Zzzzzoom in Zzzzzero Gravity

[Montblack]

This round apparently goes to Zoom.

Whether through guile, bluster, bluff ...or genuine journalistic
stick-to-itiveness, Zoom was there: we were not. He deserves an "atta boy."

A question:
What are his ANN numbers?

Also:
What do those numbers mean?


Mont-black-hole

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, Montblack says...
>
>This round apparently goes to Zoom.
>
>Whether through guile, bluster, bluff ...or genuine journalistic
>stick-to-itiveness, Zoom was there: we were not. He deserves an "atta boy."
>
>A question:
>What are his ANN numbers?
>
>Also:
>What do those numbers mean?

He may have been there but something he wrote in his article about the flight
might have given it away. He said some people paid to observe the flight .I bet
he bought his way on because if he was part of the crew I'm sure he would have
worn a neat jump suit like the real crew members. I noticed that none of the
photos in flight were credited to him so I doubt he was the official
photographer.

I bet it was guile,bluster, bluff and money for a ticket that got zoom there :-)
But he'll never get an atta boy from me ...He's still a phoney .

Another thing he said was he'll be test flying a rocket plane in the near future
....Wanna bet?? LOL!!!


Chuck S RAH-14/1 ret

[Dan[_2_]]

ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:
> In article >, Montblack says...
>> This round apparently goes to Zoom.
>>
>> Whether through guile, bluster, bluff ...or genuine journalistic
>> stick-to-itiveness, Zoom was there: we were not. He deserves an "atta boy."
>>
>> A question:
>> What are his ANN numbers?
>>
>> Also:
>> What do those numbers mean?
>
> He may have been there but something he wrote in his article about the flight
> might have given it away. He said some people paid to observe the flight .I bet
> he bought his way on because if he was part of the crew I'm sure he would have
> worn a neat jump suit like the real crew members. I noticed that none of the
> photos in flight were credited to him so I doubt he was the official
> photographer.
>
> I bet it was guile,bluster, bluff and money for a ticket that got zoom there :-)
> But he'll never get an atta boy from me ...He's still a phoney .
>
> Another thing he said was he'll be test flying a rocket plane in the near future
> ...Wanna bet?? LOL!!!
>
>
> Chuck S RAH-14/1 ret
>
I wonder if it's too late to have him test a V1.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[George]

Notice the way he posts photos of the flight, and of Hawking in a
horizontal position in zero gravity, and the notice under the picture
would lead you to believe that he is posting a copyright of the photo.
See what it actually says, he is not copyrighting the photo, it says,
"Portions Copyright © 1999-2007 by Aero-News Network, Inc. All rights
reserved." Whatever "Portions" means, escapes me.

The same photo appears in the gozerog.com website and credit is shown as
zero gravity.

The other day I thought I found some photos that were credited to the
Orlando Sentinal or something like that and they were surprisingly
similar, I dare not say identical, to photos on the ANN website.

Sure does make a person wonder??

[Kyle Boatright]

"Dan" > wrote in message
...
> ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:
>> In article >, Montblack says...
>>> This round apparently goes to Zoom.
>>>
>>> Whether through guile, bluster, bluff ...or genuine journalistic
>>> stick-to-itiveness, Zoom was there: we were not. He deserves an "atta
>>> boy."
>>>
>>> A question:
>>> What are his ANN numbers?
>>>
>>> Also:
>>> What do those numbers mean?
>>
>> He may have been there but something he wrote in his article about the
>> flight
>> might have given it away. He said some people paid to observe the flight
>> .I bet
>> he bought his way on because if he was part of the crew I'm sure he would
>> have
>> worn a neat jump suit like the real crew members. I noticed that none of
>> the
>> photos in flight were credited to him so I doubt he was the official
>> photographer.
>>
>> I bet it was guile,bluster, bluff and money for a ticket that got zoom
>> there :-)
>> But he'll never get an atta boy from me ...He's still a phoney .
>>
>> Another thing he said was he'll be test flying a rocket plane in the near
>> future
>> ...Wanna bet?? LOL!!!
>>
>>
>> Chuck S RAH-14/1 ret
>>
> I wonder if it's too late to have him test a V1.
>

I think watching him loop, roll, and spin a Natter would be more
interesting...


> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Dan[_2_]]

Kyle Boatright wrote:
> "Dan" > wrote in message
> ...
>> ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:
>>> In article >, Montblack says...
>>>> This round apparently goes to Zoom.
>>>>
>>>> Whether through guile, bluster, bluff ...or genuine journalistic
>>>> stick-to-itiveness, Zoom was there: we were not. He deserves an "atta
>>>> boy."
>>>>
>>>> A question:
>>>> What are his ANN numbers?
>>>>
>>>> Also:
>>>> What do those numbers mean?
>>> He may have been there but something he wrote in his article about the
>>> flight
>>> might have given it away. He said some people paid to observe the flight
>>> .I bet
>>> he bought his way on because if he was part of the crew I'm sure he would
>>> have
>>> worn a neat jump suit like the real crew members. I noticed that none of
>>> the
>>> photos in flight were credited to him so I doubt he was the official
>>> photographer.
>>>
>>> I bet it was guile,bluster, bluff and money for a ticket that got zoom
>>> there :-)
>>> But he'll never get an atta boy from me ...He's still a phoney .
>>>
>>> Another thing he said was he'll be test flying a rocket plane in the near
>>> future
>>> ...Wanna bet?? LOL!!!
>>>
>>>
>>> Chuck S RAH-14/1 ret
>>>
>> I wonder if it's too late to have him test a V1.
>>
>
> I think watching him loop, roll, and spin a Natter would be more
> interesting...

With cockpit audio :)

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Timothy Sinclair" > wrote

> For the last time:
>
> James Campbell was not on board Stephen Hawking's zero-g flight.

And for the third time, tell us of how you come to have this information, or
nobody will find your statement credible.
--
Jim in NC

[Kyle Boatright]

"Timothy Sinclair" > wrote in message
...
> Chuck S Wrote:
>
>>He may have been there but something he wrote in his article about the
>>flight
>>might have given it away. He said some people paid to observe the flight
>>.I bet
>>he bought his way on because if he was part of the crew I'm sure he would
>>have
>>worn a neat jump suit like the real crew members. I noticed that none of
>>the
>>photos in flight were credited to him so I doubt he was the official
>>photographer.
>>
>>I bet it was guile,bluster, bluff and money for a ticket that got zoom
>>there :-)
>>But he'll never get an atta boy from me ...He's still a phoney .
>>
>>Another thing he said was he'll be test flying a rocket plane in the near
>>future
>>...Wanna bet?? LOL!!!
>>
>>
>>Chuck S RAH-14/1 ret
>
>
> For the last time:
>
> James Campbell was not on board Stephen Hawking's zero-g flight.
>
> - Tim

And, for at least the 3rd time, what is your basis for this statement?
Either it is first hand, second hand, or third hand information. Without
some providing some attribution, most of the folks following this thread
will be skeptical, despite the fact that many would enjoy seeing Zoom caught
in another embellishment/fabrication/lie/whatever.

KB

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article , Timothy Sinclair says...
>
>Chuck S Wrote:
>
>>He may have been there but something he wrote in his article about the flight
>>might have given it away. He said some people paid to observe the flight .I bet
>>he bought his way on because if he was part of the crew I'm sure he would have
>>worn a neat jump suit like the real crew members. I noticed that none of the
>>photos in flight were credited to him so I doubt he was the official
>>photographer.
>>
>>I bet it was guile,bluster, bluff and money for a ticket that got zoom there :-)
>>But he'll never get an atta boy from me ...He's still a phoney .
>>
>>Another thing he said was he'll be test flying a rocket plane in the near future
>>...Wanna bet?? LOL!!!
>>
>>
>>Chuck S RAH-14/1 ret
>
>
>For the last time:
>
>James Campbell was not on board Stephen Hawking's zero-g flight.


Tim I hope your right so how do you know? and how did zoom get in the news
photos and videos?? If you have proof he wasn't there I among others would love
to see it :-)

Chuck S

[John Ousterhout[_2_]]

Dan wrote:

> I wonder if it's too late to have him test a V1.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


THAT would be a Weapon of Mass Deception.

- John Ousterhout -
rah/14, I've been sued!
http://ousterhout.net

[cavelamb himself]

ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:

> In article >, Montblack says...
>
>>This round apparently goes to Zoom.
>>
>>Whether through guile, bluster, bluff ...or genuine journalistic
>>stick-to-itiveness, Zoom was there: we were not. He deserves an "atta boy."
>>
>>A question:
>>What are his ANN numbers?
>>
>>Also:
>>What do those numbers mean?
>
>
> He may have been there but something he wrote in his article about the flight
> might have given it away. He said some people paid to observe the flight .I bet
> he bought his way on because if he was part of the crew I'm sure he would have
> worn a neat jump suit like the real crew members. I noticed that none of the
> photos in flight were credited to him so I doubt he was the official
> photographer.
>
> I bet it was guile,bluster, bluff and money for a ticket that got zoom there :-)
> But he'll never get an atta boy from me ...He's still a phoney .
>
> Another thing he said was he'll be test flying a rocket plane in the near future
> ...Wanna bet?? LOL!!!
>
>
> Chuck S RAH-14/1 ret
>


Doncha just hate when that happens?

[Ric[_2_]]

"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message I
noticed that none of the
> photos in flight were credited to him so I doubt he was the official
> photographer.

The photo at the NASA site shows Hawking "floating" with the credit given to
Jim Cambell. Sooo, unless they have thrown him in the air, one must assume
it is an inflight photo credit.

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article <Dab0i.43277$n_.40036@attbi_s21>, John Ousterhout says...
>
>Dan wrote:
>
>> I wonder if it's too late to have him test a V1.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>
>THAT would be a Weapon of Mass Deception.

Good one John.I'd love to read his "test pilot" reports.

" The Natter was a little cramped for yours truly but once airborne I really
rung it out and I didn't notice that my rather large empennage was hitting the
cabin sides. But that helped with high G maneuvers. I started with some basic
loops ,rolls and inverted flat spins and found the Natter to be extremely
sensitive but delightfully obedient having a close coupled phugoid with yaw
separation in roll harmonizing the damping of the linear but slightly increasing
stick pressures. At about positive 10 g's while supersonic it exhibited a slight
mach tuck which went away at 10.5 g's I didn't explore negative g past 9 because
I had a large breakfast and was mildly to slightly uncomfortable.

It was really fun to fly especially when I fired ALL those rockets YIPES what a
BLAST!! Landing was a slight challenge with a 40 knot 89 degree X wind but I
greased it on thanks to the great designers of this craft.

All in all I found this plane to be blast to fly and and I think eventually
I'll own one to add to my WW II collection.

Next week I'll be test flying the Baka Bomb a delightful little rocket glider
(similiar to the Rockt Racer I'll be flying in the near future ) and the V-1
series Pulse jet plane .I'm the only fly writer to get to fly these planes it
will be an ANNE exclusive. " :-)

Chuck S RAH-14/1 ret

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, Ric says...
>
>
>"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message I
>noticed that none of the
>> photos in flight were credited to him so I doubt he was the official
>> photographer.
>
>The photo at the NASA site shows Hawking "floating" with the credit given to
>Jim Cambell. Sooo, unless they have thrown him in the air, one must assume
>it is an inflight photo credit.

Your right at this point I have no doubt zoom was there however I doubt zoom was
the "official" event photographer.

See ya

Chuck S

[Gig 601XL Builder]

ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:
> In article , Timothy Sinclair says...
>>
>> Chuck S Wrote:
>>
>>> He may have been there but something he wrote in his article about
>>> the flight might have given it away. He said some people paid to
>>> observe the flight .I bet he bought his way on because if he was
>>> part of the crew I'm sure he would have worn a neat jump suit like
>>> the real crew members. I noticed that none of the photos in flight
>>> were credited to him so I doubt he was the official photographer.
>>>
>>> I bet it was guile,bluster, bluff and money for a ticket that got
>>> zoom there :-) But he'll never get an atta boy from me ...He's
>>> still a phoney .
>>>
>>> Another thing he said was he'll be test flying a rocket plane in
>>> the near future ...Wanna bet?? LOL!!!
>>>
>>>
>>> Chuck S RAH-14/1 ret
>>
>>
>> For the last time:
>>
>> James Campbell was not on board Stephen Hawking's zero-g flight.
>
>
> Tim I hope your right so how do you know? and how did zoom get in the
> news photos and videos?? If you have proof he wasn't there I among
> others would love to see it :-)
>
> Chuck S

Guys this should be really easy to check out. Here's the contact information
for Zero G's VP of sales & marketing.

Edwin Lorse, VP Sales & Marketing
954-756-1000


Somebody call him and ask if Zoom was on the flight. I'm sure he has a list.

[Richard Isakson]

"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...
> Good one John.I'd love to read his "test pilot" reports.
>
> " The Natter was a little cramped for yours truly but once airborne I
really
> rung it out and I didn't notice that my rather large empennage was hitting
the
> cabin sides. But that helped with high G maneuvers. I started with some
basic
> loops ,rolls and inverted flat spins and found the Natter to be extremely
> sensitive but delightfully obedient having a close coupled phugoid with
yaw
> separation in roll harmonizing the damping of the linear but slightly
increasing
> stick pressures. At about positive 10 g's while supersonic it exhibited a
slight
> mach tuck which went away at 10.5 g's I didn't explore negative g past 9
because
> I had a large breakfast and was mildly to slightly uncomfortable.
>
> It was really fun to fly especially when I fired ALL those rockets YIPES
what a
> BLAST!! Landing was a slight challenge with a 40 knot 89 degree X wind but
I
> greased it on thanks to the great designers of this craft.
>
> All in all I found this plane to be blast to fly and and I think
eventually
> I'll own one to add to my WW II collection.
>
> Next week I'll be test flying the Baka Bomb a delightful little rocket
glider
> (similiar to the Rockt Racer I'll be flying in the near future ) and the
V-1
> series Pulse jet plane .I'm the only fly writer to get to fly these planes
it
> will be an ANNE exclusive. " :-)

Gosh "Chuck", that pegged the Zoom meter with a solid 10. Is it possible
that "Chuck" is actually just a Zoom sock puppet? Does anyone have a photo
of "Chuck" and Zoom together at the same time? None of this Photoshop stuff
but an unaltered photo? Now, I know what you're thinking: "but Zoom is
always attacking "Chuck". What about that." That could be just an aspect of
Campbell's self hatred! Or is Zoom one of "Chuck's" personalities?

Rich

[Dave[_13_]]

"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...

.. At about positive 10 g's while supersonic it exhibited a slight
> mach tuck which went away at 10.5 g's I didn't explore negative g past 9
> because
> I had a large breakfast and was mildly to slightly uncomfortable.
>

I'm confused, Jim Campbell is a very fat man, and normal people in good
shape begin to experience blackouts at 6-7 g's. How might a flabby pile like
Zoom expect to calmly evaluate flight characteristics at 10.5 G's?? I really
couldn't care less if he rode with Hawking, you pay- you ride, that easy,
but who would believe a man that out of shape could fly the way he claims??

[Montblack]

("Richard Isakson" wrote)
> Gosh "Chuck", that pegged the Zoom meter with a solid 10. Is it possible
> that "Chuck" is actually just a Zoom sock puppet? Does anyone have a
> photo of "Chuck" and Zoom together at the same time? None of this
> Photoshop stuff but an unaltered photo? Now, I know what you're thinking:
> "but Zoom is always attacking "Chuck". What about that." That could be
> just an aspect of Campbell's self hatred! Or is Zoom one of "Chuck's"
> personalities?


I can think of (3) Star Trek (TOS) episodes, off the top of my head, that
deal with this very topic:

The Enemy Within - Kirk split into two personality types
The Alternative Factor - Lazarus (A&B) from an antimatter universe
Turnabout Intruder - "Doctor" Janice Lester (...enough said!)

Mirror, Mirror ...not so much.


Mont-black-on-my right-side
"Riddle me this..."

Q: What did one Borg say to one another right before their ship was
destroyed in sector zero zero one?
A: Hoisted by our own Picard.

Spock, Spock.
Who's there?
Epsilon.
Epsilon who?
Epsilon way to Tipperary...

Q: Did you hear about the new restaurant on the moon?
A: Great food, but no atmosphere.

[Dan Nafe]

In article >,
"Richard Isakson" > wrote:

> Gosh "Chuck", that pegged the Zoom meter with a solid 10.

Nope, 9.4.

(Forgot to use the word "puppy" in reference to the aircraft)

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, Dan Nafe says...
>
>In article >,
> "Richard Isakson" > wrote:
>
>> Gosh "Chuck", that pegged the Zoom meter with a solid 10.
>
>Nope, 9.4.
>
>(Forgot to use the word "puppy" in reference to the aircraft)

That's fair I did miss "puppy" good evaulation. I guess I'm out of practice
LOL!!

Chuck (I didn't loop ,roll and spin)S

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, Dave says...
>
>
>"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...
>
>. At about positive 10 g's while supersonic it exhibited a slight
>> mach tuck which went away at 10.5 g's I didn't explore negative g past 9
>> because
>> I had a large breakfast and was mildly to slightly uncomfortable.
>>
>
>I'm confused, Jim Campbell is a very fat man, and normal people in good
>shape begin to experience blackouts at 6-7 g's. How might a flabby pile like
>Zoom expect to calmly evaluate flight characteristics at 10.5 G's?? I really
>couldn't care less if he rode with Hawking, you pay- you ride, that easy,
>but who would believe a man that out of shape could fly the way he claims??

That's been mine and a lot of others argument for years .He once claimed to have
pulled ,I think positive 10 g's in a Sukoi and close to 9 negative.I might be
off a bit on the numbers but they're close. Thus started the famous "Battle of
the Sukoi G's" which earned those who participated a battle ribbon.He said he
could do it because the seats were slightly reclined. ;-)

Chuck S RAH-14/1 ret

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, Richard Isakson
says...
> Gosh "Chuck", that pegged the Zoom meter with a solid 10. Is it possible
>that "Chuck" is actually just a Zoom sock puppet? Does anyone have a photo
>of "Chuck" and Zoom together at the same time? None of this Photoshop stuff
>but an unaltered photo? Now, I know what you're thinking: "but Zoom is
>always attacking "Chuck". What about that." That could be just an aspect of
>Campbell's self hatred! Or is Zoom one of "Chuck's" personalities?

Nice try Richard but no joy :-)Ouster has pics of me and zoomy talking just
before the cops escorted him off the SnF grounds. I just try to analyze my enemy
and know his every move because "the Shadow knows Heh,heh ,heh ,heh".

Chuck(Lamont Cranston) S

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, Richard Riley says...
>
>On Wed, 9 May 2007 13:33:03 -0300, "Dave" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>. At about positive 10 g's while supersonic it exhibited a slight
>>> mach tuck which went away at 10.5 g's I didn't explore negative g past 9
>>> because
>>> I had a large breakfast and was mildly to slightly uncomfortable.
>>>
>>
>>I'm confused, Jim Campbell is a very fat man, and normal people in good
>>shape begin to experience blackouts at 6-7 g's. How might a flabby pile like
>>Zoom expect to calmly evaluate flight characteristics at 10.5 G's?? I really
>>couldn't care less if he rode with Hawking, you pay- you ride, that easy,
>>but who would believe a man that out of shape could fly the way he claims??
>
>Sadly, enough people to keep him (barely) in business.
>
>And there are real world consequences to people believing that crap.
>Not many people in this market are getting rich (Dick Van Grunsven
>being the one exception). If Zoom goes after a company he costs them
>a few sales - and that could be the diffence between making it and
>not.
>
>Years ago he reviewed a little homebuilt called the Capella. Later
>they got on his ****list, but when he reviewed it he did his standared
>"looped, rolled and spun" story. A year later, a couple of kids
>(without licenses) flying a non-registered but N number wearing 2
>place tried a zoom and pull, and pulled the wings off. We know for
>they read Zoom's story. Did he influence their decision? It's
>likely.
>
>Zoom lies, people and businesses die.

True story ...sad but true

Chuck S RAH-14/1 ret

[Morgans[_2_]]

"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote

> Nice try Richard but no joy :-)Ouster has pics of me and zoomy talking
> just
> before the cops escorted him off the SnF grounds. I just try to analyze my
> enemy
> and know his every move because "the Shadow knows Heh,heh ,heh ,heh".

I think that you have forgotten a very important thing. You should always
remember to:

Govern yourself accordingly! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[DABEAR]

On May 10, 8:38 am, ChuckSlusarczyk
> wrote:

> >Years ago he reviewed a little homebuilt called the Capella. Later
> >they got on his ****list, but when he reviewed it he did his standared
> >"looped, rolled and spun" story. A year later, a couple of kids
> >(without licenses) flying a non-registered but N number wearing 2
> >place tried a zoom and pull, and pulled the wings off. We know for
> >they read Zoom's story. Did he influence their decision? It's
> >likely.
>
> >Zoom lies, people and businesses die.
>
> True story ...sad but true
>
> Chuck S RAH-14/1 ret- Hide quoted text -

Hey, Chuck...does anyone have the N Number and full type of aircraft
on this one? Or, a copy or reference (link?) to the accident report?

Thanks...Bear!

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article . com>, DABEAR
says...
>
>On May 10, 8:38 am, ChuckSlusarczyk
> wrote:
>
>> >Years ago he reviewed a little homebuilt called the Capella. Later
>> >they got on his ****list, but when he reviewed it he did his standared
>> >"looped, rolled and spun" story. A year later, a couple of kids
>> >(without licenses) flying a non-registered but N number wearing 2
>> >place tried a zoom and pull, and pulled the wings off. We know for
>> >they read Zoom's story. Did he influence their decision? It's
>> >likely.
>>
>> >Zoom lies, people and businesses die.
>>
>> True story ...sad but true
>>
>> Chuck S RAH-14/1 ret- Hide quoted text -
>
>Hey, Chuck...does anyone have the N Number and full type of aircraft
>on this one? Or, a copy or reference (link?) to the accident report?
>
>Thanks...Bear!
Hey Bear
I'll see if I can find it .I'm pretty sure I have the issue with his flight
report and probably also have one with the crash report.

Chuck S

[Barnyard BOb]

>Years ago he reviewed a little homebuilt called the Capella. Later
>they got on his ****list, but when he reviewed it he did his standared
>"looped, rolled and spun" story. A year later, a couple of kids
>(without licenses) flying a non-registered but N number wearing 2
>place tried a zoom and pull, and pulled the wings off. We know for
>they read Zoom's story. Did he influence their decision? It's
>likely.
>
>Zoom lies, people and businesses die
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

I'm no Zoom defender, but it's a stretch to blame Zoom for anyone
who kills themselves ripping wings off of most anything airworthy.

I've looped, rolled and spun everything I've ever owned
or rented except for my Flybaby and a twin Comanche.
These maneuvers can be accomplished safely under 3 positive g's.
By a couple of unlicensed kids teaching themselves?
Unlikely.

My favorite steed, an RV-3, has one of the worst reputations for
shedding wings. It a plane that is very slippery and has delightfully
light stick forces. Bank & yank, zoom & pull with RECKLESS abandon...
and the automatic wing remover will begin self activation at 6 g's.

GUARANTEED!!!!!

It's a piece of cake to demo the RV-3 at 2 feet off the ground
at 220 mph.... then rotate vertical in front of a crowd for an easy
one thousand foot gain with no more than 4 g's on the meter.
OTOH.... more than one pilot has lost a wing or two just
buzzing the local airport, hot dogging for the home boys.

So, what do we have...?

1. What you don't know can kill you.
2. Knowing Zoom can kill you.

Be governed accordingly!!!! ;-)


Barnyard BOb - 53 years of powered flight

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Barnyard BOb" > wrote

> Be governed accordingly!!!! ;-)

_Close_ to perfect use of the modified phrase. ;-)

--
Jim in NC

[Barnyard BOb]

"Morgans" wrote:


>> Be governed accordingly!!!! ;-)
>
>_Close_ to perfect use of the modified phrase. ;-)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

What might perfect be?

