 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Shuttle / December 2003Challenger's Shadow
"The checks and balances inherent in our form of government were largely ignored in this tragedy, and during the investigation." http://www.ewritermagazine.com/Issues/october.htm#Challenger Enter/exit Columbia: http://www.ewritermagazine.com/Issues/february.htm#NASA Llumina, one year after publishing the book: "It's out of print; it's being redone." sci.space.shuttle/sci.space.history: No "peer reviews." The shadow lengthens ... god, he's back. > "The checks and balances inherent in our form of government were > largely ignored in this tragedy, and during the investigation." [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Llumina, one year after publishing the book: > "It's out of print; it's being redone." How does a print on demand, e-book go out of print? Because it wasn't worth the disk space to keep around? > sci.space.shuttle/sci.space.history: > No "peer reviews." No one would waste their time with yet another baseless conspiracy theory. > The shadow lengthens ... >  SignatureReal Working Engineer > No one would waste their time with yet another baseless conspiracy > theory. Please. Stop. Do not respond. Stop the horror before it grows. THIS GOES FOR *EVERYONE.* We've all seen it too many times before. Move on. SignatureScott Lowther, Engineer Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address >Please. Stop. Do not respond. Stop the horror before it grows. It was YOU Scott....wasn't it ? The man in the Texas Book Depository "digging around for copies of those old Collier's articles" on that blighted day when he fell...wasn't it ...WASN'T IT!!!! 'Fess up....you damned Illuminati!!!!! We ALL know how it's possible to squeeze off three shots inside of five seconds with a GYROJET ROCKET RIFLE!!!! "Raul" Bay of Pigs Cuba > >Please. Stop. Do not respond. Stop the horror before it grows. Like you or anyone else controls the actions of persons who post here... ..you are funny. > It was YOU Scott....wasn't it ? The man in the Texas Book Depository > "digging around for copies of those old Collier's articles" on that > blighted day when he fell...wasn't it ...WASN'T IT!!!! > 'Fess up....you damned Illuminati!!!!! > We ALL know how it's possible to squeeze off three shots inside of five > seconds with a GYROJET ROCKET RIFLE!!!! While the old ne'r ancient reference to St. JerOMe is a laugher, do you appreciate who Jack Macidull is, and what a book by him might portend at this point in time? > "Raul" > Bay of Pigs > Cuba Okey doke, now do I sing that verse to "We Didn't Start the Fire"? http://www.its.caltech.edu/~yel/Fire.html Enjoy. Thank you for watching. Do you get my subliminal message? SignatureDaniel http://www.challengerdisaster.info Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC > THIS GOES FOR *EVERYONE.* Apparently didn't go for you. :-P SignatureThis is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | This space is for rent It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | Inquire within if you No person, none, care | and it will reach me | Would like your ad here > How does a print on demand, e-book go out of print? Because it wasn't > worth the disk space to keep around? It doesn't, however hard backs do! Get your facts straight please. http://www.llumina.com/store/challenger.htm SignatureDaniel http://www.challengerdisaster.info Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC > > How does a print on demand, e-book go out of print? Because it wasn't > > worth the disk space to keep around? > > It doesn't, however hard backs do! Get your facts straight please. You're right. Your bozo father started by referencing an epublishing page as if anything published there would be worth the disk space. I assumed the book was from there. Still his whole point seemed to be to imply some further conspiracy in the book being out of print. I ignore most of his posts, but this was classic "make an implication but don't say what you mean", maxson. I'll try harder to ignore his useless messages next time. > http://www.llumina.com/store/challenger.htm > > > How does a print on demand, e-book go out of print? Because it wasn't > > > worth the disk space to keep around? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > most of his posts, but this was classic "make an implication but don't > say what you mean", maxson. Excuse me but who are you to call anyone a Bozo after you "assumed"? Your bias is showing. If you had only taken the time to read to the bottom of the following link: http://www.ewritermagazine.com/Issues/february.htm#NASA as posted by my Dad who started this thread, you would have found the following quote: "Copies of Challenger's Shadow can be ordered on-line at www.llumina.com/store/challenger.htm or through www.Amazon.com ." If you had then gone to the publisher's link you would have seen the book's cover which is not shaped like a CD, hmmm. This means the cover could be that of a book, hmmm. Even if you missed all of that, I doubt you could possibly miss this data next to the photo of the cover of the book: "ISBN: 1-932047-39-5 156 pages Hardcover 6" x 9" History and Expose" So, game, set, match, you did not do your homework and you have been caught. > I'll try harder to ignore his useless messages next time. I will try harder to ignore your highly personalized biased comments too. Please indicate in your first line of your next objective post that it is same and I will read it;-) Now as to "his useless messages". I don't know for sure but I think the book may well have gone out of print and then been reprinted. Anyway, without my father's link, I would not have known the book had been printed. It is a small book--156 pages, but it is a **devastating** book in that it deals with the Challenger accident in a manner that exposes NASA's clear cut willingness to obfuscate the truth. No I would not say his post was worthless. I would say it was quite worthwhile for anyone who wants to read the first inside and fairly indepth account of the Presidential Commission's investigation into the Challenger accident. It'll blow you away. It certainly blows Crippen away as he Truly deserves. I will write a more complete critique of the book when I am done. > > http://www.llumina.com/store/challenger.htm SignatureDaniel http://www.challengerdisaster.info Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SCo > > > > How does a print on demand, e-book go out of print? Because it wasn't > > > > worth the disk space to keep around? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Excuse me but who are you to call anyone a Bozo after you "assumed"? Your > bias is showing. Bias, sure I'm biased. Three years of his meandering unfounded conspiracy theories..... he's biased everone here. I admitted to jumping the gun on that one - glancing back at the post taht is clear. Your point by point rehash below is both unnecessary and disingenuine considering the thousands of maxson posts this group has seen with little or now discernable logic to follow. Write your review - it will have the same bias you've always shown here. > If you had only taken the time to read to the bottom of the following link: > http://www.ewritermagazine.com/Issues/february.htm#NASA [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > > > http://www.llumina.com/store/challenger.htm > > Excuse me but who are you to call anyone a Bozo after you "assumed"? Your > > bias is showing. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > considering the thousands of maxson posts this group has seen with > little or now discernable logic to follow. Well so much for an objective scientific approach. Why respond at all then? > Write your review - it will have the same bias you've always shown here. Ohh. I will be happy to compare posts on Space Shuttle safety with anyone on this group. If I have any bias it is to lean on the side which makes space flight safer. Generally however, the Columbia accident made many of my points for me. Remember I brought up the SIAT report when being critical of NASA was akin to blasphemy. It takes an individual of conviction to stand up and argue against popular opinion on a somewhat cheerleading like sci.group. As for the Challenger accident, I think my posts on balance are fair. I need only point out a few threads to prove that if you'd like. Much of what I have written here on crew escape is being proven correct despite my detractors here. What is the sum of your posting here? SignatureDaniel http://www.challengerdisaster.info Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC > > > Excuse me but who are you to call anyone a Bozo after you "assumed"? > Your [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Well so much for an objective scientific approach. Why respond at all then? We know where you learned your scientific approach. And while I appreciate that you've made some materials that were otherwise not generally availabe on the internet, available - you've used the same sort of "toss out an inference - I'll get proof on the web some day" model John uses. You do him one better, you actually get the materials on the web - but they don't "prove" what you were inferring they did. So the "point" of you posting here as far as I can see is to provide some of the data your father referred to - but little else. > > Write your review - it will have the same bias you've always shown here. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > What is the sum of your posting here? I KNOW NASA is full of problems. Few here think it isn't. You and your ilk, keep crying wolf as if you've got some special knowledge when it is clear you don't. When people attack your lack of support for your conspiracy theories - you interpret it as support for NASA - and so the vicious circle continues. If you stuck solely to the topic of crew escape - leaving out all the crap about "why you think NASA doesn't see it your way" - or all the wishful thinking about what anonymous individual set what on tragic videos - people might take your hard work seriously. In the mean time, you're earning the reputation for being another crank in the wrong newsgroup. SignatureReal Working Engineer > > > Bias, sure I'm biased. Three years of his meandering unfounded > > > conspiracy theories..... he's biased everone here. I admitted to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > > We know where you learned your scientific approach. No you don't. > And while I > appreciate that you've made some materials that were otherwise not > generally availabe on the internet, available - you've used the same > sort of "toss out an inference - I'll get proof on the web some day" > model John uses. And in good time you will see it all. > You do him one better, you actually get the materials > on the web - but they don't "prove" what you were inferring they did. Excuse me? I think the Apollo 1/204 info I posted is consistent with my posts. As for scientific approach, what exactly do you call it when someone takes the time to make a FOIA request, and present the data as I did on Apollo 1/204? OTOH, you have presented what? You could have done the same thing and spent not one dime to get that FOIA information. > So the "point" of you posting here as far as I can see is to provide > some of the data your father referred to - but little else. And that is why you fail. You think you understand something, you criticize, when all the time it was you who failed to do your homework. > > What is the sum of your posting here? > > I KNOW NASA is full of problems. Few here think it isn't. I thought not. You attack instead of answering. I don't really care what you think about NASA and its problems. That is a big generic der or duh. Others can speak for themselves and so can the Google record. Your point here from the Google record seems to be to attack people as if God appointed you Sergeant at Arms for thie Sci.Space.Shuttle. That pretty much sums up your contribution. You contribute very little. > You and your > ilk, keep crying wolf as if you've got some special knowledge when it is > clear you don't. And calling names makes you right? As for crying wolf. Hey Mike there is a wolf or did you miss the Columbia disaster? Figuratively of course. I pointed out the wolf and what it was doing using NASA's own documents. > When people attack your lack of support for your > conspiracy theories - you interpret it as support for NASA - and so the > vicious circle continues. Oh please don't be vague. > If you stuck solely to the topic of crew > escape - leaving out all the crap about "why you think NASA doesn't see > it your way" - You can't speak for NASA. > or all the wishful thinking about what anonymous > individual set what on tragic videos - people might take your hard work > seriously. In the mean time, you're earning the reputation for being > another crank in the wrong newsgroup. And you have earned your own reputation. I am tempted. SignatureDaniel http://www.challengerdisaster.info Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC > > > > Bias, sure I'm biased. Three years of his meandering unfounded > > > > conspiracy theories..... he's biased everone here. I admitted to [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > No you don't. Correction - we don't know where you learned, we just notice a family resemblance. > > And while I > > appreciate that you've made some materials that were otherwise not [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > And in good time you will see it all. Yes ScottG > > You do him one better, you actually get the materials > > on the web - but they don't "prove" what you were inferring they did. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Apollo 1/204? OTOH, you have presented what? You could have done the same > thing and spent not one dime to get that FOIA information. I picked no specific point - you pick your favoite, self-defined proof. You tried to claim "RTLS!" meant something more than just the futile hope. You've posted several of these issues where a very narrow minded interpretation of the available information could allow one to "support" your ideas - but any realistic interpretation meant something completely different. > > So the "point" of you posting here as far as I can see is to provide > > some of the data your father referred to - but little else. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > you Sergeant at Arms for thie Sci.Space.Shuttle. That pretty much sums up > your contribution. You contribute very little. 1. Very few of my posts are in google. If this is how you do your research, well, then that figures. 2. I do contribute very little - never said I did. As I've said before, one doesn't have to be a real live rocket scientist to recognize "logic" driven by extreme beliefs not verifiable information. > > You and your > > ilk, keep crying wolf as if you've got some special knowledge when it is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > wolf or did you miss the Columbia disaster? Figuratively of course. I > pointed out the wolf and what it was doing using NASA's own documents. Nope, calling names doesn't make me right, nor you. Piecing one or two bits of information together doesn't make conspiracy theories right either. If you pointed out the wolf - then is his skin hanging on the wall somewhere? > > When people attack your lack of support for your > > conspiracy theories - you interpret it as support for NASA - and so the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > You can't speak for NASA. Neither can you, nah, nah.... geesh. Nor can I speak for Saddam, Austrailia or the hopi indians. Is any of this a surprise to you? I never said I speak for NASA. Never made any claim of the sort. As I said, you seem to want to treat any difference of opinion with you as some sort of defense of nasa. Single-minded? > > or all the wishful thinking about what anonymous > > individual set what on tragic videos - people might take your hard work > > seriously. In the mean time, you're earning the reputation for being > > another crank in the wrong newsgroup. > > And you have earned your own reputation. I'll live with mine. My sig is a response to the guy - I think you know him, who falsely posts his engineering title in his sig...... I do change it from time to time - I am bored with this little game. > I am tempted. Better hurry. Signatureoops, too late. > Correction - we don't know where you learned, we just notice a family > resemblance. Ya, I notice a family resemblance with a few of you too. JimO you know ;-) That was supposed to make you chuckle. > > Excuse me? I think the Apollo 1/204 info I posted is consistent with my > > posts. As for scientific approach, what exactly do you call it when someone [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You tried to claim "RTLS!" meant something more than just the futile > hope. And I have made an effort to clarify the RTLS issue by putting up video after video on my website that clarifies that everyone thought that an RTLS had been called. I finished going through all of my old videos and lo and behold, someone communicating with both the Starcast plane and the Castglance plane, clearly stated it was a "possible RTLS". I guess people heard what they wanted to believe. I also clarified my position contemporaneously in a thread on the issue. I even went so far as to ask if my father wanted me to put up the Starcast video on my website all the while knowing that it cleared up the issue because you can hear on that tape that it was only a "possible RTLS". Anyway, my point is that I like to get to the bottom of things and I did so on the RTLS issue. > You've posted several of these issues where a very narrow minded > interpretation of the available information could allow one to "support" > your ideas - but any realistic interpretation meant something completely > different. That is your opinion. I see a narrow minded approach from others here on this group. That is just the way it is. > 1. Very few of my posts are in google. If this is how you do your > research, well, then that figures. I don't care about Google. Many of us have watched your posts over time here. > 2. I do contribute very little - never said I did. As I've said > before, one doesn't have to be a real live rocket scientist to recognize > "logic" driven by extreme beliefs not verifiable information. Gee I agree with you. > Nope, calling names doesn't make me right, nor you. Piecing one or two > bits of information together doesn't make conspiracy theories right > either. Agreed. That is why I have taken the time to begin posting those videos on my website. They will be followed by many photos and a story will emerge. I need to time tag most of the videos thoroughly from this point forward so I will be slowing down and I will have to copyright them as well. I see this as a long project and I hope it is worth it in the end. If you pointed out the wolf - then is his skin hanging on the > wall somewhere? I will let you figure out where the wolf left his skin. > > You can't speak for NASA. > > Neither can you, nah, nah.... geesh. Many here do speak for NASA whether intentionally or not. > > > or all the wishful thinking about what anonymous > > > individual set what on tragic videos - people might take your hard work > > > seriously. In the mean time, you're earning the reputation for being > > > another crank in the wrong newsgroup. Your reputation is not exactly stellar either. If the worst thing anyone ever calls me is a "crank in the wrong newsgroup" I can live with that thought. Even cranks can be correct. > > And you have earned your own reputation. > > I'll live with mine. I hope so, the alternative would be bleak. Why don't we quit this silly argument and I will finish reading "Challenger's Shadow"? I am taking notes and I did promise a review. You can read it and then I will be happy to hear your critique of my critique. Fair enough? SignatureDaniel http://www.challengerdisaster.info Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC > > Correction - we don't know where you learned, we just notice a family > > resemblance. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > it was only a "possible RTLS". Anyway, my point is that I like to get to > the bottom of things and I did so on the RTLS issue. Your posts at the time clearly were arguing for someone "calling RTLS". Is that what you were saying or not? Or are you saying that after reviewing and posting the video, you now understand there was no significance to either reference to RLTS? > > You've posted several of these issues where a very narrow minded > > interpretation of the available information could allow one to "support" [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I don't care about Google. Many of us have watched your posts over time > here. Here is your complete reference to me and google: > I thought not. You attack instead of answering. I don't really care what > you think about NASA and its problems. That is a big generic der or duh. > Others can speak for themselves and so can the Google record. Your point > here from the Google record seems to be to attack people as if God appointed > you Sergeant at Arms for thie Sci.Space.Shuttle. That pretty much sums up > your contribution. You contribute very little. Wonder how the google part got cut...... > > 2. I do contribute very little - never said I did. As I've said > > before, one doesn't have to be a real live rocket scientist to recognize [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Many here do speak for NASA whether intentionally or not. usual diversionary crap. > > > > or all the wishful thinking about what anonymous > > > > individual set what on tragic videos - people might take your hard [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > can read it and then I will be happy to hear your critique of my critique. > Fair enough? Yes, shut up, and go read your book. SignatureI have better things to do with my time that worry who might make fun of my sig. > > And I have made an effort to clarify the RTLS issue by putting up video > > after video on my website that clarifies that everyone thought that an RTLS [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > reviewing and posting the video, you now understand there was no > significance to either reference to RLTS? What exactly do you not understand? I just wrote: "I guess people heard what they wanted to believe." and "I even went so far as to ask if my father wanted me to put up the Starcast video on my website all the while knowing that it **cleared up the issue** because you can hear on that tape that it was only a **"possible RTLS".**" > > I don't care about Google. Many of us have watched your posts over time > > here. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > you Sergeant at Arms for thie Sci.Space.Shuttle. That pretty much sums up > > your contribution. You contribute very little. I went back in Google and verified that you wrote contemporaneously with me regarding certain aspects of my father's book. It was my recollection that you were little more than a cheerleader. Google confirmed that fact. If Google did not exist it would not change the fact that you are more of a derisive cheerleader than a contributor here. As I said earlier, "many of us have watched your posts over time." > > Many here do speak for NASA whether intentionally or not. > > usual diversionary crap. No that is accurate and relevant. You are part of it for the most part. SignatureDaniel http://www.challengerdisaster.info Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC > > > And I have made an effort to clarify the RTLS issue by putting up video > > > after video on my website that clarifies that everyone thought that an [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > "I guess people heard what they wanted to believe." You have not answered my question, nor clarified your reason for putting it up in the first place. You used the phrase "that clarifies that everyone thought that an RTLS had been called.". I don't believe "everyone" thought an RTLS had been called - I believe you were grasping at straws. Even a casual listen to the video makes that clear. If I had taped half a dozen people sitting in my living room watching the launch and one of then yelled "RTLS", should I post that video too? > and > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > regarding certain aspects of my father's book. It was my recollection that > you were little more than a cheerleader. Google confirmed that fact. If Google confirmed nothing of the sort. As usual, you take YOUR conclusions and make them appear as someone else's authority. > Google did not exist it would not change the fact that you are more of a > derisive cheerleader than a contributor here. As I said earlier, "many of > us have watched your posts over time." Who is "many of us"? You, your brother and father? Don't presume to know why I post here or what my knowledge or experience is. Lack of evidence for conspiracies is still nothing but lack of evidence for conspiracies. I don't have to be a NASA insider to see that. > > > Many here do speak for NASA whether intentionally or not. > > > > usual diversionary crap. > > No that is accurate and relevant. You are part of it for the most part. You keep claiming I and others speak for NASA, yet your posts contain hundreds of "explanations" and random pieces of data that support your views of what "really happens inside NASA" - which is in effect, speaking for nasa. My refusing to believe simple minded conspiracy theories about NASA does not constitute speaking for them. As I said, usual diversionary crap. Based on the articles that have been published on the web, it seems Macidull joins a long list of self/hastily-published sensationalist disaster authors with 20-20 hindsight. Perhaps I'll publish my own review of his book. > You have not answered my question, nor clarified your reason for putting > it up in the first place. You used the phrase "that clarifies that > everyone thought that an RTLS had been called.". You have not heard all of the audio on all of the TV recordings nor have you yet heard the Starcast audio. When and if you ever do, you will understand that many people at the remote camera sites heard that there was a "possible RTLS". Some even heard that the orbiter was being tracked by one of the ROTIs post break-up. Thus factual errors were made and shared, but no RTLS was officially "called" AFAIK. A fast separation is the only thing the crew could have done to abort the flight prior to structural break-up. Most experts agree that a fast sep will cause break-up of the orbiter vehicle as it pivots about its aft connections to the ET. In the Challenger era this would have been consequentially fatal as there was no way out. With a proper extraction system, survival would be dicey but possible today. > I don't believe > "everyone" thought an RTLS