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

Peter Joseph wrote:
>
> Funny, I expected you would say that. If I don't agree with you i'm a

> sheep.

No, you missed the point completely. The point is precisely the
opposite; if I don't go along with the party line (like you do), I'm a
leper.

> Aerospace Engineering Doctorate and Computer Science Degree.

Impressive, but lacking in practical experience, such as rocket testing
and launch control experience.

> > Your combined independent research time on the subject is?
>
> On the STS about 10 years. So don't attempt to belittle me.

I wouldn't dream of doing to you what you've done to me from the
beginning. I'll just write it off for the time being as typical of
those with primarily an academic background.

> My cursory look at the photos is not really proof of anything.

Then why did you make so much of it from the beginning?

> I didn't say it was unidentified either.

Great, because the fact that it was unidentified by NASA at the time is
a matter of public record.

> I fail to see how you can consider the UPI photo authentic either.

It's more authentic than many in the PC Report, I can assure you. UPI
hasn't officially taken any "original film SENSITIVE" cop-outs yet,
that we're aware of. It's available on fiche in any good university
library, for confirmation.

> Conclusively, not at at all. You can't prove something conclusively
> without verifying from another source.

That's why I gave you all those other cameras as references, remember?

> The SRB nozzle positions simply do not support your premise.

I passed the stage of premise over a decade ago. My conclusions are
based on verification of what happened by independent experts, among
other things. I did not begin this thread to argue such things,
however. You gave me your opinion (two different ones) on the UPI
photo, and I appreciate that immensely. You were the only one to do so.
Thanks, Peter, thanks.

> You have to first accept there there is a UPI fustrum.

I've done that, obviously, as you did also. If UPI faked the photo,
they're history!

> One could simply reject the existance of that fustrum all together.

Reject away, if that will help your ego / dwindling credibility on the
topic.

> Unless you can prove that photo is genuine I'm going
> to reject the UPI fustrum totally.

Be my guest, but that won't enhance your credentials in a court of law,
i.e., it won't make you an expert witness.

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

Then you didn't conduct a search on 'RCS' in these Google archives.
Also, this particular thread is not on that subject.

It's great for good people from academia to want the big picture and
all the details immediately. I dare say that most journalists are like
that. Usually for a good story, however, they end up doing a bit of
digging.

Challenger's Ghost

.