Apollo One and "Verifiable References"

"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
m...
You definitely ARE Jim Oberg

Which proves that even you are capable of learning. What a shame you choose
to expend such little effort in that direction.

And, it was OBVIOUS they were fictitious words, but the attitude is
true-to-life.

Based on what? Let's see your evidence.

I will NEVER understand
how ANYONE considers his job to be above the TRUTH.

How little then, that you understand yourself.

I will NEVER need a job so
badly I would be willing to sell my soul

So, it wasn't for employment purposes you sold out to "scott" and his
mommie. You just had a different price. Hope you and Betty are happy.

"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
m...
"JimO" wrote in message
...

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?

Ummm, which James Oberg are YOU referring to. The James Oberg I know has
said quite a few things that are definitely NOT the NASA party line

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 22:29:05 GMT, Bruce Palmer
wrote:

Enough is enough.

*PLONK*

....And one more regular comes to his senses.


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:

Well, if I had any question in my mind before, I don't any longer.
You definitely ARE Jim Oberg: NASA apologist extraordinaire.

You know, every time I think you can't say anything more
clueless or wrong, you go and open your mouth again.

LaDonna Wyss wrote:

"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.

Incorrect.

Proof: _Star-Crossed Orbits_

Note that this is not a single (and large) data point. There are numerous
published articles that show your claim to be false.



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.

I do not recall reading any material by Jim Oberg that meets your statement of
selling his soul to the highest bidder. Perhaps you have some evidence of
that? While I don't always agree with his opinions, I often do, and I would
not insult him in such a manner even in cases where I disagree.

--
rk, Just an OldEngineer
"Dealing properly with very rare events is one of the attributes that
distinguishes a design that is fit for safety-critical systems from one that
is not." -- John Rushby in "A Comparison of Bus Architectures for Safety-
Critical Embedded Systems," March 2003

"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message . ..
"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
m...
You definitely ARE Jim Oberg

Which proves that even you are capable of learning. What a shame you choose
to expend such little effort in that direction.

And, it was OBVIOUS they were fictitious words, but the attitude is
true-to-life.

Based on what? Let's see your evidence.

I will NEVER understand
how ANYONE considers his job to be above the TRUTH.

How little then, that you understand yourself.

I will NEVER need a job so
badly I would be willing to sell my soul

So, it wasn't for employment purposes you sold out to "scott" and his
mommie. You just had a different price. Hope you and Betty are happy.

And I hope you are getting help for your deeply-rooted psycho-traumas.

"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
m...
And I hope you are getting help for your deeply-rooted psycho-traumas.

Nah, I could just killfile them, but it's more fun to help expose her- I
mean, them- for the troll that she is- I mean, they are.

In article , LaDonna
Wyss writes

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?

One could retort with "What is it with you 'died-in-the-wool' Internet
conspiracy theory nutters who deliberately post inflammatory comments
before retiring behind a screen of smoke and mirrors?"

Not all lurkers support you in e-mail.

I have read the posts on this group for several years now, and have
enjoyed the discussions and gentle disagreements that result. It is
clear that the regulars who are presently disagreeing so strongly with
you, know a *great deal* about the subject of manned spaceflight. What
they don't know, they are eager to learn about, when they are given the
chance. The information I have seen them freely provide is annotated
with clearly referenced source material (either via web-sites, books or
government records), so that the rest of us can look it up for ourselves
at leisure later on.

Unfortunately, when it comes to you and your postings about the Apollo 1
tragedy, we haven't seen a shred of verifiable evidence from you to back
up your claims. Without evidence, they are only *your claims*, and I
rather doubt they would stand up in a court of law on either side of the
Atlantic. When push comes to shove, you evade the searching questions
entirely, yet a cursory examination of your postings on this group to
date show that you expend a vast amount of time replying to what could
be considered to be trivialities. Please, either put up or shut up.

Also, in consideration of those of us who live overseas and have to pay
for internet connection call charges by the minute, please *trim your
replies*. I have noticed that you frequently tack three or four lines
onto an eighty-or-ninety line posting. You'll notice I trimmed your
posting above to the piece I was addressing - it's merely simple
Netiquette. Doesn't take much doing and helps people in the process.

--
Graeme Carrott
Membership Secretary/Treasurer, Air North
http://www.airnorth.demon.co.uk/

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 20:01:45 +0100, Graeme Carrott
wrote:

Not all lurkers support you in e-mail.

....In fact, I think this is one of the few times I can safely say
perhaps all but one or two at the most of the lurkers do *not* support
her in e-mail. So far, the only support she's gotten is from scott,
who's a nutcase, and CT/"Stuff4", who's a worthless troll. This kind
of support is akin to having John Wayne Gacy certifying you as being
safe to leave your kids with and Ted Bundy as your attorney.

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

OM om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org wrote in message . ..
On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 20:01:45 +0100, Graeme Carrott
wrote:

Not all lurkers support you in e-mail.

...In fact, I think this is one of the few times I can safely say
perhaps all but one or two at the most of the lurkers do *not* support
her in e-mail. So far, the only support she's gotten is from scott,
who's a nutcase, and CT/"Stuff4", who's a worthless troll. This kind
of support is akin to having John Wayne Gacy certifying you as being
safe to leave your kids with and Ted Bundy as your attorney.

OM

Mr. Mosley (if that is really who you are; from my search of the
history of this newsgroup it appears no one has ever really verified
it for certain): How is it you THINK you know who my supporters are
via email? Have you obtained a warrant and begun intercepting my
email? Which Scott do you refer to? Why do you think any Scott has
emailed me? What makes you think CT has emailed me? For the record,
NEITHER ONE has emailed me since I started this "conversation" on
Google a couple of weeks ago.
Try again, Oh Wise One.
LaDonna