 |
 | 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 2004Re: LiOh Canisters: Especially for Herb
Jim Davis wrote: > 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, This gal parrots Scott Grissom left and right. He has always stated here that he doesn't want to show all his cards. She's merely following his lead, and using the same argument he has used. As for the pathologist, she said her expert would back up what Scott's expert said. Here's the problem with that (which is clearly discussed in the A-1 forum): A follow up was done, and one of Scott Grissom's experts (Dr. Wheeler) was contacted by phone. He was horrified that he had been publicly quoted on the forum, without his prior knowledge or consent. Once he was read the quotation that had been attributed to him, he stated that he did not remember making that statement. Furthermore, he said that he was not the best person to render a professional opinion, as he was only a general pathologist. He had reviewed the materials only as a personal favor to Scott Grissom. He said a forensic pathologist would be the best person to render a professional opinion on the matter. So, if LaDonna says her witness supports the statement made by Scott's witness, it's important to note that Wheeler did not remember making that statement. It is also important to remember that he believed that he would not be the best person to render an opinion in the first place. I'm simply not going to identify the man. As for Wheeler, I don't know what his story is, and it really doesn't matter. Someone NASA knows rather well has verified what Scott has been saying, so Wheeler is irrelevant. As for Scott not revealing all his cards, he has his reasons. I have mine. You "investigation experts" should understand that concept all-too-well. It's like cornering a police chief because he won't tell the media everything he knows about a serial killer, and when he says he will not reveal that information at this time because it could compromise the case, saying "Well, then, you really don't know ANYTHING, do you? You're just making up things to get our attention!" Get REAL, folks. LaDonna > As for Scott not revealing all his cards, he has his reasons. I have > mine. You "investigation experts" should understand that concept [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > ANYTHING, do you? You're just making up things to get our attention!" > Get REAL, folks. But _YOU_ are the one who waltzed in here claiming to be the investigation expert! Not us! Most people who frequent this newsgroup have enough of a technical background to be able to tell fact from supposition. We can read reports and decide whether they're well-researched or not. You will find this critical attitude on *all* of the sci.* heierarchy newsgroups. People post crackpot theories all the time. It's easy to tell real scholarly research from bunk and yours has the distinct air about it of the latter. You have provided nothing - nothing verifiable by third parties - to elevate your theories above the level of speculation and conjecture. And bringing those theories to a sci. group of all places was one of the worst blunders you could have made given your unwillingness or inability to back up anything you say. In the very few instances where you have provided citations for your information, you have done so badly. Why don't you take a time-out and go read some real research papers. Yes, it is incumbent upon you to provide the document name, page, author and date of publication in order for a reference to qualify as "substantive". There's an accepted way to do it. By the way, no police chief ever barged into my house telling me there was a serial killer on the loose. If one did I would expect him to give me all the relevant details. It appears that _YOU_ are the one making things up to get our attention. *PLONK*  Signaturebp Proud Member of the Human O-Ring Society Since 2003 hpywife927@yahoo.com (LaDipshit Whore) quiffed past her flabby thighs: > As for Scott not revealing all his cards, he has his reasons. Yes. Those he names as his "expert witnesses" and "reliable sources" would sue him for slander, as every "fact" he attributes to them would be lies, falsehoods and total fabrications. -- "Truth is a three-edged sword. There's your side, their side, and the side that you use to cut their throats when it's obvious they've lied beyond any hope of forgiveness." > > As for Scott not revealing all his cards, he has his reasons. I have > > mine. You "investigation experts" should understand that concept [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > *PLONK* Yes, that would all be well and good if I were DOING a research paper, but I'm not. However, most of the items I have referenced would NOT require document name, page, author, and date of publication. For example, when quoting The Bible, it is not necessary to go through all of that because it's a well-known reference (I did major in English; I know all about bibliographies.) When I quote the Congressional Record, it's not necessary to go through all of that either. Or when I quote the voice transcript--have you folks ever SEEN a voice transcript? There's no table of contents, or publishing group, or