In article ,
(LaDonna Wyss) wrote:

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.

Google for Jay's name and most of his posts for the past year were
specific, direct requests for explanation of particular posts and/or
explanations (in precise engineering terms) for things implied or
claimed by "scott." It's substantially more than the "nugget or two"
you seem to think.

Next, why do you have "Scott" in quotes? It's not a fictional name;
it's his real name.

I call him "scott" because "scott" is the name under which he posts his
abusive, rude, evasive and conspiratorial nonsense.

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.

Then why couldn't he bother to answer any of Jay's questions without
resorting to either name-calling and claims of greater sources of secret
information (that no one else has ever seen)? Why has he admitted to
concealing evidence? Why won't he release the names of the "experts" he
claims support his theory?

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.

Sorry, lady, I read the initial investigative report cover-to-cover
including the appendices when I was twelve; I reviewed parts of it in
greater detail as an engineering undergraduate student in the '80s.
Nothing "scott" says, either in his own name or through you as a proxy
sock-puppet, will change what happened or how it happened.

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.

Right, sure.

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
Columbia Loss FAQ:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html