Mission 51-L: Spectral Analysis
john_thomas_maxson
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Below is a link to telemetry-confirmed, aft-RCS firings on ascent
during the successful flight of Mission 41-C. Sam Beddingfield,
formerly NASA's Shuttle Program Office Director at KSC, vouched for
both the NASA telemetry and the NASA video during a PBS Special on
Monitor Radio for the Second Challenger Aniversary in January 1988.
More than twenty of these brief, discrete bursts occurred between
roughly t+40 seconds and t+95 seconds. More on this (and the
anomalously *continuous* RCS firing which ultimately began at about
t+59 seconds during Challenger's Mission 51-L) can be found in The
Betrayal of Mission 51-L.
----------------------------------------------------------------
... the link is:
http://www.mission51l.com/aboutus.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------
Has anyone ever seen the results of any NASA-authorized spectral analyses
from the 51-L plumes/flares/fires?
John Maxson (still asking "nagging questions" about Mission 51-L)
Paul F. Dietz
> Has anyone ever seen the results of any NASA-authorized spectral analyses
> from the 51-L plumes/flares/fires?
Spectral analysis? Maxson, unless they had a spectrophotometer
tracking the vehicle at the launch, how exactly are they supposed
to do this? A TV signal is not going to give you very much spectral
information.
Paul
Scott Lowther
> Below is a link to telemetry-confirmed, aft-RCS firings on ascent...
Actually, it is not. It is a link to an advertisement.
john_thomas_maxson
Kodak Labs needs is *one* original negative from a NASA reel of 51-L, 70 mm
film.
Paul F. Dietz <di...@interaccess.com> wrote in message
news:3C1BE6B1...@interaccess.com...
john_thomas_maxson
your imagination -- or are you a figment of mine? (Credits to Kris
Kristofferson, et al.)
Scott Lowther <lex...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3C1BE5...@ix.netcom.com...
Art Fuldodger
> I guess that one is the easiest question I've answered in a long time. All
> Kodak Labs needs is *one* original negative from a NASA reel of 51-L, 70 mm
> film.
...and how exactly would one produce a spectroscopic analysis from this?
Scott Lowther
>
> Actually it was, before you snipped it.
Errr, nope. I wasted my time by looking again. Not a single bit of data
regarding "telemetry-confirmed, aft-RCS firings on ascent." Some
dribblings about yet another dreay Reagan-era conspiracy theory, some
info about a soon to be bankrupt publishing biz, some blurry screen
captures, but no actual info on RCS firings.
Paul F. Dietz
> I guess that one is the easiest question I've answered in a long time. All
> Kodak Labs needs is *one* original negative from a NASA reel of 51-L, 70 mm
> film.
Are you somehow laboring under the delusion that color film
faithfully captures the detailed spectrum of the object
being photographed? Actually, it captures enough information
to replicate colors *as seen by the human eye*, a very much
easier task.
Paul
Art Fuldodger
"Paul F. Dietz" <di...@interaccess.com> wrote:
> john_thomas_maxson wrote:
>
> > I guess that one is the easiest question I've answered in a long time. All
> > Kodak Labs needs is *one* original negative from a NASA reel of 51-L, 70 mm
> > film.
>
> Are you somehow laboring under the delusion that color film
> faithfully captures the detailed spectrum of the object
> being photographed?
I believe he's laboring under a FEW false delusions, the one about
film capturing the original spectral characteristics is merely the latest.
> Actually, it captures enough information
> to replicate colors *as seen by the human eye*, a very much
> easier task.
...and his claim that the original film could somehow be useful for
spectroscopic analysis reveals more of his scientific incompetence.
(Stand by for his trademark counterattacks; third grade name-calling,
followed by attempts to deflect the argument to yet another unrelated
issue, and accusations that we're all working for Lockheed and are
being paid to disparage him. Maybe he'll even bring up his family's
pivotal role in defeating the Germans in WW2 again <YAWN>....)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Scott Lowther
> (Stand by for his trademark counterattacks; third grade name-calling,
> followed by attempts to deflect the argument to yet another unrelated
> issue, and accusations that we're all working for Lockheed and are
> being paid to disparage him. Maybe he'll even bring up his family's
> pivotal role in defeating the Germans in WW2 again <YAWN>....)
You know, it occurs to me that his rants and ramblings have the
appearance not so much of a whistleblower who's been ignored, but of a
wrongdoer who has gone so far in covering up his deeds that he has come
to beleive that not only did he not do them, some other evil cabal did,
and he needs to seek them out and expose them. It is now my opinion that
Jihad John Thomas Maxson is *himself* responsible for the Challenger
blowing up.
john_thomas_maxson
trying for a record. He is already *loathed* by rational folks in at
least *four* sci.space newsgroups.
Scott Lowther <lex...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote in message news:<3C1C3C...@ix.netcom.com>...
<snipped usual irrational insults>
john_thomas_maxson
Scott Lowther <lex...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote in message news:<3C1C1C...@ix.netcom.com>...
John Beaderstadt
> It is now my opinion that
> Jihad John Thomas Maxson is *himself* responsible for the Challenger
> blowing up.
The John unit will possibly accuse you of committing libel. For your
defense, I suggest you rely on the precedent set by Richard Speck (who
murdered 8? nursing students in Chicago). ~25 years ago, a judge ruled that
it was impossible to say anything that would damage Speck's reputation any
further than he had already done, himself. In essence, Speck was (is?)
completely libel-proof.
--
Beady's 2nd Law of Social Harmonics: "All you get from straddling the fence
on an issue is a sore crotch."
john_thomas_maxson
jack-of-all-non-space-shuttle trades, he's the jack of all jack-offs.
John Beaderstadt <be...@mindspring.com>
wrote in message news:3C1C9DF1...@mindspring.com...
David Higgins
john_thomas_maxson wrote:
>
> Well, well, well. Here "comes" BeaterStub again. He's not only a
> jack-of-all-non-space-shuttle trades, he's the jack of all jack-offs.
Were you intenting to prove Beaderstadt's point with this post?
It worked.
john_thomas_maxson
What's the matter, were the DO NOT REPLY letters not big enough?
And what of Beater's *own* kill-filing apparatus? Surely he owns an oil
can.
David Higgins <david....@worldnet.att.net>
wrote in message news:3C1CAD97...@worldnet.att.net...
Art Fuldodger
> Well, well, well. Here "comes" BeaterStub again. He's not only a
> jack-of-all-non-space-shuttle trades, he's the jack of all jack-offs.
There's the 3rd-grade name-calling, as if on cue.
And if you'll note, not a single word about his fantasy of doing
spectroscopic analysis on film. There's the deflection.
