ATTN: Scott Grissom - Gene Cernan questions
Alan Erskine
when he said "We got here on the shoulders of giants"? Especially seeing
you responded to Greg D. Moore (Stryder) with "i don't give a damn were the
meaningless line came from. get over it.?"
You also stated in the same thread (message 30) "i gave a polaroid of the
piece of metal to cbs
when they were filming 'turning points' doc. on the A-1 fire and the
commander of A-17 promptly got that back from them. he's also never
answered my SIMPLE question about the spacecraft being flown without A & C
roll. mr. cernan knew that answer, without doubt, and said he need to think
about it. it doesn't take much study of the sys. to know that the answer was
'YES', we have B & D roll."
Did you take the Polaroid? If yes, then why did CBS give that Polaroid to
Gene Cernan (Commander of Apollo 17, to whom you are referring)? Is Gene
Cernan "felon #3"?
--
Alan Erskine
alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au
GWB the Ghengis Kahn of the 21st Century
sc...@gusgrissom.com
yes, we took the polaroid. they (cbs) gave it to gene at
his request. if he doesn't have clintonits (i don't recall) he could
be a felon.
OM
> yes, we took the polaroid. they (cbs) gave it to gene at
>his request. if he doesn't have clintonits (i don't recall) he could
>be a felon.
...Ok, you've lied before us, and you've slandered quite a few people
without cause or evidence to back up your slanders. Ergo, you are a
felon. I suggest you turn yourself in so the authorities will be
easier on you.
And FedEx employs this paranoid dipshit as a pilot....
OM
--
"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
C. F. Leon
>>if he [referring apparently to Gene Cernan] doesn't have clintonits
(i don't recall) he could be a felon.
Uh, excuse me, but "clintonits"?? What do you mean by this term? I
assume it's probably a misprint for "clintonitis" and refers to our
recent president; but even so, what do you mean and how is this
relevant to an incident occurring in the 60's when WJC was in his
early 20's? Or is a reference to some other Clinton, perhaps in NASA
or the federal government?
Not trying to start an arguement, I'm just trying to understand what
you mean here.
sc...@gusgrissom.com
> On 5 May 2003 10:49:28 -0700, sc...@gusgrissom.com wrote:
>
> > yes, we took the polaroid. they (cbs) gave it to gene at
> >his request. if he doesn't have clintonits (i don't recall) he could
> >be a felon.
>
> ...Ok, you've lied before us, and you've slandered quite a few people
> without cause or evidence to back up your slanders. Ergo, you are a
> felon. I suggest you turn yourself in so the authorities will be
> easier on you.
>
> And FedEx employs this paranoid dipshit as a pilot....
>
>
> OM
ob (o-ring boy), i know you aren't the brightest bulb on the
xmas tree. if you would look at the Apollo 1 fire petition you would
see that over 130 names on that list are FEDEX pilots. several of
those are former military accident investigators, some of those are
former chief pilots. they didn't sign their name because i'm full of
*om*. read'em and weep.
Alan Erskine
hmmmm, he posts like Grissom (no caps at the beginning of sentences and as
for the insults, that's apparently there), but....
Why the change of email addy and why use google to post to this group? I
don't believe this is Scott Grissom, son of Virgil I. (Gus) Grissom.
--
Alan Erskine
alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au
GWB the Ghengis Khan of the 21st Century
OM
> ob (o-ring boy), i know you aren't the brightest bulb on the
>xmas tree. if you would look at the Apollo 1 fire petition you would
>see that over 130 names on that list are FEDEX pilots. several of
>those are former military accident investigators, some of those are
>former chief pilots. they didn't sign their name because i'm full of
>*om*. read'em and weep.
...And I bet you fucking forged every single one of those names, too,
knowing full well they'd probably never find out about it unless
someone contacts them to verify their validity. Maybe we should.
"Petition? I didn't sign any online petition?"
Jim Mooney
> if you would look at the Apollo 1 fire petition you would
> see that over 130 names on that list are FEDEX pilots.
Scott's petition has gathered 342 signatures to date although some are
obvious duplicates.
Several of the signatories are opposed to the petition. To quote a
couple -"This is a pathetic idea. The causes of the fire have been
fully examined and are a matter of pubic record. Scott Grissom stains
his fathers name by doing this" and "Scott Grissom hurts the very
people who care about him. How SAD he can't put his father's death
above his own agenda".
There are enough spelling and grammar errrors for a Haller family
reunion.
And there is the spectacularly confused Bruce I. Chaffee, who supports
the petition because "I was named after Uncle Roger". Huh ?
But who participates in online petitions and what kind of things do
they care about ?
2136 people signed a petition entitled "A Plea For Britney to Cover
Up" where 973 signed "A Plea for Britney Spears to Dress as She
Pleases".
52 people signed a petition calling for "Abolishment of Ian". I was
unable to find a pro-Ian petition; maybe someone should contact his
family before it is too late.
49 people have signed a petition to Mars, Inc. asking that they
"Abolish Grape Skittles".
162 people feel that Angie's parents should let her "get an agent and
become a great actress" because she has "amazing talent". I'll abstain
from the obvious wise-crack out of fear that Angie is likely
under-age.
843 people have sent the Cartoon Network "A Request for the Reduction
of "Scooby-Doo" Programming".
208 beings of some sort signed the petition entitled "1000 Neopians
Against Ghosts Taking All Neopoints".
817 severely damaged individuals signed a petition calling on one of
several cable stations to "Bring Silver Spoons, The Ropers, Three's a
Crowd, and ALF To TV".
1118 people were in favor of the 24 hour wrestling channel, whereas
only 36 folks were in favor pub in the UK being allowed to serve
alcohol round the clock. 8 of the first 10 signatories were from Kent;
I don't know what to make of that, but it's too interesting not to
mention.
180 people support Chris in his petition to convince his parents that
he needs a new computer.
1283 people have signed "A Plea To KEEP The Intro to "Enterprise"",
while 5027 people signed "A Plea To Alter The Intro to "Enterprise"".
I'm sure the folks at Paramount are are pleased, as that total is
almost 50% higher than their previous ratings indicated watched the
show at all.
Alan Erskine
news:c3c02a1d.03050...@posting.google.com...
> sc...@gusgrissom.com wrote in message
news:<148d2bcb.03050...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > if you would look at the Apollo 1 fire petition you would
> > see that over 130 names on that list are FEDEX pilots.
>
> Scott's petition has gathered 342 signatures to date although some are
> obvious duplicates.
>
> Several of the signatories are opposed to the petition. To quote a
> couple -"This is a pathetic idea. The causes of the fire have been
> fully examined and are a matter of pubic record. Scott Grissom stains
> his fathers name by doing this" and "Scott Grissom hurts the very
> people who care about him. How SAD he can't put his father's death
> above his own agenda".
<snip much amusing research>
Well done. I just signed the petition asking why Scott Grissom is avoiding
the questions I'm asking on these groups. The petition says there are now
343 signatories. By the way, the site has a new opening; not much, but new.
--
Alan Erskine
alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au
sc...@gusgrissom.com
> >
> Why the change of email addy and why use google to post to this group? I
> don't believe this is Scott Grissom, son of Virgil I. (Gus) Grissom.
and you don't believe a hard short can cause a fire....so what
else is new????
Alan Erskine
As I said, I wasn't sure it was you when you posted the original responses
to my questions. As I said, several people, including myself, have had
their names forged for bogus and _very_ insulting posts.
I did not say I did not believe that a switch could cause a fire. A spark
in a pure O2 atmosphere is _guaranteed_ to cause a major fire.
sc...@gusgrissom.com
> >
> As I said, I wasn't sure it was you when you posted the original responses
> to my questions. As I said, several people, including myself, have had
> their names forged for bogus and _very_ insulting posts.
a few o-rings here. no harm, no foul. >
>
> I did not say I did not believe that a switch could cause a fire. A spark
> in a pure O2 atmosphere is _guaranteed_ to cause a major fire.
son, go back and study chemistry again. a spark in pure
100% O2 does exactly nothing. they had it happen in earlier programs,
it didn't cause a fire on those ocassions. why? you can run a spark
of high voltage electricty all day long, from here to memphis, and
exactly nothing happens. why? because it takes 3 things to be present
(unless it's hypergolic) to start a fire. nasa's statement is pure
trash. "spark of unknown origin" is just as stupid as the meteorite
theory nasa tried to float with columbia until they named an
investigation board. the meteorite theory sure disappeared
quick......poof!
OM
>and you don't believe a hard short can cause a fire...
...Obviously your wife doesn't think it can. Otherwise, you'd be using
your hard short to start her fires and keep yourself occupied with
other things besides pissing us all off and disgracing the name of Gus
Grissom.
Jay Windley
<sc...@gusgrissom.com> wrote in message
|
| it didn't cause a fire on those ocassions. why? you can run a spark
| of high voltage electricty all day long, from here to memphis, and
| exactly nothing happens. why? because it takes 3 things to be present
| (unless it's hypergolic) to start a fire.
