trying to find better tone
Source Link
summerrain
  • 3.3k
  • 3
  • 17
  • 45

A geometrical method to find MH370 has been published on the Net (see images below).

I am sure it is wrong (because if it were that easy, thousands of people would have had this idea back in 2014). However, it has attracted some attention.

My question is:
How can this method be proven wrong in a simple, straight-forward way ?

 
Here is the method:

1 2 3 4

source: This method was first presented here.

EDIT:
How is this question off-topic while How can a computer model yield two possible flight paths of MH370 in South Indian Ocean? is on-topic? You can't have it both ways.
EDIT:
How is this question off-topic while How can a computer model yield two possible flight paths of MH370 in South Indian Ocean? is on-topic? Isn't this having it both ways?

A geometrical method to find MH370 has been published on the Net (see images below).

I am sure it is wrong (because if it were that easy, thousands of people would have had this idea back in 2014). However, it has attracted some attention.

My question is:
How can this method be proven wrong in a simple, straight-forward way ?

 
Here is the method:

1 2 3 4

source: This method was first presented here.

EDIT:
How is this question off-topic while How can a computer model yield two possible flight paths of MH370 in South Indian Ocean? is on-topic? You can't have it both ways.

A geometrical method to find MH370 has been published on the Net (see images below).

I am sure it is wrong (because if it were that easy, thousands of people would have had this idea back in 2014). However, it has attracted some attention.

My question is:
How can this method be proven wrong in a simple, straight-forward way ?

 
Here is the method:

1 2 3 4

source: This method was first presented here.

EDIT:
How is this question off-topic while How can a computer model yield two possible flight paths of MH370 in South Indian Ocean? is on-topic? Isn't this having it both ways?

off-topic / on-topic
Source Link
summerrain
  • 3.3k
  • 3
  • 17
  • 45

A geometrical method to find MH370 has been published on the Net (see images below).

I am sure it is wrong (because if it were that easy, thousands of people would have had this idea back in 2014). However, it has attracted some attention.

My question is:
How can this method be proven wrong in a simple, straight-forward way ?

 
Here is the method:

1 2 3 4

source: This method was first presented here.

EDIT:
How is this question off-topic while How can a computer model yield two possible flight paths of MH370 in South Indian Ocean? is on-topic? You can't have it both ways.

A geometrical method to find MH370 has been published on the Net (see images below).

I am sure it is wrong (because if it were that easy, thousands of people would have had this idea back in 2014). However, it has attracted some attention.

My question is:
How can this method be proven wrong in a simple, straight-forward way ?

 
Here is the method:

1 2 3 4

source: This method was first presented here.

A geometrical method to find MH370 has been published on the Net (see images below).

I am sure it is wrong (because if it were that easy, thousands of people would have had this idea back in 2014). However, it has attracted some attention.

My question is:
How can this method be proven wrong in a simple, straight-forward way ?

 
Here is the method:

1 2 3 4

source: This method was first presented here.

EDIT:
How is this question off-topic while How can a computer model yield two possible flight paths of MH370 in South Indian Ocean? is on-topic? You can't have it both ways.

Post Closed as "Not suitable for this site" by fooot, Ralph J, Dave, Ron Beyer, xxavier
wording
Source Link
summerrain
  • 3.3k
  • 3
  • 17
  • 45

A geometrical method to find MH370 has been published on the Net (see images below).

I am sure it is wrong (because if it were that easy, thousands of people would have had this idea back in 2014). However, it has attracted some attention.

My question is:
Why isHow can this method false? How can this method be refuted in a simple, straight-forward way people (like myself) with below average math/geometry skills can followbe proven wrong in a simple, straight-forward way ?

 
Here is the method:

1 2 3 4

source: This method was first presented here.

A geometrical method to find MH370 has been published on the Net (see images below).

I am sure it is wrong (because if it were that easy, thousands of people would have had this idea back in 2014). However, it has attracted some attention.

My question is:
Why is this method false? How can this method be refuted in a simple, straight-forward way people (like myself) with below average math/geometry skills can follow ?

 
Here is the method:

1 2 3 4

source: This method was first presented here.

A geometrical method to find MH370 has been published on the Net (see images below).

I am sure it is wrong (because if it were that easy, thousands of people would have had this idea back in 2014). However, it has attracted some attention.

My question is:
How can this method be proven wrong in a simple, straight-forward way ?

 
Here is the method:

1 2 3 4

source: This method was first presented here.

Source Link
summerrain
  • 3.3k
  • 3
  • 17
  • 45
Loading