[stack]

How do you know that Discovery didn't do as Redbull did and took responsibility for safety?

Pay attention to the thread. The assertion made by your camp is that we are responsible. Implicating the TV station is five notches of crazy down from that. The point is to see just how much you lot will double down on your lunacy, and so far you're exceeding expectations.

Not an assertion made by my camp. To say that FET is responsible is laughable at best.

I was merely responding to assertions made around OSHA rules, employer/employee relations, safety and otherwise as well as infotainment/daredevil relations. By disagreeing with the "OSHA argument" does not mean I agree with the "FET is to blame" argument. Learn to parse.

[Pete Svarrior]

The arguments were presented in contrast with one another. You failed to declare that you're responding to the issue out of context. Either you failed to parse, or you failed to present your argument appropriately (and your argument was irrelevant to the thread in the first place).

[stack]

The arguments were presented in contrast with one another. You failed to declare that you're responding to the issue out of context. Either you failed to parse, or you failed to present your argument appropriately (and your argument was irrelevant to the thread in the first place).

Actually, aside from you and the OP, no one, myself included, seemed to partake in this argument you suggest. Maybe you should read back through and gain a little bit more context before you start running off others who were privy. And I don't see how my argument against the "OSHA rules" argument is irrelevant. It's probably the reason why OSHA rules weren't followed.

[panicp]

I'm going to ignore OP's inability to write a forum post with any substance, his inability to contain his "erth rund!" shitposting, or to even find the right board for his thread. The subject is important enough to make an exception, and the serious slanderous allegations within the OP deserve some exploration.

Wow, I see you haven't become any less aggressive and hysterical Pete Svarrior. Just to pick you up on a few points:

1) it's quite clear that whether or not his interests in home made rocketry initial stretched to FET, by the time he died, they most definitely did:  "He envisions the launch as just one step toward eventually getting himself into space, at which point he plans to take a photograph "to prove once and for all this Earth is flat," he told his interviewer" (source www.npr.org).

2) following point 1), I regarded this misadventure part of an ongoing FET investigation/experiment - thus, I posted it in "investigations".

3) Slander? Oh dear. It is clearly beyond your education to realise the difference between slander (oral defamation) and libel (written word) - which is what I presume you meant? Except that you're wrong about that too. It's an inappropriate use of the term in this instance.

Additionally, what I wrote would never be found to be slanderous since claiming defamation for FET's would be legally dismissed for want of evidence that a flat earth exists. This is a legal argument you would lose - after the judge had stopped sniggering.

Going back to my OP, and given that Mike Hughes patently developed a secondary aim of proving a flat earth,   I genuinely think that any FET's that knew him and had an opportunity to advise him had a duty of care to warn him that his ill-advised (FAA UNAPPROVED) "rocket" launches carried an extremely high chance of death - and given he had advertised FET by plastering "FLAT EARTH" over the side of his "rocket" to cause personal injury to himself and obvious damage to the reputation of flat earthers (assuming that's even possible - see above legal info) I suggest there was a duty of care.

To be blunt, if the whole preposterous FET movement didn't make such absurd claims which offered Hughes the perfect opportunity (as he saw it) to combine his conflicted interests in aeronautical engineering with disproving heliocentric physics, perhaps he might not have aimed to get as high as seeing the curve demands and therefore might have tempered his aims.

But as I said in my OP, ultimately, it was his call, and his responsibility. Perhaps if he had had better guidance from friends, colleagues, FET's - and even the film company, he MIGHT still be here.

[AATW]

But as I said in my OP, ultimately, it was his call, and his responsibility. Perhaps if he had had better guidance from friends, colleagues, FET's - and even the film company, he MIGHT still be here.

Do you genuinely think that someone brave/crazy enough to build a steam powered rocket and strap himself into it would have listened had someone said "Um, you know fella, that might be a bit dangerous...". I'd be amazed if no-one pointed out to him the potential folly of doing what he did, I'm sure plenty of people did. And he must have known he was taking risks. Ultimately, he's a grown up. If he wanted to do crazy things like this then no-one was going to stop him.

[ChrisTP]

Yea I wouldn't place blame on FE'ers just as I wouldn't place blame on regular people when an astronaut dies in an accident. Mike was an adult and I think regardless of what excuse he used to make/ride rockets it was ultimately his choice to do so and he would probably have found another reason/cause if he weren't a flat earther IMO. Obviously I didn't know the guy personally but from what I saw of his character he was doing it for enjoyment.

[panicp]

But as I said in my OP, ultimately, it was his call, and his responsibility. Perhaps if he had had better guidance from friends, colleagues, FET's - and even the film company, he MIGHT still be here.

Do you genuinely think that someone brave/crazy enough to build a steam powered rocket and strap himself into it would have listened had someone said "Um, you know fella, that might be a bit dangerous...". I'd be amazed if no-one pointed out to him the potential folly of doing what he did, I'm sure plenty of people did. And he must have known he was taking risks. Ultimately, he's a grown up. If he wanted to do crazy things like this then no-one was going to stop him.

Yes. I agree. As I said quite pointedly. But the ridiculousness of his secondary aim - to photograph a flat earth - was in my opinion a potential conflict of interests for the crazed cultists who believe such nonsense. Were they intentionally or unintentionally "egging him on"?

I'm simply asking that rhetorical question. I propose that many/most FETs would NOT have attempted to dissuade him from risking a high chance of death because it served their agenda for him attempt to get their so-called "proof".

I also propose, that any selfless FET would/should have seen the extreme risk of his actions, and visibly pulled their support from his actions (e.g. Pete Svarrior et al) But they didn't. Nobody "officially" appeared to dissuade him.