Sure: oxygen, a combustible, and energy. But in a saturated oxygen
environment, "combustible" includes a lot more things than at normal sea
level concentration. Lots of things oxidize, just not at a rate that
qualifies as "burning" in our judgment. Concentrating the oxygen increases
the oxidation rate. What used to be a sedate oxidation becomes a fire, and
what used to be a fire becomes an explosion.
Having avoided disaster on other occasions where high-pressure oxygen was
used does not increase the chances of safe operation on successive attempts.
| ... just as stupid as the meteorite
| theory nasa tried to float with columbia until they named an
| investigation board. the meteorite theory sure disappeared
| quick......poof!
Ruling out *any* merely plausible conclusion without some kind of
accountable investigation involving objective examination of evidence is
just as fraudulent as affirming a conclusion without that same degree of
attention. The purpose of the investigation is to collect a list of
hypotheses (without necessarily saying which, if any, are more likely than
others) and examining data and conducting experiments to falsify them one by
one. If you cross them all out but one, you might have a winner. If you
cross them all out, then you have to think of new hypotheses. The fact that
the meteor theory was crossed out relatively early doesn't mean there was
any duplicity or shady dealings in proposing it. It just means it was easy
to falsify, as many thought it would be.
Hallerb
>other things besides pissing us all off and disgracing the name of Gus
>Grissom.
>
>
> OM
OM when confronted with a question like so many others tries to change the
subject and discredit the poster.
sc...@gusgrissom.com
bob, i think you nailed that one. :-)
Brad Guth
A wrongful death lawsuit for something reasonable, like 100 billion
might get their attention. Trust me Scott, the days of Apollo and of
the sting/ruse of the century is nearly over.
Even though you can't do much for my research, I'd like to help your
case and, if I get my "just desserts" for discovering "other life NOT
as we know it", I'll share some of my billions to help your position
along.
Not that this is my one and only page on Venus but, I've just edited
my "Venus Today" page and there's still more to offer than you or
others can possibly shake a flaming stick at, but instead, just
exactly like how they're attacking you, these pathetic Borgs at GOOGLE
are doing NASA's "spin" and "damage control", content with bashing
away at good old Scott or GUTH Venus, at anything that reflects poorly
upon their pagan god.
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/venus-today.htm
Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS 1-253-8576061 http://guthvenus.tripod.com
alternate URL: http://www.geocities.com/bradguth
Herb Schaltegger
brad...@yahoo.com (Brad Guth) wrote:
> sc...@gusgrissom.com wrote in message
> news:<148d2bcb.03050...@posting.google.com>...
> > OM <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research_facility.org> wrote
> > in message news:<glidbv0l222q8a8tu...@4ax.com>...
> > > On 5 May 2003 10:49:28 -0700, sc...@gusgrissom.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > yes, we took the polaroid. they (cbs) gave it to gene at
> > > >his request. if he doesn't have clintonits (i don't recall) he could
> > > >be a felon.
> > >
> > > ...Ok, you've lied before us, and you've slandered quite a few people
> > > without cause or evidence to back up your slanders. Ergo, you are a
> > > felon. I suggest you turn yourself in so the authorities will be
> > > easier on you.
> > >
> > > And FedEx employs this paranoid dipshit as a pilot....
> > >
> > >
> > > OM
> >
> > ob (o-ring boy), i know you aren't the brightest bulb on the
> > xmas tree. if you would look at the Apollo 1 fire petition you would
> > see that over 130 names on that list are FEDEX pilots. several of
> > those are former military accident investigators, some of those are
> > former chief pilots. they didn't sign their name because i'm full of
> > *om*. read'em and weep.
>
> A wrongful death lawsuit for something reasonable, like 100 billion
> might get their attention. Trust me Scott, the days of Apollo and of
> the sting/ruse of the century is nearly over.
I'm pretty damned sure the statute of limitations for any sort of civil
action expired decades ago. Of course this doesn't even get to the
serious issues regarding jurisdiction of claims involving civil claims
arising from deaths of military members while acting under orders --
i.e., detached duty with/for NASA -- which are probably barred under the
Feres doctrine anyway since the putative defendants are/were themselves
also military; further, the putative corporate defendants would have
been acting pursuant to government contracts, which raises the issue of
sovereign immunity if said corporations were deemed to be "state actors."
Jesus, Brad, stick to your delusions about Venus.
--
Herb Schaltegger, Esq.
Chief Counsel, Human O-Ring Society
"I was promised flying cars! Where are the flying cars?!"
~ Avery Brooks
sc...@gusgrissom.com
> On 7 May 2003 23:08:23 -0700, sc...@gusgrissom.com wrote:
>
> >and you don't believe a hard short can cause a fire...
>
> ...Obviously your wife doesn't think it can. Otherwise, you'd be using
> your hard short to start her fires and keep yourself occupied with
> other things besides pissing us all off and disgracing the name of Gus
> Grissom.
>
>
> OM
o-ring boy, you should stop disgracing Gen. Patton and start
using Charles Whitman. fruitcakes from austin.....
sc...@gusgrissom.com
pure b.s.! they (nasa) had support from 2 schools (one was
Purdue). nasa used colleges that they contribute to support their
bogus theory. you have to follow the money, son. if a
semi-independent investigation hadn't been started, they would still
be making the meteorite theory float.
sc...@gusgrissom.com
you need to go back and review nasa's own O2 saturation
tables. it wasn't a player in the fire. the CM was only at 2.0 psid.
don't get me wrong, it's dangerous, but it's not the bomb you make it
out to be. the plugs in/out test was deemed non-hazardous.
Jay Windley
Why? If a straightforward hypothesis explains the observed results, why
complicate the equation?
| if a semi-independent investigation hadn't been started,
| they would still be making the meteorite theory float.
This is hypothetical. I'm just going by what I see, not by what I guess
might have otherwise happened.
Jay Windley
<sc...@gusgrissom.com> wrote in message
news:148d2bcb.0305...@posting.google.com...
|
| you need to go back and review nasa's own O2 saturation
| tables. it wasn't a player in the fire. the CM was only at 2.0 psid.
But 2.0 psid is about 17 psia. That's more than three times the atmospheric
pressure of oxygen, with no diluent gas. I don't see how you can say that
it wasn't a "player" in the fire. I've seen combustion in high-pressure
oxygen-only environments. It is, in my opinion, vastly accelerated over
combustion in normal air. I don't see the potential of a publications from
NASA to mitigate my personal observations.
| don't get me wrong, it's dangerous, but it's not the bomb you make it
| out to be. the plugs in/out test was deemed non-hazardous.
I wasn't aware I had conveyed the impression that it was a "bomb". I merely
wanted to point out that items considered non-combustible or marginally
combustible become combustible under these conditions. So statements that
allude that there were few or no combustible materials have to be considered
in that light.
I am aware that NASA deemed the plugs-out test to be non-hazardous, but I
believe their criteria for determining the hazard of the test was not
defensible. They did not, for example, consider the presence of non-flight
materials in the cabin during the test; the risk of fire was assessed solely
on what would have been in the cabin during flight. The estimation was also
based on assumptions about the condition of various equipment which, if I
recall correctly, did not turn out to be valid.
OM
>news:148d2bcb.03050...@posting.google.com...
>|
>| you have to follow the money, son.
...And there you have it, kids: scott just confessed the only reason
he's pulling this scam is for the money. I guess that settlement with
the three widows just wasn't enough, huh scott? Betcha won't rest
until you've gotten a mansion with a four-car garage filled with BMWs,
huh?
All built on dragging your father's reputation through the mud. Can
you say weak foundation, Ozymandias?
Scott Hedrick
"Hallerb" <hal...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030508193059...@mb-m27.aol.com...
> OM when confronted with a question like so many others tries to change the
> subject and discredit the poster.
That's not possible with either you or "scott", when the act of posting
means you have discredited yourself.
When "scott" provides verifiable names for his experts, when those experts
credentials have checked out, and when those experts publically support
anything "scott" says, then perhaps he will deserve some credit. By refusing
to name names, he discredits himself and any evidence he may have. I don't
have to take his word for anything if in fact he has qualified experts
willing to back up his claims in public. Evidence needs to be produced and
independently verified, or it's just so much bullshit.
sc...@gusgrissom.com
> >
> I'm pretty damned sure the statute of limitations for any sort of civil
> action expired decades ago. Of course this doesn't even get to the
> serious issues regarding jurisdiction of claims involving civil claims
> arising from deaths of military members while acting under orders --
> i.e., detached duty with/for NASA -- which are probably barred under the
> Feres doctrine anyway since the putative defendants are/were themselves
> also military; further, the putative corporate defendants would have
> been acting pursuant to government contracts, which raises the issue of
> sovereign immunity if said corporations were deemed to be "state actors."
>
limitation on murder. you might look under criminal statutes.....
Herb Schaltegger
sc...@gusgrissom.com wrote:
What part of "I'm pretty damned sure the statute of limitations for any
sort of civil action expired decades ago," don't you understand,
Scottie? Don't snip so aggressively; it denies new readers the context
to recognize that the question to which I was responding was about a
civil suit.
For that matter, if you are so convinced it was "murder" that resulted
in the deaths of your father, White & Chaffee, why hasn't the Florida
D.A. with jurisdiction over the matter brought charges? Answer that
without resorting to vague intimation of conspiracy (if you can).
Jay Windley
"Herb Schaltegger"
<herb-No-SpAm...@thomashendersonpate.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:herb-No-SpAm-Schaltegge...@enews.newsguy.com...
|
|
| in the deaths of your father, White & Chaffee, why hasn't the Florida
| D.A. with jurisdiction over the matter brought charges?
Doesn't Scott have some sort of responsibility to make the Florida
authorities aware of what information he has? If I were sure someone had
been murdered, I'd believe I'd be responsible for telling someone about it
or else risk criminal liability myself.
Brad Guth
Sorry about going a tad bit off topic but, speaking about Venus,
should you ask, I have something that's as you say a "delusion" that's
worth sharing a little tit for tat over.
Venus L2 (VL2) and of using ISS is all about interplanetary
communications and, of whatever else is pure gravy. Obviously a
relelatively cheap (cost effective) robotic platform would do quite
nicely.
In spite of all the typically warm an fuzzy flak, and even though
there's certainly a load of radiation at VL2, just not so much that
can't be dealt with.
Actually, since others such as yourself that are smarter than this
village idiot haven't much bothered to deliver upon one damn worth of
anything that's the least bit positive towards Venus, I researched
into radiation issues and, lo and behold, I learned a thing or two.
Read this page and let me know if I've over/under shot the mark:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/l2-radiation.htm
In addition to whatever shielding (obviously lots), the actual
amount(s) of rocket energy is obviously the next step. I'm thinking of
strapping on a few dozen of those Russian or Chinese solid fuel
rockets and then if need be a procession of relay missions that'll
keep ISS powered up and on course for VL2, that's including beer,
vodka and all the pizza you can eat.
All we need are a few volunteers and preferably of those having little
or nothing to lose (among others, I vote for Martha Stewart). I'm also
thinking "enterprise" as in allowing only those willing to pay and
therefor accepting the risk as a once in a lifetime adventure (perhaps
their last).
Sending out relay missions for re-supply and crew change would
obviously work best upon the 18 month orbit cycle when Earth and Venus
are nearest. Obviously that's still a good long stay, sort of cabin
fever inducing that may require a great deal of pot and/or Prozac in
order to remain human.
Of interest, among many other pages, I've located and recently updated
another conjecture worthy page: http://guthvenus.tripod.com/no-lie.htm
Actually this scheme needs some refinements, in addition to a metric
tonne of loot and the guts to go along with it. Any ideas will be
included, even if you don't have a clue as how to implement such, as
others may resolve whatever it is that you can't.
sc...@gusgrissom.com
herbie, what kind of fricking idiot are you? why would i
ever put a civil suit before a criminal suit? it's a criminal case,
for crying out loud. does your mother dress you? wouldn't you address
the state of florida those questions?
Herb Schaltegger
scottie, why don't you read threads in order, in their entireties? The
question to which I was responding was a suggestion to YOU that you
consider a $100 billion CIVIL SUIT for wrongful death. Go back and
peruse google if you don't believe me.
If you are so convinced it's a criminal case, why aren't you calling the
Florida DA every single day? Why aren't you getting the Florida state
attorney general's office involved? IF you are convinced of your case,
and IF you truly have the proof you claim to possess, and IF you
actually have cause-and-origin specialists prepared to testify on your
behalf, and IF you truly believe you aren't defaming Borman and Schirra
and all the others involved in the plugs-out test that day, what have
you got to lose? Your credibility?
OM
> herbie, what kind of fricking idiot are you?
...Pot. Kettle. Grissom.
JGDeRuvo
HE HAS A RIGHT TO HIS OPINION. I don't share it. But he certainly
has a right to it. And as a surviving member of the Grissom Family, he
has the right to demand a full accounting of his father's death to his
satisfaction. HE MAY NOT GET IT, but he certainly has the right to
it.
It amazes me how OM and many others feel like they are defending the
name of Gus Grissom by maligning his son.
I have said it before and I will say it again, you guys may have lost
a hero, but Scott Grissom LOST HIS DAD.
And being disrespectful to to him isn't a way to honor the memory of a
man who not only sacrificed his life, but his family, for the cause of
space travel. And I have a hunch that if Gus could come back and post
to this board, he would have a few things to say, not only to Scott,
but TO OM AND THE REST about their behavior on this.
No wonder he didn't want windows on the front of his house.
Scott,
As I have told you many times in personal, and public posts to the
sci.space.history group, I don't subscribe to your theories
surrounding your father's death, but I certainly respect your right to
have them and pursue the truth until you are satisfied one way or
another.
Might I suggest something? There's an interesting series on the
DISCOVERY CHANNEL called UNSOLVED HISTORY. You can check out the
website at http://dsc.discovery.com/anthology/unsolvedhistory/unsolvedhistory.html
They have taken a look at THE ALAMO, THE JFK ASSASINATION, PEARL
HARBOUR, THE GUNFIGHT AT THE OK CORRAL, CUSTER'S LAST STAND, THE
EXPLOSION AT THE USS MAINE, and many others. They use forsenic
anthropology, archeology, historical research, and modern technology
to examine and attempt to explain the cloud of mystery which may
surround an historical event (like what really may have caused the
Gunfight at the OK Corral to start, what may have really caused the
USS Maine to explode, etc.)
I have posted a suggestion on their message boards that the Apollo 1
fire would be an interesting subject to re-examine.
You may want to try and get the producers interested in your case.
My wife had the host, historial Daniel Martinez, as her history
teacher in High School. The guy LOVES to examine history from a 1st
person perspective.
Just a thought.
JD
Jay Windley
"JGDeRuvo" <james...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5d78dfd4.03051...@posting.google.com...
|
| And as a surviving member of the Grissom Family, he
| has the right to demand a full accounting of his father's death to his
| satisfaction.
To *his* satisfaction, or to a *reasonable* satisfaction? The abstract
notion of questioning an accidental death of a family member is not really
the issue. We're not heartless bastards. But the particular way in which
these questions have arisen and are being discussed is of concern. It
strikes people that Scott seems less interested in getting answers to his
question than in getting a particular answer that he's already decided is
the right one.
Scott is trying to take his case to the people, and the people have concerns
about that case. Scott doesn't seem to adequately address those concerns.
Until very recently I've not had the opportunity to question Scott
personally, although I've known of his efforts for some time. I must say
I'm not impressed. Scott does not strike me as a reasonable, careful person
who is genuinely interested in the truth. He sounds as if he's trying to
make someone pay (even more) for his father's death.
Now Scott may be acting out of emotion and sadness, and those are perfectly
good motivations for behavior. However, I can only judge his efforts by my
ideas of how well-founded they are in fact and correct understanding, and I
haven't been satisfied. Therefore I can't give him my support. If I'm one
of the public that Scott is trying to get to agree with him, then I have a
right to have my questions answered too.
If Scott doesn't want the question of public support in his equation, then
he can take his evidence directly to the authority he recognizes. If he
wants to try his case in the court of public opinion, then the court of
public
opinion is here (and elsewhere) convened and the trial is underway.
JGDeRuvo
Scott that I believe the official account of events. I don't think
NASA was complicit in any kind of coverup or murder of his dad.
The difference is that I respect his right to feel otherwise and to
pursue every avenue he can to get the answers he feels he deserves.
And if he feels that NASA is stonewalling - whether by the
machiavellian motivations he attributes to it or because of secret
information that is indeed classified due to the cold war - there
really isn't much anyone can do to understand that level of
frustration.
I doubt anyone of us on this board can understand what this man has
gone through ... not only with the death of his dad in such a terrible
fashion, but also the fact that his world famous dad was never there
for him because of the job that killed him. Scott has no doubt never
really dealt with the loss on that level. His only memory of his dad
is tainted by the way the man died. He must live with that.
Many here think that Scott has gone around the bend. Well, I submit
that a Fedex pilot, which I have heard that he is, would not have his
job very long if he indeed were so.
In the end, we must all try and understand that in many ways,
psychologically or otherwise, Scott is still trapped back in 1967.
Because that's where he feels the answers are. What's he looking for?
CLOSURE. That's my POV anyway.
We can choose to look at his evidence with an open mind and decide to
disagree with him (which many have, including myself). We can take
him to task RESPECTFULLY when we feel that he isn't as up front or
forthcoming as he should be on questions posed. We can even roll our
eyes and take a heavy breath every time he calls Cernan, Borman, and
our other heroes "felons."
