In Pappy's Own Words

[John Maxson]

Jon Berndt > wrote in message
...
>
> I managed to track down Mr. Papadakis,

Big deal. The last I heard, he'd moved from Houston to Austin.

> His answers shed a LOT of *light* on Mr. Maxson's claim,
> and tells us "the rest of the story".

It tells you very little, other than Myron's revised but jaundiced
opinion. (Is he off the Scotch yet?)

> "Only when the 154 film from theodolites are studied do you
> get clear enough pictures to see the lower rocket really does
> have the stripe."

"The 154 film?" What planet is he on?

Clearly, camera E202 shows that it has a frustum separation ring.
Copying film doesn't change proportion to *that* extent!

> "The upper rockets black line is shown in this film to actually
> be caused by the frustrum that is displaced and causing a dark
> shadow where a stripe would be."

Sure, and I know where there is some good ocean-front property
in Clear Lake, Iowa.

There is no way in the world anyone is going to convince me that
a displaced frustum and a sun shadow cause the black ID band
visible in more than 30 frames of rotating left booster seen here:

www.mission51l.com/apreview.htm

> The fact that John Maxson's FOIA copies are poorly printed
> (overexposed) explains a lot.

It shows you exactly how devious and deceitful NASA is (not to
mention that Jon Berndt is the same way).

> But, this shows that his use of the words of others is at least
> sometimes twisted and incomplete, in order to paint the picture
> he wants to paint.

You are a liar, Berndt. You don't know one percent of the story.
On January 5, 1989, some time before traveling to KSC for his
oft-delayed screening (from the Reagan administration into the
Bush administration), Pappy called me to say:

"I don't trust NASA to show us the originals. They've had
a *year* to 'prepare' a film. Now they're claiming they're
having 'flickering' problems."

Papadakis betrayed me. I was told on good authority that it would
make my case even stronger, and it has. Howard Acosta told me
no light table was used, and that the film was run through very fast
(no time for "studying").

They were looking for dozens of things, not just the ID band. In
all cases, Charlie Stevenson gave them an excuse or interpretation
to twist what the Commission reported 180 degrees out of phase.

> CASE CLOSED

Sorry, BBR, it doesn't work that way. You're not Judge Roy Bean;
you simply have delusions that you are.

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

[Jon Berndt]

"John Maxson" > wrote in message

> Jon Berndt > wrote in message

> It tells you very little, other than Myron's revised but jaundiced
> opinion. (Is he off the Scotch yet?)

You are so predictable. So deluded. So tragic.

> Sure, and I know where there is some good ocean-front property
> in Clear Lake, Iowa.

Trying to dump it on someone else, eh?

> There is no way in the world anyone is going to convince me that
> a displaced frustum and a sun shadow cause the black ID band
> visible in more than 30 frames of rotating left booster seen here:

We know. You're hopeless, you're not an engineer, you can't do basic
engineering calculations. You've got a history of misusing quotes, twisting
them, and holding back information, as we have just seen.

> www.mission51l.com/apreview.htm
>
> > The fact that John Maxson's FOIA copies are poorly printed
> > (overexposed) explains a lot.
>
> It shows you exactly how devious and deceitful NASA is (not to
> mention that Jon Berndt is the same way).

You just can't handle that you made a big mistake. How typical of you! "Only
*my* evidence is any good!" he says. "Just a flesh wound", he says!

> Papadakis betrayed me. I was told on good authority that it would
> make my case even stronger, and it has. Howard Acosta told me
> no light table was used, and that the film was run through very fast
> (no time for "studying").

Hmmm. I wonder what Mr. Acosta would have to say:



> > CASE CLOSED
>
> Sorry, BBR, it doesn't work that way. You're not Judge Roy Bean;
> you simply have delusions that you are.

You always resort to name-calling when you've lost. You're no engineer, Mr.
J. Maxson.

CASE CLOSED.

Jon

[John Maxson]

Jon Berndt > wrote in message
...
> "John Maxson" > wrote in message
> > Jon Berndt > wrote in message
>
> > It tells you very little, other than Myron's revised but jaundiced
> > opinion. (Is he off the Scotch yet?)
>
> You are so predictable. So deluded. So tragic.

No, I'm just extremely well documented but very poor from
Lockheed's ***kill*** the messenger campaign. I could
quote Papadakis supporting me till the cows come home.
He frankly admitted that Senator Proxmire had **nothing**
to do with helping them get to see the (ha-ha) "original" film.

