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

[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."

[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.