I don't think I agree.

I think this is something that can often backfire. If someone creates evidence that say's the plane crashed at location x, when location X is searched and there is no plane, I still have more information than I started. I know the evidence that led me to location x is incorrect. This could be because the data is bad, or due to tampering. If I'm now focused on tampering and able to corroborate that it is tampered with, I now have a new area to narrow my investigation, based on who has the skills, ability, and motives to tamper with that data.

Now, I would agree, if the goal was to create a short term disruption to the investigation, which didn't require holding up to scrutiny in the long run.

It's even worse as a theory when you consider the hijackers give out accurate information as to their distance from the satellite but bet on inaccurate directional data to throw everyone off. You've still narrowed down the search space considerably - not to mention all the time between finding the distance pings and directional pings when the correct path is being checked.

You make a good point, but in this case location X is not a specific coordinate but a wide range of possible coordinates over the ocean.

I suspect the Andaman Sea would have served that purpose just fine. There are other options like the burst data has just been misinterpreted, but the deliberate faking of a never before used piece of data seems very unlikely.