Estes Snapshot Flight Report

That's because if it happened, it was so long ago that it's now irrelevent.

That becomes no more true no matter how many times you repeat it.

Bob K. wrote:

So suppose the tests were done but no data was recorded... how is that different, in effect, from their never having been tested in the first place (considering that the whole purpose of testing-for-certification is to provide the data...)?

-dave w

Motor tests are typically valid for three years. Is there something that was missed in the last 3-4 years? If so, what? We'll see if we can clear it up.

False. Records of non-profits are public record. Motor cert data are public record.

Tender or die.

Now would be good.

Everything you post in reply to fact based TRA accusations is PURE conjecture.

You are asking a reasonable question to Ray?

Bwa ha ha!!

As opposed to what you, Bob & your boy Iz have claimed? If you could prove anything you would have done it.

Since when? The purpose of testing is to prove a minimal level of performance reliability.

Yeah, Jerry hates that because I give reasonable answers.

Jerry again:

That's irrelevant to the issue. The issue is whether or not the lack of data proves the motors were never tested. Now, you can choose to believe that the lack of data indicates the motors were not tested, but what you believe is not proof.

I know this is a difficult concept for you to understand. After all, your the same guy who thinks that writing "stolen motor" on someone else's flight card is legal proof that the motor used was actually stolen, or that the buyer had any knowledge of the motor's origin and history.

And how is that done, except by the data from the tests?

Look, it seems to be really important to you to make some sort of excuse for the missing data. The obvious explanation is that the tests didn't happen... but for some reason it seems to be really important to you to insist that they might have, anyway. I don't understand why this means so much to you.

-dave w

Why does it matter, if there isn't any data?

If you show up at school without your homework, I guess you should get credit for it anyway, because that "doesn't prove" that you didn't do it...

-dave w

Point.

Well, in a TRA TMT world, anyway.

This should be in the FAQ.

So prove me wrong or shut up.

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

Results of delays tested for all motors tested by TMT for the past DECADE. That information has not been published since Cato left the job. Not by Tom, not by Bob, not by Sue, not by Mike.

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

I've already posted REAL TMT DATA that PROVED my claim that motors were certifgied without being tested. It's NEVER been refuted.

QED.

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

Where have you been. I HAVE proved that TMT only tested 26 Aerotech motors between 1994 and 1997. But based on the motors certfied in that time, it would have taken about 200 tests to do so. Therefor they certified motors that were never tested.

Refer to

and It doesn't take a rocket scientist to follow this argument. Failure to follow it is conclusive proof that you are NOT a rocket scientist.

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