Appart from flying into the ground, at a place we all acknowledge was (almost certainly) in fog.
Just what "known facts" do you want us to stick to?
I think I can see the problem. It's Baston/JP/Caz Maths.
Allow me to demonstrate. In "normal" mathematics the sum of all the parts equals the final result:-
1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 = 15
Let's assume that 15 is, in fact, a finding of "gross negligence" and the integers added are pieces of damning evidence that, when combined, quite correctly lead to the finding.
In Baston/JP/Caz Maths we find the following:-
1 + x + y + z + 5 = 15
In this form of maths we have a start point and and end point yet there are, (by their own admission), several unknowns. Because the start, (1 = Aldergrove), and the end, (5 = the crash site), are the same as in normal maths in Baston/JP/Caz Maths it's quite reasonable to ignore the unknowns and substitute the appropriate figure that results in 15 as the total. Job done, off to the pub.
Before long they will be telling us there is an invisible being in the sky who made the universe in seven days. They will base this conclusion on a 4,000 year old book written by men that believed lightening was a demonstration of the wrath of said being. After all, we have a start point, (a vacuum), and an end point, (a universe), so it's no less preposterous really, is it?
