Challenger's Shadow

John Maxson wrote:

Derek Lyons wrote:

Good discussion does not require two reviews.

You're a little late; you should have mentioned that to Berndt and
Balettie, not to mention Mosley and Speegle.

It requires on honest review by a reviewer with integrity and intellectual honesty.

Those are qualities which OverSoul possessed, and which those above (as
well as yourself) sorely lack (and/or lacked).

Pot, kettle, black.

"Derek Lyons" wrote
: "Charleston" wrote:

Don't be silly. I tried to get Michael to discuss the book and even
sincerely offered to do a simultaneous posting of our reviews.

And he plainly told you that he did not have the book yet.

We all know that. Hence my reference below which you apparently
misunderstood.

"Please private e-mail me when you have finished
the book and we can both post our reviews simultaneously and then discuss
them."

If Michael buys the book we will have some notes to compare after he reads
it. It was quite clear he had not read the book at this time.

Read the thread and respond accordingly or be troll-like. Your choice.

I have read the thread, and it makes your accusations of someone else
being a troll plainly a case of 'pot,kettle'.

I repeatedly attempted to get Mr. Gardner on topic. He repeatedly changed
it and even went on an irrelvant trolling tirade.

From one of my earlier posts on this thread.

"Good, then somehow this thread ends up with a positive ending. See you
on
the other side of the book. Please private e-mail me when you have
finished
the book and we can both post our reviews simultaneously and then discuss
them. I honestly believe some good discussion might then occur."

Good discussion does not require two reviews.

I would agree that mediocre discussion does not require two reviews. On a
science group, where people often have different opinions and areas of
expertise, it helps quite a bit if the two discussing the merits of someone
elses work, have both actually read the work. Then you can make points and
counter-points especially in areas of disagreement.

It requires on honest
review by a reviewer with integrity and intellectual honesty.

Honest reviews are usually made by honest people. That is a real no
brainer.

Even
so, in a message written mere minutes after the one I'm quoting, you
make your integrity and honestly clear by announcing you intend to
post your review to Amazon rather than here.

Just because I post a book review on Amazon, does not mean people here can
not read it. I did announce that fact here for a reason afterall. You do
know how to follow a web link, right? In any event I'll post it here too so
that you don't have to make a complex click with your mouse to read the
review. Good grief, if you decide someone's intellectual honesty based on
where they post a book review, I pity you.

It's easy to sound authoritative when you shrug away criticism.

Look in the mirror, Mr. Lyons.

Now as to the book itself, the title of the thread and subthread, let me
just say it is overpriced in my opinion, and far too short in words to cover
the topic. In a nutshell, John Macidull believes that an SRB o-ring
failure was the physical cause of the disaster. His main thesis is that the
NASA managers were criminally negligent and did everything they could to
focus attention on the o-ring and not their own actions that led to the
launch. He comes down quite hard on Larry Mulloy and Jesse Moore. Anyway,
that is just a quick account of the book. There is of course more and I
will cover that later. I did find myself wanting to ask him one question.
With your respected position, why did you not say or do something a lot
sooner when it might have made a difference?

--

Daniel
http://www.challengerdisaster.info
Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC

John Maxson

Derek Lyons wrote:

Good discussion does not require two reviews.

You're a little late; you should have mentioned that to Berndt and
Balettie, not to mention Mosley and Speegle.

It requires on honest review by a reviewer with integrity and intellectual honesty.

Those are qualities which OverSoul possessed, and which those above (as
well as yourself) sorely lack (and/or lacked).

John Maxson - www.mission51l.com

John:

Just for your information, I have removed the content from the
original web "analysis" of your book from my web site (I am referring
to the web page at: http://www.hal-pc.org/~jsb/conspiracy.html). In
place of the former content is simply a link to the newer extended
..PDF format document (at
http://home.houston.rr.com/fancijon/conspiracy.pdf).

You have always been free to specify what you dislike about the web
analysis posted by Roger and myself. Likewise, you are free to
discuss on an engineering level, and with intellectual honesty,
anything present in that PDF document (which has been posted there for
about a year, I think). I think I can speak for Roger as well as
myself when I say that we would be (and have always been) glad to
address whatever concerns you have about the content of the reviews
and analysis we have posted, as long as they are presented with
integrity and intellectual honesty. Heck, you could even post a review
of our reviews! If there is something specific that you don't like,
speak up, or forever hold your peace.

