Ladies and Gentlemen of the 51-L Jury

At this time I would like to present my summary argument
with respect to the RCS telemetry evidence available to the
public on the web -- for Challenger, Mission 51-L.

Unsworn statements have been made by both sides in
support of their positions. Take them at face value.

There are 44 RCS jets. Chamber pressure plots for two
*left-aft* jets constitute the only telemetry presented by
either side. For the period of flight from t+15 through
t+73.9 seconds, I agree with what those two plots show.

However, for the period from t+73 seconds until the end,
I have shown that NASA is internally inconsistent about
the authenticity of those two plots. Since that period is so
critical, and to my understanding was recorded originally
on stripcharts, NASA's inconsistency regarding those two
RCS thrusters must be explained.

More importantly, both sides need access to telemetry for
the *remaining* 42 RCS jets. NASA owns the original data;
you know how to get it. All it takes is a subpoena for it, or
for a certified copy of the original (assuming a grand jury).

Until then, it is clear that the NASA argument has failed via
*telemetry* to carry its burden of proving no RCS firings
during the ascent phase of Challenger, Mission 51-L.

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

"John Maxson" wrote
Until then, it is clear that the NASA argument has failed via
*telemetry* to carry its burden of proving no RCS firings
during the ascent phase of Challenger, Mission 51-L.

Nor has NASA disproved that the antimatter pods had not been activated. Nor
that the mini black hole that might have been in the payload bay came loose
from its magnetic bottle. Nor that the magic carpet allegedly in locker
M45-002 suddenly headed for Mecca.

In a rational world, the burden of proof lies with the claimant of
unusualness -- which in this case is Mr. & Mr. Maxson.

I have seen not a lick of telemetric indication -- much less proof -- that
any anomalous RCS activity occurred in this time period, or on any other
shuttle ascent, ever.

I think it's reasonable to deduce, after so many opportunities to produce
such evidence have been ducked, that such evidence does not exist.

Reluctantly, I'm forced to conclude that John Maxson either:

1. Has no evidence whatever to substantiate his claims,

2. Has some evidence, but for perverse reasons beyond the ken of
mortals refuses to share or divulge it, or

3. Suffers from fantastic misapprehensions of what evidence is
available.

John, as I've said numerous times before, all you have to do is lay out
your arguments and evidence, then rebut your critics with well-reasoned
argument. Instead, you post crap like "Who cares about you, Mr
Flatspin."

You're so fond of Googling up past posts. Go Google up your own. Read
them. Then try putting yourself in an objective reader's shoes. Would
YOU be persuaded by your own posts?

Moe

I don't see you putting any pressure on the other side to
produce 51-L telemetry evidence proving the absence of
valve commands to any and all of the thrusters, nor do I
see you clammering for Oberg to put up or shut up with
his 'Area 51 Aliens' sort of innuendo and insinuation. You
just take out your frustration on me, the one who stood
up in a full meeting of project engineers before the disaster
and warned that incomplete RCS work at the pad should
receive top priority for 51-L, because it was Crit 1!

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


Moe Blues wrote in message
...

Reluctantly, I'm forced to conclude that John Maxson either:

1. Has no evidence whatever to substantiate his claims,

2. Has some evidence, but for perverse reasons beyond the ken of
mortals refuses to share or divulge it, or

3. Suffers from fantastic misapprehensions of what evidence is
available.

John, as I've said numerous times before, all you have to do is lay out
your arguments and evidence, then rebut your critics with well-reasoned
argument. Instead, you post crap like "Who cares about you, Mr
Flatspin."

You're so fond of Googling up past posts. Go Google up your own. Read
them. Then try putting yourself in an objective reader's shoes. Would
YOU be persuaded by your own posts?

Moe

In article , "John Maxson"
wrote:

I don't see you putting any pressure on the other side to
produce 51-L telemetry evidence proving the absence of
valve commands to any and all of the thrusters, nor do I
see you clammering for Oberg to put up or shut up with
his 'Area 51 Aliens' sort of innuendo and insinuation. You
just take out your frustration on me, the one who stood
up in a full meeting of project engineers before the disaster
and warned that incomplete RCS work at the pad should
receive top priority for 51-L, because it was Crit 1!

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


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.

I once had an eye witness to an in-flight breakup swear there was a
bomb on the airplane. He knew there was because he saw a flash and
heard a "BOOM" as the wings came off. In actual fact, the airplane
broke up from gross overstress. He managed to tie up the investigation
for almost two years using essentially the same "You can't prove I'm
wrong" argument. (Sidenote--metal failing in extreme overload often
produces a flash.) The absence of any physical evidence of a bomb
(outward-curled metal, scorch marks, molten balls, etc.) just
reinforced his belief. Are you falling into the same trap?

Moe

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.