Talk:Gus Grissom/Archive 1

message: A not so brief answer to the "10 proofs we didn't land on the moon" on the above Web site:
10. The Soviets had a five-to-one superiority to the U.S. in manned hours in space. They were first in achieving the following seven important milestones: 
• First man-made satellite in earth orbit… 
• First man in space… 
• First man to orbit the earth… 
• First woman in space… 
• The first crew of three astronauts onboard one spacecraft… 
• The first space walk… 
• The first to have  two  spacecrafts orbiting simultaneously…
This put America at a perceived military disadvantage in missile technology during the very height of the Cold War. 
RETORT: True, all. But after 1964, when Kruschev was overthrown, Soviet space and missle spending dropped precipitously. They tried to get back into the game in 1967 but a fatal Soyuz accident set them back too far to recover). And that doesn’t count all the Soviet failures that never got off the ground and were never reported.
￼
9. Newly retouched photographs correct errors from previously released versions. Why would they be updating thirty-year-old pictures if they really went to the moon? 
￼
RETORT: (he shows two photos, one seeming to show a large C on a rock, indicating that it’s a prop. It’s strictly a lighting trick.) As for why they’d update the photos - well, a good cinematographer should know that photographic techniques have improved by leaps and bounds since 1969.
￼8. Enlarged photographs underneath the lunar lander’s 10,000 lb. thrust engine show the soil completely undisturbed. During ground tests there was grave concern for the vehicle falling into the hole the engine created as it descended. An oversight that they would have to keep consistent for all subsequent moon missions. They attributed it to the effect of no atmosphere.
￼RETORT: What was discovered by the moon landing is that the moon has a fairly thin surface of loose soil covering a very hard surface. The astronauts had serious problems pounding objects and drilling into it. That’s why there was no major crater.
7. Rare, uncirculated photographs, allegedly from the moon’s surface, show scenes supposedly lit solely by sunlight. Yet they contain shadows that do not run parallel with each other, indicating supplemental artificial light. Sunlight would cast shadows that would never intersect.
￼RETORT: The photo shows an astronaut, shadow straight, with what seems to be a shadow at another angle. Dismissing intentionally retouched photograph, explanations could include equipment hidden behind the camera or reflected light from the Lunar Module. Light behaves differently on the moon with no atmosphere to refract it.
￼
6. Neil Armstrong, the first man to supposedly walk on the moon, recently granted an interview to 60 Minutes. Ed Bradley said, “You sometimes seems uncomfortable with your celebrity, that you’d rather not have all of this attention.” Armstong replied, “No, I just don’t deserve it.”  Collins refuses to be interviewed. Aldrin, who granted an interview, threatened to sue us if we showed it to anyone.
RETORT: Armstrong is noted for being near-reclusive in his inevitable fame; his view is that the landing, which included the work of Buzz Aldrin, was the hard, untested part. Aldrin was probably sensible in refusing this guy permission to twist his words, and Collins has gone over the story enough times (read “Carrying the Fire, it’s excellent).
￼
￼5. The moon is 240,000 miles away. The space shuttle has never gone more than 400 miles from the Earth. Except for Apollo astronauts, no humans even claim to have gone beyond low-earth orbit. When the space shuttle astronauts did get to an altitude of 400 miles, the radiation of the Van Allen belts forced them to a lower altitude. The Van Allen radiation belts exist because the Earth’s magnetic field traps the solar wind.
RETORT: The shuttle is not designed to fly to the moon. This is like saying that no one has gone to Paris because taxicabs can’t cross the ocean. At least two Gemini flights also flew into the Van Allen belts, one up to 830 milss above the earth. In addition, the spacecraft walls do a good job of shielding the astronauts. 
￼
4. The top portion of the lunar module which landed on the moon supposedly popped up off the moon with two astronauts aboard, entered lunar orbit 60 miles up, and docked with the command module in lunar orbit. To look at its design and think such could have actually occurred is absolutely ludicrous. 
RETORT: And if you test it, a bumblebee can’t fly. The man forgets this is a craft designed to fly solely in space. This "proof"  is just pure disbelief and has nothing to do with logical explanations.
￼
3. The surface of the moon is a vacuum. The landing module would have been heated to 250 degrees on the light side where they landed. There is no way they could have rejected the heat for as long as 72 hours as they claim on some Apollo missions. 
￼RETORT: The LM was covered in reflective materials to deflect the heat. And 250 degrees is bearable; I’ve been in a sauna at 190. Add the multiple cooling systems and it’s certainly possible.It’s interesting he can deny this but admit spacecraft returned through the atmosphere at 17,500 mph with outside temperatures of thousands of degrees.
￼
2. In 1967 three astronauts were burned alive on the launch pad. The upshot of the congressional inquiry was that the entire Apollo program was in shambles and it was a miracle no one was killed sooner. All of the problems were supposedly fixed by 1969, just two years later. With a third of a century of improved technology, why does it take longer between calamities to repair the Space Shuttle that only achieves Earth orbit?
￼RETORT: It’s a thing this bozo has never heard of called hard work. The government decided it was actually going to do something and it did. That sort of dedication is lacking today. 
I might add this bozo - and I mean the filmmaker, as well as the above anonymous poster -  also tries to prove that Gus Grissom and the crew of Apollo 1 was intentionally killed by NASA or the government as part of a coverup. This is beyond humbuggery and into slander. (And if they really wanted to kill him, all they had to do was sabotage his sports car. Why kill two other men?)
￼
1. All Apollo missions stayed in low-earth orbit for the duration of the trip. We uncovered some mislabeled, unedited, behind-the-scenes footage from NASA that shows the crew of Apollo 11 clearly staging a shot of being half-way to the moon. This clip, shown in (name of film) and explained in (name of another film) proves they did not leave low-earth orbit.
RETORT There is also footage of a rehearsal for Doug McArthur wading ashore in the Phillippines in World War II, The astronauts were expected to participate in television broadcasts during the trip and did some rehearsal for them. No big whoop. This is like saying Tiger Woods never won the Masters as he had sone all his swinging before on the practice range.
Sorry about the long post, but I just felt I had to say something.DrBear 20:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reply 

