Originally Posted by
cordwainer
there are some things where my expertise is, in fact, greater than yours, and so forgive me if I cop a little attitude here at what seemed a rather condescending comment, though I realize that was unintentional on your part.
It wasn't condescending. I stated that I didn't know what your experience was. That's a true statement.
Did they simply make up everything they claim Lockheed did to make it all sound good?
I have no reason to think so.
The report notes that "based on performance data" - not witness statements - the inner boundary was considered the only possibility. And the references on the map could also have come from topo maps, airport maps, the "aerial photo taken 9/17/61" that the plot in the chart was traced from, etc. "[L]andmarks used by witnesses..." is a pure guess on your part, so stating "probably" is a bit much.
There were many things in the topo map that are not tagged. That these were in the flight path map suggests they had relevance for the flight path study. It's not much of a stretch to think they were referred to by witnesses, which is why I only used the term "probably", but I have no witness statements. I'm ok with saying the landmarks were possibly used by witnesses, if that's more acceptable.
The report doesn't claim Lockheed gave any "weight" to other flightpaths. It does state their study "encompassed" reported flightpaths. As it certainly should - because a thorough and comprehensive report should include all reported data for comparison...making it all the more odd that you criticize the chart doing just that.
If the other reported flightpaths in the envelope are based on witness statements, it gives you some clues as to where they might have been located, and what angle they saw things from. And if the reported flightpaths are based on information from other pilots or ATC, it allows a comparison of normal flightpaths to that of an aircraft in trouble. Either way, it makes absolute sense that Lockheed would indeed have included the multiple-flightpaths envelope the CAB report states it did, and for CAB to include those multiple paths from the Lockheed report.
I understand what you're saying. Yes, it's fair that the entire region be in the report. But it's not fair to say that Lockheed put this forth as the region of possible flight paths when the report explicitly denies that Lockheed considered any of the extended region to be viable. By saying that the envelope is based on the Lockheed study the CAB is stretching in my opinion.
you can't take a "surmise" and a "probably" and a "conjecture" and an "I have no trouble imagining..." and then string those together to reach any usable conclusion. You can't prove anything based on conjectures alone - you can only construct conjectures based on fact, not "feelings".
Correct. I phrase my conjectures and hypotheses to show what I think may have happened, and am looking for evidence to refute or support. My conjectures are not proof, nor are Megan's or anyone else's.
you seem increasingly unwilling to accept anything at all in the published reports as fact. To you, the CAB report might as well be non-evidence. That being the case, it's kind of pointless to keep on surmising - at least until you have more data you are willing to accept.
I accept everything in the CAB report until something makes it untenable. I accepted the root cause. I accepted some kind of slide until I understood the tree issue. The tail-first slide I've rejected for several years, of course.
it's OK for me to express some frustration with what I and others consider increasingly illogical arguments, I don't think it's OK or acceptable to keep hammering at you about it. Which I will end up doing if this thread continues along current lines.
If you think I'm making a bad argument, please point it out.