Scott Grissom's murder accusations

I finally decided to do a Google search on the topic, and found several
instances. Here is one that display's scott's typically muddled way of
presenting his arguments:

http://www.google.com/groups?q=Schir...roup:sci.space.
*&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=cb61a8e3.0108100732.2ac1993d%
40posting.google.com&rnum=27&filter=0

(You'll have to do some copying & pasting to get this into your
browser's address field.)

Here is the text of the post:

--------------------------------------------------------------

From: scott )
Subject: Apollo 1 - Scott's Version Of Events
View: Complete Thread (251 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: sci.space.history
Date: 2001-08-10 08:39:51 PST


"John Geenty" wrote in message news:
...
Just to get everything clear and look at some of the broader issues involved
in Scott's case I'd like to start a new thread here. We all understand by
now that Scott believes the Apollo 1 crew were murdered, but I'd like to ask
him a few further questions.

1) Just to make clear, was the Apollo 1 crew murdered by NASA?

2) Do you believe the entire Astronaut Corps was in on the murder? Or just
senior members like Shepard, Borman, Schirra and presumably Slayton since he
picked the crew in the first place.

3) Why was the murder planned in such a complicated manner? Why not simply
have Grissom and White die in a T-38 crash or, kill them in a car accident,
or make it look like a heart attack?

4) Why did the Apollo 1 crew need to be killed? What threat did they pose to
NASA at the time?

5) How many others are in on the conspiracy? Presumably most of the staff of
Mission Control must have been involved in some degree so that they wouldn't
ask why the crew wasn't being helped if they lived for as long as you've
suggested. The whole Pad crew must have been involved so that they wouldn't
rescue the crew before they had died. Most of the North American engineers,
since they designed the Block I CSM. Both Apollo 1 backup crews, so that
they don't accidentally cause the fire themselves. And presumably virtually
of NASA senior management, the likes of Seamans, Webb and Shea.

6) Do you think man landed on the moon in 1969?

I know most of the regulars would like to pitch in here and ask a few
questions themselves, but I'd like to here Scott's answers first without
anyone else distracting him and thus leading to a new flamewar.

John

1. no, i've never said that. the star made that up. 2. all
astronauts were listed as investigators. that makes them part of the
coverup. 3.i believe the rcs sys. was meant to fail much like it did
on gt-8. causing the loss of the crew and spacecraft. 4. bull****
question. 5. i have no idea 'who'. but i can tell you how it was
done. who was the last person to work on MDC pnl #8? 6. well, let's
see. there were only two mission patches that were not on flight suits
or in my fathers office at msc. my brother mark and i had those two.
mine was given to neil to be placed on the moon. that's well doc'ed.
and it really only starts the patch story.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, see how the argument becomes muddled. Scott insists that he never
accused NASA of murdering the Apollo 1 crew -- that this was something
the Star invented -- and yet in his answer to #3, he states "i believe
the rcs sys. was meant to fail much like it did on gt-8. causing the
loss of the crew and spacecraft." So, scott states that he thinks
SOMEONE meant to cause the loss of the crew (meaning someone intended
for the crew to end up dead). I suppose his answer to #1 means that
NASA as a whole wasn't trying to murder his father. However, in other
posts I found, he stated that "wally and frank are at risk" if there is
a new Apollo 1 investigation, wondering if there is any statute of
limitations on "accessory to murder."

He also expanded on his answer to #5 in other posts, saying that Schirra
had been in CSM 012 several days prior to the fatal Plugs-Out test
(performing the crew functions, along with Eisele and Cunningham, during
the "wet" CDDT), and that he strongly suspected that Schirra had jammed
a piece of metal into the wiring in order to sabotage the vehicle. He
wanted a fingerprint analysis on the hand controller and the MDC,
apparently to prove that Schirra had put his hands where they didn't
belong.

Doug

Doug... wrote in message ...
I finally decided to do a Google search on the topic, and found several
instances. Here is one that display's scott's typically muddled way of
presenting his arguments:

http://www.google.com/groups?q=Schir...roup:sci.space.
*&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=cb61a8e3.0108100732.2ac1993d%
40posting.google.com&rnum=27&filter=0

(You'll have to do some copying & pasting to get this into your
browser's address field.)

Here is the text of the post:

--------------------------------------------------------------

From: scott )
Subject: Apollo 1 - Scott's Version Of Events
View: Complete Thread (251 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: sci.space.history
Date: 2001-08-10 08:39:51 PST


"John Geenty" wrote in message news:
...
Just to get everything clear and look at some of the broader issues involved
in Scott's case I'd like to start a new thread here. We all understand by
now that Scott believes the Apollo 1 crew were murdered, but I'd like to ask
him a few further questions.

