The Houston-Vegas Connection

==========================
From: Jon Berndt )
Subject: 51-L Posts by Jon Berndt
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Date: 2002-05-03 11:30:05 PST


"john_thomas_maxson" wrote in message

First, let's review your hypocrisy. It is exposed by the
unprofessional manner in which you referred to me and my son, Paul
Maxson, when you began attacking us as new posters here.

Evasion noted. Take this kind of thing offline to me directly, if you must.

Plonk
==========================

On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 15:56:29 +0000, Scott M. Kozel wrote:

"Jon Berndt" wrote:

Stop your whining about past posts, I don't want to hear your belly-aching
anymore. I told you to go outside and play. If you continue to stomp your
feet, you're going straight to your room and you'll be grounded from the
Internet for two weeks, old man. This tying on of a cape and playing Super
Johnny WhistleBlower has got to stop.

Why does JTM have to post ad nauseum -every- -day- about his conspiracy
theories?

Because you respond.

The same reason he's concentrating on Jon now... the list of
suckers he can get riled up to give him attention is getting
shorter.

His daily postarrhea, is why I called him a troll in my last post.

And you noticed this... when?

When he is ignored JTM posts early and often, in ever-increasing
lengths. Easily solved by ignoring him or killfiling one person.

This used to be the case until Kent Betts started responding to
him... aparently out of boredom. I hope he's not bored now.

You can try responding to him... but endless case histories in
psychiatry say that you will fail.

If you would like a salted-over and plowed-under scorched earth
victory, one with JTM totally crushed and recanting his evil
ways... then you'll have to do without. It'll never happen.
He's delusional. That means that _he_ believes the crap he posts...

If a newbie asks questions, they can be answered.

If JTM tries to string the newbie along then the entirety of JTM's
lunatic theories can now easily be accessed via Google.

And give the newbies credit... they're generally as smart as the
average human

--
Chuck Stewart
"Anime-style catgirls: Threat? Menace? Or just studying algebra?"

"John Maxson" wrote:

==========================
From: Jon Berndt )
Subject: 51-L Posts by Jon Berndt
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Date: 2002-05-03 11:30:05 PST

It's a gorgeous day in Iowa. Why don't you grab a coke, go outside, and
enjoy the sunlight; listen to the birds. Throw a brisket on the barbie or
something. That's what I'm doing.

Jon Berndt wrote in message
...

It's a gorgeous day in Iowa.

===================================
From: Jon Berndt )
Subject: 51-L Poll: NASA/Rogers (Original) or House (Revised)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Date: 2002-05-14 07:15:04 PST


"Paul Blay" wrote in message

A) NASA/Rogers (Original Version)
June 6, 1986 - right?

Rogers Summary, p. 76:

"The right frustum shows impact damage at top ...; evidence indicates
it was damaged when it impacted with the External Tank."

B) Final House Report, p. 78, footnote:

"It should be noted that the right Solid Rocket Booster did not swing
outward at the bottom and cause the nose of the booster to collide
with the External Tank as had originally been thought."

In either case I fail to see what the great significance of this point is.

* - I've read very few of your posts, and indeed few replies to your
posts.

In considering the dynamics of the situation and the video, I've always had
a hard time believing the original report - the degree to which the right
booster "came loose" and swung around is an important, though fine point.
I've gotta run, now, but let me say that I had always wondered if this point
was clarified further. This actually would further support the PC report
claims better. I'll elaborate later.
===========================================

"John Maxson" wrote:

Jon Berndt wrote

It's a gorgeous day in Iowa.

===================================
From: Jon Berndt )
Subject: 51-L Poll: NASA/Rogers (Original) or House (Revised)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Date: 2002-05-14 07:15:04 PST
^^^^^^^^^^

TROLL!!

Jon Berndt wrote in message
...

That's what I'm doing.

========================================
From: john_thomas_maxson )
Subject: 51-L Poll: NASA/Rogers (Original) or House (Revised)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Date: 2002-05-14 11:17:27 PST


Still afflicted by NASA's NIH (Not Invented Here)
syndrome, Burnt?

Jon Berndt wrote in message
...

In considering the dynamics of the situation and the video,
I've always had a hard time believing the original report

Always? As you know, your past posts repudiate this.

- the degree to which the right booster "came loose"
and swung around is an important,

No ****, Dick Tracy.

though fine point.

A "fine" point? Hardly.

I've gotta run, now, but let me say that I had always
wondered if this point was clarified further.

*Sure* you had -- but never *here*, until now.

This actually would further support the PC report
claims better. I'll elaborate later.

Since the PC Report makes so many conflicting claims,
you have plenty of "elaboration" to do, Burnt. Don't
forget that for you to salvage *any* credibility here,
whatever you come up with will have to be consistent
with *all* your past posts. (Mission Impossible!)

JTM
========================================
========================================
From: Jon Berndt )
Subject: 51-L Poll: NASA/Rogers (Original) or House (Revised)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Date: 2002-05-14 16:45:17 PST


"john_thomas_maxson" wrote in message

Still afflicted by NASA's NIH (Not Invented Here)
syndrome, Burnt?
...
Always? As you know, your past posts repudiate this.
...
No ****, Dick Tracy.
...
A "fine" point? Hardly.
...
*Sure* you had -- but never *here*, until now.
...
Since the PC Report makes so many conflicting claims,
you have plenty of "elaboration" to do, Burnt. Don't
forget that for you to salvage *any* credibility here,
whatever you come up with will have to be consistent
with *all* your past posts. (Mission Impossible!)

JTM

You never cease to fail to amaze me, John. You have raised the art of
evasion and name-calling to new depths. Every time someone brings up a new
flaw (to the many already voiced here) in your "theory", what passes for
your mind morphs your "reality" so you can survive in your cocoon of
fabrications.

The hammer will fall on those fabrications soon enough ...

Jon
========================================

"John Maxson" wrote in message

Since the PC Report makes so many conflicting claims,
you have plenty of "elaboration" to do, Burnt. Don't
forget that for you to salvage *any* credibility here,
whatever you come up with will have to be consistent
with *all* your past posts. (Mission Impossible!)

JTM

I have to be consistent with ideas expressed here over a year ago?

A lot of people here have ideas coming into this argument. Many are digging
into the documentation and evidence, and are learning that maybe their
original impressions were mistaken to one degree or another. I have made
mistakes, and I have admitted them. I have also done the research, and
learned new things, and altered my early perceptions. It's all part of the
learning process.

Admitting one's mistakes isn't always easy, but research is an ongoing
process. You should try it sometime.

I think the only one who has been completely consistent here is you -
consistently hardheaded, consistently failing to admit your mistakes,
consistently failing to learn, and consistently never ceasing in failing to
amaze people. I could sit here and keep myself occupied for days reposting
your past posts, illustrating your lack of background in flight dynamics,
physics, gravity, shuttle ascent flight dynamics, etc. But most of us who
have been here for years already know that. I've posted what I have learned
in two years of intense study he

http://home.houston.rr.com/fancijon/conspiracy.pdf

If you find fault with it, let me know, and be prepared to provide proof. We
still haven't see any proof here after two years of posting, and in your
book. Like I said the other day, your book reads like Dr. Suess as far as
what should be technical discussions go. You continue to ignore the question
of how the SRBs could have crossed - a *mathematical*, *physical*
discussion. You can't do it, can you?

Stop your whining about past posts, I don't want to hear your belly-aching
anymore. I told you to go outside and play. If you continue to stomp your
feet, you're going straight to your room and you'll be grounded from the
Internet for two weeks, old man. This tying on of a cape and playing Super
Johnny WhistleBlower has got to stop.

I thought you were out on the barbie. What happened?

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



Jon Berndt wrote in message
...

This tying on of a cape and playing Super Johnny
WhistleBlower has got to stop.

=====================================
From: Jon Berndt )
Subject: Kill-File Gambit Fails -- Again and Again
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Date: 2002-05-15 17:45:12 PST


"Douglas Ellison" wrote in message

Well - no, not really.

I dont know about anyone else - but my facination with what you say is
more
akin to looking at the way monkey's behave at the zoo.

Doug

Ha! If I were smarter I'd just drop this, too. For one reason or another I
can't let misinformation lie; like the "Moon Hoax" guy and JTM. It's a
personality flaw, I guess.

Jon
======================================

On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 12:14:19 -0500, "Jon Berndt"
wrote:

Like I said the other day, your book reads like Dr. Suess as far as
what should be technical discussions go.

....Man, if this ever was a cue for Pat Flannery, I dunno what is.

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

OM om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org
wrote in message ...

...Man, if this ever was a cue for Pat Flannery, I dunno what is.

===========================================
From: Jon Berndt )
Subject: Pictures posted
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Date: 2002-05-03 19:00:08 PST


FWIW, I have posted some scans of pictures in 1986 issues of Aviation Week
and Space Technology. Some of you might find these interesting:

1) This is the test referred to earlier in one of my posts where Thiokol
duplicated the failure mode of the SRB joint for the 51-L flight (11/1986):

http://www.hal-pc.org/~jsb/Photos/SRBTest.png

Look familiar?

2) This picture is taken during ascent and shows clearly the flare emanating
from the right SRB where the burn-through occurred (the left wing of
Challenger is visible):

http://www.hal-pc.org/~jsb/Photos/Flare.png

3) This shows the SRBs as they fly out of the vapor cloud:

http://www.hal-pc.org/~jsb/Photos/SRBs.png

Note that in picture #2, above, it was not possible to see the black ID band
on the left booster. In this photograph you can barely make out the black ID
band (it's much easier in the printed copy). Also note the pattern and angle
of the plume emanating from the SRB in the left side of the photograph, as
well as the sunlight angle. Contrast this with:

http://www.mission51l.com/art/719_45.jpg

I'm making no judgements here, but am interested in the opinions of others
(obviously the pictures must have been taken with different cameras).

4) This picture was near the time of the above #3 (roughly). Again, in the
printed copy the ID band is clearly visible:

http://www.hal-pc.org/~jsb/Photos/LeftSRB.png

Jon
==================================
==================================
From: Mike Speegle )
Subject: Pictures posted
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Date: 2002-05-19 12:42:20 PST


"Jon Berndt" wrote in message
...
"Jon Berndt" wrote:

Note that in picture #2, above, it was not possible to see the black ID
band
on the left booster. In this photograph you can barely make out the
black ID
band (it's much easier in the printed copy). Also note the pattern and
angle
of the plume emanating from the SRB in the left side of the photograph,
as
well as the sunlight angle. Contrast this with:

BTW, the black ID band can barely be made out in this different pictu


http://www.ksc.nasa.gov/mirrors/imag...1L/10062381.jp
g

Jon, he has a photo in his book similar to this one (rather
close in time-frame). I asked why he ignores the i.d. band and he
calls me a liar. ??? He will refuse to discuss with you until you
can *prove* your qualifications to *even* ask the question. And
then he refuses to discuss pictures in a text only medium. No
matter how many facts you post and how many documents you quote, you
are part of the conspiracy and can not be trusted. His mind is made
up. Now about a ride on those black helicopters? ;-)
--
Mike
==============================
==============================
From: john_thomas_maxson )
Subject: Pictures posted
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Date: 2002-05-19 13:33:47 PST


To repeat, the ID band is on the *left* SRB.

Mike Speegle wrote in message
...

I asked why he ignores the i.d. band and he calls me a liar.

You mean the right frustum-separation ring, of course:

http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q...&as_ugroup= s
ci.space.shuttle&lr=&as_scoring=d&hl=en

JTM

================================
================================
From: Jon Berndt )
Subject: Pictures posted
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Date: 2002-05-19 21:45:05 PST


Now about a ride on those black helicopters? ;-)

Shhhhh! That's a secret. However, I have been cleared by the agents to
release this previously secret photo of an unmarked shuttle in a test of the
SRB shutdown capability:

http://www.hal-pc.org/~jsb/shuttleSRB.jpg

snicker

Jon
==============================