Originally Posted by Johnwil
It seems probable that had the jury at the CM reached a similar conclusion Spot would have been found guilty on all charges. I consider this conclusion to be wrong. It is unjust that Spot, his family, friends and many well wishers should have to live with this conclusion on the public record. The aim of the Support Group is to correct this injustice.
My overriding reason for rejecting the straight line descent hypothesis is that my companion and I saw two low flying F15s within 200 feet of us. Our evidence to the CM was corroborated by a lone skier two Kms to the west of us and two hill walkers a mile or two west again. There were very few other people walking or skiing in the area on that day. We were the only people in upper Glen Quoich. As chance would have it we were standing on a rocky outcrop at 2,500 feet admiring the winter scene when the jets came into view. We watched them approach then bank to the left in front of us. Like many people I can recall exactly where I was and what I was doing when told of President Kennedy's asassination in 1963. The memory of seeing the F15s is etched on my memory with equal clarity.
It is my firm view that the F15 aircrew descended below their safe flying height because they had decided the conditions looked suitable to carry out the low flying component of their mission and that we saw the jets as they were flying towards the entrance to the Lairig Ghru. It is also my opinion that this view is supported by evidence from the CM. This evidence includes the jets rate of descent from FL80. I accept that you reject this.
As a consequence of holding this view I believe that any calculation which is claimed to rule out this scenario has to be wrong.
In relation to the moutain rescue and infra red data. I spoke to the coordinator of the mountain rescue on the phone on the evening of the crash. He asked to speak to me following a statement I had made to the police in Braemar. I suggested to him that the pilots may have been attempting a transit of the Cairngorms through a pass to the east of Ben MacDui ( Lairig an Laoigh ) and that a possible crash site was near the narrowest part of the pass. He told me there was a rescue team searching near that area. At the time he was coordinating several rescue teams who were located at various parts of the Cairngorm plateau area. At that time he most certainly did not have an exact location near Ben MacDui's summit on which to focus rescue efforts. If IR related location data was available to him it was far from precise. i.e. not accurate to within two miles.
In relation to the fuel calculation I assume it is based on measurements of fuel prior to take off and data of fuel levels recorded on instruments recovered from the crash. I am surprised that it is possible to estimate, from this data, the distance an aircraft has flown to plus or minus 2.5 miles in 500 miles. I am also surprised that the exact route flown by the jets from Lakenheath in Suffolk to Ben MacDui is known to this degree of accuracy. I estimate the Craig Penrice hypothesis involves a loop of between 25 and 30 miles.
John W.
John, I am really here to help Spot. I do not mean to throw rocks into the support groups plans, if what i am saying does, i'll stop, but they are the facts as I know them. I am willing to ceed aspects and focus on the one area I know makes a difference, and that is the documentation of the rules as they were, I am now not constrained in arguement as I was while active duty.
That being said, I agree I have no right to say you did not see F-15's.
However, the corrected radar plots, the comm during descent, the formation at impact, the instruments at impact, including fuel level, lead me to only one conclusion, they hit shortly after leveling. As an asside, yes we can be that accurate on fuel, we knew thier starting fuel, taxi time, type of takeoff, climb rate, altitude, time of descent, speed etc. It's all on tape. taking all this into account inlcuiding tolerance of fuel sending units and guages, I have a quantity that exactly matches that found at the site. Adding a minimal low level jaunt adds about 1000 more lbs of fuel used, how do I account for that not being used?
As the defense laywer so deftly stated in question to me, "do you know what the scientific process is" of course, he stated that the hypothesis needed to be tested by trying every means to disprove. Well, the reverse is also true. Einstein still thought E=MC2 was pretty self explanatory, yet it has exceptions to it's rule
I would recommend we not get into further discussions of low level flying here, maybe offline. I am still willing to engage in other aspects.
Again, I'm here to help, to be truthful, if thats hurting the cause, please let me know.
Scott