Without examination, I will not make any statement. Only people like you will make apriori assumptions guided by their agenda.
This is clearly a lie. You are no different than everyone else. You make guesses based upon variables and lack thereof. You have been willing to make assumptions when situations required them and you will do so again and again in the future. And you will weigh alternate hypotheses in the absence of definitive proof.
Only thing law cares about is if the defence can establish reasonable doubt. Anything else is only in your own little imaginary world.
Against an expert in orbital mechanics like Thomas Kelso who was consulted in this event, a wise lawyer would have his own expert,
IF he can find one. Apparently you would not make a good lawyer.
A contributing factor is part of the cause. If it has no effect on the event, then it is not relevant as evidence or as a factor.
In this event, the FY-1C debris field is more relevant than your meteor.
Your own sources say the best they have is "appears to be". They would be embarrased by your jackas$ understanding of their own statements and extrapolating them into a legal argument.
Nonsense. They would laugh at you for believing you could challenge them.
Of course you don't. Your deliberate misquotes expose your desperation and intellectual dishonesty.
Challenged vs chewed up? Are you serious that this would constitute a deliberate misquote?
Oh, there is plenty of evidence showcasing your bigotry towards the Chinese. Your entire posting history is on record.
Then bring them. Take your time gathering them. But remember to abide by your own requirements for what constitute as 'evidence'.
You fail yet again at reading comprehension. Only half the satellite is covered in reflective coating, so any rotation or other deviation may negatively impact its reflective function.
And you utterly failed as a 'man of science'. Even if half of the satellite is covered, its function -- to reflect -- is still there. It is limited by design, not by accident. So your use of the word 'haywire' is still inapplicable.
That post of yours was after you got your as$ handed to you in the Sharia thread where you kept blabbering about Britain, Pakistan and whatnot, while ignorant of the simple English word "enforce" against the Constitution.
I already showed you the meaning of the word ENFORCE although I fully expect you are beyond help as you are lost in your own delusion. Since you failed to grasp the meaning of that word, you dug yourself into a hole and have been trying desperately to claw your way out -- only to keep falling deeper within.
And it is irrelevant. When a bill become a law, it is instantly enforceable and I did not dispute that. This is a deliberate distraction from you. But since you mentioned that a law is not enforceable if it violate the Constitution, it begs the question of
HOW, as in what avenue, did the ruling of 'un-Constitutional' came to be. If a bill is found to be un-Constitutional during the examination process, then it will not become a law in the first place. So your enforce definition is pointless.
What you are desperately trying to avoid is the truth that a law can be made independent of the Constitution and that is proven by the many challenges in the Supreme Court queue. And since there are challenges in queue, this mean your argument that no religious law can be enacted is false.
Advice to yourself?
The Sharia thread is there for everybody to see how pitifully ignorant you are of the fundamentals behind the US Constitutional setup.
Absolutely I want people to see it. They will see your hypocrisy as well as your failure to understand US Constitution and pretend that you do.
Yes, after you got your as$ whooped, the best you can come up with is that Congress can deliberately go against the Constitution and try to slip one by until someone catches it.
How long did it took laws regarding slavery to be declared un-Constitutional?
What part of "off-topic" do you have trouble understanding?
Dictionary time again...
YOU were the one who dragged this topic in here. Now deal with it, hypocrite.
Why are you silent about the religious law in your Pakistan but railed against anti-religious laws in the US?
It has been posted either by gambit or audio.This thread is 9 page long and has posts averaging 1000 words each.I exactly don't remember the location the piece of debris was mentioned in the list.
You mean this...
http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-...inese-anti-satellite-test-8.html?#post4035173
The links to celestrak and socrates are in that post. It shows all the major trackable debris pieces from FY-1C.