO minimum)

How good is the fit?

BTO values
Linear

Polynomial 2nd order

BTO obs. = 1,935.94001 + 0.74236*BTO pred.

R2 = 0.99884

y = -1.29917E-05x2 + 1.20535E+00x - 2.00287E+03

R = 0.99983

Time

Observed

Model

18:25:30
18:27:00
18:28:15
19:41:00
20:41:00
21:41:30
22:41:15
00:11:00
00:19:30

12,520
12,520
12,480
11,500
11,740
12,780
14,540
18,040
18,400
11,500
18,400
13,836

12,514
12,487
12,465
11,663
11,788
12,691
14,390
18,084
18,438
11,663
18,438
13,836

Minimum
Maximum
Mean

Residual

6
33
15
-163
-48
89
150
-44
-38
-163
150
0

Time

18:25:3
0
18:27:0
0
18:28:1
5
19:41:0
0
20:41:0
0
21:41:3
0
22:41:1
5
00:11:0
0

Observed

Model

Residual

12,520 12,535

-15

12,520 12,504

16

12,480 12,479

11,500 11,560

-60

11,740 11,705

35

12,780 12,733

47

14,540 14,562

-22

18,040 18,069

-29

How good is the fit?

one-way time delay satellite to AES
127,000

127,000

126,000

126,000

R = 1

125,000

125,000

124,000
AES from obseved BTO values

124,000

123,000

AES TD from observed BTO

122,000

123,000
122,000

121,000

121,000

120,000

120,000
120,000

125,000
120,000

130,000

AES TD from path model

observed

123,102
123,101
123,081
122,569
122,704
123,267
124,214
126,099
126,293

model

123,102
123,088
123,076
122,650
122,725
123,218
124,135
126,121
126,313

R = 1

Residual

0
14
5
-81
-21
48
78
-22
-20

125,000

130,000

AES TD path model

observed
123,102
123,101
123,081
122,569
122,704
123,267
124,214
126,099
126,293

model
123,112
123,096
123,082
122,598
122,684
123,241
124,224
126,113
126,279

residual
10
-6
2
29
-19
-25
10
15
-14

Is it a fluke [1]?
The quality of fit between distorted BTO and path model
is as good or superior to - most BTO-derived path models
(cf sk999s summary of residuals various path models)
Those path models were specifically generated to achieve
best fit with the BTO data and speed, heading, timing finetuned accordingly. This path was not
This path starts from a totally different place, with magnetic
heading and no turns or tweaks to improve the fit
As any BTO path-modeler knows, it is difficult to obtain a
good BTO fit across all data points without changing
speed/heading. Errors/residuals are extremely sensitive to
small changes in heading or speed
The p-value on the linear correlation is 1.53E-11. p-value on
polynomial correlation is smaller still

Is it a fluke [2]?

The time over WMKK, HDG at route discontinuity and entire

subsequent flight determined entirely by a single
assumption: time of turnback.
The later turnback => later at WMKK & slightly higher HDG
number
Any particular time over WMKK has only a single eligible
HDG (ie we cannot modify time at WMKK and HDG
independently)
There is only one turnback timing that produces the max
BTO correlation: diversion initiated at IGARI that
overflies WMKK at 17:56 HDG 207.0
Sensitivity analysis shows that:
Any later turnback would produce inferior correlation and the
quality of fit falls away rapidly
For 17:56:00 at WMKK max correlation ONLY occurs between
HDG 206.8 - 207.0 (ours predicted 17:56:04, HDG 206.995)
The quality of fit is extremely sensitive to heading ( 0.1) and

Where does this path end (red

path)?

End point close up

white markers signify satellite object sightings
White markers signify
objects detected by
satellite between 16 and
26 March 2014
EP 00:17:30 is
estimated position of
aircraft at time of
second flame-out.
Final splash-point
expected within 10NM
forward and/or left of
44.90S, 89.41E.
Thin white lines are
tracks of model particles
in CSIRO reverse-drift
model going backwards
from Reunion

Consider how difficult it is for BTO path modelers

with freedom to tweak start point, speed profile,
timing, heading to find a good path fit.
Now: how on Gods Green Earth could it be that an
arbitrary path:
not designed to fit the BTO
derived independently from the head for home
scenario
with a start point 1000kms from 1822 blip
with a huge curve from progressive magnetic
declination
And no tweaking of path parameters
just happens to correlate perfectly with the BTO;
predicts a time/HDG at WMKK that has to be good to

HONEY, I SHRUNK THE BTO

BTO was distorted

My contentious conclusion is that there is only one
reasonable explanation.
This BTO fit (p<0.00000000002) cannot occur by
coincidence particularly with a path model that is so
radically different and derived from assumptions
independent of BTO.
The path model and the BTO data must be related.
Ergo, this path (or something nearly exactly like it) must
have generated the BTO data. And the BTO data for
reasons unknown was systematically distorted either by
man or machine.

