Apollo One, the FBI, and Scott Grissom

On 4 Jun 2004 11:42:29 -0700, (LaDonna Wyss)
wrote:

The scary thing is not the fact that OM and Scott Hedrick think the
way they do, but rather that the government allows them to vote and
drive cars.

....What's scary is that Kansas allows people like you to live there,
much less access usenet.

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 15:34:16 -0500, OM
om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org
wrote:

On 4 Jun 2004 11:42:29 -0700, (LaDonna Wyss)
wrote:

The scary thing is not the fact that OM and Scott Hedrick think the
way they do, but rather that the government allows them to vote and
drive cars.

...What's scary is that Kansas allows people like you to live there,
much less access usenet.

....Of course, you're obviously not in Kansas anymore, since the
records search is complete only up to 11/03. Your IP address data,
tho, shows you're probably in Houston:


SBC Internet Services - Southwest SBCIS-SBIS-6BLK (NET-69-148-0-0-1)
69.148.0.0 - 69.155.255.255
PPPoX Pool - rback1.hstntx SBC069148130000040216 (NET-69-148-130-0-1)
69.148.130.0 - 69.148.131.255

Non-authoritative answer:
229.130.148.69.in-addr.arpa name =
adsl-69-148-130-229.dsl.hstntx.swbell.net.

Authoritative answers can be found from:
130.148.69.in-addr.arpa nameserver = ns2.swbell.net.
130.148.69.in-addr.arpa nameserver = ns1.swbell.net.
ns1.swbell.net internet address = 151.164.1.1

....Which means, in all likelyhood, you're in the Houston area, using a
SWB DSL hookup, and are either Mary Zornio using a hoze account, or
you're someone else who's writing scott's apologist bull**** for him
and making sure you clean up the punctuation before posting.

....Either way, you're a troll. Begone.

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

OM om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org wrote in message . ..
On 4 Jun 2004 05:44:09 -0700, (LaDonna Wyss)
wrote:

What "simple questions?" My motive is simple: I care. If that is "a
tad wacko", then obviously you have never stopped and really thought
about those people who have given their lives so you can have the
right to come to this message board and say whatever you like.

That's it. I've had enough. This worthless excuse for human life must
go. It's this last statement that was the final straw.

...Most of us were around here when Columbia was lost. Quite a number
of us were on usenet when Challenger was lost. Some of us even recall
when Soyuz 11 *and* 1 were lost, and even remember the breaking news
when Gus, Roger and Ed died. We've seen our share of tragedy in the
efforts to get off this rock we live on and go out to the stars where
our destiny lies. We understand that there *will* be deaths and
accidents along the way, just as there are in any attempt at
exploration and/or colonization. That's the way life and death work.
Period.

...To accuse *any* of us of not showing respect and admiration for
those who were lost in the exploration of space is the basest, most
inflammatory, and ultimately defamating and derogatory accusation
you've made so far. If you had a ****ing clue, you'd realize that
*all* of the regulars here, and probably quite a few lurkers too, had
nothing but admiration and respect for those who've made the attempt
to reach for those stars. That's why we're here, you ignorant twit!
This isn't sci.space.history.sucks or sci.space.NASA.sucks or
sci.space.kill.all.NASA.funding. It's sci.space.HISTORY. We're here to
discuss the history behind space exploration, and make sure that the
truth is made clear. Quite a number of us are professionals in the
fields related to space exploration, and we know *far* more about the
issues relating to the topics at hand than you've demonstrated.
Including what happened on the evening of 1/27/67.

...And that, my dear, worthless excuse for a menstrual cramp, explains
why we have no qualms whatsoever taking your regurgitation of scott
grissom's lies, false accusations, fractured logic and other piles of
steaming hot excrement, and ramming them back down your toothless
swear hole as hard and vehement and painful as we can. Not only as a
lesson to you, but to other trolls, conspiracy theorists, psychotics
and other so-called "truthseekers" that the cost of making bull****
claims is far more than the laughs are worth.

Bottom Line: Go to Hell. Do not pass "go". Do not collect $200. And
take scott & Betty Grissom with you.

OM

Wow. You have a REALLY bizarre method of showing "admiration and
respect." On behalf of Lt. Col. Virgil Ivan "Gus" Grissom, please
allow me to tell you how much he appreciates you for telling his wife
and son to go to hell. :-)

Andrew Gray wrote in message ...
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...

You misunderstand what I said. The version that is floating around on
the Internet is the same propaganda released by NASA after the fire.
It is NOT, repeat NOT, an excerpt from the actual autopsy report. It
is their alleged summary of the autopsy findings.
I am not at liberty to post or otherwise release an autopsy report;
that has to come from the family. However, I have a feeling that
information will be in a public forum sooner rather than later.

