|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Jim Davis wrote: Scott never told us who his top forensic pathologist was. Can you? That would be a good beginning, wouldn't it? Pat |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Herb Schaltegger wrote in message ...
In article , (LaDonna Wyss) wrote: "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. First of all, the legal standard for murder is one thing that "scott" has never been capable of proving to anyone save you. Second of all, your previous post referenced medical terminology that you are apparently parroting without comprehension. Third, the usual standard for medical proof in a legal context is merely to a reasonable degree of medical certainty - which boils down to a preponderance of the evidence or simply more likely than not. And no, "scott" hasn't proven anything to anyone save yourself. 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. And, as for the piece of metal, you do understand the concept of a hard short (aka "dead" short)? And you now demonstrate that you're not an engineer or forensic examiner. Continue googling the group for the past year or so and when you can respond to Jay Windley's posts, point by point (which "scott" failed to do, repeatedly), maybe someone will take you seriously. Until then you're just another conspiratorial loon as well as an apologist for "scott." 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. Next, why do you have "Scott" in quotes? It's not a fictional name; it's his real name. 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. 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. 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. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Herb Schaltegger wrote in message ...
In article , (LaDonna Wyss) wrote: First, I am not going to post Gus Grissom's autopsy report on the Internet. I wouldn't even DREAM of asking Betty Grissom's permission to do such a thing. Second, my medical credentials have nothing to do with it. Yes they do when you bandy terms about in a conclusory fashion, terms you clearly don't understand. Scott had that report examined by a top forensic pathologist; you should ask for HIS credentials. Yes, I know what hemorrhagic pulmonary edema means; are you incapable of doing an Internet search? I am quite capable of it. Moreover, I consult with and depose medical professionals of all types (including pathologists, emergency medical providers and cardiologists) routinely. You apparently do not. It is basically internal bleeding of the lungs. As the air sacs are depleted of oxygen, the surrounding blood vessels bleed into them. As for buying bridges, I'm not in the market for real estate. I have a fire to solve. That was solved decades ago. What you do have to do is stroke a conspiratorial ego (or two, if one includes your own). If you are claiming the Apollo One fire was "solved" decades ago, you have obviously not spent one minute going over the Congressional Record. Not only did NASA not PUBLICLY solve the fire (what went on behind closed doors is another matter entirely), but they lied repeatedly to Congress about what they DID admit to finding. Pull out those 3,000 pages, and after you've studied them, get back to me. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
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. 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. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
(Derek Lyons) wrote in message ...
(LaDonna Wyss) wrote: First, I am not going to post Gus Grissom's autopsy report on the Internet. I wouldn't even DREAM of asking Betty Grissom's permission to do such a thing. Second, my medical credentials have nothing to do with it. They certainly do when you make medical statement with such certainty. Scott had that report examined by a top forensic pathologist; you should ask for HIS credentials. We have done so on multiple occasions. scott has refused to supply them. (The credentials of said pathologist are far from the only thing he has refused to supply. He has openly admitted to concealing evidence.) D. OK, THAT is one he** of a serious allegation, and I am not going to allow it to stand. Scott is not "concealing evidence." There are things that occur during the course of an investigation which, if revealed at the wrong time in the wrong forum, can and do compromise the investigation. That is NOT the same thing as concealing evidence. Let's make certain you have that straight. As for Scott "refusing" to supply the pathologist's credentials: I've come to know him rather well over the past 18 months. What you interpret as refusal is most likely Scott's propensity to forget things. He is NOT attentive to detail. When he is deluged (such as I have been just now with 14 postings all at once) he tends to become overwhelmed and skips over most, if not all, of what he is being asked. Again, perhaps a personal flaw, but not indicative he is hiding anything. I will see about the credentials when I ask him to tell me the pathologist's name again. If Scott is too busy flying, I'll do my own credential search on the Internet and get it to you that way. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Jim Davis wrote in message .1.4...
LaDonna Wyss wrote: 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. And, as for the piece of metal, you do understand the concept of a hard short (aka "dead" short)? You claim to have evidence of murder and sabotage. I asked Scott on a number of occasions why he doesn't present his evidence to the relevant US or Florida law enforcement authorities. He answered with evasions or abuse so I'll ask you. Have you presented your evidence to the relevant US or Florida law enforcement authorities? If so, what was their reaction? If not, why not? Let me start by reiterating what I said to another post a minute ago: Scott is not being evasive nor is he deliberately abusive. He is impatient and intolerant. Not the same thing. Yes, I have presented my evidence to all relevant authorities. They are currently looking into the matter. However, presuming you are an intelligent person (and I have no reason to believe otherwise), surely you realize the obstacles involved in re-opening a 37-year-old investigation, especially with charges of "cover-up" by a major government organization. It takes a lot of time, a lot of cutting through red tape, and a lot of searching for the right person who is willing to sign onto the fight. That is why I am here, and that is what I am doing. As of this moment, three different offices are looking into the matter, and there are others who are doing so as well on an "unofficial" basis. When it gets pulled together to the point action is imminent, I will be happy to let you know. Jim Davis |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Andrew Gray wrote in message ...
On 2004-06-03, Jim Davis wrote: LaDonna Wyss wrote: The legal standard is beyond a REASONABLE doubt, and yes it has. The legal standard also tends to believe in the concept of a judicial system (at least in most every system I've looked at, and English-style systems are moderately good... second-class, but good) Have you used these channels to apply your "legal standard"? (...) You claim to have evidence of murder and sabotage. I asked Scott on a number of occasions why he doesn't present his evidence to the relevant US or Florida law enforcement authorities. He answered with evasions or abuse so I'll ask you. Have you presented your evidence to the relevant US or Florida law enforcement authorities? If so, what was their reaction? If not, why not? I don't believe anyone here is qualified to practice law in Florida - though you can never be sure, .us lawyers do seem to have a few states under their belt as often as not - but, speaking as non-experts, is it a crime in that jurisdiction to knowingly withhold evidence or knowledge of the comission of a crime from the relevant authorities? [and, if so, in what way is that moderated by the fact that a) it is possibly a capital crime and b) statutes of limitations may have kicked in; it would seem conceptually silly to be charged for witholding if the original crime was dead and buried] Please see my last reply for the answer to most of your posts. As for statute of limitations, I'm sure you know there is no statute of limitations on murder, and while I'm not an expert in military law, I presume war crimes have no statute either (given our Cold War at the time, it likely would fall under a war crime.) And covering up evidence of a felony, especially murder, is ALSO a felony. One of the many entities I have brought THAT evidence to is Congress, and my Congressman is currently looking into the matter. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|