JC, TRA and the future of rocketry

here's an intelligent treatment of the subject on ROL, for your enjoyment, David

- iz

Even I don't have an answer for that one.

Jerry

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.

Yes, instead of hiding behind a "spokeperson" as Cato has done. Not that I actually _want_ him here. He and his demented world view are ancient history and should remain so.

Any editor contracting for an article has to right to reject it if it doesn't meet his standards.

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

RayDunak> >

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 define that.

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 accusations.

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 what happened

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 positions today?

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)

- iz

J.A. Michel wrote:

Bob K wrote:

Ray it seems to me if you and I could ever both stop talking about TRA we would agree on a lot :)

Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaa :)

It is a real name. And I would not complain very loudly about his not posting here daily.

:)

Just Jerry

There's a difference in motor certifications, which require proof that the actual manufacturer is properly licensed. I don't think that's a requirement for testing telephones.

You can't contradict yourself if you never take a firm position.

I proposed to him in email to have HIM create a "perfectly legal" propellant plant at my cost. He declkined.

100.

Jerry

That and his completely unrealistic expectations, coupled with his insistence that he and he alone had the the "correct" interpretation of the law.

But the term "properly lisenced" is a moving target and not applicable to actual federal and state law. It is whatever the TRA BOD make up and vote on.

They are mutually exclusive too.

Bob K wrote: