Interesting high lights of the NAR BoD Meeting and ...

This should be in the FAQ.

Can you say "irrelevant to TRA BOD?"

Reply to
Jerry Irvine
Loading thread data ...

No you seemed to think it needed to be clarified. Using personal attack as the methodology.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

No but you will bend to competitive pressures with TRA.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Correct.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Let's not forget the multiple conflicts of interest on Rogers.

He was the TRA leader making the claim.

He was the TRA leader who finalized the claim and issued punishment.

He was the TRA leader who refused to lodge any response from the member "perp" proving the claim false on its face.

He was in a civil dispute at that very time with that member as well.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Chuck and Korey flew a rocket using "U.S. Rockets" technology developed by Irvine and disclosed to them in Powertech, a partnership of Irvine, Rogers, Kline, and others (long 54mm motor), at a Lucerne launch with a

15,000 foot FAA waiver.

Rogers stated AT THE LAUNCH the preflight run stated 13,000 feet, so he could get permission to fly.

It was optically tracked using NAR style trackers owned by Irvine to

25,000 feet (nearly as high as a post-flight computer run by Irvines said it should go).

Rogers after the flight stated it was preflight estimated to 32,000 feet and in fact used that flight data as the "sample" in a commercial software program RASALT4.bas (co-written by Irvine) for years.

Smoking gun.

He was not removed (by himself) from TRA.

The FAA agreed Irvine had obtained waivers for that and each other fest launch from 1986-1992.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

What a typically useless answer, serving only to stroke your over-inflated ego.

Reply to
raydunakin

you seemed to be ok with that, when you used to do it.

Reply to
Dave Grayvis

What "personal attack" are you referring to?

Reply to
Dave Grayvis

Prove it.

Prove that too.

Prove it.

Prove it.

You've been smoking something, that's for sure.

Prove it.

You make lots of claims, let's see some proof to back it up.

\
Reply to
raydunakin

Who did Chuck talk to about this rocket?

Reply to
Dave Grayvis

The "technology" you speak of, is called a "Rogers D grain", designed by Chuck Rogers, not you.

No such waiver ever existed. Post it if you got it.

Who did Chuck "state" this to?

Who did Chuck "state" this to?

Why do you fraudulently insist that you co-wrote software that in fact, you did not?

Then go ahead and post the evidence, i.e., waivers dating back to '86 and the documents from the FAA proving your above claim.

Reply to
Dave Grayvis

Ray,

Can you bust on Jerry a little less? Maybe just every other post?

Gessh it was almost civil while you two were gone.

Reply to
Phil Stein

Well you do too. Why don't you prove that Jerry DIDN'T have the waiver?

Why don't you prove that Chuck DIDN'T lie about the expected altitude?

Why don't you proge that Chuck wrote the code he claims to have written?

Why don't you prove that TRA really did certify the D-E-F-G reloadable motors that Chuck claimed were certified at NARAM-34?

Why don't you prove that TMT tested the delays on all the AT M motors that thye certified.

Why don't you prove that TMT tested all the motors they claimed were certified from 1994-1997.

Come on, Ray, just prove it. I've repeatedly promised to stop harping on stuff if it were proven to be real, and to apologise to all involved if I was proven wrong. WHy can't you just take your own advice.

PROVE IT!

Reply to
Bob Kaplow

While HE was gone.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

I'm not the one making wild accusations at other people's expense. Nor am I the one who is trying to take credit for every conceivable advancement or innovation in rocketry just to boost my own ego.

As for Jerry's waiver problem, that was investigated years ago and to my knowledge no evidence was found to support Jerry's claim. Now I know you'll say, "Yes, but TRA did the investigation and so it must have been flawed because TRA is the source of all evil." If that's they way you like to think, fine, but don't expect me to buy into your crackpot conspiracy theories just because you hate TRA and Chuck Rogers. Especially when you're siding with a guy who has a PROVEN track record of criminal fraud and deceit. If it comes down to who's word is more trustworthy, I'll take anyone in TRA over Jerry.

Reply to
raydunakin

What I find notable about this poat is it totally disregards many past posts from not only myself but others offering collaborating evidence (witness accounts).

So debating with you is actually beyond useless.

Let's see your waivers from your Nevada flights Ray.

Then your Arizona ones.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Prove it!

Reply to
Bob Kaplow

Posts are hearsay. Just because someone posts to usenet claiming to have "witnessed" something doesn't mean they actually did, or that they know what they're talking about. You post lots of crap, and all that's ever proven is that you're full of it. BTW, I don't recall ever seeing any post from anyone who said they saw the waiver you claimed to have. In fact, you yourself have on other occasions said that obtaining waivers was Chuck's responsibility, not yours. Oh what a tangled web, eh? You can't even keep your contradictory stories straight.

How would that prove that you're not a liar? Or are you admitting that you did lie about waivers you didn't have, but it's ok because you think someone else didn't have a waiver either?

Reply to
raydunakin

Hmmm... So Trip is expecting this BATFE thing to blow up in Bunny's face? ;)

So, who actually wants the job? Who is competent enough to be railroaded into the job? Is it too early for "Guzik for President" buttons? Is Bunny burned out or just getting warmed up?

Alan

Reply to
Alan Jones

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.