He is getting SO predictable.
john_thomas_maxson
--------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Other Government and Industry Analyses and Enhancements
a. Initial Analyses
Several image analysis facilities, in addition to those at JSC and MSFC,
were involved in the analysis of STS 51-L imagery. These remote facilities
were:
National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC)
U.S. Air Force (USAF)
Wright Patterson AFB, Dayton, Ohio (WPAFB)
Space Division, Los Angeles, CA
Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL)
Lockheed Missiles and Space Corporation (LMSC)
ITEK, Inc. Exxon Production Research Company (EPRCO)
Other government facilities.
These facilities were originally given the following tasks:
...
(8) Composition of Plume -- Using data available from E60 and E63, assess
the feasibility of determining *spectral* characteristics of the smoke
plume, and if feasible, perform such analysis. [Emphasis added.]
(9) Geometric Characteristic of Smoke -- Using frames from E60 and E63,
determine the best estimate of the point of origin of the smoke plume. Also
include size, shape, location, and rate of growth. Note any other
characteristics associated with plume.
The analyses were hampered in this initial stage (2 weeks after the
accident) by the *lack of suitable photographic materials* to support
digital analysis. All NASA organizations reported problems in digitizing
from the cut-film transparencies and most resorted to digitizing from 8 x 10
positive prints or abandoned the effort entirely. Exxon and one other
laboratory had contact transparencies of E60 and E63 and performed analyses
of the smoke at launch. [Emphasis added.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus it was *NASA's* failure to provide the only suitable film (the
original) for spectral (and other) analysis. As NASA engineer B. K. Davis
(an Ice Team member turned Photo Team member) stated: "No one gets to see
the original film, not even us." (In every normal, credible investigation,
the investigators have a very simple rule: USE THE BEST AVAILABLE
EVIDENCE!!)
Obviously, no reasonable spectral analysis was ever performed from the 51-L
film. (Even frames from NASA's 'Master Copies' are impossible to obtain.)
Analysis could have been expanded to include the IR spectrum. NASA's
photographic planning documents for Mission 51-L show an Infra-Red (IR)
camera. Every FOIA attempt I made to get a copy of the product from this
camera failed. As far as I know, no one outside of NASA (including the
official reviewers above) has ever seen the IR imagery.
Art Fuldodger <canne...@moronbait.com>
wrote in message news:_ATS7.2414$Ga...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> ...and how exactly would one produce a spectroscopic analysis from this?
Talk to Kodak Labs in Rochester, NY. No sweat, they told my attorneys.
john_thomas_maxson
Mission 51-L, and I have no control over replying to "fantasy" messages
which come into my newsreader only after a twelve-hour delay, if ever.
Art Fuldodger <canne...@moronbait.com> wrote in message
news:LA2T7.3792$Ga....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net..
Paul F. Dietz
> Pre-school babbler Beater is on a mission to destroy my credibility about
> Mission 51-L,
I'm on a mission to ensure the sun rises in the morning.
Paul
john_thomas_maxson
51-L spectral analysis, as recorded by the Presidential Commission.
Paul F. Dietz <di...@interaccess.com> wrote in message
news:3C1CC92E...@interaccess.com...
Paul F. Dietz
>
> I guess that's easier than commenting on NASA's documented failure to obtain
> 51-L spectral analysis, as recorded by the Presidential Commission.
I already pointed out that detailed spectral information cannot
be obtained from a color photograph. They might be able to get
very crude information, such as the temperature of the emitter.
Paul
john_thomas_maxson
it). We're talking about original 70 mm film, and we're talking about the
factual opinions from Kodak -- *experts* in the field of color spectral
analysis.
My attorneys were assured that the chemical sources/constituents of the 51-L
plumes/flares/fires could be identified from the original 70 mm film, and
the Rogers Report (as I read it) supports that information.
Paul F. Dietz <di...@interaccess.com> wrote in message
news:3C1CCD77...@interaccess.com...
David Higgins
john_thomas_maxson wrote:
>
> Were you "intenting" to keep your word about file-killing me with this post?
> What's the matter, were the DO NOT REPLY letters not big enough?
1) The filter was accidently deleted. I'm about to rectify that problem.
2) Apparently the "DO NOT REPLY" letters exist only in your imagination.
I've looked at every post of yours in this thread that arrived on ATT's
server, and guess what? No such statement by you. As if any such
request is reasonable with Usenet.
Christopher M. Jones
Getting?
The John unit has been like this for a long time.
If we cared, we could use his predictability to yank his
chain at will. He's not worth the effort though.
--
O, pardon me, thou bleeding piece of earth,
That I am meek and gentle with these butchers!
Thou art the ruins of the noblest man
That ever lived in the tide of times.
john_thomas_maxson
your fear of Minnesota's criminal laws and their penalties, and you know it.
Christopher M. Jones <christ...@spicedham.qwest.net>
wrote in message news:4J4T7.32$ns3....@news.uswest.net...
james oberg
john_thomas_maxson <max...@mission51l.com> wrote in message
news:9vgnk5$b9$1...@ins22.netins.net...
> John Maxson wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Has anyone ever seen the results of any NASA-authorized spectral analyses
> from the 51-L plumes/flares/fires?
How do you take spectral analyses of normal video?
john_thomas_maxson
video. However, an LA Times article dated 1/30/86 (Part I, p. 8) discusses
the causal views of Raymond Weich, President of Maya Electronics in San
Diego.
I don't agree with his views on the cause, nor can I answer your question as
to how spectral analysis is done from video. Nevertheless, read on.
Weich was referred to as a physicist with extensive experience working on
solid-fuel rockets. He saw on video what he described as "an orange-yellow
flame before the explosion."
"Weich argued that a spectrometric analysis of the TV image should show
conclusively that the flame was from ..."
james oberg <job...@houston.rr.com>
wrote in message news:DS7T7.57142$zp5.3...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
James Nowotarski
news:DS7T7.57142$zp5.3...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
>
1) Point the photospectrometer at the CRT while running the
video playback, or
2) You grind the video tape up into small pieces and put the
samples in the machine where they're burnt and the spectral
lines are - Oh wait, that's MASS spectroscopy, isn't it?
Hell, both should work equally well for this application,
though...
-
Jim
Doug...
news:5p9T7.298783$W8.10...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Considering either approach will get you equally applicable results, that's
very true.
Doug
Chris Manteuffel
<jimn@_REMOVE_.att.net> arranged electrons in an arbitrary pattern
familiar to all as:
>1) Point the photospectrometer at the CRT while running the
>video playback, or
No wonder OV-99 failed! It had huge phosphorous contamination! There
was phosphorous everywhere!
