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
  #51  
Old June 4th 04, 12:48 PM
Scott Hedrick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
om...
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.


Check your investigational notes. You *did* write it down, didn't you? If
you have performed the investigation you claimed, then just pull the
pathology report and get the name.


  #52  
Old June 4th 04, 12:52 PM
Peter Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

LaDonna Wyss wrote...
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.


http://groups.google.com.au/groups?h...com%26rnum%3D2

This short series of posts examines the switch&plate issue and how the
photographic evidence gells (or not) with the presented theories. Maybe
you could start here?

- Peter


  #53  
Old June 4th 04, 01:02 PM
Paul Blay
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Peter Smith" wrote ...
LaDonna Wyss wrote...
If you have a specific
post from Jay Windley you would like me to address, feel free to
direct me to it.



http://groups.google.com.au/groups?h...com%26rnum%3D2

But if you go there, you might find
http://groups.google.com/groups?thre...xmi ssion.com
the more convenient link.

  #54  
Old June 4th 04, 01:26 PM
LaDonna Wyss
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Pat Flannery wrote in message ...
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


lmao!
  #56  
Old June 4th 04, 01:44 PM
LaDonna Wyss
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Dale wrote in message . ..
On 3 Jun 2004 22:54:19 -0700, (LaDonna Wyss) wrote:

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.


Why are you doing this? You've spent 18 months on it and assembled a "team"?
Are you writing a book or something? Do you have some personal connection to
the crew or their families? If not, it comes across as a tad wacko, especially
since you don't seem willing to answer even simple questions.

I think we've seen this show before, LaDonna. It wasn't all that interesting
the first time.

Dale


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. I have
12 years invested in Gus Grissom's life; I had 10 invested at the time
I read NASA's b.s. report, and I got a little angry realizing NASA was
lying through its teeth.
There ARE some people in this world who love the TRUTH. I am one of
them. Plain and simple.
  #57  
Old June 4th 04, 01:53 PM
LaDonna Wyss
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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. It did
not. (As a side note, have you been to Scott's website and seen the
picture of that microswitch? It is clear something rather powerful
blew through that circuit.) The fire actually started in the +yaw
thruster of the Service Module, and the fire started 22 minutes before
NASA claims it did. 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. Further, if you get a copy of the voice transcript, you will
find that +yaw thruster misfired the first time Gus pulsed it; he was
forced to fire it a second time. Three minutes later, Roger pointed
something out to Gus. The transcript is chopped up at this point, but
given the crew's next actions it is rather plain Roger saw smoke:
Immediately after Roger points something out to Gus, Roger and Gus
both open their faceplates and keep them open for approximately a
minute. At 6:24 another crew member opens his faceplate again (ECU
data indicates this; no one was speaking at the time so we do not know
whose visor it was.) At 6:30:85 Gus opened his faceplate a third
time, this time keeping it open THROUGH THE FIRST CALL OF FIRE, which
came from Gus, not Roger (this according to Bell Lab's voice tape
analysis.) Why is everyone playing musical visors? Think about it
for a second and the answer is clear: They are trying to smell what
Roger saw: Smoke. Unfortunately, due to the outflow of oxygen from
the suits they were unable to do so.
Finally, as I said, go look at the picture of the microswitch. It
speaks for itself.
  #58  
Old June 4th 04, 02:33 PM
Herb Schaltegger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
(LaDonna Wyss) wrote:

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.


Google for Jay's name and most of his posts for the past year were
specific, direct requests for explanation of particular posts and/or
explanations (in precise engineering terms) for things implied or
claimed by "scott." It's substantially more than the "nugget or two"
you seem to think.

Next, why do you have "Scott" in quotes? It's not a fictional name;
it's his real name.


I call him "scott" because "scott" is the name under which he posts his
abusive, rude, evasive and conspiratorial nonsense.

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.


Then why couldn't he bother to answer any of Jay's questions without
resorting to either name-calling and claims of greater sources of secret
information (that no one else has ever seen)? Why has he admitted to
concealing evidence? Why won't he release the names of the "experts" he
claims support his theory?

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.


Sorry, lady, I read the initial investigative report cover-to-cover
including the appendices when I was twelve; I reviewed parts of it in
greater detail as an engineering undergraduate student in the '80s.
Nothing "scott" says, either in his own name or through you as a proxy
sock-puppet, will change what happened or how it happened.

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.


Right, sure.

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
Columbia Loss FAQ:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html
  #60  
Old June 4th 04, 02:39 PM
LaDonna Wyss
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Charleston" wrote in message news:cgVvc.16062$lL1.6844@fed1read03...
"OM" OneMaggot@hourly_by mouth until_Mary_of_the_hole in the brain
gang_tosses you into the NASA_research_facility.org wrote:

...And no, there ain't no wimmen's wards in Killfile Hell. They all
get equal sodomy down there with the Maxsons!


Some things never change. Saint JerOMe strikes again.


LOL! Incidently, some of you folks have WAY too much time on your
hands (inventing interesting Internet addresses.) :-)
 




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 03:34 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.