The Kick of the Mule (Jack-Ass)
john_thomas_maxson
my website soaring yesterday, when he apparently named
me "Crank of the Day."
For now, thanks for the boost in my ratings. Every little
bit helps -- when people are pointing to the truth.
JTM - www.mission51l.com
Paul F. Dietz
> For now, thanks for the boost in my ratings. Every little
> bit helps -- when people are pointing to the truth.
You truly are the model of a newsgroup personality.
Paul
john_thomas_maxson
Paul F. Dietz <di...@dls.net> wrote in message
news:3CF2575A...@dls.net...
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
He truly is the model of a modern Major Maxson.
He's information vegetable, animal and mineral
He knows the board of Lockmart and he can quote flights historical
From Vanderberg to Kennedy in order Categorical.
He's very well acquainted too with matters conspiratorial
He understands equations both simple and quadratical
About spectroanalysis he's teeming with lot o'news
With many cheerful facts about the 51-L he'll bemuse.
With apologies to Gilbert, Sullivan, Stanley and any others.
> Paul
Paul F. Dietz
> Your post is proof that I have my following.
You're fascinating, in the same sense that horrible
car crashes are fascinating.
BTW, the line in the previous post refered to this,
which I am sure you will enjoy. :)
---------
(Originally by Tom Holt, to the tune of that G&S song,
recently reposted on another newsgroup)
I am the very model of a Newsgroup personality.
I intersperse obscenity with tedious banality.
Addresses I have plenty of, both genuine and ghosted too,
On all the countless newsgroups that my drivel is cross-posted to.
Your bandwidth I will fritter with my whining and my snivelling,
And you're the one who pays the bill, downloading all my drivelling.
My enemies are numerous, and no-one would be blaming you
For cracking my head open after I've been rudely flaming you.
I hate to lose an argument (by now I should be used to it).
I wouldn't know a valid point if I were introduced to it.
My learning is extensive but consists of mindless trivia,
Designed to fan my ego, which is larger than Bolivia.
The comments that I vomit forth, disguised as jest and drollery,
Are really just an exercise in unremitting trollery.
I say I'm frank and forthright, but that's merely lies and vanity,
The gibberings of one who's at the limits of his sanity.
If only I could get a life, as many people tell me to;
If only Mom could find a circus freak-show she could sell me to;
If I go off to Zanzibar to paint the local scenery;
If I lose all my fingers in a mishap with machinery;
If I survive to twenty, which is somewhat problematical;
If what I post was more mature, or slightly more grammatical;
If I could learn to spell a bit, and maybe even punctuate;
Would I still be the loathsome and objectionable punk you hate?
But while I have this tiresome urge to prance around and show my face,
It simply isn't safe for normal people here in cyberspace.
To stick me in Old Sparky and turn on the electricity
Would be a fitting punishment for my tasteless duplicity.
I always have the last word; so, with uttermost finality,
That's all from me, the model of a Newsgroup personality.
-------
john_thomas_maxson
Paul F. Dietz <di...@dls.net> wrote in message
news:3CF26B80...@dls.net...
>
> You're fascinating, in the same sense that horrible
> car crashes are fascinating.
You have a fascination with death, huh? Did you help
plan the Challenger debacle? Or do you just help
perpetuate its cover-up?
> BTW, the line in the previous post refered to this,
> which I am sure you will enjoy. :)
>
> ---------
>
> (Originally by Tom Holt, to the tune of that G&S song,
> recently reposted on another newsgroup)
>
<snipped irrelevant reference to a teeny-punk net.geek>
G&S? That's a new one to me. Ghouls and Shitheads?
Why do you listen to such garbage? Are you a ghoul?
JTM
john_thomas_maxson
Greg D. Moore (Strider) <moo...@greenms.com> wrote in message
news:%OtI8.32228$xN5.6...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com...
>
> "Paul F. Dietz" <di...@dls.net> wrote in message
> news:3CF2575A...@dls.net...
>
> He truly is the model of a modern Major Maxson.
>
> He's information vegetable, animal and mineral
Here information is none of the above. It's bits.
> He knows the board of Lockmart and he can quote flights
> historical
No, all the geeks do that.
> From Vanderberg to Kennedy in order Categorical.
There were non from Vandenberg, stupid.
> He's very well acquainted too with matters conspiratorial
A "matter" (singular), actually.
> He understands equations both simple and quadratical
> About spectroanalysis he's teeming with lot o'news
"Spectral," geek.
> With many cheerful facts about the 51-L he'll bemuse.
Nothing cheerful or funny about 51-L, Moorless.
> With apologies to Gilbert, Sullivan, Stanley and any others.
Obviously they more than deserve your apology.
JTM
Mountain Camper
Please read the private e-mails I sent to you. I look forward to hearing
back from you privately.
--
Mountain Camper
Wheeler Peak
---
Outgoing mail is sort of certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.365 / Virus Database: 202 - Release Date: 5/24/2002
john_thomas_maxson
Not only do you try to make me look like a fool publicly,
but now you privately take me for one as well.
Mountain Camper <mountai...@lvcm.com.not-this>
wrote in message news:uf4tqul...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Dear JTM,
>
> Please read the private e-mails I sent to you. I look forward
> to hearing back from you privately.
> --
> Mountain Camper
> Wheeler Peak
You have the unmitigated gall to advise others here
about making retractions, issuing apologies, and
withholding backup for assertions and conclusions.
You conceal your "crew story" with great effort.
And you cannot find the simplest starting point of
all in rebuilding a childhood love that your father
once had for you -- a heartfelt public apology.
JTM
Mountain Camper
<snip self serving self pity>
Oh, I see you did read them. Good. I suppose I should start posting the
uncopyrighted stuff here for all to read to vindicate myself?
--
Mountain Camper
Wheeler Peak
---
Douglas Ellison
"john_thomas_maxson" <max...@mission51l.com> wrote in message
news:actrdl$dqa$1...@ins22.netins.net...
> Poor try -- it simply doesn't fit, does it now?
much like your 51-L plot-line really
(sorry - couldnt resist that one)
Doug
Douglas Ellison
"Mountain Camper" <mountai...@lvcm.com.not-this> wrote in message
news:uf4tqul...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Please read the private e-mails I sent to you. I look forward to hearing
> back from you privately.
I asked him some simple question via email - he refused to answer. Clearly
he didnt have any answers that didn't expose him for the confused old fart
he is
Doug
Mountain Camper
> I asked him some simple question via email - he refused to answer. Clearly
> he didnt have any answers that didn't expose him for the confused old fart
> he is
What a shocker. He reads your e-mails but won't answer questions in them?
He is still clinging to an old inaccurate and out of date "crew story" that
I abandoned months ago too. Vindication on threats of libel written in
the author's own words (not copyrighted) with contemporaneous witnesses to
boot! That's as good as it gets Doug.
john_thomas_maxson
(Maybe I should make it clear that the "mule" I refer to
is Frances the Mule. I should have misspelled Francis.)
Mountain Camper <mountai...@lvcm.com.not-this>
wrote in message news:uf59ds8...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Oh, I see you did read them. Good.
I think Katz nailed you pretty well for making such a claim.
> I suppose I should start posting the uncopyrighted
> stuff here for all to read to vindicate myself?
I'd love to read whatever material you've written. It
doesn't matter to me whether it's copyrighted or not.
I'll pay you $100 for a copy I can read (no reason to
post it here) and I'll keep your confidence. Here a
man's word is his bond (unlike in most big cities).
JTM
Mountain Camper
> Mountain Camper <mountai...@lvcm.com.not-this> wrote:
<snip>
> > Oh, I see you did read them. Good.
<snip long dead issue>
It was a rhetorical question. I thought maybe you had read them based on
your response.
> > I suppose I should start posting the uncopyrighted
> > stuff here for all to read to vindicate myself?
>
> I'd love to read whatever material you've written. It
> doesn't matter to me whether it's copyrighted or not.
> I'll pay you $100 for a copy I can read (no reason to
> post it here) and I'll keep your confidence. Here a
> man's word is his bond (unlike in most big cities).
Oh so you did not read the e-mails. Let me clarify then since you do read
my posts. It will save me a certified letter expense. The e-mail was to
simply notify you that I still have a copy of "The Cross and the Crossing"
which is a document that you wrote. Since you wrote it, I'll e-mail it to
you for *free* if you no longer have a copy. It vindicates me and I am
thankful you graced me with an electronic copy (MS Word) of the document. I
also have the primordial "Booster Juxtaposition". I was simply trying to
save you some money in pursuit of your threatened "soon" lawsuit!!
john_thomas_maxson
these days. Before one party can make a forgiving
gesture, a confusing shot has already been posted.
Mountain Camper <mountai...@lvcm.com.not-this>
wrote in message news:uf5b9k7...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Vindication on threats of libel written in the author's own
> words (not copyrighted) with contemporaneous witnesses
> to boot!
This is not a sentence. Is it supposed to mean something?
I, for one, certainly wouldn't threaten to libel anyone.
JTM
john_thomas_maxson
(early 1988 and mid-1990s) in some effort to discredit
my book (copyrighted in September 2000) or to purge
yourself of all libel since you began posting here.
Mountain Camper <mountai...@lvcm.com.not-this>
wrote in message news:uf5edd7...@corp.supernews.com...
> Let me clarify then since you do read my posts. It will
> save me a certified letter expense. The e-mail was to
> simply notify you that I still have a copy of "The Cross
> and the Crossing" which is a document that you wrote.
> Since you wrote it, I'll e-mail it to you for *free* if you
> no longer have a copy.
How could I not know? I gave it to you in good faith.
(Copyright law gives protection for old manuscripts.)
Rest assured that I keep copies of everything.
> It vindicates me and I am thankful you graced me with
> an electronic copy (MS Word) of the document. I
> also have the primordial "Booster Juxtaposition".
I have always candidly admitted that I changed my mind
many times in the course of my investigation. I have boxes
and boxes of audio tapes which prove many key things.
> I was simply trying to save you some money in pursuit
> of your threatened "soon" lawsuit!!
You sound *worried*! Is she really going to do it
this time? You make things so hard on everyone.
JTM
Mountain Camper
> Mountain Camper <mountai...@lvcm.com.not-this> wrote:
> I don't know how you expect to use my research papers
> (early 1988 and mid-1990s) in some effort to discredit
> my book (copyrighted in September 2000) or to purge
> yourself of all libel since you began posting here.
Oh, research paper(s)? Not manuscripts? Which is it? Try 1998, with many,
many word for word quotes making it into the final published work. Your
candid responsive posts still speak for themselves. Purge myself from
libel? You need to go read "The Cross and the Crossing Again"!!!!
> > Let me clarify then since you do read my posts. It will
> > save me a certified letter expense. The e-mail was to
> > simply notify you that I still have a copy of "The Cross
> > and the Crossing" which is a document that you wrote.
> > Since you wrote it, I'll e-mail it to you for *free* if you
> > no longer have a copy.
> How could I not know? I gave it to you in good faith.
> (Copyright law gives protection for old manuscripts.)
> Rest assured that I keep copies of everything.
Yes, I know! Thank you for publicly acknowledging giving me a copy of "The
Cross and the Crossing". That's quite helpful, and you have copies too,
great!
> > It vindicates me and I am thankful you graced me with
> > an electronic copy (MS Word) of the document. I
> > also have the primordial "Booster Juxtaposition".
>
> I have always candidly admitted that I changed my mind
> many times in the course of my investigation. I have boxes
> and boxes of audio tapes which prove many key things.
Yeah my FOIA documents had that effect on people. It doesn't matter. "The
Cross and the Crossing" is just more detailed about the parts of "Betrayal
of Mission 51-L" that exonerate me.
Ooh, ooh, audiotapes of what? Pleeeeeeeeeease tell evvveryone. I bet the
judge will love to hear about that.
> > I was simply trying to save you some money in pursuit
> > of your threatened "soon" lawsuit!!
>
> You sound *worried*! Is she really going to do it
> this time? You make things so hard on everyone.
No I am *not worried* in the least and *you know it.* She? Now that is
scary. Would you like to see a few quotes? Nah, I'll save it for a rainy
day. You should watch Judge Judy to see how judges react to familial
lawsuits. Kangaroo court comes to mind. No offense to my Aussie friends;-)
Now quit threatening me.
john_thomas_maxson
So I'll keep giving it to you.
Mountain Camper <mountai...@lvcm.com.not-this>
wrote in message news:uf5j3cr...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Oh, research paper(s)? Not manuscripts? Which is it?
That depends. Be specific and make whatever point you
wish, but don't try to coerce me with veiled warnings.
> Purge myself from libel?
I said "all libel." You are the one who needs to read.
> "The Cross and the Crossing" is just more detailed about
> the parts of "Betrayal of Mission 51-L" that exonerate me.
My book must stand on its own. I don't see your point.
You can't quote here from either without my permission.
> Ooh, ooh, audiotapes of what?
As I stated, key conversations that make key points. Tapes
made with permission or of necessity. If those two terms
don't ring a bell, I have legal documents with many more.
> No I am *not worried* in the least and *you know it.*
I know when you can't speak coherently you're anxious.
I don't know why; I'm not there. I usually pray for the
incoherent, but in the case of Ellison I've made an
exception. You seem to be in hot pursuit of him.
> Nah, I'll save it for a rainy day.
My life has seen many of them. They're part of life.
Some bring destruction; others bring the flowers.
> Now quit threatening me.
Since I haven't, I'm taking that as a threat. Telling
you that your libel and/or copyright infringement will
be met with court action at earliest opportunity seemed
appropriate to me. If you're not guilty, it shouldn't be
bothering you at all. What is your point, anyway?
JTM
Scott Lowther
> My book must stand on its own. I don't see your point.
> You can't quote here from either without my permission.
Gah. I must poitn out that quoting from a book in a public forum for the
purposes of discussion, debate and review is perfectly legal.
--
Scott Lowther, Engineer
Remove the obvious spam-blockers to e-mail
john_thomas_maxson
Scott Lowther <lex...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3CF2E7...@ix.netcom.com...
> john_thomas_maxson wrote:
>
> > My book must stand on its own. I don't see your point.
> > You can't quote here from either without my permission.
>
> Gah. I must poitn out that quoting from a book in a public
> forum for the purposes of discussion, debate and review is
> perfectly legal.
That depends upon how the book was written. Mine cannot
be fairly quoted without the illustrations, which are carefully
intertwined with the text. (You are no legal authority; you
are more of a parasite, a blight on fair discussion.)
JTM
Chuck Stewart
> What a shocker. He reads your e-mails but won't answer questions in
> them? He is still clinging to an old inaccurate and out of date "crew
> story" that I abandoned months ago too. Vindication on threats of
> libel written in the author's own words (not copyrighted)
If he wrote it, it is copyrighted by him.
Even if it is the same drivel, it is his.
If he posted it to Usenet you can quote it back at him verbatim
without worry, but if he wrote a text manuscript and gave it to you,
the copyright is still his. You can reveiw that text, quote from it,
and comment on it... but the copyright is his.
Of course the discussion would be mute if he wasn't such a coward.
> --
> Mountain Camper
--
Chuck Stewart
"Anime-style catgirls: Threat? Menace? Or just studying algebra?"
Chuck Stewart
news:acuq34$kq6$1...@ins22.netins.net:
> Scott Lowther <lex...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> Gah. I must poitn out that quoting from a book in a public
>> forum for the purposes of discussion, debate and review is
>> perfectly legal.
> That depends upon how the book was written.
No, it doesn't.
> Mine cannot be fairly quoted without the illustrations, which are
> carefully intertwined with the text.
Yes, it can be fairly quoted.
There is nothing about your book that renders it magically immune
from fair use.
If you were to try to claim that the pictures _must_ be included in
a review you would be trying to open the door to "layout as
copyright in fair use"...
And the courts have very firmly slammed that door closed and nailed
it shut.
Of course that leaves the question as to why you are being such an
infrickincredible coward about having your book reviewed.
> JTM
john_thomas_maxson
faith) has no illustrations (nor do its later versions).
It does not reflect my final efforts or conclusions. It is
an interim manuscript that never really became a book,
an incompletely researched forerunner of three books.
I have one question. Why are Oberg's books and the
book or books of Jenkins (who both discredited me
without a reading) not *unfairly used* here?
They never have to defend from improper quoting here.
Chuck Stewart <zapk...@gmx.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Xns921BDC7E422...@130.133.1.4...
>
> If he wrote it, it is copyrighted by him.
>
> Even if it is the same drivel, it is his.
>
> If he posted it to Usenet you can quote it back at him verbatim
> without worry, but if he wrote a text manuscript and gave it to
> you, the copyright is still his. You can reveiw that text, quote
> from it, and comment on it... but the copyright is his.
Perhaps one could do that to a certain extent without my
permission if done fairly. The problem with the two who
are trying to do it in this case is that they have already
demonstrated that their is nothing fair *for me* on their
diabolical agenda.
JTM
Mountain Camper
> "john_thomas_maxson" <max...@mission51l.com> wrote:
> > Scott Lowther <lex...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >> Gah. I must poitn out that quoting from a book in a public
> >> forum for the purposes of discussion, debate and review is
> >> perfectly legal.
>
> > That depends upon how the book was written.
>
> No, it doesn't.
>
> > Mine cannot be fairly quoted without the illustrations, which are
> > carefully intertwined with the text.
>
> Yes, it can be fairly quoted.
Agreed, good grief some of the photographs are already in the public domain
anyway, like the B & W of contact 5124.
>
> There is nothing about your book that renders it magically immune
> from fair use.
Good, I was worried sick that lending my book to Jon Berndt to read would
land me in the slammer for *unfair* use. After Jon's done I wonder if some
people at JSC that are mentioned in the book will evaluate the index, read
the pertinent pages and then discuss their thoughts. I imagine that could
be interesting for all.
> If you were to try to claim that the pictures _must_ be included in
> a review you would be trying to open the door to "layout as
> copyright in fair use"...
>
> And the courts have very firmly slammed that door closed and nailed
> it shut.
I can hear the internet search engine revving up in Iowa from here.
> Of course that leaves the question as to why you are being such an
> infrickincredible coward about having your book reviewed.
He's no coward, I'll say that, but if you don't give a favorable review of
his book, you can join me, Mike Speegle, and Jon Berndt in lawsuit threat
alley "soon".
Scott Lowther
> I have one question. Why are Oberg's books and the
> book or books of Jenkins (who both discredited me
> without a reading) not *unfairly used* here?
>
> They never have to defend from improper quoting here.
Probably because nobody "improperly" quotes them hereabouts. Jenkins'
book is quoted from fairly often, as it is an indispensable resource;
but since nobody is lifting entire pages from his book, there is no
"improper" quoting.
And yes, I've seen some of Jenkins' illustrations used online. Hell,
I've seen illustrations I've published myself used online. However, a
few illustrations in reduced resolution is not unfair use... especially
when the illustrations came from yet another source previously (like
from, say, NASA).
john_thomas_maxson
They say the difference between a generalist and a specialist
is that the former knows nothing about everything, while the
latter knows everything about nothing. I claim to be neither,
but I'm capable of defending my record regarding 51-L.
Chuck Stewart <zapk...@gmx.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Xns921BE061B3F...@130.133.1.4...
>
> There is nothing about your book that renders it magically
> immune from fair use.
What may render it immune *here* is not magical, it's *obvious*.
Its *unfair* use has already been clearly demonstrated here.
Must I count the times, beginning with what happened following
the non-verbatim entry of the *whole first chapter* (less all it's
*prima facie* illustrations)? 51-L *crimes* have been committed,
I tell you. I *wrote* about them. Nothing has been done about
them yet! Laws have been broken. Fair use must be fair in this
case to avoid further injury to victims!
> If you were to try to claim that the pictures _must_ be
> included in a review you would be trying to open the door
> to "layout as copyright in fair use"...
That's your opinion only. I'm demanding *fair* use and
warning of the problems with that on *Usenet*. I'm also
adding a factor I call "protecting the fair reporting of
unprosecuted crimes." (Maybe new law will be made.)
JTM - www.mission51l.com
Mountain Camper
> "Mountain Camper" <mountai...@lvcm.com.not-this> wrote:
>
> > them? He is still clinging to an old inaccurate and out of date "crew
> > story" that I abandoned months ago too. Vindication on threats of
> > libel written in the author's own words (not copyrighted)
>
> If he wrote it, it is copyrighted by him.
Thanks for the correction.
> Even if it is the same drivel, it is his.
Ya, I concede the point. Point JTM.
> If he posted it to Usenet you can quote it back at him verbatim
> without worry, but if he wrote a text manuscript and gave it to you,
> the copyright is still his. You can reveiw that text, quote from it,
> and comment on it... but the copyright is his.
Oh goodie.
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
> 'The Cross and the Crossing' (which I gave Dan in good
> faith) has no illustrations (nor do its later versions).
> It does not reflect my final efforts or conclusions. It is
> an interim manuscript that never really became a book,
> an incompletely researched forerunner of three books.
>
> I have one question. Why are Oberg's books and the
> book or books of Jenkins (who both discredited me
> without a reading) not *unfairly used* here?
Umm, because you apparently have no clue what "fair use" means.
Fair use allows the quoting of brief materials from a book for educational
or critical purposes.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html has some details.
You might want to read up on:
http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
As for Jenkins, I have good reason to believe that he is happy with the
quotations and references made by people here.
I have often used his book as a reference when answering questions. I have
also referred others to his book and suggested they buy it based on the
information there in.
I should be honest and admit that I have received a free copy from Mr.
Jenkins. That was AFTER I extensively quoted and referenced him here. So
any bias existed before any sense of quid pro quo.
Mr. Jenkins has also been forthcoming when asked questions concerning
references, thoughts, etc. He has also politely acknowledged and discussed
mistakes and typos in his book (various editions).
>
> They never have to defend from improper quoting here.
Because no one improper quotes them.
>
> Perhaps one could do that to a certain extent without my
> permission if done fairly. The problem with the two who
> are trying to do it in this case is that they have already
> demonstrated that their is nothing fair *for me* on their
> diabolical agenda.
>
It doesn't have to be "fair to you". This isn't kindergarten.
If folks improperly quote you, then you of course should correct them.
So far all I see is name calling and blathering.
> JTM
>
>
john_thomas_maxson
favorably received by the prime moderator. Scott noted
the *repetitive* harassment he had been receiving via
"dumb questions." In my case it's been much worse than
that by this anonymous "ZapKitty" you're taking as authority,
and it's been going on for much longer. You're aware of all
that and how this all started here, yet you join with him.
Mountain Camper <mountai...@lvcm.com.not-this>
wrote in message news:uf604f5...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Oh goodie.
The remark of one with the mind of a child, yet I have
no pity left in my heart for you.
JTM
Chuck Stewart
news:acut2b$n78$1...@ins22.netins.net:
> 'The Cross and the Crossing' (which I gave Dan in good
> faith) has no illustrations (nor do its later versions).
> It does not reflect my final efforts or conclusions. It is
> an interim manuscript that never really became a book,
> an incompletely researched forerunner of three books.
Strange that you can say that your views changed during an
interval... yet so vorciferously charge others with onconsistency
when they do the same.
> I have one question. Why are Oberg's books and the
> book or books of Jenkins (who both discredited me
> without a reading) not *unfairly used* here?
They both have had portions of their writings quoted both here and
in sci.space.history.
They both have had errors and inconsistencies in their writings
pointed out to them.
When those doing the pointing out _could provide proof_ of their
assertions, the authors would acknowledge it, and the corrections
would go out in the next editions of the books.
Believwe it or not, this has been going on with authors and books
for many centuries :).
> They never have to defend from improper quoting here.
That is you... literally.
Since you regard a quote from anyone who criticizes you as
"improper", you thus define yourself into yet another non-sequitur.
> Perhaps one could do that to a certain extent without my
> permission if done fairly.
What does your version of "fair" have to do with the law?
"Fair Use" is a term of art, and as such has a specific meaning in
law. That meaning was established by the courts so that reviewers
and such can legitinately provide evidence to back up the
assertions and opinions they write in their reviews and so forth.
There is, of course, more to the concept than that, but the parts
of "Fair Use" concerning quotes for academic use etc. are not germane to
this discussion.
> JTM
Mountain Camper
Mountain Camper <mountai...@lvcm.com.not-this> wrote:
> I saw Scott Grissom make a point the other day that was
> favorably received by the prime moderator. Scott noted
> the *repetitive* harassment he had been receiving via
> "dumb questions." In my case it's been much worse than
> that by this anonymous "ZapKitty" you're taking as authority,
> and it's been going on for much longer. You're aware of all
> that and how this all started here, yet you join with him.
Respect is earned around here. Greg just backed up what Chuck wrote with
U.S. code. You on the other hand are writing about new case law from the
future. Interesting. Who to believe? I'll trust Chuck, not the guy who
threatens people with legal action whenever he does not like what is said
about his book. Go figure.
> > Oh goodie.
>
> The remark of one with the mind of a child,
When I lose all of that child inside of me, someone just shoot me except
JTM.
> yet I have no pity left in my heart for you.
I don't need pity, save it for yourself. You are the one that is pitied by
many here.
Mountain Camper
> Mountain Camper <mountai...@lvcm.com.not-this> wrote:
<snip>
> That depends. Be specific and make whatever point you
> wish, but don't try to coerce me with veiled warnings.
What veiled warnings?
> > Purge myself from libel?
>
> I said "all libel." You are the one who needs to read.
So you concede that "The Cross and the Crossing" exonerates me from *some*
libel?
<snip>
> > Ooh, ooh, audiotapes of what?
>
> As I stated, key conversations that make key points. Tapes
> made with permission or of necessity. If those two terms
> don't ring a bell, I have legal documents with many more.
How do you know when someone is going to make a key point in a phone call?
Is that recorder running all the time. Necessity? You might want to
explain that.
<snip>
> > Now quit threatening me.
>
> Since I haven't, I'm taking that as a threat. Telling
> you that your libel and/or copyright infringement will
> be met with court action at earliest opportunity seemed
> appropriate to me. If you're not guilty, it shouldn't be
> bothering you at all. What is your point, anyway?
Someone asks you to quit threatening them and you call that a threat?
Guilty of what? My point is that you are intimidating me with public
threats of legal actions for exercising my rights to free speech.
john_thomas_maxson
Chuck Stewart <zapk...@gmx.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Xns921BED6E3B4...@130.133.1.4...
> "john_thomas_maxson" <max...@mission51l.com>
> wrote in news:acut2b$n78$1...@ins22.netins.net:
>
> > I have one question. Why are Oberg's books and the
> > book or books of Jenkins (who both discredited me
> > without a reading) not *unfairly used* here?
>
> They both have had portions of their writings quoted
> both here and in sci.space.history.
Doesn't that indicate that people in those newsgroups
actually *purchased* some of their books. This seems
like a *forgotten* factor in my case, given all the damage
which has been done here to my credibility by people
who have openly *refused* to make such purchases!
How can you expect me to accept the criticism of the
countless who refuse to buy and read my book, while
they gleefully await an *improper*, biased "review."
JTM
Chuck Stewart
> "Chuck Stewart" <zapk...@gmx.co.uk> wrote:
>> There is nothing about your book that renders it magically immune
>> from fair use.
> Good, I was worried sick that lending my book to Jon Berndt to read
> would land me in the slammer for *unfair* use.
irrelevant. If the book is yours, either bought and paid for or a
gift, then JTM has no say about who you lend it out to.
And what the people you lend it to write concerning it is their
beeswax :)
>> Of course that leaves the question as to why you are being such an
>> infrickincredible coward about having your book reviewed.
> He's no coward,
He is, unfortunately, a coward by the simple fact that he makes
assertions here, and refuses to defend them... and the repeats the
assertions.
For all his constant preaching about how he has "stood by his book".
he has, in fact, not stood by it.
He is a coward.
> I'll say that, but if you don't give a favorable review of his
> book, you can join me, Mike Speegle, and Jon Berndt in lawsuit
> threat alley "soon".
AS I said, a coward.
I would be happy to join you in that alley... :)
--
> Mountain Camper
john_thomas_maxson
my interests, thank God! It's exactly as I knew. Any claims
of my misunderstanding of "fair" in this context are *false*.
Mountain Camper <mountai...@lvcm.com.not-this>
wrote in message news:uf632u9...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Respect is earned around here. Greg just backed up what
> Chuck wrote with U.S. code.
<snip>
> I'll trust Chuck,
That's going to be *your* problem!
JTM
Mountain Camper
> "Mountain Camper" <mountai...@lvcm.com.not-this> wrote:
<snip>
> > I'll say that, but if you don't give a favorable review of his
> > book, you can join me, Mike Speegle, and Jon Berndt in lawsuit
> > threat alley "soon".
<snip>
> I would be happy to join you in that alley... :)
I'll be happy to send the book to you when it leaves Houstopolis. Bring an
"anime style" alley cat with you ;-)
Mountain Camper
> Mountain Camper <mountai...@lvcm.com.not-this> wrote:
> >
> > Chuck wrote with U.S. code.
>
> <snip>
>
> > I'll trust Chuck,
>
> That's going to be *your* problem!
Another threat? You are wearing out my poor printer.
john_thomas_maxson
Mountain Camper <mountai...@lvcm.com.not-this>
wrote in message news:uf637he...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> So you concede that "The Cross and the Crossing"
> exonerates me from *some* libel?
ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! You can't put words in my
mouth. As Greg said, you just blather. Everyone knows
it. I am absolutely *through* putting up with it. I don't
have to be crucified here by you and Burnt any longer.
> My point is that you are intimidating me with public threats
> of legal actions for exercising my rights to free speech.
I have threatened no one here, ever. If I'd had the money
before now, we'd be in court. I think you know that.
You're badgering me, like most of the rest have been.
I've made myself quite clear about your libel and my book.
I hope it's just a matter of time until you see me in court.
JTM
Jon Berndt
> case to avoid further injury to victims!
If you were *really* interested in avoiding further injury to the victims
you wouldn't have dredged all this up again and added "conspiracy",
"crimes", etc. to your fabrication. Also, if I were you I would not have
added the crappy pictures to my book that showed nominal ascent phenomena
and video artifacts and passed them off as "unusual" features or RCS
plumage.
Jon Berndt
> I don't have to be crucified here by you and Burnt any longer.
Well, darnit. I guess we're not going to be hearing any more of your posts
then, are we?
mvs
>It must be nice to be an anonymous authority on *everything*.
>They say the difference between a generalist and a specialist
>is that the former knows nothing about everything, while the
>latter knows everything about nothing. I claim to be neither,
>but I'm capable of defending my record regarding 51-L.
>
>Chuck Stewart <zapk...@gmx.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:Xns921BE061B3F...@130.133.1.4...
>>
>> There is nothing about your book that renders it magically
>> immune from fair use.
>
>What may render it immune *here* is not magical, it's *obvious*.
>Its *unfair* use has already been clearly demonstrated here.
>Must I count the times, beginning with what happened following
>the non-verbatim entry of the *whole first chapter* (less all it's
>*prima facie* illustrations)? 51-L *crimes* have been committed,
>I tell you. I *wrote* about them. Nothing has been done about
>them yet! Laws have been broken. Fair use must be fair in this
>case to avoid further injury to victims!
Your indignation and feigned concern for the victims of 51L rings incredibly
hollow. Seems to me, if you were really bent on showing the "truth" about 51L
you would not only have no objection to criticism, but you would also
distribute your research for free. Charging people $35 a pop to learn about it
is not only a crass attempt to commercialize[1] the disaster, it is a clear
obstacle to further dissemination of this "truth." Who wants to pay $35 to
read the words of someone widely regarded as a sub-par crank? (even Bill
Kaysing's book is available on Amazon - where's yours?) I'm sure more people
would read it if it were freely available. And convincing as many people as
possible is your primary goal, is it not?
>> If you were to try to claim that the pictures _must_ be
>> included in a review you would be trying to open the door
>> to "layout as copyright in fair use"...
>
>That's your opinion only. I'm demanding *fair* use and
>warning of the problems with that on *Usenet*. I'm also
>adding a factor I call "protecting the fair reporting of
>unprosecuted crimes." (Maybe new law will be made.)
Odd. Are you actually arguing that whoever criticized your work violated your
copyright by not including *more* of your copyrighted material? Perhaps we
should post the whole book - will you be satisfied then?
[1]yes I know NASA sells Challenger videos - this is reasonable, since the
videos are cheap, NASA is most likely selling them at or below cost, and free
distribution of video is much more costly than free distribution of text and
images.
Chuck Stewart
> Respect is earned around here. Greg just backed up what Chuck wrote
> with U.S. code. You on the other hand are writing about new case law
> from the future. Interesting. Who to believe? I'll trust Chuck, not
> the guy who threatens people with legal action whenever he does not
> like what is said about his book. Go figure.
One note: While it seems obvious that I know more about copyright
law than JTM, I'm not a lawyer. I'm just a guy who happens to have
published stuff in the past.
Now, I myself know that JTM is a netkook with no valid claims, and
I have had a variety of netkooks swear that they were going to sue
me thru all the fires of hell... I'm comfortable with that :)
But:
If you feel that JTM is making creditable threats about lawsuits,
then you might want to consult with a reputable attorney.
I know that the adjective "credible" makes for a big if where JTM
is concerned... :)
Mountain Camper
> Mountain Camper <mountai...@lvcm.com.not-this> wrote:
> I believe you're in for a rude awakening.
I private e-mailed you this morning and you ignored me or blocked me or
whatever. I made one post today that follows and it is the only one that
needed to be made. *You* then *chose* the road we are on today with your
mean response. Sir that is called provocation! At 2:52 p.m. I private
e-mailed you again asking you to leave me alone. Today JTM, I stood my
ground.
"Dear JTM,
Please read the private e-mails I sent to you. I look forward to hearing
back from you privately.
--
Mountain Camper
Wheeler Peak"
> So you concede that "The Cross and the Crossing"
> exonerates me from *some* libel?
ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! You can't put words in my
mouth. As Greg said, you just blather. Everyone knows
it. I am absolutely *through* putting up with it. I don't
have to be crucified here by you and Burnt any longer.
I asked you a question and you answered the question. I did not put words in
your mouth. We are arguing about not much of anything and you think you are
being crucified? You can end this any time you want by turning off your
computer and going to bed.
<More threats snipped>
Chuck Stewart
If you can only communicate with JTM is across Usenet, than it's a
lost cause.
john_thomas_maxson
Jon Berndt <j...@hal-pc.borg> wrote in message
news:acv3uk$ar7$1...@news.hal-pc.org...
>
> If you were *really* interested in avoiding further injury
> to the victims you wouldn't have dredged all this up
> again and added "conspiracy", "crimes", etc. to your
> fabrication.
You wouldn't know a victim now if you saw one, but you
may soon.
> Also, if I were you I would not have added the crappy
> pictures to my book that showed nominal ascent phenomena
> and video artifacts and passed them off as "unusual" features
> or RCS plumage.
It will be interesting to see how the court interprets that
statement.
JTM
john_thomas_maxson
Mountain Camper <mountai...@lvcm.com.not-this>
wrote in message news:uf678c2...@corp.supernews.com...
> You can end this any time you want by turning off your
> computer and going to bed.
... the world gets to see where discourse with you ends.
JTM
Mountain Camper
> "Mountain Camper" <mountai...@lvcm.com.not-this> wrote:
>
> > with U.S. code. You on the other hand are writing about new case law
> > from the future. Interesting. Who to believe? I'll trust Chuck, not
> > the guy who threatens people with legal action whenever he does not
> > like what is said about his book. Go figure.
>
> One note: While it seems obvious that I know more about copyright
> law than JTM, I'm not a lawyer. I'm just a guy who happens to have
> published stuff in the past.
>
> Now, I myself know that JTM is a netkook with no valid claims, and
> I have had a variety of netkooks swear that they were going to sue
> me thru all the fires of hell... I'm comfortable with that :)
>
> But:
>
> If you feel that JTM is making creditable threats about lawsuits,
> then you might want to consult with a reputable attorney.
>
> I know that the adjective "credible" makes for a big if where JTM
> is concerned... :)
Thanks I appreciate the concern and will see a lawyer "soon". Nothing can
stop him from filing a lawsuit unfortunately. However, I can no longer live
my life in fear. I have done enough of that already and I am done living in
fear of JTM. I have a right to free speech and my opinion. Whatever
happens, happens. Hell he can't take my house, it is homesteaded. He can
take everything else I guess if the judge can figure out the damages. Let's
see a declared not for profit website sells XX books over a one + year
period. The fellow takes no credit cards but makes over 1,000 posts on a
science news group....
Mountain Camper
> Mountain Camper <mountai...@lvcm.com.not-this> wrote:
> I doubt if you're making many points, but ...
Same here.
> > You can end this any time you want by turning off your
> > computer and going to bed.
>
> ... the world gets to see where discourse with you ends.
Likewise I am sure.
john_thomas_maxson
Mountain Camper <mountai...@lvcm.com.not-this>
wrote in message news:uf69ppf...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> I have a right to free speech and my opinion.
But that doesn't give you the right to gang up on me,
lie about me, and trash my book. Somebody just
posted that I'm "widely regarded as a sub-par crank."
Several people will get a chance to explain how that
happened to me with no book sales, God-willing.
> Whatever happens, happens.
Well *something* is going to happen, obviously.
JTM - www.mission51l.com
Mountain Camper
> Mountain Camper <mountai...@lvcm.com.not-this> wrote:
> The truth has a way of coming out, believe it or not.
I do believe the truth has a way of coming out and I have read a lot of your
posts where I see truth. What is frustrating for me is that you seem to
struggle with admitting that you could have made a mistake about any of your
core theories. It seems to me that everyone else is always wrong about STS
51-L unless they agree with you. Your credibility would go up substantially
if you could concede a little here and there. There are a lot of really
good decent people on this group who have been nice in trying to discuss
this or that with you, but they inevitably walk away if you will. They give
up. Sometimes we have to agree to disagree but there is no shame in being
wrong. There is shame in not admitting when we are wrong.
> > I have a right to free speech and my opinion.
> But that doesn't give you the right to gang up on me,
> lie about me, and trash my book. Somebody just
> posted that I'm "widely regarded as a sub-par crank."
> Several people will get a chance to explain how that
> happened to me with no book sales, God-willing.
There have been wide and long gaps when I have not posted. Do you think
your book sales are predicated solely on activity on a single usenet group?
Your many posts on your website hits tell a different story. There is a
universe out there. People are reading your website. You will never know
what sales you missed independent of usenet until you take credit cards and
even then you won't know unless you ask.
> > Whatever happens, happens.
>
> Well *something* is going to happen, obviously.
Yes, the sun will rise tomorrow and everyone has a new opportunity to start
fresh. That is what I will do.
--
Mountain Camper
Wheeler Peak
---
Outgoing mail is sort of certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.365 / Virus Database: 202 - Release Date: 5/25/2002
Douglas Ellison
> This seems
> like a *forgotten* factor in my case, given all the damage
> which has been done here to my credibility by people
> who have openly *refused* to make such purchases!
>
> How can you expect me to accept the criticism of the
> countless who refuse to buy and read my book, while
> they gleefully await an *improper*, biased "review."
Most of the blame for the damage to what ever credibility you claim to have
had evaporates day by day as you refuse to answer simple questions without
turning to school-kid name calling.
And when you have no credibilty - how can you expect anyone to want to
purchase your 'book' - let alone write an un biased review.
Dou
Douglas Ellison
> The truth has a way of coming out, believe it or not.
>
> Mountain Camper <mountai...@lvcm.com.not-this>
> wrote in message news:uf69ppf...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > I have a right to free speech and my opinion.
>
> But that doesn't give you the right to gang up on me,
> lie about me, and trash my book.
You book is, in my opinion, complete and utter crap.
It is my right to say as such - and there is not a thing you can do about.
Furthermore - in my opinion, you are full of complete and utter crap.
It is also my right to say that - and there is not a thing you can do about
it.
Doug
Douglas Ellison
> statement.
>
> JTM
When's the hearing - I might just see if I can tie it in with a Holiday in
your fine country.
Doug
Jon Berndt
> Jon Berndt <j...@hal-pc.borg> wrote in message
> news:acv3uk$ar7$1...@news.hal-pc.org...
> >
> > If you were *really* interested in avoiding further injury
> > to the victims you wouldn't have dredged all this up
> > again and added "conspiracy", "crimes", etc. to your
> > fabrication.
>
> You wouldn't know a victim now if you saw one, but you
> may soon.
Careful, John, you've been treading a fine line with regards to assault,
lately.
> > Also, if I were you I would not have added the crappy
> > pictures to my book that showed nominal ascent phenomena
> > and video artifacts and passed them off as "unusual" features
> > or RCS plumage.
>
> It will be interesting to see how the court interprets that
> statement.
>
> JTM
You don't have a legal leg to stand on, John.
http://www.abbottlaw.com/defamation.html#I.
Quit the garbage about making vague (and not so vague) legal threats. Also,
your temper has led you to make *actual* libelous scribblings here, rather
than the truthful statements others have made here about your book. The mere
fact that you don't like them isn't itself a basis for a libel lawsuit.
1. Truth is a complete defense to a defamation claim. This is simply the
flip side of the requirement that plaintiff prove the falsity of the alleged
defamatory statement.
2. The First Amendment requires that a defamation plaintiff prove actual
malice or reckless disregard of the truth when the plaintiff is a public
official or public figure.
3. A "public figure" includes "those who have thrust themselves to the
forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the
resolution of the issues involved."
Jon
john_thomas_maxson
false sermon. That's Campy's retreat in defeat.
Mountain Camper <mountai...@lvcm.com.not-this>
wrote in message news:uf6dh7o...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Your credibility would go up substantially if you could
> concede a little here and there.
I've been shown nothing to concede. My credibility is fine.
> There is shame in not admitting when we are wrong.
Then why don't you show shame, hypocrit preacher?
> You will never know what sales you missed independent
> of usenet until you take credit cards and even then you
> won't know unless you ask.
My hardship is mine, not yours. My business is also.
Things change though. Some people get sued, some die.
JTM
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
> I believe you're in for a rude awakening.
>
> Mountain Camper <mountai...@lvcm.com.not-this>
> wrote in message news:uf637he...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > So you concede that "The Cross and the Crossing"
> > exonerates me from *some* libel?
>
> ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! You can't put words in my
> mouth. As Greg said, you just blather. Everyone knows
> it. I am absolutely *through* putting up with it. I don't
> have to be crucified here by you and Burnt any longer.
Actually John, I said YOU blather, not your son.
>
> > My point is that you are intimidating me with public threats
> > of legal actions for exercising my rights to free speech.
>
> I have threatened no one here, ever.
Wait for it.....
> If I'd had the money
> before now, we'd be in court.
Wow and folks, there's the threat one sentence later.
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
> The truth has a way of coming out, believe it or not.
>
> Mountain Camper <mountai...@lvcm.com.not-this>
> wrote in message news:uf69ppf...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > I have a right to free speech and my opinion.
>
> But that doesn't give you the right to gang up on me,
> lie about me, and trash my book.
Actually it DOES give us the right to trash your book as long as it's
factual and not libelous.
Nothing says we have to be nice.
john_thomas_maxson
Jon Berndt <j...@hal-pc.borg> wrote in message
news:acvq6a$lht$1...@news.hal-pc.org...
>
> You don't have a legal leg to stand on, John.
>
> http://www.abbottlaw.com/defamation.html#I.
No? Can't you read?
JTM
john_thomas_maxson
Greg D. Moore (Strider) <moo...@greenms.com>
wrote in message news:acLI8.24223$gJ.78...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com...
>
> Actually it DOES give us the right to trash your book as long as it's
> factual and not libelous.
>
> Nothing says we have to be nice.
No?
JTM
john_thomas_maxson
Greg D. Moore (Strider) <moo...@greenms.com>
wrote in message news:BaLI8.24222$gJ.78...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com...
>
> Actually John, I said YOU blather, not your son.
Prove it!
> Wow and folks, there's the threat one sentence later.
Prove it!
JTM - www.mission51l.com
Mountain Camper
> Mountain Camper <mountai...@lvcm.com.not-this> wrote:
> When you can't prove a man wrong, preach him a
> false sermon. That's Campy's retreat in defeat.
I was trying to be nice and this is your reply?
> > Your credibility would go up substantially if you could
> > concede a little here and there
> I've been shown nothing to concede.
My point exactly. You really don't think anyone has touched you at all and
that's okay by me.
> My credibility is fine.
Then leave me alone. Why sue me?
> > There is shame in not admitting when we are wrong.
>
> Then why don't you show shame, hypocrit preacher?
I have admitted I was wrong here on numerous occasions. If you think I have
libeled you, then state your case. I am a big enough man to say I am sorry,
but I don't know where you think I libeled you. If you want an apology
just point out for what and why you think what I wrote is a lie. Did you
ever stop to think you may have libeled someone in your book or here? I
have not shown malice, go back and read what you have written of me and
others and see if you got personal. The difference between us is I don't
care what you say about me. I can handle it. I don't need to go sue
anyone. It looks like you threaten us to silence us. Why no request for a
retraction like in Iowa law? Would you rather sue me than see a retraction?
> > You will never know what sales you missed independent
> > of usenet until you take credit cards and even then you
> > won't know unless you ask.
>
> My hardship is mine, not yours. My business is also.
> Things change though. Some people get sued, some die.
Okay if your hardship is yours then do not try to blame me for it please.
"Some people get sued and some people die." What do you mean by that
statement?
--
Mountain Camper
Wheeler Peak
---
Outgoing mail is sort of certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.365 / Virus Database: 202 - Release Date: 5/24/2002
john_thomas_maxson
internal organs when I get no sleep.
Mountain Camper <mountai...@lvcm.com.not-this>
wrote in message news:uf71k8t...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Then leave me alone.
Leave *you* alone? That's a good one!
> Why sue me?
For damages to my reputation and intellectual property.
> I have admitted I was wrong here on numerous occasions.
Never to me, you haven't.
> If you think I have libeled you, then state your case.
No need to, that's been carefully done each time.
The worst began last year when I had no access, but I
carefully itemized things this year at your request.
> I am a big enough man to say I am sorry,
> but I don't know where you think I libeled you.
Then say it -- the libel has been pointed out to you.
Only a blind man could ignore it. Your conscience
tells you that you've wronged me, that's why this
new rash of "private E-Mail attempts." No guilt,
no cause for concern.
> If you want an apology just point out for what and
> why you think what I wrote is a lie.
Asked and answered.
> Did you ever stop to think you may have libeled
> someone in your book or here?
*If* I have, it's my problem, not yours. I've been badly
abused, something you of all people should understand.
> I have not shown malice,
We'll see about that.
> go back and read what you have written of me and
> others and see if you got personal.
"Got personal?" That's about all they do here!
> The difference between us is I don't care what you say
> about me. I can handle it.
Really now. I don't believe any of that.
> I don't need to go sue anyone.
No, you have a nice life, a nice income, and a nice family.
I made a lot of personal sacrifices for you so that could be.
I never expected any thanks, knowing your mother; but
I never expected you to turn against me for telling the truth.
> It looks like you threaten us to silence us.
I threaten no one. I state the facts. "Soon" means as soon
as I have the means, if not sooner.
> Why no request for a retraction like in Iowa law?
I expect decent men to make them without requests,
and in your case you know how I think.
> Would you rather sue me than see a retraction?
Absolutely not. That's not Christian.
> Okay if your hardship is yours then do not try to blame
> me for it please.
I don't blame you for the hardship Lockheed caused me.
I blame you for your defamation of me and my book.
> "Some people get sued and some people die."
You wanted this spelled out better -- a short book of
the type you write in every reply.
Since you're my successful son (in your field), a voluntary
retraction (long ago) would have gone a long way toward
ending my problems here. That's because you could not
have done so without effectively restoring my credibility
and/or helping me in my cause -- a normal thing for a son
with a worthy father. Now it appears to be too late.
Therefore people are going to get sued if I don't die first.
That's not a threat -- it's a promise!
John Thomas Maxson - www.mission51l.com
mvs
> This seems
> like a *forgotten* factor in my case, given all the damage
> which has been done here to my credibility by people
> who have openly *refused* to make such purchases!
"john_thomas_maxson" <max...@mission51l.com> wrote in message
acvsas$3ih$1...@ins22.netins.net:
>My credibility is fine.
Would you please comment on the above discrepancy?
Mountain Camper
> Mountain Camper <mountai...@lvcm.com.not-this> wrote:
> Trying to kill me? You know what happens to my
> internal organs when I get no sleep.
Good grief. I am not trying to kill you.
<snip>
> > It looks like you threaten us to silence us.
> I threaten no one. I state the facts. "Soon" means as soon
> as I have the means, if not sooner.
Webster's: threat: threaten.
threaten: 1 : to utter words against. 2 a: to give signs or warnings of
: portend <the clouds~ ed rain> b: to hang over dangerously : menace 3
: to announce as intended or possible...