Be governed 'accordianly'?


Barnyard BOb

[Rich S.[_1_]]

"Barnyard BOb" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Morgans" wrote:
>
>
>>> Be governed accordingly!!!! ;-)
>>
>>_Close_ to perfect use of the modified phrase. ;-)
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>
> What might perfect be?
>
> Be governed 'accordianly'?
>
>
> Barnyard BOb

You lost bonus points for omitting the multiple "!!!!"!

Rancid Rich

[Dan[_2_]]

Barnyard BOb wrote:
> "Morgans" wrote:
>
>
>>> Be governed accordingly!!!! ;-)
>> _Close_ to perfect use of the modified phrase. ;-)
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>
> What might perfect be?
>
> Be governed 'accordianly'?
>
>
> Barnyard BOb

Only when playing "Lady in Spain."

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Barnyard BOb" > wrote
>
> What might perfect be?
>
> Be governed 'accordianly'?

No, but that does have a nice "festive" sound to it. <g>

I thought that Zoom's typical usage was "govern yourself accordingly."

No?
--
Jim in NC

[Steve Foley[_2_]]

"Barnyard BOb" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Morgans" wrote:
>
>
>>> Be governed accordingly!!!! ;-)
>>
>>_Close_ to perfect use of the modified phrase. ;-)
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>
> What might perfect be?
>
> Be governed 'accordianly'?
>

Images of the Road Runner and a cliff come to mind.

[DABEAR]

On May 11, 7:25 am, ChuckSlusarczyk
> wrote:
> In article . com>, DABEAR
> says...
>
>
>
>
>
> >On May 10, 8:38 am, ChuckSlusarczyk
> > wrote:
>
> >> >Years ago he reviewed a little homebuilt called the Capella. Later
> >> >they got on his ****list, but when he reviewed it he did his standared
> >> >"looped, rolled and spun" story. A year later, a couple of kids
> >> >(without licenses) flying a non-registered but N number wearing 2
> >> >place tried a zoom and pull, and pulled the wings off. We know for
> >> >they read Zoom's story. Did he influence their decision? It's
> >> >likely.
>
> >> >Zoom lies, people and businesses die.
>
> >> True story ...sad but true
>
> >> Chuck S RAH-14/1 ret- Hide quoted text -
>
> >Hey, Chuck...does anyone have the N Number and full type of aircraft
> >on this one? Or, a copy or reference (link?) to the accident report?
>
> >Thanks...Bear!
>
> Hey Bear
> I'll see if I can find it .I'm pretty sure I have the issue with his flight
> report and probably also have one with the crash report.
>
> Chuck S- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Excellent...thanks much!

BRDB!!!

[Jim Logajan]

DABEAR > wrote:
> On May 11, 7:25 am, ChuckSlusarczyk
> > wrote:
>> In article . com>,
>> DABEAR says...
>> >On May 10, 8:38 am, ChuckSlusarczyk
>> > wrote:
>> >> >Years ago he reviewed a little homebuilt called the Capella.
>> >> >Later they got on his ****list, but when he reviewed it he did
>> >> >his standared "looped, rolled and spun" story. A year later, a
>> >> >couple of kids (without licenses) flying a non-registered but N
>> >> >number wearing 2 place tried a zoom and pull, and pulled the
>> >> >wings off. We know for they read Zoom's story. Did he influence
>> >> >their decision? It's likely.
>>
>> >Hey, Chuck...does anyone have the N Number and full type of aircraft
>> >on this one? Or, a copy or reference (link?) to the accident
>> >report?
>>
>> I'll see if I can find it .I'm pretty sure I have the issue with his
>> flight report and probably also have one with the crash report.
>
> Excellent...thanks much!

NTSB search by keyword "capella" yielded 4 hits, one of which had
fatalities and appears to be the accident in question:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001211X12205&key=1

[Barnyard BOb]

Jim Logajan wrote:

>>> >> >Years ago he reviewed a little homebuilt called the Capella.
>>> >> >Later they got on his ****list, but when he reviewed it he did
>>> >> >his standared "looped, rolled and spun" story. A year later, a
>>> >> >couple of kids (without licenses) flying a non-registered but N
>>> >> >number wearing 2 place tried a zoom and pull, and pulled the
>>> >> >wings off. We know for they read Zoom's story. Did he influence
>>> >> >their decision? It's likely.

>NTSB search by keyword "capella" yielded 4 hits, one of which had
>fatalities and appears to be the accident in question:
>
>http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001211X12205&key=1

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

This does appear to be the Capella in question. If so.....
It's time to make these kids responsible for their own actions.

NTSB Identification: MIA93LA130.....

POSTCRASH EXAMINATION OF THE WING ATTACH POINTS INDICATED ALL FAILURES
WERE INDICATIVE OF OVERSTRESS AND ALL FITTINGS HAD DISTORTION DAMAGE.
THE ACFT MFG STATED THE DAMAGE TO THE WINGS WAS SIMILAR TO DAMAGE OF
WINGS THAT WERE FAILED AT ULTIMATE LOADING OF 6.6 POS G'S IN STATIC
TESTING.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable
cause(s) of this accident as follows:

THE PILOT IN COMMAND'S OPERATION OF THE AIRCRAFT IN A MANNER WHICH
EXCEEDED DESIGN LIMITATIONS WHICH RESULTED IN INFLIGHT FAILURE AND
SEPARATION OF THE WINGS.


- Barnyard BOb -

[[email protected]]

On May 13, 8:47 am, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> DABEAR > wrote:
> > On May 11, 7:25 am, Chuck Slusarczyk
> > > wrote:
> >> In article . com>,
> >> DABEAR says...
> >> >On May 10, 8:38 am, Chuck Slusarczyk
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >Years ago he reviewed a little homebuilt called the Capella.
> >> >> >Later they got on his ****list, but when he reviewed it he did
> >> >> >his standard "looped, rolled and spun" story. A year later, a
> >> >> >couple of kids (without licenses) flying a non-registered but N
> >> >> >number wearing 2 place tried a zoom and pull, and pulled the
> >> >> >wings off. We know for they read Zoom's story. Did he influence
> >> >> >their decision? It's likely.
>
> >> >Hey, Chuck...does anyone have the N Number and full type of aircraft
> >> >on this one? Or, a copy or reference (link?) to the accident
> >> >report?
>
> >> I'll see if I can find it .I'm pretty sure I have the issue with his
> >> flight report and probably also have one with the crash report.
>
> > Excellent...thanks much!
>
> NTSB search by keyword "Capella" yielded 4 hits, one of which had
> fatalities and appears to be the accident in question:
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001211X12205&key=1- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

This is the correct accident report. The pilot was Shane Smith,
zzzoom made a big deal about how they had a memorial moment to him at
one of his 1994 SnF party. I was at zzzooms 1993 SnF forum on picking
an homebuilt aircraft. He mentioned the Capella during the talk saying
that he with his fiancee looped it, rolled it and took it over Vne. I
thought you f@%#ing idiot, if you are going to do something like that
why take someone with you.

Frank M.Hitlaw, at my secret world Hq

[DABEAR]

On May 12, 10:01 pm, wrote:

> >http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001211X12205&key=1-Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> This is the correct accident report. The pilot was Shane Smith,
> zzzoom made a big deal about how they had a memorial moment to him at
> one of his 1994 SnF party. I was at zzzooms 1993 SnF forum on picking
> an homebuilt aircraft. He mentioned the Capella during the talk saying
> that he with his fiancee looped it, rolled it and took it over Vne. I
> thought you f@%#ing idiot, if you are going to do something like that
> why take someone with you.
>
> Frank M.Hitlaw, at my secret world Hq- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Hi Frank:

Could you send me the full link to my e-mail address:



That's the word bearz three times in a row @ yahoo.com

They've cut off the full link and will likely cut off my e-mail
address, however, it's published at my websites, including

www.aviationandmarineusa.com

....(towards the bottom of the home page) so no worries about
republishing here.

Would like to talk with you some more anyway...I have some questions
in Zoom's regard.

Thanks...BRDB!!!

[DABEAR]

On May 13, 9:08 am, DABEAR > wrote:
> On May 12, 10:01 pm, wrote:
>
> > >http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001211X12205&key=1-Hidequoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > This is the correct accident report. The pilot was Shane Smith,
> > zzzoom made a big deal about how they had a memorial moment to him at
> > one of his 1994 SnF party. I was at zzzooms 1993 SnF forum on picking
> > an homebuilt aircraft. He mentioned the Capella during the talk saying
> > that he with his fiancee looped it, rolled it and took it over Vne. I
> > thought you f@%#ing idiot, if you are going to do something like that
> > why take someone with you.
>
> > Frank M.Hitlaw, at my secret world Hq- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Hi Frank:
>
> Could you send me the full link to my e-mail address:
>
>
>
> That's the word bearz three times in a row @ yahoo.com
>
> They've cut off the full link and will likely cut off my e-mail
> address, however, it's published at my websites, including
>
> www.aviationandmarineusa.com
>
> ...(towards the bottom of the home page) so no worries about
> republishing here.
>
> Would like to talk with you some more anyway...I have some questions
> in Zoom's regard.
>
> Thanks...BRDB!!!


Attn: Frank Hitlaw

Saw the correct link above your post and found what I needed...do not
need link after all. Would still like contact with you...I have
questions. Thanks...BRDB!!!

[Rich Ahrens]

Barnyard BOb wrote:

> I've looped, rolled and spun everything I've ever owned
> or rented except for my Flybaby and a twin Comanche.

How'd that Ercoupe spin, Unk?

[Montblack]

("Rich Ahrens" wrote)
>> I've looped, rolled and spun everything I've ever owned or rented except
>> for my Flybaby and a twin Comanche.

> How'd that Ercoupe spin, Unk?


Much like the designer intended is my guess.


Montblack :-)

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, Jim Logajan says...
>
>DABEAR > wrote:
>> On May 11, 7:25 am, ChuckSlusarczyk
>> > wrote:
>>> In article . com>,
>>> DABEAR says...
>>> >On May 10, 8:38 am, ChuckSlusarczyk
>>> > wrote:
>>> >> >Years ago he reviewed a little homebuilt called the Capella.
>>> >> >Later they got on his ****list, but when he reviewed it he did
>>> >> >his standared "looped, rolled and spun" story. A year later, a
>>> >> >couple of kids (without licenses) flying a non-registered but N
>>> >> >number wearing 2 place tried a zoom and pull, and pulled the
>>> >> >wings off. We know for they read Zoom's story. Did he influence
>>> >> >their decision? It's likely.
>>>
>>> >Hey, Chuck...does anyone have the N Number and full type of aircraft
>>> >on this one? Or, a copy or reference (link?) to the accident
>>> >report?
>>>
>>> I'll see if I can find it .I'm pretty sure I have the issue with his
>>> flight report and probably also have one with the crash report.
>>
>> Excellent...thanks much!
>
>NTSB search by keyword "capella" yielded 4 hits, one of which had
>fatalities and appears to be the accident in question:
>
>http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001211X12205&key=1

That's the one.

Chuck S

[DABEAR]

On May 13, 1:26 pm, Richard Riley > wrote:
> On Fri, 11 May 2007 13:39:36 -0500, Barnyard BOb
>
> > wrote:
> >So, what do we have...?
>
> >1. What you don't know can kill you.
> >2. Knowing Zoom can kill you.
>
> >Be governed accordingly!!!! ;-)
>
> These two aren't mutually exclusive.
>
> If the boys had known (that hot dogging could kill you, that the most
> dangerous words in aviation are "Watch this!", etc) they probably
> would have lived, no matter what Zoom did or wrote.
>
> But think about it this way. Imagine someone that wrote about how
> wonderfully the RV-3 zoom climbs, how much fun it is and how well the
> airplane does it - when he's never done it himeslf? Would he bear any
> responsibility for the people that try it and shed their wings?
>
> That's what Campbell did here. He told the boys, and the world, that
> the Capella was able to handle aerobatics that it couldn't handle. He
> said he'd done it. They went out and tried it, and they died. I'm
> not saying that Zoom was the only one responsible, or even that he has
> primary responsibility for it. But I think he has his part.

Does anyone recall what issue he printed his evaluation of the Capella
in? Does anyone have a copy or the date of the original publication
in which he claims to have conducted these maneuvers? Also, how was
it determined that the pilot of the aircraft read Zoom's piece, or was
he just present at that party or meeting where Zoom claimed to have
conducted those maneuvers?

Any info would be helpful...

[DABEAR]

On May 13, 8:36 pm, ChuckSlusarczyk
> wrote:
> In article >, Jim Logajan says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >DABEAR > wrote:
> >> On May 11, 7:25 am, ChuckSlusarczyk
> >> > wrote:
> >>> In article . com>,
> >>> DABEAR says...
> >>> >On May 10, 8:38 am, ChuckSlusarczyk
> >>> > wrote:
> >>> >> >Years ago he reviewed a little homebuilt called the Capella.
> >>> >> >Later they got on his ****list, but when he reviewed it he did
> >>> >> >his standared "looped, rolled and spun" story. A year later, a
> >>> >> >couple of kids (without licenses) flying a non-registered but N
> >>> >> >number wearing 2 place tried a zoom and pull, and pulled the
> >>> >> >wings off. We know for they read Zoom's story. Did he influence
> >>> >> >their decision? It's likely.
>
> >>> >Hey, Chuck...does anyone have the N Number and full type of aircraft
> >>> >on this one? Or, a copy or reference (link?) to the accident
> >>> >report?
>
> >>> I'll see if I can find it .I'm pretty sure I have the issue with his
> >>> flight report and probably also have one with the crash report.
>
> >> Excellent...thanks much!
>
> >NTSB search by keyword "capella" yielded 4 hits, one of which had
> >fatalities and appears to be the accident in question:
>
> >http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001211X12205&key=1
>
> That's the one.
>
> Chuck S- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -



Chuck:

This is Campbell's latest BIO at RRL:

~~~~~

JIM CAMPBELL
Jim Campbell, CEO of the Aero-News Network, is a 17,000 hour
commercial pilot and flight instructor, a graduate of the National
Test Pilot School and one of the most active aviation writers and test
pilots in the business. The author of 17 books and an active member of
the X Prize and Zero-G programs, Campbell has flown or evaluated over
1100 unique flying machines since his first flight some 35 years ago
(at age 13).

He is the author of 17 books on aviation topics, most notably the 1100
page SportPlane Resource Guide, the ultimate guide to SportPlane kits;
and "Air of Injustice," an exhaustive look at the FAA's persecution of
legendary Test Pilot Bob Hoover. More recently; Campbell led the news
and photography team that provided primary media pool services for the
Ansari X PRIZE competition, including most of the SpaceShipOne air-to-
air photos that were published all over the world following the three
successful suborbital flights of Burt Rutan's world-changing
spacecraft. He has also served as principal Zero-G photographer during
several hundred parabolas for the Zero-G Corporation's Zero-Gravity
flights. A graduate of the National Test Pilot School, he is the
Publisher/Editor In Chief of the Aviation World's Daily News Service,
the Aero-News Network

~~~~~

He's now indicating that he is 48 years of age though prior
information had him at 50 years of age. Do you know what his actual
age is and has there been any age limitation placed on the pilots of
the RRL that you're aware of?

[Steve Foley]

"DABEAR" > wrote in message
ps.com...

> This is Campbell's latest BIO at RRL:

<snip>

> a graduate of the National
> Test Pilot School and one of the most active aviation writers and test
> pilots in the business.

<snip>

> A graduate of the National Test Pilot School, he is the
> Publisher/Editor In Chief of the Aviation World's Daily News Service,

Did he graduate from the National Test Pilot School twice?

[Richard Isakson]

"Steve Foley" wrote ...
> "DABEAR" > wrote in message
> ps.com...
>
> > This is Campbell's latest BIO at RRL:
>
> <snip>
>
> > a graduate of the National
> > Test Pilot School and one of the most active aviation writers and test
> > pilots in the business.
>
> <snip>
>
> > A graduate of the National Test Pilot School, he is the
> > Publisher/Editor In Chief of the Aviation World's Daily News Service,
>
> Did he graduate from the National Test Pilot School twice?

Twice? He never graduated ONCE. The math involved in such a courceI would
eat him alive. I suppose its no bigger LIE to say it twice though.

Rich

[DABEAR]

On May 14, 7:48 am, "Steve Foley" > wrote:
> "DABEAR" > wrote in message
>
> ps.com...
>
> > This is Campbell's latest BIO at RRL:
>
> <snip>
>
> > a graduate of the National
> > Test Pilot School and one of the most active aviation writers and test
> > pilots in the business.
>
> <snip>
>
> > A graduate of the National Test Pilot School, he is the
> > Publisher/Editor In Chief of the Aviation World's Daily News Service,
>
> Did he graduate from the National Test Pilot School twice?

He hasn't even graduated the full course once.

Zoom graduated from a one week course for Journalists, and
indoctrination per se, and not from the full course that would qualify
him to be a test pilot. He's a liar and poser who doesn't belong in
Journalism; he doesn't belong in Aerospace; frankly, he belongs in
prison considering his thirty-plus years of criminal misconduct and
misconduct in general. He has impersonated a doctor and a 747 pilot
for JAL. He has claimed to have fought alongside the Mujahideen in
Afghanistan, meaning he's fought alongside the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
He has claimed to have flown mercy flights in Africa shortly after
interviewing someone who actually did. He claimed to have been in
Vietnam and 1) having witnessed the My Lai massacre and 2) having been
wounded and having status as a "Purple Heart" Vietnam Veteran and 3)
either protected by or pursued by the CIA for his knowledge of My
Lai. In SE-4661, Langhorne Bond and the FAA vs James R. Campbell,
posted at:

http://www.ousterhout.net/zoom/se-4661.txt

and reviewed (explained) for the Zoom Challenged (those not knowing
him) at: http://www.ousterhout.net/zoom/rjw-4661.html

and one should read the entire site at: http://www.ousterhout.net/zoom.html

(Ousterhout, Wanttaja and the late Anthony Pucillo are three serious
Zoom experts with the documentation on this guy...over twenty years of
it outlining Campbell's crimes and degredations against others...)

....Zoom acknowledged to Federal investigators not ever having been in
Vietnam, a matter of Public Record, and the only wounds he claimed he
had ever received were from having been attacked by a "tree."

Zoom further made the claim in his bio and RRL bio in particular that
he had flown "and" evaluated some 1,100 types of aircraft since the
age of thirteen. When my publications raised the question, "Who cares
what a thirteen year old boy's evaluation of an aircraft is three
years before he is legal to have a pilot's license," Zoom changed his
bio to read flown "or" evaluated. He got caught in a lie, makes the
change, and his superiors allow this and do nothing against him,
lending credibility to an individual who already has none. Lending
credibility to their own lies and protecting themselves. Aiding and
abetting Zoom for their personal gain and vice versa, as Zoom runs a
"bought" Press that deals out nothing but positive press for his
friends, and vice-versa in their regards towards him, as evidenced by
his Zero G flight recently.

....and yes, he damned well WAS onboard; I was in the hospital here in
Dallas with heart problems and saw him on NBC/MSNBC posing with
everyone and Hawking on the flight. Diamandis and his fraud known as
the RRL keep rewarding this clown for his misconduct to further their
own goals in fraud that makes Zoom pale in comparison.

Note if you go to the RRL site, there has been no response to the
claim by an RRL Team of business ethics that do not jive with the
Team's, so the Team has quit the RRL and the Team owner was critical
on the way out. That's a major red warning flag and only Space.Com
carries it?

For all it's worth, Zoom wasn't the only poser there. Diamandis is
gaining knowledge and experience from Zoom's ways on a daily basis. I
don't think he ever left Hawking's side and seemed attached there like
a Siamese Twin. As if Hawking doesn't have enough troubles of his
own.

All in all, impersonation is Zoom's life, so it's not too far a
stretch that he's impersonating not only a Journalist at this point in
his life, but a Test pilot as well. As for Zoom's writings, all are
worthless in that he has lied to his readers about himself and
others. He has made false statements to law enforcement against
others. He has slandered and libelled without regard for the truth;
only to save his worthless self.

Journalists are not allowed to lie. That's what "Dooms Zoom" and his
impersonation of a Journalist. Those aiding and abetting this
individual and his continuing crimes have no excuse and are liable for
his criminal misconduct directed against others while he was, is and
remains working as part of their "Team." This includes Zero G, RRL
and X Prize Foundation...as they are about to find out.

[Steve Foley]

"DABEAR" > wrote in message
> He's a liar and poser who doesn't belong in
> Journalism;

He couldn't be. If he went to the National Test Pilot School, he must be

"committed to unbiased truth and excellance"

see:
http://www.ntps.com/HTML/Mission/

(sorry for continuing this thread, I just find that quote somewhat ironic)

[Barnyard BOb]

Rich Ahrens > wrote:

>Barnyard BOb wrote:
>
>> I've looped, rolled and spun everything I've ever owned
>> or rented except for my Flybaby and a twin Comanche.
>
>How'd that Ercoupe spin, Unk?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Sh*t.....
Is it too late to add to the Flybaby, twin Comanche list?

P.S.
Did I leave anything else out? :-)


- Barnyard BOb -

[Dave[_14_]]

DABEAR, I have no cause to doubt anything you say, except that you have been
alluding to some great comeuppance for Zoom for a long time, and so far
nothing has come of it. Perhaps it would be better to merely express the
wish for such an occurance as it doesn't look like it's forthcoming.



"DABEAR" > wrote in message > remains working as
part of their "Team." This includes Zero G, RRL
> and X Prize Foundation...as they are about to find out.
>

[Richard Isakson]

"Richard Riley" wrote ...
> He attended a 1 week "flight test for homebuilders" class. His claim
> is that since he "graduated" from that class, he graduated from NTPS.
> Under those terms, I've graduated from Stanford, Harvard and MIT.

Well now, there's some potential here. Long ago I worked for the Air Force
Rocket Propulsion Lab at Edwards and while I was there I took a cource in
rocket therory. So, next chance I get, I'll swagger a bit and mention that
I'm a graduate from Edwards. Of cource, I'm far too modest to mention my
three Lunar Landings ...

Rich

[Dave[_14_]]

"Richard Isakson" > wrote in message
...
> "Richard Riley" wrote ...
>> He attended a 1 week "flight test for homebuilders" class. His claim
>> is that since he "graduated" from that class, he graduated from NTPS.
>> Under those terms, I've graduated from Stanford, Harvard and MIT.
>
> Well now, there's some potential here.

It's an interesting "CON"cept isn't it. I attend a lot of courses,
conferences etc. I very frequently "certificates" and "diplomas" from those
events. I have trashed them up to now in most cases. Perhaps I should have
framed and claimed each one!! Maybe I be payed more!

[DABEAR]

On May 14, 10:18 am, "Steve Foley" > wrote:
> "DABEAR" > wrote in message
> > He's a liar and poser who doesn't belong in
> > Journalism;
>
> He couldn't be. If he went to the National Test Pilot School, he must be
>
> "committed to unbiased truth and excellance"
>
> see:http://www.ntps.com/HTML/Mission/
>
> (sorry for continuing this thread, I just find that quote somewhat ironic)

Your point, very humorous, is well taken. I saw that previously in
visiting their website, wrote the National Test Pilot's School, cited
that mission statement in conjunction with Zoom's claims and highly
documented misconduct, and never received a response.

It's one thing for an organization to "talk the talk;" it's a whole
'nother thing to "walk like you talk."