Chris Manteuffel
"...the war situation has developed not necessarily
to Japan's advantage..."
-Emperor Hirohito, August 14, 1945
Christopher M. Jones
> On Sun, 16 Dec 2001 22:40:01 GMT, "James Nowotarski"
> <jimn@_REMOVE_.att.net> arranged electrons in an arbitrary pattern
> familiar to all as:
>
> >1) Point the photospectrometer at the CRT while running the
> >video playback, or
>
> No wonder OV-99 failed! It had huge phosphorous contamination! There
> was phosphorous everywhere!
Forget the phosphorous, look at these beta-ray and x-ray
readings!
And, does it seem odd to anyone else that the Space Shuttle
seems to be composed mostly of glass, plastic, and invar?
--
Lovely spam! Wonderful spam!
Chuck Stewart
news:9vib9o$7vh$1...@ins22.netins.net:
> And what of Beater's *own* kill-filing apparatus? Surely he owns an
> oil can.
As far as can be told, Beady's filter is working fine.
He isn't replying to your drivel.
He's replying to other posts.
BTW, I'm having trouble updating the FAQson fast enough...
...could you please keep it down to 3-4 technically ignorant
statements per day?
--
Chuck Stewart
"Anime-style catgirls: Threat? Menace? Or just studying algebra?"
Robert Wiersbe
Wow John, that was clever! But, I thought you were a Christian? I thought
Christians weren't supposed to do things like this, you know, talk dirty and
things like that. Do you go to church? If so, which one? I think a lot of
people would like to go to a church where you can pretend to be a believer in
God, but say and do whatever you want!
Bob
john_thomas_maxson
tell me the days when sex was dirty and the air was clean are long gone.
I recently read a long piece (*very* touching) by a Catholic priest from New
York City who had gone down to the WTC rubble to say last rites for the
dead, as the firemen dug out parts from the rubble. His "dirty" language in
trying to communicate compassion to a worn-out fireman put mine to shame,
but I have the utmost respect for that priest as a Christian. He is a
*man.*
Robert Wiersbe <wie...@lucent.com>
wrote in message news:3C1E06A5...@lucent.com...
> Wow John, that was clever! But, I thought you were a Christian? I thought
> Christians weren't supposed to do things like this, you know, talk dirty
and
> things like that.
> Do you go to church?
Does "going to church" make you a Christian? Or is it what's in your heart,
and how you react to the devil? Should you not confront him, as Christ did?
I'm not ashamed of my stand on/for Challenger. I'd do it all again, and
I'll keep doing it until the day I die.
JTM
Robert Wiersbe
> Robert Wiersbe <wie...@lucent.com>
> wrote in message news:3C1E06A5...@lucent.com...
> > Wow John, that was clever! But, I thought you were a Christian? I thought
> > Christians weren't supposed to do things like this, you know, talk dirty
> and
> > things like that.
> > Do you go to church?
>
> Does "going to church" make you a Christian?
In your case, no. I just wanted to know so I can avoid your particular form of
religion.
> Or is it what's in your heart,
> and how you react to the devil? Should you not confront him, as Christ did?
So, you're saying that those you confront here on S.S.S are the devil? Is that
how you are justifying your posts like the one that started this (the one to
Oberg about jerking off).
> I'm not ashamed of my stand on/for Challenger. I'd do it all again, and
> I'll keep doing it until the day I die.
Please make that day soon. And say hello to God when you get there, I think
you'll have a lot of explaining to do about how you mis-represented him.
Bob
John Beaderstadt
> As far as can be told, Beady's filter is working fine.
>
> He isn't replying to your drivel.
>
> He's replying to other posts.
Yup, that's pretty much it. Until people resumed replying to the
Maxsonograms, I couldn't even tell he was posting without relying on
Google. I'm really doing my best to ignore him, but a lot of you are
making it bloody difficult.
BTW, I think it's absolutely hysterical to see the John unit accuse me of
trying to shut him down. On the internet, I wouldn't have the vaguest idea
how to go about it; in real life, there's no way it could legally be
accomplished and I don't have the resources to do it illegally. In any
event, he's too entertaining to shut down.
john_thomas_maxson
shuttle interest, as well as truth and conviction.
Robert Wiersbe <wie...@lucent.com>
wrote in message news:3C1E2703...@lucent.com...
<snipped continuing lies and misrepresentations>
> > I'm not ashamed of my stand on/for Challenger. I'd do it all again, and
> > I'll keep doing it until the day I die.
>
> Please make that day soon.
>
> Bob
God's in control of that. Speak to Him, if He will hear you.
JTM
James Nowotarski
spectroscopy of the video cassette.
Probably a conspiracy.
Microscopic examination did turn up the suspicious phrase,
"Ne touchez pas le bande video."
-
Jim
James Nowotarski
news:mMaT7.67795$RP1.14...@typhoon.kc.rr.com...
> >
> > Hell, both should work equally well for this application,
> > though...
>
> Considering either approach will get you equally applicable results,
that's
> very true.
>
are an infinite number of worthless experiments that you can
perform..."
-
Jim
Julian Bordas
john_thomas_maxson wrote:
> John Maxson wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Below is a link to telemetry-confirmed, aft-RCS firings on ascent
> during the successful flight of Mission 41-C.
What a crock of shit. Who's that loony in the middle? Oh it you John.
>
>
> Has anyone ever seen the results of any NASA-authorized spectral analyses
> from the 51-L plumes/flares/fires?
>
> John Maxson (still asking "nagging questions" about Mission 51-L)
John Maxson (Still trying to troll the newsgroups to sell his crock of shit)
Julian Bordas
> Errr, nope. I wasted my time by looking again. Not a single bit of data
> regarding "telemetry-confirmed, aft-RCS firings on ascent." Some
> dribblings about yet another dreay Reagan-era conspiracy theory, some
> info about a soon to be bankrupt publishing biz, some blurry screen
> captures, but no actual info on RCS firings.
What did you expect? a smidgeon of truth?
Great photo of John !!
Julian Bordas
"Paul F. Dietz" wrote:
> john_thomas_maxson wrote:
>
> > I guess that one is the easiest question I've answered in a long time. All
> > Kodak Labs needs is *one* original negative from a NASA reel of 51-L, 70 mm
> > film.
>
> Are you somehow laboring under the delusion that color film
> faithfully captures the detailed spectrum of the object
> being photographed?
Well that is one of the delusions that John is under.
