I'm a skeptic I have no theories, only questions
greeney2 wrote:I'm a skeptic I have no theories, only questions
Doubt and reasonable doubt have legal definitions. When you want to raise doubt, a simple question is not proof, and requires a step by step senerio to become reasonable doubt. I've looked at many ideas on this board and when they lacked any viable explanation of how some wild idea could have been done, the burden of proof is on you.
Cole_Trickle wrote:Research, what.. data and info put forth by NASA signed off on by certain Governmental agencies as a means of making sure that it's fit for public consumption. Once classified material, you know do to cold war stuff.
This is where all this business of technology gets a bit dicey. If you can read a license plate from space, how is it that you can't see the significance of the damage to the wing of this craft and consider an alternative and possibly saving 7 lives?
How is it that NASA didn't give that small briefcase sized hole in the heat shield more consideration? What advanced technology went a miss that day? Either they missed it, couldn't detect it, or flat out gambled based on the data/science that someone probably ran some stupid model on.
I guess it's better than the alternative, after the fact alternative that is: Lawyer~~~ah on behalf of the families involved what went wrong here? NASA~~~Ah well we're not sure, we don't know.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests