Discrepencies in AS204 witness acounts.

I've just finished reading the witness statements that Charleston put up,
and I was quite frankly baffled by the statements by G. W. Probst and A. R.
Caswell (pg. 383-390), the two RCA techs who were working the monitors.
According to them, it was several minutes between the start of the fire and
when the white room filled with smoke, and again, several minutes before
anyone got to the hatch. (Am I correct that the white room directly
surrounded the spacecraft, and that the A8 level contained that?)
Furthermore, they witnessed movement inside the craft, and Probst says that
it was about three minutes between the first call of fire and when smoke
came out of the capsule. Every witness who was on level A8, however, recalls
it being a matter of seconds between when the call of fire was made, the
relief valve sound (if they heard it), and the rupture.

How does one reconcile those accounts? Did the two RCA techs have a
sufficiently limited field of view through the camera that they couldn't see
anyone in the White Room other than someone directly in front of the hatch?
Was the smoke sufficiently light-colored initially that they were still able
to observe the astronauts clearly for the first two minutes of the fire? Is
their timing off and they heard a call of fire earlier than anyone else did
(doubtful, since they were listening on the same loops, 3 and 7, as others.)
I just don't understand why their testimony is so different than everyone
elses. (Essentially a factor of five or so more spread out with regards to
the rupture, the smoke, and the recovery efforts.)

"Ami Silberman" wrote in message
...
I've just finished reading the witness statements that Charleston put up,
and I was quite frankly baffled by the statements by G. W. Probst and A.
R.
Caswell (pg. 383-390), the two RCA techs who were working the monitors.
According to them, it was several minutes between the start of the fire
and
when the white room filled with smoke, and again, several minutes before
anyone got to the hatch. (Am I correct that the white room directly
surrounded the spacecraft, and that the A8 level contained that?)
Furthermore, they witnessed movement inside the craft, and Probst says
that
it was about three minutes between the first call of fire and when smoke
came out of the capsule. Every witness who was on level A8, however,
recalls
it being a matter of seconds between when the call of fire was made, the
relief valve sound (if they heard it), and the rupture.

Panic in the Whiteroom? There would have been a great deal of confusion and
nobody was really watching the clock up there, but the people watching the
monitors were more 'detached' from the scene they were watching.

In a crisis, time can be 'compressed' for those directly involved. Is there
any video of what happened, or is it all from eyewitness reports? Was the
scene videotaped?

There's also the problem of when the smoke would have first been seen - the
CM was sealed from the outside world, so the only place smoke could have
come from would have been either the relief valve or the rupture.

--
Alan Erskine
We can get people to the Moon in five years,
not the fifteen GWB proposes.
Give NASA a real challenge

In article ,
"Ami Silberman" wrote:

I've just finished reading the witness statements that Charleston put up,
and I was quite frankly baffled by the statements by G. W. Probst and A. R.
Caswell (pg. 383-390), the two RCA techs who were working the monitors.
According to them, it was several minutes between the start of the fire and
when the white room filled with smoke, and again, several minutes before
anyone got to the hatch. (Am I correct that the white room directly
surrounded the spacecraft, and that the A8 level contained that?)
Furthermore, they witnessed movement inside the craft, and Probst says that
it was about three minutes between the first call of fire and when smoke
came out of the capsule. Every witness who was on level A8, however, recalls
it being a matter of seconds between when the call of fire was made, the
relief valve sound (if they heard it), and the rupture.

How does one reconcile those accounts? Did the two RCA techs have a
sufficiently limited field of view through the camera that they couldn't see
anyone in the White Room other than someone directly in front of the hatch?
Was the smoke sufficiently light-colored initially that they were still able
to observe the astronauts clearly for the first two minutes of the fire? Is
their timing off and they heard a call of fire earlier than anyone else did
(doubtful, since they were listening on the same loops, 3 and 7, as others.)
I just don't understand why their testimony is so different than everyone
elses. (Essentially a factor of five or so more spread out with regards to
the rupture, the smoke, and the recovery efforts.)

I reconcile ANY witness statement discrepancies, anywhere on any matter,
with the demonstrations I saw in law school and the examples I see
routinely in court. Peoples' perceptions vary greatly from moment to
moment for the same person, let alone between two or more people located
at different places watching the same events. This is especially true
with regard to temporal sequencing - peoples' perceptions of time and
duration are extraordinarily variable and are highly dependent on many
psychological and physiological factors. Recently, I saw a link to a
study that had various groups of people watching a live basketball game.
Some of those people were tasked with watching one or more specific
players, some with watching movement of the ball, etc. Others were just
asked to watch the game and report what they saw. Those tasked ahead of
time with watching the ball or a specific player generally did quite
well reporting what they observed. However, they nearly ALL missed the
guy in the gorilla suit who traipsed through the court and in-between
the players! Those that were just instructed to watch the game
generally nearly all caught the guy in the suit.