Julian Bordas
john_thomas_maxson wrote:
> Pre-school babbler Beater is on a mission to destroy my credibility about
> Mission 51-L,
What credibilty? You have none. You are a laughing stock, a big joke. Here
you resort to pre-school insults
I'm glad that you post I need the laughs at work
Julian Bordas
"Paul F. Dietz" wrote:
Are you the one that does that? cool dude!!
Julian Bordas
john_thomas_maxson wrote:
> I guess that's easier than commenting on NASA's documented failure to obtain
> 51-L spectral analysis, as recorded by the Presidential Commission.
It's even easier to discuss your behaviour a college and why you had to leave in
a hurry.
BTW what did happen to the mayor's son?
Julian Bordas
john_thomas_maxson wrote:My attorneys were assured that the chemical
sources/constituents of the 51-L
> plumes/flares/fires could be identified from the original 70 mm film, and
> the Rogers Report (as I read it) supports that information.
>
And your posts ( as I read them) supports the proposition that you a a troll,
that you have only one oar in the water,
you're a few cards short of a deck,
you have a few kangaroos loose in the top paddock,
a beer short of a sixpack,
a sandwich short of a picnic
With you, the lights are on and no one is at home.
you're a loon, a retard, a waste of skin,
a waste of good breathing oxygen, an idiot, a nincompoop, a duck head a fuck
wit
Julian Bordas
> You're just a pimping heckler, Wierdzee; admit it! Your replies lack space
> shuttle interest, as well as truth and conviction.
>
Weirdzee huh
Who's heckling who fuck face?
Julian Bordas
"Christopher M. Jones" wrote:
> "Art Fuldodger" <canne...@moronbait.com> wrote:
> > "john_thomas_maxson" <max...@mission51l.com> wrote:
> > > Well, well, well. Here "comes" BeaterStub again. He's not only a
> > > jack-of-all-non-space-shuttle trades, he's the jack of all jack-offs.
> >
> > There's the 3rd-grade name-calling, as if on cue.
> >
> > And if you'll note, not a single word about his fantasy of doing
> > spectroscopic analysis on film. There's the deflection.
> >
> > He is getting SO predictable.
>
> Getting?
>
> The John unit has been like this for a long time.
>
> If we cared, we could use his predictability to yank his
> chain at will. He's not worth the effort though.
>
Oh I don't know. 'Tis the season to be jolly, after all. I'm having a great
time :-)
Julian Bordas
john_thomas_maxson wrote:
> The "dirty" talk is mostly in your *own* interpretive mind, Robert. They
> tell me the days when sex was dirty and the air was clean are long gone.
>
> I recently read a long piece (*very* touching) by a Catholic priest from New
> York City
I guess you have a lot of 'hands on' experience with Catholic Priests and
touching.
> I have the utmost respect for that priest as a Christian. He is a
> *man.*
More than you will ever be.
Julian Bordas
john_thomas_maxson wrote:Weich was referred to as a physicist with extensive
experience working on
> solid-fuel rockets. He saw on video what he described as "an orange-yellow
> flame before the explosion."
>
> "Weich argued that a spectrometric analysis of the TV image should show
> conclusively that the flame was from ..."
>
Yes, "..should show...." but did it?
No.
You have no proof.
You are lying. Just as you lied all those years ago about the mayor's son
Julian Bordas
James Nowotarski wrote:
> >
> Well, you
> 1) Point the photospectrometer at the CRT while running the
> video playback, or
> 2) You grind the video tape up into small pieces and put the
> samples in the machine where they're burnt and the spectral
> lines are - Oh wait, that's MASS spectroscopy, isn't it?
>
> Hell, both should work equally well for this application,
> though...
> -
Mass Spectroscopy heats up a small amount of the substance until the
substance breaks down. Then a magnetis and electrostatic feild etc etc
:-)
Scott Lowther
> God's in control of that. Speak to Him, if He will hear you.
Did so. He said, and I quote, "Tell that dumbass he's really pissing Me
off." He let slip that He has a nice warm lake of fire stewing for you.
Robert Wiersbe
>
> You're just a pimping heckler, Wierdzee; admit it! Your replies lack space
> shuttle interest, as well as truth and conviction.
I'll admit I'm heckling you John, but it's your posts that are lacking any
truth. They are full of conviction though, I'll grant you that, plus the lies
and misrepresentations you claim that others are guilty of.
You really are good for a laugh.
> Robert Wiersbe <wie...@lucent.com>
> wrote in message news:3C1E2703...@lucent.com...
>
> <snipped continuing lies and misrepresentations>
>
> > > I'm not ashamed of my stand on/for Challenger. I'd do it all again, and
> > > I'll keep doing it until the day I die.
> >
> > Please make that day soon.
> >
> > Bob
>
> God's in control of that. Speak to Him, if He will hear you.
Done! Have a nice day! And Merry Christmas, you old coot!
Bob
Scott Lowther
>
> I guess every newsgroup has its LoathfulLoather. Scott, however, is
> trying for a record. He is already *loathed* by rational folks in at
> least *four* sci.space newsgroups.
If they are the people YOU would consider "rational," it's an honor.
Scott Lowther
>
> Meet Scott, the LoathfulLoather
Jeeez. Not only can you not think, but you can't spell, either. Must be
your guilt from what you did to Challenger, isn't it?
john_thomas_maxson
Scott Lowther <lex...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote in message news:3C2147...@ix.netcom.com...
> john_thomas_maxson wrote:
> >
> > Meet Scott, the LoathfulLoather
>
> Jeeez. Not only can you not think, but you can't spell, either.
I'll admit that I like Lowthsome Loather better.
> Must be your guilt from what you did to Challenger, isn't it?
Spectral analysis will confirm that the right-aft RCS was one of the major
problems on Mission 51-L. It is a matter of record that I tried to get
Lockheed to do something about that, weeks before the launch. Then I tried
to stop the launch. Why would that make me feel guilty?
Spelling is your problem, among countless others.
Scott Lowther
>
> Why would that make me feel guilty?
Because that's almost certainly not what happened. I bet the real story
has something to do with you and under-the-table KGB payoffs. Can you
prove that the Challenger "accident" wasn't in fact an act of sabotage,
carried out by a stooge who now has such a guilt complex that he's
created a whole other reality to cover his tracks?
john_thomas_maxson
paranoia? Smear and disinformation campaigns? Insults and death
threats? Family attacks?
Scott Lowther <lex...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote in message news:3C22C3...@ix.netcom.com...
Michael Gardner
"john_thomas_maxson" <max...@mission51l.com> wrote:
Because your nonsense distracted nasa from the real problems - lack of joint
support and cold o-rings?
mgg
Scott Lowther
>
> Conjured up allegations of
> paranoia? Smear and disinformation campaigns? Insults and death
> threats? Family attacks?