I'll go with two and three and the applicable Nevada laws.
> > Would you rather sue me than see a retraction?
> Absolutely not. That's not Christian.
Really?
> Therefore people are going to get sued if I don't die first.
> That's not a threat -- it's a promise!
Oh, but is it a Christian's promise?
What do you want? A grandchild's college fund? I will say it one last
time. Quit threatening me.
john_thomas_maxson
mvs <msh...@alice.com> wrote in message
news:0sg7fughhcm2j46u7...@4ax.com...
There is no "discrepancy."
The first refers to "here," the active net.geeks who run
sci.space.shutle, a minute subset of the world population.
The second refers to my credibility in general -- especially
among my peers of qualified space shuttle engineers
with practical, hands-on experience and knowledge.
Test engineers and pilots also support my findings.
JTM - www.mission51l.com
john_thomas_maxson
taunting and baiting -- "go figure" and such (Mosley
language) -- and your patronizing and orders are an
abomination and constant harassment to me.
Mountain Camper <mountai...@lvcm.com.not-this>
wrote in message news:uf7j1h3...@corp.supernews.com...
> I will say it one last time. Quit threatening me.
Quit threatening me. I'll say it as often as you
threaten me.
mvs
>This is typical of what people here call "discrepancies."
>
>mvs <msh...@alice.com> wrote in message
>news:0sg7fughhcm2j46u7...@4ax.com...
>>
>> "john_thomas_maxson" <max...@mission51l.com> wrote in message
>> acv2k9$vnb$1...@ins22.netins.net:
>> > This seems
>> > like a *forgotten* factor in my case, given all the damage
>> > which has been done here to my credibility by people
>> > who have openly *refused* to make such purchases!
>>
>> "john_thomas_maxson" <max...@mission51l.com> wrote in message
>> acvsas$3ih$1...@ins22.netins.net:
>>
>> >My credibility is fine.
>>
>> Would you please comment on the above discrepancy?
>
>There is no "discrepancy."
>
>The first refers to "here," the active net.geeks who run
>sci.space.shutle, a minute subset of the world population.
That is not what your quote says. You state that your credibility has been
damaged by those in this newsgroup, not that your credibility has been damaged
among the readers of this group (who never assigned credence to you in the
first place - so why do you seem to care so much about what they think?).
>The second refers to my credibility in general -- especially
>among my peers of qualified space shuttle engineers
>with practical, hands-on experience and knowledge.
None of whom seem to be rushing to your defense, which further implies your
current lack of real credibility. If you could find just one qualified
engineer and get him to endorse your book, just *one*, it would go a long way
toward boosting sales.
>Test engineers and pilots also support my findings.
Please provide just one verifiable recommendation of your book by an
independent, qualified engineer or pilot. Bonus points if it's from a current
employee of Lockheed or NASA. Think of it, man! Get something like that on
record, and everyone on this group will shut up and leave you alone! What with
your esteem among your peers, this should not be a problem - hell, they should
be lining up to support you.
Jon Berndt
> Test engineers and pilots also support my findings.
>
> JTM - www.mission51l.com
Huh? That's pretty broad. But you do have at least one good example in your
book that is representative, I am sure.
JTM recollects in his book that one "former Enterprise pilot" Leo Krup
helped Dan Rather narrate for CBS. According to JTM, Leo says: "Once this
explosion occurs, then you later see what appears to be the right SRB coming
out of this cloud ... I assume it was the right one because it looked like
the left one was the one that exploded."
So, it appears as though Leo is supporting JTM in this case. But it is based
on Leo's assumption that it could *only*be* the right one because Leo
thought he saw the left one "explode". Well, we all know that was a mistaken
impression. [By the way, Leo's last name is spelled with 2 "p's": Krupp.
Also, the Enterprise pilots for ALT were Haise, Fullerton, Engle and Truly.
Krupp never flew Enterprise]. I'm sure Leo Krupp was a fine pilot, but I
don't see how this has any bearing at all on the Challenger disaster or the
contention that the boosters crossed. It appears to be only the quick
statement of a misspelled, mis-identified person who was mistaken in what he
saw, himself.
I'd like to understand what this statement is supposed to mean, John; can
you help me out, here?
Jon
john_thomas_maxson
engineer/manager and Stan Nelson, pilot -- both NASA retired).
No one was interested.
I guess people are still focused more on 9/11 and its aftermath.
mvs <msh...@alice.com> wrote in message
news:oar7fusprjs4p7jge...@4ax.com...
>
> If you could find just one qualified engineer and get him
> to endorse your book, just *one*, it would go a long way
> toward boosting sales.
John Thomas Maxson - www.mission51l.com
john_thomas_maxson
> "john_thomas_maxson" <max...@mission51l.com> wrote:
>
> > Test engineers and pilots also support my findings.
Jon Berndt <j...@hal-pc.borg> wrote:
"I don't want to give this guy my money, I don't want
to be involved with supporting this kind of blatant
attempt to hijack the truth."
He needs your help; he can't understand plain
English -- even with the pictures.
Chuck Stewart
news:ad19ck$bm9$1...@ins22.netins.net:
> He needs your help; he can't understand plain
> English -- even with the pictures.
Evasion noted.
> John Thomas Maxson
--
Chuck Stewart
"Anime-style catgirls: Threat? Menace? Or just studying algebra?"
Michael Gardner
"john_thomas_maxson" <max...@mission51l.com> wrote:
From the very first post of yours I read here, it seemed apparent to me that
you had no proof(except that which you imagined), that this was some sort of
emotional battle for you - that if NASA had listened to you, you might have
prevented the disaster. Only your warnings were about the wrong fault in
the system. You missed your chance to be a hero and can't live with it.
That is what your posts seem to say, over and over and over. I'm not the
only one who sees you that way. The majority of readers on this group have
already voted by putting you in their killfiles.
You have no way out of this arguement except to go away, or take NASA up in
the legal system. I expect neither will happen. "Fair use" is a legal term
which bears little relation to what you think is fair. I suggest you go
back and read some of the previous references WITH your lawyer.
So, if I ordered your book, would you actualy send me one?
--
"Readers of this news group are reminded of the following "facts" of usenet. Anyone with a computer and an ISP can become an "expert". There is no sanity test, no morals test, to logic test required to post here. Readers should realize that many newsgroups are inhabited by an illogical but relentless fanatic, swimming upstream and using the existence of resistance as proof of their righteousness. Anything you read here can either be confirmed or invalidated by a little web searching. Please don't believe what you read without reviewing the poster's history and independent resources. Please don't feed these fanatics need to argue or the trolls(AKA NASA faked the moon landings)."
Mountain Camper
> "john_thomas_maxson" <max...@mission51l.com> wrote:
<snip>
> JTM recollects in his book that one "former Enterprise pilot" Leo Krup
> helped Dan Rather narrate for CBS. According to JTM, Leo says: "Once this
> explosion occurs, then you later see what appears to be the right SRB
coming
> out of this cloud ... I assume it was the right one because it looked like
> the left one was the one that exploded."
>
> So, it appears as though Leo is supporting JTM in this case. But it is
based
> on Leo's assumption that it could *only*be* the right one because Leo
> thought he saw the left one "explode". Well, we all know that was a
mistaken
> impression.
The Leo Krupp interview cited above occurred within hours of the accident
and was based on Mr. Krupp's review of the launch day video in slow motion,
his own knowledge, and nothing more. Draw your own conclusions based on
that preliminary quick look as opposed to an in depth interview of Mr. Krupp
after the evidence came out. I have an original tape of the interview so I
know what I am talking about.
Frankly Jon, it would be patently unfair to criticize Mr. Krupp's
conclusions based on the day of the accident interview alone.
> I'd like to understand what this statement is supposed to mean, John; can
> you help me out, here?
I hope my answer helps clear the air. Comments Jon?
DISCLAIMER: Note to all posters. Please report any and all errors in my
posts immediately. I try to make all of my posts accurately reflect the
truth. I am however fallible. I will gladly correct any inaccuracies and
apologize if appropriate. Thanks for your kind corrections in advance.
Michael Gardner
"john_thomas_maxson" <max...@mission51l.com> wrote:
> I furnished two solid references not long ago (Sam Beddingfield,
I just went through three pages of Google for Sam Beddingfield and found the
following two references.
Mechanical Engineer for the Mercury program....
Sam Beddingfield, a NASA engineer responsible for the pyrotechnics and
recovery system on the Mercury capsule
Yup, that makes him a good reference for shuttle systems....
by the way, what did he say?
As for Stan Nelson - a couple of references to a Stan Nelson of Roswell, NM
- Astronomer-engineer - involved in an astronomy club there. No
indication of being a pilot, engineer, involved at NASA other than his
current Radio astronomy work.
by the way, what did he say.....
> engineer/manager and Stan Nelson, pilot -- both NASA retired).
> No one was interested.
>
> I guess people are still focused more on 9/11 and its aftermath.
>
yes they were, but what was the google reference for these guys quotes on
your book?
> mvs <msh...@alice.com> wrote in message
> news:oar7fusprjs4p7jge...@4ax.com...
> >
> > If you could find just one qualified engineer and get him
> > to endorse your book, just *one*, it would go a long way
> > toward boosting sales.
>
> John Thomas Maxson - www.mission51l.com
>
>
--
mvs
>I furnished two solid references not long ago (Sam Beddingfield,
>engineer/manager and Stan Nelson, pilot -- both NASA retired).
>No one was interested.
Here is a message you posted regarding Beddingfield:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9vgnk5%24b9%241%40ins22.netins.net
According to your own words, he is vouching for NASA telemetry, not for you or
your book. (I assume for simplicity's sake that he actually did vouch for said
telemetry, since there is no actual quote in the post)
And here is the most relevant post of yours regarding Stan Nelson:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=f69b49a9.0112021451.17398d27%40posting.google.com
His endorsement of your book (I'll have to take your word for it again, because
like all your posts regarding these two men, it contains no direct quotes)
seems glowing, though since Nelson was a *helicopter* pilot I have to question
his qualification to judge matters regarding the Space Shuttle - an entirely
different animal. (lots of people work for NASA - doesn't make them all
Shuttle experts)
Even ignoring the fact that every time you mention these two on Google it's "He
says this" and "He thinks that", they're still far from solid references. Why
aren't they quoted on your website, if you think they're so important?
