Your good at obscuring the point and it's evident you have little or no knowledge of how litigation works - the US Navy was implicated directly in the accident as part of the ATS system in the Antarctic.
Judge Harold H. Greene's ruling is pure legal jargon, implicit in removing the USN from any culpability.
'deteriorating weather?' the stated vis and photo evidence shows it was 8/8th clear, 40 nm plus.
'against a judge who had none'...For a judge with no aviation experience he did a good job of pin pointing why and how a fully experienced and capable crew flew a serviceable aeroplane into a mountain they did not see was there. That they weren't fully cognisant of their actual position is well documented- the question was why, that's been explained. It's an interesting fact about air accident investigation, that very experienced pilots crash servicable aeroplanes relatively regularly - experience isn't a guarantee of infallibility, and is therefore not a proof.
the 16000' ceiling argument has been thrashed out before. it was a fallacy disproved by Chippendale as well in subsequent arguments, and was a corner stone of ANZ's defence that it was a crew error - A point that you are more than ready to reinforce at every opportunity. The crew are not blameless, but more importantly, they are not culpable
De ton cotè mec, I'm getting bored