Bayes' Theorem – BEWARE!!! - Mathematising 'Salem Witch-Hunts' - Bayes→ to Abeyance (aBAYESance)!?!?!!!

Bayes' Theorem

BEWARE!!!

Mathematising 'Salem Witch-Hunts' and

'legitimising' global Fraud Scams, ….

(What then global warming 'science'?)

EXTREME CAUTION NEEDED

Bayes→ to Abeyance (aBAYESance)!?!?!!!

This paper should be viewed with the legacy of Isaac Newton's theft of Intellectual Property (IP), from which; the reality that 350 years of science has gone far off-track into deep-space science fiction, the reality that much mathematics & certain science are wrong and have been used to generate real-life global fraud scams which presently rock the World with Economic Weapons of Mass Destructions (EWMDs) - and exploding every second.

Bayes Theorem, which originated with POSITIVE DIRECT FEEDBACK Thought Experiments, has become a base for NEGATIVE INDIRECT fraudulent manipulations – and aspects of false Climate Change 'science', ….

In short, Bayes Theorem can be viewed as a method of assuming (guessing) a proposition at the start (prior), and with successive cycles updating that past prior position with another guess (bogus data) to produce another updated (posterior) position, which is now the prior position for the following cycle of guessing another posterior position, …..................

Whilst the foundation of Bayes Theorem is sound and can prove highly beneficial, the fraud scams/deceptions really emanate from making bogus data appear convincingly 'true', so as to achieve a pre-determined outcome (i.e. a scam) …................ - but, this is not to ignore the reality that clever people are scheming new ways of scamming, daily.

If the World has been duped for 350 years by Newton's dishonesty (see link on homepage of cdadd.com for simple PROOFS), wherein Academia, Government, Corporates are still in hostile denial over primary school observations through a simple prism, then how much easier is it to deceive people with bogus data & other methods within mountains of ACCUMULATED BOGUS DATA → ????????

This paper is a non-mathematical argument (ok, a few simple sums/multiplications is all that will be covered) as to why extreme caution needs to be taken when confronting Bayes' Theorem – and to assist in detecting where mis&disperceptions are hidden.

The KEY point to remember is that we are dealing with probabilities and perceptions of those probabilities, and how those perceptions change with new information ('evidence', i.e. bogus data) coming to 'light' (thus maintaining DARK)….

….. OR, in simpler terms still …..

….... and to reiterate, it's an issue of a guess being modified later by another guess, and later additional guesses into the future as more&more information ('evidence', largely bogus data) comes in.

This latter simplicity gives insight as to how the World has become deceived by exponentially increasing numbers & greater complexities of fraud scams since (largely) the second half of the 20th century and is CAUSAL of the present Socio-Economic upheavals, including Putin's actions (justified against the West, but TOTALLY unjustified against Ukraine)

Book:

'the theory that would not die – how bayes' rule cracked the enigma code, hunted down russian submarines & emerged triumphant from two centuries of controversy'

Sharon Bertsch Mcgrayne – ISBN 978-0-300-18822-6, Yale University Press, yalebooks.com, yalebooks.co.uk,

'Successes' attributed to Bayes' Theorem (in Mcgrayne's Appendix)

Sudden Infant Death Syndrome/Cot Deaths – the danger of mathematising 'Salem Witch-Hunts'
Air France AF447 searches - Fourth Search success wrongly claimed a Bayesian success
WWII & Russian submarine searches – misperceptions of Bayesian benefits
Cracking the Enigma Code → ???????

also:

Bayes' theorem has for many decades been used in Finance/Economics – e.g. John Maynard Keynes

Global Warming 'science'

Health Warning:

Mcgrayne's book is an excellent work as a 'biography' on the research by Bayes and others that brought about his Theorem and its development over two centuries, its cyclical difficulties with antagonists v protagonists (which continue to date), and its popular re-emergence in the latter 20^th century

BUT, BUT, BUT – the book is FATALLY FLAWED in its claims that Bayes has brought much benefit – the disbenefits far, far outweigh the benefits – and its claimed 'successes' are at best doubtful, as discussed herein – BEWARE!!!

To see this we need to adopt (largely) a 'black box' approach – i.e. not to become bogged down in the mathematics but to assess the results (posteriors) in relation to the initial circumstances (priors) – and to assess some simple sums to detect the very real dangers of using Bayes' Theorem.

But a simple overview is given hereunder, don't get bogged down by it …..

A simple overview of Bayes Theorem:

Thomas Bayes (1701-1761) was a Presbyterian Minister who was also involved in statistics & philosophy, and later into probabilities and how an initial perception of a scenario needed to be updated as future information came to light.

A simple example: in horse racing the odds given by bookies for individual horses in a forthcoming race will constantly be updated as the bookie receives additional information about the forthcoming race (condition of the horses, the weather, etc., etc.)

Bayes left a paper explaining the rudimentaries which was passed to a friend Richard Price, who processed it through the Royal Society, thereafter Pierre-Simon Laplace further developed it and gave it its common form known today.

Some simple sums:

Probability to Odds – a 20% chance is a probability of 0.2 of occurring – the Odds are 0.2/(1-0.2) = 0.2/0.8 or 1 / 4 => 1 to 4 Odds

Odds to Probability – 1 to 4 Odds → 1/(1 + 4) = 1 / 5 = 0.2 => 20% Probability

Some complicated Maths (just read it but don't get bogged down)

The structure of Bayes Theorem is stated in simple terms:

the posterior probability of an event/hypothesis A given new information B = probability of observing data B given A multiplied by the original, prior probability of A – and all divided by the probability of B -

where the probability of B is given by the aforegoing PLUS the probability of B given A is false multiplied by the probability of A being false.

Or in mathematical terms:

(P(A/B) = P(B/A) x P(A) / P(B)

and

P(B) = (P(B/A) x P(A)) + ((P(B/A) x P(A)) (A → NOT A – i.e. false)

if you're interested in a lengthier explanation then see link

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_inference

CONFUSED??? - entirely understandable – even Maggie Thatcher (a Scientist) was duped by this & other mathematical duplicities, which is why we need to adopt a 'black box' approach and consider the 'evidences'.

The first deception, in present day applications, that should be identified is that Bayes originated his theory through DIRECT POSITIVE FEEDBACK in a THOUGHT experiment. In his thought experiment, which can also be done practically, his back is turned to a perfectly flat & level table surface, a person throws a cue ball onto the table, then throws ball after ball after ball onto the table, with each ball the person states whether the ball is left or right of the cue ball; thus by Bayes recording (in his thought) each of the ball relative positions to the cue ball he can narrow down the region in which the cue ball sits. (One can modify to include whether up or down as well, i.e. 2 dimensional)

Bayes wanted to extend his theory to a general case where not really knowing anything about a position or issue he nonetheless could infer opinions, and that by obtaining new evidence he can modify that original opinion, and later still newer evidence can modify again, and so on.

So, we have an initial (prior) position which is updated with feedback to produce a later (posterior) position, which posterior position becomes the prior position for the next cycle, and so on.

The problem with Bayes' theorem comes in with the issue of 'evidence', it being the feedback, where that feedback is in itself not direct nor positive – in his thought experiment he knew, in his thoughts, that he was getting DIRECT POSITIVE feedback of each ball relative to the cue ball, which is all well and good.

BUT, with more general application, as with horse racing, the 'evidence', which is the feedback, is often (always?) mere guessing by so-called 'experts' (which is EXACTLY what has occurred in ALL the examples Mcgrayne gives in her Appendix) – so: a guess, modified by another guess to produce a new guess, which is modified by a later guess to produce yet another modified guess, and so on ….

This is not unlike a chain of people passing on a message from the first person, and comparing to the perceived message received by the last person – without exception(?) the posterior message is TOTALLY DIFFERENT to the prior, original, message.

BUT, with Bayes' Theorem there is added danger in allowance for the message to be duplicitously changed at each stage, or a number of stages, of transfer → thus, it doesn't require too much brain-power to recognise a DANGEROUS theory.

There is a caveat to this general argument: within science fields, such as medicine, there are careful controls over experiments – but within the financial markets, politics, corporates: ANYTHING GOES, including deceptions in all manner of forms …..

But, nevertheless, the science fields, including all of Academia, are manipulated by finance/corporate Powers, and dishonesty is rampant.

Evidence?

The whole world can readily observe how corporate Power-abuse destroys qualified Technical Authority by watching, for examples, the Challenger Space Shuttle explode shortly after launch; the Twin Towers IMPLODE; recall 'medical evidence' that disproved cancer links to smoking; HOSTILITY by Academia to CDADD's PROOFS of Newton's theft of IP, that Twin Towers were imploded; that convictions in Stephen Lawrence murder was through fabricated evidence, → QED!!!

So it boils down to 'who can you trust?'

We have been brainwashed with a century of Hubble's false 'expanding universe', and hence 'big bang' – BUT, Newton's Opticks being wrong, and light NOT being frequency based means that Hubble was wrong, hence Einstein, Higgs, Hawking, Dawkins, CERN are also wrong …..

Our brains have been softened to bogus 'science' and 'maths' – such that we are led to believe any sci-fi going – and that is the basis of the Bayes guessing-game going far off track into sci-fi theories, and producing convincing fraud scams, that duped scientists like Margaret Thatcher, ….. Bayes was promoted for the very purpose of developing fraud scams.

News reports now say that wine leads to cancer …...... who/what do you believe?

Who do you believe? …........until someone comes with yet another theory to contradict …..............

(That is why it is STRESSED that you don't blindly believe what you read here at cdadd website about Opticks (with a 'k') - get a prism (3x60degree, preferably 2 of them) and view Light through the prism and UNDERSTAND Optics (no 'k'), and recognise why Newton's Opticks are wrong, then & only then will you be able to detect the hidden clues in the sketch diagram that PROVES Newton Opticks are wrong, AND that Newton STOLE the IP.

Look for yourself, and understand)

So let's look at the practicalities of issues raised by Mcgrayne, of …..

Sudden Infant death Syndrome/Cot Deaths

Mcgrayne gives, in her Appendices, the tragic example of Sally Clark.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Clark

https://evidencebasedjustice.exeter.ac.uk/case/sally-clarke/

In short: Sally had 2 births, a son (in 1996) that died at 11 weeks, the second at 8 weeks, both SIDS/Cot deaths, or murder?. She was charged with murder and convicted on evidence by a Gynaecologist who wrongly claimed that chance of Cot Death was 1 in 8,500, therefore 2 Cot Deaths gave 1/8500 multiplied by 1/8500 a probability of 1 in 72 million, therefore the probability as claimed was that Sally had murdered both babies.

It was also believed that in the UK some 30 'proved' baby murders occurred each year (Q: How many 'proven' of those were due to dodgy' maths'?????)

Sally was convicted in 1999.

After 3 years in prison it came to light that a pathologist had withheld information regarding bacterial blood infection that caused sudden infant death - a Bayesian calculation also showed that the Gynaecologist was wrong in multiplying the 2 probabilities together.

After her release Sally went 'off the rails' and a few years later died of alcoholism.

Whilst the withholding of pathology evidence was a key factor, the point remains that the evidence by the Gynaecologist was also wrong – i.e. either of these 2 factors being recognised during the trial would have likely caused an acquittal, if not a non prosecution – but the trauma would still have remained, acute trauma from losing two babies and then the traumas of accusations of murder (with or without prosecution), conviction and imprisonment …............................................... GUT-WRENCHING!!!!!! …. into SELF-DESTRUCT ...

BUT, we are needing to see how the Bayesian evidence, in showing how the Gynaecologist was wrong, could in itself produce an erroneous result → easily leading to a 'Salem Witch-Hunt'.

