Apollo 1 questions...
Bobby
specific reference to this question(s):
[1] Assuming that the particular metal plate that Scott Grissom has
discovered could be mounted in a fashion that would allow it to short
one or several of the wires from Switch S-11 .... that short would
have undoubably shorted to "Ground" and as such it would have tripped
a circuit breaker somewhere and shut down the flow of
electicity...thus "no more problems would occur"...circits have
circuit breakers for this very reason! What am I missing here...? Is
this not the case??
[2] How was this small piece of metal supposedly "attached" to the
switch in the first place...I don't see the particular way that
Particular small piece of metal could be "inserted/attached" to the
back of the switch. It certainly did not have a hole in it large
enough to fit it around the "toggle" part of the S-11 switch so
exactly where and how was it affixed to the switch in the first place
in a fashion that would keep it from falling off or moving out of the
way??
Thanks in advance to any one that can clear this up ...
Jay Windley
"Bobby" <bobb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eb61547d.03091...@posting.google.com...
| My apologies if this has already been hashed out...
Ad nauseam, unfortunately.
| [1] ... What am I missing here...?
Nothing.
| [2] ... I don't see the particular way that particular small
| piece of metal could be "inserted/attached" to the back of
| the switch.
Nor can I, and I studied the problem for the better part of three days. Nor
could the NASA inspectors who specifically tried to pin, wedge, fasten, or
otherwise affix the metal plate in the vicinity of the switch specifically
in order to test Scott's theory. And nor, ultimately, could Scott.
The thread in which those two articles appear is massive and contains most
of the recent discussion of Scott's theory.
--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org
RDG
around where the plate was mounted. with the toggle switch threads pushing
through the plate. The plate was mounted slightly off-center, and there
is no justification for why the plate was there. Scott asserts (my
understanding of his assertion) that the plate cut the wiring insulation
and shorted out the circuit, causing the fire. He alleges that the intent
was to misfire the control system while on orbit and have the astronauts
tumble out of control until the spacecraft disintegrated in orbit, ala'
Gemini 8. I don't quite get the short-circuit part, given my
understanding of the plate mounting. If the plate was meant to cut the
insulation and close the circuit, how could one be assured it would
perform in that manner while the mission was in progress? I would think
that NASA could have found some other, more elegant manner to commit such
an act. Furthermore, why wouldn't NASA simply reject the spacecraft and
stop the program until the vehicle came up to safety specs? There was no
reason to assassinate three innocent, good men.
I am wondering if the documents of the other Block 1 capsule, the one
taken apart along with the burned Apollo shows such a plate in the RCS
switch? Are those documents still inexistence? The capsule was
apparently scrapped after disassembly.
Jay Windley
"RDG" <glu...@maine.edu> wrote in message
news:3F60613B...@maine.edu...
| If you look at the images of the Apollo 1 panel, there is smoke stain
| around where the plate was mounted.
Yes, on the *front* of the panel, where the wires aren't. The smoke stain
is caused by flow of combustion gases between the panel and the switch
guard. NASA took off the switch guard of adjacent switches and noted
similar patterns.
On the *back* of the panel, where the wires are, is the customary circular
pattern consistent with the portion of the switch that presses up against
the back of the panel. No evidence whatsoever of anything other than a
switch having been put there.
| with the toggle switch threads pushing through the plate.
The hole in the plate is *much* too small to admit the threaded barrel of
the switch.
| The plate was mounted slightly off-center, and there
| is no justification for why the plate was there.
There's no evidence that the plate was ever there. And the nature of the
evidence is such that we *can* read something into absence of evidence.
It's like snowfall on a field. If you argue that someone walked across the
field, but there are no footsteps in the snow, and someone else can easily
make prints in the snow, there's a discrepancy that needs to be addressed.
The only reason Scott says the plate was installed with the switch is
because he found it in the parts bag with the rest of the disassembled
switch. The plate was cut from a bracket that once supported Panel 8, the
panel in question. The plate showed some strange marks that the fire
investigators wanted to examine microscopically. But they couldn't fit the
bracket under a microscope, so they cut the affected portion of the bracket
out.
Now, of course, you have a loose piece of metal that really doesn't belong
anywhere. You can't reattached it to the bracket. You can't just dump it
loose into the boxes. Panel 8, with all its switches attached (except for
one) was stored as a unit. Switch 11 on that panel was taken off so that
its wiring could be examined for abrasion. It wasn't reattached to the
panel after the investigation; all its parts were put into a smaller bag for
storage along with Panel 8. Someone thought this would be a convient place
to store the metal plate from the bracket for Panel 8, since it had no
"official" home.
Presto, mystery solved. This whole fantasy about it having been fastened
behind the switch is a gripping tale, but when you look for evidence to
support it, you can't find any.
Scott Hedrick
If you go back and read the posts of "scott", you'll be able to tell that he
is a complete loon, probably as a result of psychological abuse on the part
of his mother and drug abuse on his own. He has shown that he is completely
unamenable to reason and logic, and, like most other kooks, completely
ignores anything that does not fit his already preconceived notions, and he
resorts to insulting anyone who dares fail to accept his word. He absolutely
will not provide anything even remotely resembling independently verifiable,
relevant evidence. For example, about this very switch, you can see how he
insults anyone who expects "scott" to explain why the switch is even
relevant, considering how little damage there is to it if it were the source
of ignition.
If you don't immediately apologize to him for daring to question his
unreproducible conclusions, then you are obviously a part of the conspiracy.
Check his past posts via Google and decide for yourself. You'll soon see why
he's limited to flying rubber dog shit out of Hong Kong and not allowed to
fly passengers.
Some people feel better believing that someone is out to get them. Believing
that it's someone else's fault means that they don't have to take personal
responsibility for being a loser, even if their actions dishonor their
family.
> Thanks in advance to any one that can clear this up ...
Always glad to help.
--
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.
Bobby
Thanks to all that responded...I sure was having trouble understanding
how that little metal piece was supposed to be attached to the S-11
switch in a manner that would [a] keep it in place thru the rigors of
launch vibration and [b]assuming [a] could be done, that it would not
immediately trip a circuit breaker rather than cause a fire??? It's
very obvious to me that when you look at the picture of the panel with
the little piece in the same shot (from the website on A1) that you
come to only one conclusion...that little piece WAS cut from that
support panel by some sort of saw blade and that it was done after the
fire as indicated by NASA...
Assuming you were going to sabatoge the RCS system, you wouldn't climb
into the capsule with a Hack Saw and saw off a piece of the instrument
panel...you would simply get in there with a jumper wire and do it
that much simpler way.
One final question? Why was Gus apparently out of his seat and yet
there was apparently no call to the Block House announcing his
intentions to "unstrap and get down on the floor"...after all it was T
minus 10 mins. and counting...Now I haven't access to the tape, but it
sure seems strange that he would unbuckle w/out announcing it to the
controlers... Does anybody know if he or Ed or RC made any call to the
block house about unstraping???
Just curious....
Thanks again to all that responded...
BP
Jay Windley
| there was apparently no call to the Block House announcing his
| intentions to "unstrap and get down on the floor"
My understanding is that Gus got out of his couch *after* noticing the fire.
Presumably he was trying to put it out or mitigate the damage. The
spacecraft's inertial guidance system is sensitive enough to detect the
minor movement of the entire rocket stack in response to the movement of the
astronauts in the capsule. So there's a pretty good record of when crew
movement occurred. The Apollo 1 report includes this data in its findings.
Jim Davis
"Jay Windley" wrote...
> My understanding is that Gus got out of his couch *after* noticing the
fire.
> Presumably he was trying to put it out or mitigate the damage.
It was to help White with the hatch, wasn't it?
Jim Davis
ILG
> there was apparently no call to the Block House announcing his
> intentions to "unstrap and get down on the floor"...
I too believe he was helping Ed with the hatch. I think that by the
time he un-strapped and moved from his couch, they must have all been
quite desperate get the hatch open. *And if the doctors were
right(regarding the time frame)*... he would have been fighting to
even stay conscious, never mind reporting his actions to the block
house.
sc...@gusgrissom.com
> My apologies if this has already been hashed out...but I can't find a
> specific reference to this question(s):
>
> [1] Assuming that the particular metal plate that Scott Grissom has
> discovered could be mounted in a fashion that would allow it to short
> one or several of the wires from Switch S-11 .... that short would
> have undoubably shorted to "Ground" and as such it would have tripped
> a circuit breaker somewhere and shut down the flow of
> electicity...thus "no more problems would occur"...circits have
> circuit breakers for this very reason! What am I missing here...? Is
> this not the case??
