Herb Schaltegger wrote in message ...
In article ,
(LaDonna Wyss) wrote:

"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message
.. .
"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
om...
3. My own, independent investigation has not only confirmed Scott's
allegations

How about all that folderol about a switch? Did your investigation prove
beyond a doubt that the piece of metal he yaks about on some switch was in
fact the cause of the fire?

"Folderol?" My, aren't we prim! Good thing I studied English in
college. :-) The legal standard is beyond a REASONABLE doubt, and
yes it has.

First of all, the legal standard for murder is one thing that "scott"
has never been capable of proving to anyone save you. Second of all,
your previous post referenced medical terminology that you are
apparently parroting without comprehension. Third, the usual standard
for medical proof in a legal context is merely to a reasonable degree of
medical certainty - which boils down to a preponderance of the evidence
or simply more likely than not.

And no, "scott" hasn't proven anything to anyone save yourself.

The RCS A/C roll switch was hard shorted to ground, and
that short caused multiple problems all along Main B from the moment
Apollo One was powered up at 9:45 that morning. I've tracked the
electrical problems as well as the other so-called "anomalies" that
occurred that day, and they all tie directly to that short.
And, as for the piece of metal, you do understand the concept of a
hard short (aka "dead" short)?

And you now demonstrate that you're not an engineer or forensic examiner.

Continue googling the group for the past year or so and when you can
respond to Jay Windley's posts, point by point (which "scott" failed to
do, repeatedly), maybe someone will take you seriously.

Until then you're just another conspiratorial loon as well as an
apologist for "scott."

OK. Let's start with the last one first. I am FAR too busy with this
to "google the group" for the past year or so. If you have a specific
post from Jay Windley you would like me to address, feel free to
direct me to it. I don't have time to waste searching through months
of chatter to find the nugget or two worthy of response.
Next, why do you have "Scott" in quotes? It's not a fictional name;
it's his real name. And I've already said that Scott is not great at
explaining things. He assumes a certain level of knowledge and has NO
patience for taking things to fundamental elements to catch people up.
That is a weakness of his, but it does not prove lack of
credibility...simply impatience.
Next, I am not a "conspiratorial loon." I approached this with
extreme skepticism, as did many members of my team. The fact is the
evidence proves Scott's assertions to be true, and if you spent any
time reviewing that evidence rather than lodging superficial attacks
you might come to realize you are seriously mistaken.
Finally, Scott didn't prove ANYTHING to me. I repeat: SCOTT did NOT
prove ANYTHING to me. I spent 18 months compiling evidence from all
over the country and determined ON MY OWN Apollo One was sabotaged.
The evidence speaks for itself.