 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Space History / June 2004LiOh Canisters: Especially for Herb
Herb, I really should NOT be doing this, because it's an insult to those who used five seconds to think about the importance of analyzing those canisters, but I've decided to indulge you and explain it one more time. The lithium hydroxide canisters (scrubbers) were supposed to be sent to Marshall for analysis. As I've told you before, Moonport incorrectly reports they WERE sent on March 8, 1967. In fact, NASA was SUPPOSED to send them for analysis, but the order to do so was CANCELLED. Why? Well, let's look at NASA's testimony before Congress. You see, by NOT analyzing the scrubbers, they could truthfully tell Congress, "Gee, we don't know WHAT the crew was breathing," thereby ducking the questions that REALLY needed to be asked: How long did it take the crew to die? How do you know that? What toxins contributed to these rapid deaths? Etc. If they had analyzed the scrubbers, there would not BE any questions about toxins, time of travel to the brain, rate of saturation, etc. It would all be there in black-and-white. Instead, we get the hemming and hawing in the Record: Borman says we have no way of knowing how long it took the crew to die. Berry says they dropped dead within five seconds of the first inhalation of carbon monoxide--a statement he retracts that VERY SAME NIGHT when questioned about it again. As I've stated before, the crew died from hemorrhagic pulmonary edema. Roger and I had this debate once as well, but he has not taken the time to study the medical evidence. The fact is, hemorrhagic pulmonary edema takes far longer than 23 seconds to develop, and it does not develop post-mortem. So, unless NASA could produce scrubbers that proved cyanide gas had permeated the crew compartment instantly, they had a real problem with their "everybody died instantly" scenario, so they chose not to have the LiOH canisters analyzed. And, in case Roger wishes to jump into this argument for a second time (his wife is a nurse), let me tell you that you would be amazed on whose authority I have that information. Scott's expert pathologist is no longer the only one saying his father took 15 to 20 minutes to die, and that NASA's timeframe is B.S. OH, if you would only meet with me, because I'm not ABOUT to tell you on the Internet, but OH, if you only knew who is saying the exact same thing. :-) LaDonna > Herb, I really should NOT be doing this, because it's an insult to > those who used five seconds to think about the importance of analyzing [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > by NOT analyzing the scrubbers, they could truthfully tell Congress, > "Gee, we don't know WHAT the crew was breathing," I thought you read the autopsy reports in their entirety. I won't repeat myself too much except to restate that the crew themselves were the best evidence of what they were exposed to, not some cannisters, nestled below them. As you know the chemical work-up on the crew was fairly extensive and speaks for itself. <large snip of well trodden territory removed> <side-track removed> Daniel > > Herb, I really should NOT be doing this, because it's an insult to > > those who used five seconds to think about the importance of analyzing [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Daniel If "LaDonna" was a truly experienced investigator, she'd remember that I had about six or eight specific things I asked concerning the testing she alleged should have been done. She has yet to address a single one. As I pointed out, and as you (Daniel) agreed, the condition of the spacecraft and the human remains spoke volumes; ergo, what does "LaDonna" believe would be or would have been added to the information available had such testing been performed? THAT question as well has never been answered.  SignatureHerb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D. Reformed Aerospace Engineer Columbia Loss FAQ: <http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html> > > > Herb, I really should NOT be doing this, because it's an insult to > > > those who used five seconds to think about the importance of analyzing [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > available had such testing been performed? THAT question as well has > never been answered. Actually, Daniel, the questions on exactly what the crew was breathing and how long it took the levels of carbon monoxide to build to a lethal dose have always been in question. You've got the Hearings in front of you--at least three of them. Do you not have Volume 1? Read it! Everyone shrugs his shoulders and says, "We don't know WHAT the crew was breathing; the cabin air was never analyzed." The only person who went out on a limb was Berry, and he proved himself to be an idiot when he made the ridiculous assertion that men could drop dead in five seconds--and when someone undoubtedly tapped him on the shoulder in the hallway that afternoon, he came back in the evening session and completely changed his testimony. Herb, as for what you may or may not have asked, who would know given the fact that 95% of your posts are some sort of love session with OM, or Hedrick, or someone else of that ilk? I don't know what questions you might have; it seems rather simple to me...you have the LiOH canisters, you have the opportunity to send them out for testing, you SEND THEM OUT FOR TESTING. Sheesh, Herb, do you realize they even had the crew log books sent for chemical analysis? Well, I thought they already knew everything about this fire--what's with the chemical analysis? Afraid someone sprayed gasoline around the cockpit before the crew entered and it went undetected until the fire? So, why not test the scrubbers? Yes, I've seen the autopsy report, but the scrubbers tell the story of TIME, something you would realize if you thought about it for a minute. The question of TIME has never been answered other than by third-party experts. The scrubbers could have ended the question before it ever