LiOh Canisters: Especially for Herb

Herb, I really should NOT be doing this, because it's an insult to
those who used five seconds to think about the importance of analyzing
those canisters, but I've decided to indulge you and explain it one
more time. The lithium hydroxide canisters (scrubbers) were supposed
to be sent to Marshall for analysis. As I've told you before,
Moonport incorrectly reports they WERE sent on March 8, 1967. In
fact, NASA was SUPPOSED to send them for analysis, but the order to do
so was CANCELLED.
Why? Well, let's look at NASA's testimony before Congress. You see,
by NOT analyzing the scrubbers, they could truthfully tell Congress,
"Gee, we don't know WHAT the crew was breathing," thereby ducking the
questions that REALLY needed to be asked: How long did it take the
crew to die? How do you know that? What toxins contributed to these
rapid deaths? Etc. If they had analyzed the scrubbers, there would
not BE any questions about toxins, time of travel to the brain, rate
of saturation, etc. It would all be there in black-and-white.
Instead, we get the hemming and hawing in the Record: Borman says we
have no way of knowing how long it took the crew to die. Berry says
they dropped dead within five seconds of the first inhalation of
carbon monoxide--a statement he retracts that VERY SAME NIGHT when
questioned about it again.
As I've stated before, the crew died from hemorrhagic pulmonary edema.
Roger and I had this debate once as well, but he has not taken the
time to study the medical evidence. The fact is, hemorrhagic
pulmonary edema takes far longer than 23 seconds to develop, and it
does not develop post-mortem. So, unless NASA could produce scrubbers
that proved cyanide gas had permeated the crew compartment instantly,
they had a real problem with their "everybody died instantly"
scenario, so they chose not to have the LiOH canisters analyzed.
And, in case Roger wishes to jump into this argument for a second time
(his wife is a nurse), let me tell you that you would be amazed on
whose authority I have that information. Scott's expert pathologist
is no longer the only one saying his father took 15 to 20 minutes to
die, and that NASA's timeframe is B.S. OH, if you would only meet
with me, because I'm not ABOUT to tell you on the Internet, but OH, if
you only knew who is saying the exact same thing. :-)
LaDonna

"LaDonna Wyss" wrote:

Herb, I really should NOT be doing this, because it's an insult to
those who used five seconds to think about the importance of analyzing
those canisters, but I've decided to indulge you and explain it one
more time. The lithium hydroxide canisters (scrubbers) were supposed
to be sent to Marshall for analysis. As I've told you before,
Moonport incorrectly reports they WERE sent on March 8, 1967. In
fact, NASA was SUPPOSED to send them for analysis, but the order to do
so was CANCELLED.
Why? Well, let's look at NASA's testimony before Congress. You see,
by NOT analyzing the scrubbers, they could truthfully tell Congress,
"Gee, we don't know WHAT the crew was breathing,"

I thought you read the autopsy reports in their entirety. I won't repeat
myself too much except to restate that the crew themselves were the best
evidence of what they were exposed to, not some cannisters, nestled below
them. As you know the chemical work-up on the crew was fairly extensive and
speaks for itself.

large snip of well trodden territory removed

side-track removed

Daniel

"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
om...
Why? Well, let's look at NASA's testimony before Congress.

How about we *first* look at the names and jurisdictions of the law
enforcement personnel you spoke to about Apollo 1?

"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
om...
You've got the Hearings in
front of you--at least three of them. Do you not have Volume 1? Read
it!

Please cite a specific page, unless you are claiming that the contents of
the cabin air is the *entirety* of volume one. Are there "102 pages of
testimony" on the subject of the cabin air as well?

Herb, as for what you may or may not have asked, who would know

Anyone who read his posts, of course. Perhaps you should try that before
replying in the future. Better still, *answer* his questions.

given
the fact that 95% of your posts are some sort of love session

Herb, she's after you now! Say this carefully and under oath: "I did not
have sex with that woman!"

Afraid someone sprayed
gasoline around the cockpit before the crew entered and it went
undetected until the fire?

Please provide some verifiable evidence, liar.

"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
om...
By the way, (and I won't bother talking about your statement "the
chemical work-up on the crew was fairly extensive and speaks for
itself" since you and I BOTH know you haven't seen any of the full
autopsy reports so you are only saying that because that's what NASA
says)


By the way, since you're so familiar with the autopsy reports, what was the
name of the pathologist?

I did not answer

Big surprise there.

Remember the odor Gus
detected in his suit loop? That was identified (contrary to Borman
et. al's testimony) as potting compound.

By whom? Cite please.

Can one of you "experts" in here explain to me how
potting compound infiltrated the suit loop, and why it might be that
potting compound was so warm that it not only made its way into the
suit loop, but was strong enough to be detected OUTSIDE of the crew
compartment?

Yet these same people couldn't detect gasoline dumped in the cabin. Did you
mention the gasoline to your law enforcement contacts?

would anyone be willing to go out on a limb (besides myself)
and say someone missed something rather critical?

I'll say it: *you* missed a *great many* critical things, including the
names and jurisdictions of the law enforcement personnel that you spoke to
about Apollo 1. In addition to the previous questions I posted, I'll have to
ask them about your gasoline-in-the-cabin "theory".

