Dozy
What I was getting at (as I'm sure you're aware) was whether certain posters believe that the data was deliberately altered to say something other than what was on the DFDR, and what reason they have for thinking that may be the case.
To me, It is not necessary to accuse anyone of anything. The report and its genesis are self explanatory. Without the fullness of the Data, in its entirety, the report is misleading beginning on its face page. Purposefully? I cannot say, but again that does not matter either. Everything in view is "interpreted", and left to the imagination.
What's left is what matters, corroboratory, exculpatory, and further room for doubt. What is not included would frame nicely the part that is published, right wrong or indifferent.
It is a "managed" document, apparently satisfactory for most, and dissatisfying for some....
Motive? Who gives a rats behind, the damage is done. "Intent" is loaded with nuance. Nuance has no business in a report that is intended to be a complete and factual record....
Were these gents actually that silent? Speaking prophetically and sparingly to a conclusion of their own incompetence? They had several minutes to bring to bear the sum of their 10000 hours.
It is the height of injustice to not allow them to be heard in the arena of fairness, by experts who can use discretion and somber reflection, toward a result of added wisdom.
They perished fighting a kind of flying that is rightfully held in awe, and fear, by sane and experienced transport pilots.
Their legacy deserves a hearing, by others than those who have thus far prevented one.
I do not wish to hear it. I wish for some neutral and wise party to judge and report what happened. BEA does not qualify in that regard.
That is why Data is necessary, to remove doubt.