There's no misunderstanding on my part, I've been stating that is Cato's
position all along! Although, it's kind of hard to tell sometimes, since his
long-winded prattle never directly says that it is illegal, only that "saying
it's legal is a lie". Then in the next sentence he contradicts himself and says
that it is not necessarily illegal.
John Cato beats around the bush even worse than you do, and unfortunately it
takes him about 50 times more words to do it.
Even if this is true, he was still going out of his way to personally shut down
someone else's launch. And stirring up trouble in that way undoubtly had
contributed (at least) to the loss of the field to all rocketry.
Ray, why don't you speak to the TMT motor certification issue,
corroborated here by Bob K.?
... or is accountability in TRA and perpetrators of the fraud
(perpetually in positions of TRA leadership or influence) not a subject
worthy of your attention
it is useful that these (as yet unresolved) phenomena be brought up,
lest we forget and trust the involved parties with our future
Iz crossposted for Ted Cochran:
Additionally, many in government LIKE it this way. Obscure, conflicting and
obsolete laws make it possible for them to bust someone they don't like
whenever it suits them. These people are NOT going to give up that power, ever.
And in some cases they purposely ignore what the law actually says, and make up
their twisted rules that contradict the letter of the law. ATF is a prime
example of this.
And the catch here is, Cato thinks he's the only one in the world who gets to
This is another problem that stems from Cato's attitude, namely treating
rocketry materials as automatically requiring special treatment. Did you go to
this much trouble before purchasing or storing anything else in your home? What
about that can of gasoline in the garage (assuming you have one), or the
pesticides, or that potentially explosive flour in the kitchen? I'm sure that
you did not, and neither does anyone else.
So why do some people insist on doing it for rocketry materials? Especially
when most bureaucrats, when pressed to make a decision about anything even
slightly out of the ordinary or which they are not familiar with, will say "no"
just to cover their bureaucratic butts???
That's exactly my point.
No offense meant to Jerry, but I'd certainly like to hear TRA's side of these
However, if in fact there is an unwritten policy not to do business with Jerry,
TRA should simply say so and let everyone get on with their lives. The use of
forged and/or altered documents (as has been alleged) would clearly give them
reason to do so.
that's right J., take Ray's diatribe to get an accurate view
I invite you to re-read Bob Kaplow's last several posts [and in all
fairness to the innocent bystanders, Rocket Flyer's post of Mon, 24 Nov
2003 20:59:17 -0500], and you will likely have a better insight into
based on Rocket's comment, JC is not without blemish, and I will make no
apologies in that
but what of TRA, and the issue of the EX launch misrepresented to the
siteowner (and ineffective insurance under that circumstance)?
and what of the documented and corroborated fraud by TRA leadership in
motor certification, and the fact that many offenders remain in their
JC's choice to remain aloof, and many peoples anger at the loss of Perry
Field to NAR sections, does not absolve TRA. What oversight has been
put in place to insure no repeat of the incident (given the offenders
remain in TRA)?
for those who did not know the full history, now you can begin to
understand Bob Kaplow's and Jerry Irvine's position on the TRA.
we should all be singing
"we won't get fooled again!" (the Who)
J.A. Michel wrote: