Berndt Tries to Bail Out

"John Maxson" wrote in message
...
Jon Berndt wrote in message
...

Regarding Pappy's email to me, in both emails and in phone
discussions Pappy was very clear: he initially thought - based
on seeing JTMs FOAI-attained film clips - that JTM was on to
something.

Minor detail: I have *never* had any E202 "film clips."

I wondered what was "overexposed" certainly not E-202. I thought he might
mean E-201 or M-1.

snip

on overexposed film content - which did not show the black ID
band on the south exiting (left SRB) because of the overexposure.

Minor detail: You're resorting to redundant use of 'overexpose' (in
the fixation style of Betts and Katz) without
admitting
that I didn't have E202. The only thing I know of
that
you could be talking about is the p. 33 E202 photo in
the Rogers Report, which you and Betts are so hung
up over. (Pappy saw *only* E202 & E207 at KSC,
and I have *never* had any of the E202 film!)

You can't have it both ways! You repeatedly use the
p. 33 photo to make your *own* case! If there's an
ID band on that page, get a *statement from NASA*.


Ya, that does not make sense. They would be guilty of the same thing they
accuse you of doing-overanalyzing bad film.

--

Daniel
Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC

"John Maxson" wrote in message
...
Charleston wrote
"John Maxson" wrote


I wondered what was "overexposed" certainly not E-202.
I thought he might mean E-201 or M-1.

Pappy had no access to M-1 (nor did you, until years later).
Neither were used for that purpose; both were prohibitively
distant, and each had a different camera angle than E202.

It does not matter what Pappy had access to because NASA had access to M-1
and E-201. Jon Berndt mentioned that Pappy brought up the theodolites, not
me. If Pappy saw theodolite based data then he was not talking about E-202
AFAIK. I simply referred to E-201 and M-1 as clearly overexposed
film/videotape that could explain Pappy's comment. Personally I received
the M-1 in 1991 IIRC and I certainly know that since I paid for same.

Pappy *knew* viewing the E202 original (or a cerified copy)
was the only way to validate Rogers' E202 enhancement on
p. 33, that's why he asked *me* to try to get it (when JSC
*refused* to give it to him). His KSC viewing was a set up.

There is no question that Pappy did not see original film. He saw enhanced
copies. I agree.

If there's an ID band on that page, get a *statement from
NASA*.

They would be guilty of the same thing they accuse you of
doing-overanalyzing bad film.

I don't recall Pappy saying that, and that is not my point. My
point is that neither NASA nor Rogers *ever* identified either
booster by using the black ID band. ***Memorize*** that!

Not while they were in the sky, that's for sure. They did use the lack of a
black band to identify the right SRB forward skirt on the ocean bottom. I
have already memorized that among other things, thanks.

--

Daniel
Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC

In the future, I won't reply to any post for which John Thomas Maxson has
childishly changed the subject line and it has not been changed back. Fair
enough? That approach speaks for itself anyhow. When you can't dazzle them
with your [lack of] brilliance (or are effectively admitting defeat), try
and humiliate them into going away. Is that your approach John Thomas
Maxson?

Jon Berndt

"John Maxson" wrote in message
...
Charleston wrote:
"John Maxson" wrote:
Charleston wrote

I wondered what was "overexposed" certainly not E-202.
I thought he might mean E-201 or M-1.

Pappy had no access to M-1 (nor did you, until years later).
Neither were used for that purpose; both were prohibitively
distant, and each had a different camera angle than E202.

It does not matter what Pappy had access to because NASA had
access to M-1 and E-201.

I wouldn't pay a plug nickel to any lawyer who agrees with that.

It was just a thought. I was glad you caught the M-1 issue.

If Pappy saw theodolite based data then he was not talking about
E-202 AFAIK.

A good lawyer would quickly find out how far you know.

Pappy *knew* viewing the E202 original (or a cerified copy)
was the only way to validate Rogers' E202 enhancement on
p. 33, that's why he asked *me* to try to get it (when JSC
*refused* to give it to him). His KSC viewing was a set up.