had been called - I believe you were grasping > at straws. Even a casual listen to the video makes that clear. My point is that there was a lot of confusion at the camera sites and many people heard exactly what they wanted to hear. If you can imagine being there and hearing part of the message and distinctly hearing what you wanted to hear--"RTLS" and not hearing "possible RTLS", then you can appreciate that those words propagated rapidly through the ranks of technicians at these sites. Hence you here that acronym "RTLS" on multiple TV recordings. Only when I got to Starcast did I hear "possible RTLS" and I heard it in the exact context it was meant to convey. > If I > had taped half a dozen people sitting in my living room watching the > launch and one of then yelled "RTLS", should I post that video too? Sure if you lived near KSC and were missing a roof and had a long range optical tracker pointed at the space shuttle Challenger breaking up. You know you are acting like a troll. Go back underneath your bridge and play with your little e-mail buddies. I can hear them laughing from here. > > I went back in Google and verified that you wrote contemporaneously with me > > regarding certain aspects of my father's book. It was my recollection that > > you were little more than a cheerleader. Google confirmed that fact. If > > Google confirmed nothing of the sort. As usual, you take YOUR > conclusions and make them appear as someone else's authority. "1. Very few of my posts are in google. If this is how you do your research, well, then that figures." http://makeashorterlink.com/?F2F8154D6 http://makeashorterlink.com/?T639514D6 http://makeashorterlink.com/?W159234D6 You really are a troll. You call people liars without even checking the facts. Not very scientific are you? I have a fairly good memory. Now hurry go delete those posts. > > Google did not exist it would not change the fact that you are more of a > > derisive cheerleader than a contributor here. As I said earlier, "many of > > us have watched your posts over time." > > Don't presume to > know why I post here or what my knowledge or experience is. Your record speaks for itself. You are a derisive cheerleader. > You keep claiming I and others speak for NASA, yet your posts contain > hundreds of "explanations" and random pieces of data that support your > views of what "really happens inside NASA" - which is in effect, > speaking for nasa. Your claim is ludicrous. I know what I have written. I have referred to NASA documents many times and NASA records speak for NASA. I speak for myself. As for what really happens in NASA, you need only look at the Columbia investigation article in the Atlantic Monthly to gain some insight into what goes on inside NASA. If you are still confused read the SIAT report. > Based on the articles that have been published on the web, A weak basis at best. You just criticized such writings only days ago. Geesh. > it seems > Macidull joins a long list of self/hastily-published sensationalist > disaster authors with 20-20 hindsight. How insightfully unscientific of you. "It seems" cuts no mustard. You are ill informed. Macidull spent ten years on his book. He also had a coauthor. Your bias could not be any more blatant. You rush to an opinion before reading his book even though he was on the Presidential Commission staff. Other than Macidull may now contradict some widely held respect for the Presidential Commission investigating the Challenger disaster, you have no real reason to question his authority, knowledge, or truthfulness. You suggest all of these IMO when you lump him with "sensationalist disaster authors". You therefore whether you realize it or not support NASA. It was NASA that wrote most of the PC report. You represent a lot of what is wrong with science in this country as you fail to seriously investigate the facts. > Perhaps I'll publish my own review of his book. Right. I dare you. SignatureDaniel http://www.challengerdisaster.info > > You have not answered my question, nor clarified your reason for putting > > it up in the first place. You used the phrase "that clarifies that [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > would have been consequentially fatal as there was no way out. With a > proper extraction system, survival would be dicey but possible today. Called by whom? Anonymous voices in a crowd? Extraction possible? Mabye - at a weight and added complexity that would significantly affect performance and safety. How many years to check it out? The program was proposed, implemented and flew for years with this failure=fatality model. Don't want to fly it - just ground the damn thing and get on with something better. Bastardizing the current system, can't happen in time to save the ISS or Hubble. > > I don't believe > > "everyone" thought an RTLS had been called - I believe you were grasping [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Only when I got to Starcast did I hear "possible RTLS" and I heard it in the > exact context it was meant to convey. I understand that - but I ask for the third time - why did you spend so much time pushing that discussion when it was SO OBVIOUS there was nothing to it? > > If I > > had taped half a dozen people sitting in my living room watching the [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > facts. Not very scientific are you? I have a fairly good memory. Now > hurry go delete those posts. I've never deleted any of my posts from google. As usual, you side step the issues, the attack the person. I've called a certain lunatic poster on these newsgroups a few names. Do I need to search up the dozen or so names he's called me? Should I search up the hundreds of bogus claims he's made that he never provided even one shred of evidence to back up? > > > Google did not exist it would not change the fact that you are more of > a [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > A weak basis at best. You just criticized such writings only days ago. > Geesh. and I was criticizing them now - slow aren't you. > > it seems > > Macidull joins a long list of self/hastily-published sensationalist [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > NASA that wrote most of the PC report. You represent a lot of what is wrong > with science in this country as you fail to seriously investigate the facts. Funny - a maxson raising the Presidential Commission - wasn't this the group that let all americans down in their investigation? If he was there and was soo good - why didn't he do more about it at the time. I'll read is book - as I've ready a great deal more about all this that you might believe. It isn't my life however and I don't spend my every waking hour, trying to find unmatched jigsaw pieces I can shove together and cry conspiracy. > > Perhaps I'll publish my own review of his book. > > Right. I dare you. How old are you? 14? SignatureReviewer of Challenger books. Derisive cheerleader of false aeronautic engineers. > Called by whom? Anonymous voices in a crowd? Please go back and read my prior posts--the parts about Starcast. > Extraction possible? Mabye - at a weight and added complexity that > would significantly affect performance and safety. The current bailout system is not much lighter than an overhead extraction system. A few hundred pounds for a large increase in flight envelope escape potential. > How many years to > check it out? The years in which such systems might have been developed have long since come and gone. > I understand that - but I ask for the third time - why did you spend so > much time pushing that discussion when it was SO OBVIOUS there was > nothing to it? You need to go back and check your timeframes. I bet Roger Balettie even remembers my post that clarified my thoughts back then on RTLS. It did not take me long to get to Starcast. Doubtless you missed same. The real point here is that I took the time to find and dig out the right answer. You should try it sometime instead of making baseless assertions on books you have not read other than through the eyes of other reviewers ala "Challenger's Shadow" Go read "Challenger's Shadow" if you really want to discuss it as opposed to dissing it. September 9, 2003 http://makeashorterlink.com/?O14B214D6 A quote from SSS still on my newsreader follows: <snip> > I know you didn't make this point specifically, but since it's been > attempted in the past by others, the voice saying "RTLS" in the background > is a wishful hope for a positive result after seeing the event live. Yep." A simple yep Mike. An acknowledgement by me that Roger's point was well taken on November 6th, 2003. > I'll read is book - as I've ready a great deal more about all this that > you might believe. It isn't my life however and I don't spend my every > waking hour, trying to find unmatched jigsaw pieces I can shove together > and cry conspiracy. Good, then somehow this thread ends up with a positive ending. See you on the other side of the book. Please private e-mail me when you have finished the book and we can both post our reviews simultaneously and then discuss them. I honestly believe some good discussion might then occur. SignatureDaniel http://www.challengerdisaster.info Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC > > Called by whom? Anonymous voices in a crowd? > > Please go back and read my prior posts--the parts about Starcast. I've read it all - the first time. You dig through the trash heap of history for bits of information that support your predefined agenda - pasting them together with construction paper and edible glue - then you hold them up here and say "Look, I'm smarter than they are". I'm probably kill-filed here because I occasionally RESPOND to a certain conspiracy/delusional posters. You are kill-filled here because people see you for what you are. end-trans SignatureI have better things to do with my time that worry who might make fun of my sig. > You dig through the trash heap of history for bits of information that > support your predefined agenda - pasting them together with construction > paper and edible glue - then you hold them up here and say "Look, I'm > smarter than they are". "Trash heap of history" Is that a nick name for NASA's STS 51-L Repository or Google exposing your prior posts or something else entirely? > I'm probably kill-filed here because I occasionally RESPOND to a certain > conspiracy/delusional posters. I don't care who you respond to on this group. > You are kill-filled here because people > see you for what you are. If that were true Michael, please explain why so many people visit my website after being here including many decent regulars. I did not think you would really read Macidull's book. SignatureDaniel http://www.challengerdisaster.info Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC > If that were true Michael, please explain why so many people visit my > website after being here including many decent regulars. To laugh at you. SignatureICQ 40628243 Tel 07092057581 Fax 07092308800 > > If that were true Michael, please explain why so many people visit my > > website after being here including many decent regulars. > > To laugh at you. Please cite an example about what is so humorous at www.challengerdisaster.info. SignatureDaniel http://www.challengerdisaster.info Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC > You have not heard all of the audio on all of the TV recordings nor have you > yet heard the Starcast audio. When and if you ever do, you will understand > that many people at the remote camera sites heard that there was a "possible > RTLS". I see no list of these cameras. Regardless, you haven't explained how one would "understand" that from hearing these audios. In the next breath, you put all of this in terms of using ones imagination. > If you can imagine being > there and hearing part of the message and distinctly hearing what you wanted > to hear--"RTLS" and not hearing "possible RTLS", then you can appreciate > that those words propagated rapidly through the ranks of technicians at > these sites. You haven't shown that they indeed so "propagated." > Hence you here that acronym "RTLS" on multiple TV recordings. > Only when I got to Starcast did I hear "possible RTLS" and I heard it in the > exact context it was meant to convey. On Starcast, some think they hear, "Move to the right; we have a call for RTLS (slightly garbled)." Others think they hear, "Move to the right; we have possible RTLS (said quickly)." Part of the subsequent context is: VOICE 1: "They're not out of the area yet." (garble) VOICE 2: "How long will it take?" VOICE 1: "It will probably take another two or three minutes before we know if they landed safely." ("Possible" in this context appears to imply a called RTLS which might have some possibility of success, as opposed to the possibility of a called RTLS. The latter would not require that a specific runway be announced.) You have the additional burden of explaining why "possible RTLS" was not heard on Castglance, since you claim the same operator spoke to both planes (and apparently to Lockheed's cameramen on the ground, via the grapevine perhaps). > > You have not heard all of the audio on all of the TV recordings nor have you > > yet heard the Starcast audio. When and if you ever do, you will understand > > that many people at the remote camera sites heard that there was a "possible > > RTLS". > > I see no list of these cameras. So what. You can hear for yourself on some of the videos at my website. > Regardless, you haven't explained > how one would "understand" that from hearing these audios. In the > next breath, you put all of this in terms of using ones imagination. Others here certainly understood what I meant when last this ground was trodden here. > > If you can imagine being > > there and hearing part of the message and distinctly hearing what you wanted [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You haven't shown that they indeed so "propagated." Listen to TV-2 again for goodness sake. > > Hence you here that acronym "RTLS" on multiple TV recordings. > > Only when I got to Starcast did I hear "possible RTLS" and I heard it in the > > exact context it was meant to convey. > > On Starcast, some think they hear, "Move to the right; > we have a call for RTLS (slightly garbled)." > Others think they hear, "Move to the right; > we have possible RTLS (said quickly)." [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > operator spoke to both planes (and apparently to Lockheed's > cameramen on the ground, via the grapevine perhaps). As I asked here some time ago on the last two lines of the post below: "Next up, Starcast?" http://makeashorterlink.com/?I1CD424D6 IIRC, you never directly answered that question. SignatureDaniel http://www.challengerdisaster.info Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC >>>You have not heard all of the audio on all of the TV >>>recordings nor have you yet heard the Starcast audio. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>I see no list of these cameras. >So what. Your argumment above with Michael Gardner referred for credibility to evidence not yet available from your website. >You can hear for yourself on some of the videos at my website. If that's true, you could have told Michael where, and how far over on the slidebar. That information was not included. >>Regardless, you haven't explained how one would >>"understand" that from hearing these audios. In the next >>breath, you put all of this in terms of using ones imagination. >Others here certainly understood what I meant when last this >ground was trodden here. Even if you can show that's true, it's irrelevant to the above. >>>If you can imagine being there and hearing part of the message >>>and distinctly hearing what you wanted to hear--"RTLS" and not [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>You haven't shown that they indeed so "propagated." > Listen to TV-2 again for goodness sake. If you know of something audible on TV-2 which you should have included for Michael, you can give the slidebar position. Your reference, however, was to cameras and footage not yet provided. >As I asked here some time ago on the last two lines of the >post below: > > "Next up, Starcast?" If you chop off the first part of it (as you did with TV-4), it will be a biased presentation. (You provided significant prelaunch footage with TV-3 and TV-5, yet you deleted Barbara Morgan's prelaunch prepping. She was a teacher, you know.) > >>>You have not heard all of the audio on all of the TV > >>>recordings nor have you yet heard the Starcast audio. > >>>When and if you ever do, you will understand that many > >>>people at the remote camera sites heard that there was a > >>>"possible RTLS". > >>I see no list of these cameras. > >So what. > > Your argumment above with Michael Gardner referred for > credibility to evidence not yet available from your website. Yep. > >You can hear for yourself on some of the videos at my website. > > If that's true, you could have told Michael where, and how far > over on the slidebar. That information was not included. It is true, and Mike is a big boy. He can handle a slidebar. > > "Next up, Starcast?" > > If you chop off the first part of it (as you did with TV-4), > it will be a biased presentation. (You provided significant > prelaunch footage with TV-3 and TV-5, yet you deleted Barbara > Morgan's prelaunch prepping. She was a teacher, you know.) The context for TV-4 is fine the way I posted it for the purpose it serves. If you want to pay for my bandwidth I'll put every last frame of TV-4 on my site. If you think I am going to put up much of any Starcast at this time you are wrong. I will put up just enough to clarify the Castglance context. You are more than welcome to put up whatever you want of Starcast. If nothing else you can put up a transcript. SignatureDaniel http://www.challengerdisaster.info Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC > I will put up just enough to clarify the Castglance context. That will be interesting, since there are at least 3 different Starcast soundtracks, each with its own length and degree of clarity. Yesterday you were braying about context from multiple sites as clarification for the Castglance context. You went south on that claim in a hurry, in a very unscientific manner. > > I will put up just enough to clarify the Castglance context. > > That will be interesting, since there are at least 3 different > Starcast soundtracks, each with its own length and degree of > clarity. Ya. Yesterday you were braying about context from multiple > sites as clarification for the Castglance context. You went > south on that claim in a hurry, in a very unscientific manner. phhht. SignatureDaniel http://www.challengerdisaster.info Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC Below you'll find a few of my own additions (except for the "a", which was a typing error). They are based on three Starcast soundtracks. > On Starcast, some think they hear, "Move to the right; > we have a call for RTLS (slightly garbled)." > > Others think they hear, "Move to the right; we have a > possible RTLS (said quickly)." "Move to the right;" sounds like "Head right;" to me. Two soundtracks sound like "call for" at first listen. The clearest soundtrack sounds like "possible" at first listen. The soundtrack folks here listened to last night was the longest, but it had some bad garble and noise. > Part of the subsequent context is: > > VOICE 1: "They're not out of the area yet." (garble) Part of this garble is "... don't have anything," I think. > VOICE 2: "How long will it take?" > > VOICE 1: "It will probably take another two or three minutes > before we know if they landed safely." > > ("Possible" in this context appears to imply a called (or a *non-called*) > RTLS which might have some possibility of success, as opposed > to the possibility of a called RTLS. The latter would not [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > operator spoke to both planes (and apparently to Lockheed's > cameramen on the ground, via the grapevine perhaps). > Below you'll find a few of my own additions (except for the "a", > which was a typing error). They are based on three Starcast soundtracks. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > "Move to the right;" sounds like "Head right;" to me. "Head south," rather. (I meant to include that last night.) I think this was actually what my friends told me they heard. I probably made a subconscious translation when I later posted their comments, because I remember explaining to them the plane's position (relative to 51-L) and apparent direction of travel (east). It's consistent with the prelaunch prepping which the Starcast crew received. As I recall, they were told to look for the left SRB, "the one with the stripe." (The left SRB was still to the south after RSD, because of the two crossings.) Command intent may have been to avoid "RTLS" interference, also. John Maxson - www.mission51l.com > but no RTLS was officially "called" AFAIK. The problem is that it looks as though you don't positively know otherwise. The Starcast video provides some evidence for digging into the matter legally, in the absence of any certified or sworn proof from those like your opinionated friend Balettie. 'The Betrayal of Mission 51-L' says nothing to support any sort of called abort, RTLS or otherwise. It leans heavily toward an abort which was *not* called, but for which preparations began many long seconds before the main blast (and before any last ditch 'fast sep' attempt). My book makes one reference to a "failed" RTLS, but in a context specific to a solid quotation from an airborne video. I believe the word "failed" is consistent with many of the plane-crew descriptions of what was being officially communicated to them concerning a RTLS. > > but no RTLS was officially "called" AFAIK. > > The problem is that it looks as though you don't positively know > otherwise. No problem above. AFAIK means as far as I know. > The Starcast video provides some evidence for digging > into the matter legally, in the absence of any certified or sworn > proof from those like your opinionated friend Balettie. I am aware of what is on the Starcast video including the communication "possible RTLS". Although you still have not asked for it here, a small portion of Starcast will be here soon enough. Then you can confront that data. > 'The Betrayal of Mission 51-L' says nothing to support any sort of > called abort, RTLS or otherwise. It leans heavily toward an abort which > was *not* called, but for which preparations began many long seconds > before the main blast (and before any last ditch 'fast sep' attempt). Okaaay. Care to elaborate about these alleged preparations for this "abort". I'll guess no. > My book makes one reference to a "failed" RTLS, but in a context > specific to a solid quotation from an airborne video. I believe the > word "failed" is consistent with many of the plane-crew descriptions > of what was being officially communicated to them concerning a RTLS. I have read it. You can't change it now, unless you write a second edition. SignatureDaniel http://www.challengerdisaster.info Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC >>'The Betrayal of Mission 51-L' says nothing to support any sort of >>called abort, RTLS or otherwise. It leans heavily toward an abort which [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Okaaay. Care to elaborate about these alleged preparations for this > "abort". I'll guess no. The book does a fine job of that, as you know. >>My book makes one reference to a "failed" RTLS, but in a context >>specific to a solid quotation from an airborne video. I believe the >>word "failed" is consistent with many of the plane-crew descriptions >>of what was being officially communicated to them concerning a RTLS. > > I have read it. You can't change it now, unless you write a second edition. Your problem is that *you* can't change it. It's been out for over four years; it's still in print; it's Christmas time again; and you're still in the same pathetic rut. > > but no RTLS was officially "called" AFAIK. > > The problem is that it looks as though you don't positively know > otherwise. The Starcast video provides some evidence for digging > into the matter legally, in the absence of any certified or sworn > proof from those like your opinionated friend Balettie. I disagree. It was a review of the Starcast video that convinced me that no RTLS had been "called"; at least not by Mission Control anyway. I am fairly certain that is how it is supposed to happen. I doon't think KSC calls an RTLS. That leaves the flight crew or software to initiate an RTLS. The one thing that I have to wonder though, is what audio or video did NASA investigators feel they had to delete from the Starcast videotape without any public admittance of same? > 'The Betrayal of Mission 51-L' says nothing to support any sort of > called abort, RTLS or otherwise. It leans heavily toward an abort which > was *not* called, but for which preparations began many long seconds > before the main blast (and before any last ditch 'fast sep' attempt). You state above that your book does not mention a "called" abort and that is true. From a previous post of yours we have: http://makeashorterlink.com/?H5B4260E6 "A voice (recorded on the soundtrack of an airborne video from the east) gave a delayed alert: "Okay, we have an RTLS (Return to Launch Site Abort) in progress ... at Runway 33." The failed RTLS had begun more than sixty seconds prior to the RSD, an eternity in shuttle time!" If we use the logic that the person onboard the aircraft to which you refer was correct in stating that an "RTLS" was "in progress", then the inevetible question that must be asked and answered is who told those onboard that airplane of this purported fact? If the "failed RTLS had begun more than sixty seconds prior to the RSD [Range Safety Destruct]" or even 50 seconds before RSD, then how was it initiated? How did that information get transferred to CastGlance? Directly from the crew? From the crew back-channeled to JSC, and then to the NASA Landing Recovery Director (LRD), then to the Department of Defense Manager for Space Transportation System Contingency Support Operations (DDMS), then Patrick AFB Air Traffic Control, and then to CastGlance? or some other way? > My book makes one reference to a "failed" RTLS, but in a context > specific to a solid quotation from an airborne video. I believe the > word "failed" is consistent with many of the plane-crew descriptions > of what was being officially communicated to them concerning a RTLS. The Starcast videotape is at variance with your statement in at least on important way. Specifically the words used were "possible RTLS." SignatureDaniel http://www.challengerdisaster.info Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC > > > but no RTLS was officially "called" AFAIK. > > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > begun more than sixty seconds prior to the RSD, an > eternity in shuttle time!" Without any other data to tie this to, the only logic that applies is that the speaker, seeing the separation of the stack components (and not able to see much else), assumed and RTLS. Why would this person do this? Because as an aircraft it was not their job to stay out of the way of any presumed RTLS - and I expect had specific procedures to execute in that situation. You presume this information was somehow "transferred to CastGlance", but ignore the simplest and most obvious solution. A slightly more complicated scenario is one the Chain of people you meantion "called RTLS", not because they actually knew ANYTHING as to whether an RTLS was being executed - but again, it was clear the shuttle wasn't going up - and if by some miracle, it was flyable, it would be trying to fly back to runway 33. Thus calling out the potential situation, would make sure people were in the right position (not in the way) for such an attempt. As usual, you are attempting to infer that someone in authority somewhere "called" RTLS and we are left wondering why this is so important to you or anyone. What if someone said "RTLS" somewhere in the hundreds of people involved in command, control and communications? > If we use the logic that the person onboard the aircraft to which you refer > was correct in stating that an "RTLS" was "in progress", then the inevetible [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > The Starcast videotape is at variance with your statement in at least on > important way. Specifically the words used were "possible RTLS." BTW, I have my copy of shadow. There will be a review when I get the chance. The first few pages though are quite a hoot. SignatureI have better things to do with my time that worry who might make fun of my sig. > Without any other data to tie this to, the only logic that applies is > that the speaker, seeing the separation of the stack components (and not > able to see much else), assumed and RTLS. Wrong again, Castglance makes it perfectly clear that official verification was requested first, through "Thinker." > > Without any other data to tie this to, the only logic that applies is > > that the speaker, seeing the separation of the stack components (and not > > able to see much else), assumed and RTLS. > > Wrong again, Castglance makes it perfectly clear that official > verification was requested first, through "Thinker." Who is?? SignatureI have better things to do with my time that worry who might make fun of my sig. >>>Without any other data to tie this to, the only logic that applies is >>>that the speaker, seeing the separation of the stack components (and not [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Who is?? You can't be serious. If you're in the dark about that, you haven't been following the threads on the issue carefully enough. > >>>Without any other data to tie this to, the only logic that applies is > >>>that the speaker, seeing the separation of the stack components (and not [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > You can't be serious. If you're in the dark about that, you haven't > been following the threads on the issue carefully enough. You are to kind. Now you see what I mean about troll? SignatureDaniel http://www.challengerdisaster.info Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC >>>>>Without any other data to tie this to, the only logic that applies is >>>>>that the speaker, seeing the separation of the stack components (an [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > You are to kind. Now you see what I mean about troll? And you huff and you puff and you bluff, with your worn-out "soon enough;" yet you always expect others to "define" (fill in the blank). When you're not sucking up to them, you're telling them to "get a life." If this group is nothing but a cesspool, it won't purify your website. > >>>>>Without any other data to tie this to, the only logic that applies is > >>>>>that the speaker, seeing the separation of the stack components (an [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > And you huff and you puff and you bluff, with your worn-out "soon > enough;" yet you always expect others to "define" (fill in the blank). Nothing is ever good enough for you. Nothing is ever soon enough for you. You now have a growing library of videos to freely access and make your case for your book right here. It is even gratis. Yep, I am talking about my website. Instead you make no effort to use that information to make your case here and now. No more excuses. Good day. SignatureDaniel http://www.challengerdisaster.info Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC > You now have a growing library of videos to freely access and make your case > for your book right here. The Betrayal of Mission 51-L makes its own case. No more excuses. I don't know whether to take that as a threat or a promise, so I'll just take it with a grain of salt. John Maxson - www.mission51l.com (Christmas Eve, 2003) > > You now have a growing library of videos to freely access and make your case > > for your book right here. > > The Betrayal of Mission 51-L makes its own case. If that were true you'd be rich. > No more excuses. > > I don't know whether to take that as a threat or a promise, so I'll just > take it with a grain of salt. How typical. You shrug off a reference library when all this group wants is you to prove your case. SignatureDaniel http://www.challengerdisaster.info Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC >>The Betrayal of Mission 51-L makes its own case. > If that were true you'd be rich. So, you have nothing better to do tonight than call me a liar. My statement is true, and I am rich; but people like you and those whom you suggest I cater to wouldn't understand *how* I'm rich, even though it's Christmas Eve. >>>No more excuses. >>I don't know whether to take that as a threat or a promise, so I'll just >>take it with a grain of salt. > How typical. You shrug off a reference library when all this group wants is > you to prove your case. It's typical of *you*. You're shrugging off an honest explanation of what you mean by "No more excuses." All you've done is change the subject. That's all right. Regardless of whether you mean *you* will make no more excuses, or whether you're implying that I've been making excuses, I have no reason to believe you. The Lord knows my heart and soul; my record is in His hands. John Maxson - www.mission51l.com (Christmas Eve, 2003) > >> The Betrayal of Mission 51-L makes its own case. > > If that were true you'd be rich. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > you suggest I cater to wouldn't understand *how* I'm rich, even though > it's Christmas Eve. Have you ever heard of spiritual deception? > >>The Betrayal of Mission 51-L makes its own case. > > If that were true you'd be rich. > > So, you have nothing better to do tonight than call me a liar. Well there are advantages to planning ahead. It sure takes the stress out of the holidays. Anyway, no I am not calling you a liar per se. You yourself have pointed out how critical film and video are to supporting your book. Many books now include a video that helps the reader appreciate the story a bit more. Most Apogee books come that way. > My > statement is true, and I am rich; but people like you and those whom > you suggest I cater to wouldn't understand *how* I'm rich, even though > it's Christmas Eve. Right, I am clueless about how rich you are given the Christ-centered statements on your website, especially on Christmas Eve. I meant in dollars and cents as in associated with book sales from the story of the century. > >>>No more excuses. > >>I don't know whether to take that as a threat or a promise, so I'll just > >>take it with a grain of salt. > > How typical. You shrug off a reference library when all this group wants is > > you to prove your case. > > It's typical of *you*. You're shrugging off an honest explanation of > what you mean by "No more excuses." All you've done is change the > subject. No more excuses as in on this group, regarding you explaining the accident through video. > The Lord knows my heart and soul; my > record is in His hands. Right, I am sure he remembers that phone call with me and Paul too. SignatureDaniel http://www.challengerdisaster.info Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC >>>>The Betrayal of Mission 51-L makes its own case. >>>If that were true you'd be rich. >>So, you have nothing better to do tonight than call me a liar. > Well there are advantages to planning ahead. It sure takes the stress out > of the holidays. Anyway, no I am not calling you a liar per se. Yes, you are. You clarify that below, in reference to book sales. You relate the credibility of my book to its sales, rather than to your efforts and the efforts of others to stop those sales. > You yourself have pointed out how critical film and video are to supporting > your book. Many books now include a video that helps the reader appreciate > the story a bit more. Most Apogee books come that way. Everyone knows that your website is intended to support your own version of events, whatever that may be (or may have been). Don't try to pass it off now as an attempt to "help" me. >>My statement is true, and I am rich; but people like you and those >>whom you suggest I cater to wouldn't understand *how* I'm rich, even >>though it's Christmas Eve. > I meant in dollars and cents as in associated with book sales from > the story of the century. You did everything in your power to see that my sales were stopped before they were started. >>>>>No more excuses. >>>>I don't know whether to take that as a threat or a promise, so I'll just [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > No more excuses as in on this group, regarding you explaining the accident > through video. That's clear as mud. I have no idea what you're talking about; but I'll continue to defend my book against the libel of Berndt and Balettie, which you have enabled and continue to support. >>The Lord knows my heart and soul; my record is in His hands. > Right, I am sure he remembers that phone call with me and Paul too. All of them, I hope, as well as the rest of my life since I accepted Christ. John Maxson - www.mission51l.com (Christmas, 2003) > > You now have a growing library of videos to freely access and make your case > > for your book right here. > > The Betrayal of Mission 51-L makes its own case. A case of diarrhea? > >>>Without any other data to tie this to, the only logic that applies is > >>>that the speaker, seeing the separation of the stack components (and not [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > You can't be serious. If you're in the dark about that, you haven't > been following the threads on the issue carefully enough. I don't remember seeing Thinker ever tied to an actual person - just a lot of presumptions about someone at the AFB. It is still a lot of speculation. Nothing tied in any verifiable way to specific people - people who have admitted or otherwise gone on the record as stating, delcaring, calling or otherwise saying "RTLS" in any way other than "Gee, it's not going up, so it must be going down - so just in case it is somehow intact and under control, we better assume RTLS. I still ask, what is the point of all this? There isn't much question that various people uttered those letters after disintigration - but what is the point? Is this another conspiracy theory? Lets see, they not only blew it up on purpose, but the RTLS was preplanned? SignatureI have better things to do with my time that worry who might make fun of my sig. > I don't remember seeing Thinker ever tied to an actual person You've now refused to tell us why you brought the RTLS issue into the thread which discusses the book Challenger's Shadow. Meanwhile, someone else made assertions about "RTLS" on videos not yet in evidence here. Then he took another leave of absence. Rather than allow the RTLS issue to slip into limbo again, I'll begin a new thread. At least twice, the Starcast soundtrack refers directly to the callsign 'Thinker One Charlie' as the link to the crew's authority for instructions on how to proceed (an "actual person," although one who never identifies itself on Starcast or Castglance via that callsign). On Starcast only, someone identifies himself via callsign 'Variety.' If that's the same today, his unit had realtime access to video images now seen in my book. Even if nothing else did, in my opinion, those early ascent videos would have justified his words "we have possible RTLS." None of that, of course, changes or alters anything heard on Castglance. It should, however, add to the consternation of one Mr. Roger Balettie. John Maxson - www.mission51l.com > > I don't remember seeing Thinker ever tied to an actual person > > You've now refused to tell us why you brought the RTLS issue into the > thread which discusses the book Challenger's Shadow. Perhaps it is because he has been caught once again speaking out before even a brief review of the available facts on the Castglance video and SSS. > Meanwhile, someone else made assertions about "RTLS" on videos not yet > in evidence here. Then he took another leave of absence. Rather than > allow the RTLS issue to slip into limbo again, I'll begin a new thread. You have those complete videos--"all". Gardner does not have "all" of them. No need to be disengenous. You wrote in your book: "The failed RTLS had begun more than sixty seconds prior to the RSD, an eternity in shuttle time!" So who called that RTLS? How and why was it initiated at about T+40 to 50 seconds? You brought it up and you should address that issue if you really know that it happened. You are the one with the answers. > At least twice, the Starcast soundtrack refers directly to the callsign > 'Thinker One Charlie' as the link to the crew's authority for > instructions on how to proceed (an "actual person," although one who > never identifies itself on Starcast or Castglance via that callsign). Hmmm. A little research could help. > On Starcast only, someone identifies himself via callsign 'Variety.' Yes, and what does he say? ..."possible RTLS..." Where is that authoritive source? > If > that's the same today, It is the same. Did you not research that out before finishing your book? > his unit had realtime access to video images > now seen in my book. You have to pay for that service. Can you prove NASA did so? They probably did but probably is not certainly. > Even if nothing else did, in my opinion, those > early ascent videos would have justified his words "we have possible RTLS." Your book quotes an authoritive airborne source regarding an RTLS. Are you recanting in the wake of the fact that I am preparing to add a portion of time-tagged Starcast video to my website? Authoritive is a pretty serious word. To now back down to possible RTLS, would be, um, interesting. > None of that, of course, changes or alters anything heard on Castglance. > It should, however, add to the consternation of one Mr. Roger Balettie. It most assuredly does too. The context of the audio is everything to understanding those events correctly. SignatureDaniel http://www.challengerdisaster.info Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC >>Meanwhile, someone else made assertions about "RTLS" on videos not yet >>in evidence here. Then he took another leave of absence. Rather than >>allow the RTLS issue to slip into limbo again, I'll begin a new thread. > You have those complete videos--"all". Even if that proves to be true, it's irrelevant to the group issue. > No need to be disengenous. There is nothing disingenuous about what I said above. The videos from which you argued are not available to the group as a whole. (You could have learned from your Castglance experience that it's better to make the video available before discussion, but you let Gardner provoke you.) Furthermore, none us of know (by list) to which videos you referred (as I pointed out before). Without one, even I can't provide verification. I'm not referring to videos already up, either. You've made claims for those which I can't verify, and I find that equally troublesome. For your own credibility, you need to *locate* those quotes on the pertinent videos, since you have no illustrated book available for either overall or specific context. (I'll try to post some newsgroup history for context, since I feel you were provoked by Balettie, and maybe Oberg.) > You wrote in your book: > > "The failed RTLS had begun more than sixty seconds prior to the RSD, an > eternity in shuttle time!" So I did, but you can't legally provide all of my context for that here (both illustrated and text, and both general and specific). > So who called that RTLS? As I've pointed out before, my book does not discuss a "called RTLS." However, on his formal web-page, Balettie libelously states that my book claims "... the crew was in the middle of performing an ascent abort during the last few seconds of the ascent." The truth is that my book is quite careful to discuss that abort as an *automated* one. > You brought it up I did, on August 13, 2003, in the first post of a thread now comprising 83 posts, entitled: 'RTLS Abort & RCS Valve Commands.' The portion of that thread bearing on my book's Castglance quote begins with message 45. Balettie reared his ugly head in message 46 (after I had responded to Herbs) as follows: -----------------------------> Herbs: > > That voice was not "calling" the abort in the sense of ordering > > the crew (or software) to initiate the abort. JTM: > No, it was a voice of authority responding in real-time to official > communication from Air Force Range Safety officers, or their > equivalent, about how to proceed downrange and why. Sorry... no. Flight Control of launch vehicles transfers from KSC to JSC at "tower clear". There was n |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message