Given the belief that the prior 'evidence' of 30 baby murders/year, the two babies of Sally's would increase that 'evidence', i.e. now 32 murders.

Without bogging down in maths herein, one can set up a spreadsheet and using the Bayes' theorem model as Mcgrayne gives in her Appendix, with increasing numbers of baby deaths per year and calculating the probability of an additional baby death being assumed NOT to be another murder (i.e. an unfortunate SIDS death). It turns out that 30 murders/year produces a near 63% probability (of not murder), whereas only an additional 20 murders (i.e. a total of 50) produces a near 50/50 probability of an additional murder, i.e. we are at the region of a SIDS/cot death now NOT being BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, i.e. we are now at the tipping point of 'mathematical' conviction.

What all this means is that Bayes' theorem yields a high risk for a Salem-style witch-hunt because it requires only a low level of 'proven' murders (50) for another genuine SIDS/Cot death to be mathematically deemed murder – or, another false conviction increases the probability of more false convictions.

NOW, consider recent media reports on rapes/sexual assaults/stalking – it is estimated that there are well over a MILLION complaints in UK alone – so, if with baby deaths we are close to the tipping point of a baby death being assumed a murder at 50 deaths, then with a million-plus sexual assaults it would be deemed that ALL accused are guilty ….. hence 'justification' for fast-tracking 'trials' …......... which is the call we hear in media reports → 'Salem Witch hunts'

ADD to bogus maths some bogus evidence – as (for e.g.) the fabricated evidence in the Stephen Lawrence murder convictions, …...........

….... a very dangerous theory!

(Update on Registered letter to UK Met Police Commissioner re: Met Police abuses, including Lawrence fabricated evidence – NIL RESPONSE!!!!!!)

Air France AF447 searches - Fourth Search success wrongly claimed a Bayesian success

Appended are emails to/from Olivier FERRANTE <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>, Johan Strumpfer (UCT GSB, Graduate School of Business) This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., and METRON This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.,

These persons were consulted for the Fourth search for AF447, Ferrante being the lead for France's BEA (aero) (Bureau d'Enquetes et d'Analyses)

In short – the use of Bayes' was claimed to bring a successful conclusion - i.e. AF447 was found shortly after commencement of the fourth search – but, a documentary, produced/sanctioned by BEA, showed the fourth search was simply a planned clockwise circular search starting from the centre position – i.e. NO planned search patterns attributed to the use of Bayes.

A follow-up email was sent requesting a sketch diagram showing the planned Bayes patterns as calculated – and as would (if claim were true) have been issued to the search teams - this produced NIL RESPONSE,

Similarly with a further follow-up email.

??????????????????

There appears no justification for claiming a Bayesian success in the fourth AF447 search.

WWII & Russian submarine searches – misperceptions of Bayesian benefits

Mcgrayne also made claims of Bayesian successes regarding the search for WWII U Boats (UB), and later for the search of Russian submarines

With WWII UBs, it should be noted that these adopted the strategy of wolf-packs – note: prior to wolf packs Britain had poor results in sinking UBs – thus one UB sending a signal to its base gave an indiction of the wolf packs' location (not only by its transmission, but also by the signal being decoded by Bletchley Park) - it would therefore be wrong to claim that the sinking of one of the wolf-pack being attributed to the specific UB that sent the signal – the odds of sinking any one of the wolfpack UBs increases because there are more of them, not because of Bayesian success.

Mcgrayne having set the foundation for claiming WWII 'success' glosses over the 'successes' in finding Russian submarines, which is similar to the wrongfully claimed 'success' for AF447

Cracking the Enigma Code → ???????

The mind boggles, even today, at how the experts at Bletchley Park worked their wonders – notably Alan Turing, Gordon Welchman, Bill Tutte, Dilly Knox and Nigel de Grey - numerous mathematical/physics methods were used – sheer brilliance.

BUT, a search of https://bletchleypark.org.uk/ with 'bayes' – produced NIL result.