When push came to shove, Pappy got pushed and told me
to shove it. What can you expect from a guy who wrote the
first "SRB burnthrough" story for the Houston Chronicle?
(I'm dead serious about his over indulgence in Scotch, too.)

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

[Kent Betts]

"Jon Berndt"
> You are so predictable. So deluded. So tragic.

Is there some point when we can expect for you to give this topic a rest?

[Charleston]

"Jon Berndt" > wrote in message
...

> When I spoke with him he remembered lots of details - even page numbers
from
> the Rogers Report.

Reading all of that material, and seeing all of the video and some film
leaves an indelible imprint on your mind. It is unlike anything I have ever
studied in my life. It is why I have been able to quote info from written
sources on the accident fairly frequently and fairly accurately FWIW.

>
Daniel
Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC

[Charleston]

"John Maxson" > wrote in message
...
> Jon Berndt > wrote in message

> > Squirm all you want, John Maxson, the truth is revealed in
> > your own words, and from your own sources.
>
> It takes a worm to squirm, Burnt. That's you -- and Dan.

This from a man who has withheld the truth about Pappy all these years?
Leave me alone.

--

Daniel
Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC

[John Maxson]

This from the son who has constantly belittled and defamed
me? The one who won't own up to his own admission of early
knowledge (from O'Connor) of the fireball crossing? I'll have
plenty more to say here about what you've tried to do to me.

Don't ever lecture *me* about withholding information, you
lower than a burnt out maggot!

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


Charleston > wrote
in message news:SHaUa.41801$zy.31555@fed1read06...
> "John Maxson" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Jon Berndt > wrote in message
>
> > > Squirm all you want, John Maxson, the truth is revealed in
> > > your own words, and from your own sources.
> >
> > It takes a worm to squirm, Burnt. That's you -- and Dan.
>
> This from a man who has withheld the truth about Pappy all these
> years? Leave me alone.
>
> --
>
> Daniel
> Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC

[John Maxson]

Charleston > wrote
in message news:IQbUa.41907$zy.6373@fed1read06...
>
> The truth of the Pappy info is getting to you, so you go
> personal?

"Truth?" You've gone off the deep end.

> Regarding STS 51-L, no one on this planet has supported
> you over a longer period of time and did more for you than
> I have done. No one.

You are an ungrateful liar. You are unfit to bear my name.
You sloughed off copies of what *you* wanted to request.
You sided with my adversaries; to you I was no more than
your token father. Jean-Claude makes you look plain sick.

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

[Sander Vesik]

In sci.space.policy John Maxson > wrote:
> Jon Berndt > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Mr. Maxson seemed plenty interested in throwing about
>> names when he thought it might help him.
>
> More libel and defamation, I see. Is that all you can do?

Maybe you should conisder finding out what the terms "libel"
and "defmaion" actually mean? Becuase most of what you call
by them doesn't apepar to be.

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

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

[John Maxson]

"Seemed," "when," "most," "appear?" Do you lame critics
ever do *anything* but hedge?

--
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:
> > Jon Berndt > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> Mr. Maxson seemed plenty interested in throwing about
> >> names when he thought it might help him.
> >
> > More libel and defamation, I see. Is that all you can do?
>
> Maybe you should conisder finding out what the terms "libel"
> and "defmaion" actually mean? Becuase most of what you call
> by them doesn't apepar to be.
>
> > --
> > John Thomas Maxson, Retired Engineer (Aerospace)
> > Author, The Betrayal of Mission 51-L (www.mission51l.com)
> >
>
> --
> Sander
>
> +++ Out of cheese error +++

[John Maxson]

Sci.space abuse is on topic for sci.space, until something
is done about it. That includes the abuse you contribute.

--
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:
> > "Seemed," "when," "most," "appear?" Do you lame critics
> > ever do *anything* but hedge?
> >
>
> 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.
>
> > --
> > John Thomas Maxson, Retired Engineer (Aerospace)
> > Author, The Betrayal of Mission 51-L (www.mission51l.com)
> >
>
> --
> Sander
>
> +++ Out of cheese error +++

[John Maxson]

My posts generally run along these lines:

<http://www.google.com/groups?&selm=bf70kk%24i1h%241%40ins22.netins.net>

..

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


Scott M. Kozel > wrote in message
...
> "John Maxson" > wrote:
> >
> > Sci.space abuse is on topic for sci.space, until something
> > is done about it. That includes the abuse you contribute.
>
> Maxson's apparently blind to the massive amounts of abuse
> that HE contributes.

[John Maxson]

What took you so long, to continue whining for Mosley?

