Challenger's Shadow

"Michael Gardner" wrote:
"Charleston" wrote:
"Michael Gardner" wrote:

How does a print on demand, e-book go out of print? Because it wasn't
worth the disk space to keep around?

It doesn't, however hard backs do! Get your facts straight please.

You're right. Your bozo father started by referencing an epublishing
page as if anything published there would be worth the disk space. I
assumed the book was from there. Still his whole point seemed to be to
imply some further conspiracy in the book being out of print. I ignore
most of his posts, but this was classic "make an implication but don't
say what you mean", maxson.

Excuse me but who are you to call anyone a Bozo after you "assumed"? Your
bias is showing.

If you had only taken the time to read to the bottom of the following link:
http://www.ewritermagazine.com/Issues/february.htm#NASA

as posted by my Dad who started this thread, you would have found the
following quote:

"Copies of Challenger's Shadow can be ordered on-line at
www.llumina.com/store/challenger.htm or through www.Amazon.com ."

If you had then gone to the publisher's link you would have seen the book's
cover which is not shaped like a CD, hmmm. This means the cover could be
that of a book, hmmm. Even if you missed all of that, I doubt you could
possibly miss this data next to the photo of the cover of the book:

"ISBN: 1-932047-39-5

156 pages

Hardcover

6" x 9"

History and Expose"


So, game, set, match, you did not do your homework and you have been caught.

I'll try harder to ignore his useless messages next time.

I will try harder to ignore your highly personalized biased comments too.
Please indicate in your first line of your next objective post that it is
same and I will read it;-)

Now as to "his useless messages". I don't know for sure but I think the
book may well have gone out of print and then been reprinted. Anyway,
without my father's link, I would not have known the book had been printed.
It is a small book--156 pages, but it is a **devastating** book in that it
deals with the Challenger accident in a manner that exposes NASA's clear cut
willingness to obfuscate the truth. No I would not say his post was
worthless. I would say it was quite worthwhile for anyone who wants to read
the first inside and fairly indepth account of the Presidential Commission's
investigation into the Challenger accident. It'll blow you away. It
certainly blows Crippen away as he Truly deserves.

I will write a more complete critique of the book when I am done.


http://www.llumina.com/store/challenger.htm

--

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

"Michael Gardner" wrote:
"Charleston" wrote:
"Michael Gardner" wrote:

Excuse me but who are you to call anyone a Bozo after you "assumed"?
Your
bias is showing.

Bias, sure I'm biased. Three years of his meandering unfounded
conspiracy theories..... he's biased everone here. I admitted to
jumping the gun on that one - glancing back at the post taht is clear.
Your point by point rehash below is both unnecessary and disingenuine
considering the thousands of maxson posts this group has seen with
little or now discernable logic to follow.

Well so much for an objective scientific approach. Why respond at all then?

Write your review - it will have the same bias you've always shown here.

Ohh. I will be happy to compare posts on Space Shuttle safety with anyone
on this group. If I have any bias it is to lean on the side which makes
space flight safer. Generally however, the Columbia accident made many of
my points for me. Remember I brought up the SIAT report when being critical
of NASA was akin to blasphemy. It takes an individual of conviction to
stand up and argue against popular opinion on a somewhat cheerleading like
sci.group. As for the Challenger accident, I think my posts on balance are
fair. I need only point out a few threads to prove that if you'd like.
Much of what I have written here on crew escape is being proven correct
despite my detractors here.

What is the sum of your posting here?

--

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

"Michael Gardner" wrote:
"Charleston" wrote:
"Michael Gardner" wrote:

Bias, sure I'm biased. Three years of his meandering unfounded
conspiracy theories..... he's biased everone here. I admitted to
jumping the gun on that one - glancing back at the post taht is clear.
Your point by point rehash below is both unnecessary and disingenuine
considering the thousands of maxson posts this group has seen with
little or now discernable logic to follow.

Well so much for an objective scientific approach. Why respond at all
then?

We know where you learned your scientific approach.

No you don't.

And while I
appreciate that you've made some materials that were otherwise not
generally availabe on the internet, available - you've used the same
sort of "toss out an inference - I'll get proof on the web some day"
model John uses.

And in good time you will see it all.

You do him one better, you actually get the materials
on the web - but they don't "prove" what you were inferring they did.

Excuse me? I think the Apollo 1/204 info I posted is consistent with my
posts. As for scientific approach, what exactly do you call it when someone
takes the time to make a FOIA request, and present the data as I did on
Apollo 1/204? OTOH, you have presented what? You could have done the same
thing and spent not one dime to get that FOIA information.

So the "point" of you posting here as far as I can see is to provide
some of the data your father referred to - but little else.

And that is why you fail. You think you understand something, you
criticize, when all the time it was you who failed to do your homework.

What is the sum of your posting here?

I KNOW NASA is full of problems. Few here think it isn't.

I thought not. You attack instead of answering. I don't really care what
you think about NASA and its problems. That is a big generic der or duh.
Others can speak for themselves and so can the Google record. Your point
here from the Google record seems to be to attack people as if God appointed
you Sergeant at Arms for thie Sci.Space.Shuttle. That pretty much sums up
your contribution. You contribute very little.

You and your
ilk, keep crying wolf as if you've got some special knowledge when it is
clear you don't.

And calling names makes you right? As for crying wolf. Hey Mike there is a
wolf or did you miss the Columbia disaster? Figuratively of course. I
pointed out the wolf and what it was doing using NASA's own documents.

When people attack your lack of support for your
conspiracy theories - you interpret it as support for NASA - and so the
vicious circle continues.

Oh please don't be vague.

If you stuck solely to the topic of crew
escape - leaving out all the crap about "why you think NASA doesn't see
it your way" -

You can't speak for NASA.

or all the wishful thinking about what anonymous
individual set what on tragic videos - people might take your hard work
seriously. In the mean time, you're earning the reputation for being
another crank in the wrong newsgroup.

And you have earned your own reputation.

--
Real Working Engineer

I am tempted.

--

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

"Michael Gardner" wrote:
"Charleston" wrote:
"Michael Gardner" wrote:
"Charleston" wrote:
"Michael Gardner" wrote:

Correction - we don't know where you learned, we just notice a family
resemblance.

Ya, I notice a family resemblance with a few of you too. JimO you know ;-)

That was supposed to make you chuckle.

Excuse me? I think the Apollo 1/204 info I posted is consistent with my
posts. As for scientific approach, what exactly do you call it when
someone
takes the time to make a FOIA request, and present the data as I did on
Apollo 1/204? OTOH, you have presented what? You could have done the
same
thing and spent not one dime to get that FOIA information.

I picked no specific point - you pick your favoite, self-defined proof.
You tried to claim "RTLS!" meant something more than just the futile
hope.

And I have made an effort to clarify the RTLS issue by putting up video
after video on my website that clarifies that everyone thought that an RTLS
had been called. I finished going through all of my old videos and lo and
behold, someone communicating with both the Starcast plane and the
Castglance plane, clearly stated it was a "possible RTLS". I guess people
heard what they wanted to believe. I also clarified my position
contemporaneously in a thread on the issue. I even went so far as to ask if
my father wanted me to put up the Starcast video on my website all the while
knowing that it cleared up the issue because you can hear on that tape that
it was only a "possible RTLS". Anyway, my point is that I like to get to
the bottom of things and I did so on the RTLS issue.

You've posted several of these issues where a very narrow minded
interpretation of the available information could allow one to "support"
your ideas - but any realistic interpretation meant something completely

different.

That is your opinion. I see a narrow minded approach from others here on
this group. That is just the way it is.

1. Very few of my posts are in google. If this is how you do your
research, well, then that figures.

I don't care about Google. Many of us have watched your posts over time
here.

2. I do contribute very little - never said I did. As I've said
before, one doesn't have to be a real live rocket scientist to recognize
"logic" driven by extreme beliefs not verifiable information.

Gee I agree with you.

Nope, calling names doesn't make me right, nor you. Piecing one or two
bits of information together doesn't make conspiracy theories right
either.

Agreed. That is why I have taken the time to begin posting those videos on
my website. They will be followed by many photos and a story will emerge.
I need to time tag most of the videos thoroughly from this point forward so
I will be slowing down and I will have to copyright them as well. I see
this as a long project and I hope it is worth it in the end.

If you pointed out the wolf - then is his skin hanging on the
wall somewhere?

I will let you figure out where the wolf left his skin.

You can't speak for NASA.

Neither can you, nah, nah.... geesh.

Many here do speak for NASA whether intentionally or not.

or all the wishful thinking about what anonymous
individual set what on tragic videos - people might take your hard
work
seriously. In the mean time, you're earning the reputation for being
another crank in the wrong newsgroup.

Your reputation is not exactly stellar either. If the worst thing anyone
ever calls me is a "crank in the wrong newsgroup" I can live with that
thought. Even cranks can be correct.

And you have earned your own reputation.

I'll live with mine.

I hope so, the alternative would be bleak.

Why don't we quit this silly argument and I will finish reading
"Challenger's Shadow"? I am taking notes and I did promise a review. You
can read it and then I will be happy to hear your critique of my critique.
Fair enough?

--

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

"Michael Gardner" wrote:
"Charleston" wrote:
"Michael Gardner" wrote:
"Charleston" wrote:

And I have made an effort to clarify the RTLS issue by putting up video
after video on my website that clarifies that everyone thought that an
RTLS
had been called. I finished going through all of my old videos and lo
and
behold, someone communicating with both the Starcast plane and the
Castglance plane, clearly stated it was a "possible RTLS". I guess
people
heard what they wanted to believe. I also clarified my position
contemporaneously in a thread on the issue. I even went so far as to
ask if
my father wanted me to put up the Starcast video on my website all the
while
knowing that it cleared up the issue because you can hear on that tape
that
it was only a "possible RTLS". Anyway, my point is that I like to get
to
the bottom of things and I did so on the RTLS issue.

Your posts at the time clearly were arguing for someone "calling RTLS".
Is that what you were saying or not? Or are you saying that after
reviewing and posting the video, you now understand there was no
significance to either reference to RLTS?

What exactly do you not understand? I just wrote:

"I guess people heard what they wanted to believe."

and

"I even went so far as to ask if my father wanted me to put up the Starcast
video on my website all the while knowing that it **cleared up the issue**
because you can hear on that tape that it was only a **"possible RTLS".**"

I don't care about Google. Many of us have watched your posts over time
here.

Here is your complete reference to me and google:

I thought not. You attack instead of answering. I don't really care
what
you think about NASA and its problems. That is a big generic der or
duh.
Others can speak for themselves and so can the Google record. Your
point
here from the Google record seems to be to attack people as if God
appointed
you Sergeant at Arms for thie Sci.Space.Shuttle. That pretty much sums
up
your contribution. You contribute very little.

I went back in Google and verified that you wrote contemporaneously with me
regarding certain aspects of my father's book. It was my recollection that
you were little more than a cheerleader. Google confirmed that fact. If
Google did not exist it would not change the fact that you are more of a
derisive cheerleader than a contributor here. As I said earlier, "many of
us have watched your posts over time."

Many here do speak for NASA whether intentionally or not.

usual diversionary crap.

No that is accurate and relevant. You are part of it for the most part.

--

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

"Michael Gardner" wrote:
"Charleston" wrote:
"Michael Gardner" wrote:

You have not answered my question, nor clarified your reason for putting
it up in the first place. You used the phrase "that clarifies that
everyone thought that an RTLS had been called.".

You have not heard all of the audio on all of the TV recordings nor have you
yet heard the Starcast audio. When and if you ever do, you will understand
that many people at the remote camera sites heard that there was a "possible
RTLS". Some even heard that the orbiter was being tracked by one of the
ROTIs post break-up. Thus factual errors were made and shared, but no RTLS
was officially "called" AFAIK. A fast separation is the only thing the crew
could have done to abort the flight prior to structural break-up. Most
experts agree that a fast sep will cause break-up of the orbiter vehicle as
it pivots about its aft connections to the ET. In the Challenger era this
would have been consequentially fatal as there was no way out. With a
proper extraction system, survival would be dicey but possible today.

I don't believe
"everyone" thought an RTLS had been called - I believe you were grasping
at straws. Even a casual listen to the video makes that clear.

My point is that there was a lot of confusion at the camera sites and many
people heard exactly what they wanted to hear. If you can imagine being
there and hearing part of the message and distinctly hearing what you wanted
to hear--"RTLS" and not hearing "possible RTLS", then you can appreciate
that those words propagated rapidly through the ranks of technicians at
these sites. Hence you here that acronym "RTLS" on multiple TV recordings.
Only when I got to Starcast did I hear "possible RTLS" and I heard it in the
exact context it was meant to convey.

If I
had taped half a dozen people sitting in my living room watching the
launch and one of then yelled "RTLS", should I post that video too?

Sure if you lived near KSC and were missing a roof and had a long range
optical tracker pointed at the space shuttle Challenger breaking up. You
know you are acting like a troll. Go back underneath your bridge and play
with your little e-mail buddies. I can hear them laughing from here.

I went back in Google and verified that you wrote contemporaneously with
me
regarding certain aspects of my father's book. It was my recollection
that
you were little more than a cheerleader. Google confirmed that fact.
If

Google confirmed nothing of the sort. As usual, you take YOUR
conclusions and make them appear as someone else's authority.

"1. Very few of my posts are in google. If this is how you do your
research, well, then that figures."

http://makeashorterlink.com/?F2F8154D6

http://makeashorterlink.com/?T639514D6

http://makeashorterlink.com/?W159234D6

You really are a troll. You call people liars without even checking the
facts. Not very scientific are you? I have a fairly good memory. Now
hurry go delete those posts.

Google did not exist it would not change the fact that you are more of
a
derisive cheerleader than a contributor here. As I said earlier, "many
of
us have watched your posts over time."

Don't presume to
know why I post here or what my knowledge or experience is.

Your record speaks for itself. You are a derisive cheerleader.

You keep claiming I and others speak for NASA, yet your posts contain
hundreds of "explanations" and random pieces of data that support your
views of what "really happens inside NASA" - which is in effect,
speaking for nasa.

Your claim is ludicrous. I know what I have written. I have referred to
NASA documents many times and NASA records speak for NASA. I speak for
myself. As for what really happens in NASA, you need only look at the
Columbia investigation article in the Atlantic Monthly to gain some insight
into what goes on inside NASA. If you are still confused read the SIAT
report.


Based on the articles that have been published on the web,

A weak basis at best. You just criticized such writings only days ago.
Geesh.

it seems
Macidull joins a long list of self/hastily-published sensationalist
disaster authors with 20-20 hindsight.

How insightfully unscientific of you. "It seems" cuts no mustard. You are
ill informed. Macidull spent ten years on his book. He also had a
coauthor. Your bias could not be any more blatant. You rush to an opinion
before reading his book even though he was on the Presidential Commission
staff. Other than Macidull may now contradict some widely held respect for
the Presidential Commission investigating the Challenger disaster, you have
no real reason to question his authority, knowledge, or truthfulness. You
suggest all of these IMO when you lump him with "sensationalist disaster
authors". You therefore whether you realize it or not support NASA. It was
NASA that wrote most of the PC report. You represent a lot of what is wrong
with science in this country as you fail to seriously investigate the facts.

Perhaps I'll publish my own review of his book.

Right. I dare you.

--

Daniel
http://www.challengerdisaster.info

"Michael Gardner" wrote:
"Charleston" wrote:
"Michael Gardner" wrote:
"Charleston" wrote:

Called by whom? Anonymous voices in a crowd?

Please go back and read my prior posts--the parts about Starcast.

Extraction possible? Mabye - at a weight and added complexity that
would significantly affect performance and safety.

The current bailout system is not much lighter than an overhead extraction
system. A few hundred pounds for a large increase in flight envelope escape
potential.

How many years to
check it out?

The years in which such systems might have been developed have long since
come and gone.

I understand that - but I ask for the third time - why did you spend so
much time pushing that discussion when it was SO OBVIOUS there was
nothing to it?

You need to go back and check your timeframes. I bet Roger Balettie even
remembers my post that clarified my thoughts back then on RTLS. It did not
take me long to get to Starcast. Doubtless you missed same.

The real point here is that I took the time to find and dig out the right
answer. You should try it sometime instead of making baseless assertions on
books you have not read other than through the eyes of other reviewers ala
"Challenger's Shadow" Go read "Challenger's Shadow" if you really want to
discuss it as opposed to dissing it.

September 9, 2003
http://makeashorterlink.com/?O14B214D6

A quote from SSS still on my newsreader follows:

"Roger Balettie" wrote in message
.. .
"Charleston" wrote:

snip

I know you didn't make this point specifically, but since it's been
attempted in the past by others, the voice saying "RTLS" in the background
is a wishful hope for a positive result after seeing the event live.

Yep."

A simple yep Mike. An acknowledgement by me that Roger's point was well
taken on November 6th, 2003.

I'll read is book - as I've ready a great deal more about all this that
you might believe. It isn't my life however and I don't spend my every
waking hour, trying to find unmatched jigsaw pieces I can shove together
and cry conspiracy.

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.

--

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

Charleston wrote:

You have not heard all of the audio on all of the TV recordings nor have you
yet heard the Starcast audio. When and if you ever do, you will understand
that many people at the remote camera sites heard that there was a "possible
RTLS".

I see no list of these cameras. Regardless, you haven't explained
how one would "understand" that from hearing these audios. In the
next breath, you put all of this in terms of using ones imagination.

If you can imagine being
there and hearing part of the message and distinctly hearing what you wanted
to hear--"RTLS" and not hearing "possible RTLS", then you can appreciate
that those words propagated rapidly through the ranks of technicians at
these sites.

You haven't shown that they indeed so "propagated."

Hence you here that acronym "RTLS" on multiple TV recordings.
Only when I got to Starcast did I hear "possible RTLS" and I heard it in the
exact context it was meant to convey.

On Starcast, some think they hear, "Move to the right;
we have a call for RTLS (slightly garbled)."

Others think they hear, "Move to the right;
we have possible RTLS (said quickly)."

Part of the subsequent context is:

VOICE 1: "They're not out of the area yet." (garble)

VOICE 2: "How long will it take?"

VOICE 1: "It will probably take another two or three minutes
before we know if they landed safely."

("Possible" in this context appears to imply a called RTLS
which might have some possibility of success, as opposed to
the possibility of a called RTLS. The latter would not
require that a specific runway be announced.)

You have the additional burden of explaining why "possible
RTLS" was not heard on Castglance, since you claim the same
operator spoke to both planes (and apparently to Lockheed's
cameramen on the ground, via the grapevine perhaps).

"John Maxson" wrote:
Charleston wrote:

You have not heard all of the audio on all of the TV recordings nor have
you
yet heard the Starcast audio. When and if you ever do, you will
understand
that many people at the remote camera sites heard that there was a
"possible
RTLS".

I see no list of these cameras.

So what. You can hear for yourself on some of the videos at my website.

Regardless, you haven't explained
how one would "understand" that from hearing these audios. In the
next breath, you put all of this in terms of using ones imagination.

Others here certainly understood what I meant when last this ground was
trodden here.

If you can imagine being
there and hearing part of the message and distinctly hearing what you
wanted
to hear--"RTLS" and not hearing "possible RTLS", then you can appreciate
that those words propagated rapidly through the ranks of technicians at
these sites.

You haven't shown that they indeed so "propagated."

Listen to TV-2 again for goodness sake.

Hence you here that acronym "RTLS" on multiple TV recordings.
Only when I got to Starcast did I hear "possible RTLS" and I heard it in
the
exact context it was meant to convey.

On Starcast, some think they hear, "Move to the right;
we have a call for RTLS (slightly garbled)."

Others think they hear, "Move to the right;
we have possible RTLS (said quickly)."

Part of the subsequent context is:

VOICE 1: "They're not out of the area yet." (garble)

VOICE 2: "How long will it take?"

VOICE 1: "It will probably take another two or three minutes
before we know if they landed safely."

("Possible" in this context appears to imply a called RTLS
which might have some possibility of success, as opposed to
the possibility of a called RTLS. The latter would not
require that a specific runway be announced.)

You have the additional burden of explaining why "possible
RTLS" was not heard on Castglance, since you claim the same
operator spoke to both planes (and apparently to Lockheed's
cameramen on the ground, via the grapevine perhaps).

As I asked here some time ago on the last two lines of the post below:

"Next up, Starcast?"

http://makeashorterlink.com/?I1CD424D6

IIRC, you never directly answered that question.

--

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

Charleston wrote:
"John Maxson" wrote:
Charleston wrote:
You have not heard all of the audio on all of the TV
recordings nor have you yet heard the Starcast audio.
When and if you ever do, you will understand that many
people at the remote camera sites heard that there was a
"possible RTLS".
I see no list of these cameras.
So what.

Your argumment above with Michael Gardner referred for
credibility to evidence not yet available from your website.

You can hear for yourself on some of the videos at my website.

If that's true, you could have told Michael where, and how far
over on the slidebar. That information was not included.

Regardless, you haven't explained how one would
"understand" that from hearing these audios. In the next
breath, you put all of this in terms of using ones imagination.
Others here certainly understood what I meant when last this
ground was trodden here.

Even if you can show that's true, it's irrelevant to the above.

If you can imagine being there and hearing part of the message
and distinctly hearing what you wanted to hear--"RTLS" and not
hearing "possible RTLS", then you can appreciate
that those words propagated rapidly through the ranks of
technicians at these sites.
You haven't shown that they indeed so "propagated."
Listen to TV-2 again for goodness sake.

If you know of something audible on TV-2 which you should have
included for Michael, you can give the slidebar position. Your
reference, however, was to cameras and footage not yet provided.

As I asked here some time ago on the last two lines of the
post below:

"Next up, Starcast?"

If you chop off the first part of it (as you did with TV-4),
it will be a biased presentation. (You provided significant
prelaunch footage with TV-3 and TV-5, yet you deleted Barbara
Morgan's prelaunch prepping. She was a teacher, you know.)