"Charleston" wrote in message news:1q2wc.16723$lL1.12934@fed1read03...
"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

It's no "theory." And let's get the facts straight. Ed was not
sitting in the couch when he was found. Further, Gus had the highest
CO level, not Ed. (You may believe what you like, but remember even
NASA doesn't argue the fact Gus' suit was the first to be breached;
how would Ed have accumulated more toxins than Gus?) Neither Gus nor
Ed was in his couch when they were found. Gus was lying crosswise
across Ed's couch, and Ed was crumpled in front of the hatch, wedged
between it and the headrests.

Jonathan Silverlight wrote in message ...
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!

If you had any clue what it took for me to get the 99 pages I have,
you would know the answer to that question. Every government
organization I have FOIA'ed has repeatedly told me they had nothing to
do with it and to talk to NASA. It was only after I provided
irrefutable evidence that the FBI WAS involved in the investigation
that they relented and gave me this little "carrot." I'm still
working on the rest. But the media doesn't take the time to jump
through the hoops I did; they have ready-for-TV stories every minute
of every day. Ask any professional journalist these days (I have) and
they will tell you ready-made stories are the rule in this era of
24-hour "instant" news.

"Charleston" wrote in message news:O93wc.16742$lL1.16544@fed1read03...
"LaDonna Wyss" wrote:
"Charleston" wrote:

The uneven CO saturation levels througout the body are consistent with
rapid
onset of death. Had the CO levels been more evenly distributed by the
heart
through the bloodstream, then that would reflect lower levels of CO
exposure
over a longer period of time. Oxygen deprivation to the heart muscle
led
directly to heart failure which then caused rapid deprivation of oygen
to
the brain followed by rapid onset of death. I am sorry it happened that
way
but the autopsy results make sense to me and others with significantly
more
medical backgroud than I have.

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.

Have you read the report at my website or looked at the associated
photographs? I have read most of the Congressional Report on the Apollo
1/204 report. The piece of metal that was of such intense interest here
a
while ago is most assuredly a part of a support bracket for MDC 8.

See page 2266 of the report. D-18-362

Oh, boy. Where to start with this one. First, perhaps you should
spend some time at the National Archives. Dr. Alan C. Harter
submitted his report to the Apollo 204 Review Board stating
unequivocally that cabin pressure caused NO physiological changes; the
pressure increased and then returned to normal too quickly. No
changes to the heart, lungs, etc.

I have spent plenty of time at the National Archives both in downtown DC and
in Maryland. Thanks. In another post I mention I will go back again
regarding TPS 68.

As for Dr Harter's assertions, what scientific tests were done to confirm
his personal thought on the matter? In 1967, there were very few similar
examples in the scientific literature/database that even remotely duplicate
in detail what happened physiologically to the crew due to that pressure
increase and rapid decrease. There was a single incident at Brooks AFB, TX,
IIRC, involving a flash oxygen fire in an experiment that resulted in two
deaths. Not much of a database. It might be useful to review the
literature since then and ask Dr. Harter to revisit the issue if he is even
alive today.

I have been through the Congressional Record four times. Have you
compared the photograph of that "part of a support bracket" with the
photograph of the metal plate in question?

Please, please visit my website before asking such questions. Since you
have read the Congressional report then you have seen that black and white
photo from 1967, on page 2041. Surely you jest that the metal piece is not
from that support bracket. Even Scott, when confronted with the report,
acknowledged that it could be from that bracket. He basically said "so
what" that does not tell us when it was cut from the bracket.

They don't even resemble
each other, unless someone miraculously was able to reshape it and
remove one hole from it between the time of the fire and 1996 when
Scott discovered it.

The hole in the little piece of metal is associated with the removal process
from Spacecraft 12. The hole is where one of the rivets holding the
bracket in place was located!

As for it being cut from the bracket so that it
could be examined under a microscope, not true.

Sure it is true.

Why don't you ask the
technician who disassembled Panel 8 what he saw when he removed it?

Why dont' you? What did he say? I have a great memory of that event? I
know how about we read the original analysis of the "minute arc pits" and
"melted conformal coating" as analyzed at 10X magnification on that bracket.

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 did not quote the internet. That is an assumption on your part. I quoted
the Medical Analysis report (Appendix D-11) in the Congressional Report. As
for being truncated, the quote is directly from an Armed Forces Institute of
Pathology document complete with its original lab accession number and for
the cause of death I quoted Standard Form 503 "Medical Record - Autopsy
Protocol".

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 have offered no explanation for the CO levels whatsoever. The term
"expected" is irrelevant. All that matters is what was found, not what some
after the fact analyzer of facts might "expect".

And,
are you aware Roger Chaffee switched the entry batteries over to the
main batteries at 12.4 and 13.6 seconds, ensuring the suit compressor
would continue working? And it did, because according to Dr. Kelly's
report the air intake hoses were virtually clean. It was the air
outtake hoses that were filthy, indicating the air scrubber was doing
its job in drawing those toxins AWAY from the breathing air. Yes,
eventually they succumbed, but had someone decided to get up there
rapidly and administer oxygen, all three would have recovered.

