I know that this is anathema to you but, perhaps, you may just consider the possibility that you were wrong.
cazatou, You absolutely astound me. For a long time, many people have been asking you to consider that YOU just might be wrong, i.e. there is room for DOUBT. As far as I can see, Beagle has only expressed certainty that there is doubt about the verdict of the reviewing officers and this makes their finding contrary to RAF rules. Insufficient evidence is all he needs for that. You, on the other hand, have refused to admit any doubt that they were correct. According to the rules, you require evidence bordering on proof in order to come to that view.
Surely it is clear to you by now that the only thing we can be certain about is that there is doubt. All the campaign is trying to do is get everyone to agree that the tiniest bit of doubt makes the current verdict of the reviewing officers against the rules of the time.