"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message . ..
"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
om...
First, I am not going to post Gus Grissom's autopsy report on the
Internet.

If you bring it up, the burden is on *you*.

I wouldn't even DREAM of asking Betty Grissom's permission
to do such a thing.

Not needed. It's a public record.

Second, my medical credentials have nothing to do
with it.

*You* drew medical conclusions, so let's see your medical credentials.
Otherwise, you are no more qualified than my cat.

Scott had that report examined by a top forensic
pathologist; you should ask for HIS credentials.

Name, please.

Yes, I know what
hemorrhagic pulmonary edema means; are you incapable of doing an
Internet search?

Are you capable of providing a verifiable reference? It's *your* burden to
do so.

It is basically internal bleeding of the lungs.

On the other hand, what is it, *in detail*, and what is the source of your
information?

Clearly, you're a n00b, since you are unaware of how this sort of an
investigation works. Pay less attention to "scott" and more to logic. *You*
have asserted certain claims here, which means that *you* have the entire
burden to support them. Nobody has any obligation whatsoever to look for
evidence to support your claims. I don't need to do an Internet search for
"pulmonary edema" since I'm not the one asserting the claim. *You* said it,
so *you* provide the cite. If you talk to an expert, you need to provide a
name that can be verified. If you have supporters, they need to post here-
email supporters are imaginary supporters.

Otherwise, your investigation will be as useful as "scott"'s has been- that
is, meaningless. "scott" doesn't seem to be able to provide any
independently verifiable evidence- he seems to have forgotten the names of
the people he's spoken to, at least, until they die and can no longer deny
his claims.

So far, you have shown nothing in the way of a real, independent
investigation. What you've shown is that you are looking for any desperate
scrap that will support "scott", which is a pretty strong indicator that
you're one of "scott"'s brown-nosers using a new address. You're using the
same style of attack as "scott", although thus far your spelling and
punctuation is better than he seems capable of showing.

HOLD EVERYTHING. You just proved you do not know what you are talking
about. Gus Grissom's autopsy report is NOT public record!!!!
(Neither is Ed White's nor Roger Chaffee's.) What you have seen is
the one or two pages that have been released; those are SUMMARIES.
The actual report is some 25 pages long, and it is CLASSIFIED. The
only reason I've seen it is because Scott and Betty graciously allowed
me to see it.
And, what is UP with people putting Scott's name in quotes? Do you
think it is an alias??? Perhaps you should read Gus' bio so you can
verify the man's name! I also did not make medical conclusions; I
simply reiterated what is in the report and the simple facts about
hemorrhagic pulmonary edema. No conclusions; simply research.