Their (The National Test Pilot's School) refusal to respond to the
Public Watchdog (The Press) will haunt them in the future, but right
now, they're "small potatoes," cowering in the dirt, awaiting the
farmer, his "hoe" (agricultural implement unrelated more or less to
Don Imus or anything Rutgers ~ unless Diamandis attended Rutgers...)
and a Judge's subpoena (the "hoe" that will extricate them from their
place of hiding).

The same applies to everyone aiding and abetting Campbell; if that's
their conduct in the face of Standards of Conduct, Standards of
Governmental Conduct, Standards of Business Conduct and Business
Ethics, then what other wrongs have they (the others aiding, abetting
and supporting Zoom) been up to?

In regards to the National Test Pilot's School ~ they're not even
disavowing Zoom's claims!

That is a major issue that can be dealt with in due time in regards to
their curriculum stating one thing, but their actions, responses and
ethics, contradicting what they are teaching and should be teaching.

"Their Actions Betray Their Words." They don't "walk like they
talk." Would you want to do business with them? Would their
graduating certificates, credentials, annointments, mean anything of
substance to you!?

I'd just as soon go get an M.D.'s certificate or a Test Pilot's
certificate from "Grenada" ~ or whatever fly-by-night operation gave
Diamandis and Zoom theirs (Harvard? Yale? National Test Pilot's
School? Mary Kay's Beauty College? Binky's Correspondence Course on
How To Be A Journalist?) ~ than a "Graduation Certificate" of any form
from the National Test Pilot's School (in particular), because their
failure to respond to a Press inquiry, along with their failure to
control Zoom (their alleged student) and his claims, doesn't speak
very highly of them, their curriculum, their conduct and whether or
not they're "walking like they talk."

They should be fiercly protective of the Ethics and Standards of
Conduct they claim to possess. The fact that they don't, very
scary...

In fact, it raises additional Red Flag warnings and right in their
direction...not to mention, Zoom is the guy waving the Red Flag.
Hell, he's wrapped himself in the "Red Flag," beyond the Stars &
Stripes he wipes his fanny with in regards to his Vietnam Veteran
claims.

As for me, I'm merely responding to his claims and theirs through the
eyes and ethics of what were once those belonging to Journalists.

These days, the Mainstream Press has us looking as though we're lower
on the food chain than Politicians, Used Car Salesman, Stalkers
(i.e., Campbell) Rapists and Murderers.

And faux journalists like Campbell ~ to whom "irony" is something one
must do to straighten out the wrinkles in their own shirt after
stalking their girlfriends and wives out of their lives ~ are making
things worse and compounding the problem of getting to the truth and
reporting the facts to the Public per the Public's First Amendment
Right to Press and in general, to know everything that is going on
around them in life.

Zoom and other faux journalists like him, are out there not knowing
their asses from a hole in the ground, dictating, espousing to the
World, "What REAL Journalists do or don't do!" Then they go out and
do the opposite of what Journalists are allowed to do, and REAL
Journalists suffer...

It is that Civil Right that the Public possesses ~ "Freedom of the
Press" ~ from which proper Journalism derives first, it's
responsibilities, and second, it's own rights under the First
Amendment.

Journalists these days, have it backwards. The Public's Right to Know
is first; their (Journalists') rights are secondary and established on
the Public's overall First Amendment Right. It's like, which comes
first...the chicken or the egg...the Rights of the Public or the
Rights of the Journalist.

First you establish the Right of the Public and the purpose of a Free
Press in maintaining those rights, THEN you establish duties,
responsibilities and subsequent Rights of the Press. Do that
correctly, and you have foundation for your existence, not to mention,
ethically and properly refusing to identify sources to anyone. Fail
to do that, and you're standing in quicksand if you're trying to be a
Journalist while simultaneously being unarmed with the foundation you
need ~ the protocol that places the Public First, the Journalist
second, in his/her service to the Public.

Lack of knowledge of that fact ~ not knowing the protocol and the
"reasons why" behind it ~ also "Dooms Zoom" and other faux and actual
mainstream Journalists in operation out there.

Ethics and Standards of Conduct ~ you either have them or you don't.
There is no middle ground as Mediocrity is worse than even bad
conduct. If you don't have Ethics and Standards of Conduct, then one
can naturally be seen contradicting their words, failing to "walk the
talk," and screwing up in general ~ just like Zoom and his new friends.

[DABEAR]

On May 14, 10:21 am, "Dave" > wrote:
> DABEAR, I have no cause to doubt anything you say, except that you have been
> alluding to some great comeuppance for Zoom for a long time, and so far
> nothing has come of it. Perhaps it would be better to merely express the
> wish for such an occurance as it doesn't look like it's forthcoming.
>
> "DABEAR" > wrote in message > remains working as
>
> part of their "Team." This includes Zero G, RRL
>
>
>
> > and X Prize Foundation...as they are about to find out.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

That's an honest assessment, however, there is another case behind all
this and Zoom came along late in that matter. Everytime this clown
does something, it extends my time limits and causes the need for new
and additional investigation. Beyond that, two visits to the hospital
this year alone, the latest one lasting fifteen days, and a family
emergency wedged in between all this.

However, Zoom, in relation to the other case, is again "small
potatoes," but he's someone that something can and should be done
about, and like we said in the Army, wish in one hand, s~t in the
other, see which one fills up first.

No, this boy is on borrowed time and has a legal comeuppance coming.
And there are a number of people out there with information,
documentation and testimony, that are wanting to hide and not be
bothered. Only a small few providing me with what is undeniably good,
large amounts of solid information, but all these loose strings
because others won't come forward. That also makes the investigation
harder. When that happens, I have to antagonize and provoke the
criminal element to learn their response, and that takes time, and
basically, I'm walking a gauntlet to learn their actions as it is, and
that takes time.

But as you can see...I'm not quitting. When Zoom falls, it's going to
cause a domino effect back across those who have aided and abetted
him, gut their credibility, right back to the origins of a case which
had nothing to do with Zoom, until he offered, then refused help to a
dying man causing that man never to see justice before his death on
May 6, 2006.

I didn't learn about Zoom's criminal history until six months after he
perpetrated the first of his criminal acts against me, and like I
said, each act of misconduct keeps extending the time limits to get
the matter to Court.

And all I'm going to try to do in Court is expose to a Federal Judge
what has been going on overall, including but not limited to Zoom, and
also see if we can get some FBI and U.S. Attorney involvement in
regards to investigation and prosecution.

Assets are everything, especially in a non-monetary case. And the
assets I need to count on, but that have been denied me, are people
coming forward with documentation and information supporting what has
been handed me so far. There's more out there and possession of that
material and those witnesses' testimony will seal Campbell's fate, or
denial of this information will allow him to go on another thirty
years, pulling the same misconduct, and handing out more injustice to
those who deserved justice a long time ago.

In the original case, I allotted a minimum of five years ~ key word:
minimum ~ and we're at the four year mark at this time, on time, in
progress, and moving forward.

I have FOIA requests in to the government, with the NTSB indicating it
may take as long as a year in which to gather all the facts.
Unfortunately, they've made no contact with me in over a year, so a
new inquiry has just been filed, but by their failure to respond, I
can also go directly to Court. Can't do that until they either
respond or fail to respond in a one year time frame.

This is how the criminal wins, by using the Justice System to wear
people down. However, that's not what a Justice System is for,
paraphrasing the "Ship in Harbor" scenario.

And progress only truly takes place in small increments, over long
periods of time, and only when one does not quit the fight. They can
be delayed in it and still win...but they're guaranteed to lose if
they don't take up the fight, or quit the fight after all the progress
they've made, just because they still don't see the light at the end
of the tunnel, even after four years plus of fighting.

"Never quit." "Always try." "Never surrender." "Nothing beats a
failure but a try."

Perseverence, endurance and enthusiasm, at all times, and like Patton
once said: "Audacity! Audacity! Audacity!"

They'll have no shortage of these things from me. They only get a
rest every now and then while the docs at the V.A. check on my
heart...and advise me to quit if I want to live a long life. A short,
meaningful life that contributes is better than a long, meaningless
life, any day. It's the difference between actually "living your
life" or serving a "life" sentence here on prison Earth.

Wishing is not an option...only decisive victory over clowns like Zoom
and his Billionaire Boys Club of supporters/ aiders and abetters.

Your point is well-taken and noted ~ but the events leading to
litigation, prosecution, conviction and justice, take extraordinary
amount of time, because non-contributors to the Justice System serve
only to undermine such a system and deny justice, good or bad, to the
deserving, respectively.

[DABEAR]

On May 14, 10:53 am, "Dave" > wrote:
> "Richard Isakson" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > "Richard Riley" wrote ...
> >> He attended a 1 week "flight test for homebuilders" class. His claim
> >> is that since he "graduated" from that class, he graduated from NTPS.
> >> Under those terms, I've graduated from Stanford, Harvard and MIT.
>
> > Well now, there's some potential here.
>
> It's an interesting "CON"cept isn't it. I attend a lot of courses,
> conferences etc. I very frequently "certificates" and "diplomas" from those
> events. I have trashed them up to now in most cases. Perhaps I should have
> framed and claimed each one!! Maybe I be payed more!

Absolutely, except that it's fraud, as you've identified by merely
capitalizing three alphabetical letters in the word "concept."

Right now, I have an Airframe ~ Powertrain ~ Powerplant certificate I
can hang on my wall. Does that make me an A&P or even an A&P&P
mechanic. Not no, but hell no, because the certificate only applies
to the prototype, YCH-47D Delta Chinook helicopter, and not even it's
"Production Model." I just read this last week where two educators
embellished their own certificates and had to resign from the colleges
they were chancellors over.

That's what Zoom is doing and why he belongs neither in Journalism nor
Aerospace. He is a danger to himself and others in both categories.

[Barnyard BOb]

Richard Riley wrote:

>But think about it this way. Imagine someone that wrote about how
>wonderfully the RV-3 zoom climbs, how much fun it is and how well the
>airplane does it - when he's never done it himeslf? Would he bear any
>responsibility for the people that try it and shed their wings?

NOPE.
Not according to the NTSB records concerning the Capella fatalities.

>That's what Campbell did here. He told the boys, and the world, that
>the Capella was able to handle aerobatics that it couldn't handle. He
>said he'd done it. They went out and tried it, and they died. I'm
>not saying that Zoom was the only one responsible, or even that he has
>primary responsibility for it. But I think he has his part.

This is hearsay, fast and loose talk and speculation, IMO.

What authority states the Capella cannot safely perform
the aerobatics in question WHEN EXECUTED PROPERLY?
It is designed to 6.5 g's....
For reference, the Pitts S-2C is only approved for + 6 g's.

Who sez the maneuvers in question cannot be done
at less than 6.5 g's???? AFAIK, all can be done below 4 g's.

For now, I have to see it the way the NTSB reports it.


These "boys" had no licenses, no registration for the N number on the
aircraft, etcetera, etcetera, and are typical of a deadly accident
going somewhere to happen.. with or without the 'assumed' Zoom input.

From dialog I've read so far...
It appears they had no regard or respect for rules, regulations or
listened to much of anything from anybody; a deadly combination
of factors for anyone not knowing how to fly in the first place.

Had Zoom told these kids to get flying lessons and aerobatic
instruction before they killed themselves through trial and error...
would they take that to heart anymore than the requirements
of the FAA or any authority that they were already violating?!?!?

I wouldn't bet the ranch on this pair of free spirits living a minute
longer than they did.

Your CONJECTURE may vary.


- Barnyard BOb -

[Dan[_2_]]

Richard Isakson wrote:
> "Richard Riley" wrote ...
>> He attended a 1 week "flight test for homebuilders" class. His claim
>> is that since he "graduated" from that class, he graduated from NTPS.
>> Under those terms, I've graduated from Stanford, Harvard and MIT.
>
> Well now, there's some potential here. Long ago I worked for the Air Force
> Rocket Propulsion Lab at Edwards and while I was there I took a cource in
> rocket therory. So, next chance I get, I'll swagger a bit and mention that
> I'm a graduate from Edwards. Of cource, I'm far too modest to mention my
> three Lunar Landings ...
>
> Rich
>
>
Didn't Zoom loop and roll a LM for NASA?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Mon, 14 May 2007 08:40:13 -0700, "Richard Isakson" > wrote:

>"Richard Riley" wrote ...
>> He attended a 1 week "flight test for homebuilders" class. His claim
>> is that since he "graduated" from that class, he graduated from NTPS.
>> Under those terms, I've graduated from Stanford, Harvard and MIT.
>
>Well now, there's some potential here. Long ago I worked for the Air Force
>Rocket Propulsion Lab at Edwards and while I was there I took a cource in
>rocket therory. So, next chance I get, I'll swagger a bit and mention that
>I'm a graduate from Edwards. Of cource, I'm far too modest to mention my
>three Lunar Landings ...

