Apollo One, the FBI, and Scott Grissom

"OM" om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org wrote
in message ...
I
had something more important to do - photo shoots in SA.

If you had to go to San Antonio, you must have been truly desperate.

Think about
it - if you had the choice of photographing attractive women or
stomping one of scott grissom's little sycophants and/or buttlovers
and/or mistresses into the ground, which would you *first*?

If you had to go to San Antonio to do this, you better have gotten laid by
all of them, and had them pay you for the privilege.

"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
om...
OM, has anyone ever given you the
definition of "ASS u me?"

OM, don't do it, she's asking for anal sex. Maybe she has been in contact
with "scott" after all.

On 2004-06-04, LaDonna Wyss wrote:

(...)

Cards on the table time. I'm really not paying a great deal of
attention to the details here, I've seen it all before, and I have to
confess my general feel then was that if there was something strong to
support these claims, which are pretty damned impressive ones... well, a
veteran space journalist - with long experience of investigating rumours
of crew fatalities in somewhat less well-documented cirucmstances [1] -
reads this newsgroup with some regularity. I think he'd be a smidgen
richer by now, y'know?

Anyhow, I don't have medical, legal, or engineering training, but I do
have one of those nice diffuse backgrounds, and I feel required to point
out a conceptual problem:

As for the rest of your post, you are regurgitating NASA's account of
the fire and the consequent results to the crew. You have NOT seen
Gus' complete autopsy report, so to quote the truncated versions you
find on the Internet is really not worth arguing. I CAN tell you
this: The level of soot inside Gus' breathing passages was NOT the
amount you would expect to see if what you have posted is true.

You do realised that you've just announced that you can't trust bits of
a document quoted on the internet as reliable, and... cited bits of the
document to prove that? You may wish to remember that a standard of
proof in a debate cuts both ways.

Assertion is not evidence, and sadly the only person you can convince of
anything by assertion is yourself. You seem convinced, you seem to be
trying to convince people, so think about it. A direction of how to find
a copy of the document, for example, would be useful - or is it
confidential, and if so can you form an argument without reference to
it, as it then becomes a really bad rhetorical tool?

[1] http://www.fas.org/spp/guide/russia/.../oberg8810.htm - a Mr
Dzheymz Oberg, of Khyuston...

--
-Andrew Gray
who likes to see a good bit of rhetoric

"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
om...
There ARE some people in this world who love the TRUTH. I am one of
them. Plain and simple.

Then you'll happily tell us the truth about your team. How many? What are
their names? What makes them particularly qualified in this matter? Why
haven't we seen them here?

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
Ah, so now you are adding 'electronics tech' to your already
*impressive* list of qualifications.

Interesting how LaDoobie has yet to provide us with any verifiable
credentials. Oh, she might respond that I and others haven't either, but
that doesn't change the fact that she has drawn definite conclusions about
evidence that require a certain level of expertise. Let's see those
credentials, and verify them. I have posted mine in the past, as a trip to
Google should show.

It's clear that LaToya here has at least watched "Home Improvement". Other
than that, let's see those credentials, and verify them.

"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
om...
"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message
. ..
"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?

Ummm, since you have "worked with electricity for a long time" then
you must realize that on a circuit containing such a short, a fire can
start at the point of the short, or at any place along that circuit,
or in multiple places along the circuit. You are assuming the fire
started behind Panel 8 behind or around the A/C roll switch.

I'm not making any assumption whatsoever, including any assumption that the
source of the fire was in the same circuit.

I note that, at no place in your post, did you answer my question: What is
the name and verifiable contact information for the expert who examined the
switch in question?

Again, if you ever find your way to the National
Archives, you will find multiple documents discussing fire damage to
Sector One of the Service Module, damage technicians were at a loss to
explain.

If you've been there yourself, or a member of your "team", you should be
able to provide specific document references. Let's see them.

But first, please provide the name and verifiable contact information for
the expert who examined the switch in question.

"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
om...
No conclusions; simply research.

Then your research should have provided you or your "team" with the name of
and verifiable contact information for the pathologist that "scott" says
examined the autopsy record.

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote:
"Charleston" wrote in message
"LaDonna Wyss" wrote:

You know, this is an interesting turn of events when it's Daniel
presenting
the facts and shooting down a conspiracy theory.

It is not the first time. I have always been interested in the truth is
based upon all available facts. It can be surprising where the facts lead
us but the facts need to be verifiable.

Thanks for the facts Daniel.

Okey doke.

(I'm now going to clip some to make the post shorter and get to a question
I
have on the CO levels.)

me too.


I can't recall. Was White the one closest to the hatch? If so, could his
increased exertion explain the higher levels of CO throughout his body?

Yes he was closest to the hatch sitting in the center couch. He was also
perhaps the most physically fit person in the capsule. As for the
concentrations in the body being higher/different, there are so many
variables I would not draw any conclusions about the cause or causes for the
differences.

Daniel
http://www.challengerdisaster.info
Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC

"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
om...
First, forgive me but I've been a little busy so I'm not up on
all the Internet jargo. SSM and SSH?

Gee, *years* to dedicate to this problem, but not even a few minutes to
learn basic terminology?

If not, it's really
difficult to explain how they view things.

Not so hard: Better living through chemistry.

They are extremely
cynical, understandably so.

"Why oh why don't they just take our word for things? How dare they ask for
independently verifiable evidence!"

It's so
deeply buried he does not even recognize it.

His head has been buried up his mommie's ass for so long it's not surprising
"scott" doesn't recognize it.

I'd have to
have one of my teammates come on here and explain the psychology
behind this,

What a good idea! Let's have your teammates come here, tell us about
themselves, and let us verify their credentials. Shouldn't be a problem for
anyone interested in the truth.

In message , LaDonna
Wyss writes
I just had the luxury of surfing the Internet for the first time in
several months, and ran across several postings by Hallerb and Scott
Grissom. Please allow me to clarify some things.
1. I am the person who obtained the FBI dossier on Apollo One
regarding "espionage and enemy sabotage." Notable is not just the FBI
paperwork, but also the federal agencies who were assisting the FBI in
their investigation: The ACSI, ONI, OSI, and Secret Service. I have
FOIA's pending to obtain these files as well.

So there are files obtainable through the FOIA which prove espionage and
enemy sabotage. Tell us why no media outlet anywhere in the world hasn't
already broadcast them. Tell us why the US government didn't act on them
at the time, if the Cold War was as hot as you say it was. Tell us
whodunnit!