>
spacecraft did not have enough circuit protection. just look at the
differences of CM 012 and the next spacecraft that flew. the RCS
system had a great deal more circuit protection.
>
>
> [2] How was this small piece of metal supposedly "attached" to the
> switch in the first place...I don't see the particular way that
> Particular small piece of metal could be "inserted/attached" to the
> back of the switch. It certainly did not have a hole in it large
> enough to fit it around the "toggle" part of the S-11 switch so
> exactly where and how was it affixed to the switch in the first place
> in a fashion that would keep it from falling off or moving out of the
> way??
>
> Thanks in advance to any one that can clear this up ...
"attached" is not a good word. the metal jumper was located
between the shoulder of the switch block and the back side of the S-11
switch bucket. that would run the wiring over the metal plate. thanx
for the question, bobby.
sc...@gusgrissom.com
> "Bobby" <bobb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:eb61547d.03091...@posting.google.com...
> | My apologies if this has already been hashed out...
>
> Ad nauseam, unfortunately.
>
> | [1] ... What am I missing here...?
>
> Nothing.
>
> | [2] ... I don't see the particular way that particular small
> | piece of metal could be "inserted/attached" to the back of
> | the switch.
>
> Nor can I, and I studied the problem for the better part of three days. Nor
> could the NASA inspectors who specifically tried to pin, wedge, fasten, or
> otherwise affix the metal plate in the vicinity of the switch specifically
> in order to test Scott's theory. And nor, ultimately, could Scott.
>
> http://www.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_umsgid=bccq6u%24np2%2...@terabinaries.xmission.com&lr=&hl=en
>
> http://www.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_umsgid=148d2bcb.03061...@posting.google.com&lr=&hl=en
>
> The thread in which those two articles appear is massive and contains most
> of the recent discussion of Scott's theory.
i know you are a bit slow, windley, you just might have to
spend more than 3 whole days trying to figure it out.
sc...@gusgrissom.com
sc...@gusgrissom.com
you are full of shit windley.
sc...@gusgrissom.com
i feel really sad for your family, headcase.
Jay Windley
<sc...@gusgrissom.com> wrote in message
news:148d2bcb.03091...@posting.google.com...
|
| i know you are a bit slow, windley, you just might have to
| spend more than 3 whole days trying to figure it out.
Typical insults. The fact remains that you can't answer those questions.
Jay Windley
<sc...@gusgrissom.com> wrote in message
|
| you are full of shit windley.
Bobby, this is pretty much what any discussion with Scott Grissom is like.
Sometimes it's as brief as this, but other times -- if you're really
lucky -- Scott will also question your professional competence, your
masculinity, your sexuality, and anything else that comes to mind. It
doesn't matter whether you've given him a 5,000-word analysis of his
evidence: this is all you get in return.
sc...@gusgrissom.com
> <sc...@gusgrissom.com> wrote in message
> |
> | you are full of shit windley.
>
> Bobby, this is pretty much what any discussion with Scott Grissom is like.
> Sometimes it's as brief as this, but other times -- if you're really
> lucky -- Scott will also question your professional competence, your
> masculinity, your sexuality, and anything else that comes to mind. It
> doesn't matter whether you've given him a 5,000-word analysis of his
> evidence: this is all you get in return.
windy, you crack me up. i think you should find your sexuality
in another news group. you're still full-0-shit. try and stay on
topic, son.
carmine9
> news:eb61547d.03091...@posting.google.com...
> You'll soon see why he's limited to flying rubber dog shit out of Hong Kong and not allowed to fly passengers.
Fedex doesn't fly passengers nor rubber dogshit, I suspect. They do
fly cargo on heavy heavy jets all over the world and a job with
FedEx is very near the top of the airline pyramid for pay/conditions
and security. I don't think this type of ignorant comment in any way
elevates the level of discussion here.
Scott Hedrick
news:4d66d02a.03091...@posting.google.com...