any of that nonsense. And the date--given we're talking about a rather significant event in space history on a SPACE HISTORY news group--should be obvious. I don't think Gus, Ed, and Roger were inside Apollo One November 3, 1985. And your logic is ridiculous. The analogy I used had NOTHING to do with police chiefs barging into homes--although if one were to do so, they DO NOT tell everything they know. THAT is one of the first rules of investigation. There is ALWAYS something held back. ALWAYS. If you think the police (or any law enforcement agency) tells the public or the media everything they know about every case, you are in La-La Land. LaDonna > Yes, that would all be well and good if I were DOING a research paper, > but I'm not. No - *you* claim to be doing a murder investigation, which requires even higher standards of public accountablility. >However, most of the items I have referenced would NOT > require document name, page, author, and date of publication. "Congressional Record" and "National Archives", on the other hand, *do* require those things. >When I quote the Congressional > Record, it's not necessary to go through all of that either. Clearly, you've never written a research paper. Or when > I quote the voice transcript--have you folks ever SEEN a voice > transcript? There's no table of contents, or publishing group, or any > of that nonsense. There *are* names of the people saying things, and usually times when those things are said. And the date--given we're talking about a rather > significant event in space history on a SPACE HISTORY news > group--should be obvious. However, the dates of the various documents and testimonies about that event are not. >There is ALWAYS something held back. ALWAYS. "Something" does not equal "everything:. If > you think the police (or any law enforcement agency) tells the public > or the media everything they know about every case, you are in La-La > Land. If you think the police (or any law enforcement agency) tells the public or the media *nothing* of what they know about every case, _you_ are in La-La Land. > > Yes, that would all be well and good if I were DOING a research paper, > > but I'm not. [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > the media *nothing* of what they know about every case, _you_ are in La-La > Land. I've told you plenty--and some would say "too much." You just haven't been listening. BY THE WAY, your web site says your in Borman Country. How is Frankie? Be sure and say "hi" for me. XXOO LaDonna > I've told you plenty You have *never* stated the names and jurisdictions of the law enforcement personnel you spoke to about Apollo 1, even when you choices of jurisdictions were explained to you by both Mary Shafer and myself. > BY THE WAY, your web site says your in Borman Country. Not my website. Unless you consider "Borman Country" to be the United States. > > Yes, that would all be well and good if I were DOING a research paper, > > but I'm not. [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > the media *nothing* of what they know about every case, _you_ are in La-La > Land. In fact, I take back the last part of that post. Don't tell Frankie I said "hi." Remember when we captured Saddam? He was surrounded by men with assault rifles and unpinned hand grenades. One person (ingeniously, in my opinion) said, "President Bush sends his regards." Please tell Frankie, "Commander Grissom sends his regards." :-) LaDonna > In fact, I take back the last part of that post. It's hard to take back the part where you provided the names and jurisdictions of the law enforcement personnel you spoke to about Apollo 1 when you haven't done so. > Please tell Frankie, "Commander Grissom sends his regards." :-) "scott" having delusions of granduer again, eh? > > In fact, I take back the last part of that post. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > "scott" having delusions of granduer again, eh? Scott wasn't commander of Apollo One. That message comes straight from Gus. Please let me know Frankie's reply. LaDonna > > > In fact, I take back the last part of that post. > > > > It's hard to take back the part where you provided the names and > > jurisdictions of the law enforcement personnel you spoke to about Apollo 1 > > when you haven't done so. > Scott wasn't commander of Apollo One. Not unless that's the name "scott" gave what passes for his penis. > That message comes straight > from Gus. Considering that he's dead, don't you find it curious you're hearing his voice? Of course, chemical enhancement probably helped. You can fantasize about "scott" if you want. I prefer to fantasize about my wife. Unlike you, I don't have to fantasize. > Yes, that would all be well and good if I were DOING a research paper, > but I'm not. However, if you intend to write a document which overturns the established view of events (of any sort), you must provide references in order for your intentions to be taken seriously. When Shelby Foote wrote his Civil War Trilogy, he got by without footnotes and just a bibliography because he was essentially producing a digest of existing and generally accepted secondary sources. Likewise most of Barbara Tuchman's works. However, when introducing new