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

[John Maxson]

Giganews proudly posts/hosts Bob Mosley's ongoing abuse
for Illuminati Online, which doesn't even honor its own AUP.

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



OM <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org>
wrote in message ...
>
> ...Oh, bite me Maxson. We know it's you or one of your ******* kids.
>
>
> 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

[Scott M. Kozel]

..


You're not a "messenger", you are a conspiracy monger.




..

[John Maxson]

'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)


Scott M. Kozel > wrote
in message ...
>
> You're not a "messenger", you are a conspiracy monger.

[John Maxson]

Scott M. Kozel > wrote
in message ...
>
> What is this alleged missive,

'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)

[Scott M. Kozel]

"John Maxson" > wrote:
>
> Scott M. Kozel > wrote
>
> > What is this alleged missive,
>
> 'One-Page Technical Summary of an O-Ring Cover-Up'
> (requested by Pentagon efficiency expert A. Ernest
> Fitzgerald on July 4, 2003)

You engaged in creative snipping, ignored my questions, and merely
reposted the alleged missive!

What is this alleged missive, and where did it come from, and can you
verify its existence?

We need an explanation of what this is, and the context. Is it part of
a larger report or missive? Does is represent the opinion of A. Ernest
Fitzgerald, or did he catalog the opinion of someone else who sent the
theory to him?

I think that John Maxson needs to answer some hard questions about this
alleged missive, and that until he does that, the alleged missive should
be disregarded as without substantiation.


..

[John Maxson]

Scott M. Kozel > wrote
in message ...
>
> You engaged in creative snipping, ignored my questions,
> and merely reposted the alleged missive!

?

> What is this alleged missive, and where did it come from,
> and can you verify its existence?

Self-explanatory.

> We need an explanation of what this is, and the context.
> Is it part of a larger report or missive? Does is represent
> the opinion of A. Ernest Fitzgerald, or did he catalog the
> opinion of someone else who sent the theory to him?

Self-explanatory.

> I think that John Maxson needs to answer some hard
> questions about this alleged missive, and that until he
> does that, the alleged missive should be disregarded as
> without substantiation.

You *think*? Any proof of that?

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

[Scott M. Kozel]

"John Maxson" > wrote:
>
> Scott M. Kozel > wrote
>
> > You engaged in creative snipping, ignored my questions,
> > and merely reposted the alleged missive!
>
> ?

You engaged in creative snipping, ignored my questions,
and merely reposted the alleged missive.

> > What is this alleged missive, and where did it come from,
> > and can you verify its existence?
>
> Self-explanatory.

No it is not. All we know is that you posted something on Usenet, that
looks like some sort of acknowledgment by an outside party, of your
"booster crossing" theory.

What is this alleged missive, and where did it come from,
and can you verify its existence?

> > We need an explanation of what this is, and the context.
> > Is it part of a larger report or missive? Does is represent
> > the opinion of A. Ernest Fitzgerald, or did he catalog the
> > opinion of someone else who sent the theory to him?
>
> Self-explanatory.

Non-responsive.

We need an explanation of what this is, and the context.

Is it part of a larger report or missive?

Does is represent the opinion of A. Ernest Fitzgerald, or did he catalog
the opinion of someone else who sent the theory to him?

> > I think that John Maxson needs to answer some hard
> > questions about this alleged missive, and that until he
> > does that, the alleged missive should be disregarded as
> > without substantiation.
>
> You *think*? Any proof of that?

You're the one with the allegations. You're the one who needs to
prove. If you're going to raise serious allegations, then bar of proof
is high.


..

[Scott M. Kozel]

"John Maxson" > wrote:
>
> Take a baby step. Learn to read. Then go lecture NASA
> and Lockheed.

Take a baby step. Learn to answer direct questions. If you can't do
that then your alleged missive remains unsubstantiated.

Another sign of a conspiracy monger, is dishonest debating tactics.


All we know is that you posted something on Usenet, that looks like some
sort of acknowledgment by an outside party, of your "booster crossing"
theory.

What is this alleged missive, and where did it come from,
and can you verify its existence?

We need an explanation of what this is, and the context.

Is it part of a larger report or missive?

Does is represent the opinion of A. Ernest Fitzgerald, or did he catalog
the opinion of someone else who sent the theory to him?

You're the one with the allegations. You're the one who needs to
prove. If you're going to raise serious allegations, then bar of proof
is high.


> Scott M. Kozel > wrote
>
> > You're the one with the allegations. You're the one who
> > needs to prove. If you're going to raise serious allegations,
> > then bar of proof is high.

[Mike Speegle]

In news:Scott M. Kozel > typed:

> Take a baby step. Learn to answer direct questions. If you can't do
> that then your alleged missive remains unsubstantiated.

Scott, you've been here long enough, so <plonk> for a while until
you quit this ****. :-(
--
Mike
__________________________________________________ ______
"Colorado Ski Country, USA" Come often, Ski hard,
Spend *lots* of money, Then leave as quickly as you can.

[Scott M. Kozel]

"John Maxson" > wrote:
>
> Go lecture yourself, NASA, and Lockheed. You're all
> lecture and no discussion.

Pot, kettle, black.

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

So you say that a government employee was working on a national
holiday? He he!

By the way, is this the A. Ernest Fitzgerald that you are referring
to -- http://www.af.mil/bios/bio_5423.shtml -- ??

He came up at the top of a Google search.

"A. Ernest Fitzgerald, a member of the Senior Executive Service, is
management systems deputy, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air
Force for Financial Management and Comptroller, Headquarters U.S. Air
Force, Washington, D.C."

SMK: His office location would undoubtedly be at the Pentagon, but I
rather doubt that himself or others in the industry would refer to him
as an "efficiency expert". He sounds like a program manager.

For anyone who is interested, an inquiry could be made as to whether
this man is indeed the author or compiler of JTM's alleged missive, and
to provide verification as to the context and body of any such
communication.


> Scott M. Kozel > wrote:
>
> > Learn to answer direct questions. If you can't do
> > that then your alleged missive remains unsubstantiated.

[Jon Berndt]

"Mike Speegle" > wrote in message

> In news:Scott M. Kozel > typed:
>
> > Take a baby step. Learn to answer direct questions. If you can't do
> > that then your alleged missive remains unsubstantiated.
>
> Scott, you've been here long enough, so <plonk> for a while until
> you quit this ****. :-(
> --
> Mike


john thomas maxson will never, never give up. He's a very sick individual.
He simply has too much invested to ever see the light, or admit he's wrong.
This ceased to be a two way discussion long ago. The arguments he uses are
simply a joke, he ignores evidence he doesn't like, he hijacks the
reputations of experts who prematurely made snap interpretations when
prodded by the media on 1/28/85 - experts even make mistakes. john maxson
has little understanding of the laws of physics - you guys KNOW all this.
His book is a complete tour de farce of hand waving bull****. I have to
heartily agree with Mike on the <plonk> approach. john maxson has got his
mind (what remains of it) made up.

[Rand Simberg]

On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 16:29:03 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Jon
Berndt" > made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

>he hijacks the
>reputations of experts who prematurely made snap interpretations when
>prodded by the media on 1/28/85

They (including the media) must have been quite prescient... ;-)

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

[John Maxson]

Since Jon Berndt insists on libeling and defaming me:

======================================
'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)
===============================

Jon Berndt > wrote in message
...
>
> john thomas maxson will never, never give up. He's a very sick
individual.
> He simply has too much invested to ever see the light, or admit he's
wrong.
> This ceased to be a two way discussion long ago. The arguments he uses
are
> simply a joke, he ignores evidence he doesn't like, he hijacks the
> reputations of experts who prematurely made snap interpretations when
> prodded by the media on 1/28/85 - experts even make mistakes. john maxson
> has little understanding of the laws of physics - you guys KNOW all this.
> His book is a complete tour de farce of hand waving bull****. I have to
> heartily agree with Mike on the <plonk> approach. john maxson has got his
> mind (what remains of it) made up.

[Jon Berndt]

"Rand Simberg" > wrote in message

> On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 16:29:03 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Jon
> Berndt" > made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
> such a way as to indicate that:
>
> >he hijacks the
> >reputations of experts who prematurely made snap interpretations when
> >prodded by the media on 1/28/85
>
> They (including the media) must have been quite prescient... ;-)


<hearty laugh>

I hate it when that happens.

