A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » History
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Apollo One, the FBI, and Scott Grissom



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old June 4th 04, 12:27 AM
Jim Davis
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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?

Jim Davis
  #12  
Old June 4th 04, 12:48 AM
Andrew Gray
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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]

--
-Andrew Gray

  #13  
Old June 4th 04, 12:49 AM
Scott Hedrick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
om...
First, I am not going to post Gus Grissom's autopsy report on the
Internet.


If you bring it up, the burden is on *you*.

I wouldn't even DREAM of asking Betty Grissom's permission
to do such a thing.


Not needed. It's a public record.

Second, my medical credentials have nothing to do
with it.


*You* drew medical conclusions, so let's see your medical credentials.
Otherwise, you are no more qualified than my cat.

Scott had that report examined by a top forensic
pathologist; you should ask for HIS credentials.


Name, please.

Yes, I know what
hemorrhagic pulmonary edema means; are you incapable of doing an
Internet search?


Are you capable of providing a verifiable reference? It's *your* burden to
do so.

It is basically internal bleeding of the lungs.


On the other hand, what is it, *in detail*, and what is the source of your
information?

Clearly, you're a n00b, since you are unaware of how this sort of an
investigation works. Pay less attention to "scott" and more to logic. *You*
have asserted certain claims here, which means that *you* have the entire
burden to support them. Nobody has any obligation whatsoever to look for
evidence to support your claims. I don't need to do an Internet search for
"pulmonary edema" since I'm not the one asserting the claim. *You* said it,
so *you* provide the cite. If you talk to an expert, you need to provide a
name that can be verified. If you have supporters, they need to post here-
email supporters are imaginary supporters.

Otherwise, your investigation will be as useful as "scott"'s has been- that
is, meaningless. "scott" doesn't seem to be able to provide any
independently verifiable evidence- he seems to have forgotten the names of
the people he's spoken to, at least, until they die and can no longer deny
his claims.

So far, you have shown nothing in the way of a real, independent
investigation. What you've shown is that you are looking for any desperate
scrap that will support "scott", which is a pretty strong indicator that
you're one of "scott"'s brown-nosers using a new address. You're using the
same style of attack as "scott", although thus far your spelling and
punctuation is better than he seems capable of showing.


  #16  
Old June 4th 04, 12:54 AM
Scott Hedrick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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


None of which answers the question. Furthermore, I didn't use "reasonable"
because this isn't a legal forum, it's a scientific one, and the standard of
proof is more than "reasonable" doubt.

And, as for the piece of metal, you do understand the concept of a
hard short (aka "dead" short)?


I've worked with electricity for a long time. I'm well aware of what a hard
short is, just as I am aware that you did not answer my question.
Specifically, let's see the verifiable evidence in which "scott"'s claims
about the roll switch, that it was *the* cause of the fire, is true. Strange
that it managed to survive the fire, since if it were the cause it would
have been in the area most badly damaged, but it looks in fairly good shape.

"scott"'s analysis won't work here, if you are doing a truly *independent*
investigation. What is the name and verifiable contact information for the
expert who examined the switch?


  #17  
Old June 4th 04, 02:10 AM
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Andrew Gray wrote:

[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]


In the United States there is no statute of limitations on capital
crimes IIRC.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
  #19  
Old June 4th 04, 05:09 AM
Scott Hedrick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
om...
Anyway, is this the best you can do?


Bwahahahahahahahahahaha! OK, OM, she's challenged you. A definite n00b.


  #20  
Old June 4th 04, 05:10 AM
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Scott Hedrick" wrote:

You're using the
same style of attack as "scott", although thus far your spelling and
punctuation is better than he seems capable of showing.


Not only the same style of attack, but in several instance the exact
same phraseology.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.