In article ,
"Scott Hedrick" wrote:

"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
om...
You've got the Hearings in
front of you--at least three of them. Do you not have Volume 1? Read
it!

Please cite a specific page, unless you are claiming that the contents of
the cabin air is the *entirety* of volume one. Are there "102 pages of
testimony" on the subject of the cabin air as well?

Herb, as for what you may or may not have asked, who would know

Anyone who read his posts, of course. Perhaps you should try that before
replying in the future. Better still, *answer* his questions.

given
the fact that 95% of your posts are some sort of love session

Herb, she's after you now! Say this carefully and under oath: "I did not
have sex with that woman!"

Afraid someone sprayed
gasoline around the cockpit before the crew entered and it went
undetected until the fire?

Please provide some verifiable evidence, liar.

She's a narcissistic, attention-seeking fruit loop of the highest order.
I expect nothing of her except further misinterpreted "evidence" and a
great many more outright fabrications of the sort she's already proven
herself guilty of - to with, her claim that I sent an email to her, a
claim she now seems content to pretend never happened, the lying,
slanderous troll.

I'm also still waiting for: the names of her "teammates", the name of
"scott's" pathologist, her responses to rk's specific questions, her
responses to Michael Gardner's comments, her explanation of how a "hard
short" of the sort she and "scott" claim occurred could trigger a fire
in a de-engergized RCS thruster quad in the SM which could then smolder
unnoticed for 22-odd minutes with all the SM GSE panels open, yet burn
around the circumference of the SM and be energetic enough to burn
through the base heat shield and aft bulkhead of the CM.

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

Herb Schaltegger wrote in message ...
In article ,
"Scott Hedrick" wrote:

"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
om...
You've got the Hearings in
front of you--at least three of them. Do you not have Volume 1? Read
it!

Please cite a specific page, unless you are claiming that the contents of
the cabin air is the *entirety* of volume one. Are there "102 pages of
testimony" on the subject of the cabin air as well?

Herb, as for what you may or may not have asked, who would know

Anyone who read his posts, of course. Perhaps you should try that before
replying in the future. Better still, *answer* his questions.

given
the fact that 95% of your posts are some sort of love session

Herb, she's after you now! Say this carefully and under oath: "I did not
have sex with that woman!"

Afraid someone sprayed
gasoline around the cockpit before the crew entered and it went
undetected until the fire?

Please provide some verifiable evidence, liar.

She's a narcissistic, attention-seeking fruit loop of the highest order.
I expect nothing of her except further misinterpreted "evidence" and a
great many more outright fabrications of the sort she's already proven
herself guilty of - to with, her claim that I sent an email to her, a
claim she now seems content to pretend never happened, the lying,
slanderous troll.

I'm also still waiting for: the names of her "teammates", the name of
"scott's" pathologist, her responses to rk's specific questions, her
responses to Michael Gardner's comments, her explanation of how a "hard
short" of the sort she and "scott" claim occurred could trigger a fire
in a de-engergized RCS thruster quad in the SM which could then smolder
unnoticed for 22-odd minutes with all the SM GSE panels open, yet burn
around the circumference of the SM and be energetic enough to burn
through the base heat shield and aft bulkhead of the CM.

Boy, Herb, you put almost as many words in my mouth as Hedrick! I
never said the fire burned around the circumference of the SM. I've
also never said the RCS thruster quad was de-energized--I don't
believe it was, and the evidence doesn't demonstrate that it was. As
for the list of teammates, I've addressed this ad nauseum. Also,
Scott's pathologist is no longer an issue because he has his expert,
and now I have mine who concurs with Scott's. I'm still waiting for
RK to email me on his questions I apparently missed (RK, I need you to
email me anyway because I'm not getting through to your email anyway
and I have something personal to tell you--you should know the subject
matter.) And, the fire did not burn through the base heat shield; it
travelled up the umbilical and from there burned it's way around the
ablative shield between the pressure vessel and the shield. If you
looked at the photographs you would be able to see the fire path plain
as day.
LaDonna

LaDonna Wyss wrote:

Also,
Scott's pathologist is no longer an issue because he has his
expert, and now I have mine who concurs with Scott's.

Would you care to name either one or both of these individuals? If
not, why not?

Jim Davis

Jim Davis wrote:
Would you care to name either one or both of these individuals? If
not, why not?

Broadly, there are two possible reasons why she can't give their names.
(a) they have lousy reputations, or (b) they don't exist.

In this instance the likely answer is (b). Why would someone claim
"I've done X", and then not want to present details? Usually to start
an argument or draw attention to themselves.

--
bp
Proud Member of the Human O-Ring Society Since 2003

"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
om...
As
for the list of teammates, I've addressed this ad nauseum.

What you haven't done, however, is provide verifiable names for your
"teammates".

Also,
Scott's pathologist is no longer an issue because he has his expert

Who is that?

and now I have mine who concurs with Scott's.

Who is yours?

I'm still waiting for
RK to email me on his questions I apparently missed (

He posted them here. Why do you want to try to hide in email?

And, the fire did not burn through the base heat shield; it
travelled up the umbilical and from there burned it's way around the
ablative shield between the pressure vessel and the shield.

Cite, please.