And finally we have an admission of the true PR campaign for Jihad John
Thomas' little book.
john_thomas_maxson
rest of the year Beater diverts people from the issues so he can nurse
his sore crotch.)
John Beaderstadt <be...@mindspring.com>
wrote in message news:<3C1E6764...@mindspring.com>...
Bjørnar Bolsøy
Mr. Maxson.
I'm intrigued by this, and want to learn more. Where,
online, can I find the full presented story?
Regards...
john_thomas_maxson
other than as I briefly outlined it in s.s.s. However, this link
http://history.nasa.gov./rogersrep/51lcover.htm
gives some of the NASA story. Message 5 in this thread (my third message)
tells you where within the above link to look.
Since you just posted, I noticed that the entire thread has been deleted
from my newsreader access. Nevertheless, Google Groups still has it
archived.
I mention how it related to my own case on pp. 143 and 145 of The Betrayal
of Mission 51-L, but not to the extent you are interested. My attorney,
Howard Acosta, made it a condition for filing a False Claims case on my
behalf in Federal Court. In other words, if NASA would not loan him at
least one frame of 70 mm film to send to Kodak Labs for spectral analysis,
he would not file. He was being assisted and advised at the time by Myron
(Pappy) Papadakis. Pappy was then considered one of the nation's leading
air crash investigators, and he had fought many FOIA "wars" in his day.
My best advice for an online search (and I haven't tried yet) would be to
search Google on 'Kodak spectral analysis.' Their ADVANCED SEARCH might
also be of some help, once you get started.
JTM
Bjørnar Bolsøy <bbo...@hotmail.nospam> wrote in message
news:Xns9184D488...@193.213.112.28...
Bjørnar Bolsøy
news:a0g18t$dgm$1...@ins22.netins.net:
> To the best of my knowledge, the full story has never been
> presented online, other than as I briefly outlined it in s.s.s.
> However, this link
> http://history.nasa.gov./rogersrep/51lcover.htm gives some of the
> NASA story.
Thank's. I will look into it right away, but just wanted to
point out the error in the link up there, nasa.gov dot.
Regards...
Bjørnar Bolsøy
Ok John, I'm was thinking of cutting it a little short here
since I'm quite new to this (angle) on this tragic accident.
Could you please fill me in on the details surrounding your
thesis, and how -if at all- they contradict the official
report?
Regards...
Jon S.Berndt
You will save yourself a lot of indigestion if you just ignore this guy. Run
away as fast as you can. We here in this newsgroup have tried to ignore as
best we can this oozing wound. Read the posts from the past year and you'll
see why. He has nothing of value to offer ...
Please, please do yourself a favor and just filter out anything he writes.
If you don't, you'll come to see the futility in all this in time, but
you'll have dragged us through all this again and frankly we are *tired* of
it.
"Bjørnar Bolsøy" <bbo...@hotmail.nospam> wrote in message
> "john_thomas_maxson" <max...@mission51l.com> wrote in
john_thomas_maxson
The official report blames a pre-explosion burnthrough in the right SRB,
precipitated by cold weather beginning on the day of the launch.
I blame (among other things) thrust imbalance between the two SRBs (making
the left SRB the colder). The cryo cold below, near, and above the left LH2
umbilical was precipitated by known leaks in the several days of prelaunch
fueling and during earlier testing of the new plumbing for Launch Pad B.
There was a contributory right-aft orbiter plume (where the RCS is located)
at the time of NASA's alleged right-aft SRB plume.
Bjørnar Bolsøy <bbo...@hotmail.nospam> wrote in message
news:Xns9184F101...@193.213.112.28...
john_thomas_maxson
with your Burnt ideas.
By the way, Bjornar, in an effort to be quick I failed to mention that I
have overwhelming evidence that the two boosters crossed in the fireball.
NASA failed to prove convincingly otherwise; in fact, NASA covered up the
truth about the true booster identities post-explosion. Therefore, the
booster flare/plume seen afterward was on the left SRB -- an effect rather
than a cause.
Jon S.Berndt <j...@hal-pc.org> wrote in message
news:a0ge7a$g04$1...@news.hal-pc.org...
> Dear God, no.
<etc., etc., etc., all snipped to save archiving of useless sobbing>
Bjørnar Bolsøy
> Dear God, no.
>
> You will save yourself a lot of indigestion if you just ignore
> this guy. Run away as fast as you can. We here in this newsgroup
> have tried to ignore as best we can this oozing wound. Read the
> posts from the past year and you'll see why. He has nothing of
> value to offer ...
>
> Please, please do yourself a favor and just filter out anything
> he writes. If you don't, you'll come to see the futility in all
> this in time, but you'll have dragged us through all this again
> and frankly we are *tired* of it.
I'm sure it's all in the best interest, and I'm sure you have
your POV Jon, but as you know I'm new to this particular subject
I'm sure you don't mind if I draw my own conclusions based on
what John and others have to tell. And please feel free to
join in with your POV's.
Regards...
Bjørnar Bolsøy
news:a0gefb$g7o$1...@ins22.netins.net:
> Well, my details are 180 degrees out of phase with the official
> report.
>
> The official report blames a pre-explosion burnthrough in the
> right SRB, precipitated by cold weather beginning on the day of
> the launch.
>
> I blame (among other things) thrust imbalance between the two
> SRBs (making the left SRB the colder). The cryo cold below,
> near, and above the left LH2 umbilical was precipitated by known
> leaks in the several days of prelaunch fueling and during earlier
> testing of the new plumbing for Launch Pad B.
>
> There was a contributory right-aft orbiter plume (where the RCS
> is located) at the time of NASA's alleged right-aft SRB plume.
Ok. Hm. Well, putting technical evidence aside for a moment, if
this is really the case the thing I immediatly have to ask myself
is, what motive does NASA, or the goverment, have to cover up the
story in the first place. What's the gain?
It seems to me they do an aweful lot of embarrising confessions
in the report, both with regard to technical performance,
organisation and routines and organization, which had immediate
and profound precautions if I my memory doesn't fail me completely.
http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v1ch5.htm
But don't get me wrong. I know I'm only scratching the surface
of this subject, and if it's one thing my short lifespan has
taught it's to be patient and listen to the stories fortold me.
Regards...
john_thomas_maxson
51-L Discussion with Gavin Bull,' dated June 22, 2001.
The short version is that despite all of the blaming in the Rogers Report,
none of it ever went toward Lockheed's deliberate prelaunch negligence.
Making matters worse was the fact that Rogers was corporate Lockheed's
attorney (see today's post, Why Maxson, Not Rogers?).