> "Scott Hedrick" <spam...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:<PGa8b.127$me...@bignews5.bellsouth.net>...
> > "Bobby" <bobb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:eb61547d.03091...@posting.google.com...
>
> > You'll soon see why he's limited to flying rubber dog shit out of Hong
Kong and not allowed to fly passengers.
>
> Fedex doesn't fly passengers nor rubber dogshit, I suspect.
I suspect they fly just about anything a customer is willing to pay for.
>I don't think this type of ignorant comment in any way
> elevates the level of discussion here.
I agree- "scott"'s posts are ignorant comments that disparage his father's
memory.
Bobby
Scott, Thanks for the answer!....I'll give it another look. Thanks Scott.
sc...@gusgrissom.com
Bobby, i have additional pictures to make my point clear. thanx.
Jay Windley
How do you account for the fact that other inspectors tried to fit the metal
plate as you describe, but found that the space between the switch shoulder
and the back of the panel well was several times the thickness of the plate
and thus insufficient to retain it? This was one of the questions I asked
you to answer, and for which you admitted you had no answer?
How do you account for the strong similarity in appearance (i.e., identical
composition, thickness, coating, shape, features) between the metal plate
and a void in the Panel 8 support bracket known to be the result of
post-accident investigation? (I.e., when the piece is placed in the void,
it "completes" the bracket component according to the above criteria.)
sc...@gusgrissom.com
> <sc...@gusgrissom.com> wrote in message
> news:148d2bcb.03091...@posting.google.com...
> |
> | Bobby, i have additional pictures to make my point clear. thanx.
>
> How do you account for the fact that other inspectors tried to fit the metal
> plate as you describe, but found that the space between the switch shoulder
> and the back of the panel well was several times the thickness of the plate
> and thus insufficient to retain it?
what you are talking about, as usual. it fits exactly where i said it
fits and have pictures to prove it.
> This was one of
the questions I asked
> you to answer, and for which you admitted you had no answer?
i'll continue to humor you, ok?
> How do you account for the strong similarity in appearance (i.e., identical
> composition, thickness, coating, shape, features) between the metal plate
> and a void in the Panel 8 support bracket known to be the result of
> it "completes" the bracket component according to the above criteria.)
i suggest you take a trip to the ophthalmolgist. you are
wrong on every count even if we ignor the fact that the bracket has a
part number and an engineering drawing. the jumper, in question has NO
part number and NO engineering drawing. have a nice day.
Jay Windley
You didn't answer the question. Investigators tried to fit the piece
specifically as you described, and couldn't. Please reconcile this
empirical data with your claim.
| it fits exactly where i said it fits and have pictures
| to prove it.
Your pictures don't prove it. They show the plate only juxtaposed against
certain isolated components. You have not shown the entire assembly
composed as you hypothesize. When I asked you the details of this
supposedly doctored assembly in the wake of my examination of your photos,
you admitted you had no answer.
| your questions are mostly a waste of time, but
| i'll continue to humor you, ok?
It is not "humoring" someone to answer his questions regarding your
findings. I'm asking serious questions and you're giving me nothing but
bluster and insults.
| i suggest you take a trip to the ophthalmolgist.
These are not my opinions alone. These are the findings of investigators
that specifically searched for the origin of the metal plate. And found it.
And whose eyesight is also excellent.
You have not given any explanation for why the metal plate is made from the
same material as the bracket, coated with the same coating as the bracket,
the same thickness as the bracket, and -- when placed in the unexpected void
in the bracket -- the hole in the plate completes the hole pattern in the
bracket.
These are all very strong clues that the metal plate in question was once
part of the bracket. Please explain how your theory accounts for these
clues.
| you are wrong on every count
So you keep saying. Do you have any evidence? Bear in mind I have seen
your pictures and analyzed them in detail here.
| even if we ignor the fact that the bracket has a part number
| and an engineering drawing. the jumper, in question has NO
| part number and NO engineering drawing.
Irrelevant. If the plate is a piece cut from the bracket during the fire
investigation it would not be expected to have its own part number or its
own engineering drawing! If you cut a portion of a sway brace out of a
truck wreck so that you can look at it under a microscope, would you expect
General Motors to issue you a new part number for it?