Originally Posted by
cordwainer
No one is asserting the plane slid inverted the entire 820 feet, not even the CAB - hence their comments regarding disintegration along the way.
As Flaps and everyone else has pointed out, the inversion of the tail section most likely happened near or at the end of the sequence. I would remind you, for example that one witness quoted in newspaper articles described approaching the tail section just before an explosion occurred in it.
But the CAB DID assert that it slid tail first. That's the key. It ended up tail first. So if it inverted at the end of the slide, so did the wings. How did the entire thing rotate about its longitudinal axis?
In an investigation of this type, you start with observation and collection of evidence. Only after that, and based on observation and evidence, do you begin propounding theories. Even the wildest conjectures in theoretical science derive from previous observations and some sort of evidence.
That's what I did. I found press photos of the crash, and they along with the official reports were my starting evidence. I didn't wake up one day and decide to invent a scenario for a crash hardly anyone remembers. And after considering the evidence in the photos, I started to work on the puzzle.
Unfortunately, at this point, there is not yet enough evidence to construct the accident sequence reliably in full detail. On the bright side, you have a fair amount of data regarding the beginning of the sequence, and you have photos of the end...which is better than having nothing at all.
Yes, the evidence is very thin. As I say in my report, I have enough to show the CAB was wrong regarding the impact sequence. But I don't have enough to prove what really happened.
I am, as you know, trying to provide "Help researching..." the crash.
And I'm very grateful for that.
Failure to describe what they were not required to describe - the exact breakup sequence upon impact - is not the same thing as "wrong".
They would have committed no error by ignoring the breakup sequence or by wording it more generally. But they made a specific assertion that is incorrect, and I find this fascinating. They took an erroneous stand where they didn't have to assert anything at all. I understand that it's not the root cause, but the assertion is wrong.
I do think the diagrams and other data that would make things clearer (e.g., the wreckage chart, Lockheed's flight path calculations, etc.) still exist somewhere, in Lockheed's warehouse, or buried in incompletely-indexed microfilm at another National Archive location or a university library collection. Your FOIA request (an excellent step) may also bear fruit.
I remain committed to helping with that research, if you have no objection, and hope you understand I have the greatest respect for what you are trying to do, and for your perseverance in the face of considerable difficulty.
A major purpose in my publishing is to gain interested readers who (like you) have insights into where documentation can be found. I am also confident there is documentation out there. I am grateful to anyone who can help me pull it out of storage and into the light of day.