The motive was money, of course. The gain went to Lockheed and other top
lobbyists in the Aerospace Industries Association, via the administration
and key Congressional members with NASA oversight responsibility. Only a
few in NASA's top management were responsible, being under the thumb.
Bjørnar Bolsøy <bbo...@hotmail.nospam>
wrote in message news:Xns91851A17...@193.213.112.28...
john_thomas_maxson
the topic of this thread, in which case I probably should have mentioned
that the book I have out, The Betrayal of Mission 51-L, goes into the 'power
politics' aspect of your current questions rather well.
Bjørnar Bolsøy <bbo...@hotmail.nospam>
wrote in message news:Xns91851A17...@193.213.112.28...
Scott Lowther
> I blame (among other things) thrust imbalance between the two SRBs (making
> the left SRB the colder). The cryo cold below, near, and above the left LH2
> umbilical was precipitated by known leaks in the several days of prelaunch
> fueling and during earlier testing of the new plumbing for Launch Pad B.
The problem here being that there is ALWAYS a thrust imbalance between
the SRB's (solids don't generally throttle). This was designed and
planned for; that's why the SRB nozzles can and do vector. A substantial
thrust imballance can be dealt with simply by slewing the nozzles
appropriately, which the computers do automatically.
Jon S.Berndt
> your POV Jon, but as you know I'm new to this particular subject
> I'm sure you don't mind if I draw my own conclusions based on
> what John and others have to tell. And please feel free to
> join in with your POV's.
That's just it. We've been through *all* this in the past year. By all means
investigate what you want to. But please do it by private email with JTM.
We're sick of him. Nobody here buys into his crap.
And it is much more than a "point of view" I (dare I say "we") have. Many of
us here have experience and first-hand knowledge of the shuttle. We've been
through the exercise of trying to reason with JTM. It doesn't work. If you'd
like a "viewpoint" other than JTMs, have a look at the PDF file I put
together after I got sick of JTMs ignorant and incompetent ranting:
http://www.hal-pc.org/~jsb/Challenger.pdf
Please do yourself (and ourselves) a favor and read the past several months
threads on the topic. It would be a shame to see the same garbage rehashed
over and over again. Buy his book if you are gullible enough to be sucked
in - just please don't contribute to his delinquency or you'll likely find
yourself filtered out by the multitude who already filter out JTM. Do you
understand what I am saying? You are fully welcome to investigate what you
want. But please spare us the reduced signal to noise ratio.
Jon
Bjørnar Bolsøy
news:a0gk9g$t60$1...@ins22.netins.net:
> All of that was pretty well covered in the s.s.s. thread
> 'Continuation of 51-L Discussion with Gavin Bull,' dated June 22,
> 2001.
I'll look into it.
> The short version is that despite all of the blaming in the
> Rogers Report, none of it ever went toward Lockheed's deliberate
> prelaunch negligence. Making matters worse was the fact that
> Rogers was corporate Lockheed's attorney (see today's post, Why
> Maxson, Not Rogers?).
>
> The motive was money, of course. The gain went to Lockheed and
> other top lobbyists in the Aerospace Industries Association, via
> the administration and key Congressional members with NASA
> oversight responsibility. Only a few in NASA's top management
> were responsible, being under the thumb.
Profits is always the motive, dare I say especially in the US,
but why does it seem NASA taking all the blame for this?
Regards...
Bjørnar Bolsøy
news:a0gmai$15c$1...@ins22.netins.net:
> I'm also thinking now that maybe your initial inquiry was
> directed beyond the topic of this thread, in which case I
> probably should have mentioned that the book I have out, The
> Betrayal of Mission 51-L, goes into the 'power politics' aspect
> of your current questions rather well.
But if truth is the mission, why not freely publizise
everything?
Regards...
john_thomas_maxson
limits until burn-out. Those thrust limits are relatively tight, and the
maximum (permissible) number of degrees of slew/second is low. So NASA got
into comparing the total number of times the slew-limit had to be applied
per flight. Mission 51-L had the highest number ever recorded, at the time.
I suspect that record still stands.
Thanks for the reminder, Scott. (I won't be back till late tomorrow, but
I'd like to continue.)
Scott Lowther <lex...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote in message news:3C2BDF...@ix.netcom.com...
Bjørnar Bolsøy
> That's just it. We've been through *all* this in the past year.
> By all means investigate what you want to. But please do it by
> private email with JTM. We're sick of him. Nobody here buys into
> his crap.
>
> And it is much more than a "point of view" I (dare I say "we")
> have. Many of us here have experience and first-hand knowledge of
> the shuttle. We've been through the exercise of trying to reason
> with JTM. It doesn't work. If you'd like a "viewpoint" other than
> JTMs, have a look at the PDF file I put together after I got sick
> of JTMs ignorant and incompetent ranting:
>
> http://www.hal-pc.org/~jsb/Challenger.pdf
>
> Please do yourself (and ourselves) a favor and read the past
> several months threads on the topic. It would be a shame to see
> the same garbage rehashed over and over again. Buy his book if
> you are gullible enough to be sucked in - just please don't
> contribute to his delinquency or you'll likely find yourself
> filtered out by the multitude who already filter out JTM. Do you
> understand what I am saying? You are fully welcome to investigate
> what you want. But please spare us the reduced signal to noise
> ratio.
Dear Mr Berndt,
I do hear what you are saying, and please don't channel me
into credulity before I've even got a chance to enter the
discussion. AFAIK this is a public forum and I have the right
to ask questions and receive answers like anyone else, and so
you will have to pardon me for my ignorance as to the history
and intricate details of this subject. I'm no rocket scientist
nor do I belong to a group with special interests.
Thank's for the link though, it's all very interesting reading.
As a minor comment though. With so much attention paied to image
detail parameters, surely one would not want vital details
obscured by jpeg compression artifacts, if nothing else.
Regards...
Chuck Stewart
> Dear Mr Berndt,
I'm not Jon, but I play him on TV... ;)
> I do hear what you are saying, and please don't channel me
> into credulity before I've even got a chance to enter the
> discussion. AFAIK this is a public forum and I have the right
> to ask questions and receive answers like anyone else, and so
> you will have to pardon me for my ignorance as to the history
> and intricate details of this subject. I'm no rocket scientist
> nor do I belong to a group with special interests.
Jon did overeact a bit, but it's quite understandable.
sci.space.shuttle was rather late in life in acquiring its own
resident netkook, and the group is still learning how to deal with
it.
Investigate away...
`
> Thank's for the link though, it's all very interesting reading.
> As a minor comment though. With so much attention paied to image
> detail parameters, surely one would not want vital details
> obscured by jpeg compression artifacts, if nothing else.