I'm a graduate...certificate and all... of the Advanced Space Academy in
Huntsville. 'Course, when 10-year-olds attend the place, they call it, "Space
Camp." :-)

Ron Wanttaja

[[email protected]]

On May 9, 12:03 am, Timothy Sinclair > wrote:
>
> ...
>
> For the last time:
>
> James Campbell was not on board Stephen Hawking's zero-g flight.
>

I'm happy to see that you will stop telling us that. I will be even
happier
if you were to start telling us how you know that.

--

FF

[[email protected]]

On May 14, 1:56 pm, DABEAR > wrote:
> On May 13, 8:36 pm, ChuckSlusarczyk
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > In article >, Jim Logajan says...
>
> > >DABEAR > wrote:
> > >> On May 11, 7:25 am, ChuckSlusarczyk
> > >> > wrote:
> > >>> In article . com>,
> > >>> DABEAR says...
> > >>> >On May 10, 8:38 am, ChuckSlusarczyk
> > >>> > wrote:
> > >>> >> >Years ago he reviewed a little homebuilt called the Capella.
> > >>> >> >Later they got on his ****list, but when he reviewed it he did
> > >>> >> >his standared "looped, rolled and spun" story. A year later, a
> > >>> >> >couple of kids (without licenses) flying a non-registered but N
> > >>> >> >number wearing 2 place tried a zoom and pull, and pulled the
> > >>> >> >wings off. We know for they read Zoom's story. Did he influence
> > >>> >> >their decision? It's likely.
>
> > >>> >Hey, Chuck...does anyone have the N Number and full type of aircraft
> > >>> >on this one? Or, a copy or reference (link?) to the accident
> > >>> >report?
>
> > >>> I'll see if I can find it .I'm pretty sure I have the issue with his
> > >>> flight report and probably also have one with the crash report.
>
> > >> Excellent...thanks much!
>
> > >NTSB search by keyword "capella" yielded 4 hits, one of which had
> > >fatalities and appears to be the accident in question:
>
> > >http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001211X12205&key=1
>
> > That's the one.
>
> > Chuck S- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Chuck:
>
> This is Campbell's latest BIO at RRL:
>
> ~~~~~
>
> JIM CAMPBELL
> Jim Campbell, CEO of the Aero-News Network, is a 17,000 hour
> commercial pilot and flight instructor, a graduate of the National
> Test Pilot School and one of the most active aviation writers and test
> pilots in the business. The author of 17 books and an active member of
> the X Prize and Zero-G programs, Campbell has flown or evaluated over
> 1100 unique flying machines since his first flight some 35 years ago
> (at age 13).
>
> He is the author of 17 books on aviation topics, most notably the 1100
> page SportPlane Resource Guide, the ultimate guide to SportPlane kits;
> and "Air of Injustice," an exhaustive look at the FAA's persecution of
> legendary Test Pilot Bob Hoover. More recently; Campbell led the news
> and photography team that provided primary media pool services for the
> Ansari X PRIZE competition, including most of the SpaceShipOne air-to-
> air photos that were published all over the world following the three
> successful suborbital flights of Burt Rutan's world-changing
> spacecraft. He has also served as principal Zero-G photographer during
> several hundred parabolas for the Zero-G Corporation's Zero-Gravity
> flights. A graduate of the National Test Pilot School, he is the
> Publisher/Editor In Chief of the Aviation World's Daily News Service,
> the Aero-News Network
>
> ~~~~~
>
> He's now indicating that he is 48 years of age though prior
> information had him at 50 years of age. Do you know what his actual
> age is and has there been any age limitation placed on the pilots of
> the RRL that you're aware of?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I liked the part about having flown SEVERAL HUNDRED parabolas for
Zero- G Corporation's zero gravity flights. Typical zzzoom speak
"numerous, several, many never a precise number. They average 8
parabolas a flight so several hundred would require numerous flights,
probably more than they have flown :-).

Frank M.Hitlaw, at my secret world Hq

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

Hey Mark
I found the US Aviator issue with zooms pilot report on the Capella where he
says he looped and spun in it.It was the November 1992 issue. I Only have one
issue of this one so I copied the article for you. Get me your Postal address
and I'll mail it to you. Send it offline to my e mail address. See ya

Chuck S

[DABEAR]

On May 16, 4:55 pm, ChuckSlusarczyk
> wrote:
> Hey Mark
> I found the US Aviator issue with zooms pilot report on the Capella where he
> says he looped and spun in it.It was the November 1992 issue. I Only have one
> issue of this one so I copied the article for you. Get me your Postal address
> and I'll mail it to you. Send it offline to my e mail address. See ya
>
> Chuck S

Will do! Sending that immediately!

[DABEAR]

On May 16, 4:14 pm, wrote:
> On May 14, 1:56 pm, DABEAR > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 13, 8:36 pm, ChuckSlusarczyk
>
> > > wrote:
> > > In article >, Jim Logajan says...
>
> > > >DABEAR > wrote:
> > > >> On May 11, 7:25 am, ChuckSlusarczyk
> > > >> > wrote:
> > > >>> In article . com>,
> > > >>> DABEAR says...
> > > >>> >On May 10, 8:38 am, ChuckSlusarczyk
> > > >>> > wrote:
> > > >>> >> >Years ago he reviewed a little homebuilt called the Capella.
> > > >>> >> >Later they got on his ****list, but when he reviewed it he did
> > > >>> >> >his standared "looped, rolled and spun" story. A year later, a
> > > >>> >> >couple of kids (without licenses) flying a non-registered but N
> > > >>> >> >number wearing 2 place tried a zoom and pull, and pulled the
> > > >>> >> >wings off. We know for they read Zoom's story. Did he influence
> > > >>> >> >their decision? It's likely.
>
> > > >>> >Hey, Chuck...does anyone have the N Number and full type of aircraft
> > > >>> >on this one? Or, a copy or reference (link?) to the accident
> > > >>> >report?
>
> > > >>> I'll see if I can find it .I'm pretty sure I have the issue with his
> > > >>> flight report and probably also have one with the crash report.
>
> > > >> Excellent...thanks much!
>
> > > >NTSB search by keyword "capella" yielded 4 hits, one of which had
> > > >fatalities and appears to be the accident in question:
>
> > > >http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001211X12205&key=1
>
> > > That's the one.
>
> > > Chuck S- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Chuck:
>
> > This is Campbell's latest BIO at RRL:
>
> > ~~~~~
>
> > JIM CAMPBELL
> > Jim Campbell, CEO of the Aero-News Network, is a 17,000 hour
> > commercial pilot and flight instructor, a graduate of the National
> > Test Pilot School and one of the most active aviation writers and test
> > pilots in the business. The author of 17 books and an active member of
> > the X Prize and Zero-G programs, Campbell has flown or evaluated over
> > 1100 unique flying machines since his first flight some 35 years ago
> > (at age 13).
>
> > He is the author of 17 books on aviation topics, most notably the 1100
> > page SportPlane Resource Guide, the ultimate guide to SportPlane kits;
> > and "Air of Injustice," an exhaustive look at the FAA's persecution of
> > legendary Test Pilot Bob Hoover. More recently; Campbell led the news
> > and photography team that provided primary media pool services for the
> > Ansari X PRIZE competition, including most of the SpaceShipOne air-to-
> > air photos that were published all over the world following the three
> > successful suborbital flights of Burt Rutan's world-changing
> > spacecraft. He has also served as principal Zero-G photographer during
> > several hundred parabolas for the Zero-G Corporation's Zero-Gravity
> > flights. A graduate of the National Test Pilot School, he is the
> > Publisher/Editor In Chief of the Aviation World's Daily News Service,
> > the Aero-News Network
>
> > ~~~~~
>
> > He's now indicating that he is 48 years of age though prior
> > information had him at 50 years of age. Do you know what his actual
> > age is and has there been any age limitation placed on the pilots of
> > the RRL that you're aware of?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I liked the part about having flown SEVERAL HUNDRED parabolas for
> Zero- G Corporation's zero gravity flights. Typical zzzoom speak
> "numerous, several, many never a precise number. They average 8
> parabolas a flight so several hundred would require numerous flights,
> probably more than they have flown :-).
>
> Frank M.Hitlaw, at my secret world Hq- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I'm laughing at this stuff because it dawns on me, this isn't JUST a
bio...this guy is literally writing his own obituary for posterity.

The first place a Journalist starts in a newsroom is in the Obituaries
Column section, researching information quite literally, on people
while they're alive, updating the file card ~ at one time, a series of
3 x 5 index cards or similar papers ~ today, a folder on a computer in
the Obits archives. They show good progress there, then they move up
until such time as they have a street beat and are out there in the
World as reporters.

This is the first time I've seen an Editor start and finish his career
simultaneously in the Obits.

He's not trusting his bio to anyone so he's giving his own rendition
on this "Golden Life" he's been living. He knows that if the truth is
left to the historians, that his true life story is one of living in
the muck. He wants to have his own version out there to confuse the
World as to the Truth about him even after he's dead.

So, you have the irony and pathetic act of an Editor who must micro-
manage his own life story because he's already botched it so badly in
the eyes of others. Which means, when a reporter screws up, you
punish him by sending him back down to write the obits pieces once
again.

Zoom is the Editor punishing himself by putting himself back in the
obituaries column. A truly hilarious, very subtle, piece of black
comedy if you understand the protocols, the ascending ladder, the
descending ladder, in Journalism.

The saying is: "Be careful about the fingers you step on climbing up
the ladder of life ~ they may be attached to the ass you have to kiss
on the way down."

My interpretation of Zoom writing his own obituary, beyond his bio:
He's stepped on others' fingers on the way up, stepped on them again
on the way down, stepped on his "member" in the process, is having to
kiss their asses, screwed up so bad he's having to kiss his own ass on
the way down, stepped on his "member" again in the process, fell
completely off the ladder and is looping and spinning downward into
the grave.

Very little of this is in jest because I believe it all to be true,
even worded in such a silly, humorous manner.

I was looking at his comments at ANN via "Stephen Hawking Week," and
being out there looping his Glasair, an asset ripe for impounding
prior to sale by the Government to pay settlements in cases pending
out come in court.

This guy is writing like a man about to die. He's reflecting not on
the week...but on his entire life. And he's clearly in a fantasy
world doing it.

I won't speculate as to his personal plans...but I think the next time
one of his Barnstorming columns gets read, don't be surprised if it is
his own obituary. He seems resigned to something, and it looks more
like an end than a future, judging by the way he writes.

Frankly, I think he's the lonliest man on the planet. And if he'd
just stop lying, to others, to himself, about others, to his
readers...come out of the closet about his illnesses; come
clean...change his ways from Corporate Mouthpiece to True Journalist
(The Public's Right to Know comes first over his own rights; such a
man also never lies...) he'd be the man with the most friends.

Like that Brando character in film...he could've been a contender. At
this point, I suspect nearing the end of his "useful life," he hasn't
achieved "has been" yet. He's still out there posing, impersonating,
rather than emulating, those he could have been but ultimately, will
never be.

What was it Shakespeare said in Julius Ceasar? "Look not to the
stars, Brutus, as the reasons for your failures lie within yourself?"

There are Heroes in Greek Tragedies. And then there's James Richard
Campbell...a tragedy as a faux hero.

