Apollo One and "Verifiable References"

I thought you folks had all done your homework? What's with all this
"verifiable references" crap? I thought you'd read the Congressional
Record, the voice transcript, and the Review Board Report (aka The
Borman Report--that's Paul Bergaust's title for it, which I love.)
You all salivate over TPS 068 like it's the beginning and end of
Apollo One. Many of you claim to have been to the National Archives,
yet you don't know what I'm talking about??? After all, you've read
the "Hill Report" (which still has me LMAO that you think a
congressman's placating letter to Betty Grissom rises to the level of
"report.") I've even seen some of you babbling about congressional
record references. SO, you should KNOW this stuff. If you don't, if
you can't remember what you claim to have read, why is it my job to
hold your hand?
Is it possible some of you are subbing for Frank Borman? "I stand by
my testimony. What do you mean, it's inconsistent? What do you mean
the evidence proves otherwise? What do you mean, my own Report calls
my testimony into question? What voice transcript? Can you prove
such a document exists? I have not now, nor have I ever, seen
anything that impugnes what I have said under oath. I am a Colonel in
the United States Air Force; how dare you call my integrity into
question. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it...."
LaDonna

"LaDonna Wyss" wrote:
I thought you folks had all done your homework?

I have done my homework.

What's with all this
"verifiable references" crap?

I dunno. You are the self appointed expert.

I thought you'd read the Congressional
Record, the voice transcript, and the Review Board Report (aka The
Borman Report--that's Paul Bergaust's title for it, which I love.)

Yep, "title" aside I have read a lot of the House Report. Not all of it
mind you.

You all salivate over TPS 068 like it's the beginning and end of
Apollo One.

Don't tell me what I do. By way of observation you have spent a lot of time
talking nonsense frankly. You have engaged far more of your effort fighting
with OM in a silly game of adolescent mental gymnastics than you have
responding to serious and on topic questions. Why? If you are not a troll,
Why?

Many of you claim to have been to the National Archives,
yet you don't know what I'm talking about???

Many?

After all, you've read
the "Hill Report" (which still has me LMAO that you think a
congressman's placating letter to Betty Grissom rises to the level of
"report.")

I would not dismiss it out of hand if I were you.

I've even seen some of you babbling about congressional
record references. SO, you should KNOW this stuff. If you don't, if
you can't remember what you claim to have read, why is it my job to
hold your hand?

Don't touch my hand;-)

Is it possible some of you are subbing for Frank Borman? "I stand by
my testimony.

Testimony? You are not testifying here.

What do you mean, it's inconsistent? What do you mean
the evidence proves otherwise? What do you mean, my own Report calls
my testimony into question? What voice transcript? Can you prove
such a document exists? I have not now, nor have I ever, seen
anything that impugnes what I have said under oath.

I have not seen nor heard anything you have said under "oath" here or
anywhere else for that matter.

I am a Colonel in
the United States Air Force;

We all have to make a living. I was a Sergeant in the U.S. Air Force when I
was a young man. I worked for a few Colonels, if that counts.

how dare you call my integrity into
question. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it...."

Okeeee dokeee, and Saturday Night Live makes me laugh too.

Now, even as you bring up the topic of "verifiable references" in yet
another new thread, I have one of those "references" uploading to my
website:

www.challengerdisaster.info

It should be there by 12:30 A.M. PDT.

Just download the link entitled "GSE Configuration During T-10 Hold -0021
Elec.

To check into whether it is a "verifiable reference", please take a look in
the:

"Investigation into Apollo 204 Accident

Hearings
before the
Subcommittee on NASA Oversight
of the Committee on
Science and Astronautics
U.S. House of Representatives
Ninetieth Congress
First Session

April 10, 1967

[No. 3]

Volume II

Part 2"

Also Known As "Y4sci2:90-1/3v.2/pt. 2" at your local Federal Library.

I apologize for the delay in providing the reference. I did not have a copy
of it available to me. I had to make a visit to the library to find and
scan it. I am sure you understand. It will be staying at my website for a
long while.

Daniel
Mt. Charleston, the last bastion of comfort in a tormented desert.

"LaDonna Wyss" wrote
Is it possible some of you are subbing for Frank Borman? "I stand by
my testimony. What do you mean, it's inconsistent? What do you mean
the evidence proves otherwise? What do you mean, my own Report calls
my testimony into question? What voice transcript? Can you prove
such a document exists? I have not now, nor have I ever, seen
anything that impugnes what I have said under oath. I am a Colonel in
the United States Air Force; how dare you call my integrity into
question. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it...."

I presume you consider it 'artistic license' to place fictitious words
inside of quotation marks
attributed to somebody else? But it's also clever misdirection to avoid
responding to serious,
sober requests from people who would pay attention -- and do pay
attention -- to any claims,
no matter how bizarre initially, that have verifiable evidence to back them
up. You are
playing a game here, not following the rules of historical advocacy.