Distorted How?
Four broad logical options:
1. Method error. BTO has been misinterpreted from
the outset and does not represent vector
distance/time delay for round trip LES-sat-AES
2. Distance error. Vector distances/TD are faithfully
represented by BTO. But bias constant k and/or
vector distances differ from assumption
3. Algorithm disrupted. BTO normally faithfully
represents vector distances but stopped doing so
after disappearance. Something has screwed up
the algorithm output
4. Data changed. Somebody changed the data

[1] BTO misinterpreted from outset

Inherently unlikely? All the experts say that round
trip time delay + K is what it should and does
represent
It appeared to work for MH370 pre-disappearance
But note that this isnt a proof because wrong K could cover up for a wrong LES. There was very little
LES-side TD change over this period

BTO-derived range method was validated by

experiment and [we are told] checked out
But results of these validation experiments [accuracy of BTO-derived range predicted vs. actual] were not
shown.

Could be considered a possibility, albeit a remote

one. Should be ruled out if we trust the validation
experiments

[2] K or distances wrong?

Could bias constant K change with electronics upset?
Sat vectors wrong ?
Logon via different satellite, different ground station?
K-shift should produce constant BTO error offset. K-drift
should produce error change in one direction. Neither fits.
Error in sat vectors could explain different BTO (slope), but
not a jump of 1700 microsecs between 1707 and 1825.
None of these in isolation look like a credible candidate
explanation. You would need a jump in K and errors in
assumed position of satellite in its orbital cycle.
Different sat or different LES/GES? I modelled various options
and none produced even remotely similar pattern.

[3] something screwed with the

algorithm(s)
Burst timing at AES end determined by a TDMA algorithm.
Could disruption of electronics/memory/data inputs affect it?
BTO measurement as recorded in logs also generated by an
algorithm and this algorithm doesnt always give the right
answer [cf anomalous BTO readings, or BTO errors >50s at
1607]
Weve been told what the BTO output is supposed to
represent. We do not know the detail of the algorithm that
generates the number, the inputs/logic it depends upon and
potential sources of error/anomaly
This is one for the sat hardware/process/logic experts to
comment on. I cannot provide a detailed, system-specific
scenario

[4] somebody screwed with the data

My least-favourite explanation and one I hope is not true.
But the only one remaining if all others are checked out
thoroughly and rejected
BTO error pattern is equivalent to a 10% shrink of all the
ping rings. Not difficult to do if you needed the BTO to
match your favoured radar trace/narrative.
You dont need detailed sat vectors, calibrated bias K or even
spherical trig to do it as long as somebody has provided
you with BTO as measured, ping ring radius/elevation and
a basic description of what BTO represents. Simply use the
ping ring radius:BTO function to shrink the ping rings as
desired, and shrink them all by the same fraction (10%)

Any other reasons to think BTO might

be wrong?
FMT and flight south not seen by 2x Indonesian radar (which Indo
insists would have seen it if it had happened)
No debris field detected beside 7th arc March 2014. Only
candidate for debris field is 400NM beyond it
No plane found [to date] on 7th arc and a miss is unlikely
No suspect, motive or logic for route allegedly flown. Path not
compatible with detection avoidance.
Requires human input beyond initial turn up to ~1830
BTO-derived paths are odd (changes in speed, heading to FMT
then either true-track or navigation to WPT)
Radar and BTO/BFO do not corroborate independently. The latter
was used to prove the former. Radar narrative per se
problematic/unpersuasive for multiple reasons
Increasingly unlikely explanations to account for failure to fulfill
BTO predictions.

SO WHATS THE SCENARIO IF

THIS IS CORRECT?

