Thinking more about this - slides usually have the form "conclusion without evidence" (basically fantasy), whereas this article has the form "evidence without conclusion".
And it leads to particular questions -for example, if the investigation was thrown off by fake navigation info imprinted on Inmarsat data (that this could even be derived came as a surprise sometime after the event), then are there digs possible based on who specifically came up with the insight that the track could be found by analyzing these pings in this way? Does it point to involvement by people at Inmarsat? What is Inmarsat's place in the overall big picture (cabal)? There's a specific thread to pursue, because if it was faked, then conveniently discovering the "evidence" would perhaps be a staged act by those responsible.
(Really not trying to insinuate that Inmarsat was responsible, I'm just spelling out the dig possibilities more bluntly)
Nothing about this implies Diego Garcia, for all I know that could be a slide. But would you say 8chan is a slide because of all the muh jews stuff that shills post? No. So maybe Diego Garcia is a slide to make the Inmarsat dig have a bad reputation. Who knows?
Anyway, I'm seriously asking why this is a slide, because from an autist perspective the claimed theory looks brilliant.