I am grateful for being put straight about my assumptions.
My question was whether those assumptions about known facts (or at least things with a high probability as alternatives) were correct.
I suppose it is fair to say that only time will tell what assumptions are actually correct or not. Perhaps all we do know with certainty is that the holes in the swiss cheese lined up, but we do not as yet know which holes maybe not even which sort of cheese.
No investigation takes place without starting with facts and then making informed assuptions (either positive or negative) and then setting out to try and deduce whether any of the assumptions are valid.
I might for example make the assumption that a ditching was attempted (suggested by BOAC).
What I then need to establish is whether any facts fit or disprove that.
For example; was the wreckage in a localised area or spread over 10s of miles ? If it was in one place, was the recovered debris so disrupted as to indicate a very high speed impact ? or a slow speed ditching ? Were there indications of the angle at which the aeroplane hit the water ?
My original intention was not to presume, but having been out of the loop to determine what theories were current and seemed to have legs and which had already been discounted.
It seems that at present practically no assumption is safe simply because I have no idea which of the statements I have read is supported by verifiable facts yet.
Dave Gittins