message: Why isn't there any mention of the official NASA investigation with Astronaut Frank Borman as a member?  There is no mention of it which leads to a appearance of bias. --AdmShiloh - Hawk 01:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the main reason is because that should appear in the article about Apollo 1. This article is more of a biography of Grissom; as with the bios of White and Chaffee, it's a side issue that is better handled in the article about the planned flight itself rather than the individuals. DrBear 16:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why hasn't...

message: In a January 20 2002, interview with CSI star William Petersen in USA Weekend Jeffery Zaslow lists this under "Clues about CSI": "Why Gil Grissom? Petersen's character was to be named Gil Scheinbaum. He changed the name because of his affinity for astronaut Gus Grissom and the alliteration. 'His job is grisly, gruesome.'" I hope this reliable reference to an interview with Petersen, not merely a random article with uncertain sourcing, will put this matter to bed once and for all. - Dravecky 17:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gus Grissom and Gil Grissom 

message: Note that the emblem that is currently on the page for Grissom and Young's GT-3 mission wasn't the official mission patch, as such things didn't exist at the time.  The first official mission patch was for Cooper and Conrad's GT-5.  Mission patches for GT-3 and GT-4 (and the Mercury missions) were made later for the collector market.  There is at least one other mission patch for GT-3, but neither are official.  Perhaps a photo of the mission might be more appropriate?--Voodude 15:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've called these mission patch designs based on what I've read in the NASA lit but I'm not sure what the official designation would have been (I guess none at all?). Gwen Gale (talk) 05:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GT-3 Mission Emblem 

message: Thorough cleanup, more detail, factoring, link and cite checking. This is now at least a readable article and a steadfast skeleton for growth and no, I don't think Gus blew the hatch. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is great!  Thanks for all your hard work. - Dravecky (talk) 06:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: Not being American, I'm not confident about deleting the new section as those people may be notable although I've not heard of them. If nobody objects, I think the section should be deleted.  --Whoosher (talk) 16:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've deleted it. - Dravecky (talk) 17:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I would have done the same. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Notability seems to be the relevant WP guideline. --Jtir (talk) 19:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section "Family" 