A web search of 'codebreaking – bayes' produced results from after Mcgrayne published her book, but also a pdf of a short explanation by Edward Simpson (a Bletchley Park expert).

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiGt_virqyAAxUpTUEAHSvtDLoQFnoECCIQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fmath.oxford.emory.edu%2Fsite%2Fmath117%2FbayesTheorem%2Fenigma_and_bayes_theorem.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2kuAVwjwp_mp5vGiLS55eD&opi=89978449

Simpson claimed that Bayes was used to break 2 of the ciphers.

There is no intent to derogate Simpson or his claim but with so many mathematical & science models (& just plain good luck) then in play it becomes difficult (impossible?) to lay claim that Bayes alone produced a success – and, with the evidence today over the (incorrect, fraudulent) use of Bayes' Theorem leaves little doubt of its detriments relative to its (possible) benefits.

---

There is no clear evidence of Bayes being successfully used in any of the examples Mcgrayne gives. And Mcgrayne also has not responded to email queries (another request, to Yale University Press, to pass on to Mcgrayne was sent whilst drafting this paper, Yale would not pass on but responded with a snail-mail address for her publisher => obstruction from Yale university!!!, a leading Academic institution)

Bayes' theorem has for many decades been used in Finance/Economics-

John Maynard Keynes – Hyman P Minsky's Re-Interpretation of the Keynesian Revolution - Hyman P Minsky ISBN 978-0-07-159301-4

Therein, Minsky argues over John Maynard Keyne's (JKM) views as set out in his 1936 published 'The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money', which was influenced by JKM's mathematical views as expressed in his 1921 published 'A Treatise on Probability' – John Maynard Keynes.

In Minsky's book, pg 62, 'Uncertainty' section, Minsky explains JKM's use of Bayes theorem, but without JKM or Minsky explicitly stating Bayes.

Whilst it is not suggested that either Keynes or Minsky had wrongful intentions in utilising Bayes, the point remains that Bayes is easily mis-used, and open to gratuitous & widespread abuse – which is the case since the 1960s.

Consider the Economics 'Nobel' Prize winners since inception of the Economics Prize – view the CVs of the recipients, near all are fast-tracked mathematicians (with ZERO science training & experience) or having learnt from same type of mathematicians → ZERO Engineering, which is why the world is in Socio-Economic chaos.

Global Warming 'science' - forthcoming: new insights that changes our mis-understandings about Light/Energy Transmission Dynamics – BUT, Pollution is a MASSIVE problem that needs more urgent attention!

---

The misuse ….. NO, the ABUSE!!!! …. of Bayes' Theorem is behind much of the World's Economic/Finance chaos:- from its use in the construct of Economic Weapons of Mass Destructions (EWMDs), and in wrongful convictions, and in dubious medical claims, and ….., and …... – and today's Parliaments/Governments are peopled by those raised on believing the deceptive mathematics, part of which founds the incorrect use of Bayes' Theorem (and all because Margaret Thatcher was duped by fraud scams and then unwittingly drove 'privatisation') ….. the very same elected Parliamentarians/Ministers who wittingly and criminally block legitimate communications to the warning of the inherent faults and the dangers of their usage …...

…. it raises the valid question: is there justification for any use of Bayes' Theorem???????????

Bayes→ to Abeyance (aBAYESance)!?!!!!!

As always, constructive engagement is welcomed.

Sincerely

Chris Addington Pr.Eng.

Emails to/from:

Sharon Bertsch Mcgrayne

BEA, UCT, Metron re AF447

To: Sharon Bertsch Mcgrayne – NIL RESPONSE!!!!!!

-------- Message --------

Subject:	Fwd: the theory that would not die
Date:	Sun, 16 Apr 2023 14:08:18 +0100
From:	Chris Addington ;
To:	This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

i tried to contact sharon mcgrayne, not sure if address still monitored

please be so kind to forward this to her

thanx&regardschris

Chris Addington Pr.Eng.