theories in history, one really must cite your sources. I recently read a very readable book about the world as portrayed by Homer. The author had many citations, mostly to the Iliad, and he refered to them by book and line. > However, most of the items I have referenced would NOT > require document name, page, author, and date of publication. For > example, when quoting The Bible, it is not necessary to go through all > of that because it's a well-known reference (I did major in English; I > know all about bibliographies.) I have yet to read a book that quotes the bible as a factual reference (explaining, for example, the laws of Kashrut, as opposed to a literary or cultural reference) that doesn't refer to the book, chapter, and verse. > When I quote the Congressional > Record, it's not necessary to go through all of that either. Which is even bigger than the bible. > Or when > I quote the voice transcript--have you folks ever SEEN a voice [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > group--should be obvious. I don't think Gus, Ed, and Roger were > inside Apollo One November 3, 1985. There are time stamps. I've seen people quote the Apollo Lunar Surface Journals giving MET. You may not be writing a scholarly work, but if you expect widespread acceptance of your theories you must allow your research to be reasonably repeatable -- this includes giving clear references to primary (or secondary) sources. > I'm simply not going to identify the man. You don't have anyone to identify. Imaginary friends, like imaginary "teammates" or imaginary law enforcement personnel, don't count. > Someone NASA knows > rather well has verified what Scott has been saying Who? > As for Scott not revealing all his cards, he has his reasons. It's hard to reveal vaporware. >It's like cornering a police chief because he won't tell > the media everything he knows about a serial killer, Fortunately, in the *real world*, the police intentionally reveal details because the public has a right to know, and keeps very little secret. Doing this lets the public assist with the investigation, yet keeps the *very few* unrevealed facts help show who has on-the-scene knowledge. Hiding all of the details is a sure way to prevent a fair trial from being held, thus *ensuring* the guilty party gets away. In the United States, secret evidence is no evidence. You're welcome to provide the name and jurisdiction of the *real*, *verifiable* law enforcement officer you've shown this post to for comment. > This gal parrots Scott Grissom left and right. He has always stated > here that he doesn't want to show all his cards. She's merely > following his lead, and using the same argument he has used. Y'know I'm pretty sure it's Scott Grissom. Same style, same flames, same ad hominem etc, etc ,etc >> This gal parrots Scott Grissom left and right. He has always stated >> here that he doesn't want to show all his cards. She's merely >> following his lead, and using the same argument he has used. > >Y'know I'm pretty sure it's Scott Grissom. Same style, same flames, same ad >hominem etc, etc ,etc ...The only problem with this being "scott" in drag is that "scott" has proven he's incapable of properly punctuating and capitalizing sentences. Something to do with the fact that his real father was a mentally inferior janitor who Betty used as a human dildo while Gus was doing his duty for our Nation. OM Signature"No bastard 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 bastard die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society - General George S. Patton, Jr Bryan Ashcraft wrote: > Y'know I'm pretty sure it's Scott Grissom. Same style, same flames, same ad > hominem etc, etc ,etche Bryan, I am not Bob Mosley, and The Happy (Hooker) Wife is not Scott Grissom. Unfortunately for all of us, LaDonna Wyss truly does exist, albeit at a lower life form level. ;-) Bryan Ashcraft wrote: > As in bottom feeding pond scum? ;-) Well, maybe someday, by some miracle and very large stretch of the imagination, she'll evolve up to that level, Bryan. For right now, I'm afraid she's lower than even the scum sucking bottom dwellers. ;-) > This gal parrots Scott Grissom left and right. He has always stated > here that he doesn't want to show all his cards. She's merely > following his lead, and using the same argument he has used. As Dr Phil says: "How's that workin' for ya?" > So, if LaDonna says her witness supports the statement made by Scott's > witness, it's important to note that Wheeler did not remember making > that statement. What do you want to bet that the number of people who remember LaToya *at all*, much less remember talking to her about Apollo1, will be very small? It is also important to remember that he believed that > he would not be the best person to render an opinion in the first > place. In short, "scott"'s expert said that he wasn't qualified to do what "scott" said he did. *That*, LaToya, is why you *provide verifiable names*. Scott Hedrick wrote: > Considering that he's dead, don't you find it curious you're hearing his > voice? I wonder if her communication with Gus took place through her Ouiji Board or with Madame Cleo? ;-) |
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.