Austin's Bob Mosley III Leads Vicious 'Shoot the 51-L Messenger' Campaign

Giganews proudly posts/hosts Bob Mosley's ongoing abuse
for Illuminati Online, which doesn't even honor its own AUP.

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



OM om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org
wrote in message ...

...Oh, bite me Maxson. We know it's you or one of your ******* kids.


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

..


You're not a "messenger", you are a conspiracy monger.




..

'One-Page Technical Summary of an O-Ring Cover-Up'
(requested by Pentagon efficiency expert A. Ernest
Fitzgerald on July 4, 2003)

NASA's fault-tree analysis failed to consider that Challenger's solid
rocket boosters could have crossed paths within the 51-L fireball.
A crossing necessarily negates Rogers' postulated "right-aft O-ring
burnthrough."

In a hearing on February 7, 1986, Dr. Feynman inquired: "Can I ask
a dumb question? Do we know on which side which rocket is
afterwards? Did they go like this and cross or do they look like they
went that way?" NASA put Feynman off, and Rogers sidetracked
him. Dr. Feynman did not know about NASA's black ID band until
I told him, in late 1987.

For photo/recovery identification, NASA paints a black ID band 18''
high around the nose of the space shuttle's *left* solid rocket booster.
Rogers ignored this ID band in his report, most notably at the crucial
fireball exit. Instead, Rogers conjectured a "R-SRB burnthrough" for
identification.

Rogers' ID relies on an enhanced 15-second film strip ending in
explosion. However, in JSC's '51-L Mission History Video,' the
continuation of this film strip leaves no doubt that the *flared* booster
sported the ID band.

On January 22, 1986, in a pre-Challenger technical report requested by
Senator Grassley's office, I warned: "... and 'cold flows' run at Pad B
were a failure, costing much waste of time and money. Tom Wiley can
testify to this. The net result of all this would be delays in launching
from Pad B, and delays in Centaur launches. I also learned from Bill
Bassler, Centaur 'single-point-of-contact' in LSOC CMO, that the
waste of hydrogen was deliberate, ..."

The terminal LH2 leaks were at the base of the left booster. It became
super-cooled during prelaunch scrubs. A thrust imbalance resulted.
That caused a right-aft leak in the hydrogen tank at lift-off, later
aggravated by 5000-plus degree heat from continuous R-Aft RCS
firings at 59 seconds. The pre-explosion chamber pressures of the two
boosters (relative to each other and to their respective lift-off pressures)
were to be expected.

NASA could not identify the key piece of lower booster debris by serial
number, or by *any other* of NASA's standard identification methods.

The Rogers Report admits that no direct view exists of the location from
which black smoke at lift-off and an assumed burnthrough at 59 seconds
originated. Live launch-day video refutes NASA's "burnthrough" copies.
Congressional subpoena of the originals should lead to credible closure.

John Thomas Maxson (www.mission51l.com)


Scott M. Kozel wrote
in message ...

You're not a "messenger", you are a conspiracy monger.

Scott M. Kozel wrote
in message ...

What is this alleged missive,

'One-Page Technical Summary of an O-Ring Cover-Up'
(requested by Pentagon efficiency expert A. Ernest
Fitzgerald on July 4, 2003)

NASA's fault-tree analysis failed to consider that Challenger's solid
rocket boosters could have crossed paths within the 51-L fireball.
A crossing necessarily negates Rogers' postulated "right-aft O-ring
burnthrough."

In a hearing on February 7, 1986, Dr. Feynman inquired: "Can I ask
a dumb question? Do we know on which side which rocket is
afterwards? Did they go like this and cross or do they look like they
went that way?" NASA put Feynman off, and Rogers sidetracked
him. Dr. Feynman did not know about NASA's black ID band until
I told him, in late 1987.

For photo/recovery identification, NASA paints a black ID band 18''
high around the nose of the space shuttle's *left* solid rocket booster.
Rogers ignored this ID band in his report, most notably at the crucial
fireball exit. Instead, Rogers conjectured a "R-SRB burnthrough" for
identification.

Rogers' ID relies on an enhanced 15-second film strip ending in
explosion. However, in JSC's '51-L Mission History Video,' the
continuation of this film strip leaves no doubt that the *flared* booster
sported the ID band.

On January 22, 1986, in a pre-Challenger technical report requested by
Senator Grassley's office, I warned: "... and 'cold flows' run at Pad B
were a failure, costing much waste of time and money. Tom Wiley can
testify to this. The net result of all this would be delays in launching
from Pad B, and delays in Centaur launches. I also learned from Bill
Bassler, Centaur 'single-point-of-contact' in LSOC CMO, that the
waste of hydrogen was deliberate, ..."

The terminal LH2 leaks were at the base of the left booster. It became
super-cooled during prelaunch scrubs. A thrust imbalance resulted.
That caused a right-aft leak in the hydrogen tank at lift-off, later
aggravated by 5000-plus degree heat from continuous R-Aft RCS
firings at 59 seconds. The pre-explosion chamber pressures of the two
boosters (relative to each other and to their respective lift-off pressures)
were to be expected.

NASA could not identify the key piece of lower booster debris by serial
number, or by *any other* of NASA's standard identification methods.