Sucumbed from clean purified air? Please. You act as if the brave men who
did not have a self contained breathing apparatus, who bravely removed that
crew hatch after a monumental effort, and crawled right into that toxic
atmosphere with nothing more than a primitive gas mask to attempt a rescue
in the dark should have done so much better. Rescue was not possible at
that point. Even if the crew had somehow still been on the edge of life, do
you think Grissom and White could have survived their burns? Chaffee maybe.

OH, and as to thermal burns, since you've been through "most" of the
Congressional Record, surely you read the part where Dr. Berry
admitted the thermal burns were NOT lethal.

Some of the burns likely occurred prior to death and some after death.
The crew was in pain from those burns and I accept that they *contributed*
to the deaths of the crew as officially reported. You can argue this point
all you want.

Well, if you've spent all that time at the National Archives, then
you've seen the report completed by the technician who disassembled
Panel 8--if you were paying attention--and you know the piece of metal
Scott found was NOT cut from ANYTHING because it was already present
on the panel when it was disassembled! Further, have you seen a COLOR
photograph of that bracket and the plate NASA alleges is the one Scott
found? Go to www.Apollo1.info. Click on photos. At the end of the
list you will see several pictures labelled nasa.jpg. I don't know
which number photos they are, but there are several of the bracket,
the plate, and the plate NASA claims is the one Scott found in the
evidence bag. They do NOT resemble each other.
What "explanation" would you like for the CO levels? Ummm, they were
deprived of oxygen for 15 to 20 minutes. I fail to understand the
question.
I don't know WHAT you are talking about when you mention "purified
air" and compare it to the technicians who removed the hatch, but you
prove you know nothing about the extent of these men's injuries when
you claim Gus and Ed would not have survived their burns. Since you
are SO familiar with the hearings before Congress, go back and look at
Dr. Berry's testimony. The thermal burns WERE SURVIVABLE.
And finally, how in the world did they sustain burns after their
deaths? Do you know how long it took for the flames inside the cabin
to be extinguished with the exception of a VERY small, localized fire
in the ECU (not near anyone's body)? SECONDS. Go back and study that
testimony you claim to have read.

"Charleston" wrote in message news:X22wc.16715$lL1.6155@fed1read03...
"LaDonna Wyss" wrote:
OM om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org
wrote:

...Wrong monster, Pat. This "LaDonna" bimbo is more along the lines of
one of those worthless little Japanese businessmen that get fried by
Godzilla for standing too close to the windows as he passed by. Read:
Too stupid to live.

Hmmmm. Not only is OM confused about my name, but having never met me
he's decided I am a bimbo. OM, has anyone ever given you the
definition of "ASS u me?"

OM, aka Bob Mosley III, is a self appointed Sergeant at Arms for this little
newsgroup. Ignore the man behind the curtain he is not the Wizard of Oz, he
is a somewhat obsessive compulsive psychotic person mentally trapped in his
mid-teens. I call him Saint JerOMe.

ROFLMFAO!!!!!! But, PLEASE don't insult sergeants-at-arms like that!
:-) But thank you for verifying what I suspected "a somewhat
obsessive compulsive psychotic person mentally trapped in his
mid-teens." By the way, he keeps referring to anal sex...could that
be a Freudian slip indicating he is aware of his anal-retentiveness?
By the way, I like the moniker "Saint JerOMe."

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?

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.

Thanks, I appreciate that. I'm sure you don't want to be in the
position of boasting about the credentials of a man whose name you
don't know.

Jim Davis

On 2004-06-04, LaDonna Wyss wrote:

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?

You misunderstand what I said. The version that is floating around on
the Internet is the same propaganda released by NASA after the fire.
It is NOT, repeat NOT, an excerpt from the actual autopsy report. It
is their alleged summary of the autopsy findings.
I am not at liberty to post or otherwise release an autopsy report;

But there's the problem.

"You have NOT seen Gus' complete autopsy report, so to quote the
truncated versions you find on the Internet is really not worth
arguing."

parses not too badly as "This argument hinges on a document which I have
and I allege you have been given a gross misrepresentation of. Uh, no,
can't show you it"

Do you see the problem here? I don't particularly care if you have a
document which NASA have slandered six ways from Sunday, or if *you*
have a garbled version, or if you've both got very bad eyesight and are
waving copies of the 1978 Farmers Almanac (Wisconsin, third revision).

Consider the position of your opponent.

You are asserting the version he has is a misrepresentation; *what
reason* other than that assertion does he have to believe you? He
doesn't. Without the original, there is absolutely no way of
differentiating in validity between the version you give of it, and the
version his source gives of it, without going by circumstantial
evidence.

*You can't base an argument on this*. If it's going to be in the public
domain, excellent. Come back and debate it then, because otherwise
people are just getting loud and annoyed over... vapour.

Do you see my objection? Not to the argument, I'll leave that to them as
like it, but to the basis.

--
-Andrew Gray