|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#821
|
|||
|
|||
"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message om... OK, I'm on limited time at the moment Now she's paranoid- what, you think NASA's out to get you? so I will have to go point-by-point later this evening when my roommate isn't here. Hiding from your roommate, eh? However, I do have points off the top of my head: Among other things. 1. WHY are you raising questions from weeks ago? You have a tremendous backlog of questions to answer already, such as the names and jurisdictions of the law enforcement personnel you spoke to about Apollo 1. 2. You've provided NO documentation that the RCS itself was being simulated. Whoopty doo. *You* haven't provided any documentation to support your claim that you have "teammates". Where was the burn damage to the cryo stir switch on Apollo 13? Where are the names and jurisdictions for the law enforcement personnel you spoke to about Apollo 1? There WAS none. Sounds like a confession. Are you admitting you lied about talking to any law enforcement personnel about Apollo 1? Because THAT'S NOT WHERE THE PROBLEM WAS! *You're* problem is obvious. You'd breath much easier if your nostrils were on the OUTSIDE of your rectum. Yes, the S-11 switch ultimately caused the problem, Prove it. Do you not understand basic electricity? YOU don't. If you did, you'd have answered at least some of rk's questions long ago, instead of pretending they don't exist. Daniel, you said yourself you do not know about this particular realm of investigation. He certainly doesn't seem to be familiar with the style of investigation you use in your fanstasy realm. Why in the world would you spend a week reading the Review Board Report and then assert yourself as a fire expert? You've asserted yourself as an expert in a lot more places with a lot less research. Whine, whine, whine... Why don't you do what I have done, and interview electricians, technicians, engineers, etc., and then get back to me in six months or so? Such as? Names, please. You are asserting theories that have no basis in FACT. Just like you. You are ASSUMING Daniel! Run away! She's asking for sex again! No such evidence is available The names and jurisdictions of the law enforcement personnel you spoke to about Apollo 1, that is... It's like Scott has said more than once--if someone shorts your ignition switch, and your car goes up in flames, can you say that because the fire started in the battery the ignition switch was not the problem? Liar! I've *never* said that. I specifically referenced those statements. Where are they? If you referenced them *you* should know. The truth is NEVER EVER as bad as the lies, questions, suspicions, and cover-ups. Why then do you prefer the lies? But as an investigative reporter told me not long ago on the telephone, the cover-up is ALWAYS worse than the lie. Cite, please. You have the proper form. |
#822
|
|||
|
|||
"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message m... I've already shown this test protocol is inaccurate. You've *claimed* it- you haven't proven it. I think it's public knowledge it was not. You seem to have a lot of problem with public knowledge. So much of it seems to exist only in your head. Can you not find other "evidence?" Can you find *any*? First, the voice transcript has been DOCTORED. I've said that umpteen times. You've said a lot of things that are imaginary. How do I know that? Because Bell Labs voice tape analysis indicates conversation that is NOT reflected in NASA's transcript. Prove it. Would you like a copy? Sure. You already have an address. Again, since NASA cut-and-paste the voice transcript to suit themselves, You do the same with reality, why are you complaining? As for where the fire started, I will say it again: the heater. Period. End of question. Prove it. Again, I think you need to wait until you get your hands on the actual TESTIMONY from NASA in Volume I before you start quoting information from the Review Board as Gospel. Provide some cites. |
#823
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ... Again, I get back to the car scenario: If you'd get back to the issue of the names and jurisdictions of the law enforcement personnel you spoke to about Apollo 1 and simply provide verifiable answers, or admit you lied, it will go away. I've also given the house fire scenario-- SO know you think someone was trying to burn down Gus' house? I almost caught my apartment on fire once. Freebasing does that. I figured it was a "no brainer." Perfect for you. (medical explanation: electrical jolts settle in the joints.) Cite, please. Stop trying to make electrical arguments that make no sense. Why? You do. WHY is that so hard for you to understand, Daniel? He's not using the same chemical assistance you use. Perhaps you should do what I did: Find yourself some electrical engineers and ASK them about electrical shorts and fires. You do NOT need the names and phone numbers of MY sources Not if you're lying, of course. A *good* investigator knows that such claims need to be verified. Or are you claiming that you've talked to *every possible electrical engineer in the world*? |
#824
|
|||
|
|||
Hedrick, do you not have a job? Go do it, would you? There ARE people
in here who ARE asking intelligent questions. You are NOT one of them. LaDonna |
#825
|
|||
|
|||
Good golly, No WONDER I can't keep up! Talk about garulous! OK, let's