message: I just wanted to mention that the star continues to be known as Eta Cassiopeiae.  The Greek-letter system for star names, which works through the Greek alphabet in descending order of brightness within a constellation, remains in effect whether or not another name as been assigned to the star, whether in modern or ancient times.   Hence, Rigil Kentaurus is still Alpha Centauri, Betelgeuse is still Alpha Orionis, and Navi is still Epsilon Cassiopeiae.   The Greek-letter name convention is kept because it provides a standard nomenclature accepted by scientists worldwide. Pithecanthropus (talk) 02:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Navi, formerly known as Epsilon Cassiopeiae 

message: This article states that Grissom was commissioned a 2nd Lt in March 1951, but in the next paragraph states "On March 11, 1952, Grissom was promoted to second lieutenant and was cited for his 'superlative airmanship'." Hmm...perhaps another sign that he was killed by the Illuminati because he knew that NASA was planning to fake the Moon landings...My personal theory is that JFK, Grissom, and Elvis were all abducted by aliens and their "deaths" were just faked to hide this from the American people. Unfortunately, the flying saucer returning them to Earth malfunctioned and crashed into either the WTC or Pentagon on 9/11 (your choice) which, of course, led to another cover-up involving hundreds of sleeper MIB personnel posing as airline passengers, four specially modified stealth bombers painted to look like UA and AA airliners, and the biggest wienie roast in Manhatten history. The repercussions of this are with us today because the aliens got pissed with Cheney and G. W. Bush (both card carrying members of both the alien conspiracy and the Illuminati) for their botching of the 9/11 coverup leading to the selection of a hybrid Illuminati/space alien as the next president of the United States. Time for my medication...seriously he probably was promoted to 1st Lt. in '52 although I don't have the 10 required references to prove this. Jmdeur (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  2nd Lt twice? 

message: While it's true that some published news articles incorrectly attribute the "Navi" nickname to Epsilon Cassiopeiae (and the related Wikipedia article had been repeating this incorrect info) the actual NASA documents show that Gamma Cassiopeiae in the center of the "W" is the star so designated. The second link below includes a detailed image of the actual star chart flown on Apollo 10 where "Navi" is clearly labelled in the upper right-hand corner. - Dravecky (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gamma vs. Epsilon 

