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. In the court of R.M.R. people believe what they
want to believe. I believe it's time for a beer!
Jerry Irvine wrote:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:33:34 +0000, Alex Mericas wrote:
Then you erred, badly, in stating "There is no video." as if it were
an absolute fact.
Kinda funny that you keep repeating this statement sans evidence,
and yet clamor for more evidence about the existence of said video.
Saying that you're basing your conviction upon Jerry's previous
failures of prediction does not excuse such irrationality :)
I myself find it mildly ironic that my figures about the effects of
launching a salvo of twelve J's from within a van came so close to
being "tested" by the ATF... although the salvo was supposed to
immediately leave the area of the van and _not_ hang around... ;)
"Anime-style catgirls: Threat? Menace? Or just studying algebra?"
No. The null hypothesis is "there is no video". There is no evidence to
reject the null hypothesis. Kinda of like me saying you are not guilty of a
felony. I have no direct proof that your are, in fact, innocent. Or did I
err badly again? ;-)
Chuck Stewart wrote:
It is interesting that those who claim there is this video out there
of a BATFE faux pas can't seem to provide any type of hard evidence.
They are now resorting to hearsay.
For now I am putting these believers down as conspiracy theorists.
They might also believe we never landed on the moon. These believers
perhaps will cross over to being full-fledged nut cases... ranting on
a street corner with foil carefully applied to their heads.
Let's be very clear. It is CLASSIFIED. By the GOVERNMENT. Releasing it
is a "high crime".
The only reason you even heard about it at all was it was sooo fu*king
funny even people with security clearances could not stand NOT telling
the story. It was a laugh fest for people normally surrounded by bad
stuff in their daily lives. Give them a break.
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: email@example.com>
Interesting which government laws you choose to support. Do you have
proof that this event is CLASSIFIED? You're digging deeper.
Well you have no proof to back up your assertions, Jerry. We can let
this die as it's becoming more certain such an event (BATFE van fire)
never occurred. With each passing day the non-conspiracy theorists are
given further proof.
What does that prove? That the ATFE purchased 40 G80 motors, any delay.
My source tells me that the REAL purpose of the tests where to show that APCP
motors could explode. They INTENDED to destroy the van but it burned instead
of exploding. This is to counter the expected re-instroduction of legislation
in the new session of Congress.
Don't bother asking. It's classified, I can't tell. If I told you more it
would compromise my source.
"The incident involving the van full of rocket motors that burned to the
ground during a test firing of a model rocket at a plane is classified and
we can neither confirm nor deny the incident. Damn." -- D. Rumsfeld
Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.