But what we don't have the right to do is malign the man to the point
of dishonoring the memory of the father we hold so high in our esteem.
Gus would no doubt be very annoyed at the behavior of many on this
board, and perhaps, even his son. But I doubt that. He was a father.
Nobody is blameless here. I just think we should all step back, try
and understand what this man has dealt with since childhood, and then
react appropriately.
If not, we all have our trusty killfile to remedy the situation.
"Jay Windley" <webm...@clavius.org> wrote in message news:<ba3fes$7ml$1...@terabinaries.xmission.com>...
OM
>But what we don't have the right to do is malign the man to the point
>of dishonoring the memory of the father we hold so high in our esteem.
...On the contrary. We're denouncing scott for being an idiot and
refusing to accept the truth about the matter. We're *not* under any
circumstances dishonoring Gus, as scott's doing that for us whether we
want him to or not. And obviously, "or not" is how we feel about his
obsessive efforts. He speaks for himself, his mother, and their shared
insanity. Not for Gus or for those of us who will forever hold him in
high esteem.
...Gus is dead, It sucks beyond belief, and for that and that alone I
do feel sorry for scott. However, the truths are there and need to be
accepted. Gus wasn't murdered. The fire was an accident that resulted
from nonmalicious oversights. There's nobody to hang for the accident
that hasn't already been hung or hung themselves. There's no coverup,
and there's no one person to scapegoat. The sooner scott admits this
to himself and tells Betty to take her psychosis and go take a flying
leap along with the Military Wives Compact, the better off he'll be.
The day he does that, I'll shake his hand in friendship, and even buy
him a beer at the Outpost Tavern...
sc...@gusgrissom.com
gosh jay, i had to get out the crying towel for that one. ask
a fucking question if you want one answered....i couldn't care less if
you "support" me or not. look at the information and axe a question.
there is no emotion here or sadness. it's hard fact. if you were the
son of a test pilot/fighter pilot i think you just might understand. i
suggest you deal with it..... give me a break. i suggest a shot of
male hormones.
Rhonda Lea Kirk
<lots of snips>
This is terse, but it's not intended to be hostile, even though
on the re-read, it sounds that way even to me. You'll just have
to take my word for it that I'm not trying to be a smart-ass. I
just don't agree with what you're saying.
> The difference is that I respect his right to feel otherwise
> and to pursue every avenue he can to get the answers
> he feels he deserves.
Every avenue? Does that include making defamatory accusations
against men of good reputation?
> I doubt anyone of us on this board can understand what this
> man has gone through ...
Lots of kids lose fathers. Lots of kids have fathers they'd like
to lose. But most of them don't make persistent accusations of
murder in the absence of facts.
I know you mean well, but there's nothing more demeaning than
being psychoanalyzed by non-professionals.
> Many here think that Scott has gone around the bend. Well, I
> submit that a Fedex pilot, which I have heard that he is,
would
> not have his job very long if he indeed were so.
Well, according to scott, Fedex has no qualms about employing a
murderer. How much different employing a loon?
Look, the FAA medical doesn't require a psych exam, or a lot of
pilots I know would be looking for other work. There are a lot of
crazy people in the world. Many of them hold very responsible
jobs. My ex-fiance is as nutty as they come, but it isn't evident
until you get to know him. Nonetheless, even today, I would not
hesitate to fly with him--for all that he has some really weird
ideas, he is a seasoned and meticulous pilot.
> We can choose to look at his evidence with an open mind and
> decide to disagree with him (which many have, including
myself).
> We can take him to task RESPECTFULLY when we feel that
> he isn't as up front or forthcoming as he should be on
questions
> posed.
I wasn't here when all this happened, but I've done extensive
reading. I do not see that scott was treated disrepectfully
until it became clear that his consistent answer to difficult
questions is avoidance of the issue by attack on the questioner.
> We can even roll our eyes and take a heavy breath every
> time he calls Cernan, Borman, and our other heroes "felons."
So because he is the son of a hero--with no heroism to his own
credit--we should not "demean" him, but we should react with
tolerance--as if he were a child--to accusations he makes against
those who are heroes in their own right?
> But what we don't have the right to do is malign the man to
> the point of dishonoring the memory of the father we hold so
> high in our esteem.
Maligning the son does not diminish the father in any way.
History is replete with heroes who have looney and even criminal
family members.
> Gus would no doubt be very annoyed at the behavior of
> many on this board, and perhaps, even his son. But I
> doubt that. He was a father.
Speaking as a parent, I would hope that in a similar situation
someone would slap my daughter silly and hold her head underwater
until she recanted.
Maybe I'm a bad mother.
> Nobody is blameless here.
I think this started with an accusation of lies, murder and
cover-up. All else that followed was a protest against same. The
idea of distributing blame is a legal concept I'm not very happy
with. If you break into my house, and I shoot you...well, what
the hell were you doing in my house? The blame does not lie
partly with me. You didn't belong in my house.
> I just think we should all step back, try and understand
> what this man has dealt with since childhood, and then
> react appropriately.
I have a healthy respect for those who have suffered. But a lot
of people suffer and make something constructive from it. Ted
Bundy had some really bad experiences as a young child and no
father present to protect him. You want to let him off the hook,
too?
It is one thing to understand why someone does something based on
what they have experienced. It is yet another to excuse their
behavior on account of it.
> If not, we all have our trusty killfile to remedy the
> situation.
Killfiles do not relieve scott of his responsibilities.
I'm sorry. I don't like addressing you this way because you
obviously mean well, and your posts on this subject make it
evident that you are quite kind. I just think your analysis of
the situation is skewed by an emotional bias in scott's favor
because he lost his father. And I don't think losing his father
is enough to absolve him of blame for what he has done.
rl
Herb Schaltegger
"Rhonda Lea Kirk" <rhonda...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> (Snipped cogent analysis)
Thanks, rl, for summarizing a difficult subject well, as usual.
scott is a net.kook, plain and simple. No, he doesn't confuse Venus with
Mars, claim to create mysterious energy from vacuum, nor try to
illustrate the way the capsule changed orientation in the smoke clouds
with ASCII art. Instead, he holds to an impossible position with no
evidence and belittles all who try to have a real discussion with him
about it. He's trying to turn .history into
sci.space.glory.seeking.orphan
Scott Hedrick
> disagree with him
That's rather the point- we *can't* look at his evidence because he refuses
to provide it. He has been repeatedly asked to provide verifiable evidence-
the names of the experts he claims to have contacted, for example- and
refuses to provide it.
That is the sign of a *kook*. He keeps making accusations of murder, but
refuses to provide any evidence that he has taken the matter up with the
appropriate legal authorities. The burden is on him to provide the evidence,
and he refuses to. There is no reason why you or anyone else should take him
seriously until he provide *verifiable* evidence. His actions have shown him
unworthy of respect. He has nothing but false accusations and knows it,
which is why he won't provide any evidence.
>But what we don't have the right to do is malign the man >to the point of
dishonoring the memory of the father we >hold so high in our esteem.
"scott" has already pissed on his daddy's grave. The rest of us are trying
to stop "scott" from continuing to malign his dad. Trying to treat "scott"
respectfully feeds his paranoid fantasies and enables him to continue to
piss on daddy. Why do you continue to assist "scott" in this?
Until "scott" is willing to put up, the best thing to do is killfile him.
*You are helping him damage his father's reputation.* His childhood does not
excuse his actions today. When does it end? His actions here make him the
*victimizer*.
Until "scott" grows up and either provides verifiable evidence to support
his accusations, or admits that he has none, killfile him. His daddy is
rolling in his grave in shame of "scott". Stop helping "scott" further abuse
his father.
Jay Windley
<sc...@gusgrissom.com> wrote in message
news:148d2bcb.0305...@posting.google.com...
|
| gosh jay, i had to get out the crying towel for that one. ask
| a fucking question if you want one answered....i couldn't care less if
| you "support" me or not. look at the information and axe a question.
| there is no emotion here or sadness. it's hard fact. if you were the
| son of a test pilot/fighter pilot i think you just might understand. i
| suggest you deal with it..... give me a break. i suggest a shot of
| male hormones.
And this is a good example of what I mean. I laid out my opinion
dispassionately without malice, and I got insulted in return.
I've asked a couple of questions, and been insulted in return every time.
Unlike many of the posters here, I asked questions bereft of any baggage
from prior engagements. Being the son of a test pilot killed in the line of
duty does NOT give you the right to be an asshole with impunity. That's
apparently just your excuse for not rising to a human standard of behavior.
I suggest YOU deal with it.
If you want to be treated with respect, I suggest you dish some out first.
Jay Windley
| and to pursue every avenue he can to get the answers he
| feels he deserves.
But if that avenue requires public inquiry or public findings/admissions of
additional guilt, then the public has a right to examine his evidence and
question him on it. He has a right to take his case to the public and that
creates a right for the public to examine it and an obligation for Scott to
submit to that inquiry.