Similar results are obtained routinely in every single study of witness
perceptions and they match up perfectly with the experiences of real
investigators who are used to trying to reconcile different yet honest
recollections of events.

"LaDonna's" continued harping on some few statements of some witnesses
to the exclusion of others is just another example of her ineptitude and
inexperience as a real investigator.

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity."
~ Robert A. Heinlein
http://www.angryherb.net

"Herb Schaltegger" wrote in message
...

I reconcile ANY witness statement discrepancies, anywhere on any matter,
with the demonstrations I saw in law school and the examples I see
routinely in court. Peoples' perceptions vary greatly from moment to
moment for the same person, let alone between two or more people located
at different places watching the same events. This is especially true
with regard to temporal sequencing - peoples' perceptions of time and
duration are extraordinarily variable and are highly dependent on many
psychological and physiological factors. Recently, I saw a link to a
study that had various groups of people watching a live basketball game.
Some of those people were tasked with watching one or more specific
players, some with watching movement of the ball, etc. Others were just
asked to watch the game and report what they saw. Those tasked ahead of
time with watching the ball or a specific player generally did quite
well reporting what they observed. However, they nearly ALL missed the
guy in the gorilla suit who traipsed through the court and in-between
the players! Those that were just instructed to watch the game
generally nearly all caught the guy in the suit.

Similar results are obtained routinely in every single study of witness
perceptions and they match up perfectly with the experiences of real
investigators who are used to trying to reconcile different yet honest
recollections of events.

I just said that. ;-)

Herb, in the law school, did they have someone walk into the room and hand
the teacher something before walking out? The teacher then asks the class
to describe the person and it's discovered that some people didn't even see
the person at all. It's a great test of observation skills.


--
Alan Erskine
We can get people to the Moon in five years,
not the fifteen GWB proposes.
Give NASA a real challenge

Alan Erskine wrote:
I just said that. ;-)

Herb, in the law school, did they have someone walk into the room and hand
the teacher something before walking out? The teacher then asks the class
to describe the person and it's discovered that some people didn't even see
the person at all. It's a great test of observation skills.

Not speaking for Herb, but I've heard of demonstrations that featured a
fake gunman (unbeknownst to the students) bursting into the lecture hall
for whatever reason and then, after he left, asking the students to
describe what happened, what he looked like, etc. Same results.

--
bp
Proud Member of the Human O-Ring Society Since 2003

In article ,
says...
Herb, in the law school, did they have someone walk into the room and hand
the teacher something before walking out? The teacher then asks the class
to describe the person and it's discovered that some people didn't even see
the person at all. It's a great test of observation skills.

This is a standard part of the training for newbie State Police around
here. The results are just what you describe.
--
Kevin Willoughby lid

Imagine that, a FROG ON-OFF switch, hardly the work
for test pilots. -- Mike Collins

"Ami Silberman" wrote in message
...

I've just finished reading the witness statements that Charleston put up,
and I was quite frankly baffled by the statements by G. W. Probst and A.
R.
Caswell (pg. 383-390), the two RCA techs who were working the monitors.

As was I. What this points out is that you are now in the position of the
juror if you will. You must weigh all of the evidence. It is normal for
evidence (if there is any significant quantity) to conflict. Of course
ferreting through it all and testing various hypotheses is what one does to
resolve the issue in a scientific inquiry. What weight you give to each
piece of evidence might be an important key to any conclusions you draw.
What if I decided not to include Probst and Caswell's statements on my web
page and no one here pointed that fact out? That would be severe bias on my
part. As you may recall, I advised LaDonna to use the witness statements in
ways that support her statements and conclusions knowing full well what was
in those statements. In this instance I would ask you to now go back and
reread the above testimony. This time though do it with a focus on the
similarities in their testimony to the other witnesses. What are the issues
that most if not all of the witnesses agree upon? After you do that then
you can use other known information to clarify factual discrepencies. For
instance, William H. Schick, was the only witness to write down
contemporaneous notes as the event unfolded because it was his job. He used
a clock to write down the time of the events (see page 375). What weight
does one give that fact? How do his notes compare with the witness
statements? There is not much in his log, but it is a unique piece to the
puzzle because it provides a time reference. No one here has yet accused
NASA of altering his log AFAIK. Schick's log confirms some of the
statements of fact made in **real-time**. It also conflicts with some of
those facts too.

http://www.challengerdisaster.info/s...eet_3_of_4.jpg

According to them, it was several minutes between the start of the fire
and
when the white room filled with smoke, and again, several minutes before
anyone got to the hatch. (Am I correct that the white room directly
surrounded the spacecraft, and that the A8 level contained that?)