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



Scott M. Kozel > wrote in message
...
> "John Maxson" > wrote:
> >
> > My posts generally run along these lines:
> >
> > <http://www.google.com/groups?&selm=bf70kk%24i1h%241%40ins22.netins.net>
>
> Oh, the deceptively attributed alleged missive, that you never would
> answer my questions about, after about a dozen posts several weeks ago
> where I requested you to do that.
>
> Most of your posts are a whine the "abuse" you think you are subject to.
>
>
> > Scott M. Kozel > wrote
> > > "John Maxson" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Sci.space abuse is on topic for sci.space, until something
> > > > is done about it. That includes the abuse you contribute.
> > >
> > > Maxson's apparently blind to the massive amounts of abuse
> > > that HE contributes.

[Scott M. Kozel]

See? He tries to change the subject, again, rather than discuss the
attributions of the alleged missive.

"John Maxson" > wrote:
>
> What took you so long, to continue whining for Mosley?
>
> Scott M. Kozel > wrote
> > "John Maxson" > wrote:
> > >
> > > My posts generally run along these lines:
> > >
> > > <http://www.google.com/groups?&selm=bf70kk%24i1h%241%40ins22.netins.net>
> >
> > Oh, the deceptively attributed alleged missive, that you never would
> > answer my questions about, after about a dozen posts several weeks ago
> > where I requested you to do that.

[John Maxson]

The subject title hasn't changed. If you're reduced
to changing the subject, you should change the title.

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


Scott M. Kozel > wrote
in message ...
>
> See? He tries to change the subject, again, rather than discuss the
> attributions of the alleged missive.
>
> "John Maxson" > wrote:
> >
> > What took you so long, to continue whining for Mosley?

[Scott M. Kozel]

"John Maxson" > wrote:
>
> The subject title hasn't changed. If you're reduced
> to changing the subject, you should change the title.

What difference would that make? You avoid inconvenient questions, no
matter what the thread header.

> > Oh, the deceptively attributed alleged missive, that you never would
> > answer my questions about, after about a dozen posts several weeks ago
> > where I requested you to do that.


> Scott M. Kozel > wrote
>
> > See? He tries to change the subject, again, rather than discuss the
> > attributions of the alleged missive.

[Moe Blues]

In article >, "Scott M. Kozel"
> wrote:

> See? He tries to change the subject, again, rather than discuss the
> attributions of the alleged missive.
>
> "John Maxson" > wrote:
> >
> > What took you so long, to continue whining for Mosley?

Face it--Maxson's a moron. You, I, and many other people have tried to
engage him in discussion in a rational fashion. However, failing to
agree absolutely with his lunacy, or daring to question his sources or
assumptions, draws nonsense such as you have experienced.

It is painfully clear that, while Maxson may have something worthwhile
to say, he is utterly unable to either explain or support his
contentions. This is a shame. Where he willing to actually engage in
discussion, instead of flapdoodle such as this thread, he might
contribute something truly worthwhile.

Moe

[John Maxson]

Moe Blues > posts his frequent abuse
and defamation from Usenetserver.com.

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


Moe Blues > wrote in message
...
>
> Face it--Maxson's a moron. You, I, and many other people have tried to
> engage him in discussion in a rational fashion. However, failing to
> agree absolutely with his lunacy, or daring to question his sources or
> assumptions, draws nonsense such as you have experienced.
>
> It is painfully clear that, while Maxson may have something worthwhile
> to say, he is utterly unable to either explain or support his
> contentions. This is a shame. Where he willing to actually engage in
> discussion, instead of flapdoodle such as this thread, he might
> contribute something truly worthwhile.
>
> Moe

[John Maxson]

You quickly disable rational overtures toward ethical
discussion. You're here to discredit me and my book.
You're looking for "debate;" I'm here for discussion.
If you can't "debate," you switch to the third-degree.

You resort to off-the-wall insults. You fail to stay on
topic. Like Katz, you employ aggravation by repetition
(using the same rudely put, presumptive questions).

..

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


Scott M. Kozel > wrote
in message ...
> "John Maxson" > wrote:
> >
> > The subject title hasn't changed. If you're reduced
> > to changing the subject, you should change the title.
>
> What difference would that make? You avoid inconvenient
> questions, no matter what the thread header.

[Doug...]

In article >,
says...
> In sci.space.policy John Maxson > wrote:
> > Jon Berndt > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> Mr. Maxson seemed plenty interested in throwing about
> >> names when he thought it might help him.
> >
> > More libel and defamation, I see. Is that all you can do?
>
> Maybe you should conisder finding out what the terms "libel"
> and "defmaion" actually mean? Becuase most of what you call
> by them doesn't apepar to be.

"I do not think that word means what you think it means." -Inigo
Montoya, "The Princess Bride."

--

It's not the pace of life I mind; | Doug Van Dorn
it's the sudden stop at the end... |

[Scott M. Kozel]

"John Maxson" > wrote:
>
> You quickly disable rational overtures toward ethical
> discussion.

Maxson slander and personal abuse.

> You're here to discredit me and my book.

No, I asked questions.

> You're looking for "debate;" I'm here for discussion.
> If you can't "debate," you switch to the third-degree.
>
> You resort to off-the-wall insults.

Pot, kettle, black.

> You fail to stay on topic.

Pot, kettle, black.

> Like Katz, you employ aggravation by repetition
> (using the same rudely put, presumptive questions).

You continually refuse to answer direct questions.

Look, your conspiracy theories implicitly attack many people. You flood
these newsgroups on a daily basis with your conspiracy theories. The
way I see it, you have an obligation to answer the questions that are
posed to you about your conspiracy theories, unless you don't want your
conspiracy theories to be taken seriously.

> > Oh, the deceptively attributed alleged missive, that you never would
> > answer my questions about, after about a dozen posts several weeks ago
> > where I requested you to do that.

The way that you worded that missive, makes it unclear whether A. Ernest
Fitzgerald is speaking or merely citing what YOU said.

The fact that you refuse to clear up that issue after repeated requests,
makes me wonder if you are here for honest discussion, or else you're
just a common conspiricist.


> Scott M. Kozel > wrote
> > "John Maxson" > wrote:
> > >
> > > The subject title hasn't changed. If you're reduced
> > > to changing the subject, you should change the title.
> >
> > What difference would that make? You avoid inconvenient
> > questions, no matter what the thread header.

[John Maxson]

What are your credentials for deriding me about Challenger?

You can't seem to get even the most basic things straight.
Conspiracy "theories," refusal "to answer" to impudence,
"implicitly" attack, "flood these newsgroups on a daily basis,"
"*you* worded that missive," "*Fitzgerald* is speaking,"
and the like place you well out to lunch. Don't expect a free
one from me without some retractions and a bit of humility.

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


Scott M. Kozel > wrote in message
...
> "John Maxson" > wrote:
>
> You continually refuse to answer direct questions.
>
> Look, your conspiracy theories implicitly attack many people. You flood
> these newsgroups on a daily basis with your conspiracy theories. The
> way I see it, you have an obligation to answer the questions that are
> posed to you about your conspiracy theories, unless you don't want your
> conspiracy theories to be taken seriously.
<snip>
> The way that you worded that missive, makes it unclear whether A. Ernest
> Fitzgerald is speaking or merely citing what YOU said.
>
> The fact that you refuse to clear up that issue after repeated requests,
> makes me wonder if you are here for honest discussion, or else you're
> just a common conspiricist.

[Scott M. Kozel]

"John Maxson" > wrote:
>
> What are your credentials for deriding me about Challenger?
>
> You can't seem to get even the most basic things straight.
> Conspiracy "theories," refusal "to answer" to impudence,
> "implicitly" attack, "flood these newsgroups on a daily basis,"
> "*you* worded that missive," "*Fitzgerald* is speaking,"
> and the like place you well out to lunch. Don't expect a free
> one from me without some retractions and a bit of humility.

More Barbara Streisand, handwaving and excuses.


> Scott M. Kozel > wrote:
> > "John Maxson" > wrote:
> >
> > You continually refuse to answer direct questions.
> >
> > Look, your conspiracy theories implicitly attack many people. You flood
> > these newsgroups on a daily basis with your conspiracy theories. The
> > way I see it, you have an obligation to answer the questions that are
> > posed to you about your conspiracy theories, unless you don't want your
> > conspiracy theories to be taken seriously.
> <snip>
> > The way that you worded that missive, makes it unclear whether A. Ernest
> > Fitzgerald is speaking or merely citing what YOU said.
> >
> > The fact that you refuse to clear up that issue after repeated requests,
> > makes me wonder if you are here for honest discussion, or else you're
> > just a common conspiricist.

[John Maxson]

Hollywood is the Lockheed/NASA recourse.

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



Scott M. Kozel > wrote
in message ...
>
> More Barbara Streisand, handwaving and excuses.

[Sander Vesik]

In sci.space.policy John Maxson > wrote:
> Sci.space abuse is on topic for sci.space, until something
> is done about it. That includes the abuse you contribute.
>

What abuse?