1) Just to make clear, was the Apollo 1 crew murdered by NASA?

2) Do you believe the entire Astronaut Corps was in on the murder? Or just
senior members like Shepard, Borman, Schirra and presumably Slayton since he
picked the crew in the first place.

3) Why was the murder planned in such a complicated manner? Why not simply
have Grissom and White die in a T-38 crash or, kill them in a car accident,
or make it look like a heart attack?

4) Why did the Apollo 1 crew need to be killed? What threat did they pose to
NASA at the time?

5) How many others are in on the conspiracy? Presumably most of the staff of
Mission Control must have been involved in some degree so that they wouldn't
ask why the crew wasn't being helped if they lived for as long as you've
suggested. The whole Pad crew must have been involved so that they wouldn't
rescue the crew before they had died. Most of the North American engineers,
since they designed the Block I CSM. Both Apollo 1 backup crews, so that
they don't accidentally cause the fire themselves. And presumably virtually
of NASA senior management, the likes of Seamans, Webb and Shea.

6) Do you think man landed on the moon in 1969?

I know most of the regulars would like to pitch in here and ask a few
questions themselves, but I'd like to here Scott's answers first without
anyone else distracting him and thus leading to a new flamewar.

John

1. no, i've never said that. the star made that up. 2. all
astronauts were listed as investigators. that makes them part of the
coverup. 3.i believe the rcs sys. was meant to fail much like it did
on gt-8. causing the loss of the crew and spacecraft. 4. bull****
question. 5. i have no idea 'who'. but i can tell you how it was
done. who was the last person to work on MDC pnl #8? 6. well, let's
see. there were only two mission patches that were not on flight suits
or in my fathers office at msc. my brother mark and i had those two.
mine was given to neil to be placed on the moon. that's well doc'ed.
and it really only starts the patch story.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, see how the argument becomes muddled. Scott insists that he never
accused NASA of murdering the Apollo 1 crew -- that this was something
the Star invented -- and yet in his answer to #3, he states "i believe
the rcs sys. was meant to fail much like it did on gt-8. causing the
loss of the crew and spacecraft." So, scott states that he thinks
SOMEONE meant to cause the loss of the crew (meaning someone intended
for the crew to end up dead). I suppose his answer to #1 means that
NASA as a whole wasn't trying to murder his father. However, in other
posts I found, he stated that "wally and frank are at risk" if there is
a new Apollo 1 investigation, wondering if there is any statute of
limitations on "accessory to murder."

He also expanded on his answer to #5 in other posts, saying that Schirra
had been in CSM 012 several days prior to the fatal Plugs-Out test
(performing the crew functions, along with Eisele and Cunningham, during
the "wet" CDDT), and that he strongly suspected that Schirra had jammed
a piece of metal into the wiring in order to sabotage the vehicle. He
wanted a fingerprint analysis on the hand controller and the MDC,
apparently to prove that Schirra had put his hands where they didn't
belong.

Doug


OK, hold up. First, thank you for that very candid and time-consuming
account of what's been happening with Scott on this website. I truly
appreciate it. NOW. You say Scott said, "he strongly suspected that
Schirra had jammed a piece of metal into the wiring in order to
sabotage the vehicle." This is a CRITICAL question: Where and when
did he say this? Citation, I beg you.
LaDonna

In article ,
(LaDonna Wyss) wrote:

OK, hold up. First, thank you for that very candid and time-consuming
account of what's been happening with Scott on this website.

This is not a website, it's usenet. That has been explained to you
repeatedly over the last several days. If you cannot grasp this basic,
essential fact, you can hardly be expected to be taken seriously about
the AS-204 fire.

--
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...
OK, hold up. First, thank you for that very candid and time-consuming
account of what's been happening with Scott on this website.

What website are you talking about?

Doug... wrote in message ...
I finally decided to do a Google search on the topic, and found several
instances. Here is one that display's scott's typically muddled way of
presenting his arguments:

http://www.google.com/groups?q=Schir...roup:sci.space.
*&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=cb61a8e3.0108100732.2ac1993d%
40posting.google.com&rnum=27&filter=0

(You'll have to do some copying & pasting to get this into your
browser's address field.)

Here is the text of the post:

--------------------------------------------------------------

From: scott )
Subject: Apollo 1 - Scott's Version Of Events
View: Complete Thread (251 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: sci.space.history
Date: 2001-08-10 08:39:51 PST


"John Geenty" wrote in message news:
...
Just to get everything clear and look at some of the broader issues involved
in Scott's case I'd like to start a new thread here. We all understand by
now that Scott believes the Apollo 1 crew were murdered, but I'd like to ask
him a few further questions.

1) Just to make clear, was the Apollo 1 crew murdered by NASA?

2) Do you believe the entire Astronaut Corps was in on the murder? Or just
senior members like Shepard, Borman, Schirra and presumably Slayton since he
picked the crew in the first place.

3) Why was the murder planned in such a complicated manner? Why not simply
have Grissom and White die in a T-38 crash or, kill them in a car accident,
or make it look like a heart attack?

4) Why did the Apollo 1 crew need to be killed? What threat did they pose to
NASA at the time?

5) How many others are in on the conspiracy? Presumably most of the staff of
Mission Control must have been involved in some degree so that they wouldn't
ask why the crew wasn't being helped if they lived for as long as you've
suggested. The whole Pad crew must have been involved so that they wouldn't
rescue the crew before they had died. Most of the North American engineers,
since they designed the Block I CSM. Both Apollo 1 backup crews, so that
they don't accidentally cause the fire themselves. And presumably virtually
of NASA senior management, the likes of Seamans, Webb and Shea.

6) Do you think man landed on the moon in 1969?

I know most of the regulars would like to pitch in here and ask a few
questions themselves, but I'd like to here Scott's answers first without
anyone else distracting him and thus leading to a new flamewar.

John

1. no, i've never said that. the star made that up. 2. all
astronauts were listed as investigators. that makes them part of the
coverup. 3.i believe the rcs sys. was meant to fail much like it did
on gt-8. causing the loss of the crew and spacecraft. 4. bull****
question. 5. i have no idea 'who'. but i can tell you how it was
done. who was the last person to work on MDC pnl #8? 6. well, let's
see. there were only two mission patches that were not on flight suits
or in my fathers office at msc. my brother mark and i had those two.
mine was given to neil to be placed on the moon. that's well doc'ed.
and it really only starts the patch story.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, see how the argument becomes muddled. Scott insists that he never
accused NASA of murdering the Apollo 1 crew -- that this was something
the Star invented -- and yet in his answer to #3, he states "i believe
the rcs sys. was meant to fail much like it did on gt-8. causing the
loss of the crew and spacecraft." So, scott states that he thinks
SOMEONE meant to cause the loss of the crew (meaning someone intended
for the crew to end up dead). I suppose his answer to #1 means that
NASA as a whole wasn't trying to murder his father. However, in other
posts I found, he stated that "wally and frank are at risk" if there is
a new Apollo 1 investigation, wondering if there is any statute of
limitations on "accessory to murder."

He also expanded on his answer to #5 in other posts, saying that Schirra
had been in CSM 012 several days prior to the fatal Plugs-Out test
(performing the crew functions, along with Eisele and Cunningham, during
the "wet" CDDT), and that he strongly suspected that Schirra had jammed
a piece of metal into the wiring in order to sabotage the vehicle. He
wanted a fingerprint analysis on the hand controller and the MDC,
apparently to prove that Schirra had put his hands where they didn't
belong.

Doug


didn't say any of that vandork. wally wasn't smart enough to use
a 7/16 wrench.

On 11 Jun 2004 00:07:04 -0700, (Scott
Grissom) wrote:

didn't say any of that vandork. wally wasn't smart enough to use
a 7/16 wrench.

....And you're not smart enough to TRIM YOUR GODDAMN QUOTES, you
retarded little *******!

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

OM om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org wrote in message . ..
On 11 Jun 2004 00:07:04 -0700, (Scott
Grissom) wrote:

didn't say any of that vandork. wally wasn't smart enough to use
a 7/16 wrench.

...And you're not smart enough to TRIM YOUR GODDAMN QUOTES, you
retarded little *******!

OM

Nice retort, OM. Did you stay up all night thinking that one up?

"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
m...
OM om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org wrote
in message . ..
On 11 Jun 2004 00:07:04 -0700, (Scott
Grissom) wrote:

didn't say any of that vandork. wally wasn't smart enough to use
a 7/16 wrench.

...And you're not smart enough to TRIM YOUR GODDAMN QUOTES, you
retarded little *******!

OM

Nice retort, OM. Did you stay up all night thinking that one up?

No, it's a reflex action induced by constant drill and practice. Sort of
like what Derek was talking about with regards to emergency preparedness on
submarines. I think Om's gotten it down to under 17 seconds. (Probably by
means of keyboard shortcuts.)

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 16:08:31 -0400, "Ami Silberman"
wrote:

No, it's a reflex action induced by constant drill and practice. Sort of
like what Derek was talking about with regards to emergency preparedness on
submarines. I think Om's gotten it down to under 17 seconds. (Probably by
means of keyboard shortcuts.)

....Six Point Three. It's a macro.

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

"LaDonna Wyss" wrote:

Nice retort, OM. Did you stay up all night thinking that one up?

OM "thinking"? OM "thinking all night"? Now I get it. LOL.

Daniel