If you really want to take this approach, John, you'll just make yourself
more unwelcome and seem more kooky. My specific answer is at bottom.
"John Maxson" wrote in message
I don't believe that you are capable (even with help from Jorge,
Roger, Daniel, and Henry) of sitting down with paper and pencil,
drawing out top, side, and end (frontal) views for the path you
claim the 51-L boosters took through the fireball (ie., the right
SRB swinging out at the bottom and nosing into the LOX tank,
exiting as shown by the totality of NASA's photos), and then
placing those three engineering drawings on the web to prove
your point (that there was no 'before vs. after' transposition of
the 51-L boosters. Put them up or shut up; that's how I see it.
JTM
John:
Been there, done that. Here's an informative post by John Thomas Maxson
(2002-10-13 07:42:41 PST - cross posted to several political newsgroups for
God-knows-why), where he also misleadingly (and illegally?) titles himself
an aerospace engineer:
==============================================
--- start JTM post ---
==============================================
[JTM] Until now, you have not demanded any more than that from me
(as the author of a *condensed* book, shorter than Rogers' own
Summary -- which also was published for *public* consumption).
Your sudden panic about "numbers" has been a diversion from
your inability to present simple, completed, 3-D sketches.
[Jon Berndt]
Oh, and by the way, here's the 3D sketches I promised I
would get to on my own time:
http://www.hal-pc.org/~jsb/SRBSep1.png
http://www.hal-pc.org/~jsb/SRBSep2.png
http://www.hal-pc.org/~jsb/SRBSep3.png
http://www.hal-pc.org/~jsb/SRBSep4.png
http://www.hal-pc.org/~jsb/SRBSep5.png
http://www.hal-pc.org/~jsb/SRBSep6.png
http://www.hal-pc.org/~jsb/SRBSep7.png
http://www.hal-pc.org/~jsb/SRBSep8.png
http://www.hal-pc.org/~jsb/SRBSep9.png
http://www.hal-pc.org/~jsb/SRBSep10.png
I'll have captions and a few more sketches when I get around to it.
[JTM] When you have your final, finished product, mail it to me certified
(with return receipt requested) for your records. That way we'll both have
some legal ground to stand on, since you refuse to post anything for the
Google Archives other than temporary links to fleeting ideas. You know,
Jon, so that we'll have dated hard-copy.
As I told you several days ago, don't expect me to play your web-page,
flame-war games by clicking on all your ever-changing dozens of 'hal-pc.org'
links. My ethics won't allow that.
[Jon] The discussion is he
http://www.hal-pc.org/~jsb/conspiracy.html
Your turn.
Jon Berndt
Aerospace Engineer
As I told you here,
http://makeashorterlink.com/?C39513812
you can skip the "Hollywood." Remember this, I'm a retired aerospace
engineer who worked hard for his education and who is proud of both his
professional ethics and his professional achievements.
==============================================
--- END JTM Post
==============================================
To which Daniel replied:
==============================================
--- Start Daniel Post ---
==============================================
Panic? You sir are the one cross-posting about Harry Truman, A Nazi, etc..
You are the one pretending not to read posts. You are the one refusing to
look at Jon's 3D drawings. Panic? JTM meet mirror... again.
Oh, and by the way, here's the 3D sketches I promised I
would get to on my own time:
snip long list of excellent work
When you have your final, finished product, mail it to me certified
(with return receipt requested) for your records. That way we'll
both have some legal ground to stand on, since you refuse to post
anything for the Google Archives other than temporary links to
fleeting ideas. You know, Jon, so that we'll have dated hard-copy.
JTM, Jon could post his binaries on Usenet, but exactly where and how would
you have Jon archive his binaries on Google? Name a binary group that is
still being archived on Google. You sir have asked for the impossible. Did
you do it on purpose? Why can't you just ask Jon to e-mail them to you in
series? That would certainly serve the legal needs you allege drive your
unwillingness to view his drawings on the web. I believe your refusal to
view Jon's drawings are highly noteworthy and it has nothing to do with
ethics, or legal documentation needs. I believe it is nothing more than a
pretextual excuse, a very thin smoke screen. I believe it is because you
can't handle the truth. Jon's drawings are excellent and you can't deal
with that reality can you?
Your "ethics won't allow that"? Oh puke. You are kidding only yourself and
I doubt you are even succeeding at that vain attempt at ego preservation.
==============================================
--- END Daniel Post ---
==============================================
==============================================
Jon answers 9-6-2003
==============================================
Of course I did post 3 view drawings. One of that series is still he
http://www.hal-pc.org/~jsb/Shuttle3View.jpg
I give numbers in my paper at:
http://home.houston.rr.com/fancijon/conspiracy.pdf.
I am fully prepared to discuss problems anyone has with the paper (and I
expect to be provided with proper refutation if there is one). I in fact
invite criticism of the paper and questions - perhaps there are areas where
I can make the paper stronger.
JTM, I know you are intelligent, you know the material well. I am surprised
why you are taking this approach. The questions are laid out for you as they
have been for years:
1) What are the details of the SRB crossing in your hypothesis.
2) Why is there a flare emanating from one SRB before and after the
explosion, and a clean one before and after, yet you seem to indicate that
the flare "jumped" from one SRB to the other?
3) What are your qualifications and background that you rely on for analysis
of flight dynamics? Specifics?
It's not helping your case to outright lie, and to attempt to mislead
people - which we have seen all too often (Pappy?). Can you simply answer
the questions instead of evading and throwing up smokescreens?
Jon