Apollo One, the FBI, and Scott Grissom

In article ,
(Scott Grissom) 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?

herb, i have answers for all of windbag's questions. trouble is,
you can see them. nice of you to ask......

"you can see them"?

Did you mean "You can't see them"?

If so, why not? Your pal LaDonna has been making lots of waves on your
behalf; don't you think her reputation (or yours) is important enough to
defend with factual responses rather than insults?

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

Yes, it says you don't know what you are talking about.

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" (which
is NOT a report), I am at a loss to understand exactly what it is you
want Scott to answer. Did Sensenbrenner and Heffernan offer an answer
to his question about the S-11 switch? "Yes." Was it a satisfactory
answer, or even one that made sense? "No." What else would you like
to know, or are you finished kissing NASA's behind???

OM om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org wrote in message . ..
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 00:53:33 -0400, Kevin Willoughby
wrote:

So.... what is is your definition of "serious"?

...Someone who'll lick her festering rectal orafice while swearing
before all the Netherrealm Deities that scott grissom is 100%
right,and that NASA and NAA murdered the A1 crew, and after receiving
the bogus data will protect her "honor" by claiming "well, after
reading what she sent me, I can understand why she'd want to keep it a
secret. This is 'grassy knoll' level stuff, and she could get killed
unless it's presented right", or some other steaming pile of crap.

OM

As I've said many times, you do NOT read. I have NEVER said Scott is
100% right; he and I have serious differences. What I HAVE said is
his allegations about NASA are correct, and I notice you STILL have
not stepped out of anal-retentiveness long enough to address the
perjurous comments made to Congress by Borman, et. al. Either address
the issues, or stop wasting our time.

(Derek Lyons) wrote in message ...
Kevin Willoughby wrote:

In article , hpywife927
says...
(Derek Lyons) wrote
(LaDonna Wyss) wrote:
I repeat my offer to host the documents.
Are you really so trusting that you would post your home address to a
message board?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "home address", I do know that you
can contact Derek through that email address (drop the "nospam", of
course).

I find it interesting that she insists that she be contacted, rather
than performing that simple act herself, nonetheless as a public
service, I will do so.

D.

Yes, you contacted me, and offered to post the FBI information on the
Internet. Then you sent me a follow-up email to "verify" I was the
person in this message board. THEN you failed to send your mailing
address. What should I infer from that?

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

This isn't a reply to OM, but it's the end of the thread (currently)
so I'm posting here. I find it AMAZING that as much as many of you
have yammered about wanting data and citations NOT ONE OF YOU has
responded to posting #164 except for OM's usual drivel.

Get it through your head: this is NOT a web-based discussion. "Posting
#164" doesn't mean anything to anyone reading along with a real usenet
newsreader program.

Faced with
facts, you duck and cover?
LaDonna

Faced with questions, you evade and insult?

If you're that Internet-challenged, how can you claim to be an
educated individual? You wanted documented facts, I posted them, now
you claim ignorance and you can't find them. Yet users seem to be
able to find out where I used to live, and where Scott's latest post
came from, right down to city and terminal. Give me a break. Stop
jerking me around; you know where the post is; answer it or shut up.

"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message ...
"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
om...
I find it AMAZING that as much as many of you
have yammered about wanting data and citations NOT ONE OF YOU has
responded to posting #164

That's because "posting #164" doesn't mean anything. Specifically, which
post do you consider to be "posting #164"? Please provide a Google cite, an
example of which is directly above.

OK, Children, (and I fully realize you are completely wasting my time)
it is posting 164 on the thread I first started. If you can't find
the original thread, then you REALLY have brass complaining that I am
not "Usenet" savvy.

"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
om...
"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message
...
"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
om...
I find it AMAZING that as much as many of you
have yammered about wanting data and citations NOT ONE OF YOU has
responded to posting #164

That's because "posting #164" doesn't mean anything. Specifically, which
post do you consider to be "posting #164"? Please provide a Google cite,
an
example of which is directly above.

OK, Children, (and I fully realize you are completely wasting my time)
it is posting 164 on the thread I first started. If you can't find
the original thread, then you REALLY have brass complaining that I am
not "Usenet" savvy.

First, most of us are not children. At least one of us (not myself) helped
write some of the original Usenet software.

And again, "posting 164" means nothing outside of Google. That's a google
specific ID.

You need the message header that looks something like:
om

As you clearly don't understand the difference between a Google posting ID
and a Usenet ID, I wouldn't go around complaining about others.

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?

--
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...
If all of the "evidence" Jay Whindley has is the "Hill Report" (which
is NOT a report), I am at a loss to understand exactly what it is you
want Scott to answer.

It's not, and he's shown otherwise.

Where's your evidence?

Where is your "team"?