One fact:
spec·u·late verb \ˈspe-kyə-ˌlāt\ : to think about something and make guesses about it : to form ideas or theories about something usually when there are many things not known about it
Merriam Webster at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/speculate

The fact here is that particular dictionary defined the word that way. You may disagree with the definition, but the factually, that is what the book said.

You stated you don't speculate, yet in the next sentence, you speculate what others (may) take something as fact.
You lay out 7 tiems as 'fact'. #1, left turn and reciprocal bearing are speculation based on interpretation of certain data- you are taking that as fact when you are stating a belief.
#4 flight time is speculative, not fact. #5 aircraft has not been positively found- that is a fact. Presumed to have run out of fuel is a speculation- likely, but also it could have terminated flight w/ fuel aboard. Most likely ditched- speculation (to me, ditching is an active intervention process by onboard persons- speculative but unlikely occurance).
#7 satellite data indicate southerly direction- estimation (speculation) based on data- not a fact in itelf.
"Non fact...there has been no evidence to indicate...." That no evidence has come to light is a fact in itelf, a category subject to change with new data.

Your "fact...an uncontrolled acft not on auto pilot will eventually enter an uncontrolled..." is a statement of likely outcome in probability theory.

I speculate, rather than stating as fact, that you have difficulty differentiating among observable fact, speculation, and personal beliefs.

Walt - "Stand up and admit they were wrong" ? This isn't a contest. There's no one upsmanship going on unless perhaps you feel a need to be right. Now, as to you insisting you aren't speculating, go back and read what you wrote - almost every single sentence began with "if" - if the acft continued flying; if there was rapid decompression; if the crew lost consciousness - everything you're talking about is speculation. And obviously in my opinion there's nothing wrong with that. But to deny you're speculating is folly.

<sarcasm>
Is that a fact?
</sarcasm>

I understand what you are saying however @ this point it has gone far beyond a topic of interest that concerns all of us. It has gone to the point of people, some professional, giving their theories of "terrorists" possibly being involved, which I doubt, but that same theory can give rise to an idea that the terrorists would be happy to entertain. They were just given a new idea. The few facts available are being discarded in light of one's own postulated theory about what happened. When you read the facts you find out there are very few, with some seemingly contradictory. We may all be surprised when & if the facts come out re: what actually happened. As I said before it will be interesting to see what the percentage of theories are that will be backed up by the "facts".

That people are discussing the facts and trying to make sense of the facts is not a problem.

The problem is that the facts keep changing.

In part it is because the journalists and others report facts without basis in truth, and then report new facts that contradict earlier facts. In part it is because government officials have given out information that is than contracted later by information they or others put out. The Malaysians are among the worst offenders in Thai respect during this incident.

If people weren't asking questions, and looking for any scrap of information under every rock, we might get stuck with a story that the Malaysians may hav tried to spin for their own interest.

Open information on the whole is better than restricted information. Anyone who doesn't agree can purchase a flight to China, North Korea, Iran, Russia, or some other state that believes in controlling their society by trying to control the flow of information.

Nice homily preacher, very restrained.

I have not called anyone "names", nor running others down & if you feel i have then report it & let the webmaster determine if there is validty to your accusations.I have expressed no scenarios nor have I speculated but have responded trying to get people to understand the damage they do when they come up with something as their own hypothesis of what happened but have no facts to back it up. If you haven't seen me post to other threads then you must have been asleep. When someone steps up & says his theory is that terrorists were the most likely cause, without facts to back it up....that's being irresponsible. One's experience & hrs of flying is credible but I say "supposed" because I find it hard to believe that someone of that caliber would make such an irresponsible statement without fact to back it up & if you feel that's ok that's your business but it doesn't make it right. If you had family on that flight & could read all the theories , speculation & conjecture...how would you feel. I am not impressed, nor convinced as to the integrity of the person writing such irresponsible theories without fact. Glad neither of you are seating on a jury. By the way please tell me what scenarios I have interjected here or info I threw out there that wasn't backed up by fact. By the way I have been in many facets of the aviation industry since 1966 & have been involved in working 4 different acft accidents 1 of which involved a family member & 2 others involved close friends & 1 was a military acft that went down in Tucson Az.. I worked in law enforcement for 10 years where I had to respond to a military acft accident in Tucson Az where 2 women were killed in their car when the acft hit them. Trying to get them out of the car & do what you can to save them touches you deeply & when stuff is thrown around on a blog such as this, irresponsibly, & as I keep saying ,without facts to back it up....does not impress me at all & I don't care how many hours one has or if he is an author....common sense & logic should dictate what is said unless one is just tooting their own horn. I worked 13 years as an acft mechanic, I worked for the airlines for 19 years doing weight & balance. On one of my days off my relief worked an acft assigned to our desk regularly however this acft when down on take off losing about 29 people. The report as to the cause was "pilot error & wing icing"but the real cause was wing tip vortices on an acft landing on a parallel runway where the approach end of that runway was at the dept end of the other runway & with the quartering head wind across both runways the wing tip vortices were pushed into the flight path of our deptg acft. I knew the cockpit crew as we interacted with them on a daily basis. The crew had close to 20000 hrs between them & the capt was a navy fighter pilot. Maybe some things don't "bode" well with some because they adon't have the facts & don't know what they are talking about. Why is there such a problem with stating facts instead of conjecture. what you have accused me of you are guilty of yourself.

use proper grammar & sentence structure. Why do you say I have a problem with someone who has lost someone in an aviation disaster. I never said, stated nor inferred that. If I find a hole to crawl into I'm sure I will find you there.

Again don't put words in my mouth & twist what i am saying. What speculation are you referring to ? I have not inferred nor stated any speculation, conjecture nor jumped to a conclusion but in fact what I have stated is not a scenario, conjecture or theory but in fact a response to those same things stated by others on this blog. Use common sense & think about what i have asked. An uncontrolled acft will not stay in the air long unless on auto pilot & then will continue on it's track/heading selected. An unconscious pilot flopping around in the cockpit would upset the balance of the acft even if it's on auto pilot which could be bumped off. You might want to reread my response above to clarify what I am saying.

Have you ever used them?
Have you ever used them indoors?
Have you ever used them inside the cabin of an airliner?

Satphones are usually line of sight. I've never used them in flight myself, but have found them to be somewhat temperamental on the ground overseas. I read that pilots have trouble with handheld satphones on board. Often some system of cabling to a GPS antenna is used to get a signal. Even when the exterior is composite, it has been known to block the signal. Typically only glass is transparent to satcom signals. And you can forget even the glass, if it's heated.

Of course very expensive exterior antenna setups are great at getting a satcom signal. But these setups are very expernsive. Even Maylasis elected not to pay for the optional satcom data service.

Handhelds don't have the same fidelity, as installed systems.

Does anyone have experience with using handheld sat phones without a external repeater antenna inside of moving planes, who would be willing to share some details?

Well, you have a point, other than people obey authority more in that part of the world, but by the same token, why did we wait so long before any info was released. Banana republic overwhelmed!!!!