Enough...I'm through talking (hee-yeah, right...I know) ... I gotta go
to work on this guy. He need's to be put out of his misery. However,
only a Judge in a Court of Law can accomplish that and can only do so
by forcing him to a doctor and forcing him to take the meds, attend
the treatments and participate in the therapies, that might salvage
his life...

....or not.

[DABEAR]

On May 15, 11:30 am, wrote:
> On May 9, 12:03 am, Timothy Sinclair > wrote:
>
>
>
> > ...
>
> > For the last time:
>
> > James Campbell was not on board Stephen Hawking's zero-g flight.
>
> I'm happy to see that you will stop telling us that. I will be even
> happier
> if you were to start telling us how you know that.
>
> --
>
> FF

I think he's using "deliberate denial" as a form of humor...it gets
funnier every time he uses it and someone demands to know his "proof,"
which only consists of his continuing denial. Very subtle. Very
funny. Flies over everyone's head...

....you know, a takeoff on Spin or "The Big Lie." Which Campbell
uses. He's mocking Campbell and his use of the same; turning around
the Spin and using it against Campbell for a change.

Or, he just could be in denial! <GGG> 'Cause telling everyone that
Campbell wasn't on the flight, whether or not he was, is about all
he's going to say, which just makes this a masterstroke of wit...

....or, he could just be in denial! <GGG>

See how it works!!?? <GGGGG>

[DABEAR]

On May 14, 12:18 pm, Barnyard BOb > wrote:
> Richard Riley wrote:
> >But think about it this way. Imagine someone that wrote about how
> >wonderfully the RV-3 zoom climbs, how much fun it is and how well the
> >airplane does it - when he's never done it himeslf? Would he bear any
> >responsibility for the people that try it and shed their wings?
>
> NOPE.
> Not according to the NTSB records concerning the Capella fatalities.
>
> >That's what Campbell did here. He told the boys, and the world, that
> >the Capella was able to handle aerobatics that it couldn't handle. He
> >said he'd done it. They went out and tried it, and they died. I'm
> >not saying that Zoom was the only one responsible, or even that he has
> >primary responsibility for it. But I think he has his part.
>
> This is hearsay, fast and loose talk and speculation, IMO.
>
> What authority states the Capella cannot safely perform
> the aerobatics in question WHEN EXECUTED PROPERLY?
> It is designed to 6.5 g's....
> For reference, the Pitts S-2C is only approved for + 6 g's.
>
> Who sez the maneuvers in question cannot be done
> at less than 6.5 g's???? AFAIK, all can be done below 4 g's.
>
> For now, I have to see it the way the NTSB reports it.
>
> These "boys" had no licenses, no registration for the N number on the
> aircraft, etcetera, etcetera, and are typical of a deadly accident
> going somewhere to happen.. with or without the 'assumed' Zoom input.
>
> From dialog I've read so far...
> It appears they had no regard or respect for rules, regulations or
> listened to much of anything from anybody; a deadly combination
> of factors for anyone not knowing how to fly in the first place.
>
> Had Zoom told these kids to get flying lessons and aerobatic
> instruction before they killed themselves through trial and error...
> would they take that to heart anymore than the requirements
> of the FAA or any authority that they were already violating?!?!?
>
> I wouldn't bet the ranch on this pair of free spirits living a minute
> longer than they did.
>
> Your CONJECTURE may vary.
>
> - Barnyard BOb -

Totally true, unless proven otherwise, as you say...except for one,
haunting little problem:

I've seen Zoom's "Cowboy Writings" on Aviation and performing deeds in
aircraft that are not possible. Even if he did one and got lucky
enough not to fail the aircraft and kill himself in the process, some
other poor schmuck could go out there, based on Zoom's pilot report,
try the stunt himself and get killed.

Mind you, it's not relevant whether documentation exists that proves
he killed someone. It is even more relevant that documentation by
Zoom exists that could potentially kill someone, even if it already
hasn't. That is what needs to be identified and stopped, and that is
just one of the things that identifies Zoom as a danger to flying.
His cowboy bragging and "advice" to others.

Diverging a little at this point from the serious:

There's an old joke about "Monkey See Monkey Do," in which a guy
taunts a gorrila at a Zoo. The guy does something, the gorilla
follows suit. Until such time as the guy pulls out a huge salami,
tries to fake the Gorilla out by slicing it off between his legs, to
see if the Gorilla will be stupid enough to cut off his own "Salami."

Sorry for the lack of class or taste in this "joke" but the punchline
is critical:

When the guy slices off the salami, the Gorilla looks him in the eye
with a smile and gives him the finger!

Meaning ~ just like with Zoom ~ there are some monkeys out there that
can't be fooled! Quite a large number of them in fact.

Zoom may not have killed anyone, since there are a lot of people out
there smarter than Zoom, and frankly, there are a lot of Monkeys out
there who are smarter than Zoom and would tell you that Darwin's
Theory that man evolved from Ape is a repugnant joke pulled by men on
monkeys.

All they'd have to do is point to Zoom and they'd win the argument
hands down.

So, it would be a very important milestone to prove that someone
listened to Zoom and died as a result of his misinformation; more
important that hopefully no one listened to Zoom and as a result,
didn't die, because speaking personally as a Journalist, that
statistic is far more impressive and I prefer it over the one that
would get Zoom into trouble; if you love mankind, you don't root for
Zoom to screw up and kill men/wome/children; and it's MOST important
that he's out there putting misinformation out there that COULD kill
someone and first and foremost, that misinformation must be stopped...

....and the most important thing of all...and here's where I diverge
from the serious towards humor and irony:

Ham, a monkey, made a spaceflight before any man ever did.

Ham, a monkey, made it into a rocket some four decades before Zoom
did...and Zoom still hasn't climbed into the rocket yet. Only in his
wildest dreams and those usually involve a fine looking woman, or
worse, showing any willingness to procreate with him.

A man put Ham in the capsule...

Monkeys are still ****ed about Mankind's cowardice as expressed by
this act...

WORSE!!! (Emphasis, not screaming...well, maybe just a little <g>)

How do you think you'd feel if someone told you Zoom evolved from
you? The "Complex" monkeys are developing over the report that Zoom
evolved from them is far more seriously diverged from the term "Launch
Complex" that man developed for them in the days when Cape Canaveral
preceeded Cape Kennedy.

Screw the FAA! They're not going to do anything about Zoom! Just the
same, we need to stop Zoom and the complex he's giving to monkeys.

It's time to call PETA and file a complaint with them! <GGG>

Because Zoom killing other men don't mean s~t to monkeys!

Men stating Zoom evolved from Monkey is enough to cause Monkeys to
kill! Now THAT means SOMETHING! THAT'S something we should REALLY
worry about!!!!!

<joking, running, ducking, just not from Zoom...)

This "Planet of the Apes" Scenario brought to you by Chiquita Bananas,
dedicated to "helping the Darwin Challenged (Zoom) adjust."

"Oh, that nice Mr. Zoom even offered to write the pamphlet for us!
However, we had to decline..."

~ Chiquita, Spokeswoman, Chiquita Brands

[[email protected]]

On May 14, 5:18 pm, Barnyard BOb > wrote:
> Richard Riley wrote:
> >But think about it this way. Imagine someone that wrote about how
> >wonderfully the RV-3 zoom climbs, how much fun it is and how well the
> >airplane does it - when he's never done it himeslf? Would he bear any
> >responsibility for the people that try it and shed their wings?
>
> NOPE.

Respectfully, this is what I call binary thinking. This is not the
sort
of question for which a yes or no (or nope) answer is appropriate.
It s a question of the extent to which he contributed to the cause,
even if other contributions totaled in excess of 100% the fatal.
stupidity.

Of course people who prefer binary thinking don't see it that way.

> Not according to the NTSB records concerning the Capella fatalities.
>
> >That's what Campbell did here. He told the boys, and the world, that
> >the Capella was able to handle aerobatics that it couldn't handle. He
> >said he'd done it. They went out and tried it, and they died. I'm
> >not saying that Zoom was the only one responsible, or even that he has
> >primary responsibility for it. But I think he has his part.
>
> This is hearsay, fast and loose talk and speculation, IMO.
>
> What authority states the Capella cannot safely perform
> the aerobatics in question WHEN EXECUTED PROPERLY?

Does the manufacturer claim it can?

> It is designed to 6.5 g's....
> For reference, the Pitts S-2C is only approved for + 6 g's.
>
> Who sez the maneuvers in question cannot be done
> at less than 6.5 g's???? AFAIK, all can be done below 4 g's.
>
> For now, I have to see it the way the NTSB reports it.
>
> These "boys" had no licenses, no registration for the N number on the
> aircraft, etcetera, etcetera, and are typical of a deadly accident
> going somewhere to happen.. with or without the 'assumed' Zoom input.
>
> From dialog I've read so far...
> It appears they had no regard or respect for rules, regulations or
> listened to much of anything from anybody; a deadly combination
> of factors for anyone not knowing how to fly in the first place.
>
> Had Zoom told these kids to get flying lessons and aerobatic
> instruction before they killed themselves through trial and error...
> would they take that to heart anymore than the requirements
> of the FAA or any authority that they were already violating?!?!?

Possibly. Some people are naturally inclined to take stupid risks,
for others it is an acquired flaw. In either case the tendency can
be encouraged or mitigated.

>
> I wouldn't bet the ranch on this pair of free spirits living a minute
> longer than they did.

Probably so.

>
> Your CONJECTURE may vary.
>

My conjecture is--we don't know.

--

FF

[Barnyard BOb]

wrote:

>> What authority states the Capella cannot safely perform
>> the aerobatics in question WHEN EXECUTED PROPERLY?
>
>Does the manufacturer claim it can?

Fred, given our litigious society...
Manufacturers seem loath to claim anything,
other than they are NOT responsible. <g>

- Barnyard BOb -

[[email protected]]

On May 17, 9:27 pm, Barnyard BOb > wrote:
> wrote:
> >> What authority states the Capella cannot safely perform
> >> the aerobatics in question WHEN EXECUTED PROPERLY?
>
> >Does the manufacturer claim it can?
>
> Fred, given our litigious society...
> Manufacturers seem loath to claim anything,
> other than they are NOT responsible. <g>
>

http://www.aviataircraft.com/pitts/overview.htm

PITTS S-2C
Until you've flown the new Pitts S-2C, there's no way to fully
comprehend the way we have harnessed the power, expanded the
performance envelope, locked in a new level of precision and taken the
lead in aerobatic flying technology.

http://www.extraaircraft.com/about_history.asp

1998
The FAA Type Certificate is received for the EXTRA 400, flown by many
world aerobatic champions, including Patty Wagstaff.

http://www.russianaeros.com/yak55product.htm

Aerobatic

We say that the '55 will give 85% of a Sukhoi's performance at 40% of
the cost, which is a reflection of the aircraft's capability. It is
very tough, rugged and with very good performance. It has quite a lot
of drag because of its thick (but of course very strong) wing, but of
course a lot of power to overcome this.

http://www.amerchampionaircraft.com/newac/newmain.htm

Our ZLIN Z 242 L (PDF file 357KB) training and fully aerobatic two
seater,


http://www.amerchampionaircraft.com/newac/newmain.htm

Super Decathlon

Fully Aerobatic

....

--

FF

[Harry K]

On May 18, 7:55 am, wrote:
> On May 17, 9:27 pm, Barnyard BOb > wrote:
>
> > wrote:
> > >> What authority states the Capella cannot safely perform
> > >> the aerobatics in question WHEN EXECUTED PROPERLY?
>
> > >Does the manufacturer claim it can?
>
> > Fred, given our litigious society...
> > Manufacturers seem loath to claim anything,
> > other than they are NOT responsible. <g>
>
> http://www.aviataircraft.com/pitts/overview.htm
>
> PITTS S-2C
> Until you've flown the new Pitts S-2C, there's no way to fully
> comprehend the way we have harnessed the power, expanded the
> performance envelope, locked in a new level of precision and taken the
> lead in aerobatic flying technology.
>
> http://www.extraaircraft.com/about_history.asp
>
> 1998
> The FAA Type Certificate is received for the EXTRA 400, flown by many
> world aerobatic champions, including Patty Wagstaff.
>
> http://www.russianaeros.com/yak55product.htm
>
> Aerobatic
>
> We say that the '55 will give 85% of a Sukhoi's performance at 40% of
> the cost, which is a reflection of the aircraft's capability. It is
> very tough, rugged and with very good performance. It has quite a lot
> of drag because of its thick (but of course very strong) wing, but of
> course a lot of power to overcome this.
>
> http://www.amerchampionaircraft.com/newac/newmain.htm
>
> Our ZLIN Z 242 L (PDF file 357KB) training and fully aerobatic two
> seater,
>
> http://www.amerchampionaircraft.com/newac/newmain.htm
>
> Super Decathlon
>
> Fully Aerobatic
>
> ...
>
> --
>
> FF

But there are no concrete claims in that just the usual publicity
fluff. Must be some someplace though.

