caz,
One gets a little tired of refuting wild assumptions and sycophancy, only to have genuine questions regarding your sources and evidence routinely ignored.
Liked the attempt to weave the required level of proof into this:
The people at the Lighthouse on the Mull were in ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER about the weather conditions. The Deputy Lighthouse Keeper was driving back down the Hill when the Chinook exploded on the hillside behind him - he heard, but never saw, the aircraft.
Not at all sure of your point however.
The aircraft was flying legally in VMC and obeying VFR until............. Well, we don't know. Why it then went into IMC and crashed, we also don't know. The lighthouse keeper, whatever his quals, was driving down the hill in cloud, so has no idea how far below his position it extended.
As for the mis-plot. That's as far off track (scuse pun) as your wild breakfastgate allegations.
As Arthur Rowe points out; in VFR nav one picks big features which can be easily identified. You plot them to a reasonable accuracy (within a few hundred metres will do) and off you go. Once you've seen the W/P you select the next. At no stage during the planning or execution of this task is it likely that overflight of the W/P (lighthouse) or the land mass was contemplated.
Why the aircraft entered a 'cruise climb', deviated to the right slightly, and flew into the mull
WILL NEVER BE KNOWN TO THE STANDARD OF PROOF REQUIRED.
Another question for you to avoid:
To some it quite clear that the entire Crew are innocent
who are these people?