Wait till you see the anazing details that Maxson can pull out of a
blurred image :)
BTW... Maxson is once again claiming engineering credentials, so be
advised that, by the evidence presented to date, Maxson is a former
Lockheed software engineer who was given a choice: get psychiatric
help or be escorted from the buildung.
He chose not to get help.
Maxson discusses this at length in his threads tittled "Transcript
of my PC Interview".
> Regards...
The same.
--
Chuck Stewart
"Anime-style catgirls: Threat? Menace? Or just studying algebra?"
Jon S.Berndt
> I'm not Jon, but I play him on TV... ;)
"I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV" ;-)
> > I do hear what you are saying, and please don't channel me
> > into credulity before I've even got a chance to enter the
> > discussion. AFAIK this is a public forum and I have the right
> > to ask questions and receive answers like anyone else, and so
That would be true, but you will not receive "answers" in the sense that you
will be enlightened with true facts. I wish you could have seen what has
been written in the past months. Just hear this: Look at the pictures
yourself. Look at evidence that has been gathered by non-NASA, non-Maxson
sources as well. Look at the *obvious* pictures and facts. When Maxson
approaches you with his "facts", try to see how that fits in with the
obvious facts. Ponder on your own why NASA would conspire for years, why
this would stay secret for years (how on earth could it have?), etc. Why
would all the real "Rocket Scientists" here refute him and recognize his
flawed theories? What would motivate him to continue to post here even when
nearly everything he says can be refuted so easily it is laughable, and we
tire of it? We started out much like you, inquiring. It quickly became
obvious what Maxson was about. I hope it doesn't take you so long.
> > you will have to pardon me for my ignorance as to the history
> > and intricate details of this subject. I'm no rocket scientist
> > nor do I belong to a group with special interests.
>
> Jon did overeact a bit, but it's quite understandable.
Yes, we are doing our best to just ignore him. I've got him filtered out but
still see the garbage that floats to the surface telling me he is still
around.
> Wait till you see the amazing details that Maxson can pull out of a
> blurred image :)
It's not only that, he's more than once misinterpreted an easy to interpret
image, e.g. mistaking the left wing for a rudder!
> BTW... Maxson is once again claiming engineering credentials, so be
> advised that, by the evidence presented to date, Maxson is a former
> Lockheed software engineer who was given a choice: get psychiatric
> help or be escorted from the buildung.
>
> He chose not to get help.
Bjornar: understand the above well. He's just waiting for another sucker to
come along.
A few months ago one of the networks here in the U.S. aired a program that
purported to show evidence that the Apollo flights did not go to the moon -
that no moon landing ever occurred. Sites sprung up everywhere that refuted
easily all the "information" that was presented. There were many people that
watched the show and then actually believed it and quoted from the show in
an effort to spread the idea that what was shown was correct - that man did
not ever walk on the moon; that NASA staged the whole thing. That television
program did an incredible disservice in that it put forth a view that was
scientifically without merit and in the guise of a documentary show. JTMs
book is likewise a book which is (as has been reported here from reviews of
the book) rambling, does not pay any attention to the most obvious facts of
the accident (which of course contradict his own theory), pays no attention
to the scientific method, does not seamlessly support the hypothesis he
postulates, provides little real evidence for anything and discusses things
that have little bearing on the cause of the accident itself.
When you are reading his posts here, remember to keep in mind that most of
what he says is unsupportable and false, but of course you won't be able to
tell the difference - and we are tired of correcting him. You'll be filling
your mind with garbage and won't know it. He won't directly answer all your
questions (especially the ones that refute his ideas). You'll only be
getting what he wants you to hear. I've tried for months to get hime to
answer specifics, and he has never *once* admitted he was wrong, or tried to
discuss things on an engineering level in an intellectual debate. He's got
his own agenda.
> Maxson discusses this at length in his threads tittled "Transcript
> of my PC Interview".
Anyhow, this is the last I'll say on it - except to say that you'd be much
better off by simply reading the Rogers report, old issues of Aviation Week,
etc.
Jon
Jon S.Berndt
>
> I do hear what you are saying, and please don't channel me
> into credulity before I've even got a chance to enter the
> discussion. AFAIK this is a public forum and I have the right
> to ask questions and receive answers like anyone else, and so
> you will have to pardon me for my ignorance as to the history
> and intricate details of this subject. I'm no rocket scientist
> nor do I belong to a group with special interests.
One more comment. A post some time ago included this observation, which is
very pertinent:
---
"Point D:
To be heard on an important topic, engineers must usually publish.
Independent engineers and scientists (especially those displaced via
government and/or contractor intervention) often lack the resources to
readily publish their findings and conclusions right away. Much time is
required for sufficient demand to create the resources needed for wide
distribution, even when the information is extremely credible..
- whereas -
To be immediately heard with regard to an important case, attorneys can
usually enlist the aid of prime television. Normally their clients provide
adequate media funding, if needed. In this regard, lawyers usually get a leg
up on engineers.
For *ENGINEERS* to publish, it takes ZERO dollars. For example, although the
AIAA _Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets_ charges a page fee for publishing,
it is not mandatory and independent people can have their work technically
peer-reviewed, published, and distributed for no charge at all. I mention
that journal since it is a relevant one and one that I am quite familiar
with.
Additionally, any one with a sensational story like that that is credible
will get a spot on 60 Minutes or get a real investigative reporter with
credibility to co-write the book."
---
JTMs book has been technically reviewed here. It didn't pass. However, this
tidbit gives insight on why JTM may be pushing his book so hard, here.
Jon
john_thomas_maxson
plays Burnt. (Gosh, I'd hate to have to memorize Burnt's rambling, whining,
insulting prevarications.)
Chuck Stewart <zapk...@gmx.co.uk>
wrote in message news:Xns91853E8123C...@130.133.1.4...
> <snip>
> I'm not Jon, but I play him on TV... ;)
> <snip>
> Jon did overeact a bit,
> <snip>
john_thomas_maxson
since Eisenhower have favored the military use of space. They have seen
NASA as a wasteful funnel of taxpayer dollars, to big Centers in southern
states and in other states where voting turn-out has always been typically
Democratic.
Hard-core Republicans think the peaceful use of space by civilians is for
the birds.
Lockheed makes it big when the Democrats are in power (as at KSC), but
*bigger* when the Republicans are in power. That's been my observation.
Now we are feeding Lockheed (an already overfed octupus) to the military
tune of almost a trillion (in Ft. Worth, Texas).
