John,
I have no relevant experience, so cannot comment upon your postings, beyond saying that, to a layman, you seem to put your case well. However, if you will permit me, from having observed this thread for some time, and having worked with and spoken to several denziens of ODI, I think it is fair to say that for many, the issue is the application of the verdict by the AMs.
You say that:
'All the many theories sound fine, but only one of them fits all the known facts'.
I'd contend that the word 'known' is the key here - We do not know all the facts pertaining to the tragedy. Doubt remains. It does not matter whether that doubt is substantial or wafer thin - it is indisputably there - and for a verdict of gross negligence to be returned, there must be no doubt at all - not a shred. The standard demanded is far higher than 'beyond reasonable doubt'; it is beyond any doubt whatsoever.
While their Lordships can be said not to have experience in flying and so on, their ability to interpret law and regualtions is not in question. They concluded that, by keeping in mind the requisite legal standards (which one would hope that the MoD aspires to...), one can show doubt exists - therefore, the AMs should not have returned the verdict.
Put another way - were regulations (mis)interpreted in a similar way against a living person, the verdict would be thrown out on appeal. Sadly, Rick and John do not have the right to appeal - hence the efforts of the campaigners ever since.
The pilots may well have made a mistake - but 'may' is not good enough. It has to be 'indisputably' and the fact that there is still dispute eight years after the tragedy says, to my mind at least, all we need to know.
Regards,
Archie