Harry K

[[email protected]]

On May 19, 9:32 am, Harry K > wrote:
> On May 18, 7:55 am, wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 17, 9:27 pm, Barnyard BOb > wrote:
>
> > > wrote:
> > > >> What authority states the Capella cannot safely perform
> > > >> the aerobatics in question WHEN EXECUTED PROPERLY?
>
> > > >Does the manufacturer claim it can?
>
> > > Fred, given our litigious society...
> > > Manufacturers seem loath to claim anything,
> > > other than they are NOT responsible. <g>
>
> >http://www.aviataircraft.com/pitts/overview.htm
>
> > PITTS S-2C
> > Until you've flown the new Pitts S-2C, there's no way to fully
> > comprehend the way we have harnessed the power, expanded the
> > performance envelope, locked in a new level of precision and taken the
> > lead in aerobatic flying technology.
>
> >http://www.extraaircraft.com/about_history.asp
>
> > 1998
> > The FAA Type Certificate is received for the EXTRA 400, flown by many
> > world aerobatic champions, including Patty Wagstaff.
>
> >http://www.russianaeros.com/yak55product.htm
>
> > Aerobatic
>
> > We say that the '55 will give 85% of a Sukhoi's performance at 40% of
> > the cost, which is a reflection of the aircraft's capability. It is
> > very tough, rugged and with very good performance. It has quite a lot
> > of drag because of its thick (but of course very strong) wing, but of
> > course a lot of power to overcome this.
>
> >http://www.amerchampionaircraft.com/newac/newmain.htm
>
> > Our ZLIN Z 242 L (PDF file 357KB) training and fully aerobatic two
> > seater,
>
> >http://www.amerchampionaircraft.com/newac/newmain.htm
>
> > Super Decathlon
>
> > Fully Aerobatic
>
> > ...
>
> > --
>
> > FF
>
> But there are no concrete claims in that just the usual publicity
> fluff. Must be some someplace though.
>
> Harry K- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The Capellas wing failed at 6.6 G's an aerobatic category plane is
rated safe at 6 G's. However they have to be tested to 150% of that
value or a failure at no less than 9 G's. A failure at the 6.6 G level
would put the rating squarely into the utility category (4.8 G's) if
it were a certified aircraft. If the Capella had a stall speed of 30
mph and Mr Smith was do 90 mph and did a maximum effort pull up he
could have achieved a load of 9 G's, far more than enough to fail the
structure.

Frank M.Hitlaw, at my secret world Hq

[[email protected]]

On May 19, 2:32 am, Harry K > wrote:
> On May 18, 7:55 am, wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 17, 9:27 pm, Barnyard BOb > wrote:
>
> > > wrote:
> > > >> What authority states the Capella cannot safely perform
> > > >> the aerobatics in question WHEN EXECUTED PROPERLY?
>
> > > >Does the manufacturer claim it can?
>
> > > Fred, given our litigious society...
> > > Manufacturers seem loath to claim anything,
> > > other than they are NOT responsible. <g>
>
> >http://www.aviataircraft.com/pitts/overview.htm
>
> > PITTS S-2C
> > Until you've flown the new Pitts S-2C, there's no way to fully
> > comprehend the way we have harnessed the power, expanded the
> > performance envelope, locked in a new level of precision and taken the
> > lead in aerobatic flying technology.
>
> >http://www.extraaircraft.com/about_history.asp
>
> > 1998
> > The FAA Type Certificate is received for the EXTRA 400, flown by many
> > world aerobatic champions, including Patty Wagstaff.
>
> >http://www.russianaeros.com/yak55product.htm
>
> > Aerobatic
>
> > We say that the '55 will give 85% of a Sukhoi's performance at 40% of
> > the cost, which is a reflection of the aircraft's capability. It is
> > very tough, rugged and with very good performance. It has quite a lot
> > of drag because of its thick (but of course very strong) wing, but of
> > course a lot of power to overcome this.
>
> >http://www.amerchampionaircraft.com/newac/newmain.htm
>
> > Our ZLIN Z 242 L (PDF file 357KB) training and fully aerobatic two
> > seater,
>
> >http://www.amerchampionaircraft.com/newac/newmain.htm
>
> > Super Decathlon
>
> > Fully Aerobatic
>
> ...
>
> But there are no concrete claims in that just the usual publicity
> fluff. Must be some someplace though.
>

I didn't see any claims that the aircraft in question could be
rolled, looped, or spun. I sort of thought that 'fully aerobatic'
and similar statements covered those, in concrete.

--

FF

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article om>,
says...
>
>On May 17, 9:27 pm, Barnyard BOb > wrote:
>> wrote:
>> >> What authority states the Capella cannot safely perform
>> >> the aerobatics in question WHEN EXECUTED PROPERLY?
>>
>> >Does the manufacturer claim it can?
>>
>> Fred, given our litigious society...
>> Manufacturers seem loath to claim anything,
>> other than they are NOT responsible. <g>
>>
>
>http://www.aviataircraft.com/pitts/overview.htm
>
> PITTS S-2C
>Until you've flown the new Pitts S-2C, there's no way to fully
>comprehend the way we have harnessed the power, expanded the
>performance envelope, locked in a new level of precision and taken the
>lead in aerobatic flying technology.
>
>http://www.extraaircraft.com/about_history.asp
>
> 1998
>The FAA Type Certificate is received for the EXTRA 400, flown by many
>world aerobatic champions, including Patty Wagstaff.
>
>http://www.russianaeros.com/yak55product.htm
>
> Aerobatic
>
>We say that the '55 will give 85% of a Sukhoi's performance at 40% of
>the cost, which is a reflection of the aircraft's capability. It is
>very tough, rugged and with very good performance. It has quite a lot
>of drag because of its thick (but of course very strong) wing, but of
>course a lot of power to overcome this.
>
>http://www.amerchampionaircraft.com/newac/newmain.htm
>
> Our ZLIN Z 242 L (PDF file 357KB) training and fully aerobatic two
>seater,
>
>
>http://www.amerchampionaircraft.com/newac/newmain.htm
>
> Super Decathlon
>
> Fully Aerobatic

The above aircraft were designed to be aerobatic machines the Capella was never
advertised as such .As best as I can remember the only person to talk about
looping rolling and spinning a Capella was zoom nothing I ever read from the
factory ever made any of those claims. Just my .02 cents worth

Chuck S

[Harry K]

On May 20, 9:38 am, wrote:
> On May 19, 2:32 am, Harry K > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 18, 7:55 am, wrote:
>
> > > On May 17, 9:27 pm, Barnyard BOb > wrote:
>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >> What authority states the Capella cannot safely perform
> > > > >> the aerobatics in question WHEN EXECUTED PROPERLY?
>
> > > > >Does the manufacturer claim it can?
>
> > > > Fred, given our litigious society...
> > > > Manufacturers seem loath to claim anything,
> > > > other than they are NOT responsible. <g>
>
> > >http://www.aviataircraft.com/pitts/overview.htm
>
> > > PITTS S-2C
> > > Until you've flown the new Pitts S-2C, there's no way to fully
> > > comprehend the way we have harnessed the power, expanded the
> > > performance envelope, locked in a new level of precision and taken the
> > > lead in aerobatic flying technology.
>
> > >http://www.extraaircraft.com/about_history.asp
>
> > > 1998
> > > The FAA Type Certificate is received for the EXTRA 400, flown by many
> > > world aerobatic champions, including Patty Wagstaff.
>
> > >http://www.russianaeros.com/yak55product.htm
>
> > > Aerobatic
>
> > > We say that the '55 will give 85% of a Sukhoi's performance at 40% of
> > > the cost, which is a reflection of the aircraft's capability. It is
> > > very tough, rugged and with very good performance. It has quite a lot
> > > of drag because of its thick (but of course very strong) wing, but of
> > > course a lot of power to overcome this.
>
> > >http://www.amerchampionaircraft.com/newac/newmain.htm
>
> > > Our ZLIN Z 242 L (PDF file 357KB) training and fully aerobatic two
> > > seater,
>
> > >http://www.amerchampionaircraft.com/newac/newmain.htm
>
> > > Super Decathlon
>
> > > Fully Aerobatic
>
> > ...
>
> > But there are no concrete claims in that just the usual publicity
> > fluff. Must be some someplace though.
>
> I didn't see any claims that the aircraft in question could be
> rolled, looped, or spun. I sort of thought that 'fully aerobatic'
> and similar statements covered those, in concrete.
>
> --
>
> FF- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Possibly in the vernacular but when it comes to a court of law there
would have to be specific numbers e.g., how many negative, how many
positive, what manaeuvers, etc.

Harry K

[[email protected]]

On May 22, 2:25 am, Harry K > wrote:
> On May 20, 9:38 am, wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 19, 2:32 am, Harry K > wrote:
>
> > > On May 18, 7:55 am, wrote:
>
> > > > On May 17, 9:27 pm, Barnyard BOb > wrote:
>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> What authority states the Capella cannot safely perform
> > > > > >> the aerobatics in question WHEN EXECUTED PROPERLY?
>
> > > > > >Does the manufacturer claim it can?
>
> > > > > Fred, given our litigious society...
> > > > > Manufacturers seem loath to claim anything,
> > > > > other than they are NOT responsible. <g>
>
> > > >http://www.aviataircraft.com/pitts/overview.htm
>
> > > > PITTS S-2C
> > > > Until you've flown the new Pitts S-2C, there's no way to fully
> > > > comprehend the way we have harnessed the power, expanded the
> > > > performance envelope, locked in a new level of precision and taken the
> > > > lead in aerobatic flying technology.
>
> > > >http://www.extraaircraft.com/about_history.asp
>
> > > > 1998
> > > > The FAA Type Certificate is received for the EXTRA 400, flown by many
> > > > world aerobatic champions, including Patty Wagstaff.
>
> > > >http://www.russianaeros.com/yak55product.htm
>
> > > > Aerobatic
>
> > > > We say that the '55 will give 85% of a Sukhoi's performance at 40% of
> > > > the cost, which is a reflection of the aircraft's capability. It is
> > > > very tough, rugged and with very good performance. It has quite a lot
> > > > of drag because of its thick (but of course very strong) wing, but of
> > > > course a lot of power to overcome this.
>
> > > >http://www.amerchampionaircraft.com/newac/newmain.htm
>
> > > > Our ZLIN Z 242 L (PDF file 357KB) training and fully aerobatic two
> > > > seater,
>
> > > >http://www.amerchampionaircraft.com/newac/newmain.htm
>
> > > > Super Decathlon
>
> > > > Fully Aerobatic
>
> > > ...
>
> > > But there are no concrete claims in that just the usual publicity
> > > fluff. Must be some someplace though.
>
> > I didn't see any claims that the aircraft in question could be
> > rolled, looped, or spun. I sort of thought that 'fully aerobatic'
> > and similar statements covered those, in concrete.
>
> > --
>
> > FF- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Possibly in the vernacular but when it comes to a court of law there
> would have to be specific numbers e.g., how many negative, how many
> positive, what manaeuvers, etc.
>

To the contrary I think that advertising that an aircraft is
aerobatic WITHOUT specifying limitations would maximize
the manufacturer's exposure.

--

FF