Apollo One, the FBI, and Scott Grissom

"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
om...
"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote in
message news:6lqxc.56776
Since you know this is a Google ID, why don't you use it? I'm under
no obligation to use "Usenet"; if you're too lazy to look for the
message, obviously you don't care very much about the facts you claim
to want to know.

Umm, you realize every post you've made has been to Usenet. You're simply
using Google as an interface.

I personally don't care about the specific message. I was simply trying to
give you accurate information, which you clearly don't want. Your loss, not
mine.

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote ...
"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
om...
"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote in
message news:6lqxc.56776
Since you know this is a Google ID, why don't you use it? I'm under
no obligation to use "Usenet"; if you're too lazy to look for the
message, obviously you don't care very much about the facts you claim
to want to know.

Umm, you realize every post you've made has been to Usenet. You're simply
using Google as an interface.

I personally don't care about the specific message. I was simply trying to
give you accurate information, which you clearly don't want. Your loss, not
mine.

Are Google ID's (as the rnum is being called) even conserved? It's the selm
parameter which identifies which post is shown.

I had a look and message 164 was ...

http://www.google.com/groups?q=g:thl...e.com&rnum=164

however it only contains one question

"Why don't you email him and ask for verification?"

two which Scott Hedrick had replied

"I will after you provide specific cites."

In article ,
(LaDonna Wyss) wrote:

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

Herb Schaltegger wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Scott Grissom) wrote:

the joke is on you......she's all yours, mosley. hlol.

Well, look who finally showed up. Do you have answers to Jay Windley's
questions yet?

If all of the "evidence" Jay Whindley has is the "Hill Report" . . .

Why don't you go back about a year and read all of "scott's" replies to
Jay's questions before you ask uninformed ones such as the one above?

And while you're at is, how about you answer my questions about LiOH
canister testing? Or respond to Scott Hedrick's questions regarding
your "teammates?" Or respond to rk's questions and comments regarding
the electrical loads, impedances, resistances and cabling, and Michael
Gardner's comments as well, regarding your conclusory statements made
earlier?


How am I uninformed? I spend several days in here listening to people
babble on about the "Hill Report" (which there is no such thing); then
I find out what you're really talking about is Sensenbrenner's
follow-up to the Grissoms after he ate NASA's b.s. from Heffernan
hook-line-and-sinker. You people don't even know the difference
between a "report" and a freaking letter! Now, I'm supposed to be
answering questions from Michael Gardner (which if he posted I'm very
sorry but Google doesn't post in order and I haven't seen his post as
yet), when not ONE of you has had ANYTHING intelligent to say about
the ten different perjurous statements NASA made before Congress.
Hello, are you people paying me to waste my time spoon-feeding you?
Do your homework; read the posts, and when you have an intelligent
comment I will be happy to respond.

Evasion noted.

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
Columbia Loss FAQ:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

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

Hey OM, looks like she saw her reflection in her monitor.

In article ,
(LaDonna Wyss) wrote:

Since you know this is a Google ID, why don't you use it? I'm under
no obligation to use "Usenet"; if you're too lazy to look for the
message, obviously you don't care very much about the facts you claim
to want to know.

Free clue: sci.space.history is a Usenet newsgroup. Usenet is a subset
of what is now called "the internet" but it has been in existence since
substantially before "the internet" as we now know and use it even
existed. The fact isthat you choose to use a web-based posting and
reading system implemented by Google; nonetheless, you are using Usenet
whether you realize it or not.

So much for your crackerjack investigative mind . . .

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
Columbia Loss FAQ:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
om...
How am I uninformed?

Read your own posts and see.

I have

not

ANYTHING intelligent to say about
the

statements NASA made before Congress.

As is obvious from your posts. You could change that by talking less about
the evidence and providing verifiable references to it.

"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
om...
Since you know this is a Google ID, why don't you use it?

The burden is on you.

I'm under
no obligation to use "Usenet"

But you *are*, when you use Google.

"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
m...
You go to the main thread "Apollo One, the FBI, and
Scott Grissom". You scroll down to message 164.

No, *you* go to that forum and get the proper ID number, not the
Google-specific one.

"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
om...
Shut the hell up about Betty.

Make me.

She's had quite enough grief in 37 1/2
years of NASA bull****.

And, according to you, a decade of yours. Why do you hate her so much?

"Charleston" wrote in message news:fjxxc.6739$fZ1.1829@fed1read03...
"LaDonna Wyss" wrote:.

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.

Why would anyone assume the fire started behinf MDC Panel 8? The physical
evidence supports no such conclusion.

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.)

"Powerful"? and "blew through"? that circuit? The one at S11?

This one? http://www.apollo1.info/images/Apollo1microswitch.jpg

I see a nice shiny metallic colored switch that is so clean that I can read
the word "MICROSWITCH" (black on silver) that is a size 10 font or smaller.
I see a toggle switch that was physically on the heat exposed side of the
MDC panel 8 that has suffered moderate heat damage.

How about this angle? http://www.apollo1.info/Apollo1RearS11Wires.htm

Look at those wires. If they are teflon then they melt at about 550º F.
You would see soot covered copper if they had been exposed to significant
heat. How about the paint? No blistering, no bubbling, no discoloration
and once again we can read something too "S11". In fact the photo is good
enough that you can actually see where the microswitch front surface touched
that paint because there is a bit of soot surrounding that ring. Look
closely.

Now the proof is always in the control isn't it? So here is a control
photograph that proves the S11 toggle switch is no different than its
neighbors.

http://www.apollo1.info/Apollo1Front...RollSwitch.htm

I see some soot laden MDC 8 metal. I also see moderately heat damaged
toggle switches. I see words on the sooted MDC Panel 8. I see clean metal
behind the switch 11 finger guard. I see a lock washer impression where
switch 11 was once installed. Now I don't see any tell-tale discolored
metal consistent with overheating, nor white alpha aluminum oxide deposits.
I don't see any evidence of molten metal flow.

The fire actually started in the +yaw
thruster of the Service Module, and the fire started 22 minutes before
NASA claims it did.

What part of the RCS was energized? Was it the solenoids? What are the
solenoids made of? Which ones? Did any metal melt or burn? Aluminum?
Stainless steel? This is important. Where did the smoke escape to from
this RCS fire? Remember there were a few open Service Module access panels
to facilitate ground equipment access. Did anyone witness this aluminum or
stainless steel smoking? What about that wiring in the Service Module?
Surely it would have smoked up a storm and escaped the Service Module onto
the platforms at levels A7 and A8? The ones where the witnesses were
working. Let's follow this to a logical conclusion. Please do explain.

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.

Surely it could not have been caused by the catastrophic failure of the heat
shield in multple locations in the middle of a flash fire that burned and
smoldered in the ECU area?

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.

He did not fire any RCS thrusters LaDonna. The Service Module RCS wasn't
even wired to the CM MDC. Neither was the Command Module RCS. Instead NASA
wired the Command Module MDC electronics that command the RCS to "load
boxes" and "A14-275 quad simulators" right? Or is this inconvenient part of
the report just part of the big coverup too? Oh and it's pages 1139-1140
and 1237 if you don't believe me.

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:

And he just stared blankly at the smoke after smelling the suspicious
potting material odor earlier all the while knowing he was in a 90+% O2
environment right?

Immediately after Roger points something out to Gus, Roger and Gus
both open their faceplates and keep them open for approximately a
minute.

So during this minute of quiet examination of the cabin atmosphere they mime
their discussion so Mission Control won't know that they think there could
be this significant problem of smoke in the cabin? Reminds me of SCUBA
diving when you want to say something you do it with sign language.

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.

It is amazing that through all of the musical visors, no one ever says a
word about what they are doing or why.

Finally, as I said, go look at the picture of the microswitch. It
speaks for itself.


Indeed it does.

Daniel

I am incredulous. How can you pretend to speak so authoritatively
about something you obviously know nothing about? What do you MEAN
Gus didn't fire any RCS thrusters? Do you even know what a Plugs-Out
test is? Yes, he DID fire thrusters; the Rotation Control portion of
the Static Fire test demands he do so. He pulsed, in the following
order, -pitch, +pitch, -yaw, +yaw, -roll, +roll. Why don't you get
out the Crew Checklist, and the voice transcript, and check it
out?????
And how do you know who said what about what? Do you have the voice
transcript? You obviously do not, or you wouldn't have made such a
ridiculous statement about the thrusters. The crew DID talk about
having their visors open; however, NASA has doctored that transcript
so we don't know everything that was said. And yes, I anticipate the
question: The reason I know it has been doctored is because there are
quotes in Bell Labs voice tape analysis that are not reflected in the
transcript.
No one "stared blankly"; obviously they were trying to conduct a
'sniff test'. Have you never smelled something while driving your
car? I know I have; I currently have an emissions problem I need
repaired. I don't pull off to the side of the road and run screaming
for the hills, but when I smell something that resembles smoke or
something "hot" I immediately turn off the radio and practically
hyperventilate while trying to identify the source.
What "catastrophic failure" do you refer to regarding the heat shield?
As for technicians seeing smoke: Have you read their witness
statements? Those statements the Review Board conveniently "forgot"
to include in their list of statements DO refer to having seen smoke
coming from those access panels.
LaDonna