-------- Forwarded Message --------

Subject:	the theory that would not die
Date:	Mon, 27 Mar 2023 09:23:43 +0100
From:	Chris Addington ;
To:	This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

to sharon bertsch mcgraynea fascinating 'biography' on bayes, having first come across it in early 1980s it was interesting to find its historyi would be interested to know the personal perspective from which you come, your website says you graduated at swarthmore, ba honours - which discipline/s?and what circumstances brought you to research bayes?i'll certainly hunt down your other booksthanx&regardschrisps your link at bottom of sally clark example is not working -> ???

-- Chris Addington Pr.Eng.

Concerning Air France 447 Search

Olivier FERRANTE <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.;, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

NIL RESPONSE to last email below

--------Message --------

Subject:	Re: AF447 search and METRON study
Date:	Mon, 27 Mar 2023 11:30:14 +0100
From:	Chris Addington
To:	Olivier FERRANTE <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.;, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

hii understand that you are all busy, but i would appreciate a simple sketch diagram that clearly shows the initial search boxes (say 1st 5 -10) locations and the probabilities determined with bayesmanythanxchrisChris Addington Pr.Eng.On 20/03/2023 10:43, Chris Addington wrote:

hi olivierjust a reminder re initial search pattern -> rough sketch for first ten (say) search boxes, etc.thanxchrisChris Addington Pr.Eng.

On 27/02/2023 10:06, Chris Addington wrote:

hi olivierthanxagain4repliesplease look at my queries from the perspective of victim's family member - masses of confusing & contradictory information prior to 4th search & over some years, the metron search plan also not making clear sense, then afterwards a documentary that contradicts the actual searchplan.at the immediate start of the 4th search would it be reasonable for a family member to understand what the search plan was to be? clearly not! - even as a professional engineer i am TOTALLY confused.to simplify - could you please do a rough sketch: a 40nm circle, showing intended flight path, lkp, and, say, the first 10 search box locations, dimensions of search box, probability for each search box, and the wreckage position.then a sketch of a search box showing the search route within a search box, optimal search time/speed - and then correlate the ten boxes to the box numbers on fig26just a rough sketchmanythanxchrisChris Addington Pr.Eng.

On 26/02/2023 08:09, Olivier FERRANTE wrote:

Hello Chris,I have just viewed the documentary and the illustration after 25 minutes that oversimplifies the search strategy.As I mentioned it earlier, the strategy was to start from the center area (see figure 32 of the Metron report) and search the areas that were not covered by side scan sonars during Phase 2 and 3.Best regards,Olivier

-----Message d'origine-----
De : Chris Addington
Envoyé : vendredi 24 février 2023 17:16
À : Olivier FERRANTE <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.;
Objet : Re: AF447 search and METRON studythanxolivieri'll go through thatbut, the 3rd part of the 4 part documentary at minutes 25.00ff state 4th search was clockwise radial of ENTIRE 45nm radius area.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUl5YYOLQMI
the point, one of, that i'm trying to establish is the relation of this search pattern to bayes theorem (the basis of metron's analysis, as I understand)can you clarify this point & search pattern statement as per documentary
manythanxrgdschris

Chris Addington Pr.Eng

.On 24/02/2023 15:47, Olivier FERRANTE wrote:

Dear Mr Addington,As you may know, the METRON study and the full report of the sea search operations are publicly available on our website. Please find below the two links:

https://bea.aero/fileadmin/uploads/tx_elyextendttnews/sea.search.ops.af447.05.11.2012.en_03.pdf

https://bea.aero/fileadmin/uploads/tx_elyextendttnews/metron.search.analysis_01.pdf

The main advantage of the METRON study is that it enabled to quantify all the search efforts. I attached a useful chart for decision makers where you plot the cumulative effective search time and the cumulative probability of detection.To start Phase 4, our decision was based on the scenario with two inoperative pingers. Then, the search pattern was based on the operational needs to optimize the use of the search assets.If you have questions, do not hesitate to contact me as I was the head of the AF447 search and recovery group between 2009 and 2011.Best regards,Olivier Ferrante-----Message d'origine-----
Subject information
Civility M
First name Chris
Name Addington
Tel. +353 (0)86 168 4318
Mail
Message

FA 447, 4th search (succesful)
Can you please send info regarding search criteria, I.e. how start pointvwas determined and successive searchocations BEFORE the 4th search was started.