try to make this simple, shall we? Daniel, and others, are trying to claim the hand controllers and the RCS were all simulated, and nothing was actually happening with the above, correct? Let's go with that, although I've already offered Daniel the opportunity to speak with someone who KNOWS better, who worked the pad and knows the difference between GSE and actual power, but let's play your game. Herb, you are lying. Daniel has NOT proven that the RCS was being simulated; he has only repeated ad nauseum NASA's claim about the simulators, and NO ONE had provided ANY PROOF that the VALVES were being simulated. Does ANYONE on this news group understand the word "load??????????" "Load" means electrical load, as in power. WHERE and HOW do you extrapolate from that that valve MOVEMENT is being simulated?????? Did Borman whisper that in your ear? Because there is not ONE ounce of evidence that valve movement was being simulated. Not one. You are ASS U MING that. Provide the proof, and I will listen. Until then, you are just playing the role of NASA apologists, and I'm right back to the speech I gave on the Fourth of July. LaDonna |
#826
|
|||
|
|||
"Scott Hedrick" wrote:
"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message If you're going to claim the RCS was disabled, and the hand controllers wired to a simulator, then where's the evidence? With your imaginary "teammates", no doubt. What I DO know is this: There was damage to the hand controller NASA could not explain; Cite, please. Actually this one is true as far as the damage goes and I would not be surprised if the FBI was called in to try and shed some light on the issue. that is why they asked the FBI to take fingerprints for analysis (the results of which the FBI refuses to disclose.) So instant cover-up? Cite, please. Yes that would be interesting. P.S. If anyone wants "proof" the FBI took fingerprints, and that they are now claiming ignorance, email me and I will send it to you. How can you possibly send paper through the Internet? You have to fold it up pretty small but it is easier to scan it or take a digital photo and send it an e-mail attachement:-) Daniel |
#827
|
|||
|
|||
Daniel, you are well aware of my technological constraints. If you
truly want to resolve this issue, you know what to do. Meanwhile, again I ask, if there's nothing to these claims, then why was the FBI involved, and why do they claim to not know WHY they were involved now? Does that NOT raise anyone's curiousity? LaDonna |
#828
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message
... I'm just now getting to Google with any time involvement. I've only "jumped in and out" until now. If you've got another post, I'll find it in a minute. Meanwhile, Daniel, what ARE you talking about? A fire caused by a switch is not necessarily going to cause electrical burn damage to the switch itself; only if that is the ignition POINT. Um, you tell me? You cut off whatever it was I wrote. Given that I have made a few post you'd know better than me. I can't even read my own mind how am I supposed to read yours;-) ? snipped but not read Daniel |
#829
|
|||
|
|||
wrote:
Good golly, No WONDER I can't keep up! Talk about garulous! OK, let's try to make this simple, shall we? Daniel, and others, are trying to claim the hand controllers and the RCS were all simulated, and nothing was actually happening with the above, correct? No that would be utter bull**** and you'd know that if you read the words in my posts thoroughly. I think you need to take a couple days off. How about we all meet back here say next Monday? Seriously? although I've already offered Daniel the opportunity to speak with someone who KNOWS better, who worked the pad and knows the difference between GSE and actual power, but let's play your game. Herb, you are lying. Daniel has NOT proven that the RCS was being simulated; he has only repeated ad nauseum NASA's claim about the simulators, and NO ONE had provided ANY PROOF that the VALVES were being simulated. Does ANYONE on this news group understand the word "load??????????" "Load" means electrical load, as in power. WHERE and HOW do you extrapolate from that that valve MOVEMENT is being simulated?????? Did Borman whisper that in your ear? Because there is not ONE ounce of evidence that valve movement was being simulated. Not one. You are ASS U MING that. Provide the proof, and I will listen. Until then, you are just playing the role of NASA apologists, and I'm right back to the speech I gave on the Fourth of July. Please define the kind of proof you need and be specific. Never mind that you didn't know that there were any simulators pertaining to any SM or CM RCS that day. The only proof type I have not provided yet is photographic. As you now know there was no film in the TV cameras nor was any videotape running. That leaves some after the fact accident investigation photography which was I am gonna guess you will claim is doctored. How about the transcripts in your spreadsheet? Daniel |
#830
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message
... Daniel, you are well aware of my technological constraints. We are all painfully aware of your technological constraints trust me. I have no monopoly in that department. If you truly want to resolve this issue, you know what to do. Resolve which issue? Meanwhile, again I ask, if there's nothing to these claims, then why was the FBI involved, and why do they claim to not know WHY they were involved now? Huh? Does that NOT raise anyone's curiousity? Good night. Daniel |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|