ATFE Anti-rocketry Video

David Weinshenker wrote in news:3FEA145F.DF765FC9 @earthlink.net:

Have you met his sister Myasthenia?

len.

Reply to
Leonard Fehskens
Loading thread data ...

Yes.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Leonard Fehskens wrote in news:Xns9460843B172B7lenfehskenshpcom@16.105.248.153:

They may not be able to force you to sell to them, but I'm sure they could easily make you wish you had. Probaly the best Aerotech could have done (had they even wanted to), was to get a lawyer and try to run some delaying tactics and hope the ATF would give up. Unfortunately, it would cost a fortune to try that.

Federal law enforcement personnel would be exempt from state laws while in the performance of their duties.

Reply to
David W.

yep

Reply to
Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed

Snip all.

I just want to see the video in Wal-Mart.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

OK, I'm only going to static test some motors, can I buy a few M's? Honestly, I'm only going to test them. Come on, you, let the NAR S&T chairman have them, why not me?

Couldn't get a single vendor to sell me any. ;)

Bob

Reply to
baDBob

The sad part is, they could have probably just gone to a video effects production company and had them make a film clip of "people shooting little rockets at exploding airplanes" - if you're doing movie stuff, it seems that you can actually buy "industrial/effects" motor types without worrying about the rocketry association "certification list" stuff - and those guys probably have some idea of what to do with camera angles and sequence editing, such that they could have made a nice spectacular-looking film show without endangering any actual airplanes or even burning up any rental vans.

On a more general note, how long before some low-end cable network starts coming out with "most embarrassing cop videos"? I bet they could put together some great real-life "Keystone Kops" action collections from the out-takes of shows like "Cops"... (The one where the police cars collide with each other, the one where the police dog...)

-dave w

Reply to
David Weinshenker

J350s are easy access and unregulated. G80s are totally unregulated other than not available to minors. And from the looks of the results, it looks like the JBGTs involved were certifiable anyway...

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

Reply to
Bob Kaplow

perhaps the truck was the magazine...

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

Reply to
Bob Kaplow

I think you're not supposed to Discharge the "Explosives" while you and they are _inside_ the Magazine itself... I mean, they probably thought _that_ was so basic they didn't even put it in the orange book.

(Or maybe they thought J350's weren't really explosive, so that precaution didn't apply?)

-dave w

Reply to
David Weinshenker

There is no such thing as "easyaccess-sm(AT)" in ATF lingo.

There is only regulated and unregulated. Period.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

R O F L

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Reply to
Alex Mericas

Seems to me, ALL LEO are exempt from any laws while in the performance of their duties. (And at all other times too.)

Just me, thinking again. Everyone tells me not to, at least until I have some experience.

just Ed....Ed M

Reply to
Ed

Are you sure that you aren't really "Dave Grayvis?" This sounds like one of his/hers/its unsubstantiated spews of nothingness.

We have all been making fun based on the possibilities of the existance of a video. Not knowing either way. However, you state it as a fact. Therefore, I challenge you to prove it. Prove that a video does not exist.

Bob

Reply to
baDBob

baDBob wrote (in one of the most convincing and well researched posts of 2003): > Are you sure that you aren't really "Dave Grayvis?" This sounds like > one of his/hers/its unsubstantiated spews of nothingness. >

I have no evidence either way. Does that mean I'm wrong? I don't think so. There is no credible proof that it DOES exist. The null hypothesis is that the incident in question never happened and thus there is no video. There is no evidence to reject the null hypothesis. Don't dredge up the Aerotech letter because I've already conceded that the ATF did purchase the motors. But I still question that the van incident happened as described or that the "tests" where/are conducted as described. I can't prove they didn't but you can't prove that did. I can't prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist either (except in the minds of children).

I find it ironic that dozens (perhaps hundreds, haven't bothered to count) of posts are based on the belief that the facts did take place exactly as described based on nothing but an internet post be person/people who are known to exaggerate (The Memorial Day warnings to be exact). But if I question the validity of these "facts" my posts are labeled as unsubstantiated spews of nothingness. Wow. Are you guys interested in some Real Estate? Or perhaps you would like to buy some Herbal Viagra substitute pill.... What did Bugs Bunny used to say? What a maroon!

If independently substantiated proof that the events transpired EXACTLY AS DESCRIBED is shown I will retract my statements. If you want to waste your time talking about a mythical event, fine. I'm going to paint some rockets.

Reply to
Alex Mericas

I have faith they happened approximately as described because 3 independent professional contacts in direct contact with source witnesses confirmed it. You would have to know the people as I do to understand their ethical standards to fully trust them. I do.

As for Santa Clause, I find when I believe good things happen, and when I do not belive, they do not. On issues of religion and fantasy, blind faith can be an irrational feature positively reinforced by actual real events in life. Can't explain it but I have ancdotal evidence it is "beneficial".

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

OK so Jerry Irvine has a friend of a friend who honestly tritely says it happened.

But we see no proof.

Balls in your court Jerry. So far there is no physical evidence proving your story. And don't give us this "we have to prove it doesn't exist" charade. That's nonsensical.

Reply to
Nozzlehead

Oh. Well if three friends of Jerry heard it directly from their friends, it must be so.

I think in the court of law that is called "hearsay".

HEARSAY - Secondhand information that a witness only heard about from someone else and did not see or hear himself. Hearsay is not admitted in court because it's not trustworthy, as well as because of various constitutional principles such as the right to confront one's accusers, however, there are so many exceptions that often times hearsay is admitted more than excluded.

This isn't the court of law. > I have faith they happened approximately as described because 3

Reply to
Alex Mericas

I believe jerry refers to them as, "Me, Myself and I".

Reply to
Dave Grayvis

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.