FYI Bio zoom ZZZZZZZZ

"Al G" wrote in message
...

"Juan Jimenez" wrote in message
.. .
The NAA has some aviation-related records that FAI doesn't keep track of.
Guinness World Records has others as well. That's easy to verify.


Ok, Juan, I did.

James Campbell holds NO World records.
He holds NO National Records.
He is a confirmed Liar.

Your opinion has been noted. shrug




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"John Ousterhout" wrote in message
news:WWGgh.271544$FQ1.18418@attbi_s71...
Al G wrote:

James Campbell holds NO World records.
He holds NO National Records.
He is a confirmed Liar.

As a matter of fact Zoom was once determined to be a liar by an
Administrative Law Judge.


Well, sure, but that was just a judge, not a Flight Instructor!

I sent a copy of the letter from NAA, to the Rocket Racing league.


Al G

"Dan" wrote in message
...
Juan Jimenez wrote:
http://www.aero-news.net/news/featur...B643&Dynamic=1

Gee, he lost his chase plane according to your cite. No witnesses no
record.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Still trying to prove intelligence? Notice the word "barograph" in the
article? chuckle Get over it.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Al G" wrote in message
...

"John Ousterhout" wrote in
message news:WWGgh.271544$FQ1.18418@attbi_s71...
Al G wrote:

James Campbell holds NO World records.
He holds NO National Records.
He is a confirmed Liar.

As a matter of fact Zoom was once determined to be a liar by an
Administrative Law Judge.


Well, sure, but that was just a judge, not a Flight Instructor!

I sent a copy of the letter from NAA, to the Rocket Racing league.

If you want to join RRL, have you considered just sending an application.

I find it intensely amusing how many of you schmucks run around trying to
make trouble for Campbell, and wind up bouncing off the wall, over and over
again.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Juan Jimenez wrote:
"Dan" wrote in message
...
Juan Jimenez wrote:
http://www.aero-news.net/news/featur...B643&Dynamic=1

Gee, he lost his chase plane according to your cite. No witnesses no
record.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Still trying to prove intelligence? Notice the word "barograph" in the
article? chuckle Get over it.



Yawn, is there an unbiased party who who verified calibration of
said barograph, sealed said barograph, placed said barograph in the
aircraft and verified that said barograph remained sealed with its
original seal and verified the maximum altitude upon completion of the
attempt? If so, who was this disinterested party and what organization,
if any, does he represent? Notary public? OK, what is his seal number
and state?

My point is he made a claim and has yet to prove it. If he wants to
be taken seriously on this point he should have submitted it to a
controlling authority. It really isn't that difficult to understand.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. It's just that
simple. You claim to have been a Marine, what would have happened to you
if you wore an unauthorized award, decoration or other distinctive
insignia on your uniform? It's all about integrity. I have seen
documentation of cambell's impersonation of a doctor, parachute
instructor etc. That is sufficient for me to doubt his claiming this
record.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Juan Jimenez wrote:
"DABEAR" wrote in message
oups.com...
snipped

FWIW, I don't recall Zoom claiming his 'record' was recognized by
anyone.
Then it's not a record.

Sorry, but that's wrong too. A record is a record if you document it to a
sufficient level that it can be verified. Whether or not the person chooses
to submit it to the FAI does not change that. An "FAI Record" is only such
if it is recognized by the FAI. Two different statements.

The problem is cambell provides no disinterested documentation. I
don't think he can at this point. One of the advantages of an FAI
certified record is it's rather hard to disprove it.

I don't know about you, but if I had set a record and wanted to
announce it I'd have all the verification I could get and get it
recognized by FAI. Then again, if I had done what he said just for the
fun of it I would never claim the record.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"Dan" wrote in message
...
Juan Jimenez wrote:
"Dan" wrote in message
...
Juan Jimenez wrote:
http://www.aero-news.net/news/featur...B643&Dynamic=1

Gee, he lost his chase plane according to your cite. No witnesses no
record.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Still trying to prove intelligence? Notice the word "barograph" in the
article? chuckle Get over it.
Yawn, is there an unbiased party who who verified calibration of said
barograph, sealed said barograph, placed said barograph in the aircraft
and verified that said barograph remained sealed with its original seal
and verified the maximum altitude upon completion of the attempt?

Go ask Jim. That is, assuming you can muster the cojones to do so, given no
one else around seems to have any when it comes to going to the source. All
bark, no bite.

My point is he made a claim and has yet to prove it. If he wants to be
taken seriously on this point he should have submitted it to a controlling
authority. It really isn't that difficult to understand.

I don't think he really gives a damn what anyone else here thinks of what he
did or didn't do, Dan. If you haven't figured that out yet, here's your
chance.

Juan





--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Dan" wrote in message
...
Juan Jimenez wrote:
"DABEAR" wrote in message
oups.com...
snipped

FWIW, I don't recall Zoom claiming his 'record' was recognized by
anyone.
Then it's not a record.

Sorry, but that's wrong too. A record is a record if you document it to a
sufficient level that it can be verified. Whether or not the person
chooses to submit it to the FAI does not change that. An "FAI Record" is
only such if it is recognized by the FAI. Two different statements.

The problem is cambell provides no disinterested documentation.

Sorry, but no. Wrong answer.

Have you asked him? Never mind, I already know the answer.

The simple, incontrovertible fact is that you have no evidence to reach such
a conclusion. No one here does.






--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Juan Jimenez wrote:
"Dan" wrote in message
...
Juan Jimenez wrote:
"DABEAR" wrote in message
oups.com...
snipped

FWIW, I don't recall Zoom claiming his 'record' was recognized by
anyone.
Then it's not a record.
Sorry, but that's wrong too. A record is a record if you document it to a
sufficient level that it can be verified. Whether or not the person
chooses to submit it to the FAI does not change that. An "FAI Record" is
only such if it is recognized by the FAI. Two different statements.

The problem is cambell provides no disinterested documentation.

Sorry, but no. Wrong answer.

Have you asked him? Never mind, I already know the answer.

The simple, incontrovertible fact is that you have no evidence to reach such
a conclusion. No one here does.

He hasn't yet provided proof in any publication. If you have such
proof provide it. As for asking him, why should I? It's up to him to
provide proof especially since he's on record about lying about other
accomplishments.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Juan Jimenez wrote:
"Dan" wrote in message
...
Juan Jimenez wrote:
"Dan" wrote in message
...
Juan Jimenez wrote:
http://www.aero-news.net/news/featur...B643&Dynamic=1

Gee, he lost his chase plane according to your cite. No witnesses no
record.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
Still trying to prove intelligence? Notice the word "barograph" in the
article? chuckle Get over it.
Yawn, is there an unbiased party who who verified calibration of said
barograph, sealed said barograph, placed said barograph in the aircraft
and verified that said barograph remained sealed with its original seal
and verified the maximum altitude upon completion of the attempt?

Go ask Jim. That is, assuming you can muster the cojones to do so, given no
one else around seems to have any when it comes to going to the source. All
bark, no bite.

My point is he made a claim and has yet to prove it. If he wants to be
taken seriously on this point he should have submitted it to a controlling
authority. It really isn't that difficult to understand.

I don't think he really gives a damn what anyone else here thinks of what he
did or didn't do, Dan. If you haven't figured that out yet, here's your
chance.

Juan

As a publisher he should care what people think of him. I used to
read ANN, but don't anymore. He's a proven liar which makes me suspect
everything he says.

On the other hand you criticize people who question his claims
without providing any proof of your own.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired