Manwell

LOL! Tell me, why aren't you interested turbo?

It's not over yet turbo. I'm just getting started. To answer M61, no this is not Tornado. Nice aircraft though. To answer Biggles, congratulations for spotting the obvious. To reply to pmmcarthy, a well known member.... "Nonsensical but irrefutable hypotheses that could keep us going for weeks if not months." I'm glad you think so pm. When you are capable of comprehending the incomprehensible, it may not seem so nonsensical. To reply to frank, you should prefix your comments with In MY OPINION. And we should all know the value of opinions. This is starting to get interesting, don't you agree?

A number of shooters would imply a conspiracy turbo? How do you decide there are no great secrets there, then? Your assessment of the pilot's skill and intellect implies a common error, that we think others have lesser skills and intellectual ability than us. Maybe he wasn't as good a pilot or as intelligent as you, but that shouldn't necessarily be assumed. A good inexperienced pilot would, in fact, assume the opposite and take great care to improve.

The only glaring reason... ? Not so. I've offered some alternatives, and all you've done is made appeals to authority, which is like GW, Blair, and Howard, blandly declaring Saddam had WMD because their Intel told them so. My points are not conclusive beyond the shadow of a doubt, and neither are yours, so the whole idea is to arrive at the most likely conclusion. I also know of an ATSB investigator who used to work under me, so I have an insight into the standard of investigations conducted here, and I'd guess the standard in the US would be similar.

This is a simple forum discussion about a prang, so offering some reasoning would be good, like onetrack above. Without going into boring detail, I've highlighted just a few subtle hints that this wasn't exactly the same as many before. Would you also suggest that his father's death was by a lone gunman, for example?

You're probably correct about indispensable M61, I assumed he'd said dispensable, and didn't verify it. However, it doesn't mean what you suggest in this context, or in the context De Gaulle initially said it. Being a high ranking military man, he'd be smarter than the average grunt, and also likely to be well versed in diplomatic language, which is the art of saying something without specifically saying it. Being military, he'd probably have a good Intel background too, so he'd be privy to the truth implied by General Jessup in "A Few Good Men", when he said, "You want the truth? You can't handle the truth?" So, on one level, you're right - there is no suggestion of conspiracy in that statement, but on another level, it's a blatant threat to anyone else who thinks they're indispensable saviours of mankind. Ironically, the term "conspiracy theory" was coined shortly after the JFK assassination by the CIA to dispel theories involving their involvement. Of course, he could have simply crashed because he was a mere mortal Bloggs pilot who lacked self-discipline, but that's harder to believe than the glaring alternative.

So it would seem on the surface turbo, but considering the bigger picture, I think not. Why a pilot would lose control at night depends on many factors, but the circumstantial evidence surrounding this particular crash is compelling. Cui Bono is always a good question to pose in a potential murder investigation, and the beneficiaries of this particular accident are connected to a long list of untimely deaths.

That's subtle.... ?

There's more to that story than we're being told. And that guy being interviewed ain't gonna tell us either. Dark night disorientation crash makes it sound so obvious, doesn't it? As De Galle said, and that guy quoted, "Graveyards are full of dispensable men." In other words, JFK Jr was dispensable, No? Or is that too subtle a clue?