troll (assumed) responses

(LaDonna Wyss) wrote:
Oh, THIS is going to be FUN. First, I don't know WHAT training you
claim to have had with Gus, but if you are in the middle of a "flash
fire", with your faceplate open, and you are milliseconds from dying,
are you seriously trying to tell me you would take the time to use
proper radio protocol????

Yes, I would. Because I've been through hundreds of drills and
hundreds of hours of training across ten years in the Submarine
Service including over a year of workups and inspections subsequent to
bring a submarine out of the shipyards and then four deterrent
patrols. Those reflexes have been hammered into my brain and
subconscious in way that those who haven't had such or similar
experiences cannot even comprehend. (In the same way Ted Williams
could describe his amazing faculties as "I see the ball and I hit it".
That simple sentence compressed years of training and experience into
eight words.)

Those protocols exist for very good reasons (outlined in my original
post), I note that you fail to adress them and the consequences of
violating them.

BEFORE you answer, let me make you aware I was in a life-threatening
situation once; I'm still here which tells you something about my survival
instincts.

No it doesn't. You can't draw a curve through a single data point,
nor can you derive any reliable statistics.

A million thoughts cross your mind at the same time, and each one is
crystal-clear--

Not when you are trained in the black art and subtle science that is
emergency reflexes. When you are, you *don't* think, you act utterly
reflexively. You might be able to reconstruct your thoughts later,
but not at the time.

if Gus knew he was "burning up" as he spoke he would have said to HELL
with protocol, and you damned well know it.

An interesting conundrum you pose here. You've been telling us what a
consummate professional Gus is... Yet now you want us to believe that
he would have thrown that all away when confronted with the very thing
that professionalism was oriented towards.

As for witness inconsistencies; inconsistencies are one thing. But if
you are such an expert on witness statements, you must realize when
you have 102 pages all saying the SAME DAMNED THING,...HELLO???????

If I have 102 pages all saying the exact same thing... I *know* there
is a problem because multiple eyewitnesses *couldn't* have had
identical experiences. It's almost a certainty at that point that the
witnesses have discussed among themselves what happened and slowly the
shared discussion begins to replace actual memories. This is a well
know effect.

As for what caused the fi I know EXACTLY what caused the fire. So
does NASA; they're just not telling the story.

So, place your supporting information into evidence.

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

"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
om...
Oh, THIS is going to be FUN.

LaDonna: I started out feeling sympathetic towards you. You seemed to be
rational and receiving rough treatment at the hands of the more aggressive
members of this parish. I'm afraid that sympathy has now evaporated. We're
back into very old territory; we've been there, done that, bought a shedload
of T-shirts - as you'll know if you've read the archives. I don't understand
why we're doing it yet again. What is to be gained?

One question, and then I'm out of he you said you're conducting an
investigation. Why, and on whose behalf?

Steve
http://www.fivetrees.com

"Steve at fivetrees" wrote in message ...
A small rant: I came here because I'm interested in a) space history, and b)
shooting the breeze with like-minded anoraks^H^H^H^H^H^H^H people. I'm not
the least bit interested in the apparent feud between some of this parish
and Scott Grissom et al. I'm frankly shocked at, and tired of, the degree
(and the incredible bulk!) of venom currently directed at LaDonna. (Yes, I
am aware of the history of this issue. I'm tired of it, but mostly tired of
the responses.)

If a troll posts, why feed it? Why foul our own nest?

Please, guys, show a little restraint.

Steve
http://www.fivetrees.com

As a frequent lurker and infrequent poster I have to degree with the
sentiment of stop feeding the troll. Lord knows, its obvious she is a
conspiracy theorist with dubious proof, little experience in debate,
no usenet experience and lots of free time. Arguing with her isn't
going to change anyone's perception of the above...

Daniel

"Daniel Eig" wrote ...
"Steve at fivetrees" wrote ...
If a troll posts, why feed it? Why foul our own nest?

As a frequent lurker and infrequent poster I have to degree with the
sentiment of stop feeding the troll.

I guess there are degrees of agreement.

"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
om...
Oh, THIS is going to be FUN.

Your posts usually are. What they are not are informative.

First, I don't know WHAT training you
claim to have had with Gus

He didn't say that he had any training at all *with* Gus.

, but if you are in the middle of a "flash
fire", with your faceplate open, and you are milliseconds from dying,
are you seriously trying to tell me you would take the time to use
proper radio protocol????

If a person was "milliseconds" from dying, they don't do anything, because
the body cannot react that fast.

if Gus knew
he was "burning up" as he spoke he would have said to HELL with
protocol, and you damned well know it.

Why do you hate Gus so? He was a consummate professional, and obeyed his
training, because he knew- unlike yourself- that failure to follow protocol
not only endangers himself, but his crewmates.

As for what caused the fi I know EXACTLY what caused the fire.

Then please tell us, *along with your verifiable evidence*. Without the
evidence, your words mean nothing, and if you were a truly competent
investigator, you'd know that.

So
does NASA; they're just not telling the story.

They prefer to tell the truth. Perhaps you can do the same, starting with
the names and jurisdictions of the legal authorities you said you contacted
about this matter.

"Steve at fivetrees" wrote in message ...
"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
om...
Oh, THIS is going to be FUN.

LaDonna: I started out feeling sympathetic towards you. You seemed to be
rational and receiving rough treatment at the hands of the more aggressive
members of this parish. I'm afraid that sympathy has now evaporated. We're
back into very old territory; we've been there, done that, bought a shedload
of T-shirts - as you'll know if you've read the archives. I don't understand
why we're doing it yet again. What is to be gained?

