"john_thomas_maxson" wrote:
I maintain that the burden has always been and still is upon *you*
(being in possession from my son Daniel of the Ponce de Leon boresight
video cited by the Radar Report as said "clockwise" evidence) to use
*that* video to either confirm or deny the following, as shown by
http://tinyurl.com/4mldg:
I viewed what I believe is the PDL BS video this evening (it's black and
white, has crosshairs, and is viewed from far north - there is no
distinguishing identification). This video is quite explicit about showing
the flared booster before and after the disintegration - on the same side -
not crossing. However, it is of a very poor angle and quality to be using it
to determine the SRB angular rate. It is next to impossible to determine
which bright spot is the flare and which is the nozzle plume, as well as
which direction the SRB is pointing, relative to the viewer.
It is now your professional and ethical obligation to *prove* what you
so brashly alleged without checking, or in the alternative, to
*publicly retract* what you alleged and to apologize to all those
whose reputations you have damaged by your allegation.
This is so ironic. How many peoples' reputations do you pretend to tarnish
with your book? You talk of ethics after trying to convey that "Pappy"
supports your claims!? You ask others to disprove what you have not been
able to prove for years? Failing to refute my rebuttals to your false
claims, you try and associate my name with a company that has recently
suffered a tarnished name - as you write: "Otherwise, you will have
convincingly shown that you should indeed be regarded as an ex-Halliburton
...." (incidentally, I was never an employee of Halliburton - I was
subcontracted to write software for a seismic data processing application -
so what!). Where's the sense in that? Furthermore, you are yourself claiming
that the radar report misidentifies the **booster**! Which of us presumes to
insult the radar team more!? Which parts of the radar report do you choose
to believe, and which do you presume to throw out?
To be clear on my position: the claim of a clockwise rotation in the radar
report based on the poor quality PDL video is contradictory to the claim
elsewhere in the report of a CCW rotation, based on viewing the
*acknowledged* much better quality/angle E-207 film. My own analysis of the
two clips as well as the ROTI clip is utterly convincing of the SRB rotation
in a negative sense about the X body axis (CCW viewed from aft). Therefore,
I have no alternative but to label the clockwise rotation statement in the
radar report as secondary in accuracy to the previous claim in the Report of
a CCW rotation - with the clockwise rotation claim erroneous either as a
typo, or based on incorrect interpretation.
3) The Report also describes that the best camera to view the flared SRB
angular rate is E207 (Volume 3, Appendix N, Table 17). I posted the
_very_
relevant portion of that - in view of contradictory angular rate
statements
made.
You did not, and you should apologize! You posted a clip from the
UCS-10 boresight video camera, which was co-located with the E207 70
mm film camera and the E201 70 mm film camera on Playalinda Beach. I
use frames from E207 in my book and on my website, and two of those
tend to confirm clockwise rotation (viewed from aft) of the flared SRB
(see www.mission51l.com/aprieview.htm, and look for the two photos
showing the direction from which the "protruding metal" comes into
view).
No, I posted ( as I mentioned a few days ago - and the clip is still there)
E207. I have attached a .jpg image (3K) showing the title placard that says
"51-L E-207 0 to 10 minutes". It plainly shows that a second or so after
the disintegration, the flare exits the SRB to the left of the booster
(relative to the screen view), progresses to the far side of the SRB -
silhouetting the SRB - and progresses to the right side of the booster
(again relative to the screen view) at which time the booster topples end
over end to point backwards for an instant. The ROTI clip is also
instructive, showing counter-clockwise rotation about the longitudinal axis
(a negative angular rate about the X body axis pointing forward). This is
all as described he
http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v3appn.htm
"6. Post Structural Breakup Right SRB Characterization
As I mentioned, when the SRB came loose at one of the aft attachments, the
angular rate at the time the SRB collided with the ET was about 40 deg/sec.
in a CCW sense. The fact that the flared SRB is seen exiting the cloud
rotating at about the same rate as it leaves the cloud is unambiguous,
obvious proof that it is the right SRB. As I said before, thanks for
pointing this out - it will be added to my paper he
http://home.houston.rr.com/fancijon/conspiracy.pdf
4) I claim that the flared SRB is the right hand SRB rotating CCW about
its
longitudinal axis viewed from aft, immediately after the disintegration,
based on:
a) The right hand SRB rates as telemetered to the ground show CCW roll
motion prior to disintegration.
If this is true, for precisely how long and as shown in what reference
(link or otherwise)? (In my last post, a frame time I gave of
39:03:20 should obviously read 39:13:20.)
You've got the Report. This is also detailed in my paper he
http://home.houston.rr.com/fancijon/conspiracy.pdf
The E207 film has a frame rate of 40 samples/second, but the UCS-10
boresight video does not. You have not presented E207 evidence, which
picks up the flared SRB much sooner after exit than does the boresight
video you discuss. Furthermore, as I posted earlier (and as you
should know), extrapolation of conclusions drawn from a short and
early interval of ambiguous data are not to be preferred by aerospace
professionals and applied mathematicians to conclusions drawn from
continuous data of greater and much more sufficient length.
As I mentioned, the video that is posted at the URL I gave a few days ago in
my post here is E207 - as evidenced by the attached image. Furthermore,
**interpolation** of conclusions about a certain brief incident from
temporally far removed (and substandard) evidence is certainly NOT to be
preferred over the direct, higher quality, and immediately adjacent
continuous evidence that can be seen in E-207 and briefly in ROTI evidence
(and again briefly in the ROTI clip later on).
Please make your examination of the last 37 seconds of 51-L SRB flight
**as shown by the Ponce de Leon boresight video** your highest
priority, in your efforts to continue with this thread.
I have done so, and found it to be essentially worthless for the suggested
use.
Jon Berndt
Aerospace Engineer