And unfortunately Scott does not have the right to pursue *unlawful* means
such as libel to get answers. I respect Frank Borman and Gene Cernan as
well; they have earned it, and have earned the right not to be called
"felons" without evidence (not mere accusation) that they have committed a
felony.
| there really isn't much anyone can do to understand that
| level of frustration.
The question is not frustration, it's justification. Someone trying to
break into my house might be frustrated by my locks and burglar alarm, but
is that frustration justified?
I've tried to understand to what extent Scott is justified in his efforts.
So far I've not been impressed. Not many people have been impressed.
| I doubt anyone of us on this board can understand what this
| man has gone through
Why must I? Scott is asking for satisfaction on the basis of the evidence,
not on the basis of what he's gone through.
| ... not only with the death of his dad in such a terrible fashion
Oh, boo hoo. Does Scott Grissom think he's the only son of a test pilot?
My best friend's son was killed in combat in Desert Storm. Has he spent the
rest of his life hating the Air Force for it? Would he be justified in
accusing the Air Force of "murdering" his son?
What makes Gus Grissom's death so horrible compared to any other kind of
death? My grandfather is dying a slow death from Parkinson's disease. He
can't do anything for himself; he is a burden on the entire family after 80
years of almost total independence; and his mind is nearly gone to the point
where he insults and ill-treats everyone, even those of us whom he loves and
who love him. Is that better or worse than asphyxiating in 15 seconds?
| his world famous dad was never there for him because of the
| job that killed him.
Yet the sons of other astronauts -- including Scott's brother -- have
apparently grown up to be mentally and physically healthy. The problem
appears to be with Scott, not with the manner in which Scott and others
similarly situated grew up. So let's stop blaming the environment and look
to where the problem really lies.
| His only memory of his dad is tainted by the way the man died.
| He must live with that.
Then I suggest he do so and leave the rest of us alone. This is all
distractionary. If Scott wants a hug because his childhood sucked, then
that's one thing. If he wants sympathy, then I think he's justified in
getting it.
But if Scott wants it generally accepted as fact that NASA somehow
premeditated his father's death, then that is *entirely* a question of fact.
And that has to be examined outside of whether daddy was there for him or
not. There is no room for passion in the kind of examination Scott seems to
want. Yet both you and Scott seem to think we have to lay aside reason and
intelligence and give him a break because daddy wasn't there. Not so.
You're being big-hearted and empty-headed.
| Well, I submit that a Fedex pilot, which I have heard that he
| is, would not have his job very long if he indeed were so.
What is the reasoning behind this? If Scott can operate an airplane, he has
a job with FedEx. I work daily with people who have highly technical skills
and are very good at what they do. They also happen to be assholes. I deal
with their assholery because their skills are irreplaceable.
I'm not qualified to determine whether someone is mentally competent, and so
Scott's sanity has never been an issue for me. Anyone is qualified to
determine whether Scott is a credible person, and not many people seem to
draw that conclusion. And many of us are professionaly competent to examine
Scott's evidence, were we given the chance.
| In the end, we must all try and understand that in many ways,
| psychologically or otherwise, Scott is still trapped back in 1967.
| Because that's where he feels the answers are. What's he looking for?
| CLOSURE. That's my POV anyway.
Okay, POV noted. It's not necessarily a "wrong" POV, just not one I can
entirely agree with. I can stipulate that Scott's emotional clutch may have
gone out in 1967. If all he wanted was to be afforded the respect and
sympathy due an "Apollo orphan," then I think we'd all agree. But accusing
people, essentially, of murder is not something I agree is part of that. If
he wants to accuse people of murder he has to allow his evidence to be
examined -- and possibly rejected -- just like everyone else.
"Expert" witnesses have to be disclosed, verified, and examined. Theories
have to be examined for reason and soundness. Questions have to be answered
concisely, politely, and directly.
| We can choose to look at his evidence with an open mind and
| decide to disagree with him (which many have, including myself).
I have done that, at least with the evidence that's been presented.
Examination of his evidence includes asking him questions about it and being
given dispassionate answers, not being taken to task merely for asking, nor
being given vague, handwaving, scientifically unsatisfying answers.
| We can take him to task RESPECTFULLY when we feel that he isn't
| as up front or forthcoming as he should be on questions posed.
Well, see, I *have* been respectful. And I get snide remarks and insults in
return. I have only so much patience for that sort of thing, and now it's
gone. I'm told I just need to deal with it because I don't know what it's
like to be the son of a test pilot and that Scott had a hard life blah blah
blah. That's horseshit. I approached Scott with courtesy and it was thrown
back in my face. He doesn't deserve the respect he wants.
| But what we don't have the right to do is malign the man to
| the point of dishonoring the memory of the father we hold so
| high in our esteem.
I don't buy this bullshit of having to respect Scott just because his father
was Gus Grissom. The elder Grissom earned my respect and admiration. The
younger Grissom has not. The younger Grissom is, frankly, an asshole and if
he wants respect he can earn it just like his father did. You'd have to tie
me up and poke me with sharp sticks to get me to say much bad about Gus
Grissom, but none of that stops me from declaring that I have lost patience
with his son. I don't see how that "disohonors" Gus' memory in any way.
| Gus would no doubt be very annoyed at the behavior of many on this
| board, and perhaps, even his son. But I doubt that.
This isn't about What Would Gus Do. This is about being civil and polite
irrespective of parentage or upbringing -- like everyone else in the world
is required to do -- and answering questions that relate to his public
statements. This bleeding heart shit will only wash for so long. At some
point there has to be a reckoning by the facts.
| Nobody is blameless here.
Yes, I am blameless. As a newcomer I asked a few simple questions without
any rancor or malicious intent, and got nothing but sarcasm and bogus
science in return.
For example, I explained in technical detail how a 20-22 psig pure oxygen
environment would indeed contribute to combustibility. I have seen this
happen myself, with my own eyes. This is apparently in contradiction to
Scott's assertions. Am I given a reconciliation or a concession? No, I'm
told I lack testosterone.
If Scott wants respect he can earn it like everyone else does. He doesn't
get to be an asshole because daddy was a famous pilot.
Jim Davis
> ask
> a fucking question if you want one answered....i couldn't care
> less if you "support" me or not. look at the information and axe
> a question. there is no emotion here or sadness. it's hard fact.
Scott, I once asked you, if you have hard evidence your father's crew
was murdered, why you haven't presented this evidence to the relevant
US or Florida officials so that they can conduct a criminal
investigation.
You answered then that you have considered it but did not explain why
you have not done so.
I'll ask again:
Have you presented your evidence of murder to the relevant US or
Florida authorities so that a criminal investigation can be launched?
If so, is such an investigation under way? If not, why not?
I think you can appreciate that this goes right to the heart of the
matter. On the one hand, if you *haven't* presented your evidence to
the relevant officials, why should anyone be impressed with your
evidence if you yourself apparently are not? On the other hand, if
you *have* presented your evidence to the relevant officials, and an
investigation is ongoing, why not squelch your critics and say so? Or
if they declined to launch an investigation, it again raises
questions about how good your evidence can be.
Are you willing to address these questions in some detail?
Jim Davis
sc...@gusgrissom.com
jim, did you sign the petition? did you you read it? i
guess you think it's simple to get 'relevant' officials from Fla. to
go to VA. and investigate a crime on federal property in Fla. when the
evidense is on federal property in another state. hello??? were you
born last night?
Scott Hedrick
> HE HAS A RIGHT TO HIS OPINION.
So do we. Nobody has said he has no right to his opinion. What he doesn't
have is the right to libel others.
--
If you have had problems with Illinois
Student Assistance Commission (ISAC),
please contact shredder at bellsouth dot
net. There may be a class-action lawsuit
in the works.
JGDeRuvo
has the right to feel as he does no matter how much we disagree with
it.
Should he accept it? Yes.
Will he? Not likely.
And, as such, he should be either tolerated or simply ignored.
OM <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research_facility.org> wrote in message news:<r8tbcvs1135e5unk7...@4ax.com>...
JGDeRuvo
giving him more slack. I'll freely admit that.
What I mean by "all avenues" is investigations, requests via FOIA,
getting the press involved, getting a Congressman involved, whatever.
But it certainly doesn't involved calling Armstrong, Cernan, Conrad,
etc. Felons. Not by a long shot.
He only hurts his cause by doing things like that. That much is
certain.
"Rhonda Lea Kirk" <rhonda...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<ba5a3o$p9po0$1...@ID-181658.news.dfncis.de>...
JGDeRuvo
reply doesn't help you. It hurts you. It reinforces the opinion on
this board that you've gone around the bend.
As I have said, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
And providing facts, names, and evidence doesn't hurt either.
sc...@gusgrissom.com wrote in message news:<148d2bcb.0305...@posting.google.com>...
Jay Windley
| has the right to feel as he does no matter how much we disagree with
| it.
