It suggests a powerful oscillation (to me), one that may have had an effect on the early rotation, subject thus far only to speculation, and dependent perhaps on my observation of the tyre marks...
By the time any evidence of oscillation is observed the aircraft was 9 seconds into a 10 second rotation, so I can't see how it could have had any effect on the earliness of the rotation. There is, as I said, no evidence of any vibration at the frequency you suggested for shimmy (7 Hz if I recall correctly) during the airborne part of the rotation through to the screen, so I conclude the oscillation had no practical effect.
Since BEA have provided the photographic evidence to the public, and have also dismissed the possibility of horizontal oscillation gleaned from that very image, may I suggest that that constitutes the possibility of a glaring error in the report?
You wouldn't have found any prior remarks in any of my earlier postings (your #271) - this is the first. They didn't, so far as I can see,
dismiss the possibility of horizontal oscillations during rotation - they simply did not discuss it. All their remarks on loads and shimmy seem to be related to the conditions existing prior to development of any significant sideslip. Fig 73 (English version) for example specifically shows the force balances in a
possible bogie deflected condition but with the aircraft following a zero sideslip path.
I have no idea why they did not discuss the bogie behaviour in the rotation unless, like me, they came to the conclusion that it had no significant effect. This at least would be consistent with their statement that the missing spacer was not a factor. Even so they might, perhaps should have mentioned it - but that omission doesn't really change anything.
That is what is known as a discrepancy......
Not if I am correct in suggesting that all their comments relate to the conditions prior to any significant deviation from straight path. NB, I have edited the original to correct the reference to pre-tyre failure conditions.