Actually, it wasn't me that made that post ... yeah, that's the ticket...

[Charleston]

Oh it was the other John? ;-)

Daniel


"Jon Berndt" > wrote in message
...
> "Rand Simberg" > wrote in message
>
> > On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 16:29:03 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Jon
> > Berndt" > made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
> > such a way as to indicate that:
> >
> > >he hijacks the
> > >reputations of experts who prematurely made snap interpretations when
> > >prodded by the media on 1/28/85
> >
> > They (including the media) must have been quite prescient... ;-)
>
>
> <hearty laugh>
>
> I hate it when that happens.
>
> Actually, it wasn't me that made that post ... yeah, that's the ticket...
>
>
>

[Paul Maxson]

The Human O-Ring is a breeding ground for libel.

OM <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org>
wrote in message ...
>
> ...Oh, bite me Maxson. We know it's you or one of your ******* kids.

Who is "we" Bob? Everyone who is part of the "we" above please say Aye.

Prove it Bob Mosley. Prove it to be true or it's libel damaging my
reputation.

Co workers and friends have become interested in this Columbia story and
what appears to be some disinformation during a lull in what we normally due
at work. Then they read that I am a ******* forging headers, then they tell
my boss?

Prove it to be true Bob and quit using your sock puppets and behind the
scenes
email friends to do your dirty work and spread your lies before you become
case law.

Be a man and tell the truth. You know it's not me but you want others to
think it's me
and despite years of people telling you to drop the Maxson campaign you
never will
even if it means destroying what could be a good newsgroup. You didn't care
on sci.space.history
and ran people out of there and filled it with trolls and now you are
helping do the same thing here.

Paul Maxson


"John Maxson" > wrote in message
...
> Giganews proudly posts/hosts Bob Mosley's ongoing abuse
> for Illuminati Online, which doesn't even honor its own AUP.
>
> --
> John Thomas Maxson, Retired Engineer (Aerospace)
> Author, The Betrayal of Mission 51-L (www.mission51l.com)
>
>
>
> OM <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org>
> wrote in message ...
> >
> > ...Oh, bite me Maxson. We know it's you or one of your ******* kids.
> >
> >
> > 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
>
>

[Charleston]

"Scott M. Kozel" > wrote in message
...

> So you say that a government employee was working on a national
> holiday? He he!

No, that is an asssumption on your part.

> By the way, is this the A. Ernest Fitzgerald that you are referring
> to -- http://www.af.mil/bios/bio_5423.shtml -- ??

Yes, that is the man. He is extremely well respected in Washington D.C. as
having uncompromising values and impeccable credentials. He was actually
fired by then President Richard Nixon for blowing the whistle on the C-5
Galaxy project. Mr. Fitzgerald took the President to court for ordering his
termination. When he lost in Federal court on appeal (IIRC), his lawyers
abandoned him. He went on to win his case when of all things, drum roll
please, President Nixon audiotaped the conversation ordering Mr.
Fitzgerald's termination. Well Fitzgerald ultimately got the tape and the
President then lost and had to pay Fitzgerald somewhere around $140,000,
which was a lot back then. He is above reproach, and it does not surprise
me that he would ask for a one page account of John Maxson's explanation of
the Challenger accident, especially in the middle of the current Space
Shuttle Columbia saga. Few Senators or Congressmen will read more than one
page of such a report and it is my guess that a Senator will read the
summary posted on this thread.

His book about his own involvement in fraud against the government is called
"The High Priests of Waste", a direct referral to the almost cult-like
religion that is practiced by some contractors in bilking the U.S. taxpayers
out of a whole lot of money.

> He came up at the top of a Google search.

No surprise there.

Daniel

[Scott M. Kozel]

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

You have already reposted this alleged missive numerous times, and you
have utterly failed to answer the questions that I have asked you about
it.

The questions are in other posts right in this thread, today.


..