I've read statistical report by mentorn but it doesn't clarify the
actualbsearch decision result

Thankyou

Sincerely
Chris Addington Pr.Eng.

-------- Message --------

Subject:	Re: Query
Date:	Thu, 16 Feb 2023 09:38:19 +0000
From:	Chris Addington ;
To:	This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

hi johan

read through your 'Search for the Wreckage of Air France Flight AF 447', this after viewing mentour pilot analysis of 447 & youtube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5AGHEUxLME &

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYMxj3aaygE

clearly, the search parameters at outset were wrong (e.g. it could not have been a circular search area, it had to have been 'squished' on the rear side (past track) because of time to turnaround, e.g. if a 2 minute 180deg , then max radii 2mins (turnaround)/10mins (signal interval)-> 80% reduction; and comparison of track to past intervals would reduce possibility of turnaround as being nearer 0% thus past-track semicircle would be ruled out initially), and continued probabilistic reckoning of 447 sonar beacon transmission after the first few days (active sonar from wreck as opposed to reflected passive sonar off wreck) (admittedly my knowledge of sonar from royal navy days, 1970s, is very rusty) -> are just two errors -

add other errors -> all likely because of 'noise', too many people saying too much about the incident & not enough reflection.

but, the noise was caught up in your analysis also, simply by bea asking you to analysis past efforts - in which the noise had become exponentially greater over a 2+years period -> near impossible to avoid noise if it is embedded in the bea brief.

can you clarify the time frame: from your being requested by bea to analyse, to search-plan being defined,then start time of renewed search, and time of discovery

and also, a simple sketch diagram of the chosen search areas (as per bayes -> high, med, low probability search areas at start)

the objective behind my query is to address the noise issue and how to minimise into future (cf present nicola bulley search, with new info (previously suppressed) now coming out, and mass noise prior - see skynews link below)

thanx&regardschris

skynews link

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiww5mP3Jn9AhWailwKHVhaDs0QvOMEKAB6BAgKEAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fnews.sky.com%2Fstory%2Fnicola-bulley-ex-detective-says-police-have-destroyed-missing-mums-reputation-by-revealing-alcohol-struggles-12812221&usg=AOvVaw1mhgy8Vlge2hZbMkju1umm

Chris Addington Pr.Eng.

On 15/02/2023 21:52, Chris Addington wrote:

Thanxjohan, will go through & revert back

Q. Is norman faull still at gsb?

I was 1983 mva in old campus (reject, I challenged lecturers too much, was 'failed' on economics, then 2doses flu = dropped law -> out)

Rgdschris

On Wed, 15 Feb 2023, 21:18 Johan Strumpfer, <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.; wrote:

HI Chirs, Attached. I can send more but I am out of timeat the moment.

Kind regards

Johan

On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 at 22:53, Chris Addington ; wrote:

Thanx Johan

Came across your inputs re 447 from mcgraynes book, theorem that would not die.

Have watched various docs, most discuss post flight recorder analysis. Search issue limited, ausie60mins deals with unsuccessful early search.

Looking for insights to the successful search, esp. how bayes was utilised. Mcgrayne epilogue too simplistic.

Would you have concise report on the background to the successful search?

Rgdschris

On Wed, 15 Feb 2023, 20:31 Johan Strumpfer, <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.; wrote:

Hi Chris,

Yes the one and the same. The email address I am responding from is the best for me.

Kind regards

Johan Strumpfer

On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 at 17:32, Chris Addington This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.; wrote:

Are you the Johan Strumpfer involved in airfrance 447 search?

If not, do you have contact for the one that did

Sincerely

Rgdschris

Chris Addington Pr.Eng.

Recent Papers