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

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

[Sander Vesik]

In sci.space.policy Doug... > wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>> In sci.space.policy John Maxson > wrote:
>> > Jon Berndt > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >>
>> >> Mr. Maxson seemed plenty interested in throwing about
>> >> names when he thought it might help him.
>> >
>> > More libel and defamation, I see. Is that all you can do?
>>
>> Maybe you should conisder finding out what the terms "libel"
>> and "defmaion" actually mean? Becuase most of what you call
>> by them doesn't apepar to be.
>
> "I do not think that word means what you think it means." -Inigo
> Montoya, "The Princess Bride."
>

8-)

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

[John Maxson]

The abuse you snipped, for starters.

--
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:
>
> > Sci.space abuse is on topic for sci.space, until something
> > is done about it. That includes the abuse you contribute.
> >
>
> What abuse?
>
> > --
> > John Thomas Maxson, Retired Engineer (Aerospace)
> > Author, The Betrayal of Mission 51-L (www.mission51l.com)
> >
>
> --
> Sander
>
> +++ Out of cheese error +++

[Sander Vesik]

In sci.space.policy John Maxson > wrote:
> The abuse you snipped, for starters.
>

There was no abuse in the part what I snipped. But you are
welcome to prove that there was. Just copy, paste and
mark the abuse from the part I snipped. And if it was just
"for starters" I'm sure you will be able to provide pointers
to other abuse aswell, right?

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

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

[John Maxson]

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.

[Sander Vesik]

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 +++

[John Maxson]

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)

[Sander Vesik]

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 +++

[John Maxson]

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 +++

[Sander Vesik]

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 +++

[John Maxson]

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."

[Kent Betts]

How is it that with thousands of PhD engineers and many scores of
journalists running around that you are the only one who sees these
stripes and crossings and so on? There is something wrong with this
scenario. It seems that no one has really been convinced by the
evidence presented or wants the thing investigated again, but rather
most of the energy of the posters here is spent discounting your
arguments. Your frustration is misplaced.

[OM]

On 3 Aug 2003 03:54:46 -0700, (Kent Betts)
wrote:

>How is it that with thousands of PhD engineers and many scores of
>journalists running around that you are the only one who sees these
>stripes and crossings and so on?

....Based on the analysis by those same thousands, the answer is one or
all of the following:

1) Senile Dementia
2) Sadistic Vehemence
3) Psychotic Obsessions
4) Demonic Possession
5) Malignant Brain Tumor
6) Severe Drug Abuse

....In any case, he's a worthless excuse for human life, and really
needs to be referred to Dr. Kevorkian before he hurts anyone besides
himself. Until that time, just killfile the feeble old ******* and all
of his kin and be done with them.


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]

"Kent Betts" > wrote in message
m...
> How is it that with thousands of PhD engineers and many scores of
> journalists running around that you are the only one who sees these
> stripes and crossings and so on? There is something wrong with this
> scenario. It seems that no one has really been convinced by the
> evidence presented or wants the thing investigated again, but rather
> most of the energy of the posters here is spent discounting your
> arguments. Your frustration is misplaced.

I know the thread is mixed up but if you go back to the beginning, you can
see that an aviation crash investigation type lawyer found my Dad's work to
be very compelling in 1988. See quote below from the first post by Jon
Berndt. I still remember how NASA let the two lawyers see the films but not
my Dad. Had he been allowed to see the films I believe things would have
turned out far better for him. He did all that work and was just plain shut
out b y NASA. They could have allowed him to see the films if they had
nothing to hide right? One thing that bothers me is why "Pappy" could
remember so much and forget the film roll numbers. I mean what was he
smoking? ;-) I am trying hard to see things as they happened back then and
I still have some questions. If we are really fair, maybe we ought to make
sure we understand the particulars instead of making general attacks. Of
course that includes me.

"Myron Papadakis said:

'Indeed everything John relayed to you is correct, as of early morning July
11, 1988. The photography that John Maxon showed was so compelling it was my
belief at that time that a "switcheroody" had occurred. That name is based
on a Tom Osbourne trick play at Nebraska (Go Big Red). This was based on his
films and still photos and the Rogers report pictures.'

[Pappy related to me that NASA, in practice, had impounded their original
film, and made ten copies for the investigation.

He continued:

'We got a U.S. Senator's help in our demand to see ORIGINAL IMPOUNDED
FILM -- not even the Rogers commission saw the real thing. But, instead
they saw one of ten original copies. We travelled to the Cape and viewed
the real film. Luckily for us and the USA the real films showed what the
FOIA films did not.'"