message: <Note: A section denying moon landing was deleted for massive POV with no references>
A not so brief answer to the "10 proofs we didn't land on the moon" on the above Web site:
10. The Soviets had a five-to-one superiority to the U.S. in manned hours in space. They were first in achieving the following seven important milestones: 
• First man-made satellite in earth orbit… 
• First man in space… 
• First man to orbit the earth… 
• First woman in space… 
• The first crew of three astronauts onboard one spacecraft… 
• The first space walk… 
• The first to have  two  spacecrafts orbiting simultaneously…
This put America at a perceived military disadvantage in missile technology during the very height of the Cold War. 
RETORT: True, all. But after 1964, when Kruschev was overthrown, Soviet space and missle spending dropped precipitously. They tried to get back into the game in 1967 but a fatal Soyuz accident set them back too far to recover). And that doesn’t count all the Soviet failures that never got off the ground and were never reported.
9. Newly retouched photographs correct errors from previously released versions. Why would they be updating thirty-year-old pictures if they really went to the moon? 
RETORT: (he shows two photos, one seeming to show a large C on a rock, indicating that it’s a prop. It’s strictly a lighting trick.) As for why they’d update the photos - well, a good cinematographer should know that photographic techniques have improved by leaps and bounds since 1969.
8. Enlarged photographs underneath the lunar lander’s 10,000 lb. thrust engine show the soil completely undisturbed. During ground tests there was grave concern for the vehicle falling into the hole the engine created as it descended. An oversight that they would have to keep consistent for all subsequent moon missions. They attributed it to the effect of no atmosphere.
RETORT: What was discovered by the moon landing is that the moon has a fairly thin surface of loose soil covering a very hard surface. The astronauts had serious problems pounding objects and drilling into it. That’s why there was no major crater.
7. Rare, uncirculated photographs, allegedly from the moon’s surface, show scenes supposedly lit solely by sunlight. Yet they contain shadows that do not run parallel with each other, indicating supplemental artificial light. Sunlight would cast shadows that would never intersect.
RETORT: The photo shows an astronaut, shadow straight, with what seems to be a shadow at another angle. Dismissing intentionally retouched photograph, explanations could include equipment hidden behind the camera or reflected light from the Lunar Module. Light behaves differently on the moon with no atmosphere to refract it.
6. Neil Armstrong, the first man to supposedly walk on the moon, recently granted an interview to 60 Minutes. Ed Bradley said, “You sometimes seems uncomfortable with your celebrity, that you’d rather not have all of this attention.” Armstong replied, “No, I just don’t deserve it.”  Collins refuses to be interviewed. Aldrin, who granted an interview, threatened to sue us if we showed it to anyone.
RETORT: Armstrong is noted for being near-reclusive in his inevitable fame; his view is that the landing, which included the work of Buzz Aldrin, was the hard, untested part. Aldrin was probably sensible in refusing this guy permission to twist his words, and Collins has gone over the story enough times (read “Carrying the Fire, it’s excellent).
5. The moon is 240,000 miles away. The space shuttle has never gone more than 400 miles from the Earth. Except for Apollo astronauts, no humans even claim to have gone beyond low-earth orbit. When the space shuttle astronauts did get to an altitude of 400 miles, the radiation of the Van Allen belts forced them to a lower altitude. The Van Allen radiation belts exist because the Earth’s magnetic field traps the solar wind.
RETORT: The shuttle is not designed to fly to the moon. This is like saying that no one has gone to Paris because taxicabs can’t cross the ocean. At least two Gemini flights also flew into the Van Allen belts, one up to 830 milss above the earth. In addition, the spacecraft walls do a good job of shielding the astronauts. 
4. The top portion of the lunar module which landed on the moon supposedly popped up off the moon with two astronauts aboard, entered lunar orbit 60 miles up, and docked with the command module in lunar orbit. To look at its design and think such could have actually occurred is absolutely ludicrous. 
RETORT: And if you test it, a bumblebee can’t fly. The man forgets this is a craft designed to fly solely in space. This "proof"  is just pure disbelief and has nothing to do with logical explanations.
3. The surface of the moon is a vacuum. The landing module would have been heated to 250 degrees on the light side where they landed. There is no way they could have rejected the heat for as long as 72 hours as they claim on some Apollo missions. 
RETORT: The LM was covered in reflective materials to deflect the heat. And 250 degrees is bearable; I’ve been in a sauna at 190. Add the multiple cooling systems and it’s certainly possible.It’s interesting he can deny this but admit spacecraft returned through the atmosphere at 17,500 mph with outside temperatures of thousands of degrees.
2. In 1967 three astronauts were burned alive on the launch pad. The upshot of the congressional inquiry was that the entire Apollo program was in shambles and it was a miracle no one was killed sooner. All of the problems were supposedly fixed by 1969, just two years later. With a third of a century of improved technology, why does it take longer between calamities to repair the Space Shuttle that only achieves Earth orbit?
RETORT: It’s a thing this bozo has never heard of called hard work. The government decided it was actually going to do something and it did. That sort of dedication is lacking today. 
I might add this bozo - and I mean the filmmaker, as well as the above anonymous poster -  also tries to prove that Gus Grissom and the crew of Apollo 1 was intentionally killed by NASA or the government as part of a coverup. This is beyond humbuggery and into slander. (And if they really wanted to kill him, all they had to do was sabotage his sports car. Why kill two other men?)
1. All Apollo missions stayed in low-earth orbit for the duration of the trip. We uncovered some mislabeled, unedited, behind-the-scenes footage from NASA that shows the crew of Apollo 11 clearly staging a shot of being half-way to the moon. This clip, shown in (name of film) and explained in (name of another film) proves they did not leave low-earth orbit.
RETORT There is also footage of a rehearsal for Doug McArthur wading ashore in the Phillippines in World War II, The astronauts were expected to participate in television broadcasts during the trip and did some rehearsal for them. No big whoop. This is like saying Tiger Woods never won the Masters as he had sone all his swinging before on the practice range.
Sorry about the long post, but I just felt I had to say something.DrBear 20:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bravissimo. Except, I wish you hadn't. These vacuum-brained dolts shouldn't be refuted, they should be ridiculed, just like the Pearl Harbor Conspiracy lunatics.  Trekphiler 13:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: This is all original research and I think, highly muddled too, but given it's been here for over four years, let it stay. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: July 2006