The white room surrounded the immediate hatch area.

Furthermore, they witnessed movement inside the craft, and Probst says
that
it was about three minutes between the first call of fire and when smoke
came out of the capsule.

Now I ask that you carefully consider Probst's time schedule and Caswell's
time schedule. How much do they differ or are they exactly the same? They
saw things the same way--via monitor.

Every witness who was on level A8, however, recalls
it being a matter of seconds between when the call of fire was made, the
relief valve sound (if they heard it), and the rupture.

But then they tell you they did things. They moved around. Do their times
always make sense?

How does one reconcile those accounts?

By collecting all available evidence. For instance NASA went and looked at
the Rate Gyro telemetry and was able to thus "see" the crew moving during
the fire.

Did the two RCA techs have a
sufficiently limited field of view through the camera that they couldn't
see
anyone in the White Room other than someone directly in front of the
hatch?

There was a lot of smoke but eventually they could see people there in the
White Room.

Was the smoke sufficiently light-colored initially that they were still
able
to observe the astronauts clearly for the first two minutes of the fire?

There was plenty of oxygen and thus as long as that high level of oxygen was
present there was fairly complete combustion--no smoke. Once the cabin
ruptured and the pressure returned to normal, the oxygen was rapidly
consumed and the combustion was incomplete yielding dense dark smoke with
high levels of carbon monoxide and other toxic chemicals. In fact the fire
died due to lack of oxygen creating what they call an oxygen deficient
atmosphere in the cabin. Even then some items would have been so hot that
they pyrolyzed despite the lack of oxygen.

Is
their timing off and they heard a call of fire earlier than anyone else
did
(doubtful, since they were listening on the same loops, 3 and 7, as
others.)
I just don't understand why their testimony is so different than everyone
elses. (Essentially a factor of five or so more spread out with regards to
the rupture, the smoke, and the recovery efforts.)

Well you will just have to stay tuned and decide for yourself I guess.

Daniel

"Bruce Palmer" wrote ...
Alan Erskine wrote:
I just said that. ;-)

Herb, in the law school, did they have someone walk into the room and hand
the teacher something before walking out? The teacher then asks the class
to describe the person and it's discovered that some people didn't even see
the person at all. It's a great test of observation skills.

Not speaking for Herb, but I've heard of demonstrations that featured a
fake gunman (unbeknownst to the students) bursting into the lecture hall
for whatever reason and then, after he left, asking the students to
describe what happened, what he looked like, etc. Same results.

It certain parts of the US it would probably also turn into a great test of the
fake gunman's body armour.

Paul Blay wrote:
It certain parts of the US it would probably also turn into a great test of the
fake gunman's body armour.

Perhaps, but note these are law schools we're talking about -- not movie
theaters.

--
bp
Proud Member of the Human O-Ring Society Since 2003

On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 03:30:32 GMT, Bruce Palmer
wrote:

Not speaking for Herb, but I've heard of demonstrations that featured a
fake gunman (unbeknownst to the students) bursting into the lecture hall
for whatever reason and then, after he left, asking the students to
describe what happened, what he looked like, etc. Same results.

....Heh, I've got a funny version of this one to relate. During one
NROTC class - "Fundamentals of Warfare", IIRC - on April Fool's Day,
one of our lovable jarhead MECEPs as a gag took a satchel charge case,
threw in a loud report charge inside, and, in full camo including
warpaint, burst through the door and tossed the satchel into the
middle of the room, where it went off. The MOI was in on the gag, and
after half of us got up from diving for cover and the other half quit
laughing, the MOI hit us up with a surprise pop quiz with two
questions: describe the assailant, and list the number of people who
did the proper thing and dove for cover. While the numbers for the
second question varied +/- 3 of the actual number, the only
descriptive qualities about said jarhead that everyone in the class
agreed on were as follows:

* He was wearing camo gear
* He was male
* When we get ahold of him, his balls will most likely be forcibly
relocated to a position somewhere between his shoulder blades.

Of course, I stayed in my seat, simply because I *knew* what day it
was, and I was too far from the center of the room to play along with
the gag and throw myself on the charge :-P

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