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

Challenger's Shadow



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 7th 03, 07:30 PM
John Maxson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Challenger's Shadow

"The checks and balances inherent in our form of government were
largely ignored in this tragedy, and during the investigation."
http://www.ewritermagazine.com/Issue...htm#Challenger

Enter/exit Columbia:
http://www.ewritermagazine.com/Issues/february.htm#NASA

Llumina, one year after publishing the book:
"It's out of print; it's being redone."

sci.space.shuttle/sci.space.history:
No "peer reviews."

The shadow lengthens ...

  #2  
Old December 8th 03, 01:42 AM
Scott Lowther
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Challenger's Shadow

Michael Gardner wrote:

No one would waste their time with yet another baseless conspiracy
theory.



Please. Stop. Do not respond. Stop the horror before it grows.

THIS GOES FOR *EVERYONE.* We've all seen it too many times before. Move
on.


--
Scott Lowther, Engineer
Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam
gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address
  #3  
Old December 8th 03, 07:29 AM
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Challenger's Shadow



Scott Lowther wrote:



Please. Stop. Do not respond. Stop the horror before it grows.

It was YOU Scott....wasn't it ? The man in the Texas Book Depository
"digging around for copies of those old Collier's articles" on that
blighted day when he fell...wasn't it ...WASN'T IT!!!!
'Fess up....you damned Illuminati!!!!!
We ALL know how it's possible to squeeze off three shots inside of five
seconds with a GYROJET ROCKET RIFLE!!!!

"Raul"
Bay of Pigs
Cuba

  #4  
Old December 9th 03, 01:51 AM
LooseChanj
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Challenger's Shadow

On or about Mon, 08 Dec 2003 00:42:49 GMT, Scott Lowther
made the sensational claim that:
THIS GOES FOR *EVERYONE.*


Apparently didn't go for you. :-P
--
This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | This space is for rent
It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | Inquire within if you
No person, none, care | and it will reach me | Would like your ad here

  #5  
Old December 9th 03, 03:19 AM
Charleston
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Challenger's Shadow

"Pat Flannery" wrote:
Scott Lowther wrote:

Please. Stop. Do not respond. Stop the horror before it grows.


Like you or anyone else controls the actions of persons who post here...
...you are funny.

It was YOU Scott....wasn't it ? The man in the Texas Book Depository
"digging around for copies of those old Collier's articles" on that
blighted day when he fell...wasn't it ...WASN'T IT!!!!
'Fess up....you damned Illuminati!!!!!
We ALL know how it's possible to squeeze off three shots inside of five
seconds with a GYROJET ROCKET RIFLE!!!!


While the old ne'r ancient reference to St. JerOMe is a laugher, do you
appreciate who Jack Macidull is, and what a book by him might portend at
this point in time?

"Raul"
Bay of Pigs
Cuba


Okey doke, now do I sing that verse to "We Didn't Start the Fire"?

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~yel/Fire.html

Enjoy.

Thank you for watching.

Do you get my subliminal message?

--

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


  #6  
Old December 13th 03, 11:07 PM
Charleston
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Challenger's Shadow

"John Maxson" wrote:

"The checks and balances inherent in our form of government were
largely ignored in this tragedy, and during the investigation."


http://www.ewritermagazine.com/Issue...htm#Challenger


I must state that I disagree. The checks and balances simply failed plain
and simple.

Enter/exit Columbia:
http://www.ewritermagazine.com/Issues/february.htm#NASA


Yeah, when the Starfire video was withheld that was enough for me. I was
told from two reliable sources that Columbia was alos captured on video and
film during reentry over Nevada's Tonopah Test Range. Allegedly the
photography was completed by Intercept Ground Optical Recorders (IGORs)
normally used in military aerial "Red Flag" exercises; additionally the very
high power radar at the highly classified facility on Bald mountain just
north of Groom Lake's "Systems" facilities (they test Stealth technology
among other things) also tracked Columbia and a large separating piece as
well.

Llumina, one year after publishing the book:
"It's out of print; it's being redone."


I don't know when you talked to them but my book arrived today. I will say
that just a very cursory look at John MaciDull's writing suggests he has
finally come clean on Challenger--at least to the extent of his knowledge.

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

sci.space.shuttle/sci.space.history:
No "peer reviews."


Well the book was a little obscure. It won't be for long I hope. It is
available and I will write a review here when I am done.

The shadow lengthens ...


I like that statement.

--

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



  #7  
Old December 13th 03, 11:09 PM
Charleston
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Challenger's Shadow

"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.

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

--

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


  #8  
Old December 14th 03, 02:52 AM
Charleston
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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


  #9  
Old December 15th 03, 04:54 AM
Charleston
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Challenger's Shadow

"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


  #10  
Old December 15th 03, 03:40 PM
Charleston
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Challenger's Shadow

"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


 




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
From Whence It Came John Maxson Space Shuttle 69 August 7th 03 09:25 AM
"Only the Shadow Knows" John Maxson Space Shuttle 1 August 4th 03 08:31 AM
CAIB Scenario -- Who's Read It? James Oberg Space Shuttle 69 July 30th 03 09:12 PM
Did challengers standdown uncover other lost vehicle issues? Hallerb Space Shuttle 0 July 28th 03 01:10 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:56 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.