--

Daniel
Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC

[Charleston]

"OM" <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org>
wrote:
> (Kent Betts)wrote:
>
> >How is it that with thousands of PhD engineers and many scores of
> >journalists running around that you are the only one who sees these
> >stripes and crossings and so on?
>
> ...Based on the analysis by those same thousands, the answer is one or
> all of the following:
>
> 1) Senile Dementia
> 2) Sadistic Vehemence
> 3) Psychotic Obsessions
> 4) Demonic Possession
> 5) Malignant Brain Tumor
> 6) Severe Drug Abuse
>
> ...In any case, he's a worthless excuse for human life, and really
> needs to be referred to Dr. Kevorkian before he hurts anyone besides
> himself. Until that time, just killfile the feeble old ******* and all
> of his kin and be done with them.

You might try posting on topic in an intelligent manner. It could do
wonders for your image.

--

Daniel
Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC

[Dosco Jones]

"Kent Betts" > wrote in message
m...
> How is it that with thousands of PhD engineers and many scores of
> journalists running around that you are the only one who sees these
> stripes and crossings and so on? There is something wrong with this
> scenario. It seems that no one has really been convinced by the
> evidence presented or wants the thing investigated again, but rather
> most of the energy of the posters here is spent discounting your
> arguments. Your frustration is misplaced.
>

Kent, don't waste your breath. He's a paranoid schizophrenic with
delusionary tendencies. Long term psychiatric hospitalization is the only
solution for him, but it won't happen until he's deemed non compus mentis.

[John Maxson]

"Crazy Like a Fox!" If you'd read my book you'd see what
the journalists and engineering experts really say. Anyone can
hurl blind libel around the way you do -- for a time.

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



Dosco Jones > wrote in message
arthlink.net...
> "Kent Betts" > wrote in message
> m...
>
> > How is it that with thousands of PhD engineers and many scores of
> > journalists running around that you are the only one who sees these
> > stripes and crossings and so on? There is something wrong with this
> > scenario. It seems that no one has really been convinced by the
> > evidence presented or wants the thing investigated again, but rather
> > most of the energy of the posters here is spent discounting your
> > arguments. Your frustration is misplaced.
> >
>
> Kent, don't waste your breath. He's a paranoid schizophrenic with
> delusionary tendencies. Long term psychiatric hospitalization is the only
> solution for him, but it won't happen until he's deemed non compus mentis.

[Scott Hedrick]

"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.

[Charleston]

"Dosco Jones" > wrote:
> "Kent Betts" > wrote:

> > How is it that with thousands of PhD engineers and many scores of
> > journalists running around that you are the only one who sees these
> > stripes and crossings and so on?

He was not the only one who believed NASA lied, as I pointed out with
Pappy's comments.

> >There is something wrong with this
> > scenario. It seems that no one has really been convinced by the
> > evidence presented or wants the thing investigated again, but rather
> > most of the energy of the posters here is spent discounting your
> > arguments. Your frustration is misplaced.

I was of your opinion too, and as recently as July 11th, I posted the
following:

> "Charleston" > wrote:
>
> > "It is a surprise for many that the conclusions for the cause of the
> > Challenger accident were not even required to meet the status of "most
> > probable cause" or causes. They just had to meet plain old civil law
> > "probable".

Jon Berndt then wrote:

"I'm curious. Given all the research you've done, do you think the
Commission found the actual "direct" cause (O-ring failure)? If so, do you
think they went far enough in fingering the other contributing causes
(culture, etc.)?"

to which I responded:

"I do believe the failure of the right aft field joint caused the accident.
The Roger's Commission nailed all but the most significant aspects of the
joint failure. It winked at them a few times, but ya, they missed part of
the cause."

Now having posted that let me say now, WAIT A SECOND. I thought I
understood the cause of the Challenger Accident UNTIL, Jon Berndt
interviewed Myron Pappadakis. Now, I frankly must reconsider all of the
facts that led me to the conclusion Pappy came to after viewing "original"
launch films. So please allow me to ask some questions about Pappy's
conclusions. Questions that must be reconciled to all that we know of the
accident as a whole. This group can not fairly take Pappy's written e-mail
to Jon Berndt quoted here as the Gospel. We must critically evaluate all
that he wrote to Jon Berndt. Would somebody, anybody, with a fair mind say,
Amen? I mean if you ever want the story to be resolved, shouldn't we at
least take Pappy's declarative statements at face value and deal with them?

--

Daniel
Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC

[Charleston]

On July 24th, 2003, Jon Berndt made a post to Sci.Space.Shuttle that I will
requote in its entirety to set up the framework for this thread. Let me say
that I believe Jon is accurately quoting Mr. Pappadakis, but I also believe
that the information Pappy shared with Jon, which was left out of his post
is patently misleading. For the sake of credibility I think that Jon should
post the entire e-mail or e-mails with headers included. I also believe
that Jon should review in some detail, his as well. I am sure Pappy won't
mind.




"Mr. John Maxson has quoted quite a few people, both online here and in his
book. I have addressed some of these quotes on my web page at:

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

One difficulty in evaluating John Maxson's quotes of others is that the
individuals named have not been accessible - up until now.

On 7/22/2003 at 15:35 CDT John Thomas Maxson posted on sci.space.shuttle:

--- start ---

John Maxson wrote:

Myron (Pappy) Papadakis (a well-known attorney, jumbo-jet pilot, and
air-crash investigator) always referred to the crossing of the rocket
boosters in the 51-L fireball as "the switcharoody."

When Pappy finally left my former Florida home at 5 am on July 11, 1988, he
told me, "Before I came here, I was not convinced of the switcharoody. I am
now!"

--- end ---

I managed to track down Mr. Papadakis, who was gracious enough to answer
some of my questions via email, and he also called me to discuss the topic
further. His answers shed a LOT of *light* on Mr. Maxson's claim, and tells
us "the rest of the story".

Myron Papadakis said:

"Indeed everything John relayed to you is correct, as of early morning July
11, 1988. The photography that John Maxon showed was so compelling it was my
belief at that time that a "switcheroody" had occurred. That name is based
on a Tom Osbourne trick play at Nebraska (Go Big Red). This was based on his
films and still photos and the Rogers report pictures."

[Pappy related to me that NASA, in practice, had impounded their original
film, and made ten copies for the investigation.

He continued:

"We got a U.S. Senator's help in our demand to see ORIGINAL IMPOUNDED
FILM -- not even the Rogers commission saw the real thing. But, instead
they saw one of ten original copies. We travelled to the Cape and viewed
the real film. Luckily for us and the USA the real films showed what the
FOIA films did not."

"ON MAXSON'S FILMS obtained via FOIA from NASA: The lower rocket [the one
that took a low trajectory, i.e. south-exiting] did not show the black paint
near the frustrum because of overexposed white blinding out the paint in the
cheap copies, while the upper rocket showed a black ring thought to be the
black paint ring."

"ON NASA ORIGINAL FILMS: In the original film you see the lower rocket
*does* have a ring and the ring on the upper rocket is caused by a shadow
thrown by the sun on a displaced frustrum creating a black shadow that
indeed looks like the black stripe."

"Thus We were of the opinion that NO SWITCH occurred. This was conveyed to
Mr. Maxson."

--- end ---

I found this to be very interesting, but I wanted to be sure I understood
what he was saying.

So, I asked him again:

--- start ---

Jon wrote:

"Thanks for your reply - a very informative and detailed reply. I am a
little unclear on one thing, though: As of today, do you believe the SRBs
crossed, or do you believe the Roger's Commission got it generally correct?
It seems in your email below that you initially believed you had evidence
that the booster rockets *did* cross, but that after more in-depth research,
it was shown that the SRBs did *not* cross in the cloud."

--- end ---

"Pappy" wrote back and said:

--- start ---

We were convinced that they had crossed -- from the *preliminary* films and
poor quality pictures. Even those included in the Rogers report had been
reproduced so many times as to give wrong conclusions.

If you study only the poor pictures the lower one coming out of the cloud is
not ruptured and is a brilliant white -- with no band. The upper ruptured
right one now appears coming out of the top with a distinct black band
visible near frustrum.

Only when the 154 film from theodolites are studied do you get clear enough
pictures to see the lower rocket really does have the stripe. The upper
rockets black line is shown in this film to actually be caused by the
frustrum that is displaced and causing a dark shadow where a stripe would
be."

--- end ---

When I spoke with him today he was very congenial and we talked about
various aspects of the accident. We closed with him encouraging me that I
stood on solid ground. He was also quite emphatic about the SRBs NOT
crossing - the original film did not lie.

The fact that John Maxson's FOIA copies are poorly printed (overexposed)
explains a lot. But, this shows that his use of the words of others is at
least sometimes twisted and incomplete, in order to paint the picture he
wants to paint.

CASE CLOSED

Jon"

--

Daniel
Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC

[John Maxson]

Charleston > wrote
in message news:N8hXa.62023$zy.45183@fed1read06...
>
> This group can not fairly take Pappy's written e-mail to
> Jon Berndt quoted here as the Gospel. We must critically
> evaluate all that he wrote to Jon Berndt.

Maybe Jon, in arguing the Lockheed/NASA/Rogers case,
has forgotten about Nixon. Quoting Archibald Cox:

"Not even a President can be allowed to select some
accounts of a conversation for public disclosure and
then to frustrate further grand jury inquiries by with-
holding the best evidence of what actually took place."

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

[Charleston]

"John Maxson" > wrote:
> Charleston > wrote:
> >
> > This group can not fairly take Pappy's written e-mail to
> > Jon Berndt quoted here as the Gospel. We must critically
> > evaluate all that he wrote to Jon Berndt.
>
> Maybe Jon, in arguing the Lockheed/NASA/Rogers case,
> has forgotten about Nixon. Quoting Archibald Cox:
>
> "Not even a President can be allowed to select some
> accounts of a conversation for public disclosure and
> then to frustrate further grand jury inquiries by with-
> holding the best evidence of what actually took place."

Ya that would pretty well sum it up.

--

Daniel
Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC

[Kent Betts]

"Dosco Jones

> Kent, don't waste your breath. He's a paranoid schizophrenic with
> delusionary tendencies. Long term psychiatric hospitalization is the only
> solution for him, but it won't happen until he's deemed non compus mentis.

Yeah you're right. The booster crossing isn't even in question. J
Maxson is certifiable. No one cares about his ranting....he is amusing
only in the aspects of his insanity, the paranoid schizophrenia. I
actually ignored it for a month. I think I will leave it alone.
Lemme know if he comes up with something new....ha ha.

[John Maxson]

Giganews posts/hosts Bob Mosley's abuse for Illuminati Online.

--
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 ...
> On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 06:50:30 -0500, Herb Schaltegger
> > wrote:
>
> >> Usenet psychiatry for the ages. Now available for free on S.S.S.. We
have
> >> all played the game but then none of us are putting a license out there
on
> >> the line are we?
> >
> >Irrelevent. Your father's posting history speaks for itself.
>
> ...And his brother's. And his own. I'm expecting the sister to show up
> any day now.
>
> Just killfile the whole family of inbreds and be done with them.
> Please.
>
>
> 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

[John Maxson]

Giganews posts/hosts Bob Mosley's abuse for Illuminati Online.
Sickening, isn't it?

--
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 ...
> On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 06:41:27 -0500, Herb Schaltegger
> > wrote:
>
> >Step back from the family aspect of this and watch as an outside
> >observer and you'll see that what nearly everyone else seems to see.
> >After all, everyone in this newsgroup started as an outsider; JTM's
> >posting history speaks for itself.
>
> ...No. We don't want him as an outside observer. We want him as an
> inside relative who will *FINALLY* do the right thing and have his
> worthless sack of **** for a father committed to a nuthouse.
>
> In any case, just killfile the little gestapo ******* and be done with
> him. This bull**** has gone on far too long...
>
>
> 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]

"Kent Betts" > wrote in message
om...
> "Charleston"
>
> > Jon Berndt then wrote:
> >
> > "I'm curious. Given all the research you've done, do you think the
> > Commission found the actual "direct" cause (O-ring failure)? If so, do
you
> > think they went far enough in fingering the other contributing causes
> > (culture, etc.)?"
> >
> > to which I responded:
> >
> > "I do believe the failure of the right aft field joint caused the
accident.
> > The Roger's Commission nailed all but the most significant aspects of
the
> > joint failure. It winked at them a few times, but ya, they missed part
of
> > the cause."
>
> You agree that the aft field joint caused the accident, but the Rogers
> Commission misunderstood the mode ("most significant aspects")of the
> failure, which according to you was....what?

I'll get to it eventually in the proper context. First there are more
important things to address like Pappy's comments about NASA's
misidentification of which frustum had the parachute that worked.

Kent, there is much more in Jon's quote of Pappy than has been even hinted
at so far.

--

Daniel
Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC

[John Maxson]

Given your history of being so selective and inaccurate, my
guess is that it's extremely doubtful. First, let's see the quote.

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


Jon Berndt > wrote in message
...
> "Charleston" > wrote in message
> >
> > Kent, there is much more in Jon's quote of Pappy than has been
> > even hinted at so far.
>
> This may actually be interesting. ;-)
>
> Jon