The only 2 determining factors were:
1) The SC
2) Being called to pit in before he had enough gap against the cars that had pitted during the SC.
Exactly what I say. It’s so difficult to accept the mere possibility that these two so determinants facts could have been manipulated? Is it so impossible an even insane to evaluate if those two unbelievable “mistakes” were true mistakes?
Must anyone be called unanimously a paranoid only for pointing that?
You sir are missing the fundamental ingredient that is needed to present a criminal accusation. Motive. To what end would the result be manipulated in such a way? To make Vettel the champion because he was Bernie's favourite son? Okay, that provides an admittedly far-fetched, though feasible, explanation for the Safety Car being deployed...Except:
In order for that motive to be applied to this scenario, you would need motives for:
1) The driver(s) and possibly team(s) who caused the Safety to be deployed to take part.
2) Chris Dyer, the man who apparently made the call to pit at Ferrari, and all those working under him - and arguably, above him too, since they had oversight to say "No, that won't work".
What you are failing to grasp is that something being possible is no indicator that it is in any way likely. It is
possible that the US Government orchestrated 9/11. It's also
incredibly, unbelievably, inconceivably unlikely, for a similar reason: WHAT WAS TO BE GAINED? Just because you can come up with a motive for what you might call the master criminal in each case (Bernie, presumably, in the F1 example and Bush in the terrorism example) doesn't mean you have a feasible narrative.
What I asked you about, which you have NEVER filled me in on, is WHY. WHY would all these people go along with this? For what possible reason would Chris Dyer deliberately doom his own driver's chances, doing unknown damage to his own career in the process? Why would Schumacher risk his life spinning his car completely around? He has
kids for chrissakes.
So, again, it is not about the possibility that a given variable can be manipulated. It's about the fact that manipulating it makes no sense in context. Logic is not a digital process. You cannot say "X occurred. X is influenced by Y, which is a controlled variable. Ergo, Y was manipulated to deliberately produce X." It's not that simple. Partially because any number of outside factors influence Y itself, but also because - and I know I'm repeating myself, but this is the
crucial point -
it's not enough to say you think it happened because it could have, you have to explain what caused it to play out the way you are insinuating. This is not a trivial matter of opinion, this is not you saying you think "a is better than b" or "Disneyland is more fun than Universal Studios". The opinion you are pushing here is a criminal accusation against (At least) three individuals, with no apparent motive for at least two of them and no evidence for any of them. It is ABSOLUTELY NOT completely within your rights to imply that Chris Dyer, or anybody else - Schumacher, Bernie, whoever it may be - rigged the result of an international sporting event and go unchallenged.
The Frome Flyer: Smoother, Smarter, Calmer,
Winner.
Jenson Button: Professor, Chauffeur, World Champion Racing Driver.
, you had me there, don't scare me like that.!
. You can’t imagine how many times I’ve seen the accident, trying to believe that it wasn’t a simulation, but it is. 