Sequence of events
Factual
17:19:26 KL-ATCC handoff
17:19:30 Good night"
Scheduled to begin
17:20:15 IGARI turn
17:20:36 Mode S signal loss
Scheduled end IGARI
17:20:47 turn

Assumption/ration
ale
Later turn poor BTO
correlation
Tighter turn (>25) not
poss.
Turn before IGARI not seen
(and too quick)

Inference
Diversion initiated during the IGARI
turn, 17:20:15 17:20:47
Emergency commenced after good
night but before IGARI turn
Explains failure to check in with HCM
(working the problem)
Power lost (or removed) => Mode S
signal loss
Pilot incapacitation shortly after
diversion (no comms.)
Great circle to WMKK, ETA 17:56:05;
route discontinuity, magnetic trackhold 207.0(M) to fuel exhaustion
Second engine flame out 00:17:30,
EP 44.90S, 89.41E

ANY OBJECTIVELY TESTABLE

PREDICTIONS IF THIS IS RIGHT?

Testable predictions
Evidence of this path should be obtainable in
multiple radar recordings [assuming they exist]
Reverse drift model of objects sighted ~45S will
have origin nr ~44.9S, 89.4E
Bifurcated debris drift: some E (circumpolar);
some N then W (SIO gyre)
Plane wreckage will be found very close to end
of track predicted (207.0 0.1)
Somebody will figure out how the BTO got
distorted

Radar

Predicted radar detection

(maximum primary range)
Start
s/n

Name
1 Bukit Puteri
2 Bukit Ibam
3 Western Hill
4 Bukit Lunchu
5 Khok Muang
6 Singapore
7 Bukit Nenas
8 Pekanbaru
9 WMKK
10 en route
11 WMSA

time
17:23:06
17:23:11
17:31:25
17:37:04
17:23:06
17:33:23
17:35:45
18:11:08
17:48:47
17:45:29
17:47:08

lat
6.79
6.78
6.67
5.07
6.79
5.53
5.24
0.88
3.64
4.04
3.84

End
long
103.78
103.77
103.72
102.90
103.78
103.13
102.98
100.77
102.16
102.36
102.26

time
17:59:59
18:14:46
18:10:19
18:16:36
17:54:55
18:22:58
18:33:47
18:24:04
18:03:20
18:00:01
18:00:57

lat
2.26
0.43
1.89
0.21
2.88
-0.58
-1.92
-0.72
1.85
2.25
2.14

long
101.46
100.54
101.27
100.43
101.77
100.04
99.37
99.97
101.25
101.45
101.39

Duration
Distance
NM
Time
304.3
425.5
320.9
326.2
262.5
409.0
478.8
106.7
120.0
119.9
114.0

00:36:53
00:51:35
00:38:54
00:39:32
00:31:49
00:49:35
00:58:02
00:12:56
00:14:33
00:14:32
00:13:49

a/c
HDG(T)
207.2
207.1
207.1
206.9
207.2
206.9
206.8
206.5
206.9
207.0
206.9

Red signifies radars with [theoretical] range to include IGARI turnback.

Except for post-WMKK, HDG should be 206.9-207.2(T), GS 495kt, alt FL350

Reverse drift origin of objects

sighted 45S

Predict that CSIROs

reverse-drift model
origin
of objects sighted will
be near to 45.0S, 88.5E
Ie 70NM south-east of
my original amateur
estimate. Note: this drift
model has only 8-16
days uncertainty to deal
with. Decent origin
estimate should be

Drift prediction: went east as well as west

SLDMB dropped nr objects @45S [magneta markers] and
tracked ~15 days from 20 March 2014 Some went N of E
(to ~42S), others E (stayed S of 45S).

Trajectory of drifters in vicinity 45S,

88E on 8 March 2014 predominantly
easterly, on circumpolar current
towards or past S.Australia. Only
some go N then W (SIO gyre).
http://osmc.noaa.gov/Monitor/OSMC/OSMC.html

But drift
from 45S
area to
Reunion is
feasible
White tracks of
model
particles
arriving
Reunion July
2015
Copyright CSIRO
http://www.marine.csiro.au/~griffin/MH370/O
M_af_MH370_IO_tp3sl15ds_splash3932/20140320
.

http://www.cmar.csiro.a
u/ofam1/om/OM_af_MH
370_IO_tp3sl15dsr_Reu
nion3/OM_af_MH370_IO

SO WHERE DO YOU THINK

THE PLANE IS?

