re: “I think Cashill is probably right about both flight 800”
I don’t.
I think Cashill, like a lot of other non-technical types doing books on subjects involving a lot of tech across diverse fields fails in being objective and rather rides his favorite pony to a conclusion HE desires.
I didn't but have read bits and pieces of it as well as articles Jack has written based on it.
While Jack's conclusion may be incorrect, my take on him is that he is an honest broker and wouldn't do an investigation to prove a point.
He strikes me as a good investigator who was seeking the truth and would go wherever his investigation led.
It is usually Liberal scientists and investigators who conduct the kind of pseudoscience you are describing wherein their starting point is a position congruent with their ideology and their analysis is conducted NOT to find the truth but purely and only as a means of proving their previously held position.
I realize it is still early and we all may need more caffeine, but you are conflating at least two separate points in that statement.
It is true that non-technical types may make errors in the analysis of technical material, but from such errors one is not able to conclude that there is a general failure in objectivity. The two are unrelated.
And a failure in objectivity at times does not necessarily mean that the investigator's sole purpose is to support his previously held position.