But he doesn't have the right to *act* as he does. He can be civil and he
can act within the law. That goes for people who had famous fathers who
died, too.
sc...@gusgrissom.com
> "JGDeRuvo" <james...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:5d78dfd4.03051...@posting.google.com...
> > The amount of venom toward Scott Grissom is truly mesmorizing. Guys,
> > HE HAS A RIGHT TO HIS OPINION.
>
> So do we. Nobody has said he has no right to his opinion. What he doesn't
> have is the right to libel others.
headwig, i have a right to "libel" shit heads like you, ob,
d'wreck or anyone else who stands in my way. get over it, pal. try and
have a nice day....rlk isn't busy, give her a call.
Alan Erskine
news:148d2bcb.03051...@posting.google.com...
> > was murdered, why you haven't presented this evidence to the relevant
> > US or Florida officials so that they can conduct a criminal
> > investigation.
> >
> > You answered then that you have considered it but did not explain why
> > you have not done so.
> >
> > I'll ask again:
> >
> > Have you presented your evidence of murder to the relevant US or
> > Florida authorities so that a criminal investigation can be launched?
> > If so, is such an investigation under way? If not, why not?
> >
> > I think you can appreciate that this goes right to the heart of the
> > matter. On the one hand, if you *haven't* presented your evidence to
> > the relevant officials, why should anyone be impressed with your
> > evidence if you yourself apparently are not? On the other hand, if
> > you *have* presented your evidence to the relevant officials, and an
> > investigation is ongoing, why not squelch your critics and say so? Or
> > if they declined to launch an investigation, it again raises
> > questions about how good your evidence can be.
> >
> > Are you willing to address these questions in some detail?
> >
> > Jim Davis
>
> jim, did you sign the petition? did you you read it? i
> guess you think it's simple to get 'relevant' officials from Fla. to
> go to VA. and investigate a crime on federal property in Fla. when the
> evidense is on federal property in another state.
Wouldn't such a situation require the FBI?
--
Alan Erskine
alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au
GWB the Ghengis Khan of the 21st Century
Dale
>> jim, did you sign the petition? did you you read it? i
>> guess you think it's simple to get 'relevant' officials from Fla. to
>> go to VA. and investigate a crime on federal property in Fla. when the
>> evidense is on federal property in another state.
>
>Wouldn't such a situation require the FBI?
Yes. His answer evaded the actual question.
Dale
OM
<spam...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Until "scott" grows up and either provides verifiable evidence to support
>his accusations, or admits that he has none, killfile him. His daddy is
>rolling in his grave in shame of "scott". Stop helping "scott" further abuse
>his father.
...As I've said before, I hope scott and I die at the same time, so
that we both arrive at the Pearly Gates simultaneously so I can see
Gus waiting there at the Gates to whip the living daylights out of him
for being such a colossal dickwad.
OM
> jim, did you sign the petition? did you you read it? i
>guess you think it's simple to get 'relevant' officials from Fla. to
>go to VA. and investigate a crime on federal property in Fla. when the
>evidense is on federal property in another state. hello??? were you
>born last night?
...Once again, you totally evade the question. Either fucking answer
the questions posed to you or get the fuck out of here. No compromise,
no surrender, no retreat from this point on. You either give your
evidence, or go fuck yourself.
Period.
sc...@gusgrissom.com
> On 17 May 2003 14:05:59 -0700, sc...@gusgrissom.com wrote:
>
> > jim, did you sign the petition? did you you read it? i
> >guess you think it's simple to get 'relevant' officials from Fla. to
> >go to VA. and investigate a crime on federal property in Fla. when the
> >evidense is on federal property in another state. hello??? were you
> >born last night?
>
> ...Once again, you totally evade the question. Either fucking answer
> the questions posed to you or get the fuck out of here. No compromise,
> no surrender, no retreat from this point on. You either give your
> evidence, or go fuck yourself.
>
> Period.
>
> OM
period? is it that time of the month, ob? the evidence
is out for everyone to see. why don't you try and look at it. have a
nice day.
Rhonda Lea Kirk
> Scott Hedrick wrote:
>> JGDeRuvo wrote:
>>> The amount of venom toward Scott Grissom is truly
>>> mesmorizing. Guys,
>>> HE HAS A RIGHT TO HIS OPINION.
I don't think he has a right to imply that that I'm a cheap whore
who has sex with mules.
What do you think?
>> So do we. Nobody has said he has no right to his opinion.
>> What he doesn't have is the right to libel others.
On the other hand, libel implies the exclusion of hyperbole.
Libel is that which could be reasonably interpreted as truth, but
isn't. And a lot of what scott says is merely absurd.
> headwig, i have a right to "libel" shit heads like you,
> ob, d'wreck or anyone else who stands in my way. get over it,
pal.
> try and have a nice day....rlk isn't busy, give her a call.
LOL, scott. I'm very busy, actually, but never too busy for OM
or, in general, people who obviously have a brain and the ability
to use it. That being said, I would never take a call from you.
Apart from all your other difficulties, you don't seem to
understand that sticking one's toe in the gutter now and again
for the sake of a humorous interlude does not remotely resemble
spending the entirety of one's time eyeball-deep in shit.
What I'm saying, scott, is that you can rename Derek and OM, and
talk until you're out of oxygen about the mule, the trailer park
and my $20 piece of ass, but it's boring. If you can't come up
with clever sobriquets and one-liners with zing, what's the point
really? You just look lame.
It would be like me ending each and every post to you by saying
"you're a real poopy head, scott."
Which, of course, goes without saying.
rl
Jim Davis
> jim, did you sign the petition? did you you read
> it? i
> guess you think it's simple to get 'relevant' officials from
> Fla. to go to VA. and investigate a crime on federal property in
> Fla. when the evidense is on federal property in another state.
> hello??? were you born last night?
Scott, would it kill you to just answer the question straight out and
dispense with the rhetorical flourishes? Please?
Jim Davis
Chris Jones
> sc...@gusgrissom.com wrote:
> > Scott Hedrick wrote:
> >> JGDeRuvo wrote:
>
> >>> The amount of venom toward Scott Grissom is truly
> >>> mesmorizing. Guys,
> >>> HE HAS A RIGHT TO HIS OPINION.
>
> I don't think he has a right to imply that that I'm a cheap whore
> who has sex with mules.
>
> What do you think?
In the US, I think he may very well have that right. I expect you know
more about the law than I do, (I am not a lawyer and all that) but as
long as these aren't threats, and aren't either believable or truthful,
it's probably protected free speech. It's tiresome obnoxious noise, but
that doesn't mean he doesn't have a right to utter it. It's obvious
that Scott doesn't give a flying f&#k about his reputation or have a
clue what effect his postings have (either that or he's got a real need
for self-degradation).
In any case, the right of free speech doesn't imply a right to be
respected, taken seriously, or even listened to.
[...]
> It would be like me ending each and every post to you by saying
> "you're a real poopy head, scott."
>
> Which, of course, goes without saying.
Well, most of the time.
"You're a real poopy head, Scott."
Scott Hedrick
news:tdny914...@shell01.TheWorld.com...
> "You're a real poopy head, Scott."
>
>
Eh. Been called a lot worse.
Or did you mean "scott"?
Everyone uses white matter. Most people use grey matter. "scott" happens to
use fecal matter.
Derek Lyons
>the right of free speech doesn't imply a right to be
>respected, taken seriously, or even listened to.
That's sig fodder there Chris.
D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:
Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html
Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html
Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to o...@io.com, as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.
Alan Erskine
Duh! They meant "Scott". ;-)
sc...@gusgrissom.com
> sc...@gusgrissom.com wrote:
> >
> It would be like me ending each and every post to you by saying
> "you're a real poopy head, scott."
>
> Which, of course, goes without saying.
>
> rl
oh, now i'm just so insulted! i just can't deal with this any
more. a $20 (half price on sundays) 'ho bag calls me poopy head.
charles whitman aka. "ob" save me! have a nice day rl'hobag.
OM
wrote:
>Chris Jones <c...@acme.com> wrote:
>>the right of free speech doesn't imply a right to be
>>respected, taken seriously, or even listened to.
>
>That's sig fodder there Chris.
...Agreed!
OM
<spam...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Everyone uses white matter. Most people use grey matter. "scott" happens to
>use fecal matter.
...That, and combined with botox injections to the brain, equals a
very dysfunctional crainial processor.
Herb Schaltegger
sc...@gusgrissom.com wrote:
And yet for some reason this asswipe expects the world to take him
seriously about Apollo 1 . . . yeah, right.
--
Herb Schaltegger, Esq.
Chief Counsel, Human O-Ring Society
"I was promised flying cars! Where are the flying cars?!"
~ Avery Brooks
Herb Schaltegger
> guess you think it's simple to get 'relevant' officials from Fla. to
> go to VA. and investigate a crime on federal property in Fla. when the
> evidense is on federal property in another state. hello??? were you
> born last night?
It's actually not that hard to instigate state or even federal criminal
investigations (even across state lines), presuming you ACTUALLY have
evidence of an ACTUAL crime, not some hare-brained theory that no one
else in the world seems to agree with. The trick is actually possessing
real evidence, scottie, not just accusations.
Rhonda Lea Kirk
>scott grissom wrote:
>> Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
>>> It would be like me ending each and every post to you by
>>> saying "you're a real poopy head, scott."
>>> Which, of course, goes without saying.
>> oh, now i'm just so insulted! i just can't deal with
>> this any more. a $20 (half price on sundays) 'ho bag calls me
>> poopy head. charles whitman aka. "ob" save me! have a nice
>> day rl'hobag.
> And yet for some reason this asswipe expects the world to take
> him seriously about Apollo 1 . . . yeah, right.
I think he could behave this way and still be taken seriously
about Apollo 1 if he would only answer the legitimate questions
that are put to him. The problem is not that his insults are the
teenage-word equivalent of kindergarten bathroom humor, or even
that he is insulting, it is that he fails to provide evidence for
the case he hopes to make.
rl
JGDeRuvo
"Rhonda Lea Kirk" <rhonda...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<ba8doi$qbtnt$1...@ID-181658.news.dfncis.de>...
JGDeRuvo
on this board, I am inclined to discontinue any defense of him. His
abusiveness is beyond the pale, even for me.
Scott, if you wish to continue to correspond to me OFF board regarding
this issue, I am happy to listen to any points you may have. I will
probably not agree, but I am open to any evidence.
HOWEVER, this is a community. And in a community, one needs to
respect others, even if they shouldn't respect you. For only then can
you get ANYONE to listen to you.
And since you seem to refuse to do that, I must join the rest of the
community is merely moving on to other topics on this group.
I tried, folks.
sc...@gusgrissom.com wrote in message news:<148d2bcb.03051...@posting.google.com>...
Jay Windley
|
| I think he could behave this way and still be taken seriously
| about Apollo 1
I don't. State and federal authorities would have to put their own
reputations on the line by opening up an investigation. Alienating people
through verbal abuse is not conducive to that goal, no matter how strongly
his case is made. When you ally with someone's arguments you often ally
yourself with his character (whether you intend to or not). I don't know of
many district attorneys who would cheerfully take a case championed by
someone who "taints" the complaint with unlawful behavior of his own.
| ... if he would only answer the legitimate questions
| that are put to him. The problem is [...] that he fails to
| provide evidence for the case he hopes to make.
I agree in general. When given the choice of responding to legitimate
questions or to ad hominem attacks, Scott seems to choose the latter. And
in the rare case where he addresses a purely technical or evidentiary point,
it is to convert it into an ad hominem (or at best, political) statement.
This makes it less vital to call off the ad hominem attacks against Scott.
This is not to say that ad hominem attacks are an appropriate way of
discussing Scott's assertions. But it makes it less likely that the ad
hominem character of the discussion is due to factors beyond Scott's
control. Given the choice between style and substances, Scott chooses
style. Focusing on substance will help alleviate that and send a clearer
message.
Scott Hedrick
Alienating people
> through verbal abuse is not conducive to that goal, no matter how strongly
> his case is made.
Unless alienating them is the goal, of course.
Where's "mc"?
OM
>Well, since Scott is bound and determined to shoot himself in the foot
>on this board, I am inclined to discontinue any defense of him. His
>abusiveness is beyond the pale, even for me.
...Gene, your mistake was lending him *any* support whatsoever.
Rhonda Lea Kirk
> Where's "mc"?
Last I saw her, she was hanging out on the message boards at
www.apollo1.info
rl
Jay Windley
And valiantly. It's not your fault. Even if I don't agree with you, I
admire you for trying.
Jay Windley
|
| Unless alienating them is the goal, of course.
I hadn't considered that. I suppose if Scott really just wants to be the
sqeaky wheel and refuse all offers of grease, that would explain his
behavior. I've been taking him at face value, assuming that he really wants
people in authority to listen to what he has to say.
Rhonda Lea Kirk
> JGDeRuvo wrote:
>> I tried, folks.
> And valiantly. It's not your fault. Even if I don't agree
> with you, I admire you for trying.
As much as I hate the old "me too" response, I want to second
that. It takes a lot of courage to hold true to what one believes
in the face of overwhelming opposition. I have much respect for
those who do so.
rl
Derek Lyons
And posting the same bullshit she always has... <sigh> I thought
once she had seen the light, but on the boards it's abundantly clear
she has returned to her 'scott right or wrong' attitude. She
complains of the 'attitude' on sci.space.history, but holds scott
blameless (again) for his own actions.
Rhonda Lea Kirk
> Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
>> I think he could behave this way and still be taken seriously
>> about Apollo 1
> I don't. State and federal authorities would have to put
> their own reputations on the line by opening up an
> investigation. Alienating people through verbal abuse is not
> conducive to that goal, no matter how strongly his case is
> made. When you ally with someone's arguments you often ally
> yourself with his character (whether you intend to or not). I
> don't know of many district attorneys who would cheerfully
> take a case championed by someone who "taints" the complaint
> with unlawful behavior of his own.
In discussions like this, I always think of David Goldberger.
If scott finds a person who a) can be convinced that there is
some greater good to be achieved by re-opening the investigation
and b) has sufficient power to move the necessary pieces on the
board, scott's behavior will be irrelevant.
<snipped>
rl
OM
On Mon, 19 May 2003 20:05:19 GMT, derek...@yahoo.com (Derek Lyons)
wrote:
>"Rhonda Lea Kirk" <rhonda...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>Scott Hedrick wrote:
>>
>>> Where's "mc"?
>>
>>Last I saw her, she was hanging out on the message boards at
>>www.apollo1.info
>
>And posting the same bullshit she always has... <sigh> I thought
>once she had seen the light, but on the boards it's abundantly clear
>she has returned to her 'scott right or wrong' attitude. She
>complains of the 'attitude' on sci.space.history, but holds scott
>blameless (again) for his own actions.
...Provided, of course, that's really "mc" and not a sock puppet.
Either way, her credibility is totally shot around here, and I'm sure
word's gotten out in her own little professional circles that she's
supporting a nutcase and quite possibly has lost a marble or two of
her own in the process.
Peter Stickney
"Scott Hedrick" <spam...@bellsouth.net> writes:
> "Jay Windley" <webm...@clavius.org> wrote in message
> news:bab2jt$4c7$1...@terabinaries.xmission.com...
> Alienating people
>> through verbal abuse is not conducive to that goal, no matter how strongly
>> his case is made.
>
> Unless alienating them is the goal, of course.
>
> Where's "mc"?
Up North, I'd say. Doing her day job.
BTW, for those who have been wondering about Mc's provenance, she is
for real. I had to do some work upta the North Country last winter,
and ran into soem folks that know her. There's actually a non-zero
chance that we've actually met. (Towns are small up there, and I've
got roots just over the State Line in May-un)
--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster
OM
Stickney) wrote:
>BTW, for those who have been wondering about Mc's provenance, she is
>for real. I had to do some work upta the North Country last winter,
>and ran into soem folks that know her. There's actually a non-zero
>chance that we've actually met.
...I'm sorry. The emotional trauma from that meeting must have been
fierce.
Herb Schaltegger
"Jay Windley" <webm...@clavius.org> wrote:
I see this sort of behavior a lot in my current line of work. It's very
much human nature to hold irrationally to untenable positions. There
are many possible reasons why a person does this: fear of losing face;
stubbornness; simple irascibility . . .
In scott's case I believe that deep inside he realizes that the only
"evidence" he has of a conspiracy isn't enough to interest even the
tabloids. However, for nearly his whole life he's been told that it is
axiomatic that his father died as a result this alleged conspiracy and
now he just can't or won't accept that the world is simpler than he
thinks (and perhaps all the more tragic as a result).
Doug...
herbsch...@spamtrap.invalid says...
> In article <babasn$88d$1...@terabinaries.xmission.com>,
> "Jay Windley" <webm...@clavius.org> wrote:
>
> > "Scott Hedrick" <spam...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > news:rc8ya.53958$Eb6....@fe06.atl2.webusenet.com...
> > |
> > | Unless alienating them is the goal, of course.
> >
> > I hadn't considered that. I suppose if Scott really just wants to be the
> > sqeaky wheel and refuse all offers of grease, that would explain his
> > behavior. I've been taking him at face value, assuming that he really wants
> > people in authority to listen to what he has to say.
> >
>
> I see this sort of behavior a lot in my current line of work. It's very
> much human nature to hold irrationally to untenable positions. There
> are many possible reasons why a person does this: fear of losing face;
> stubbornness; simple irascibility . . .
>
> In scott's case I believe that deep inside he realizes that the only
> "evidence" he has of a conspiracy isn't enough to interest even the
> tabloids. However, for nearly his whole life he's been told that it is
> axiomatic that his father died as a result this alleged conspiracy and
> now he just can't or won't accept that the world is simpler than he
> thinks (and perhaps all the more tragic as a result).
