From the Jim Campbell, Captain Zoom archives (all of 6 years ago)

Well, don't I feel stoopid

Thanks for pointing that out.


"Richard Riley" wrote in message
...

Do'h! Ok, all the conflict of interest stuff is in the original post
itself.

Osama comes to mind.

"Mick" wrote in message
oups.com...

Again, I ask anyone reading this thread to identify, suggest, intimate,
reveal, denote, or show us ANY OTHER PERSON who has done more harm to
more people and businesses in aviation than Mr. Jim Campbell. Find me
one person who has alienated more people, told more lies, or disrupted
more events. Just one. Find me a single, solitary soul who has sued
more people, taken more people's money, or flip-flopped on more
reviews.

Steve,

Please review the context of the discussion. I know what you say could
be technically correct, just as we could name the 9-11 terrorists,
Hurricane Katrina, every modern President as they travel around the
country, etc. However, that's a specious argument and not relevant to
our discussion.

To make it simple for folks to follow the conversation, name another
"journalist" or aviation "advocate" who...

Mick

Originally Posted by Mick

Mick said:

TO MAKE IT FAIR: I welcome suggestions of people who have done more
good in aviation. I'll start the list with PAUL H. POBEREZNY (homebuilt
aviation) and PHIL BOYER (general aviation).

I'll add Larry Mauro and John Moody, in honor of the newly-re-released Easy Riser.

Juan Jimenez wrote:
Like I said, I believe you should
have the gumption to talk to Jim and get his side of the story. Until you do
that, all you're doing is blowing more hot air of the RAH gaggle type.

Juan, it is interesting that you suggest talking to Jim. I have had the
pleasure, so I have passed your hot air test.

I spoke to Jim, when he called me on my cell phone early one Sunday
morning. I ended up getting his side of a number of his "stories" in
the course of this 60+ minute conversation.

During this phone call, I was lectured and threatened and was party to
both sides of the good cop bad cop routine.

After I advised a British aviation magazine to check out Jim's
credentials a little more carefully before accepting his contributions,
that same magazine provided Jim with my email message and cell phone
number. This says something about that magazine's integrity.

A good part of the conversation centered around his test pilot
experience and credentials and his general credibility.

He pleasantly asked me to publicly and privately retract my statements.
When I told him that I wasn't especially interested in retracting my
statements, he turned up the heat and started making legal threats.

Without getting upset, I told Jim that I would take my chances in court
if that is what he wanted to do. I told him that it would be
interesting to witness my father's testimony and that of dozens of Navy
test pilots echoing my interpretation of Jim's claims and credentials.

When I mentioned that given his medical history and public record of his
activities, he might be at a disadvantage facing me in court.

He kept switching characters, a few minutes good cop, a few minutes bad
cop. He would threaten legal action, explaining the consequences of his
legal victory and in the next breath, start crying about how such
statements are hurting his ability to provide for himself and his family
and nicely asking me to retract the statements or cease making further
statements of that nature.

Well, Juan, that's my experience with Jim. He's a train wreck and you
invite criticism through your association with him.

In article lGXBf.513772$084.422173@attbi_s22, anon says...

Juan Jimenez wrote:
Like I said, I believe you should
have the gumption to talk to Jim and get his side of the story. Until you do
that, all you're doing is blowing more hot air of the RAH gaggle type.

Juan, it is interesting that you suggest talking to Jim. I have had the
pleasure, so I have passed your hot air test.

I spoke to Jim, when he called me on my cell phone early one Sunday
morning. I ended up getting his side of a number of his "stories" in
the course of this 60+ minute conversation.

During this phone call, I was lectured and threatened and was party to
both sides of the good cop bad cop routine.

After I advised a British aviation magazine to check out Jim's
credentials a little more carefully before accepting his contributions,
that same magazine provided Jim with my email message and cell phone
number. This says something about that magazine's integrity.

A good part of the conversation centered around his test pilot
experience and credentials and his general credibility.

He pleasantly asked me to publicly and privately retract my statements.
When I told him that I wasn't especially interested in retracting my
statements, he turned up the heat and started making legal threats.

Without getting upset, I told Jim that I would take my chances in court
if that is what he wanted to do. I told him that it would be
interesting to witness my father's testimony and that of dozens of Navy
test pilots echoing my interpretation of Jim's claims and credentials.

When I mentioned that given his medical history and public record of his
activities, he might be at a disadvantage facing me in court.

He kept switching characters, a few minutes good cop, a few minutes bad
cop. He would threaten legal action, explaining the consequences of his
legal victory and in the next breath, start crying about how such
statements are hurting his ability to provide for himself and his family
and nicely asking me to retract the statements or cease making further
statements of that nature.