began. LaDonna You've got the Hearings in > front of you--at least three of them. Do you not have Volume 1? Read > it! Please cite a specific page, unless you are claiming that the contents of the cabin air is the *entirety* of volume one. Are there "102 pages of testimony" on the subject of the cabin air as well? > Herb, as for what you may or may not have asked, who would know Anyone who read his posts, of course. Perhaps you should try that before replying in the future. Better still, *answer* his questions. given > the fact that 95% of your posts are some sort of love session Herb, she's after you now! Say this carefully and under oath: "I did not have sex with that woman!" Afraid someone sprayed > gasoline around the cockpit before the crew entered and it went > undetected until the fire? Please provide some verifiable evidence, liar. > You've got the Hearings in > > front of you--at least three of them. Do you not have Volume 1? Read [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Please provide some verifiable evidence, liar. She's a narcissistic, attention-seeking fruit loop of the highest order. I expect nothing of her except further misinterpreted "evidence" and a great many more outright fabrications of the sort she's already proven herself guilty of - to with, her claim that I sent an email to her, a claim she now seems content to pretend never happened, the lying, slanderous troll. I'm also still waiting for: the names of her "teammates", the name of "scott's" pathologist, her responses to rk's specific questions, her responses to Michael Gardner's comments, her explanation of how a "hard short" of the sort she and "scott" claim occurred could trigger a fire in a de-engergized RCS thruster quad in the SM which could then smolder unnoticed for 22-odd minutes with all the SM GSE panels open, yet burn around the circumference of the SM and be energetic enough to burn through the base heat shield and aft bulkhead of the CM. SignatureHerb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D. Reformed Aerospace Engineer Columbia Loss FAQ: <http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html> > > You've got the Hearings in > > > front of you--at least three of them. Do you not have Volume 1? Read [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > around the circumference of the SM and be energetic enough to burn > through the base heat shield and aft bulkhead of the CM. Boy, Herb, you put almost as many words in my mouth as Hedrick! I never said the fire burned around the circumference of the SM. I've also never said the RCS thruster quad was de-energized--I don't believe it was, and the evidence doesn't demonstrate that it was. As for the list of teammates, I've addressed this ad nauseum. Also, Scott's pathologist is no longer an issue because he has his expert, and now I have mine who concurs with Scott's. I'm still waiting for RK to email me on his questions I apparently missed (RK, I need you to email me anyway because I'm not getting through to your email anyway and I have something personal to tell you--you should know the subject matter.) And, the fire did not burn through the base heat shield; it travelled up the umbilical and from there burned it's way around the ablative shield between the pressure vessel and the shield. If you looked at the photographs you would be able to see the fire path plain as day. LaDonna > Also, > Scott's pathologist is no longer an issue because he has his > expert, and now I have mine who concurs with Scott's. Would you care to name either one or both of these individuals? If not, why not? Jim Davis > Would you care to name either one or both of these individuals? If > not, why not? Broadly, there are two possible reasons why she can't give their names. (a) they have lousy reputations, or (b) they don't exist. In this instance the likely answer is (b). Why would someone claim "I've done X", and then not want to present details? Usually to start an argument or draw attention to themselves. Signaturebp Proud Member of the Human O-Ring Society Since 2003 > > Also, > > Scott's pathologist is no longer an issue because he has his [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Jim Davis I'm in the process of going through one of Scott's interviews again; he mentions the name but I was asked to listen to it for another reason so I didn't catch it on first review. I'll make a note of it on this next "listen" and let you know. As for my expert, I cannot name him at this time; he's far too crucial. Suffice to say NASA would be quite upset at his findings. However, I'm sure you'll know all about it when the documentary is released. LaDonna > I'm in the process of going through one of Scott's interviews > again; he mentions the name but I was asked to listen to it for > another reason so I didn't catch it on first review. I'll make > a note of it on this next "listen" and let you know. I'll be holding my breath. I take that you've never actually spoken to this person yourself? That you're entirely dependent on Scott for this person's opinions on the Apollo fire, this person's qualifications, and even whether this person exists at all? Does this strike you as the proper way to conduct an investigation? > As for my expert, I cannot name him at this time; he's far too > crucial. I'm not sure I follow you here. How could naming your expert now possibly make any difference? > Suffice to say NASA would be quite upset at his > findings. You do not strike me as someone who cares whether NASA is upset or not. > However, I'm sure you'll know all about it when the > documentary is released. I'll be holding my breath. Jim Davis If you were half as intelligent as you make yourself out to be, you would know full well how naming my expert would make a difference. Things are in the works; certain information, if divulged too soon, could be compromising. If you know so much about investigations, you should know that. As for my caring if NASA is upset: Did I SAY I cared? I cannot wait until they find out who this person is--but now is not the time. It will come, and I'm very much looking forward to it. As for holding your breath, feel free, but post-production takes longer than the 23 seconds NASA claims it takes someone to drop dead without air. :-) LaDonna > If you were half as intelligent as you make yourself out to be, > you would know full well how naming my expert would make a > difference. In the interest of avoiding yet another misunderstanding why don't you just spell out what you're afraid of? Is this too much to ask? > Things are in the works; certain information, if > divulged too soon, could be compromising. If you know so much > about investigations, you should know that. Let's see if I have this straight. You drop into a very public forum out of a clear blue sky, announce that you're making a documentary that will show that NASA engaged in suppression of evidence and were accessories after the fact to murder and sabotage, and announce that you have a pathologist who will back all this up but you're afraid that saying anything more might be "compromising"? Jim Davis By the way, I TRULY wish people would learn to read. I have NEVER said **I** was making a documentary. I do not have a degree in film, and other than being able to point a camera and pushing the "click" button, I have no clue how to do a shoot. > >I do not have a degree in film Or any other degree that is apparent. > I have no clue Duh! > you > would know full well how naming my expert would make a difference. Yeah- he'd have to sue you for slander for associating his name with yours. > Things are in the works; certain information, if divulged too soon, > could be compromising. Yes, it would compromise your house of lies. > As for my expert, I cannot name him at this time; he's far too > crucial. "The lurkers support me in email!" > However, I'm sure you'll know all about it when the documentary is > released. Shame on you for trying to cash in. >As > for the list of teammates, I've addressed this ad nauseum. What you haven't done, however, is provide verifiable names for your "teammates". Also, > Scott's pathologist is no longer an issue because he has his expert Who is that? > and now I have mine who concurs with Scott's. Who is yours? I'm still waiting for > RK to email me on his questions I apparently missed ( He posted them here. Why do you want to try to hide in email? > And, the fire did not burn through the base heat shield; it > travelled up the umbilical and from there burned it's way around the > ablative shield between the pressure vessel and the shield. Cite, please. > What you haven't done, however, is provide verifiable names for your > "teammates". Scott, don't hold your hand on your a.s waiting for answers from this lunatic. I believe the answer to your question about Grissom's expert witnesses may be found on the apollo1.info website. You will find various posts which discuss some issues related to the experts listed. He mentions two experts on the site: Thomas Wheeler, M.D. and Dominick Andrisani II, Ph.D. Wheeler is a general pathologist affiliated with Baylor University/Baylor College of Medicine. Andrisani is an Associate Professor of Aero/Astro Engineering at Purdue University. > He posted them here. Why do you want to try to hide in email? Duh! This is a typical ploy used by this fruitcake. She tried doing the same stunt on the A-1 forum. Problem is, she apparently has developed a taste for spam, and likes to share it with others. I personally would not recommend emailing her, unless you have a real fondness for spam yourself. Ah, the anonymous fool posts again. While you're babbling on about people "hiding" in email, it's too bad you don't know I've been having some very intelligent conversations via email the past few days. These people don't feel the need to hide behind imaginary handles and stupid, insulting personal attacks on the Internet. They are actually verifying the information that has been posted, looking up other information, and asking me questions about it. But, that's FAR to difficult for you. Far easier to plaster infantile crap on the newsgroup and declare yourself to be superior. Anything to avoid the issues. LaDonna > Ah, the anonymous fool posts again. LaToya, "anonymous" means you post without revealing who you are. You use a name, remember? These > people don't feel the need to hide behind imaginary handles and stupid, > insulting personal attacks on the Internet. They just feel ashamed to publicly admit associating with you. They are actually > verifying the information that has been posted, looking up other > information, and asking me questions about it. Are they verifying the names and jurisdictions of the law enforcement personnel you spoke to about Apollo 1? > Far easier to plaster infantile > crap on the newsgroup and declare yourself to be superior. It doesn't seem to be working for you. > > > Herb, I really should NOT be doing this, because it's an insult to > > > those who used five seconds to think about the importance of analyzing [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > available had such testing been performed? THAT question as well has > never been answered. By the way, (and I won't bother talking about your statement re: "the chemical work-up on the crew was fairly extensive and speaks for itself" since you and I BOTH know you haven't seen any of the full autopsy reports so you are only saying that because that's what NASA says), but since you mentioned the "six or eight" questions you claim I did not answer, I will remind everyone of something I posted weeks ago to which I have not seen ONE comment. Remember the odor Gus detected in his suit loop? That was identified (contrary to Borman et. al's testimony) as potting compound. They were able to identify it because the pad leader also smelled it coming out of the hatch bleed port. Can one of you "experts" in here explain to me how potting compound infiltrated the suit loop, and why it might be that potting compound was so warm that it not only made its way into the