In any case, best wishes for a Merry Christmas.

Jon

"Charleston" wrote:

Read the thread and respond accordingly or be troll-like. Your choice.

I have read the thread, and it makes your accusations of someone else
being a troll plainly a case of 'pot,kettle'.

I repeatedly attempted to get Mr. Gardner on topic. He repeatedly changed
it and even went on an irrelvant trolling tirade.

Right. Yet his factual message just a bit upthread goes unanswered by
you. In fact he asks many of the same questions that many of us, and
once again you decline to answer.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

Jon Berndt wrote:

John Maxson
Derek Lyons wrote:
Good discussion does not require two reviews.
You're a little late; you should have mentioned that to Berndt and
Balettie, not to mention Mosley and Speegle.
It requires on honest review by a reviewer with integrity and intellectual honesty.
Those are qualities which OverSoul possessed, and which those above (as
well as yourself) sorely lack (and/or lacked).
John Maxson - www.mission51l.com

John:

Just for your information, I have removed the content from the
original web "analysis" of your book from my web site (I am referring
to the web page at: http://www.hal-pc.org/~jsb/conspiracy.html). In
place of the former content is simply a link to the newer extended
.PDF format document (at
http://home.houston.rr.com/fancijon/conspiracy.pdf).

You have always been free to specify what you dislike about the web
analysis posted by Roger and myself. Likewise, you are free to
discuss on an engineering level, and with intellectual honesty,
anything present in that PDF document (which has been posted there for
about a year, I think). I think I can speak for Roger as well as
myself when I say that we would be (and have always been) glad to
address whatever concerns you have about the content of the reviews
and analysis we have posted, as long as they are presented with
integrity and intellectual honesty. Heck, you could even post a review
of our reviews! If there is something specific that you don't like,
speak up, or forever hold your peace.

In any case, best wishes for a Merry Christmas.

Jon

For my response, see the new thread "Mission to Mislead:"

http://groups.google.com/groups?&sel...ews.netins.net

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"Charleston" wrote:

Read the thread and respond accordingly or be troll-like. Your
choice.

I have read the thread, and it makes your accusations of someone else
being a troll plainly a case of 'pot,kettle'.

I repeatedly attempted to get Mr. Gardner on topic. He repeatedly
changed
it and even went on an irrelvant trolling tirade.

Right. Yet his factual message just a bit upthread goes unanswered by
you. In fact he asks many of the same questions that many of us, and
once again you decline to answer.

It was not topical. It was simply an attempt to divert attention from his
own embarrassment Derek. I did answer the issue and it is addressed in past
threads. Whether you have or ever do read them I do not much care.

--

Daniel
http://www.challengerdisaster.info
Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC

"Charleston" wrote:
It was not topical.

It adresses the issue of crew escape, which is off topic how?

It was simply an attempt to divert attention from his own embarrassment
Derek.

Ah. And it seems to have worked mainly be having you churn out
verbiage attempting to avoid discussing the issue.

I did answer the issue and it is addressed in past threads. Whether you
have or ever do read them I do not much care.

Actually, I have read them, and you have never adressed the questions
raised. Instead, there as here, you resort to your same tired tactics
of levelling accusations against others in the thread to divert
attention from your own lack.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

"Charleston" wrote:
"Derek Lyons" wrote:

Just a reminder that you snip that which clearly embarrases you--see below.
You are almost as biased as Mr. Gardner if not a bit more subtle. When
confronted with an honest review you snip it and don't even acknowledge it.
When you are confronted with your own personal bias against me "Amazon" you
ignore it--see below. Be my guest to post a reference to every RTLS post I
have ever made. When you are done and place then in chronological order the
truth will speak for itself. I can live that. Same for crew escape.


" Good discussion does not require two reviews.

I would agree that mediocre discussion does not require two reviews. On a
science group, where people often have different opinions and areas of
expertise, it helps quite a bit if the two discussing the merits of someone
elses work, have both actually read the work. Then you can make points and
counter-points especially in areas of disagreement.

It requires on honest
review by a reviewer with integrity and intellectual honesty.

Honest reviews are usually made by honest people. That is a real no
brainer.