"LaDonna Wyss" wrote
Is it possible some of you are subbing for Frank Borman? "I stand by
my testimony. What do you mean, it's inconsistent? What do you mean
the evidence proves otherwise? What do you mean, my own Report calls
my testimony into question? What voice transcript? Can you prove
such a document exists? I have not now, nor have I ever, seen
anything that impugnes what I have said under oath. I am a Colonel in
the United States Air Force; how dare you call my integrity into
question. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it...."

I presume you consider it 'artistic license' to place fictitious words
inside of quotation marks
attributed to somebody else? But it's also clever misdirection to avoid
responding to serious,
sober requests from people who would pay attention -- and do pay
attention -- to any claims,
no matter how bizarre initially, that have verifiable evidence to back them
up. You are
playing a game here, not following the rules of historical advocacy.

"LaDonna Wyss" wrote
I thought you folks had all done your homework? What's with all this
"verifiable references" crap? ... SO, you should KNOW this stuff. If you
don't, if
you can't remember what you claim to have read, why is it my job to
hold your hand?

OK, proof enough for me. Killfile time. PLONK.

On 14 Jun 2004 10:45:55 GMT, rk
wrote:

Where's the beef?

....Lessee, if she's filming a documentary, and she's fooling around
with scott, that'll probably be the title of the film. Especially if
you stick the word "roast" somewhere in there :-P

[Cue LaTirade]

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
om...
I thought you folks had all done your homework? What's with all this
"verifiable references" crap?

We're trying to find out if *you* did your homework.

I thought you'd read the Congressional
Record, the voice transcript, and the Review Board Report

So far, you haven't provided any evidence that *you* have. *You* have made
many claims, it's *your* burden to prove those claims by providing
verifiable references.

We don't have to prove you wrong. The burden is entirely on you. If *you*
did your homework, you shouldn't have a problem providing verifiable
references.

You said you did an investigation- so let's see it. You are a liar until you
show otherwise.

Hell, you can't seem to even remember the names of your "teammates"- what
kind of investigator are you if you don't even know who your coworkers are?

"rk" wrote in message
...
It appears, based on what you have presented here, that it's shoot the
documentary first, do the homework later.

She's been studying at the Michael Moore School of Documentary Production.

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 12:45:21 -0400, "Scott Hedrick"
wrote:


"rk" wrote in message
...
It appears, based on what you have presented here, that it's shoot the
documentary first, do the homework later.

She's been studying at the Michael Moore School of Documentary Production.

....Of course, if Moore was a pornographer, we'd get the money shot
first, then tons of behind-the-scenes preproduction footage, followed
by 48 seconds of actual intercourse from really bad camera angles that
don't show anything harder than an 'R' rating. In fact, the
self-praising credits would last longer than the simulated sex.

Oh, and the actors would look just like Clinton and Lewinsky...

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

"JimO" wrote in message ...
"LaDonna Wyss" wrote
Is it possible some of you are subbing for Frank Borman? "I stand by
my testimony. What do you mean, it's inconsistent? What do you mean
the evidence proves otherwise? What do you mean, my own Report calls
my testimony into question? What voice transcript? Can you prove
such a document exists? I have not now, nor have I ever, seen
anything that impugnes what I have said under oath. I am a Colonel in
the United States Air Force; how dare you call my integrity into
question. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it...."

I presume you consider it 'artistic license' to place fictitious words
inside of quotation marks
attributed to somebody else? But it's also clever misdirection to avoid
responding to serious,
sober requests from people who would pay attention -- and do pay
attention -- to any claims,
no matter how bizarre initially, that have verifiable evidence to back them
up. You are
playing a game here, not following the rules of historical advocacy.


Well, if I had any question in my mind before, I don't any longer.
You definitely ARE Jim Oberg: NASA apologist extraordinaire. Any
chance you can clue us "civilians" into the secret that keeps you
people so afraid for your lives that you would rather die than ever
utter a single detrimental word against NASA?
And, it was OBVIOUS they were fictitious words, but the attitude is
true-to-life. You are living proof. "Well, I don't care WHAT you
claim to know, unless you've got videotape showing me on the gantry
with a can of gasoline and a match, you will never prove I know
anything other than it was an accident. And oh, by the way, even if
you HAVE such video, I'm asserting here-and-now that it was
manufactured after-the-fact."
Typical government-speak. What is it with you died-in-the-wool,
loyal-to-the-death types who are willing to sweep people's deaths
under the rug for the sake of your careers and/or reputations? I've
had THIS conversation MANY times with Scott; I will NEVER understand
how ANYONE considers his job to be above the TRUTH. How do you people
look in the mirror long enough to shave? I will NEVER need a job so
badly I would be willing to sell my soul to the highest bidder. I
ALMOST feel sorry for you.
LaDonna