|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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.) |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Apollo 1/204 Witness Statements | Charleston | History | 2 | June 30th 04 01:46 AM |