The Rogers Report admits that no direct view exists of the location from
which black smoke at lift-off and an assumed burnthrough at 59 seconds
originated. Live launch-day video refutes NASA's "burnthrough" copies.
Congressional subpoena of the originals should lead to credible closure.

John Thomas Maxson (www.mission51l.com)

"John Maxson" wrote:

Scott M. Kozel wrote

What is this alleged missive,

'One-Page Technical Summary of an O-Ring Cover-Up'
(requested by Pentagon efficiency expert A. Ernest
Fitzgerald on July 4, 2003)

You engaged in creative snipping, ignored my questions, and merely
reposted the alleged missive!

What is this alleged missive, and where did it come from, and can you
verify its existence?

We need an explanation of what this is, and the context. Is it part of
a larger report or missive? Does is represent the opinion of A. Ernest
Fitzgerald, or did he catalog the opinion of someone else who sent the
theory to him?

I think that John Maxson needs to answer some hard questions about this
alleged missive, and that until he does that, the alleged missive should
be disregarded as without substantiation.


..

Scott M. Kozel wrote
in message ...

You engaged in creative snipping, ignored my questions,
and merely reposted the alleged missive!

?

What is this alleged missive, and where did it come from,
and can you verify its existence?

Self-explanatory.

We need an explanation of what this is, and the context.
Is it part of a larger report or missive? Does is represent
the opinion of A. Ernest Fitzgerald, or did he catalog the
opinion of someone else who sent the theory to him?

Self-explanatory.

I think that John Maxson needs to answer some hard
questions about this alleged missive, and that until he
does that, the alleged missive should be disregarded as
without substantiation.

You *think*? Any proof of that?

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

"John Maxson" wrote:

Scott M. Kozel wrote

You engaged in creative snipping, ignored my questions,
and merely reposted the alleged missive!

?

You engaged in creative snipping, ignored my questions,
and merely reposted the alleged missive.

What is this alleged missive, and where did it come from,
and can you verify its existence?

Self-explanatory.

No it is not. All we know is that you posted something on Usenet, that
looks like some sort of acknowledgment by an outside party, of your
"booster crossing" theory.

What is this alleged missive, and where did it come from,
and can you verify its existence?

We need an explanation of what this is, and the context.
Is it part of a larger report or missive? Does is represent
the opinion of A. Ernest Fitzgerald, or did he catalog the
opinion of someone else who sent the theory to him?

Self-explanatory.

Non-responsive.

We need an explanation of what this is, and the context.

Is it part of a larger report or missive?

Does is represent the opinion of A. Ernest Fitzgerald, or did he catalog
the opinion of someone else who sent the theory to him?

I think that John Maxson needs to answer some hard
questions about this alleged missive, and that until he
does that, the alleged missive should be disregarded as
without substantiation.

You *think*? Any proof of that?

You're the one with the allegations. You're the one who needs to
prove. If you're going to raise serious allegations, then bar of proof
is high.


..

"John Maxson" wrote:

Take a baby step. Learn to read. Then go lecture NASA
and Lockheed.

Take a baby step. Learn to answer direct questions. If you can't do
that then your alleged missive remains unsubstantiated.

Another sign of a conspiracy monger, is dishonest debating tactics.


All we know is that you posted something on Usenet, that looks like some
sort of acknowledgment by an outside party, of your "booster crossing"
theory.

What is this alleged missive, and where did it come from,
and can you verify its existence?

We need an explanation of what this is, and the context.

Is it part of a larger report or missive?

Does is represent the opinion of A. Ernest Fitzgerald, or did he catalog
the opinion of someone else who sent the theory to him?

You're the one with the allegations. You're the one who needs to
prove. If you're going to raise serious allegations, then bar of proof
is high.


Scott M. Kozel wrote

You're the one with the allegations. You're the one who
needs to prove. If you're going to raise serious allegations,
then bar of proof is high.

In news:Scott M. Kozel typed:

Take a baby step. Learn to answer direct questions. If you can't do
that then your alleged missive remains unsubstantiated.

Scott, you've been here long enough, so plonk for a while until
you quit this ****. :-(
--
Mike
__________________________________________________ ______
"Colorado Ski Country, USA" Come often, Ski hard,
Spend *lots* of money, Then leave as quickly as you can.

"John Maxson" wrote:

Go lecture yourself, NASA, and Lockheed. You're all
lecture and no discussion.

Pot, kettle, black.

'One-Page Technical Summary of an O-Ring Cover-Up'
(requested by Pentagon efficiency expert A. Ernest
Fitzgerald on July 4, 2003)

So you say that a government employee was working on a national
holiday? He he!

By the way, is this the A. Ernest Fitzgerald that you are referring
to -- http://www.af.mil/bios/bio_5423.shtml -- ??

He came up at the top of a Google search.

"A. Ernest Fitzgerald, a member of the Senior Executive Service, is
management systems deputy, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air
Force for Financial Management and Comptroller, Headquarters U.S. Air
Force, Washington, D.C."

SMK: His office location would undoubtedly be at the Pentagon, but I
rather doubt that himself or others in the industry would refer to him
as an "efficiency expert". He sounds like a program manager.

For anyone who is interested, an inquiry could be made as to whether
this man is indeed the author or compiler of JTM's alleged missive, and
to provide verification as to the context and body of any such
communication.


Scott M. Kozel wrote:

Learn to answer direct questions. If you can't do
that then your alleged missive remains unsubstantiated.