Mountain Camper
> Your damage to me is a matter of record.
<snip>
I thought you just wrote this morning that your credibility "...is fine."
Are you confused about your credibility here today? You should make up your
mind before you drag someone into court because if your credibility is
"fine" then where is your "damage?"
Mountain Camper
disclaimer.
"Mountain Camper" <mountai...@lvcm.com.not-this> wrote in message
news:uf8o0ok...@corp.supernews.com...
> "john_thomas_maxson" <max...@mission51l.com> wrote:
>
> > Your damage to me is a matter of record.
>
> <snip>
>
> I thought you just wrote this morning that your credibility "...is fine."
> Are you confused about your credibility here today? You should make up
your
> mind before you drag someone into court because if your credibility is
> "fine" then where is your "damage?"
DISCLAIMER: Note to all posters. Please report any and all errors in my
posts immediately. I try to make all of my posts accurately reflect the
truth. I am however fallible. I will gladly correct any inaccuracies and
apologize if appropriate. Thanks for your kind corrections in advance.
> --
Douglas Ellison
> I furnished two solid references not long ago (Sam Beddingfield,
> engineer/manager and Stan Nelson, pilot -- both NASA retired).
> No one was interested.
>
> I guess people are still focused more on 9/11 and its aftermath.
>
You're SICK.
You're now trying to blame your inability to convince us of your bullshit
story on the death of thousands.
I thought you were a common troll and net-loonie - you're actually a SICK
individual
Doug
john_thomas_maxson
Mountain Camper <mountai...@lvcm.com.not-this> wrote in message
news:uf8o0ok...@corp.supernews.com...
john_thomas_maxson
I didn't hear Dan Rather refer to it as an interview.
He referred to it the way I do in my book.
Mountain Camper <mountai...@lvcm.com.not-this>
wrote in message news:uf8gm6h...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> The Leo Krupp interview cited above occurred within hours of the accident
> and was based on Mr. Krupp's review of the launch day video in slow
motion,
> his own knowledge, and nothing more.
Too bad trying to make me look bad gives you so much
enjoyment. "Just stating the facts, mam, just stating the facts."
Jon Berndt
> They appeared within much less than an hour, I believe.
> I didn't hear Dan Rather refer to it as an interview.
> He referred to it the way I do in my book.
>
> Too bad trying to make me look bad gives you so much
> enjoyment. "Just stating the facts, mam, just stating the facts."
>
> John Thomas Maxson - www.mission51l.com
Really, we aren't out to make *you* look bad - it's not personal - but you
are the one pushing your book and theory. You need to expect people to point
out flaws in your logic.
As for Leo Krupp (note spelling), he misidentified the booster
(understandably) on the spur of the moment. Later in your book, you point
out that NASA was tracking the right booster "as explained by Leo Krup" -
thus relying on his "expert" - but misinformed - statement.
You'd gain some credibility here and show some accountability if you at
least took responsibility for and admitted to your mistakes. It's OK. We all
make them.
Jon
Jon Berndt
> They appeared within much less than an hour, I believe.
> I didn't hear Dan Rather refer to it as an interview.
> He referred to it the way I do in my book.
>
> Too bad trying to make me look bad gives you so much
> enjoyment. "Just stating the facts, mam, just stating the facts."
>
> John Thomas Maxson - www.mission51l.com
Really, we aren't out to make *you* look bad - it's not personal - but you
Jon Berndt
> They appeared within much less than an hour, I believe.
> I didn't hear Dan Rather refer to it as an interview.
> He referred to it the way I do in my book.
>
> Too bad trying to make me look bad gives you so much
> enjoyment. "Just stating the facts, mam, just stating the facts."
>
> John Thomas Maxson - www.mission51l.com
Really, we aren't out to make *you* look bad - it's not personal - but you
Jon Berndt
> They appeared within much less than an hour, I believe.
> I didn't hear Dan Rather refer to it as an interview.
> He referred to it the way I do in my book.
>
> Too bad trying to make me look bad gives you so much
> enjoyment. "Just stating the facts, mam, just stating the facts."
>
> John Thomas Maxson - www.mission51l.com
Really, we aren't out to make *you* look bad - it's not personal - but you
Jon Berndt
> They appeared within much less than an hour, I believe.
> I didn't hear Dan Rather refer to it as an interview.
> He referred to it the way I do in my book.
>
> Too bad trying to make me look bad gives you so much
> enjoyment. "Just stating the facts, mam, just stating the facts."
>
> John Thomas Maxson - www.mission51l.com
Really, we aren't out to make *you* look bad - it's not personal - but you
Jon Berndt
> They appeared within much less than an hour, I believe.
> I didn't hear Dan Rather refer to it as an interview.
> He referred to it the way I do in my book.
>
> Too bad trying to make me look bad gives you so much
> enjoyment. "Just stating the facts, mam, just stating the facts."
>
> John Thomas Maxson - www.mission51l.com
Really, we aren't out to make *you* look bad - it's not personal - but you
Mountain Camper
> Mountain Camper <mountai...@lvcm.com.not-this> wrote:
> Sounds like a threat to me.
In accordance with my disclaimer, I must sincerely apologize. I in no way
meant for my post to be read as a threat. My post was not meant as a
threat. None of my posts have been meant as threats. Again I apologize.
Sorry. To be clear I am not dragging any one into court, nor threatening to
do so.
> > > Your damage to me is a matter of record.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > I thought you just wrote this morning that your credibility "...is
fine."
> > Are you confused about your credibility here today? You should make up
your
> > mind before you drag someone into court because if your credibility is
> > "fine" then where is your "damage?"
--
Mountain Camper
Wheeler Peak
---
john_thomas_maxson
Jon Berndt <j...@hal-pc.borg> wrote in message
news:ad2msm$2dap$1...@news.hal-pc.org...
>
> Really, we aren't out to make *you* look bad
BUUUULLLSHIIIIIT!!!!!!
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=book+buy+group:sci.space.shuttle+author:jo
n+author:berndt&hl=en&lr=&selm=3A8733FB.5D46E4A8%40hal-pc.org&rnum=1
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=let+me+know+group:sci.space.shuttle+author
:Daniel&hl=en&lr=&selm=tes8fhrk45i8a%40corp.supernews.com&rnum=7
I stand *completely* behind what I wrote, including a
respected spelling source and public statements made
by the Rockwell test pilot within the next 24-48 hours
*emphatically affirming* his belief that the right SRB
had exited to the south.
Rick C
> He truly is the model of a modern Major Maxson.
>
> He's information vegetable, animal and mineral
> He knows the board of Lockmart and he can quote flights historical
> From Vanderberg to Kennedy in order Categorical.
> He's very well acquainted too with matters conspiratorial
> He understands equations both simple and quadratical
> About spectroanalysis he's teeming with lot o'news
> With many cheerful facts about the 51-L he'll bemuse.
> With apologies to Gilbert, Sullivan, Stanley and any others.
You should apologize to all of us, too, for foisting that upon an
unsuspecting public.
john_thomas_maxson
wrote in message news:uf9oiil...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> None of my posts have been meant as threats.
That sounds to me like a *retroactive* attempt to
absolve yourself of all blame in the sci.space groups.
If one says, "I didn't mean to murder my father,"
does that alone absolve one of murder?
In these groups, I have often found your approach to me,
to my book, and to my cause to be neither honorably
"scientific" or honorably law-abiding, frankly.
As Scott Grissom noted, NASA appears to be covering
things up *still*. That raises the question of whether
many in these groups could be found guilty of 'aiding
and abetting.' My site and my posts have been *open*.
Now about any retractions you might wish to make ...
Jon Berndt
> I stand *completely* behind what I wrote, including a
> respected spelling source and public statements made
> by the Rockwell test pilot within the next 24-48 hours
> *emphatically affirming* his belief that the right SRB
> had exited to the south.
>
> John Thomas Maxson - www.mission51l.com
Then why didn't you use "that" statement, instead of the one Krupp made with
the mistaken impression that he was identifying the SRB that didn't blow up?
Why did you later *rely* on that mistaken statement. Your use of this
"expert witness" mistake - perhaps not even realizing it was a mistake - is
nothing short of laughable.
Jon
john_thomas_maxson
Jon Berndt <j...@hal-pc.borg> wrote in message
news:ad3nmj$2vn1$1...@news.hal-pc.org...
> "john_thomas_maxson" <max...@mission51l.com> wrote in message
>
> > I stand *completely* behind what I wrote, including a
> > respected spelling source and public statements made
> > by the Rockwell test pilot within the next 24-48 hours
> > *emphatically affirming* his belief that the right SRB
> > had exited to the south.
> >
> > John Thomas Maxson - www.mission51l.com
>
> Then why didn't you use "that" statement, instead of the
> one Krupp made with the mistaken impression that he was
> identifying the SRB that didn't blow up?
You'd better read what you're replying to *again*!
There's no inconsistency there -- he was *not* wrong,
nor did he admit that he was. On the contrary.
*You* are the one they are laughing at!
Jon Berndt
> You'd better read what you're replying to *again*!
> There's no inconsistency there -- he was *not* wrong,
> nor did he admit that he was. On the contrary.
Are you hoping people will forget what was I wrote before, exposing your
reliance on faulty information? Here it is again: You misspelled Krupp's
name, you misidentified what he did (he never flew Enterprise), and *he*
guessed the right SRB flew out of the cloud to the south because IN HIS
WORDS:
"I assume it was the right one because it looked like the left one was the
one that exploded."
That's the ONLY reason he gives for having "seen" the "right" SRB. And it is
a flawed reason because the left one didn't "explode".