suit loop, but was strong enough to be detected OUTSIDE of the crew compartment? Given the fact this odor was detected five-and-one-half hours before the fire, would anyone be willing to go out on a limb (besides myself) and say someone missed something rather critical? LaDonna > By the way, (and I won't bother talking about your statement re: "the > chemical work-up on the crew was fairly extensive and speaks for > itself" since you and I BOTH know you haven't seen any of the full > autopsy reports so you are only saying that because that's what NASA > says) By the way, since you're so familiar with the autopsy reports, what was the name of the pathologist? > I did not answer Big surprise there. > Remember the odor Gus > detected in his suit loop? That was identified (contrary to Borman > et. al's testimony) as potting compound. By whom? Cite please. >Can one of you "experts" in here explain to me how > potting compound infiltrated the suit loop, and why it might be that > potting compound was so warm that it not only made its way into the > suit loop, but was strong enough to be detected OUTSIDE of the crew > compartment? Yet these same people couldn't detect gasoline dumped in the cabin. Did you mention the gasoline to your law enforcement contacts? > would anyone be willing to go out on a limb (besides myself) > and say someone missed something rather critical? I'll say it: *you* missed a *great many* critical things, including the names and jurisdictions of the law enforcement personnel that you spoke to about Apollo 1. In addition to the previous questions I posted, I'll have to ask them about your gasoline-in-the-cabin "theory". I cant help but wonder why the details of the autopsy are always such a hot topic on the message board, specifically as they pertain to the timeline, yet I have never heard of anyone in these dialogues actually making effort to contact the original doctor who performed them. Would the questionable results have raised his eyebrow at least? Would he not be the man to talk to? > I cant help but wonder why the details of the autopsy are always such > a hot topic on the message board, specifically as they pertain to the > timeline, yet I have never heard of anyone in these dialogues actually > making effort to contact the original doctor who performed them. Would > the questionable results have raised his eyebrow at least? Would he > not be the man to talk to? Since the mishap was over 35 years ago, it is possible or even likely that the original doctor has passed away. However, it would be standard practice for any such investigation to attempt to make contact and discuss it with the original analyst or his colleagues; most people have their work at least informally peer-reviewed with others prior to release. Also, it is reasonable to assume (and would have to be checked out) that others assisted in the work, other doctors, technicians, etc. If it is thought that a mistake was made, then it is natural to discuss this with the original people involved to ensure that a mistake is not made in declaring a mistake, as the follow-up analysis is further removed from the evidence both physically and in time in this case, along with not having the full context. I have no idea whether or not any attempt to make contact was done but it would be a rather standard thing to do. Signaturerk, Just an OldEngineer "Dealing properly with very rare events is one of the attributes that distinguishes a design that is fit for safety-critical systems from one that is not." -- John Rushby in "A Comparison of Bus Architectures for Safety- Critical Embedded Systems," March 2003 Don't assume "the original doctor" has not been contacted. A LOT of people have been contacted; we're just not posting an itemized list on the Internet. However, you (and the person who posted right after you--I believe it was RK) are forgetting something: This is a cover-up. Those "questionable results" were known to be "questionable" when they were first printed. So why should eyebrows be raised now? This is far more complicated than you seem to realize, and the solution is far more difficult than a "standard" investigation. It's a war that must be fought on many fronts, in many different ways. Everyone involved has a stake in keeping this thing secret. LaDonna > Don't assume "the original doctor" has not been contacted. A LOT of > people have been contacted; we're just not posting an itemized list on > the Internet. ="We haven't talked to anybody who will admit an association with us." > This is far more complicated than you seem to realize, and the solution > is far more difficult than a "standard" investigation. What, exactly, is a "standard" investigation? >Everyone > involved has a stake in keeping this thing secret. Your attempt to profit from Apollo1 certainly gives *you* an incentive. Why did the doctor publish (or why did NASA allow him to publish) results that so clearly implyed that the crew lived longer than they want us to believe? And by "raised eyebrow", I mean in 1967- if he was part of the cover up then woulndn't he have concluded a time of death that conflicted NASA? And if he was part of the cover up (even just from agency pressure) wouldnt he have been told to fix the report, and not include a cause of death that contradicted NASA's time of death? I'll have to answer this way for now: "Tricks of the trade." 37 1/2 years has its advantages when going back to ask people about things. :-) > I'll have to answer this way for now: "Tricks of the trade." Does Betty know you're turning tricks? > Why? Well, let's look at NASA's testimony before Congress. How about we *first* look at the names and jurisdictions of the law enforcement personnel you spoke to about Apollo 1? > > Why? Well, let's look at NASA's testimony before Congress. > > How about we *first* look at the names and jurisdictions of the law > enforcement personnel you spoke to about Apollo 1? Do you have this brainless question programmed on your F1 key? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.