Folks, many of you have raised this issue, so I'm addressing it
separately. As a well-known investigative reporter once told me (shut
UP, Hedrick, he doesn't want to be named), it is NEVER the lie that is
the problem. It is ALWAYS the cover-up. Think back to Watergate.
Had Nixon simply said, Yes, I was worried about re-election. I bugged
Democratic Headquarters. The fallout would NOT have been as severe,
and POSSIBLY (I say POSSIBLY) might not have cost him the presidency.
It was the COVER-UP that made Woodward and Bernstein's careers. Same
thing here. Had NASA simply said yes, someone sabotaged that ship.
Yes, someone screwed up on the launch pad, and THAT is the real reason
the crew died. That would have been terrible, and there would have
been fallout, but do any of you HONESTLY make the argument that the
lie is better than the truth? If your loved one died under suspicious
circumstances, and you had to endure four decades of lies, would you
honestly say that was better than the truth? Not if you're honest.
It's time to TELL THE TRUTH. Like it or not, pleasant or not, whether
it paints NASA in a glowing light or not, it's time for the TRUTH.
Either that, or strap yourselves in, folks, because I'm making a
prediction: It's only a matter of time before MORE people die on the
launch pad because morons who do not understand their job descriptions
cannot decide the definition of "essential personnel." What's more
important to you? Proving you're right, or preventing more deaths?
RK? Roger? All of you NASA apologists: which do you prefer?????
LaDonna