Well, Juan, that's my experience with Jim. He's a train wreck and you
invite criticism through your association with him.


I remember that incident. I among others wrote the magazine when I saw the
credentials that zoom had presented to the magazine. I told them if they didn't
want to lose their credibility they should do a background check on their latest
contributer.

Everything you say is exactly how zoom operates and for jaun to defend zoom
and then lie by saying it never happened is shameful...Beside inviting criticism
jaun has also lost his credibility.


Chuck S RAH-14/1 ret

Hi, Chuck


It was a strange conversation, indeed.

If I wasn't so fascinated and entertained by the emotional roller
coaster I was listening to, I would have hung up sooner.

A great deal of this inane conversation was about his
self-identification as a test pilot. He rationalized that since he was
evaluating a bunch of planes for his magazine and took a class, he was a
test pilot.

I explained that he has a right to see himself that way, but he should
expect some scrutiny. I told him that it wouldn't pass the "sniff
test" if you tried to get a panel of real test pilots to accept his
definition.

His thoughts about you and your aircraft were just as bizarre.

He was disappointed that I had never met anybody on RAH, as it didn't
fit his conspiracy theory or evil influence theory.

It was indeed a pleasure when I met you during your presentation in
Lexington, Kentucky. The room was packed and a number of people drove
quite a distance to hear you speak. I've never heard anyone speak an
ill word of you, Chuck, but that might indicate that the conspiracy
knows no ends.

In article v3_Bf.724741$x96.157436@attbi_s72, anon says...

If I wasn't so fascinated and entertained by the emotional roller
coaster I was listening to, I would have hung up sooner.

A great deal of this inane conversation was about his
self-identification as a test pilot. He rationalized that since he was
evaluating a bunch of planes for his magazine and took a class, he was a
test pilot.

I explained that he has a right to see himself that way, but he should
expect some scrutiny. I told him that it wouldn't pass the "sniff
test" if you tried to get a panel of real test pilots to accept his
definition.

That has to do with his mixing perception and reality. He creates the
"perception" that he is a "test Pilot" and most people will take him at face
value and believe it. But if you check his credentials the "reality" is
something else. He is trying to imply that he is an accredited ,engineered Test
Pilot something which he is not. Doing pilot reports on certificated airplanes
and a week in a school do not qualify for as a Test pilot ...except maybe in
zooms and jauns wierd world.

I can say I got a lot of jet time...yeah in row 23E .But he'll throw out
comments like that ,again implying that he was PIC of a number of jets like
"I've got some F-16 time" Right in the back seat of an ANG jet getting a ride.
It was just that kind of stuff he was trying to pass on the the English magazine
that is dishonest. But jaun believes it LOL!!

His thoughts about you and your aircraft were just as bizarre.


Well we all know that :-)


He was disappointed that I had never met anybody on RAH, as it didn't
fit his conspiracy theory or evil influence theory.


True enough I didn't know of you until after you joined the I've been zoom and
survived gaggle and a proud gaggle we are.Why the list of the zoomed is long and
illistrious and contains a who's who of general aviation .Our motto "the Proud
,the many the zoomed" is as revelent now as it was 5 -10 years ago.


It was indeed a pleasure when I met you during your presentation in
Lexington, Kentucky. The room was packed and a number of people drove
quite a distance to hear you speak. I've never heard anyone speak an
ill word of you, Chuck, but that might indicate that the conspiracy
knows no ends.

Boy now you did it!!LOL!! It just happens that I'm heading to Lexington KY this
week end to talk at the BUG Safety Seminar.During the day I'm doing a talk on
designing for crashworthiness. Later I'll be the after dinner speaker talking
about my adventures as an Ultralight Pioneer.All true stories as I'll have video
to back it up LOL!!! Yup it's a conspiracy all right :-)

See ya

Chuck S RAH-14/1 ret

"if I wrote it I did it"............was what zoom told me after I said he didn't
loop,roll and spin a Hawk during his flight review in 1983 at Geauga County
Airport.This was told to me in my booth at SnF shortly before he was kicked out
of SnF for causing trouble....

Juan Jimenez wrote:

At any rate, Jim had a lot of respect for Tony and was sincerely
shocked when I told him he had passed away.


BRAVO-SIERRA !

Every now and then I am reminded again why I ignore you Juan.

- John Ousterhout -
rah/14 and proud of it.

The Captain Zoom Story: http://ousterhout.net/zoom.html

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 10:06:50 -0400, "Juan Jimenez"
wrote:

Jim had a lot of respect for Tony and was sincerely
shocked when I told him he had passed away. (No, I don't care who believes
me or not, you should know that by now.)

I choose "not", given that Tony brought Zoomie to court several times,
and the court found in his (Tony's) favor.

Corky Scott