|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
LaDonna DID say "Scott says", but denies it
"LaDonna Wyss" wrote
"JimO" wrote G. Back to the issue of the RCS jets on the Service Module. Several respondents here have also suggested, as I did, that this test procedure was a checkout of the firing commands, but not a 'hot-fire' of the thrusters. I do not consider "Scott said" to constitute verifiable documentation that any of the thrusters actually hot-fired. OK--first of all, I never said "Scott said" to anything, so right there your ability to engage in an intelligent debate is severely hindered. Not once in the 3,000 posts (yes, I'm exaggerating, but it sure looks like 3,000) on this site have I ever been quoted as saying, nor have I ever actually said, "Well, Scott said this" or "Scott said that." NOT ONCE. JimO contributes new comment: Funny, I recall this message from two days ago, ---begin quote--- From: "LaDonna Wyss" Subject: The RCS: Voice Transcript Date: Friday, June 11, 2004 10:49 AM "LaDonna Wyss" wrote Like I said, get your facts straight. They DID conduct Static Fire; otherwise, what was the point of the test???? "JimO" wrote Sounds like a test of the RCS commands, probably read by GNC in the MCC (I could ask him). Since I don't think hypergolics were loaded, no jet would actually fire. Maybe? As Scott said, it is documented by IDR that a + roll thruster fired without being commanded by the crew, and in fact that thruster fired three times without being commanded by the crew. ---end quote--- JimO resumes the narrative: We would still like any documentation that can be checked, that shows that any Apollo RCS actually ignited that day. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
JimO wrote:
"LaDonna Wyss" wrote "JimO" wrote G. Back to the issue of the RCS jets on the Service Module. Several respondents here have also suggested, as I did, that this test procedure was a checkout of the firing commands, but not a 'hot-fire' of the thrusters. I do not consider "Scott said" to constitute verifiable documentation that any of the thrusters actually hot-fired. OK--first of all, I never said "Scott said" to anything, so right there your ability to engage in an intelligent debate is severely hindered. Not once in the 3,000 posts (yes, I'm exaggerating, but it sure looks like 3,000) on this site have I ever been quoted as saying, nor have I ever actually said, "Well, Scott said this" or "Scott said that." NOT ONCE. JimO contributes new comment: Funny, I recall this message from two days ago, ---begin quote--- From: "LaDonna Wyss" Subject: The RCS: Voice Transcript Date: Friday, June 11, 2004 10:49 AM "LaDonna Wyss" wrote Like I said, get your facts straight. They DID conduct Static Fire; otherwise, what was the point of the test???? "JimO" wrote Sounds like a test of the RCS commands, probably read by GNC in the MCC (I could ask him). Since I don't think hypergolics were loaded, no jet would actually fire. Maybe? As Scott said, it is documented by IDR that a + roll thruster fired without being commanded by the crew, and in fact that thruster fired three times without being commanded by the crew. ---end quote--- JimO resumes the narrative: We would still like any documentation that can be checked, that shows that any Apollo RCS actually ignited that day. This also calls into question the assertion made in LaDonna's first post: 3. My own, independent investigation has not only confirmed Scott's allegations but has also revealed much more supporting evidence. Anyone who is interested may feel free to post to this thread, email me, or both. It doesn't appear to be an "independent" investigation. -- 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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
rk wrote in message ...
JimO wrote: "LaDonna Wyss" wrote "JimO" wrote G. Back to the issue of the RCS jets on the Service Module. Several respondents here have also suggested, as I did, that this test procedure was a checkout of the firing commands, but not a 'hot-fire' of the thrusters. I do not consider "Scott said" to constitute verifiable documentation that any of the thrusters actually hot-fired. OK--first of all, I never said "Scott said" to anything, so right there your ability to engage in an intelligent debate is severely hindered. Not once in the 3,000 posts (yes, I'm exaggerating, but it sure looks like 3,000) on this site have I ever been quoted as saying, nor have I ever actually said, "Well, Scott said this" or "Scott said that." NOT ONCE. JimO contributes new comment: Funny, I recall this message from two days ago, ---begin quote--- From: "LaDonna Wyss" Subject: The RCS: Voice Transcript Date: Friday, June 11, 2004 10:49 AM "LaDonna Wyss" wrote Like I said, get your facts straight. They DID conduct Static Fire; otherwise, what was the point of the test???? "JimO" wrote Sounds like a test of the RCS commands, probably read by GNC in the MCC (I could ask him). Since I don't think hypergolics were loaded, no jet would actually fire. Maybe? As Scott said, it is documented by IDR that a + roll thruster fired without being commanded by the crew, and in fact that thruster fired three times without being commanded by the crew. ---end quote--- JimO resumes the narrative: We would still like any documentation that can be checked, that shows that any Apollo RCS actually ignited that day. This also calls into question the assertion made in LaDonna's first post: 3. My own, independent investigation has not only confirmed Scott's allegations but has also revealed much more supporting evidence. Anyone who is interested may feel free to post to this thread, email me, or both. It doesn't appear to be an "independent" investigation. Hello, are you people REALLY this dumb? Saying, "As Scott says" or "As you've heard Scott say", or whatever, is not the same as the dim-witted phrase, "Well, SCOTT says", "Well, SCOTT says", like I'm a freaking parrot! I could just as easily say, "Well, as President Bush said in his campaign, the democrats blah blah blah." That does NOT make me his mouthpiece, does NOT make me his apologist, does NOT mean I'm on his payroll, and does NOT mean I haven't done my homework. It simply means I agree with what I heard the man to say. GEEZ, I cannot believe the elementary school mentality in here. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message om... Saying, "As Scott says" or "As you've heard Scott say", or whatever, is not the same as the dim-witted phrase, "Well, SCOTT says", "Well, SCOTT says", like I'm a freaking parrot! Is this a weasel, or has she moved up to ferret stage? Has she skipped all the way to rat? Or even possum? I'm on his payroll I would have thought his mommie's bed was pay enough. I haven't done my homework. That's what we've been saying. You're welcome to provide verifiable references to the contrary. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message . ..
"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message om... Saying, "As Scott says" or "As you've heard Scott say", or whatever, is not the same as the dim-witted phrase, "Well, SCOTT says", "Well, SCOTT says", like I'm a freaking parrot! Is this a weasel, or has she moved up to ferret stage? Has she skipped all the way to rat? Or even possum? I'm on his payroll I would have thought his mommie's bed was pay enough. I haven't done my homework. That's what we've been saying. You're welcome to provide verifiable references to the contrary. Your twisted "quotes" are getting extremely tedious. LaDonna |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message om... Your twisted "quotes" are getting extremely tedious. I have poor material to work with. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message .. .
"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message om... Your twisted "quotes" are getting extremely tedious. I have poor material to work with. It seems to work just fine for your purposes. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message om... "Scott Hedrick" wrote in message .. . "LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message om... Your twisted "quotes" are getting extremely tedious. I have poor material to work with. It seems to work just fine for your purposes. That's because I provide verifiable references. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message . ..
"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message om... "Scott Hedrick" wrote in message .. . "LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message om... Your twisted "quotes" are getting extremely tedious. I have poor material to work with. It seems to work just fine for your purposes. That's because I provide verifiable references. WHAT verifiable references? Made-up email addresses with made-up quotes allegedly from me, rearranged and completely out-of-context "quotes" from my postings? What in the world is verifiable about your behavior, other than it came from the first page of "Democratic Tactics 101?" LaDonna |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message om... Made-up email addresses with made-up quotes allegedly from me, rearranged Again, repeating the lie doesn't make it so. I haven't *rearranged* so much as a single character, and anyone can check the original post to verify. What in the world is verifiable about your behavior I provide a verifiable reference to the post I'm quoting from, every time. That's how everyone can see that you are plainly *lying* when you say I misquote you or rearrange your words. Every word I quote came from you, in the order I quote it, and your claims to the contrary are blatant lies. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Veteran astronaut Scott Horowitz leaves NASA | Jacques van Oene | Space Shuttle | 0 | October 22nd 04 10:14 AM |
Scott "murder accusation" | LaDonna Wyss | History | 35 | June 13th 04 06:49 AM |
Scott Grissom's murder accusations | Doug... | History | 11 | June 12th 04 03:43 PM |
Follow the Current - WAS: Apollo One, the FBI, and Scott Grissom | William Gratchic | History | 25 | June 11th 04 11:41 PM |
Schirra and Scott Grissom | LaDonna Wyss | History | 37 | June 10th 04 03:29 AM |