Rick and Doug. Gentlemen, I would remind you that the people that monitor this list are sharper than average and that when you make statements that are not based in, or are contrary to, fact your  only accomplishment is to diminish your own credibility.

There is not enough information available to form the conclusion that the apparent stopped prop was the result of a failure of an experimental engine component. Fuel starvation, engine instrument failure, electrical supply failure or pilot error could be to blame. We do not know as yet. Information extortion doesn't earn you any points either.

Just the facts, Ma'am.

On the topic of slander, this always seems to be the first bastion of the legally uninformed. In order to prevail in a slander case the plaintiff must prove (legal proof, not conjecture) three things; that the facts presented were false, that the person accused KNEW they were false AND that this false information caused documented financial harm to the injured party. The law varies from state to state but the basics are comparable. It is very difficult (read expensive) and rare to prevail in a slander case.

Waving an empty shotgun it initially impressive but in the end you will appear more rabid then reasoned.

Two men have died. Out of respect and for the sake of your own reputations, let us keep only to the known facts.

Regards
Brent Regan