A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

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
  #21  
Old June 4th 04, 05:13 AM
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(LaDonna Wyss) wrote:
I don't know who you are, or who you think you are talking to, but
this is NOT Mary Zornio. Do you not read the message line? I've not
met Mary Zornio, but I know she has written some excellent articles on
Gus.


ROTFL. She's written a few essays on Gus at roughly the high school
level of competency.

Anyway, is this the best you can do? I see The Art of Argument was
completely lost on you.


This from someone who is dodging and weaving to avoid actually placing
facts in evidence? Maybe scott didn't warn you, but we deal in facts
here, not handwaving.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
Ads
  #23  
Old June 4th 04, 06:46 AM
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Jim Davis wrote:

Scott never told us who his top forensic pathologist was. Can you?


That would be a good beginning, wouldn't it?

Pat

  #24  
Old June 4th 04, 06:54 AM
LaDonna Wyss
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Herb Schaltegger wrote in message ...
In article ,
(LaDonna Wyss) wrote:

"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message
.. .
"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
om...
3. My own, independent investigation has not only confirmed Scott's
allegations

How about all that folderol about a switch? Did your investigation prove
beyond a doubt that the piece of metal he yaks about on some switch was in
fact the cause of the fire?


"Folderol?" My, aren't we prim! Good thing I studied English in
college. :-) The legal standard is beyond a REASONABLE doubt, and
yes it has.


First of all, the legal standard for murder is one thing that "scott"
has never been capable of proving to anyone save you. Second of all,
your previous post referenced medical terminology that you are
apparently parroting without comprehension. Third, the usual standard
for medical proof in a legal context is merely to a reasonable degree of
medical certainty - which boils down to a preponderance of the evidence
or simply more likely than not.

And no, "scott" hasn't proven anything to anyone save yourself.

The RCS A/C roll switch was hard shorted to ground, and
that short caused multiple problems all along Main B from the moment
Apollo One was powered up at 9:45 that morning. I've tracked the
electrical problems as well as the other so-called "anomalies" that
occurred that day, and they all tie directly to that short.
And, as for the piece of metal, you do understand the concept of a
hard short (aka "dead" short)?


And you now demonstrate that you're not an engineer or forensic examiner.

Continue googling the group for the past year or so and when you can
respond to Jay Windley's posts, point by point (which "scott" failed to
do, repeatedly), maybe someone will take you seriously.

Until then you're just another conspiratorial loon as well as an
apologist for "scott."


OK. Let's start with the last one first. I am FAR too busy with this
to "google the group" for the past year or so. If you have a specific
post from Jay Windley you would like me to address, feel free to
direct me to it. I don't have time to waste searching through months
of chatter to find the nugget or two worthy of response.
Next, why do you have "Scott" in quotes? It's not a fictional name;
it's his real name. And I've already said that Scott is not great at
explaining things. He assumes a certain level of knowledge and has NO
patience for taking things to fundamental elements to catch people up.
That is a weakness of his, but it does not prove lack of
credibility...simply impatience.
Next, I am not a "conspiratorial loon." I approached this with
extreme skepticism, as did many members of my team. The fact is the
evidence proves Scott's assertions to be true, and if you spent any
time reviewing that evidence rather than lodging superficial attacks
you might come to realize you are seriously mistaken.
Finally, Scott didn't prove ANYTHING to me. I repeat: SCOTT did NOT
prove ANYTHING to me. I spent 18 months compiling evidence from all
over the country and determined ON MY OWN Apollo One was sabotaged.
The evidence speaks for itself.
  #25  
Old June 4th 04, 06:56 AM
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



LaDonna Wyss wrote:

I don't know who you are, or who you think you are talking to, but
this is NOT Mary Zornio. Do you not read the message line? I've not
met Mary Zornio, but I know she has written some excellent articles on
Gus.
Anyway, is this the best you can do? I see The Art of Argument was
completely lost on you.



Despite its female sex, Godzilla realized that Mothra could be a
thoroughly annoying creature, just as the female Rodan was; so when the
giant silk moth shot poisonous venom out of its wings at him, he did not
hesitate to generate a worthy flame for it to fly into.... :-)

Pat

  #26  
Old June 4th 04, 06:56 AM
LaDonna Wyss
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Herb Schaltegger wrote in message ...
In article ,
(LaDonna Wyss) wrote:

First, I am not going to post Gus Grissom's autopsy report on the
Internet. I wouldn't even DREAM of asking Betty Grissom's permission
to do such a thing. Second, my medical credentials have nothing to do
with it.


Yes they do when you bandy terms about in a conclusory fashion, terms
you clearly don't understand.

Scott had that report examined by a top forensic
pathologist; you should ask for HIS credentials. Yes, I know what
hemorrhagic pulmonary edema means; are you incapable of doing an
Internet search?


I am quite capable of it. Moreover, I consult with and depose medical
professionals of all types (including pathologists, emergency medical
providers and cardiologists) routinely. You apparently do not.

It is basically internal bleeding of the lungs. As
the air sacs are depleted of oxygen, the surrounding blood vessels
bleed into them.
As for buying bridges, I'm not in the market for real estate. I have
a fire to solve.


That was solved decades ago. What you do have to do is stroke a
conspiratorial ego (or two, if one includes your own).