Bjørnar Bolsøy <bbo...@hotmail.nospam>
wrote in message news:Xns91852E63...@193.213.112.28...
john_thomas_maxson
everything. Unfortunately (for a man living only from Social Security
earnings) to "freely publish" is not the same as to publish for free.
Bjørnar Bolsøy <bbo...@hotmail.nospam>
wrote in message news:Xns91852EA4...@193.213.112.28...
Scott Lowther
> Now we are feeding Lockheed (an already overfed octupus) to the military
> tune of almost a trillion (in Ft. Worth, Texas).
In what period of time? How does that stack up against the half-trillion
per year currently fed into Social Mediscam?
john_thomas_maxson
wrote in message news:3C2D11...@ix.netcom.com...
> john_thomas_maxson wrote:
>
> > Now we are feeding Lockheed (an already overfed octupus) to the military
> > tune of almost a trillion (in Ft. Worth, Texas).
>
> In what period of time?
Dan Rather said over the next ten years, I believe.
> How does that stack up against the half-trillion
> per year currently fed into Social Mediscam?
Good point, if that's fact. I'm not part of it; don't ever want to be.
Scott Lowther
>
> Scott Lowther <lex...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote in message news:3C2D11...@ix.netcom.com...
> > john_thomas_maxson wrote:
> >
> > > Now we are feeding Lockheed (an already overfed octupus) to the military
> > > tune of almost a trillion (in Ft. Worth, Texas).
> >
> > In what period of time?
>
> Dan Rather said over the next ten years, I believe.
Two things:
1) Dan Blather
2) Almost a trillion over ten years is approximately 1/3 of the
military's entire budget. You suggest that Lockheed Ft. Worth is goign
to get 1/3 of the entire military budget? Where do I sign up?
> > How does that stack up against the half-trillion
> > per year currently fed into Social Mediscam?
>
> Good point, if that's fact. I'm not part of it; don't ever want to be.
You said you receive Social Security (which gets considerably more than
the military... and that doesn't count the rest fo the socialist
bullcrap I get taxed for). You are Part Of The Problem.
Dave Michelson
>
> For *ENGINEERS* to publish, it takes ZERO dollars....
However, it also takes permission from the engineer's employer and that
can be very difficult to obtain.
--
Dave Michelson
dmich...@ieee.org
john_thomas_maxson
working lifetime. (And I started taking family responsibilities and
educational responsibilities much younger and with more hardship than most.)
I did not sign up for Medicare Part B -- it seems like a farce. I am
currently paying (from my own S.S. income) my ambulance bills, outpatient
bills, electrocardiogram tests, blood tests, X-Rays, etc., from my last
hospital trips in September 2001, and I will be for the next 18 months.
Scott, I'd like to try to get along, but when you make wild assumptions
about other people like you often do (as many professed Christians who post
or have posted here do also), you make YOURSELF a problem. (Not one I can't
handle though, so don't worry too much about me. You have your moments,
engineering-wise. I just wish you would have more of them. Today is the
first day of the rest of your life, as a heart physician once told me.)
Scott Lowther <lex...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote in message news:3C2D59...@ix.netcom.com...
john_thomas_maxson
(Notwithstanding that, the last time I addressed a chapter of the AIAA on
the topic of Mission 51-L, it was to a standing-room only crowd in a large
university auditorium, and afterward I received a lengthy standing ovation.)
Dave Michelson <dmich...@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:3C2D5F33...@ieee.org...
Jon S.Berndt
> Now we are feeding Lockheed (an already overfed octupus) to the military
> tune of almost a trillion (in Ft. Worth, Texas).
You can see that JTM has a big chip on his shoulder. One wonders if that is
the impetus behind his reckless crusade?
Jon
Jon S.Berndt
Because he wouldn't get a cent, then.
Jon
Jon S.Berndt
> with your Burnt ideas.
>
> By the way, Bjornar, in an effort to be quick I failed to mention that I
> have overwhelming evidence that the two boosters crossed in the fireball.
Bjornar: he has *underwhelming* evidence. Nobody who has read his book is
convinced - at least those who post here. The overwhelming evidence is - the
most obvious evidence (including the photographic record) is - that the SRBs
did not cross. Maxson's story is a house of cards. Ask him to interpret one
of the pictures that shows the right SRB flaming before and after the
accident (and on the same side) and he'll freeze up. Many congenial attempts
to get him to engage in an egnieering discussion on this point have failed.
He wants you to spend money on his book.
Jon
Jon S.Berndt
> this is really the case the thing I immediatly have to ask myself
> is, what motive does NASA, or the goverment, have to cover up the
> story in the first place. What's the gain?
>
> It seems to me they do an aweful lot of embarrising confessions
> in the report, both with regard to technical performance,
> organisation and routines and organization, which had immediate
> and profound precautions if I my memory doesn't fail me completely.
Very good observation.
Jon
Scott Lowther
>
> What I get from Social Security, I *earned* by what I paid in to it over my
> working lifetime.
Incorrect. What you get from Social Security is taken from current
workers. Your money was given to a previous generation of recipients.
There is no Social Security trust fund, and hasn't been for many years.
What we now have is a classic pyramid scheme.
>And I started taking family responsibilities and
educational responsibilities much younger and with more hardship than
most.
Two words: Personal Responsibility. What you choose to take up is your
responsibility.... not anyone else's.
>I am currently paying (from my own S.S. income) my ambulance bills, outpatient bills, electrocardiogram tests, blood tests, X-Rays, etc., from my last hospital trips in September 2001, and I will be for the next 18 months.
Good. It is not MY fault as a taxpayer that you are falling to bits.
>I'd like to try to get along
Ha.
>Today is the first day of the rest of your life, as a heart physician once told me.
Today is the last day of your life. And it always will be.
Scott Lowther
>
> If you mean former employer, permission would be *impossible* to obtain.
If you are a former employee, permission is Not Required. They can no
longer fire you.
Jorge R. Frank
They can, however, sue him, depending on whether he signed a
non-disclosure agreement when he was hired. Those are pretty much
standard in the aerospace industry nowadays. However, their
enforceability in court has not been fully tested, AFAIK, especially with
information covered under the Whistleblower Act.
--
JRF
Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
john_thomas_maxson
Scott Lowther <lex...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3C2E0C...@ix.netcom.com...
<snipped obnoxious remarks>
john_thomas_maxson
whatever will work for you -- because your lies *won't*, and your
'kill-filer' *don't*!
Jon S.Berndt <j...@hal-pc.org> wrote in message
news:a0l0g8$2m2t$1...@news.hal-pc.org...
Those who post here haven't read it -- except maybe Wacho, who has a USA job
to protect. (Just *one* "Merry Christmas" post from him in weeks.)