Sorry about that last post, I forgot to put my glasses on:
IAC, if Jerry is posting content to TRF, that is a good thing. However,
if the content contains the same moronic regulatory trash posting
content as he posts on RMR, he would be removed. I must admit, I only
visit TRF once in a while and I have never noticed a JI posting.
His lies are not a subject he is willing to address head-on so he must
attack the messenger. I am on several forums. He does not feel guilty
being a liar. In fact I predict he will escalate since his lies were
instrumental in a $40 grand fine. One he has taken massive publioc
Hey, Phil, look again... on page 4, the fourth
paragraph from the top mentions: "a June 26, 2001
letter from Mr. W. E. Wallace of the Maryland
Delaware Rocketry Association ... raising questions..."
Suppose that instead of saying (in effect) "Isn't this guy
Irvine trying to pull something deceptive?", the letter had
said "Isn't this the sort of propellant that tested out as
'not even classified as explosive' in masses with dimensions
applicable to model rocket engines?"
The DOT document listed Fred's letter in their paper
trail, indicating that they gave _some_ significance
to what he said... one can only speculate how it might
have shifted things around if he had said the other
thing and stood by it. (His claim that doing this would
have put _him_ in some kind of trouble with DOT is less
If the deal had gone down the other way, then it
would have been established that the motors would
have been "legal" to ship without "proper 'explosives'
paperwork": which was the whole point of having that
testing - i.e., the "ACS Reaction Labs" report - done
in the first place, wasn't it?
So Fred's letter, while it didn't cause Jerry to do
anything one way or another, may have been part of
how DOT came to say what they did about it...
COmbine the fact that Fred knew that Jerry had a history for taking
liberties with the truth, Fred's need to maintain his credibility in
an existing DOT relationship and Fred's desire to help, I think he did
a reasonable thing.
Na, I was past that stage and trying to cut through all the bull S$%t,
jerry had professed.
How about the whole paragraph, cut from the original letter MS word
file, faxed to DOT? I'm sure jerry has the complete letter.
"It is now my understanding; Mr. Irvine is still claiming no response
from you or your office. I find it difficult to believe Mr. Irvine
has complied with the instructions provided him, with no response
from your office; unless, he is taking liberties with the truth,
there are problems he has failed to disclose, and or both. As a
result of my cynical opinion and frustration, I responded to Mr.
Irvine through a third party; "If he wished, I would hand deliver the
document copies to your office or fax them to you myself". To my
surprise, Mr. Irvine responded, " he has no problem with me doing
either". So, as I am a man of my word, the attached documents,
include the information Mr. Irvine claims to have faxed to you at