Erebus expert? . .. hardly.....but nevertheless pretty clear as to who has a good grip and who has not.
The observation has been frequently made, that in common with many others, this accident was the result of a culmination of failures, all of which could be seen as defective links in a long chain of circumstance. To fasten onto one such link, subjecting it to minute scrutiny, to the exclusion of a similar approach to the others, is patently wrong headed.
Like for those deeply insightful armchair experts who refute Justice Peter Mahon's finding out of hand, it would improve the prospect of maintaining reasonable, rational debate if they went out and polished the car. It is impossible to take seriously anyone who disputes the findings of carelessness, neglect and duplicity.
And please, please don't take this as a cue to run up the barricades again to defend or condemn Captain Jim Collins.
Putting the findings to one side though, can anyone produce proof that the enquiry in any way failed in its task of gathering evidence and subjecting it to the most intense scrutiny? To read the report and its appendices closely is to be struck by their comprehensiveness. There is a level of precision and thoroughness akin to what is found when studying those forensic reports that are landmarks of their kind.
As to the validity or otherwise of the findings, maybe it is not too much to hope for that there will eventually be a fairly consistent consensus. There were of course those critics who were shown up to be lacking in any credibility at all. Maybe they were bent on pursuing narrow, self absorbed agendas and, no great surprise, went into denial. Such is the dross of protestations past.
What does continue to occupy those with an academic interest is wrestling with the imponderables and the complexities. In another compartment altogether, there is an unabating profound sadness for those most affected.
With an acute awareness that to touch upon the grief is to see the chasm that opens to swallow the gratuitous, when I think of the toll in human lives, predominantly those who perished on that remote icy, snow-bound slope, but also those who carried to their graves burdens of a magnitude impossible to comprehend, I see in my mind's eye a field of crosses, by which we the living stand in mute, contemplative respect. (Thoughts that only crystalised yesterday, on Anzac Day, ironically.)
Lastly, a little postscript that may be less controversial than some of the foregoing, though unrelated I admit, concerning the free flow of ideas and how counter to that is 'political correctness'. Geoffrey Blainey, an historian, speaker and writer blessed with lucidity and insight, says P.C. is hypocrisy; "the people who say it's sinful to discriminate themselves discriminate."
P.C. is in the same family as those 'isms' against which we should ever be on our guards. This website has become hugely popular, a home away from home it looks like for some of its regulars. Fanaticism? Masochism? (Incidentally, in a gentler age, one of the world's first aviation papers ran a regular column called AIRISMS.)
Thinks - best leave it to Kharon to define chauvinism, onanism , even botulism.
Can't think what the 'ism' might be for thread drift.
WANKERISM?
Have to thank ORNERY for his proof reading skills, though his sharpness in line with the Muldoon school of dry invective needs rehoning. Whether he is yet a first master of stone casting is debatable.
". . .. . .seeing where you are and seeing something where you are going"
. . . . . . . . . . at the end of the far queue at the flicks again?
Last edited by Fantome; 27th April 2012 at 20:09.