SUPPLEMENTARY SLIDES

TURN DYNAMICS & TIME/HDG

PREDICTED AT WMKK

IGARI turnback revisited

Before IGARI, a/c HDG 027
incl. wind compensation
angle
Turn modeled in 30
segments, TAS 483, wind
17kt at 070, bank 25
Diversion commanded
any time btw start and
end of scheduled IGARI
turn (on to BITOD leg)
ends in same spot
Arrives WMKK 17:56:04
with final HDG 206.995(M)
Great circle distance to WMKK @495kt incl. tailwind, final bearing
[track] adjusted -0.03 for mag declination at KLIA. Rounded to

Flight path models from turnback

Later turnback has further to
come back; reaches WMKK
fractionally later
Later turnback goes slightly
more east, so heading back
to WMKK slightly more
westing (higher HDG
number)

Entire Spectrum of turnback possibilities

restricted to the first four minutes from IGARI
ETA back at WMKK ranges from 1756 to 1803
Heading at WMKK (constant heading) range 207
to 210
VERY narrow range of permissible HDG/time
combinations if we assume turnback between

Time/HDG at WMKK
Time over WMKK and Final Heading
211.0

IGARI +240s

210.0

209.91

209.13

209.0
208.0

208.35
207.60

207.0 206.97
206.0
205.0

IGARI +0s

5:57:00 PM 5:59:00 PM 6:01:00 PM 6:03:00 PM

5:56:00 PM 5:58:00 PM 6:00:00 PM 6:02:00 PM 6:04:00 PM

Geometry of
turnback
produces
linear
relationship
between time
at WMKK and
the HDG

Markers signify time and HDG at WMKK for turn-back initiated

at: IGARI +0, 1, 2, 3, 4 minutes (HDG range 207-210)

SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

Quality of fit rapidly deteriorates with later

turn
IGARI +0s

IGARI +60s

19000
18000
17000

19000
18000

R = 1

17000

16000

16000

15000

15000

14000

14000

13000

13000

12000

12000

11000

11000

10000
12000

14000

16000

18000

20000

22000

24000

10000
12000

IGARI +120s
17000

16000

18000

20000

22000

24000

19000
18000

R = 1

17000

16000

16000

15000

15000

14000

14000

13000

13000

12000

12000

11000

11000

10000
12000

14000

IGARI + 180s

19000
18000

R = 1

14000

16000

18000

20000

22000

24000

10000
12000

R = 0.99

14000

16000

18000

20000

The difference between IGARI+0s and +180s is diversion to KLIA initiated 180 seconds later.
+0 overflies WMKK at 17:56:04 HDG207.0(M). +180s overflies WMKK at 18:01:06 HDG
209.2(M)

22000

Sensitivity test
Array of R2 values
206.6

206.7

206.8

206.9

207 207.1

207.2

207.3

207.4

207.5

207.6

17:53:0
0 99,904 99,915 99,925 99,934 99,943 99,951 99,957 99,964 99,968 99,973 99,976
17:53:3
0 99,922 99,931 99,940 99,948 99,955 99,962 99,967 99,972 99,975 99,978 99,979
17:54:0
0 99,938 99,946 99,953 99,960 99,966 99,971 99,980 99,978 99,980 99,981 99,981
17:54:3
0 99,951 99,958 99,964 99,969 99,974 99,977 99,979 99,981 99,981 99,981 99,979
17:55:0
0 99,962 99,968 99,973 99,976 99,979 99,981 99,982 99,982 99,981 99,978 99,975
17:55:3
0 99,971 99,975 99,979 99,981 99,982 99,983 99,982 99,980 99,977 99,973 99,968
17:56:0
0 99,978 99,980 99,982 99,983 99,983 99,981 99,979 99,975 99,970 99,965 99,958

VERY
narrow band of heading/timing combinations that
17:56:3
0 99,982 99,983
99,980 99,977 99,973 99,968 99,961 99,953 99,944
produce
max 99,983
R-sq 99,982
association.
17:57:0
For
any 99,983
given99,982
HDG,99,979
timing
must
match
30s
to achieve
0 99,984
99,975
99,970
99,964+/99,956
99,948
99,938 99,927
17:57:3
max R-sq
0 99,983 99,980 99,977 99,972 99,966 99,959 99,951 99,942 99,932 99,920 99,907

For
17:58:0 any given Timing, HDG must match +/- 0.1 degree
0 99,978 99,974
99,969 99,962 falls
99,955away
99,946quickly
99,936 99,925
99,913
99,899
99,884
Strength
of association
if you
move
away
17:58:3
>60
seconds
or >0.2
degrees
from99,918
the sweet
spot
0 99,971
99,965 99,958
99,950
99,940 99,930
99,905 99,890
99,875 99,858