And then you give us this bogus story about the statement he made later
(which you did not include for some reason, instead relying on this stupid
non-endorsement by Krupp) reaffirming his statement. Then later you make a
comment in your book about some booster NASA was tracking as being the right
one "as explained by Leo Krup [sic]".
Give us a break. This is the mark of someone caught in a "problem" with
their own story (perhaps because of an embarrassing oversight) and too
proud, stupid, or blind (or sick) to admit the error.
It's also so typical of the type of evidence that permeates your logic and
writings. It's easy to pick your story apart - like shooting fish in a
bucket.
Jon
Mountain Camper
> Mountain Camper <mountai...@lvcm.com.not-this> wrote:
> They appeared within much less than an hour, I believe.
> I didn't hear Dan Rather refer to it as an interview.
> He referred to it the way I do in my book.
*If* you are referring to the Leo Krupp tape that I copied for you, please
be aware that the video recorder was not turned on for over an hour after
the accident per a family member of mine who made the tape. That means an
hour and a half after the accident. Who cares about one hour anyway?
<snip>
> Too bad trying to make me look bad gives you so much
> enjoyment. "Just stating the facts, mam, just stating the facts."
I am just going over a subject in your book of which I have first hand
knowledge. If your book makes you look bad, don't blame me.
Mountain Camper
<snip>
> > > I stand *completely* behind what I wrote, including a
> > > respected spelling source and public statements made
> > > by the Rockwell test pilot within the next 24-48 hours
> > > *emphatically affirming* his belief that the right SRB
> > > had exited to the south.
Stand wherever you want. Like 48 hours makes any difference? Did you
interview Leo Krupp after the Roger's Commission report came out? Did he
come out with any quotables against Roger's after the report came out? I
would have quoted the latter if I were you rather than the quotes prior to
the Presidential Commission investigation if he did say anything later.
Hmmmm.
john_thomas_maxson
with your twins, rather than trying to roll me.
Jon Berndt <j...@hal-pc.borg> wrote in message
news:ad3ubq$31e$1...@news.hal-pc.org...
>
> Are you hoping people will forget what was I wrote before,
> exposing your reliance on faulty information? Here it is again:
> You misspelled Krupp's name,
Where is your proof? Remember, that's what *you* require.
I take your word for *nothing* (ZZEEEEERO). That's all
it's worth. (PEEERIOD.) I said I have a name reference.
> you misidentified what he did (he never flew Enterprise),
I did not say he did, but where is your *proof* that he didn't?
I have proof for what I did say.
> And it is a flawed reason because the left one didn't "explode".
No, but Leo was referring to the *right* LOX blast he saw.
*He* did not "reidentify" later (see the L. A. Times, a top
national magazine, and other west coast newspapers). Even
if he changed his mind *much* later, he was former Rockwell.
A retroactive reversal changes nothing, *if* you can even prove
it. (If you only knew how many Lockheed & Rockwell retirees
have been afraid to come forth for fear of delay in retirement
checks, you might not be putting your foot in your mouth.
Lockheed delayed my *automatic* 60-day retirement payout
for almost a year, just to cause me hardship. I could write five
books just about things you would call "paranoid.")
> Then later you make a comment in your book about some
> booster NASA was tracking as being the right one "as
> explained by Leo Krup [sic]".
That is absolutely correct, and I stand by its importance and
validity. Where is your *proof* of that being *false*? Is
this a science forum or a dart board with my name on it?
> Give us a break.
*You* will get *none* from me. *You* need *proof*.
Otherwise you are continuing your libel of me, and I
do *not* intend to take it lying down.
> It's easy to pick your story apart - like shooting fish in a
> bucket.
Wrong, and I hope you live to regret it. Fish, huh?
Some fish! Like trying to reel in a whale.
john_thomas_maxson
other things) is that Rather began broadcasting in a matter
of minutes afterward, rather than hours.
Mountain Camper <mountai...@lvcm.com.not-this>
wrote in message news:ufb1fm9...@corp.supernews.com...
> "john_thomas_maxson" <max...@mission51l.com> wrote:
> > Mountain Camper <mountai...@lvcm.com.not-this> wrote:
>
> > They appeared within much less than an hour, I believe.
> > I didn't hear Dan Rather refer to it as an interview.
> > He referred to it the way I do in my book.
>
> *If* you are referring to the Leo Krupp tape that I copied for you, please
> be aware that the video recorder was not turned on for over an hour after
> the accident per a family member of mine who made the tape. That means an
> hour and a half after the accident. Who cares about one hour anyway?
*I* care, of course, because I am being *discredited*.
Am I to believe that's beyond your comprehension?
Have you ever thought about videotaped *replays*?
Jon Berndt
> JB: exposing your reliance on faulty information? Here it is again:
> JB: You misspelled Krupp's name,
>
> JTM: Where is your proof? Remember, that's what *you* require.
> JTM: I take your word for *nothing* (ZZEEEEERO). That's all
> JTM: it's worth. (PEEERIOD.) I said I have a name reference.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4209/ch9-4.htm
> JB: you misidentified what he did (he never flew Enterprise),
>
> JTM: I did not say he did, but where is your *proof* that he didn't?
> JTM: I have proof for what I did say.
Oh, Lord. Are you joking? You called him "former Enterprise pilot" in your
book. Why call him Enterprise "pilot" if only four people ever flew
Enterprise and he _wasn't_ one of them.
> JB: And it is a flawed reason because the left one didn't "explode".
>
> JTM: No, but Leo was referring to the *right* LOX blast he saw.
Krupp: "I assume it was the right one because it looked like the left one
was the one that exploded." This statement stands - er, actually: "falls" -
on its own.
He thought he saw the LEFT SRB explode (you are saying he was really
referring to the RIGHT LOX blast?) _so_ he thought the emerging SRB was the
right one?
> *He* did not "reidentify" later (see the L. A. Times, a top
> national magazine, and other west coast newspapers).
But this isn't mentioned in your book - only his misstatement and your
reliance on it.
But this makes no difference. Your book boldly proclaims that since Krupp
mistakenly thought he saw the RSRB emerge from the vapor (cleanly) that this
must be the case. You are grasping for any "evidence" you can find - even
mistaken evidence.
> Even if he changed his mind *much* later, he was former Rockwell.
And this proves ... ?
> A retroactive reversal changes nothing, *if* you can even prove it.
I'll bet he supports the Roger's Report now, given all the information, as
everyone else does, except you.
> I could write five books just about things you would call "paranoid.")
I honestly believe you, John. I really do.
> > Then later you make a comment in your book about some
> > booster NASA was tracking as being the right one "as
> > explained by Leo Krup [sic]".
>
> That is absolutely correct, and I stand by its importance and
> validity. Where is your *proof* of that being *false*?
The obvious implication here is that you were depending on a *qualified*
statement by Leo Krup as supporting evidence - and the qualification that
Leo stood on was a misunderstanding by him. That should be clear.
Unfortunately, the fallout is not limited to this mere error on your part.
You also link his name in this misunderstanding to your book as supporting
your theory and he may be somewhat perturbed at that prospect.
> Is this a science forum or a dart board with my name on it?
Both, and it's your own fault. We don't need to work to make you look bad.
You are uncommonly adept at that all by yourself.
> *You* will get *none* from me. *You* need *proof*.
> Otherwise you are continuing your libel of me, and I
> do *not* intend to take it lying down.
We *know* you are not lying down. You've "assumed the position" long ago and
have been taking a paddling at least since I saw the actual "evidence" as
portrayed in your book. That "evidence" is now making the rounds here
southeast of Houston among people who can't be fooled by you. If you go
outside and face south you can probably hear the laughter and groans.
> Wrong, and I hope you live to regret it. Fish, huh?
> Some fish! Like trying to reel in a whale.
Yes, it's a whale of a story, John.
Jon
Mountain Camper
> Mountain Camper <mountai...@lvcm.com.not-this> wrote:
> > "john_thomas_maxson" <max...@mission51l.com> wrote:
> > > Mountain Camper <mountai...@lvcm.com.not-this> wrote:
> My understanding of the *words* on my video copy (among
> other things) is that Rather began broadcasting in a matter
> of minutes afterward, rather than hours.
I'll get to some of the words on that video on another post so that people
can draw their own conclusions.
> > > They appeared within much less than an hour, I believe.
> > > I didn't hear Dan Rather refer to it as an interview.
> > > He referred to it the way I do in my book.
"I didn't hear Dan Rather refer to it as an interview."
It is nits like this that garner you the occasional sarcasm of others. All
of us are only human.
> > *If* you are referring to the Leo Krupp tape that I copied for you,
please
> > be aware that the video recorder was not turned on for over an hour
after
> > the accident per a family member of mine who made the tape. That means
an
> > hour and a half after the accident. Who cares about one hour anyway?
>
> *I* care, of course, because I am being *discredited*.
> Am I to believe that's beyond your comprehension?
> Have you ever thought about videotaped *replays*?
I do not agree that you are being discredited on this issue at all. As it
turns out the same family member who said it was over an hour was wrong too.
It's no big deal. People tend to compress the timing of past events. That
is a simple truth. Actually the interview started about 2 hours and 45
minutes after the accident. I verified this with a few cross checks. Trust
me on this one please. The tape is clearly labeled "live" and it follows
Larry Speakes second press conference which time tags at about 2 hours and
20 minutes after the accident. A little later on the tape, at around 2:40
pm EST, Dan Rather says that there will be a NASA news conference at 3:30 pm
EST, "about fifty minutes from now."
DISCLAIMER: Note to all posters. Please report any and all errors in my
posts immediately. I try to make all of my posts accurately reflect the
truth. I am however fallible. I will gladly correct any inaccuracies and
apologize if appropriate. Thanks for your kind corrections in advance.
--
Mountain Camper
Wheeler Peak
---
Outgoing mail is sort of certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.368 / Virus Database: 204 - Release Date: 5/29/2002