A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Shuttle
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Booster Crossing



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old September 2nd 03, 09:21 AM
Kent Betts
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Booster Crossing

(Kent Betts) wrote in message . com...


test
  #32  
Old September 2nd 03, 09:42 AM
Kent Betts
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Booster Crossing

test - disregard
  #33  
Old September 2nd 03, 10:39 AM
Kent Betts
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Requested cites and page numbers. (Was: Booster Crossing)

Chuck Stewart
(In JTM's world the IUS is supposed to have been ignited in the
payload bay and have smashed into and destroyed the forward
portions of the orbiter, The lack of an IUS-sized hole in the back
of the crew module deters JTM in this belief not at all.)


John Maxson
What, no page reference?


Page 80

You're overboard with embellishing.


What was the IUS deal then?

Chuck Stewart
In his attempts to assert that the SRB's crossed (pg 4), JTM
forgets to mention that after their initial crossing his book has
them crossing _yet again_ with each booster resuming its
pre-breakup position to the left and right of the debris cloud
(Reference: pg 6, "The Betrayal Of Mission 51-L")


John Maxson
Huh? "Forgets to mention?" It's online!


Huh? It's on page six. So does the SRB with the plume was the right SRB?




  #34  
Old September 2nd 03, 12:58 PM
Chuck Stewart
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Requested cites and page numbers. (Was: Booster Crossing)

On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 04:39:35 +0000, Kent Betts wrote:

John Maxson


my cites: IUS

What, no page reference?


Page 80


You're overboard with embellishing.


What embellishment?

The efforts of your son in this newsgroup to show you that
IUS-as-deliberate-executioner _couldn't_ have happened were sadly
amusing.

As were the rants in your book of a "propulsive IUS missile".

What was the IUS deal then?


It was supposed to insure the destruction of Challenger... a
standard netkook tactic: "overkill sans research"

my cites: "Dance Of The SRB's"

John Maxson
Huh? "Forgets to mention?" It's online!


Nuff' said.

Huh? It's on page six. So does the SRB with the plume was the right SRB?


In reality it's on the right and stays on the right.

But my purpose was not to carry on a second-hand debate through
Kent with a delusional person I've killfiled.

I responded, however, to a request to back up my assertions... even
one from a killfiled netkook.

My assertions we

"This is important to JTM because he has his own incoherently
expressed story about what destroyed Challenger... that being an
intentional act of sabotage and murder by the men and women of NASA
at the orders of a military cabal led by Ronald Reagan. And no...
I'm _not_ making that up. Where Challenger is conserned JTM is
quite delusional."

And I cited my references to show that this, indeed, is what JTM
claims in his book... as mealy-mouthed and weasel-worded as he
tries to be about it.

And lest JTM try to forget, for every cite given I have notes on a
dozen more in the book... including on the assertions I've made.

As the Bentusi say: "This war is over."

JTM's book was written without his objectively thinking through and
researching the very concepts he espouses. And since he has wasted
his life since Challenger pursuing it he cannot, absolutely cannot,
go back and correct even the most egregious errors.

So he tries to pretend that he never made the errors.

And then he brings this crap to a science newsgroup.

And, sadly, people feel they _must_ respond...

--
Chuck Stewart
"Anime-style catgirls: Threat? Menace? Or just studying algebra?"

  #35  
Old September 2nd 03, 01:14 PM
OM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default My Education

On 1 Sep 2003 21:41:14 -0700, (Jon Berndt) wrote:

The point is, what is your experience and education in aerospace
vehicle flight dynamics and control? EOM? etc.


....He has none. He was a ****ing *janitor*, and a lousy one at that.


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
  #36  
Old September 2nd 03, 01:39 PM
John Maxson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default My Education

Jon Berndt wrote in message
om...

The point is, what is your experience and education in
aerospace vehicle flight dynamics and control? EOM? etc.


That is not your point. It is the Lockheed agenda you push
with your every post. As Dr. Feynman pointed out, this idea
of a trained eye is a complete myth. *Anybody* can look at
the evidence and form a conclusion about what he/she sees.

There is no need for someone like you, who always purports
to be a seeing-eye dog for a sci.space.shuttle gone blind.

I've mentioned my extensive aerospace experience in guidance
and control systems here on many occasions. I've pioneered
the design of complex digital systems for engineering analysis.

My experience in developing dynamic simulations for some
major aerospace firms (as well as NASA) is a matter of record.

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


  #37  
Old September 2nd 03, 06:23 PM
John Maxson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Chuck Stewart Insists on Libel

Chuck Stewart wrote in message
news
John Maxson


You're overboard with embellishing.


What embellishment?


Your yesterday's libel, done without page reference, then left out:

"(In JTM's world the IUS is supposed to have been ignited in
the payload bay and have smashed into and destroyed the forward
portions of the orbiter, The lack of an IUS-sized hole in the back
of the crew module deters JTM in this belief not at all.)"

JTM's book was written without his objectively thinking through
and researching the very concepts he espouses. And since he has
wasted his life since Challenger pursuing it he cannot, absolutely
cannot, go back and correct even the most egregious errors.

So he tries to pretend that he never made the errors.

And then he brings this crap to a science newsgroup.


More libel -- lots more libel. That's still your game, obviously.

And, sadly, people feel they _must_ respond...


Somebody has a gun to your head?

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


  #38  
Old September 2nd 03, 08:59 PM
Moe Blues
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Booster Crossing

In article , "John Maxson"
wrote:



It must be a very humbling experience, considering how many
times I've explained the technical details of the fireball crossing
to you, and reiterated that my book was written for the layman,
after careful consideration of the advice of many professionals.


Uh, not to put too fine a point on things, but you've NEVER explained
in even vague concepts how the boosters crossed.

Which is really the problem: You wheel out a statement or theory, then
refuse to provide even the most minimal support for your contentions.
Anyone who asks for such support is called "abusive."

Now you're claiming that Feynman told you something. Feynman left
behind extensive notes regarding his Challenger investigation
experience. Odd that the "fireball crossing" is not mentioned in any of
them. Guess that shows just how much that weighed on his mind.

Or was Feynman also bought off by Lockheed?

Moe

  #39  
Old September 2nd 03, 09:11 PM
John Maxson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Booster Crossing

You're a liar.

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



Moe Blues wrote in message
...

Uh, not to put too fine a point on things, but you've NEVER
explained in even vague concepts how the boosters crossed.



  #40  
Old September 3rd 03, 01:25 AM
Moe Blues
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Booster Crossing

In article , "John Maxson"
wrote:

You're a liar.

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



Moe Blues wrote in message
...

Uh, not to put too fine a point on things, but you've NEVER
explained in even vague concepts how the boosters crossed.


See--right here is the absolute classic. The intelligent, rational
response would have been, "Well, I posted this back on XX/XX/XX, and,
for the record, here's my explanation of how the boosters crossed."

Instead, what you serve up as a response is the above. John, you could
have the absolute, rock-solid, cast-in-gold, engraved-by-God answers to
what happened to Challenger. But as long as your response to ANY
question on ANY point is "You're a liar," or "You're abusive," or any
of your other stock responses *NOBODY* can take you seriously or even
begin to consider your points.

Moe

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Berndt's Butchery John Maxson Space Shuttle 9 August 28th 03 01:10 PM
FOIA Data Exposing 51-L Fireball Crossing John Maxson Space Shuttle 6 August 26th 03 10:18 AM
Why do we care about the crossing? BenignVanilla Space Shuttle 9 August 16th 03 09:52 AM
Challenger Salvage Chief Conceded Fireball Crossing John Maxson Space Shuttle 31 July 25th 03 05:54 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.