Certified by who? Publisher's Clearing House?

He saw enhanced copies.

Will you swear to that?

I will bet on it but not swear on it. I will also bet he did not see the
originals. I spoke with Howard Acosta this afternoon. He was there with
Pappy. He thought he was seeing originals too and yes he was quite
impressed when he saw the right RCS thrusters actually firing in the
atmosphere on the E-207 film. He went to some length to explain what he
believes happened. I was pleasantly surprised:-) It reinforces what I have
always believed and what the physical evidence proves. The right aft RCS
jets did fire just like your telemetry demonstrates!

They did use the lack of a black band to identify the right SRB
forward skirt on the ocean bottom.

Do you have detailed sworn testimony to exactly that effect?

No, but heck, it is in the Roger's report in enough detail to make it
obvious.

--

Mt Charleston not Charleston SC

"Charleston" wrote in message

I will bet on it but not swear on it. I will also bet he did not see the
originals. I spoke with Howard Acosta this afternoon. He was there with
Pappy. He thought he was seeing originals too and yes he was quite
impressed when he saw the right RCS thrusters actually firing in the
atmosphere on the E-207 film. He went to some length to explain what he
believes happened. I was pleasantly surprised:-) It reinforces what I
have
always believed and what the physical evidence proves. The right aft RCS
jets did fire just like your telemetry demonstrates!

That's quite a leap you just made.

"Charleston" wrote in message

Not really. Why don't you tell this group how melted Niobium spheres got
splattered on the Orbiter? Tell them when if you know. Niobium metal is
only found on those Reaction Control System thrusters and it melts at what
4,500 º F? It had to melt before the break-up or it would not be on the
Orbiter. It is time for you and others to explain some damn facts Jon.

First of all, can you describe when these purported RCS firings occurred?

Jon

"Charleston" wrote in message

Not really. Why don't you tell this group how melted Niobium spheres got
splattered on the Orbiter? Tell them when if you know. Niobium metal is
only found on those Reaction Control System thrusters and it melts at what
4,500 º F? It had to melt before the break-up or it would not be on the
Orbiter. It is time for you and others to explain some damn facts Jon.

Why don't you explain how you think they got there. I don't have an
explanation. However, it seems to me there could be several explanations.

Jon

"Jon Berndt" wrote in message
...
"Charleston" wrote in message

Not really. Why don't you tell this group how melted Niobium spheres
got
splattered on the Orbiter? Tell them when if you know. Niobium metal
is
only found on those Reaction Control System thrusters and it melts at
what
4,500 º F? It had to melt before the break-up or it would not be on the
Orbiter. It is time for you and others to explain some damn facts Jon.

First of all, can you describe when these purported RCS firings occurred?

I don't have to say when. I will say that some of the firings can be seen
on the launch day video. Go look for yourself I sent you the videotape:-)
I have provided the group with enough information. It is not I that have to
explain anything, but good try Jon. The physical evidence speaks for
itself. You explain it if you can. I bet you already went and checked the
*melting* point for niobium (Nb), but here it is in case you did not or
others are curious.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=niobium

http://www.onlineconversion.com/temperature.htm

Okay so I was off 25.6º F (from memory). Again that is just to melt
Niobium. Consider that aluminum weakens at around 1,000º F and melts at
1,200º F or so.

You can find some help on what to look for during ascent here.

http://www.mission51l.com/

The RCS firings raise many nagging questions.

--

Daniel
Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC

On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 22:04:54 -0500, "Jon Berndt"
wrote:

First of all, can you describe when these purported RCS firings occurred?

"Duh...when my daddy says they dids!"

- Baby Huey Maxson


OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

This is all well and good. Which is saying little, since the opposing
theories never rose to the level of serious consideration

Here is what Pappy wrote about the 'chutes:

. What was
left to be reconciled was the the error I brought to NASA's attention in
their Rodger's report

This is an error in logic. An error in the Rogers Report is an error, and need
not be "reconciled" with the nut-case contingent.