One question, and then I'm out of he you said you're conducting an
investigation. Why, and on whose behalf?

Steve
http://www.fivetrees.com

1. Because I don't like lies. 2. On Gus' behalf.

(Derek Lyons) wrote in message ...
(LaDonna Wyss) wrote:
Oh, THIS is going to be FUN. First, I don't know WHAT training you
claim to have had with Gus, but if you are in the middle of a "flash
fire", with your faceplate open, and you are milliseconds from dying,
are you seriously trying to tell me you would take the time to use
proper radio protocol????

Yes, I would. Because I've been through hundreds of drills and
hundreds of hours of training across ten years in the Submarine
Service including over a year of workups and inspections subsequent to
bring a submarine out of the shipyards and then four deterrent
patrols. Those reflexes have been hammered into my brain and
subconscious in way that those who haven't had such or similar
experiences cannot even comprehend. (In the same way Ted Williams
could describe his amazing faculties as "I see the ball and I hit it".
That simple sentence compressed years of training and experience into
eight words.)

Those protocols exist for very good reasons (outlined in my original
post), I note that you fail to adress them and the consequences of
violating them.

BEFORE you answer, let me make you aware I was in a life-threatening
situation once; I'm still here which tells you something about my survival
instincts.

No it doesn't. You can't draw a curve through a single data point,
nor can you derive any reliable statistics.

A million thoughts cross your mind at the same time, and each one is
crystal-clear--

Not when you are trained in the black art and subtle science that is
emergency reflexes. When you are, you *don't* think, you act utterly
reflexively. You might be able to reconstruct your thoughts later,
but not at the time.

if Gus knew he was "burning up" as he spoke he would have said to HELL
with protocol, and you damned well know it.

An interesting conundrum you pose here. You've been telling us what a
consummate professional Gus is... Yet now you want us to believe that
he would have thrown that all away when confronted with the very thing
that professionalism was oriented towards.

As for witness inconsistencies; inconsistencies are one thing. But if
you are such an expert on witness statements, you must realize when
you have 102 pages all saying the SAME DAMNED THING,...HELLO???????

If I have 102 pages all saying the exact same thing... I *know* there
is a problem because multiple eyewitnesses *couldn't* have had
identical experiences. It's almost a certainty at that point that the
witnesses have discussed among themselves what happened and slowly the
shared discussion begins to replace actual memories. This is a well
know effect.

As for what caused the fi I know EXACTLY what caused the fire. So
does NASA; they're just not telling the story.

So, place your supporting information into evidence.

D.

Oh, OK. Who was it in here who brought up "Occam's Razor?" What is
easier to believe: That Gus was more concerned about radio protocol,
or that he wanted to GET HIS CREW OUT OF THERE?????? If you're about
to die in milliseconds, I don't care HOW many drills you have been
through...the real thing is FAR DIFFERENT (something you would know if
you'd actually been IN the real thing. It is not a slam to say Gus
would not have been worried about saying "Break", it is simply a
statement of fact. You've got flames in your face (according to
NASA.) You are burning alive. Yet you don't bother to close your
visor (which would at least keep you from the intense pain of having
your face burn), and you calmly say, "Break" and pause for 1.7 seconds
as though you have all evening for someone to hear you crying for
help.
DUH!!!!!!!!!!!

In article ,
(LaDonna Wyss) wrote:

Oh, OK. Who was it in here who brought up "Occam's Razor?" What is
easier to believe: That Gus was more concerned about radio protocol,
or that he wanted to GET HIS CREW OUT OF THERE?????? If you're about
to die in milliseconds, I don't care HOW many drills you have been
through...the real thing is FAR DIFFERENT (something you would know if
you'd actually been IN the real thing.

How do *you* know this?

It is not a slam to say Gus
would not have been worried about saying "Break", it is simply a
statement of fact. You've got flames in your face (according to
NASA.) You are burning alive. Yet you don't bother to close your
visor (which would at least keep you from the intense pain of having
your face burn), and you calmly say, "Break" and pause for 1.7 seconds
as though you have all evening for someone to hear you crying for
help.

Why do you continue to believe his visor was open?

"The Command Pilot was lying supine on the aft bulkhead or floor of the
Command Module, with his helmet visor closed and locked and with his
head beneath the Pilot's head rest and his feet on his own couch."

For that matter, so were the visors of White and Chaffee:

"The Senior Pilot's couch (the center couch) was in the "96 degree"
position in which the back portion is horizontal and lower in the raised
position. The buckle releasing the shoulder straps and lap belts was not
opened. The straps and belts were burned through. The suit oxygen outlet
hose was connected but the inlet hose was disconnected. The helmet visor
was closed and locked and all electrical connections were intact. The
Senior Pilot was lying transversely across the Command Module just below
the level of the hatchway.

"The Pilot's couch (the center couch) was in the "264 degree" position
in which the back portion is horizontal and the lower portion dropped
toward the floor. All restraints were disconnected, all hoses and
electrical connections were intact and the helmet visor was closed and
locked. The Pilot was supine on his couch."

DUH!!!!!!!!!!!

Well, yes, exactly.

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
Columbia Loss FAQ:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 07:04:10 GMT, (Derek
Lyons) wrote:

If I have 102 pages all saying the exact same thing... I *know* there
is a problem because multiple eyewitnesses *couldn't* have had
identical experiences.

....Actually, if you have 102 pages all saying the exact same thing,
there was obviously something wrong with the autofeeder on the copier.

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

On 8 Jun 2004 23:00:15 -0700, (LaDonna Wyss)
wrote:

You don't need to be Columbo to solve that one.

....Peter Falk had a fake eye. You've got a fake cause.

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