A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » History
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Apollo One, the FBI, and Scott Grissom



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #831  
Old July 6th 04, 02:49 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Sure, no problem, Daniel. I'll just run out to Radio Shack today,
shop-lift a digital camera and a scanner, and I'll get right back to
you! :-)
God, there are some real snobs on the Internet.
And, what do you mean "I would not be surprised if the FBI was called
in to try and shed some light on the issue."??? I thought you had
become the resident expert on Apollo One? Yet you don't know what role
the FBI played??? They were "called in" for a truckload of
issues--have you not been paying attention? They did the analysis on
the log books, "interviewed" the NASA security chief (although they
seem to have "lost" that interview,) took fingerprints from both the
translation controller and the BMAG switch, and many other roles. But,
apparently you didn't read the documents you posted or you would KNOW
they were involved...up to their EYEBALLS. Further, if your buddy
Hedrick spent half as much time at his beloved library as he TALKS
about spending, he would know (IF his library had the documents that
are at the National Archives, which it does NOT) HE would know as well.
OH, that's right, Hedrick has special connections; I forgot. He
doesn't HAVE to use FOIA. His research has NEVER required FOIA--again,
I ask what he could POSSIBLY have researched that didn't require FOIA.
But, since he's SO special, surely he knows what role the FBI played by
sheer osmosis. Perhaps you can ask him? Hee hee. (Yes, I'm being
sarcastic toward HIM, not you.)
However, I AM wondering why you are talking like two weeks of reading
has made you an expert, yet you don't know the extent of the FBI's
involvement, never mind the other federal agencies involved. PERHAPS
because it takes more than two weeks to study this issue?
LaDonna

  #832  
Old July 6th 04, 03:21 PM
Charleston
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote in message
...

I thought you had
become the resident expert on Apollo One? Yet you don't know what role
the FBI played???


snip

You are more than welcome to quote documents just like me. You type what 90
wpm? On more than one occasion I have flatly stated I have not read the
entire report. As for the record of the discsuuion, it speaks for
itself--loudly. You have spent as much time arguing with Scott as you have
answering questions or adding to our understanding of the accident.

Daniel


  #833  
Old July 6th 04, 03:40 PM
Herb Schaltegger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article bzyGc.52488$Yu.18781@fed1read04,
"Charleston" wrote:

You have spent as much time arguing with Scott as you have
answering questions or adding to our understanding of the accident.


You're being generous, Daniel.

She's spent substantially less time discussing verifiable fact than she
has spent making allegations, drawing specious conclusions and lying
outright (e.g., claims that I sent her email).

Be that as it may, I continue to appreciate your contributions to the
general level of knowledge of AS-204, Daniel. Thank you.

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity."
~ Robert A. Heinlein
http://www.angryherb.net
  #834  
Old July 6th 04, 10:17 PM
LaDonna Wyss
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Charleston" wrote in message news:bzyGc.52488$Yu.18781@fed1read04...
wrote in message
...

I thought you had
become the resident expert on Apollo One? Yet you don't know what role
the FBI played???


snip

You are more than welcome to quote documents just like me. You type what 90
wpm? On more than one occasion I have flatly stated I have not read the
entire report. As for the record of the discsuuion, it speaks for
itself--loudly. You have spent as much time arguing with Scott as you have
answering questions or adding to our understanding of the accident.

Daniel


Well, my apologies, but I'm astonished that you sounded like (in that
message) you had no real clue if the FBI was involved. How can you
not know that? And yes, I type quickly, but Volume I of the Hearings
is 300 some pages. I do not have the time to type all of that. When
you get a copy you'll be free to read all you like.
LaDonna
  #835  
Old July 6th 04, 11:01 PM
Peter Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

LaDonna Wyss wrote...

Well, my apologies, but I'm astonished that you sounded like (in that
message) you had no real clue if the FBI was involved. How can you
not know that? And yes, I type quickly, but Volume I of the Hearings
is 300 some pages. I do not have the time to type all of that. When
you get a copy you'll be free to read all you like.
LaDonna


and now, the reducto.

- Peter


  #836  
Old July 7th 04, 03:59 AM
Scott Hedrick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Charleston" wrote in message
news:moqGc.52468$Yu.14687@fed1read04...
What I DO know is this: There was damage to the hand
controller NASA could not explain;


Cite, please.


Actually this one is true as far as the damage goes and I would not be
surprised if the FBI was called in to try and shed some light on the

issue.

I accept it as true- I want to know where she got her information from.
"National Archives" or "Congressional Record" doesn't cut it.

that is why they asked the FBI to
take fingerprints for analysis (the results of which the FBI refuses
to disclose.)


So instant cover-up?

Cite, please.


Yes that would be interesting.

P.S. If anyone wants "proof" the FBI took fingerprints, and that they
are now claiming ignorance, email me and I will send it to you.


How can you possibly send paper through the Internet?


You have to fold it up pretty small but it is easier to scan it or take a
digital photo and send it an e-mail attachement:-)


There has been recent breakthroughs in teleportation research, but at the
moment it seems to be limited to transfering simple information about one
photon to another. Paper looks quite a ways off.


  #837  
Old July 7th 04, 04:02 AM
Scott Hedrick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


wrote in message
...
Hedrick, do you not have a job?


Of course. Several. I'm extremely good at them, which gives me plenty of
free time.

Go do it, would you?


I *am* doing one of them when I reply to you.

There ARE people
in here who ARE asking intelligent questions.


Yes, there are, and you might consider joining us someday.


  #838  
Old July 7th 04, 04:02 AM
Scott Hedrick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


wrote in message
...
You are ASS U MING
that.


No matter how many times you ask, I am not going to have sex with you.


  #839  
Old July 7th 04, 04:04 AM
Scott Hedrick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


wrote in message
...
Daniel, you are well aware of my technological constraints.


THat's not his problem, and it's irrelevant. You're the one with the claims,
it's your burden. You could greatly ease your burden by providing verifiable
cites, so that others could then locate the relevant documents. If *you*
could find them, my cat could. There are plenty of people in this group a
lot better at it than you are, so all you need to do is provide a complete,
proper cite.


  #840  
Old July 7th 04, 04:10 AM
Scott Hedrick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


wrote in message
...
Sure, no problem, Daniel. I'll just run out to Radio Shack today,
shop-lift a digital camera and a scanner, and I'll get right back to
you! :-)


You could, but a verifiable cite would cost you less.

God, there are some real snobs on the Internet.


It's *your* club.

I thought you had
become the resident expert on Apollo One?


Better than you.

Yet you don't know what role
the FBI played??? They were "called in" for a truckload of
issues


Such as? Cite, please.

Further, if your buddy
Hedrick spent half as much time at his beloved library as he TALKS
about spending


I'd be happy to do that *just as soon as you provide the verifiable cites*.
Why, if you were to provide complete, verifiable cites on just a fraction of
the horse**** you've claimed, I'd be so busy checking it out I wouldn't have
time to post. Want me to go away? Start providing complete, verifiable
cites, including the names and jurisdictions of the law enforcement
personnel you spoke to about Apollo 1.

, he would know (IF his library had the documents that
are at the National Archives, which it does NOT)


What's the name of the library? How do *you* know what it does or doesn't
have if you don't even know the name?

OH, that's right, Hedrick has special connections; I forgot.


Better than yours, clearly.

He
doesn't HAVE to use FOIA. His research has NEVER required FOIA--again,


It's amazing what a reasonable, intelligent request can get. Try it
sometime.

I ask what he could POSSIBLY have researched that didn't require FOIA.


Many things. You're free to buy one of my books and see.

But, since he's SO special, surely he knows what role the FBI played by
sheer osmosis.


You said you've done the research, so let's see what you've found out. I
haven't made any claims about the role of the FBI in the Apollo 1 incident,
but *you* have, so it's *your* burden.

However, I AM wondering why you are talking like two weeks of reading
has made you an expert


He's taken after you, obviously.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.