Please try to stay 'on thread.' My summary argument was for
web-available RCS T/M only! I have published a *book* that
presents my case, which is solid. A small part of it is on the
web, which is not bad considering the relative financial power
of NASA/Lockheed relative to my own. Believe who you wish.
I'll stay the course, despite the lectures of the blind and unread.

--
John Thomas Maxson, Retired Engineer (Aerospace)
Author, The Betrayal of Mission 51-L (www.mission51l.com)



Moe Blues wrote in message
...

You're right: I am frustrated with you. The argument you present
essentially amounts to "I can't prove I'm right, but you can't prove
I'm wrong." In the absence of any other well-documented and
supported theory, this might almost be acceptable. But there IS
another well-documented and supported theory. Thus, you must
produce documentation and support at least equal to the other
theory to win acceptance.

Get it, John? As long as you are unable or unwilling to put together
an iron-clad case, you'll have people dismissing you as a crackpot.