FL - Perhaps we can debate camera element on the other thread and park this one. You are right I think the deleted post view was from a different computer - not sure why - so my apologies there as it looked odd.
but, in your case, a recurring complaint/criticism was that you refused to listen even when those with relevant expertise (often professional expertise in that forum) took the time to explain points to you.
You have occasionally appeared to acknowledge that your posts irritate people. Have you considered the possibility that the blame may lie with you? That your approach and attitude might be the cause?
To reply however to this type of stuff, if I may.
Of the many posts some seem to be arguing for the simple sake of it and yes I have been guilty of that - but frankly I think in the Mil forum we had 5 pages of back and forth over if what we had seen was a 1/4 clover.
I think we might be more comfortable calling it that now. I also suggested that these things shouldn't be a mystery - although we now know that the reason the display director couldn't give that colour earlier was that he had no idea what the display sequence was.
I seem to also recall another exchange with some APG63? where he suggested that there was no criticism from the AAIB about the CAA. Once again I think we may have more clarity on that now.
In fact your own view on the CAA more relaxed and then we had this BADA/Air Pilots statement...
I disagreed with you about your view about the meeting at the RAeS and after we kicked that around for a while you later suggested that opinion was indeed divided on the release of certain information.
Then we have had all this "have you flown a Hunter? flown a jet? You post about accidents, what are your motivations, they are not about flight safety... etc etc.
Except I'm not sure what is causing so much stress. I suggested about 18 months ago that CHC were in a bad spot and someone ranted that he'd been at a facility of theirs at the time and they all had new uniforms so that meant all was well and I was an idiot...
On another thread I got flamed for mentioning about a late CAA review of IFR flying outside controlled airspace which they themselves set an 1st Oct 2015 date for publication. Have you seen that yet?
And so it goes on.
In the later stages of this thread you asked me if and why about the release of the Go-Pro footage, nothing in that reply was ambiguous, nothing in that reply needed to relate to Chicago conventions (because it was my opinion that you asked for) and nothing in that reply needed suggestion that I didn't listen. In fact even having given you my own 7 reasons (that you asked for) you then suggest that you doubt those are my real reasons!?
Sure you will have a far superior knowledge of the law and how that relates to aviation. Yet the law isn't going to give us the reason for why this aircraft crashed, nor can it justify the poor process(s) that have so far been uncovered and questioning things that seem to be odd is no bad thing. Happy to wait for the final report and readers will decide what has been informed/reliable.