Apollo One, the FBI, and Scott Grissom

"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
om...
OK, I'm on limited time at the moment

Now she's paranoid- what, you think NASA's out to get you?

so I will have to go
point-by-point later this evening when my roommate isn't here.

Hiding from your roommate, eh?

However, I do have points off the top of my head:

Among other things.

1. WHY are you raising questions from weeks ago?

You have a tremendous backlog of questions to answer already, such as the
names and jurisdictions of the law enforcement personnel you spoke to about
Apollo 1.

2. You've provided NO documentation that the RCS itself was being
simulated.

Whoopty doo. *You* haven't provided any documentation to support your claim
that you have "teammates".

Where was the burn damage to the cryo stir
switch on Apollo 13?

Where are the names and jurisdictions for the law enforcement personnel you
spoke to about Apollo 1?

There WAS none.

Sounds like a confession. Are you admitting you lied about talking to any
law enforcement personnel about Apollo 1?

Because THAT'S NOT WHERE
THE PROBLEM WAS!

*You're* problem is obvious. You'd breath much easier if your nostrils were
on the OUTSIDE of your rectum.

Yes, the S-11
switch ultimately caused the problem,

Prove it.

Do you not understand basic electricity?

YOU don't. If you did, you'd have answered at least some of rk's questions
long ago, instead of pretending they don't exist.

Daniel, you said yourself you do not know about this particular realm
of investigation.

He certainly doesn't seem to be familiar with the style of investigation you
use in your fanstasy realm.

Why in the world would you spend a week reading the
Review Board Report and then assert yourself as a fire expert?

You've asserted yourself as an expert in a lot more places with a lot less
research. Whine, whine, whine...

Why
don't you do what I have done, and interview electricians,
technicians, engineers, etc., and then get back to me in six months or
so?

Such as? Names, please.

You are asserting theories that have no basis in FACT.

Just like you.

You are
ASSUMING

Daniel! Run away! She's asking for sex again!

No such evidence is
available

The names and jurisdictions of the law enforcement personnel you spoke to
about Apollo 1, that is...

It's like Scott has said more than once--if someone shorts your
ignition switch, and your car goes up in flames, can you say that
because the fire started in the battery the ignition switch was not
the problem?

Liar! I've *never* said that.

I specifically referenced those statements.
Where are they?

If you referenced them *you* should know.

The truth is NEVER
EVER as bad as the lies, questions, suspicions, and cover-ups.

Why then do you prefer the lies?

But as an investigative reporter told me not long ago on
the telephone, the cover-up is ALWAYS worse than the lie.

Cite, please. You have the proper form.

"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
m...
I've already shown this test
protocol is inaccurate.

You've *claimed* it- you haven't proven it.

I think it's public knowledge it was not.

You seem to have a lot of problem with public knowledge. So much of it seems
to exist only in your head.

Can you not find
other "evidence?"

Can you find *any*?

First, the voice transcript
has been DOCTORED. I've said that umpteen times.

You've said a lot of things that are imaginary.

How do I know that?
Because Bell Labs voice tape analysis indicates conversation that is
NOT reflected in NASA's transcript.

Prove it.

Would you like a copy?

Sure. You already have an address.

Again, since NASA cut-and-paste the voice transcript to suit
themselves,

You do the same with reality, why are you complaining?

As for where the fire started, I will say it again: the heater.
Period. End of question.

Prove it.

Again, I think you need to wait until
you get your hands on the actual TESTIMONY from NASA in Volume I
before you start quoting information from the Review Board as Gospel.

Provide some cites.

wrote in message
...
Again, I get back to the car scenario:

If you'd get back to the issue of the names and jurisdictions of the law
enforcement personnel you spoke to about Apollo 1 and simply provide
verifiable answers, or admit you lied, it will go away.

I've also given the house fire scenario--

SO know you think someone was trying to burn down Gus' house?

I almost
caught my apartment on fire once.

Freebasing does that.

I figured it was a "no brainer."

Perfect for you.

(medical explanation: electrical jolts settle in the
joints.)

Cite, please.

Stop trying to make
electrical arguments that make no sense.

Why? You do.

WHY is that so hard for you to understand, Daniel?

He's not using the same chemical assistance you use.

Perhaps you should
do what I did: Find yourself some electrical engineers and ASK them
about electrical shorts and fires. You do NOT need the names and phone
numbers of MY sources

Not if you're lying, of course. A *good* investigator knows that such claims
need to be verified.

Or are you claiming that you've talked to *every possible electrical
engineer in the world*?

Hedrick, do you not have a job? Go do it, would you? There ARE people
in here who ARE asking intelligent questions. You are NOT one of them.
LaDonna

Good golly, No WONDER I can't keep up! Talk about garulous! OK, let's
try to make this simple, shall we? Daniel, and others, are trying to
claim the hand controllers and the RCS were all simulated, and nothing
was actually happening with the above, correct? Let's go with that,
although I've already offered Daniel the opportunity to speak with
someone who KNOWS better, who worked the pad and knows the difference
between GSE and actual power, but let's play your game. Herb, you are
lying. Daniel has NOT proven that the RCS was being simulated; he has
only repeated ad nauseum NASA's claim about the simulators, and NO ONE
had provided ANY PROOF that the VALVES were being simulated. Does
ANYONE on this news group understand the word "load??????????" "Load"
means electrical load, as in power. WHERE and HOW do you extrapolate
from that that valve MOVEMENT is being simulated?????? Did Borman
whisper that in your ear? Because there is not ONE ounce of evidence
that valve movement was being simulated. Not one. You are ASS U MING
that. Provide the proof, and I will listen. Until then, you are just
playing the role of NASA apologists, and I'm right back to the speech I
gave on the Fourth of July.
LaDonna

"Scott Hedrick" wrote:
"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message

If you're going to claim the RCS was disabled,
and the hand controllers wired to a simulator, then where's the
evidence?

With your imaginary "teammates", no doubt.

What I DO know is this: There was damage to the hand
controller NASA could not explain;

Cite, please.

Actually this one is true as far as the damage goes and I would not be
surprised if the FBI was called in to try and shed some light on the issue.

that is why they asked the FBI to
take fingerprints for analysis (the results of which the FBI refuses
to disclose.)

So instant cover-up?

Cite, please.

Yes that would be interesting.

P.S. If anyone wants "proof" the FBI took fingerprints, and that they
are now claiming ignorance, email me and I will send it to you.

How can you possibly send paper through the Internet?

You have to fold it up pretty small but it is easier to scan it or take a
digital photo and send it an e-mail attachement:-)

Daniel

Daniel, you are well aware of my technological constraints. If you
truly want to resolve this issue, you know what to do. Meanwhile,
again I ask, if there's nothing to these claims, then why was the FBI
involved, and why do they claim to not know WHY they were involved now?
Does that NOT raise anyone's curiousity?
LaDonna

wrote in message
...
I'm just now getting to Google with any time involvement. I've only
"jumped in and out" until now. If you've got another post, I'll find
it in a minute. Meanwhile, Daniel, what ARE you talking about? A fire
caused by a switch is not necessarily going to cause electrical burn
damage to the switch itself; only if that is the ignition POINT.

Um, you tell me? You cut off whatever it was I wrote. Given that I have
made a few post you'd know better than me. I can't even read my own mind
how am I supposed to read yours;-) ?

snipped but not read

Daniel

wrote:

Good golly, No WONDER I can't keep up! Talk about garulous! OK, let's
try to make this simple, shall we? Daniel, and others, are trying to
claim the hand controllers and the RCS were all simulated, and nothing
was actually happening with the above, correct?

No that would be utter bull**** and you'd know that if you read the words in
my posts thoroughly. I think you need to take a couple days off. How about
we all meet back here say next Monday? Seriously?

although I've already offered Daniel the opportunity to speak with
someone who KNOWS better, who worked the pad and knows the difference
between GSE and actual power, but let's play your game. Herb, you are
lying. Daniel has NOT proven that the RCS was being simulated; he has
only repeated ad nauseum NASA's claim about the simulators, and NO ONE
had provided ANY PROOF that the VALVES were being simulated. Does
ANYONE on this news group understand the word "load??????????" "Load"
means electrical load, as in power. WHERE and HOW do you extrapolate
from that that valve MOVEMENT is being simulated?????? Did Borman
whisper that in your ear? Because there is not ONE ounce of evidence
that valve movement was being simulated. Not one. You are ASS U MING
that. Provide the proof, and I will listen. Until then, you are just
playing the role of NASA apologists, and I'm right back to the speech I
gave on the Fourth of July.

Please define the kind of proof you need and be specific. Never mind that
you didn't know that there were any simulators pertaining to any SM or CM
RCS that day. The only proof type I have not provided yet is photographic.
As you now know there was no film in the TV cameras nor was any videotape
running. That leaves some after the fact accident investigation photography
which was I am gonna guess you will claim is doctored. How about the
transcripts in your spreadsheet?

Daniel

wrote in message
...

Daniel, you are well aware of my technological constraints.

We are all painfully aware of your technological constraints trust me. I
have no monopoly in that department.

If you truly want to resolve this issue, you know what to do.

Resolve which issue?

Meanwhile,
again I ask, if there's nothing to these claims, then why was the FBI
involved, and why do they claim to not know WHY they were involved now?

Huh?

Does that NOT raise anyone's curiousity?

Good night.

Daniel