Austin's Bob Mosley III Leads Vicious 'Shoot the 51-L Messenger' Campaign

Just go back and look, sir. Unless you're "braindead."

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



Sander Vesik wrote in message
...

There was no abuse in the part what I snipped.

In sci.space.policy John Maxson wrote:
Just go back and look, sir. Unless you're "braindead."


As a matter of fact - 90% of what you post is not just compltete
rubbish, its downright braindead spamming of the newsgroups over
and over again with formulaic contentfree messages containing
accusations of libel and defamation at the top followed by
message text that has hardly anything to do with such claims or
with the newgroups these are being posted to.

So how about posting some posts that contain new material that
is actually on-topic for teh newsgroups or shutting up ? If there
is no content, there is nothing really to critisize, only to filter.

So, highlight any abusive and/or untrue statements in this. Or maybe there
is after all, no truth in anything you say?


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



Sander Vesik wrote in message
...

There was no abuse in the part what I snipped.



--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

Sander Vesik wrote in message
...

As a matter of fact - 90% of what you post is not just compltete
rubbish, its downright braindead spamming of the newsgroups over
and over again with formulaic contentfree messages containing
accusations of libel and defamation at the top followed by
message text that has hardly anything to do with such claims or
with the newgroups these are being posted to.

So, highlight any abusive and/or untrue statements in this.

You just did that for me. If you don't like the Mosley-led
'no redeeming social value' abuse, attack the source with
your libel. Mosley posts the abuse; I post abuse notices.

As John J. Sirica so well put it:

"It was shameful the way the question of guilt or
innocence kept getting turned into a question of
politics."

"... regardless of political risk, no self-respecting
politician could ignore the hard evidence."

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

In sci.space.policy John Maxson wrote:
Sander Vesik wrote in message
...

As a matter of fact - 90% of what you post is not just compltete
rubbish, its downright braindead spamming of the newsgroups over
and over again with formulaic contentfree messages containing
accusations of libel and defamation at the top followed by
message text that has hardly anything to do with such claims or
with the newgroups these are being posted to.

So, highlight any abusive and/or untrue statements in this.

You just did that for me. If you don't like the Mosley-led

No I didn't - I merely replicated the contents of my post so you
could point out the part that contained abuse. You do understand
the meaning of that word, right?

'no redeeming social value' abuse, attack the source with
your libel. Mosley posts the abuse; I post abuse notices.


You just spam the newsgroup. You might not be the only one,
but that is hardly an excuse. And its starting to look like you
are not just a spammer but also a liar. So once again - point
out what part of my message was abusive, or retract your claims.

As John J. Sirica so well put it:

"It was shameful the way the question of guilt or
innocence kept getting turned into a question of
politics."

"... regardless of political risk, no self-respecting
politician could ignore the hard evidence."


Maybe your so called evidence is as non-existant as your
other claims posted to these newsgroups?

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


--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

My advice to you is to retract your libel.

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


Sander Vesik wrote in message
...
In sci.space.policy John Maxson wrote:
Sander Vesik wrote in message
...

As a matter of fact - 90% of what you post is not just compltete
rubbish, its downright braindead spamming of the newsgroups over
and over again with formulaic contentfree messages containing
accusations of libel and defamation at the top followed by
message text that has hardly anything to do with such claims or
with the newgroups these are being posted to.

So, highlight any abusive and/or untrue statements in this.

You just did that for me. If you don't like the Mosley-led

No I didn't - I merely replicated the contents of my post so you
could point out the part that contained abuse. You do understand
the meaning of that word, right?

'no redeeming social value' abuse, attack the source with
your libel. Mosley posts the abuse; I post abuse notices.


You just spam the newsgroup. You might not be the only one,
but that is hardly an excuse. And its starting to look like you
are not just a spammer but also a liar. So once again - point
out what part of my message was abusive, or retract your claims.

As John J. Sirica so well put it:

"It was shameful the way the question of guilt or
innocence kept getting turned into a question of
politics."

"... regardless of political risk, no self-respecting
politician could ignore the hard evidence."


Maybe your so called evidence is as non-existant as your
other claims posted to these newsgroups?

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


--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

In sci.space.policy John Maxson wrote:
My advice to you is to retract your libel.

My advice to you at this point is to go and find out what
"libel" means. It sounds liekly that there is a library
with dictionary somewhere not prohibitively far from you,
alternatively you can use those available on internet. Seeing
a word being continualy misused does get boring over time.


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


--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

That's your message, Van Gogh; here's mine:

======================================
'One-Page Technical Summary of an O-Ring Cover-Up'
(requested by Pentagon efficiency expert A. Ernest
Fitzgerald on July 4, 2003)

NASA's fault-tree analysis failed to consider that Challenger's solid
rocket boosters could have crossed paths within the 51-L fireball.
A crossing necessarily negates Rogers' postulated "right-aft O-ring
burnthrough."

In a hearing on February 7, 1986, Dr. Feynman inquired: "Can I ask
a dumb question? Do we know on which side which rocket is
afterwards? Did they go like this and cross or do they look like they
went that way?" NASA put Feynman off, and Rogers sidetracked
him. Dr. Feynman did not know about NASA's black ID band until
I told him, in late 1987.

For photo/recovery identification, NASA paints a black ID band 18''
high around the nose of the space shuttle's *left* solid rocket booster.
Rogers ignored this ID band in his report, most notably at the crucial
fireball exit. Instead, Rogers conjectured a "R-SRB burnthrough" for
identification.

Rogers' ID relies on an enhanced 15-second film strip ending in
explosion. However, in JSC's '51-L Mission History Video,' the
continuation of this film strip leaves no doubt that the *flared* booster
sported the ID band.

On January 22, 1986, in a pre-Challenger technical report requested by
Senator Grassley's office, I warned: "... and 'cold flows' run at Pad B
were a failure, costing much waste of time and money. Tom Wiley can
testify to this. The net result of all this would be delays in launching
from Pad B, and delays in Centaur launches. I also learned from Bill
Bassler, Centaur 'single-point-of-contact' in LSOC CMO, that the
waste of hydrogen was deliberate, ..."

The terminal LH2 leaks were at the base of the left booster. It became
super-cooled during prelaunch scrubs. A thrust imbalance resulted.
That caused a right-aft leak in the hydrogen tank at lift-off, later
aggravated by 5000-plus degree heat from continuous R-Aft RCS
firings at 59 seconds. The pre-explosion chamber pressures of the two
boosters (relative to each other and to their respective lift-off pressures)
were to be expected.

NASA could not identify the key piece of lower booster debris by serial
number, or by *any other* of NASA's standard identification methods.

The Rogers Report admits that no direct view exists of the location from
which black smoke at lift-off and an assumed burnthrough at 59 seconds
originated. Live launch-day video refutes NASA's "burnthrough" copies.
Congressional subpoena of the originals should lead to credible closure.

John Thomas Maxson (www.mission51l.com)
===============================


Terrence Daniels wrote
in message thlink.net...

In his isolated, paranoid world, "abuse" is a synonym for
"disagreement."
snip
I never knew that the word "abuse" could be used in reference
to masturbation.
snip
It's an apt metaphor for JTM's postings. Perhaps he's revealing
something of himself with his constant allegations of "abuse."

"Scott M. Kozel" wrote in message
...
"John Maxson" wrote:

I don't care what he wrote. Looks like I'm going to have to killfile you for
continually reposting it.
--
If you have had problems with Illinois Student Assistance Commission (ISAC),
please contact shredder at bellsouth dot net. There may be a class-action
lawsuit
in the works.