Walter,
There are people who read and post here who are far more knowledgeable and eloquent than me when it comes to debate. However, I'll try and answer your last point.
The Government has, I believe, stated that the enquiry is complete. On the basis of the evidence, 2 senior officers found the 2 pilots to be guilty of gross negligence. The point the campaign is seeking to make is that, even without the need to carry out a further enquiry, the evidence woefully fails to meet the standards or criteria required - at the time or in the light of later changes to policy - to allow such a verdict to be reached. No need for further expense - the evidence already in existence is sufficient to overturn the verdict.
You are seeking to make a different point; you wish to explore a unique line of thought requiring further enquiry and public expenditure. In an ideal world with unlimited access to forensic science, finance and possibly time-travel to review the scene of the incident, this would indeed be desirable. However, the planet I live on is far from ideal.
I won't discuss the nature of your thoughts here - although I have very strong opinions on them, based not least on my 4 years with the unit involved. However, as you have frequently, repeatedly shown yourself completely and mind-numbingly unable to grasp the nature of this thread I have a request:
Please would you open a separate thread, give it a suitable title (I have several suggestions I would willingly share) and carry on your highly-individual quest there? This thread is clear in its aim - to show that even using existing evidence there are insufficient grounds to find John and Rick guilty of gross negligence. If need be - to perhaps encourage you to open your discussion elsewhere - I will contact Brian with a view to changing the title of this topic to reflect the aim with even greater precision.
I look forward to seeing you move your contributions to somewhere appropriate. Thankyou.