Now, consider how these two patterns

compare
Flight models from turnback
produce this time/HDG pattern

Statistical association of BTO

predicted vs observed, produces
this time/HDG pattern
207.5

211.0

207.4

210.0

207.3
207.2

209.0

207.1

208.0

207.0
206.9

207.0

206.8
206.7

206.0

206.6

205.0

206.5
0.74618055555555607 0.74713541666666716 0.74809027777777815

Later turnback MUST arrive

later at WMKK and produce
higher heading number

Max R-sq association requires

later WMKK timing to have lower
HDG number (dots show +/- 0.1
for any given time)

There is only one place that they

converge
207.4

207.2

Time/HDG
from turnback
model

207.0

206.8

Time/HDG
with max R-sq

206.6

206.4
0.74618055555555607

0.74713541666666716

0.74809027777777815

The ONLY timing and

heading combo that has
maximum R-sq also lies on
the line of maximum
association from the
sensitivity test.
This convergence produces
time at WMKK of 17:56
30 seconds, HDG 207.0
- 0.1 degree
This corresponds
precisely with time &
HDG at WMKK predicted
by turnback at IGARI
(see over)

In other words
The exact time over WMKK and HDG
derived from model of diversion turnback at IGARI without any reference
to BTO data, just happens to produce
perfect correlation with BTO data.
Recalling sensitivity analysis, to do
this the timing must be correct to
30 seconds and HDG 0.1

ANY [OTHER] REASONS TO

THINK BTO IS WRONG?

1. No plane and no debris

No aircraft found, despite search of ALL high
probability and most medium-low probability
areas along 7th arc.
Miss unlikely if sea-floor debris covers area
~500+ metres (cf. AF447). Active glide beyond 7th
arc invokes a highly unlikely explanation for
unfulfilled prediction of BTO theory
No debris March 2014 near high/mediumprobability segment of the 7th arc. There should
have been plenty of debris from uncontrolled
descent. It should have been detected by
satellites if not by aircraft.
The only thing that looks like a strong candidate

2. No suspect, motive or logical reason

BTO-derived theories require the a/c to have flow
first SW, then NW, then final turn south
Implies pilot input beyond the first turn
No logical reason for route flown and not
compatible with intent to disappear
Even less logic/motive for FMT to oblivion
No substantive reason to suspect either pilot had
a motive to do this

3. BTO-derived paths are odd

For BTO to fit we need change in speed as well as

heading after FMT.

Recall difficulty in getting paths that were both AP-feasible

and BTO-compliant (hence data-driven, AP-constrained
sets)

Nearly all BTO-derived paths are straight line (either

great circle, requiring routing to waypoint, or rhumb line,
requiring true-track). No explanation for routing to WPT
somewhere near Antarctic or non-typical NAV mode
(magnetic = NORM).

Magnetic HDG (NORM) only BTO-compliant if it is

unreasonably slow.

All BTO-derived paths models without turns or change in

alt/speed have significant residuals (cf sk999 summary).

In short, BTO-derived paths may be possible, but they are

4. Radar

Radar/BTO seen as mutually reinforcing because they are

compatible.

Recall that radar & BTO/BFO are not truly independent

observations that happen to align. The former was cited to
prove the latter (cf. PM 15 March 2014)

If [as appears] ISAT data was used to narrow interpretation

of available radar data, then wrong BTO => selection of
wrong radar trace

The radar narrative itself looks highly implausible. 90

turn, changes in speed, multiple turns, no data provided to
link the segments. Implied active pilot, but path NOT
compatible with someone trying to avoid radar (or with any
other obvious motive)

Most important testable prediction of BTO-derived paths is

FMT, constrained in space and time. NOT confirmed by Indo

Sacred cows
No intent to bash ISAT analysts. IG has done the
best data-driven analysis out there. There was
every reason to expect them to be right.
Growing evidence that for some reason its
predictions are not being fulfilled
Difficult (publicly) to abandon position. Difficult
(psychologically) to drop assumptions when you
have convinced yourself that everything else lines
up with it.
That does not make it sensible to come up with
ever-more-unlikely explanations for unfulfilled
predictions. Better to put the spotlight on the
fundamental premise.