From Whence It Came

Challenger's forward fuselage was subjected to the very high
heat from the Forward Reaction Control System's flames, as
can easily be determined and confirmed from these images:

http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v1p30.htm

http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v1p33.htm

My book contains much better color photos of that event.

Here is yet another view of the right forward-fuselage debris
being unloaded at Port Canaveral on January 30, 1986:

http://www.aerotechnews.com/starc/20...1/wreckage.jpg

The left wing, which crossed over in the fireball along with the
left booster, was never recovered by NASA.

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

Technically, "From Whence it came" is redundant. "Whence" means "from where"



"John Maxson" wrote in message
...
Challenger's forward fuselage was subjected to the very high
heat from the Forward Reaction Control System's flames, as
can easily be determined and confirmed from these images:

http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v1p30.htm

http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v1p33.htm

My book contains much better color photos of that event.

Here is yet another view of the right forward-fuselage debris
being unloaded at Port Canaveral on January 30, 1986:

http://www.aerotechnews.com/starc/20...1/wreckage.jpg

The left wing, which crossed over in the fireball along with the
left booster, was never recovered by NASA.

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

In this group, a little redundancy won't hurt anybody.

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


magnetogorsk wrote in message
t...

Technically, "From Whence it came" is redundant.
"Whence" means "from where"

Technically, "From Whence it came" is redundant. "Whence" means "from
where"

Challenger's forward fuselage was subjected to the very high
heat from the Forward Reaction Control System's flames, as
can easily be determined and confirmed from these images:

http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v1p30.htm

In this picture you can *just* detect the black ID band about the
circumference at the top of the frustrum on the left SRB (the right side of
the "V" in the *image*). The left SRB is "nearer" in this picture (taken
from south of the stack) and the nearer (left) SRB actually obscures the
tail end of the right SRB behind it - though it's hard to see that in the
image. The right SRB is to the left of its counterpart in the *image*.

Jon

The black ID band *cannot* be located on *both* boosters.
NASA, the Air Force, Lockheed Martin, and Rockwell can't
continue to have it both ways, Berndt. You, Roger, and Dan
should know that. Our country deserves *so* much better.

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


Jon Berndt wrote in message
...

http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v1p30.htm

In this picture you can *just* detect the black ID band about the
circumference at the top of the frustrum on the left SRB (the right
side of the "V" in the *image*). The left SRB is "nearer" in this
picture (taken from south of the stack) and the nearer (left) SRB
actually obscures the tail end of the right SRB behind it - though
it's hard to see that in the image. The right SRB is to the left of its
counterpart in the *image*.

Jon

"John Maxson" wrote in message

The black ID band *cannot* be located on *both* boosters.

True. That's because the fully circumferential black ID band was only on the
left SRB frustrum (and perceptible on many images and some videos as that
booster headed south after the disintegration). Stay tuned.

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

The black ID band *cannot* be located on *both* boosters.

snipped Berndt statement unsupported by visuals

Stay tuned.

Nobody is going to "stay tuned" to your disinformation, Jon.
You've repeatedly shown us that your word is worthless (you
have posted from Lockheed, failed to keep kill-file promises,
and lied about your posting history -- not to mention all your
libel and defamation of me). Honorable men don't do that.
In your images, the *height* of the ring does not measure up.

Look at the film from camera E204 just prior to RSD. There
is *clearly* no black ID band to be seen, yet NASA referred
to that as the left booster.

The left booster can be identified from the ROTI as the flared
one seen exiting the fireball, if you need proof other than E207.

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

"John Maxson" Nobody is going to "stay tuned" to your
disinformation, Jon.
You've repeatedly shown us that your word is worthless (you
have posted from Lockheed, failed to keep kill-file promises,
and lied about your posting history -- not to mention all your
libel and defamation of me).

Uh it looks like you are responding to his evidence with a list of ad
hominem remarks that do not address the evidence that he presented.
Sorry but this is rather misguided and odd.

Look at the film from camera E204 just prior to RSD. There
is *clearly* no black ID band to be seen, yet NASA referred
to that as the left booster.

Another instance where only you have the insight to ID the booster.
Has anyone other than yourself pointed out this egregious error? This
seems a little odd.


The left booster can be identified from the ROTI as the flared
one seen exiting the fireball, if you need proof other than E207.

Has anyone other than yourself observed the proof that is apparent in
E207, or are you the only one?

"John Maxson"

The left booster can be identified from the ROTI as the flared
one seen exiting the fireball, if you need proof other than E207.

How do you explain this photo from E207?

38:59.272 Continuous well defined plume
on RH SRM 59.262 E207 Camera

THe E207 picture is viewable here as the bright flare on the
*righ-hand* SRB.

http://www.awesome80s.com/Awesome80s...port_Part1.asp

What is the source of the flare in this picture?

"Kent Betts" wrote:

"John Maxson"

The left booster can be identified from the ROTI as the flared
one seen exiting the fireball, if you need proof other than E207.

How do you explain this photo from E207?

38:59.272 Continuous well defined plume
on RH SRM 59.262 E207 Camera

THe E207 picture is viewable here as the bright flare on the
*righ-hand* SRB.


http://www.awesome80s.com/Awesome80s...port_Part1.asp

What is the source of the flare in this picture?

I think you might be missing a point Kent. I pointed out in a post eralier
today that the lawyer said my Dad had a compelling story. Please follow me
on this to see where things don't make sense.

Let me quote Pappy again.

"'ON NASA ORIGINAL FILMS: In the original film you see the lower rocket
*does* have a ring and the ring on the upper rocket is caused by a shadow
thrown by the sun on a displaced frustrum creating a black shadow that
indeed looks like the black stripe'"

and

"'If you study only the poor pictures the lower one coming out of the cloud
is
not ruptured and is a brilliant white -- with no band. The upper ruptured
right one now appears coming out of the top with a distinct black band
visible near frustrum.

Only when the 154 film from theodolites are studied do you get clear enough
pictures to see the lower rocket really does have the stripe. The upper
rockets black line is shown in this film to actually be caused by the
frustrum that is displaced and causing a dark shadow where a stripe would
be.'"

So the question is how did the displaced frustum cause a "shadow" on the
damaged leaking booster post-break-up when the "shadow" is present
pre-structural break-up? It is statements like that from an attorney that
is supposed to be an expert, that is disconcerting to me. Even the photo to
which you refer shows something that is there later after break-up too. It
can't be a shadow at T+ 59 seconds can it? The frustum was put on
correctly.

Look at the damaged booster at the page below and then the one to which you
referred. Both are from NASA.

http://www.mission51l.com/apreview.htm

If we are fair shouldn't we explain Pappy's logic error?

--

Daniel
Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC