Re: The Challenger Cover-Up -- NASA's Unidentified 51-L Frustum

>ghost@xxxxxxxxx wrote 
You're entitled to your own subjective opinion; but to me, this sounds
like Little Sir Echo (i.e., an echo of the party line).

Funny, I expected you would say that. If I don't agree with you i'm a sheep.

Your
credentials are? 

Aerospace Engineering Doctorate and Computer Science Degree.

Your shuttle launch experience at KSC is? Your
combined independent research time on the subject is? 

On the STS about 10 years. So don't attempt to belittle me.


Now, Peter, you have resorted to simply *ignoring* the unidentified
frustum -- *after* admitting that there definitely is one. This issue
will *not* go away, I can assure you!

My cursory look at the photos is not really proof of anything. I didn't say it was unidentified either. I said there were some inconsistencies, howeve due to the poor quality of the photo these could be due to anything. Also you mention authenticity of photos. I fail to see how you can consider the UPI photo authentic either.

Furthermore, the opposite side of that booster as shown in my book, as
was shown extensively at my son's website by post-X footage from camera
E204, and as shown from still another camera at
<www.mission51l.com/challenger.htm>, proves conclusively that the E202
photo Jon references must *not* have rotated -- if he and NASA are to
have any credibility whatsoever.


Conclusively, not at at all. You can't prove something conclusively without verifying from another source. The SRB nozzle positions simply do not support your premise.


Was the UPI frustum scrubbed *at sea*?

You have to first accept there there is a UPI fustrum. One could simply reject the existance of that fustrum all together. Unless you can prove that photo is genuine I'm going to reject the UPI fustrum totally.

I notice no response to the points I make regarding the RCS. I don't see how RCS firings could support your premise either.


Peter

.