[Scott M. Kozel]

"Jon Berndt" > wrote:
>
> "Mike Speegle" > wrote
> > In news:Scott M. Kozel > typed:
> >
> > > Take a baby step. Learn to answer direct questions. If you can't do
> > > that then your alleged missive remains unsubstantiated.
> >
> > Scott, you've been here long enough, so <plonk> for a while until
> > you quit this ****. :-(
>
> john thomas maxson will never, never give up. He's a very sick individual.
> He simply has too much invested to ever see the light, or admit he's wrong.

Irresistible force meets immovable object...

JTM should disabuse himself of the notion that other stakeholders should
give in to his conspiracy theories.



> This ceased to be a two way discussion long ago. The arguments he uses are
> simply a joke, he ignores evidence he doesn't like, he hijacks the
> reputations of experts who prematurely made snap interpretations when
> prodded by the media on 1/28/85 - experts even make mistakes. john maxson
> has little understanding of the laws of physics - you guys KNOW all this.
> His book is a complete tour de farce of hand waving bull****. I have to
> heartily agree with Mike on the <plonk> approach. john maxson has got his
> mind (what remains of it) made up.

[John Maxson]

Learn to read, Kozel.

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



Scott M. Kozel > wrote
in message ...
>
> You have already reposted this alleged missive numerous
> times, and you have utterly failed to answer the questions
> that I have asked you about it.
>
> The questions are in other posts right in this thread, today.

[Scott M. Kozel]

"Charleston" > wrote:
>
> "Scott M. Kozel" > wrote:
>
> > So you say that a government employee was working on a national
> > holiday? He he!
>
> No, that is an asssumption on your part.

I was just commenting on the JTM claim that the man wrote the letter on
July 4th 2003.

The webpage said "Current as of June 1999" and his bio indicated that he
was working at the Pentagton for the U.S. Air Force.

Is he still working there?

> > By the way, is this the A. Ernest Fitzgerald that you are referring
> > to -- http://www.af.mil/bios/bio_5423.shtml -- ??
>
> Yes, that is the man. He is extremely well respected in Washington D.C. as
> having uncompromising values and impeccable credentials. He was actually
> fired by then President Richard Nixon for blowing the whistle on the C-5
> Galaxy project. Mr. Fitzgerald took the President to court for ordering his
> termination. When he lost in Federal court on appeal (IIRC), his lawyers
> abandoned him. He went on to win his case when of all things, drum roll
> please, President Nixon audiotaped the conversation ordering Mr.
> Fitzgerald's termination. Well Fitzgerald ultimately got the tape and the
> President then lost and had to pay Fitzgerald somewhere around $140,000,
> which was a lot back then.

His bio indicates that he worked 1965-1970 and 1973-present(at least
1999) for the U.S. Air Force.

> He is above reproach, and it does not surprise
> me that he would ask for a one page account of John Maxson's explanation of
> the Challenger accident, especially in the middle of the current Space
> Shuttle Columbia saga. Few Senators or Congressmen will read more than one
> page of such a report and it is my guess that a Senator will read the
> summary posted on this thread.

That was what I was trying to ascertain, what was the context of the
alleged missive that JTM has posted over and over.

Your explanation above says that Fitzgerald merely cataloged the JTM
explanation of 51-L, without necessarily agreeing with any of it. That
makes perfect sense to me.

> His book about his own involvement in fraud against the government is called
> "The High Priests of Waste", a direct referral to the almost cult-like
> religion that is practiced by some contractors in bilking the U.S. taxpayers
> out of a whole lot of money.

Thanks for the explanation!


..

[Sander Vesik]

In sci.space.policy John Maxson > wrote:
> Since Jon Berndt insists on libeling and defaming me:
>

What Idon't understand is why you had to *yet again* post that
onepager. WHY? And it not only is not a relevant answer to his
mail, it sort of proves his point.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

[John Maxson]

Sander Vesik > wrote in message
...
>
> What Idon't understand is why you had to *yet again* post
> that onepager. WHY?

Well, if you lived in this country, I'd have to say that you
seem to be a slow learner like Berndt. However, I remember
that you or those you know have been visiting my website
for quite some time, long before Columbia's loss. I also
recall that you or your group is involved in education.

Therefore I will try to explain to you a little bit about our
political and educational systems. Our political systems
inundate their opponents and their electorates redundantly
with propaganda, in hopes that the party spending the most
money in that manner will win. So we fight fire with fire.

Our educational systems teach that in order to reach slow
learners, redundancy should be employed. Here I'm both
trying to reach slow learners and combat the ills of our
corrupt political systems. Thanks for listening.

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

[Rhonda Lea Kirk]

Paul Maxson wrote:
> OM wrote:

>> ...Oh, bite me Maxson. We know it's you or one of your
>> ******* kids.
>
> Who is "we" Bob? Everyone who is part of the "we" above
> please say Aye.

*I* know it isn't you, Max. And it isn't your father and it
isn't your brother.

And if no one here is willing to look a little more
carefully, there will never be an end to this plague on
sci.space.

rl

[Kevin Willoughby]

Paul Maxson said:
> The Human O-Ring is a breeding ground for libel.
>
> OM <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org>
> wrote in message ...
> >
> > ...Oh, bite me Maxson.

Thanks, OM. All this group needed was an excuse to get Paul Maxson
posting here again. Haven't you yet learned that he behaves non-
lineally to anything he considers libel? Or do you just enjoy taunting
the handicapped?
--
Kevin Willoughby

We'd spend the remaining time trying to fix the engine.
-- Neil Armstrong

[Rick C]

"Paul Maxson" > wrote in message
news:%C%Pa.46691$N7.6060@sccrnsc03...

> Who is "we" Bob? Everyone who is part of the "we" above please say Aye.

Geez, Paul. Just ignore OM. It's just not worth it.

[Rick C]

"Scott M. Kozel" > wrote in message
...
> Irresistible force meets immovable object...

Yes, well, killfiling John isn't enough to make me not have to hear him, so
into the killfile *you* go.

[OM]

On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 20:42:12 -0400, "Rhonda Lea Kirk"
> wrote:

>*I* know it isn't you, Max. And it isn't your father and it
>isn't your brother.

....Who cares? All the Maxson trash are in killfile hell where their
lying asses belong. Let'em threaten to sue me all they want. Can't sue
if they don't have a legal leg to stand on, especially after all the
crap Paul pulled two years ago. The whole *family* has such a ****ed
track record that no court in the land would side with them, no matter
how many kangaroos are on the jury or behind the bench.

....So go **** yourself, Paul. And the father who rode in on you.
You're not worth my time or effort, and the sooner your entire
dessicated family shrub drops dead the better off usenet and the world
as a whole will be. You may have fooled Rhonda with your "poor little
abused me!" act, but the rest of us - yes, *us*, you pedantic
misanthropic excuse for a "hire-a-cop" - don't believe a single
****ing word of it.

Not. One. Iota. Period.


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]

On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 16:29:03 -0500, "Jon Berndt" >
wrote:

>john thomas maxson will never, never give up. He's a very sick individual.
>He simply has too much invested to ever see the light, or admit he's wrong.
>This ceased to be a two way discussion long ago. The arguments he uses are
>simply a joke, he ignores evidence he doesn't like, he hijacks the
>reputations of experts who prematurely made snap interpretations when
>prodded by the media on 1/28/85 - experts even make mistakes. john maxson
>has little understanding of the laws of physics - you guys KNOW all this.
>His book is a complete tour de farce of hand waving bull****. I have to
>heartily agree with Mike on the <plonk> approach. john maxson has got his
>mind (what remains of it) made up.

....Which is why this evening I put Scott Kozel in killfile hell for 30
days in hopes that by the end of that period he will have gotten the
message and done the same to all of the Maxson inbreds on a more
permanent basis.

Sorry, Scott, but enough is enough. See you in 30...


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

[Rick C]

"Charleston" > wrote in message
news:ZD6Qa.7719$zy.7283@fed1read06...

> Kevin your post seems to suggest that OM's behavior as disgusting as it
has
> been
> lately is acceptable while Paul's behavior though commendable in its
> restraint and civil tone is unacceptable.

*shrug* I think OM's behavior is pretty bad too. Then again, except when
I'm subjected to threads relatively wildly crosposted into .history, I don't
have to read anything by him.