If you are claiming the Apollo One fire was "solved" decades ago, you
have obviously not spent one minute going over the Congressional
Record. Not only did NASA not PUBLICLY solve the fire (what went on
behind closed doors is another matter entirely), but they lied
repeatedly to Congress about what they DID admit to finding. Pull out
those 3,000 pages, and after you've studied them, get back to me.
  #27  
Old June 4th 04, 06:58 AM
LaDonna Wyss
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jim Davis wrote in message .1.4...
LaDonna Wyss wrote:

Scott had that report examined by a top forensic
pathologist; you should ask for HIS credentials.


Scott never told us who his top forensic pathologist was. Can you?

Jim Davis


He told me, but I forgot his name. I WILL ask him and post that
information as soon as I get hold of him. He does fly for a living,
so it may take a couple of days. But I will get it to you.
  #28  
Old June 4th 04, 07:02 AM
LaDonna Wyss
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(Derek Lyons) wrote in message ...
(LaDonna Wyss) wrote:
First, I am not going to post Gus Grissom's autopsy report on the
Internet. I wouldn't even DREAM of asking Betty Grissom's permission
to do such a thing. Second, my medical credentials have nothing to do
with it.


They certainly do when you make medical statement with such certainty.

Scott had that report examined by a top forensic
pathologist; you should ask for HIS credentials.


We have done so on multiple occasions. scott has refused to supply
them. (The credentials of said pathologist are far from the only
thing he has refused to supply. He has openly admitted to concealing
evidence.)

D.


OK, THAT is one he** of a serious allegation, and I am not going to
allow it to stand. Scott is not "concealing evidence." There are
things that occur during the course of an investigation which, if
revealed at the wrong time in the wrong forum, can and do compromise
the investigation. That is NOT the same thing as concealing evidence.
Let's make certain you have that straight.
As for Scott "refusing" to supply the pathologist's credentials: I've
come to know him rather well over the past 18 months. What you
interpret as refusal is most likely Scott's propensity to forget
things. He is NOT attentive to detail. When he is deluged (such as I
have been just now with 14 postings all at once) he tends to become
overwhelmed and skips over most, if not all, of what he is being
asked. Again, perhaps a personal flaw, but not indicative he is
hiding anything. I will see about the credentials when I ask him to
tell me the pathologist's name again. If Scott is too busy flying,
I'll do my own credential search on the Internet and get it to you
that way.
  #29  
Old June 4th 04, 07:07 AM
LaDonna Wyss
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jim Davis wrote in message .1.4...
LaDonna Wyss wrote:

The legal standard is beyond a REASONABLE doubt, and
yes it has. The RCS A/C roll switch was hard shorted to ground,
and that short caused multiple problems all along Main B from
the moment Apollo One was powered up at 9:45 that morning. I've
tracked the electrical problems as well as the other so-called
"anomalies" that occurred that day, and they all tie directly to
that short. And, as for the piece of metal, you do understand
the concept of a hard short (aka "dead" short)?


You claim to have evidence of murder and sabotage. I asked Scott on a
number of occasions why he doesn't present his evidence to the
relevant US or Florida law enforcement authorities. He answered with
evasions or abuse so I'll ask you. Have you presented your evidence
to the relevant US or Florida law enforcement authorities? If so,
what was their reaction? If not, why not?

Let me start by reiterating what I said to another post a minute ago:
Scott is not being evasive nor is he deliberately abusive. He is
impatient and intolerant. Not the same thing.
Yes, I have presented my evidence to all relevant authorities. They
are currently looking into the matter. However, presuming you are an
intelligent person (and I have no reason to believe otherwise), surely
you realize the obstacles involved in re-opening a 37-year-old
investigation, especially with charges of "cover-up" by a major
government organization. It takes a lot of time, a lot of cutting
through red tape, and a lot of searching for the right person who is
willing to sign onto the fight.
That is why I am here, and that is what I am doing. As of this
moment, three different offices are looking into the matter, and there
are others who are doing so as well on an "unofficial" basis. When it
gets pulled together to the point action is imminent, I will be happy
to let you know.
Jim Davis

  #30  
Old June 4th 04, 07:10 AM
LaDonna Wyss
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Andrew Gray wrote in message ...
On 2004-06-03, Jim Davis wrote:
LaDonna Wyss wrote:

The legal standard is beyond a REASONABLE doubt, and
yes it has.


The legal standard also tends to believe in the concept of a judicial
system (at least in most every system I've looked at, and English-style
systems are moderately good... second-class, but good) Have you used
these channels to apply your "legal standard"?

(...)

You claim to have evidence of murder and sabotage. I asked Scott on a
number of occasions why he doesn't present his evidence to the
relevant US or Florida law enforcement authorities. He answered with
evasions or abuse so I'll ask you. Have you presented your evidence
to the relevant US or Florida law enforcement authorities? If so,
what was their reaction? If not, why not?


I don't believe anyone here is qualified to practice law in Florida -
though you can never be sure, .us lawyers do seem to have a few states
under their belt as often as not - but, speaking as non-experts, is it a
crime in that jurisdiction to knowingly withhold evidence or knowledge
of the comission of a crime from the relevant authorities?

[and, if so, in what way is that moderated by the fact that a) it is
possibly a capital crime and b) statutes of limitations may have kicked
in; it would seem conceptually silly to be charged for witholding if the
original crime was dead and buried]


Please see my last reply for the answer to most of your posts. As for
statute of limitations, I'm sure you know there is no statute of
limitations on murder, and while I'm not an expert in military law, I
presume war crimes have no statute either (given our Cold War at the
time, it likely would fall under a war crime.) And covering up
evidence of a felony, especially murder, is ALSO a felony. One of the
many entities I have brought THAT evidence to is Congress, and my
Congressman is currently looking into the matter.
 




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 01:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.