You've certainly hit the nail on the head, Herb. Trauma can have a
severe impact on the human psyche, and it certainly has in scott's case.
Add to that the fact that his mother seems to have not let it heal, in
herself or in him, by constantly picking at the open wound, and you have
a truly tragic situation. (Plus someone who has made a life goal out of
being the biggest asshole he can possibly be to those who question his
near-psychopathic fixation on this "conspiracy" fantasy of his...)
It's a case study for some adventurous psych major...
--
I don't expect life to be fair; | Doug Van Dorn
I expect it to be unfair in my favor! | dvan...@mn.rr.com
Doug...
dvan...@mn.rr.com says...
>
> <snip mostly my own post>
>
> It's a case study for some adventurous psych major...
And I guarantee you that scott's response to this will be (or would be,
if I wasn't supplying it for him) some form of the classic "Oh, yeah?
Well, YOU'RE the nutcase, not me!" (Almost begs a "nyah, nyah!" at the
end...)
Again, the classic response of someone without a rational response to
make... the classic response of the bully who doesn't have the wits to
engage anyone, so he makes do with threats and inane name-calling,
instead.
Anyone want to lay a bet as to whether that will be his response, if he
makes one?
JGDeRuvo
that Gus was murdered. Not by a long shot.
I just believe that as his son, he has every right to seek the truth
and closure for that chapter in his life. For his sake, his mother's
sake, and in honor of his father.
HOWEVER, the manner in which he does it is WRONG. I get that.
"Jay Windley" <webm...@clavius.org> wrote in message news:<babage$81u$1...@terabinaries.xmission.com>...
Jay Windley
| Oh, make no mistake, I DON'T AGREE WITH SCOTT GRISSOMs conclusions
| that Gus was murdered.
I know; you said that up front. But I further disagreed with you on the
applicability of Scott's emotional state. It's simply irrelevant. It might
be his motivation to present the case, but *evaluating* the case is a matter
solely of fact and we have to lay aside emotion. So arguments like, "Give
him a break; his father was killed," are really red herrings. I *can't*
given him that kind of break and remain rational.
However, it's kind and compassionate of you to recognize that emotional
state. It's especially difficult to urge forebearance and compassion for
someone who seems to go out of his way not to be liked.
Derek Lyons
>I just believe that as his son, he has every right to seek the truth
>and closure for that chapter in his life.
He has no the right to the truth, yes. He has no right to answers
that are palatable to him, as the truth often isn't, and he has no
right to 'closure'.
JGDeRuvo
simplistic paraphrasing of what I said. I was trying to point out
that few here can really understand what it's like to a) lose your
father when you are a child (though I can) b) lose him to a terribly
violent way c) lose him in as public a fashion d) lose him long before
he died when he sacrificed his family life in order to be an astronaut
and enter the space race. e) perhaps not get a truthful accounting of
the death due to national security issues with technology and secrecy
and f) all of the above.
The family wasn't in your average situation. And my point was - we
have no idea what that's like to go through - and thank god we don't.
It's a "don't judge someone until you've walked 10 miles in their
shoes" kind of thing.
Having said that - it doesn't give him a free pass either.
But you were close enough. Thanks for understanding that.
"Jay Windley" <webm...@clavius.org> wrote in message news:<badm38$7ri$1...@terabinaries.xmission.com>...
JGDeRuvo
has a right to the REAL TRUTH (that's, in essence, what the Freedom of
Information Act was supposed to be about). But on the other hand,
National Security sometimes demands that the real truth be either
delayed till it's no long a security issue or forever classified.
That's National Security. And considering the time, that's just the
way it was and is. Will he ever get it? Has he already? These are
the questions.
But to say "I'm sorry, you don't have a right to closure" simply isn't
true.
derek...@yahoo.com (Derek Lyons) wrote in message news:<3eca755b...@supernews.seanet.com>...
Derek Lyons
>derek...@yahoo.com (Derek Lyons) wrote in message news:<3eca755b...@supernews.seanet.com>...
>> james...@yahoo.com (JGDeRuvo) wrote:
>> >I just believe that as his son, he has every right to seek the truth
>> >and closure for that chapter in his life.
>>
>> He has the right to the truth, yes. He has no right to answers
>> that are palatable to him, as the truth often isn't, and he has no
>> right to 'closure'.
>
>Well, I think everyone has a right to closure,
Well, that also implies the right to 'answers I can accept', (in the
modern misuse of closure), which they don't.
>as I do that everyone has a right to the REAL TRUTH
I don't debate that he has the demonstable need for the 'real truth',
but the universe and NASA is under no onus to ensure that the truth is
also palatable.
>But to say "I'm sorry, you don't have a right to closure" simply isn't
>true.
Sorry that you regard reality as falsehood.
Scott Hedrick
> I just believe that as his son, he has every right to seek the truth
> and closure for that chapter in his life.
All he needs to do is look at the public record. If he wants closure, he
needs to stop sticking his ass in the door and let it close.
Brad Guth
and, they've certainly got lots to cover.
Seems that others onboard COLUMBIA just might have been thinking bad
thoughts as well. Shame on them (they will not do that again).
Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS 1-253-8576061 http://guthvenus.tripod.com
alternate URL: http://www.geocities.com/bradguth
james...@yahoo.com (JGDeRuvo) wrote in message news:<5d78dfd4.03051...@posting.google.com>...
Brad Guth
You can murder without pulling any trigger. It's done all the time
and, if there's anyone capable of pulling off a JFK thing, it's
certainly within the expertise and resources of NSA/DoD and of their
cloak NASA.
Brad Guth
> Scott Grissom wrote:
>
> > ask
> > a fucking question if you want one answered....i couldn't care
> > less if you "support" me or not. look at the information and axe
> > a question. there is no emotion here or sadness. it's hard fact.
>
> Scott, I once asked you, if you have hard evidence your father's crew
> was murdered, why you haven't presented this evidence to the relevant
> US or Florida officials so that they can conduct a criminal
> investigation.
>
> You answered then that you have considered it but did not explain why
> you have not done so.
>
> I'll ask again:
>
> Have you presented your evidence of murder to the relevant US or
> Florida authorities so that a criminal investigation can be launched?
> If so, is such an investigation under way? If not, why not?
>
> I think you can appreciate that this goes right to the heart of the
> matter. On the one hand, if you *haven't* presented your evidence to
> the relevant officials, why should anyone be impressed with your
> evidence if you yourself apparently are not? On the other hand, if
> you *have* presented your evidence to the relevant officials, and an
> investigation is ongoing, why not squelch your critics and say so? Or
> if they declined to launch an investigation, it again raises
> questions about how good your evidence can be.
>
> Are you willing to address these questions in some detail?
>
> Jim Davis
Not that it matters but, if you can't manage to convect O.J. of
murder, then it's certainly not going to be easy to nail anyone within
NASA/NSA/DoD, as for one thing they're dying off like flies, as most
of these guys were old 35 years ago.
Exactly like the Russian SST thing, that truth took nearly three
decades to come out and, that was clearly mass 1st degree murder of
those Russian pilots as well as for those dozen or so French
civilians, yet there's been absolutely nothing done about it.
Jay Windley
| simplistic paraphrasing of what I said.
I agree. But I had to have some way of characterizing the exchange without
repeating it.
JGDeRuvo
outright said that anyone, much less Scott, has the right to 'answers
I can accept'. That is downright rediculous. We all have the right
to closure. Sometimes that's getting an answer we can accept, but
many times, that involves accepting a truth that we don't want to
accept in order to move on with our lives.
What part of that didn't you get?
My feet are firmly rooted in reality, thank you very much.
derek...@yahoo.com (Derek Lyons) wrote in message news:<3ecca9fa...@supernews.seanet.com>...
JGDeRuvo
brad...@yahoo.com (Brad Guth) wrote in message news:<5d28ff28.03052...@posting.google.com>...
Scott Hedrick
>
Let's see Brad post it here, with verifiable headers so we can contact the
person he claims to be the original poster.
Derek Lyons
>Derek, you have COMPLETELY missed the point. I never, EVER implied or
>outright said that anyone, much less Scott, has the right to 'answers
>I can accept'. That is downright rediculous.
Because you keep repeating the canard 'he has a right to closure'.
Which he does not. ('Closure' has the connotation of 'answers I can
accept', whether you realize it of not.)
>We all have the right to closure. Sometimes that's getting an answer we can
>accept, but many times, that involves accepting a truth that we don't want to
>accept in order to move on with our lives.
At last you realize the truth... And speak it fully rather than
disguising it behind buzzwords.
Ami A. Silberman
>
> Derek, you have COMPLETELY missed the point. I never, EVER implied or
> outright said that anyone, much less Scott, has the right to 'answers
> I can accept'. That is downright rediculous. We all have the right
> to closure. Sometimes that's getting an answer we can accept, but
> many times, that involves accepting a truth that we don't want to
> accept in order to move on with our lives.
>