Mel,
"The best post so far". Good call!
Originally Posted by CK
The video reveals a number of facts, not least that the Hunter ran out of height and struck the ground. Working backwards, objectively, reveals a great deal. Deduction is a science.
I maintain that the aircraft striking the ground is pretty much the only fact one can deduce from the video with any reasonable degree of certainty.
Originally Posted by CK
I just don't think that we are entitled to be quite as guarded with information as we are generally inclined to be
I may have misunderstood you (please read on and I'll explain), but your use of the the word "entitled" could cause some to infer that you feel we have some form of duty to start drawing conclusions from the video and publishing them in public. The only people that have such a duty are those conducting the official inquiry, those that will see ALL the facts and that have the real expertise in interpreting them.
That said, I agree with your point about rife speculation and, more specifically, about the latest "flameout" theory. If your meaning about duty referred to debunking that kind of bolleaux (to borrow BEgle's favourite retort in such cases), then I fully concur.
My concern is that folk here (this is not directed at anyone in particular) don't fuel or incite new speculation either deliberately or, more likely, inadvertently by drawing conclusions too early. Do do have a duty here to understand that the hundreds (literally) of lurkers viewing this forum see a number of experts making, possibly, far more credible statements that could be construed as proven fact. Anyone that even appears to support the wild claims from the media are simply adding credibility to them and may convince more Mr J Publics to believe they now know what happened.
I really think I've said enough on this subject so will now wind my neck in. Honest! No, really!