Even
so, in a message written mere minutes after the one I'm quoting, you
make your integrity and honestly clear by announcing you intend to
post your review to Amazon rather than here.

Just because I post a book review on Amazon, does not mean people here can
not read it. I did announce that fact here for a reason afterall. You do
know how to follow a web link, right? In any event I'll post it here too so
that you don't have to make a complex click with your mouse to read the
review. Good grief, if you decide someone's intellectual honesty based on
where they post a book review, I pity you.

It's easy to sound authoritative when you shrug away criticism.

Look in the mirror, Mr. Lyons.

Now as to the book itself, the title of the thread and subthread, let me
just say it is overpriced in my opinion, and far too short in words to cover
the topic. In a nutshell, John Macidull believes that an SRB o-ring
failure was the physical cause of the disaster. His main thesis is that the
NASA managers were criminally negligent and did everything they could to
focus attention on the o-ring and not their own actions that led to the
launch. He comes down quite hard on Larry Mulloy and Jesse Moore. Anyway,
that is just a quick account of the book. There is of course more and I
will cover that later. I did find myself wanting to ask him one question.
With your respected position, why did you not say or do something a lot
sooner when it might have made a difference?"

John Maxson wrote:

I did not want to get involved in the crew escape
argument without reading a review of Challenger's Shadow.

From a blurb in December 2002:

"It seems to be a foregone conclusion now that the crew survived
the explosion. And the book (Challenger's Shadow) does a terrific
job in explaining in terms that any lay person can understand, why
we feel it is so."

Joe Ferlo, WCUB AM Radio Wisconsin

*If* it can be positively proved that the crew survived the explosion,
*it* served as a crew-ejection system. In that case, properly deployed
parachutes (and life vests) would have been helpful for "escape."

I'm certainly interested in hearing the theory of Macidull and Blattner.

John Maxson - www.mission51l.com

"John Maxson" wrote:

Charleston wrote:

but no RTLS was officially "called" AFAIK.

The problem is that it looks as though you don't positively know
otherwise. The Starcast video provides some evidence for digging
into the matter legally, in the absence of any certified or sworn
proof from those like your opinionated friend Balettie.

I disagree. It was a review of the Starcast video that convinced me that no
RTLS had been "called"; at least not by Mission Control anyway. I am fairly
certain that is how it is supposed to happen. I doon't think KSC calls an
RTLS. That leaves the flight crew or software to initiate an RTLS. The one
thing that I have to wonder though, is what audio or video did NASA
investigators feel they had to delete from the Starcast videotape without
any public admittance of same?

'The Betrayal of Mission 51-L' says nothing to support any sort of
called abort, RTLS or otherwise. It leans heavily toward an abort which
was *not* called, but for which preparations began many long seconds
before the main blast (and before any last ditch 'fast sep' attempt).

You state above that your book does not mention a "called" abort and that is
true. From a previous post of yours we have:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?H5B4260E6

"A voice (recorded on the soundtrack of an airborne
video from the east) gave a delayed alert: "Okay, we
have an RTLS (Return to Launch Site Abort) in
progress ... at Runway 33." The failed RTLS had
begun more than sixty seconds prior to the RSD, an
eternity in shuttle time!"

If we use the logic that the person onboard the aircraft to which you refer
was correct in stating that an "RTLS" was "in progress", then the inevetible
question that must be asked and answered is who told those onboard that
airplane of this purported fact? If the "failed RTLS had begun more than
sixty seconds prior to the RSD [Range Safety Destruct]" or even 50 seconds
before RSD, then how was it initiated? How did that information get
transferred to CastGlance? Directly from the crew? From the crew
back-channeled to JSC, and then to the NASA Landing Recovery Director (LRD),
then to the Department of Defense Manager for Space Transportation System
Contingency Support Operations (DDMS), then Patrick AFB Air Traffic
Control, and then to CastGlance? or some other way?

My book makes one reference to a "failed" RTLS, but in a context
specific to a solid quotation from an airborne video. I believe the
word "failed" is consistent with many of the plane-crew descriptions
of what was being officially communicated to them concerning a RTLS.

The Starcast videotape is at variance with your statement in at least on
important way. Specifically the words used were "possible RTLS."

--

Daniel
http://www.challengerdisaster.info
Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC