It is so very noticeable how posters on this forum adapt the "rules" shamelessly to suit their purpose.
In the normal, run-of-the-mill accidents we read of here on PRUNE witnesses report all sorts of phenomena that they are willing to swear to and are instantly vilified and ridiculed by all and sundry who weren't there yet take the vehement view that eyewitnesses are inherently unreliable, and those with sociological and psychological backgrounds add their more scholarly views that back up this inherent reliability. The views of the witnesses are usually scotched - and I have to say almost always correctly, as subsequent investigation proves. Studies show that people are reasonably good at recalling discrete events but quite poor at reporting those events in the correct order; yet superb at reporting events however unfeasible and regardless of whether seen/heard or not when in a manner that they think credibly fits the scenario.
Yet when a conspiracy theorey is involved (as is so clearly the case with Concorde) then any doubt in the veracity of those self-same, well understood and accepted as unreliable witnesses is howled down and ridiculed - specifically by those wishing to back up the statistically/logically/intellectually unlikely or personally distasteful course of events they are trying to promote in direct contradiction to all the evidence.
Just look at the Mull of Kintyre Chinook CFIT accident to see how bizarre and self-propagating this effect can become.
Last edited by Agaricus bisporus; 14th Sep 2010 at 17:41.