Re: Apollo One, the FBI, and Scott Grissom <- WARNING! TROLL! Probably Mary Zornio in drag again, too

From: Doug... (dvandorn_at_NOSPAM.mn.rr.com)
Date: 06/07/04 

Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 05:12:43 GMT

In article <Z9Mwc.31391$lL1.25983@fed1read03>, charleston1
@coxthedotgoeshere.net says...
> "LaDonna Wyss" <hpywife927@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Doug... <dvandorn@NOSPAM.mn.rr.com> wrote:
> > > In article <Mywwc.19685$xt5.18200@bignews2.bellsouth.net>,
> > > dinehnm@KILLALLSPAMMERSyahoo.com says...
> > > > "LaDonna Wyss" <hpywife927@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Unfortunately, as I've said before many times, Scott does not
> explain
> > > > > things well. He deals in sound bites, and I'm afraid it has left a
> > > > > VERY wrong impression.
> > > >
> > > > If he dealt in verifiable evidence, he'd accomplish more. Perhaps you
> can
> > > > assist him by providing verifiable evidence which you've uncovered.
> > >
> > > Scott, we've been through this with scott and his supporters in the
> > > past. The fact is that scott has never been able to support his
> > > positions with factual statements that stand scrutiny (witness how the
> > > Hill Report burst his bubble so thoroughly), and when he's pressed to
> > > back up his statements with verifications, he descends into 6-year-old
> > > name-calling and emotional appeals.
> > >
> > > It's just not worth the effort. And note that, if we had all just
> > > ignored scott's latest "got-religion" convert, we wouldn't be seeing
> > > this newsgroup hijacked yet again to pump up scott grissom's fucking ego
> > > and fuel his fantasies.
> > >
> > > Doug
> > > dvandorn@NOSPAM.mn.rr.com
> >
> > Apparently it is far easier for some in here to believe people get
> > brainwashed by Scott than to think someone actually took at the fire
> > for him/her self and decided something was up. For people to berate
> > Scott the way they do, and then proceed to give him that much power is
> > rather incongruous, don't you think?
>
> There are people here on this group today who went out on a limb to try and
> give Scott a fair chance to present his argument in a scientific forum with
> peer review. They even went so far as to put together a moderated newsgroup
> where he could air his theories without being attacked. People here voted
> for that new newsgroup to be formed (sci.space.moderated) so he and others
> could talk in that safer atmosphere. Since you come here not knowing the
> history here, as I did too once upon a time, you need to appreciate that
> people are sort of spent on this issue unless something dramatically new is
> shown to them. So that is why some have offered to put up your citations on
> a website. So everyone can see them. When you are ready to do that, I
> think you will get a fair hearing. Until then, there are scant few of us
> with enough of the documents available to us to discuss Apollo 1 in much
> detail other than what is available on the web and in a few books.
>
> My interest in the Apollo 1 accident is primarily its historical aspect with
> regards to how NASA has addressed the issue of escape systems.
> Nevertheless, I spent a lot of time, last year at a University Library,
> making copies of key portions of that aged Congressional report, so that I
> could get to the bottom of whether the Apollo crew could have survived and
> if so with what quality of life. It is a bit disturbing to delve into the
> details of their deaths, but I have done so to try and help you understand
> just how significantly that crew was exposed to CO, and other toxic gases,
> some of which are pulmonary irritants. I think I have failed. I have
> worked a couple of CO accidents from an Environmental Health aspect (non
> fire related) and they can be very deadly, happen very quickly, and yes,
> very sadly.
>
> > ...He's either convincing, or he's not, and if he's not, then you need to
> > deal with the fact that there are some of us out in the public who do
> > not bow at NASA's altar.
>
> There are a lot of people here who do not bow at NASA's altar.

I'm not exactly an altar-bower, myself, Daniel -- I believe that NASA is
like any other big agency/corporation, in that, most of the time, so
many people are pulling and pushing it in so many different directions,
it just does not and cannot operate in the monolithic fashion required
to enable any kind of conspiracy. Much less a conspiracy to murder Gus
Grissom and his crew and potentially derail the American manned lunar
landing program.

I will hasten to point out that I am not a psychologist by trade. But I
*am* extraordinarily learned (admittedly self-taught) in a variety of
psychologies, including the psychology of grief. (I have had to work
through several episodes of grief in my life -- it helped me in coping
with my own grief to learn about how the process works.) And the
pattern of behavior scott has exhibited in his Usenet posting history is
tremendously typical of getting bogged down in the anger phase of the
grief process. So much so that his behaviors were/are completely
predictable within the framework of that syndrome.

All I have ever done is combine my knowledge of the grief process (and
the traps that lie within it) with my observations of scott's
demonstrated behaviors (as exhibited by his Usenet postings), compared
that with the likelihood that key figures in NASA were involved in a
grand conspiracy to cover up a murder plot which is difficult to
believably provide any motivations for, and compare all of that to the
likelihood that the causes of the Apollo fire were adequately explored
and explained by the Apollo 204 Report. And that has led me to the
conclusions I have reached.

I'm not trying to convince anyone else that my explanation for scott's
behavior is correct -- because, quite frankly, I am personally so
certain of it that I have no need for affirmation in this regard. I'm
just presenting what I see, and what I (to the best of my limited, human
abilities) make of it. If it helps anyone out there make sense of how
scott's behavior affects *them*, then great. If not, then let them find
the best way for themselves.

But I have *no* illusions that anything I say will have any real impact
on scott or his supporters. Only when their psychoses interfere with
important aspects of their lives will they be motivated to work through
them and resolve them -- and I'm just not that important to them.

Doug
dvandorn@NOSPAM.mn.rr.com