Hi Brain Fade,
welcome to the thread. Apologies for not posting that welcome sooner.
Whilst I have no issue with you having an opposing view to that of mine, I'm curious as to what you base your opinion on.
I agree that the end result was the impact with the Mull, with the subsequent terrible loss of life, but how can you discount the well documented problems with the Chinook HC2 fleet at the time of the accident? How can you discount the BoI findings that the following factors could have contributed to the accident (either singly, or in combination): Human Factors; Crew Duty Considerations; Spatial Disorientation; Visual Illusion; Weather; Rad Alt Procedures or Distractions.
There are simply too many unanswered questions to satisfy the burden of proof required at the time of the accident - that of proof with Absolutely no doubt whatsoever. Now, I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Chinook HC2 ZD576 hit the Mull of Kintyre at approximately 6.00pm on 2 June 1994. However, what I, nor anyone else for that matter, can know - with absolutely no doubt whatsoever, is why, or the circumstances leading up to the impact.
The Campaign is not saying that the Air Marshals are wrong. Nor are we saying that they are right. What we are saying is that there is insufficient available factual evidence to support their speculated opinion, to the burden of proof required, and therefore the verdict should be removed.
The only accurate conclusion should be that the most probable cause is [insert theory here], but quite honestly we will never know with absolutely no doubt whatsoever.
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook