Burnt Barbecue (Texas-Style)

======================================
From: john_thomas_maxson )
Subject: A Challenge to Jon Berndt
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Date: 2002-05-05 07:55:55 PST


Jon, you've made many claims about your prowess in simulation.
You've also demonstrated your ability to use a scanner to place
Av Week images on your website. In addition, you've made a
lot of claims about your superiority as an aerospace engineer.

I don't believe that you are capable (even with help from Jorge,
Roger, Daniel, and Henry) of sitting down with paper and pencil,
drawing out top, side, and end (frontal) views for the path you
claim the 51-L boosters took through the fireball (ie., the right
SRB swinging out at the bottom and nosing into the LOX tank,
exiting as shown by the totality of NASA's photos), and then
placing those three engineering drawings on the web to prove
your point (that there was no 'before vs. after' transposition of
the 51-L boosters. Put them up or shut up; that's how I see it.

JTM
=======================================
From: john_thomas_maxson )
Subject: A Challenge to Jon Berndt
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Date: 2002-05-05 11:41:48 PST


Promises, promises! Can't even scan in three sketches?
(You could handle the scanning, not the sketches.)

Jon Berndt
wrote in message ...

I've actually been considering this for some time. Actually something
better
than this. All the tools are there on the web as open source projects.
I've
got the 3D model (www.hal-pc.org/~jsb/shuttlepov.html) - there are
probably
better ones out there. I've got a flight dynamics model (not really meant
for orbital flight simulation at all, but it would suffice for short
periods
of atmospheric flight) at http://jsbsim.sf.net and www.flightgear.org.
I've
got a copy of digital DATCOM to help in determining the aero coefficients.
There's the open source ray tracing software at www.povray.org, and Dave's
targa animator to splice the pictures together into a movie. Given the
photographic evidence it ought to be able to put together a movie of what
happened. However, I am almost sure I recollect this being done before by
someone related to the investigation. I also have four small children to
deal with, a house that is being partly renovated/repaired, the role of
supporting the simulation software that bears my initials, as well as a
regular day job in a simulation job related to shuttle flight. I may take
you up on that challenge, as I planned on doing it anyways, but it will be
on my own schedule, if at all. Until then, I'll post insights I have
whether
you like it or not.

My, my, doesn't life get complicated when you have to
put your money where your mouth is?

JTM
====================================
From: Jon Berndt )
Subject: A Challenge to Jon Berndt
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Date: 2002-05-05 21:30:08 PST


"john_thomas_maxson" wrote in

For those who have not read my book, I would just like
to say something here. Amidst all the deplorable clamor
about failure to put my book on the web (with all of it's
many illustrations), no one has ever commented about
my years of living below the poverty level. No one has
ever commented about how (unlike the Rogers Summary)
every one of my book's images is annotated as to time
and camera number (with maps giving all their positions).

I have said repeatedly that my book is non-profit and
that I don't care if anyone in the group buys it. I know
better than anyone else what the interest is in what I
post, and *by far* the majority of it comes from those
who never post. They just enjoy reading about our
space shuttle. Give them a chance to cut through the
flak, and it might help your jobs. (I'm retired.)

You've apparently spent an awful lot of time, effort, and money in preparing
this book. There is probably a lot of good information in it. But, I think
perhaps one of the roots of the problem is that the title, your web page,
and your marketing approach dooms it to failure. If it was devoted to
presenting the information objectively and without pretense [instead of the
extreme prejudice you reveal quite blatantly, here] I wonder if you might
have a moderately successful book on your hands. As it is, the accusations
of cover-up and conspiracy (rightly or wrongly) make it *appear* like any
other sensational book of the week, and you've lost credibility before
anyone even gives you a chance.

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

Ask yourself, *whose* "extreme prejudice?"

=================================
From: Jon Berndt )
Subject: Book review, Pt. II
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Date: 2002-05-23 19:00:04 PST


Wow. What a day for s.s.s. I just got home shortly ago and finished dinner.

I've been thinking about the review I am in the process of writing. This is
difficult to do on one hand because I know how much time and money and hard
work JTM has invested in this. And I am sure it is all for what he believes
is a good cause. I admire his tenacity on one hand, but on the other hand I
have felt as though there has been little *give* in the "give and take" that
has been ongoing for so long; so little acceptance for views that are
different than those presented in "the book" (little "b"). Well, the shoe is
on the other foot, now.

Overall, there is an analogy that comes to my mind when I read through this
book. There is an idea presented that is very captivating to all, but it
seems fundamentally flawed. We've all heard about Area 51. There are many
who believe an alien spacecraft crashed there (or was it Roswell?) some time
ago. A whole culture is built up around that belief. But the fundamental
flaw is this: would a race that has the unbelievable technological prowess
to travel perhaps hundreds of light years arrive here only to smack into
some nondescript rest area off the highway?

Likewise, I am struck by the small details that are woven together in a tale
of intrigue and deception. For all I know at times I could be reading a Tom
Clancy novel except ... it's no Tom Clancy novel. For instance, the author
states that he was gathering signatures for a petition at the Fashion Square
Mall in Orlando. He further states that mall security there asked him to
leave, advising him to perhaps try the Colonial Mall. "As I walked over
there I was shadowed by a helicopter hovering overhead. It was a scene that
would often be repeated during my coming crusade." Fascinating reading, to
be sure. An exaggeration? We didn't live it. I'll never look at a helicopter
the same way...

[cool. as i write this i just watched one of my two four month old boys roll
over onto his stomach for the first time]

Back to the launch. The book provides a lot of details of the authors
impressions of the launch. Some of those impressions were surprising to me.
One such example describes what some of the cameras recorded as the stack
began its roll program: "... cameras ... revealed hydrogen expulsion and a
bright fire below the aft dome." I looked at the supplied pictures. I've
seen the videos. I, personally, saw no evidence of "fire". However, there is
a phenomena that can be seen during each launch. You can duplicate this
effect by simply lifting the lid off a pot of boiling Idaho potatoes. The
steam follows the lid. Or lift the lid off a barbecue next time you're
grilling some Texas sized steaks. The smoke follows the lid. It's a great
illustration of the aerodynamic phenomena of entrainment and recirculation.

A couple of pages later there is a picture showing the visible manifestation
of a shock wave traveling over the surface of the orbiter and SRBs. Many of
us have seen a similar phenomena at airshows. Condensation can be coaxed out
of the air in some wonderful patterns about aircraft. The caption on this
particular picture is "Unusual Effects (M-4 at t+48)".

As I read there are further revelations of "disinformation", creative
enhancements, and "misrepresented selected optics from several cameras". Who
knew? One such example was an underexposed ("grossly underexposed") view
from E207 at t+59 (*just* prior to when the flare is visible at the aft
lower RSRB attachment). The book claims that "... at throttleup there was a
large orange glow on the right RCS stinger". I found it interesting that the
author would describe what was obviously the SRB plume reflection off the
RCS stinger as an orange "glow" which gives the impression that the RCS
stinger itself was the source of the glow.

More to come shortly ...
===============================================
===============================================
From: john_thomas_maxson )
Subject: Book review, Pt. II
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Date: 2002-05-24 05:36:55 PST


You and the maggot won't gain from this abortion, Burnt.

Jon Berndt wrote in message
...

One such example describes what some of the cameras recorded
as the stack began its roll program: "... cameras ... revealed hydrogen
expulsion and a bright fire below the aft dome." I looked at the supplied
pictures. I've seen the videos. I, personally, saw no evidence of "fire".

Not even with all that black smoke coming off the aft dome?
Even children know that "where there's smoke, there's fire."

A couple of pages later there is a picture showing the visible
manifestation
of a shock wave traveling over the surface of the orbiter and SRBs.

One described as being abnormally *long*, among other things.

JTM
=================================
=================================
From: Jon Berndt )
Subject: Book review, Pt. III
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Date: 2002-05-23 19:30:03 PST


The period just before the disintegration of the stack is described in much
detail, as well. Explanations are provided for SRB motions and effects. I
found a couple of lines herevery interesting. The book describes the SRBs,
having at first only partially separated, stressing and severing the aft
attach band. Then, "... the orbiter's tail swung around to the north
somewhat (Figures 90-93)." I looked at Figures 90-93 to find a very bright
series of plumes but no indication of what they were supposed to show. The
most interesting thing about those pictures, however, was the caption. These
photos were sequentially time-stamped from t+73.20 to 73.33. I wondered how
much the tail of the orbiter could swing around in 13/100 seconds.
Immediately following that, there was a further revelation I had not been
aware of: "There had been insufficient main engine power for a return trip
to Kennedy, and even the fast sep was failing". I went back a few pages and
reread to find that the author claims that a fast sep was in progress at
t+73.3 seconds. I question whether this can be supported in any way
whatsoever from crew transcripts, telemetry, or any means whatsoever. If a
so-called fast sep was ever considered, one would think that the pilot or
commander would have uttered "uh-oh" long before it was actually heard. A
fast sep is just plain unsurvivable in first stage. And everyone knows it.

At this point the reviewer started to get writer's cramp and decided to quit
for the night. On to the videotapes.
=========================================

"Explanations are provided for SRB motions and effects."

=========================================

==========================================
From: Jon Berndt )
Subject: Book review, Pt. IV [tape review]
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Date: 2002-05-23 22:15:02 PST


Thoughts after viewing several hours worth of 51-L tapes from every angle
imaginable.

1) The book describes in several places anomalies that occurred in the TV
images during ascent. These orange glows are described as several things
including outgassings, RCS firings, etc. However, they look distinctly
similar to ghost images of the brighter SRB plume as the camera moves about.

2) In one rather remarkable camera segment just as the stack begins to
disintegrate there is a fleeting, wicked, bright flash at the far forward
portion of the ET. There seems to be a forward propogation of the explosion
or coincidental effects that make it appears as such. This further
underscored the appearance to me that there is a forward motion of the LH2
tank into the LO2 tank. With the LO2 tank under pressure, and the metal at
very cold temperatures, my impression is that when this "collision" happened
that the LO2 tank ruptured in spectacular fashion.

3) One of the camera views shows the view looking up the skirt of the SRBs,
so to speak. When the first explosive effects appear it is surprising to me
the extremely rapid outward motion of debris.

4) There is one camera view in particular that shows the SRBs moving forward
away from the cloud and nosing outwards entirely consistent with and
convincing of no crossing. I saw no evidence of booster crossing.

5) It appears as though the SRBs are neutrally stable at best, solo. It
appears as though the SRBs separate from the ET and fly forward of the
disintegrating ET while having "caught wind" or having been "blown outward"
at the nose and once they acquire an appreciable beta (sideslip) the wind
takes over and they start tumbling.
===============================================

Compare with www.challengerdisaster.info and carefully note
which booster it is (at exit) that traveled further downrange.

(Keep in mind also that the SRBs pull their thrust beam into the
LOX tank as the main engines shut down.)

See also: http://mission51l.com/chapter1.htm .

===============================================

If you really want to take this approach, John, you'll just make yourself
more unwelcome and seem more kooky. My specific answer is at bottom.

"John Maxson" wrote in message

I don't believe that you are capable (even with help from Jorge,
Roger, Daniel, and Henry) of sitting down with paper and pencil,
drawing out top, side, and end (frontal) views for the path you
claim the 51-L boosters took through the fireball (ie., the right
SRB swinging out at the bottom and nosing into the LOX tank,
exiting as shown by the totality of NASA's photos), and then
placing those three engineering drawings on the web to prove
your point (that there was no 'before vs. after' transposition of
the 51-L boosters. Put them up or shut up; that's how I see it.

JTM


John:

Been there, done that. Here's an informative post by John Thomas Maxson
(2002-10-13 07:42:41 PST - cross posted to several political newsgroups for
God-knows-why), where he also misleadingly (and illegally?) titles himself
an aerospace engineer:

==============================================
--- start JTM post ---
==============================================

[JTM] Until now, you have not demanded any more than that from me
(as the author of a *condensed* book, shorter than Rogers' own
Summary -- which also was published for *public* consumption).

Your sudden panic about "numbers" has been a diversion from
your inability to present simple, completed, 3-D sketches.

[Jon Berndt]
Oh, and by the way, here's the 3D sketches I promised I
would get to on my own time:

http://www.hal-pc.org/~jsb/SRBSep1.png
http://www.hal-pc.org/~jsb/SRBSep2.png
http://www.hal-pc.org/~jsb/SRBSep3.png
http://www.hal-pc.org/~jsb/SRBSep4.png
http://www.hal-pc.org/~jsb/SRBSep5.png
http://www.hal-pc.org/~jsb/SRBSep6.png
http://www.hal-pc.org/~jsb/SRBSep7.png
http://www.hal-pc.org/~jsb/SRBSep8.png
http://www.hal-pc.org/~jsb/SRBSep9.png
http://www.hal-pc.org/~jsb/SRBSep10.png

I'll have captions and a few more sketches when I get around to it.

[JTM] When you have your final, finished product, mail it to me certified
(with return receipt requested) for your records. That way we'll both have
some legal ground to stand on, since you refuse to post anything for the
Google Archives other than temporary links to fleeting ideas. You know,
Jon, so that we'll have dated hard-copy.

As I told you several days ago, don't expect me to play your web-page,
flame-war games by clicking on all your ever-changing dozens of 'hal-pc.org'
links. My ethics won't allow that.

[Jon] The discussion is he

http://www.hal-pc.org/~jsb/conspiracy.html

Your turn.

Jon Berndt
Aerospace Engineer

As I told you here,

http://makeashorterlink.com/?C39513812

you can skip the "Hollywood." Remember this, I'm a retired aerospace
engineer who worked hard for his education and who is proud of both his
professional ethics and his professional achievements.

==============================================
--- END JTM Post
==============================================


To which Daniel replied:

==============================================
--- Start Daniel Post ---
==============================================

Panic? You sir are the one cross-posting about Harry Truman, A Nazi, etc..
You are the one pretending not to read posts. You are the one refusing to
look at Jon's 3D drawings. Panic? JTM meet mirror... again.

Oh, and by the way, here's the 3D sketches I promised I
would get to on my own time:

snip long list of excellent work

When you have your final, finished product, mail it to me certified
(with return receipt requested) for your records. That way we'll
both have some legal ground to stand on, since you refuse to post
anything for the Google Archives other than temporary links to
fleeting ideas. You know, Jon, so that we'll have dated hard-copy.

JTM, Jon could post his binaries on Usenet, but exactly where and how would
you have Jon archive his binaries on Google? Name a binary group that is
still being archived on Google. You sir have asked for the impossible. Did
you do it on purpose? Why can't you just ask Jon to e-mail them to you in
series? That would certainly serve the legal needs you allege drive your
unwillingness to view his drawings on the web. I believe your refusal to
view Jon's drawings are highly noteworthy and it has nothing to do with
ethics, or legal documentation needs. I believe it is nothing more than a
pretextual excuse, a very thin smoke screen. I believe it is because you
can't handle the truth. Jon's drawings are excellent and you can't deal
with that reality can you?

Your "ethics won't allow that"? Oh puke. You are kidding only yourself and
I doubt you are even succeeding at that vain attempt at ego preservation.

==============================================
--- END Daniel Post ---
==============================================

==============================================
Jon answers 9-6-2003
==============================================

Of course I did post 3 view drawings. One of that series is still he

http://www.hal-pc.org/~jsb/Shuttle3View.jpg

I give numbers in my paper at:

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

I am fully prepared to discuss problems anyone has with the paper (and I
expect to be provided with proper refutation if there is one). I in fact
invite criticism of the paper and questions - perhaps there are areas where
I can make the paper stronger.

JTM, I know you are intelligent, you know the material well. I am surprised
why you are taking this approach. The questions are laid out for you as they
have been for years:

1) What are the details of the SRB crossing in your hypothesis.
2) Why is there a flare emanating from one SRB before and after the
explosion, and a clean one before and after, yet you seem to indicate that
the flare "jumped" from one SRB to the other?
3) What are your qualifications and background that you rely on for analysis
of flight dynamics? Specifics?

It's not helping your case to outright lie, and to attempt to mislead
people - which we have seen all too often (Pappy?). Can you simply answer
the questions instead of evading and throwing up smokescreens?

Jon

"John Maxson" wrote in message

I don't believe that you are capable (even with help from Jorge,
Roger, Daniel, and Henry) of sitting down with paper and pencil,
drawing out top, side, and end (frontal) views for the path you
claim the 51-L boosters took through the fireball (ie., the right
SRB swinging out at the bottom and nosing into the LOX tank,

That's not what I claim.

exiting as shown by the totality of NASA's photos), and then
placing those three engineering drawings on the web to prove
your point (that there was no 'before vs. after' transposition of
the 51-L boosters. Put them up or shut up; that's how I see it.


He can ask it, but he can't do it himself.

JTM


Furthermore, JTM, I will respond to direct technical questions from others,
but I won't expend my valuable time to chase your every diversion. The
burden of proof has always been on you, and you have failed to meet the
challenge at every step of the way. You've displayed a lack of knowledge of
the kinematics and dynamics of flight, a lack of knowledge of shuttle flight
dynamics, a total lack of being man enough to admit when you were wrong, and
so on. It would be a total waste of my time to recreate what you refused to
look at the first time I posted it. Besides, it's not necessary; as it turns
out, at least the PC Report has got that part of the investigation nailed.

You need to look squarely in the eyes of the reflection in the mirror and
ask yourself what is important, get a grip on reality, and pursue that
before it's too late.

Jon

==================================
From: john_thomas_maxson )
Subject: Has Burnt Really Lost It?
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Date: 2002-05-24 05:24:33 PST


Burnt is beyond help. That's why the maggots have arrived.

Mountain Camper -this
wrote in message ...
"john_thomas_maxson" wrote:

Jon, you need help.

He obviously got a little help from a friend ;-)

Do you think he needs more?

He uses "appears" a lot -- he sounds totally delusional.
Anyone who ignores contrail analysis is hopeless.

JTM
=====================================
From: Jon Berndt )
Subject: Has Burnt Really Lost It?
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Date: 2002-05-24 05:45:21 PST


"john_thomas_maxson" wrote in message

He uses "appears" a lot -- he sounds totally delusional.
Anyone who ignores contrail analysis is hopeless.

JTM

Things are not always what they seem. Of course, *you* can positively
identify these things. :-/

I use the word "appears" in some cases to be gentle on you.

Jon
=========================================
From: john_thomas_maxson )
Subject: The Kick of the Mule (Jack-Ass)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Date: 2002-05-27 22:24:17 PST


I believe you're in for a rude awakening.

Mountain Camper -this
wrote in message ...

So you concede that "The Cross and the Crossing"
exonerates me from *some* libel?

ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! You can't put words in my
mouth. As Greg said, you just blather. Everyone knows
it. I am absolutely *through* putting up with it. I don't
have to be crucified here by you and Burnt any longer.

My point is that you are intimidating me with public threats
of legal actions for exercising my rights to free speech.

I have threatened no one here, ever. If I'd had the money
before now, we'd be in court. I think you know that.
You're badgering me, like most of the rest have been.
I've made myself quite clear about your libel and my book.
I hope it's just a matter of time until you see me in court.

JTM
=======================================
From: Jon Berndt )
Subject: The Kick of the Mule (Jack-Ass)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Date: 2002-05-27 22:45:03 PST


"john_thomas_maxson" wrote in message

I don't have to be crucified here by you and Burnt any longer.

Well, darnit. I guess we're not going to be hearing any more of your posts
then, are we?
========================================

===============================
From: Jon Berndt )
Subject: Announcement: pending book review
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Date: 2002-05-22 22:30:04 PST


I'll be providing my impressions of JTMs book: The Betrayal of Mission 51-L"
over the next days. An early impression: it's even worse than I expected it
would be. Sorry John. In those areas dealing with photo interpretation,
there's plenty of unsupported claims, personal opinions, and just plain old
inaccuracies.

Jon
=======================================
From: john_thomas_maxson )
Subject: Announcement: pending book review
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Date: 2002-05-23 06:22:22 PST


You've been providing your corrupt, biased, and false
impressions *without reading it* for about a year and
a half. Everybody already knows where you're coming
from -- straight from Hell!

Jon Berndt wrote in message
...
I'll be providing my impressions of JTMs book: The
Betrayal of Mission 51-L" over the next days. An early
impression: it's even worse than I expected it would be.

That's impossible. *Nothing* could be that bad.

Sorry John. In those areas dealing with photo interpretation,
there's plenty of unsupported claims, personal opinions, and
just plain old inaccuracies.

Jon

Save your apologies for your children, hypocrit. "Plenty?"
Show me an autobiography without personal opinions, etc.
When you have finished reading it (the second or third time)
you *still* will not have diligently reviewed all the reels and
rolls of optics which back it up -- as I have.

You've just gone to the top of my libel list.

JTM
=============================
From: Jon Berndt )
Subject: Announcement: pending book review
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Date: 2002-05-23 07:15:20 PST


Save your apologies for your children, hypocrite. "Plenty?"
Show me an autobiography without personal opinions, etc.
When you have finished reading it (the second or third time)
you *still* will not have diligently reviewed all the reels and
rolls of optics which back it up -- as I have.

Wrong again. I also have two videotapes of the camera views for the ascent
of 51-L.

You've just gone to the top of my libel list.

Scared that the truth will come out?
========================
From: john_thomas_maxson )
Subject: Announcement: pending book review
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Date: 2002-05-23 07:48:28 PST


Huff and puff -- you're blowing your own house down.

Jon Berndt wrote in message
...

Save your apologies for your children, hypocrit. "Plenty?"
Show me an autobiography without personal opinions, etc.
When you have finished reading it (the second or third time)
you *still* will not have diligently reviewed all the reels and
rolls of optics which back it up -- as I have.

Wrong again. I also have two videotapes of the camera
views for the ascent of 51-L.

"The" camera views?

You've just gone to the top of my libel list.

Scared that the truth will come out?

It's been out -- for almost two years.
Why are you so afraid of it?

JTM
=========================
From: Jon Berndt )
Subject: Announcement: pending book review
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Date: 2002-05-23 07:45:14 PST


"Jon Berndt" wrote in message

I'll be providing my impressions of JTMs book: The Betrayal of Mission
51-L"

One thing I find interesting. On page 50 JTM states (correctly): "The thrust
from the right booster had begun to tail off perilously, well below the
consistently low thrust from the left SRB." But, no explanation is offered.
No mention of the coincidentally timed RSRB lower aft attach flare.

Later, he states that "the right booster was beginning to swing outward ...
but there was no evidence of a pernicious 'burnthrough in the right
booster'". UP TO THAT POINT (if not in the remainder of the book) NO
pictures are supplied that clearly show the orange glow at the lower aft
attachment of the right SRB. Once again, it is completely ignored. This is a
total copout. If JTM were confident of his views he would have shown
pictures illustrating the "alleged" burnthrough and explain why they did not
show what has been claimed.

This is not a surprise, however, because it is so key to his argument. Once
he makes the jump to whackospace and claims the boosters switch places
in-the-cloud all further discussion assumes the boosters have switched
regardless of the wealth of information suggesting otherwise.

more to come ...

Jon
======================================
From: john_thomas_maxson )
Subject: Announcement: pending book review
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Date: 2002-05-23 08:26:40 PST


You think "fair usage" permits misleadingly quoting
out of context, without the critical images. You
are in for a rude awakening!

"Whackospace?"

Maybe *that's* where that "orange glow" you're
looking for originated!

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

UP TO THAT POINT (if not in the remainder of the book) NO
pictures are supplied that clearly show the orange glow at the lower aft
attachment of the right SRB. Once again, it is completely ignored.
==============================================
From: Jon Berndt )
Subject: Announcement: pending book review
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Date: 2002-05-28 04:00:04 PST


"Julian Bordas" wrote in message

Jon Berndt wrote:

I'll be providing my impressions of JTMs book: The Betrayal of Mission
51-L"

You bought a copy?

No! I was loaned a copy.
=================

"John Maxson" wrote in message ...

1) The book describes in several places anomalies that occurred in the TV
images during ascent. These orange glows are described as several things
including outgassings, RCS firings, etc. However, they look distinctly
similar to ghost images of the brighter SRB plume as the camera moves about.

If 51-L had completed a normal ascent then there would be a stronger
case for "some other type of enhanced flames". The large breach
observed in the right SRB after the break-up suggests that the
possibility exists that the breach started during the initial ascent.

"John Maxson" wrote in message ...

You think "fair usage" permits misleadingly quoting
out of context, without the critical images. You
are in for a rude awakening!

No time like the present.

"Whackospace?"

Wackospace as in "No mention of the coincidentally timed RSRB lower
aft attach flare." An analysis must take into account all of the
known elements.

one month plonk Bye, Kent. Enough is enough of this Maxson rubbish and
it's time for action. Just killfile, for a month, anyone who responds to
there crazyness.

--
Alan Erskine
alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au
Where are the Weapons of Mass
Destruction, Mr Bush?

"Kent Betts" wrote in message
om...
"John Maxson" wrote in message
...

1) The book describes in several places anomalies that occurred in the
TV
images during ascent. These orange glows are described as several things
including outgassings, RCS firings, etc. However, they look distinctly
similar to ghost images of the brighter SRB plume as the camera moves
about.

If 51-L had completed a normal ascent then there would be a stronger
case for "some other type of enhanced flames". The large breach
observed in the right SRB after the break-up suggests that the
possibility exists that the breach started during the initial ascent.

"John Maxson" wrote in message news:bjdp90

From: john_thomas_maxson )
Subject: A Challenge to Jon Berndt
Date: 2002-05-05 07:55:55 PST

Jon, you've made many claims about your prowess in simulation.

I just found out today that the open source FlightGear flight
simulator was featured in comparison with X-Plane and MS Flight
Simulator in the April 2003 issue of Sport Aviation magazine
(http://www.eaa.org/benefits/sportaviation/). The flight dynamics
model that I have lead the development of over the past four years in
my spare time (JSBSim) was discussed as well. JSBSim is one of a few
flight dynamics models that can drive FlightGear - JSBSim is the
default. A few more users are listed he
http://jsbsim.sourceforge.net/users.html.

JSB