message: I have added the following to the books section:
A book titled : "Seven Minus One:the Story of Astronaut Gus Grissom" was self published in 1968 by Carl L. Chappell, Ph.D. through New Frontier Publishing Co. of Madison ,Indiana and is probably the earliest biography of Col. Grissom.
Cecrowder (talk) 11:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Books 

message: I am saddened that Wikipedia has chosen to censor and completely omit what is perhaps the greatest true story related to Gus Grissom's career.  Gus Grissom was starting to go public with how the spacecraft wasn't ready for travel when the press and government controlled "accident" occurred.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.248.178.10 (talk) 20:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Got references from reliable third-party sources? - Dravecky (talk) 00:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I believe the "NASA killed Gus" theory even less than I believe Bill Nye's comedic "a tiger got him" theory of the JFK assassination. - Dravecky (talk) 16:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I think we should write about this account right after we edit the Apollo Program site to discuss "the scholarly evidence" on how the moon landing was staged.  Crackpot...  Ckruschke (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gus Grissom's Wife, Son and Thousands of Americans claim Gus was Murdered. 

message: I'm adding a note that I read in a Smithsonian magazine profile of Grissom, he was the chief innovator (with NASA engineers, presumably) of the 3-axis (4-axis?) joystick which allowed one-handed control of the Gemini thrusters. Another reason the Gemini was nicknamed the Gusmobile. If anyone can find an online link, much appreciated. I have only my memory. - David Spalding 14:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Gusmobile" and the thruster joystick

message: How and why is he known as 'Gus' instead of Virgil ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.30.192.106 (talk) 10:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. Probably requires reading a biographical source to answer. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Gus was most likely a contraction of his family name Grissom. See this biographical sketch written about him by his siblings for a chapter of the Purdue alumni club. There are many hints that, in his adult life at least, he wasn't keen on being called by his given name Virgil. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is he called 'Gus' ?

message: I remember reading (don't remember where, quite possibly when the Liberty Bell 7 was touring) that Grissom felt rejected when he didn't get the same kind of attention that Alan Shepard received earlier - trip to the White House and ticker-tape parade.  Being followed by John Glenn, who also received a hero's welcome, supposedly acerbated his feelings.Jtyroler (talk) 04:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. This was portrayed in the book The Right Stuff. Ckruschke (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mercury Aftermath 

message: *A landmark on the Moon is called Marina Grissom.
This is uncited, and a Google search doesn't give anything likely (one web page for "International Space Hall of Fame", but no sources.) Can someone provide a reference to put this back? Who was "Marina Grissom?" What sort of a "landmark" would it be? Is "marina" the diminutive form of the Latin mare ("sea")? JustinTime55 (talk) 20:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Grissom (crater). It is a landmark on the Moon.--Debouch (talk) 03:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much for providing something verifiable. However, it apparently is a crater (could be called a feature), not a "landmark" which is being used here as a peacock or weasel word. (I also find it very interesting that the exact same phrase "a landmark on the Moon" is used in the few Google hits I was able to find for "Marina Grissom.") The pertinent definitions of landmark are: "1: an object (as a stone or tree) that marks the boundary of land; 2a : a conspicuous object on land that marks a locality; 4: a structure (as a building) of unusual historical and usually aesthetic interest". And there is still no indication of what the word "Marina" refers to. I'll put it back, with a wikilink to the crater article. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Marina Grissom" on the Moon? 

message: I notice that Grissom's headstone at Arlington National Cemetery identifies him as having served in World War II. This seems entirely feasible to me, as Grissom would have been 19 by war's end. Yet it is not mentioned in any of his official bios. The fact that he was already 24 by the time he earned his BS at Purdue would also seems to support this, since returning World War II vets often entered college after the war on the G.I. Bill.
Anyone know? I'd imagine mistakes on headstones at Arlington are a rarity—especially on such a high-profile burial. If he served, it deserves mentioning. —xanderer (talk) 01:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Besides, even though he was only 19 at war's end, the draft was still on, and a lot of guys had to do their usual terms of service on into peacetime.   Pithecanthropus (talk) 02:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I found a little bit about his service—stateside—in the Army Air Corps during the war and added it to the article. It could still use some clarification, however. —xanderer (talk) 02:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I came here to the Talk page to specifically ask why it's called "Army Air Forces" in the article when I know for sure it was still called Army Air Corps at that time.  This appears to be an appropriate place to pose that query. Darr247 (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It was actually AAC before the war, change (IIRC) in 1941. You're right to ask it here, tho. (I still rebel at "Forces", myself... ;) )  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 03:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  World War II service? 

message: The only citation for this was an image of Gus Grissom with the words saying he was a Masonic Astronaut.  Please tell me this isn't enough of a citation... seriously.  I'm quite sure my image of "Clapton is God" would be summarily removed if I were to use it to claim that Eric Clapton was an Omnipotent deity.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.45.123.15 (talk) 09:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Clapton is widely accepted to be a Guitar God, so... ;p Then, as here, an actual source is required (let alone for a claim of deification ;p). I could just as well prepare a picture of myself captioned King of the Wild Frontier; it wouldn't make me Davy Crockett.  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 22:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Master Mason" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Gus Grissom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071008201355/http://www.astronautscholarship.org/grissom.html to http://www.astronautscholarship.org/grissom.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080521023905/http://www.space.com:80/news/grissom_spacesuit_021120.html to http://www.space.com/news/grissom_spacesuit_021120.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070930181620/http://www.roadsideamerica.com/tnews/NewsItemDisplay.php?Tip_AttrId==7014 to http://www.roadsideamerica.com/tnews/NewsItemDisplay.php?Tip_AttrId==7014
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140723225211/http://astronautmemorial.net/grissom.htm to http://www.astronautmemorial.net/grissom.htm
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110524011004/http://www.nasm.si.edu/exhibitions/attm/rm.br.ea.4.html to http://www.nasm.si.edu/exhibitions/attm/rm.br.ea.4.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100713031654/http://www.longbeach.gov/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=17682 to http://www.longbeach.gov/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=17682
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071103114352/http://www.grissom.afrc.af.mil:80/questions/ to http://www.grissom.afrc.af.mil/questions/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: On https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gus_Grissom#Awards_and_honors
Please someone with the time and wiki-tables code know-how add to his military awards:
1.) The Air Force Longevity Service Award 
    between his Korean Service Medal and United Nations Korea Medal, and
2.) The Good Conduct Medal (United States) (ARMY version --earned in his days in the United States Army Air Forces) 
    between the NASA Exceptional Service Medal and American Campaign Medal
These ribbons are plainly visible on the period photo widely seen on WP: 
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Gus_Grissom_photo_portrait_head_and_shoulders.jpg
I don't know the ranking --wheather NASA awards properly go atop military ones (like the current unadjusted ribbon rack shows) or not. I'd appreciate in this thread input from someone who knows. But the big thing is, for historical accuracy, adding those missing military ribbons to the rack please.
Thanks!  Cramyourspam (talk) 06:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing AWARDS AND HONORS items addition request 

message: For Gus' Air Force Master Astronaut badge, I cannot find a citation. Is there a good place to look up official military records of awards? Or anything else in general to help me out here? Bonus points for teaching me how to fish. Thanks! Kees08 (talk) 04:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You're having trouble because it is wrong. Whereas the other services have only one type of astronaut wings, in the USAF the Astronaut badge is issued at the three levels associated with the wearer's Aeronautical rating, i.e., Pilot, Senior Pilot or Command Pilot. Gus was a command pilot, so his astronaut wings, the first to be awarded, had the star and wreath above of a Command Pilot. Which is what the article shows, but not what it says. From that, we can easily find a source for his Air Force Command Astronaut Wings. Change the article to say this instead of "Master".(use this source) Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: He seems to have had only the senior version when he first got them in 1961. Which matches the picture of Captain Grissom we have in the article. I get it; he earned his wings in 1951, so he would not have racked up 15 years until 1966, alkthough he already had his 3,000 hours in 1959. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation for military awards