|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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? Jim Davis |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
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] -- -Andrew Gray |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message om... First, I am not going to post Gus Grissom's autopsy report on the Internet. If you bring it up, the burden is on *you*. I wouldn't even DREAM of asking Betty Grissom's permission to do such a thing. Not needed. It's a public record. Second, my medical credentials have nothing to do with it. *You* drew medical conclusions, so let's see your medical credentials. Otherwise, you are no more qualified than my cat. Scott had that report examined by a top forensic pathologist; you should ask for HIS credentials. Name, please. Yes, I know what hemorrhagic pulmonary edema means; are you incapable of doing an Internet search? Are you capable of providing a verifiable reference? It's *your* burden to do so. It is basically internal bleeding of the lungs. On the other hand, what is it, *in detail*, and what is the source of your information? Clearly, you're a n00b, since you are unaware of how this sort of an investigation works. Pay less attention to "scott" and more to logic. *You* have asserted certain claims here, which means that *you* have the entire burden to support them. Nobody has any obligation whatsoever to look for evidence to support your claims. I don't need to do an Internet search for "pulmonary edema" since I'm not the one asserting the claim. *You* said it, so *you* provide the cite. If you talk to an expert, you need to provide a name that can be verified. If you have supporters, they need to post here- email supporters are imaginary supporters. Otherwise, your investigation will be as useful as "scott"'s has been- that is, meaningless. "scott" doesn't seem to be able to provide any independently verifiable evidence- he seems to have forgotten the names of the people he's spoken to, at least, until they die and can no longer deny his claims. So far, you have shown nothing in the way of a real, independent investigation. What you've shown is that you are looking for any desperate scrap that will support "scott", which is a pretty strong indicator that you're one of "scott"'s brown-nosers using a new address. You're using the same style of attack as "scott", although thus far your spelling and punctuation is better than he seems capable of showing. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message om... "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. 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. None of which answers the question. Furthermore, I didn't use "reasonable" because this isn't a legal forum, it's a scientific one, and the standard of proof is more than "reasonable" doubt. And, as for the piece of metal, you do understand the concept of a hard short (aka "dead" short)? I've worked with electricity for a long time. I'm well aware of what a hard short is, just as I am aware that you did not answer my question. Specifically, let's see the verifiable evidence in which "scott"'s claims about the roll switch, that it was *the* cause of the fire, is true. Strange that it managed to survive the fire, since if it were the cause it would have been in the area most badly damaged, but it looks in fairly good shape. "scott"'s analysis won't work here, if you are doing a truly *independent* investigation. What is the name and verifiable contact information for the expert who examined the switch? |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Andrew Gray wrote:
[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] In the United States there is no statute of limitations on capital crimes IIRC. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message om... Anyway, is this the best you can do? Bwahahahahahahahahahaha! OK, OM, she's challenged you. A definite n00b. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"Scott Hedrick" wrote:
You're using the same style of attack as "scott", although thus far your spelling and punctuation is better than he seems capable of showing. Not only the same style of attack, but in several instance the exact same phraseology. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|