I'm gona play devil's advocate here, why would NASA stage this and soil their reputation for years to come? I can't think of any motivation for the challenger accident to be staged.
Doesn't mean there isn't one, nor does it counter any of the evidence offered.
Lack of awareness of the motive doesn't mean much at all, really.
Like a cat who says he can find no reason why his owner won't feed him more often. Your vantage point does not contain the motive within its purview, so not being able to propose a motive is not very surprising.
normally there is a "follow the money" clause here but there isnt one in this case. the ONLY thing I can think of for this to be faked somehow is to send a message to a foreign power, but that message cant be interpreted as a good one so im at a loss personally here
You're right, (and im going abstract a bit here) lack of consequence, in this case motivation, doesn't disprove causality. But under that logic, we can claim all sorts of fun relationships that carry no value in the real world. Example, instead of believing collisions between subatomic particles carry heat, we can argue little knomes with pink hand baskettes actually carry the heat. The problem is if it still functions the same way, it doesnt matter how it happens except for maybe smashing some garden knomes every time i get burnt.
I know a lot of people at NASA, some of them are my friends, some were in mission control when this happened, and others are in the astronaut program right now. So it hits home when you say colleagues were murdered and engineers "living" with guilt for years actually couldn't have stopped it.
So please, beyond circustantial evidence, what else is there to go on here?
I am doing nothing but drawing my own conclusions here but, if you were ever on trial, I bet you'd be pretty upset if you were sent to jail on circumstantial evidence, which is what happened to Avery. Generally, its a weak and often ill-informed platform to take action from. May I offer this:
I am unable to find a single credible source which links the photo richard scobee now to the his name aside from LinkedIn (which anyone can create) and the company cows in trees inc. seems to just be a letterbox company in Chicago.
A quick search through professor Judith resnik's CV shows she was involved academically in law well before the challenger disaster. Here is one of her articles dated 2 years prior to the accident: http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1935&context=fss_papers and there are many more. I find it very hard believe someone would have the time to go through law school, making an impressive list of publications, while also in the astronaut program; the two are simply mutually exclusive.
view the rest of the comments →
0b01000101 ago
I'm gona play devil's advocate here, why would NASA stage this and soil their reputation for years to come? I can't think of any motivation for the challenger accident to be staged.
SonOfRobin ago
Who says NASA is really in charge.
Atma42 ago
"I cannot think of any motivation..."
Doesn't mean there isn't one, nor does it counter any of the evidence offered.
Lack of awareness of the motive doesn't mean much at all, really.
Like a cat who says he can find no reason why his owner won't feed him more often. Your vantage point does not contain the motive within its purview, so not being able to propose a motive is not very surprising.
englishwebster ago
normally there is a "follow the money" clause here but there isnt one in this case. the ONLY thing I can think of for this to be faked somehow is to send a message to a foreign power, but that message cant be interpreted as a good one so im at a loss personally here
0b01000101 ago
You're right, (and im going abstract a bit here) lack of consequence, in this case motivation, doesn't disprove causality. But under that logic, we can claim all sorts of fun relationships that carry no value in the real world. Example, instead of believing collisions between subatomic particles carry heat, we can argue little knomes with pink hand baskettes actually carry the heat. The problem is if it still functions the same way, it doesnt matter how it happens except for maybe smashing some garden knomes every time i get burnt.
I know a lot of people at NASA, some of them are my friends, some were in mission control when this happened, and others are in the astronaut program right now. So it hits home when you say colleagues were murdered and engineers "living" with guilt for years actually couldn't have stopped it.
So please, beyond circustantial evidence, what else is there to go on here?
Atma42 ago
Same faces, same names, same voices.
The odds of this being coincidence are extraordinarily low.
Granted, its all circumstantial evidence but its not realistic to expect much more than that.
Have to draw conclusions yourself from here. Its way more plausible than basket gnomes carrying heat exchanges.
0b01000101 ago
I am doing nothing but drawing my own conclusions here but, if you were ever on trial, I bet you'd be pretty upset if you were sent to jail on circumstantial evidence, which is what happened to Avery. Generally, its a weak and often ill-informed platform to take action from. May I offer this:
I am unable to find a single credible source which links the photo richard scobee now to the his name aside from LinkedIn (which anyone can create) and the company cows in trees inc. seems to just be a letterbox company in Chicago.
A quick search through professor Judith resnik's CV shows she was involved academically in law well before the challenger disaster. Here is one of her articles dated 2 years prior to the accident: http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1935&context=fss_papers and there are many more. I find it very hard believe someone would have the time to go through law school, making an impressive list of publications, while also in the astronaut program; the two are simply mutually exclusive.