How crazy am I to think I actually know where that Malaysia Airlines plane is?
I think the main point of the story is not to convince us that he has a good proof. But rather to document how we convince ourselves, and how we latch on to small things and head down a path. Once we are on a path we become commited to it and it becomes hard to turn back.Notice how he talks about the "crazies" on the forum. How they would use aliases, log back in and mention their stupid "lightning" theory, and he had to kick them out.However, he then carefully proceeds to discribe how he did pretty much the same. Spent his own money and time building this complicated theory of super smart and efficient russian spies hacking into a satcom of a flying aircraft, also somehow, incapacitation everyone else on board, etc.  In the meantime he is dropping clues how his own wife doesn't even believe him.I think many people here, judging by the comments, misunderstood the goal of the article and took it too literaly.But, there is a good lesson here. This stuff happens if you program and design software. There are  lot of moving parts and lot of imperfect knowledge -- market needs, tools, langauges, platforms, APIs, architectures desicions, etc etc. Sometimes if you start to "just write code" too early. You end up committed to a bad path and it becomes hard mentally to throw it away and restart. Or, alternatively, you spend so much time picking the right combination of tools or redesigning the system that it becomes too later to do anything (someone else already built the system or there is no need for it anymore somehow).