And that's the essence of my particular beef.

If FET had publically stated that they do not condone reckless acts such as this, then maybe they could have retained a shred of integrity. But they (and many others) let him carry on regardless.

Do you not think FETs pulling their official/tacit sanctioning of this tragedy would have been the least they could have done.

I think the FET organisation very much should have categorically called this a very bad idea. Maybe this might have made him reconsider. Maybe not. But at least FET humanity might have taken a moral higher ground.

[Pete Svarrior]

Wow, I see you haven't become any less aggressive and hysterical Pete Svarrior

Refrain from further insulting other members in the upper. If you want to talk about how hysterical you find it that I don't appreciate you mocking the dead, especially someone I knew, take it to AR.

1) it's quite clear that whether or not his interests in home made rocketry initial stretched to FET

Indeed, it is quite clear - he was working on the rocket many years before any involvement with FET. To imply that we suddenly became responsible for him when he developed this interest is callous, and defies logic.

I regarded this misadventure part of an ongoing FET investigation/experiment - thus, I posted it in "investigations".

I really don't care what you "regard" things as. Read the "read before posting" threads before posting. If in doubt, ask for help.

3) Slander? Oh dear. It is clearly beyond your education to realise the difference between slander (oral defamation) and libel (written word)

Your obsession with the US legal system is noted, but not all of us are Americans, and not all of us treat online forum conversations as if they were a foreign court of law.

Finally, judging an ESL speaker for using a word in a way you consider is incorrect is stooping pretty low, even for you. This has very little to do with my education, and quite a lot to do with your inability to separate your feelings from the merit of the argument.

Going back to my OP, and given that Mike Hughes patently developed a secondary aim of proving a flat earth

Once again, Mike has made it patently clear that no launch of this height would prove anything about FET.

I genuinely think that any FET's that knew him and had an opportunity to advise him had a duty of care to warn him that his ill-advised (FAA UNAPPROVED) "rocket" launches carried an extremely high chance of death

Yes, and I'm sure the dating site that paid him for advertising had a duty of care, too. After all, he had words on his rocket!

Secondly, as you were already informed, and neglected to take into account, I personally advised him of the risk. Many others did too. It's telling that you wouldn't adapt your views when information contradicting your viewpoint emerges.

Once again, the ethically sensible thing would be to retract and apologise. Not to double down. Think about that in your own time.

[juner]

Wow, I see you haven't become any less aggressive and hysterical Pete Svarrior

Refrain from further insulting other members in the upper. If you want to talk about how hysterical you find it that I don't appreciate you mocking the dead, especially someone I knew, take it to AR.

I went ahead and gave a warning to panicp on this one as I know moderators try to avoid moderating discussions they are engaged in.

I suggest reading the rules if you plan to continue posting in the upper fora, panicp.

[Parallax]

The man was building a rocket. In his garage. That kinda spells disaster. However, he by all accounts he wasn't even a flat earther, he just slapped the sticker on the side and tried to get donations from flat earthers. He even tried to sue Mark Sargent and Patricia Steere! Mark Sargent was being sued just because of his name, which he claimed as a 'company', showing how the US legal system is bonkers for allowing someone to even file a lawsuit on those grounds. Its sad that he died, but the man knew the risks, and if he was told otherwise, do you think he would have listened?

[panicp]

The man was building a rocket. In his garage. That kinda spells disaster. However, he by all accounts he wasn't even a flat earther, he just slapped the sticker on the side and tried to get donations from flat earthers.

Parallex, I posted a link earlier which related to an interview in which he categorically made his ultimate intentions to prove a flat earth about as clear as it is possible to be. Certainly, by his own account, he most certainly became a FET, publically at least.

It's sad that he died, but the man knew the risks, and if he was told otherwise, do you think he would have listened?

It's an absolute tragedy that he was actually allowed to proceed with a launch. Although, I'm quite satisfied in his OWN mind, he thought he knew enough about rockets to be safe. Clearly he was deluded and the fact he "didn't believe in science" should have set alarm bells ringing with everybody - not least the authorities, but his family, friends and FET community.

If he'd set up his rocket in upstate NY, he would have had every 911 service trying to stop him, even section him. In the desert (where he was presumably in largely clear airspace), he had nobody. Just a TV crew who MUST have known this was a suicidal and frankly ridiculous stunt.

I stand by my original post: anyone that knew Mike had a duty of care to TRY to stop him. Hell, in the end, even calling the police advising them somebody was about to (unintentionally) die, might have brought about a better outcome. Nobody did. Why?

His death remains a tragedy which, in my opinion was avoidable.

If Mike had had better counsel (and esp the tacit and vocal support from those who genuinely believed he was able to further their cause) and had someone had the courage to call BS and contact the authorities prior to his launch to advise them of a potential (unwitting) suicide, AND more protection in law (forbidding someone jettisoning themselves to an inevitable death in the desert), he might well have survived.

If he'd tried to jump the grand canyon on a bike, he'd have been refused. How on earth was he allowed to do this?

Yes it was entirely his decision, but some laws exist to protect people from themselves.

Again, RIP Mike Hughes.

[Parallax]

Yes, publically he was a flat earth believer, however behind the scenes there is a lot of evidence to suggest he wasn't, and just slapped the sticker on because then he gets media attention. He was suing Mark Sargent, Patricia Steere, openly told Globebusters at a flat earth conference (allegedly) that he didn't believe it and was just using people. Now he's dead these lawsuits are too, which means people can say he was suing them without any repercussions. You can believe them or not, that's upto you of course, but it was rumoured for a long time he was never a flat earther and was just using it for publicity and donations.