Conclusive Proof the Moon Landings were Faked

[najak]

PHYSICS IS NOT BEING BROKEN.

Except it is.  8-flag motions in very simple context.  The 4 pushes towards the LM -- unexplained -- in simple context.  Physics broken.

[Peter B]

#1: Even if you prove you're right about the flag (and I haven't seen that), all you've done is prove that piece of video alone was fake. That doesn't prove all of Apollo was fake. A Photoshopped wedding photo isn't proof the wedding was fake.

#2: Finally, I'd remind you to read the Taylor interview, but I suppose now you've settled on the explanation that everyone who has ever provided verbal evidence in support of Apollo is lying?

#1: Correct - it only proves that they faked this footage.  Here it's a simple setup - with no explanations for the behavior.  Nothing can PULL this flag towards the LM in the ways that it was done, for the timing and subtle/steady nature of it all -- there was no "chaos factor" possible because of the steadiness and duration of it's appearances.

Well, I can think of a pretty straightforward explanation. But I'm going to read the relevant thread first and do some research to see if it works in the circumstances.

#2: I take interviews and claims of lone people in the spotlight with huge grains of salt - esp. when it comes to Apollo.

Well, that's why I asked you to state what the three pre-Apollo hypotheses were for the formation of the Moon, and why I've specifically asked you to answer a question from the Taylor interview. Trust me, they're relevant.

I've seen too much contrary evidence.  The 8-flags is the SIMPLEST OF THOSE - to help others SEE IT...

The missing 500-page Baron report - which they pretend now "never existed", is very damning.  Why would they pretend now that it did not exist?

Quote: “When the tragedy occurred, Baron was apparently in the process of expanding his 55-page paper into a 500-page report.”

Who is "they"?

[LunarOrbit]

PHYSICS IS NOT BEING BROKEN.

Except it is.  8-flag motions in very simple context.  The 4 pushes towards the LM -- unexplained -- in simple context.  Physics broken.

The simplest explanation is that it is your interpretation that is broken, not physics. Even if the other members were unable to explain it, that doesn't mean there is no reasonable explanation at all.

[najak]

The simplest explanation is that it is your interpretation that is broken, not physics. Even if the other members were unable to explain it, that doesn't mean there is no reasonable explanation at all.

Given the simple setup here - no atmosphere, nothing to push it towards the LM.  This is a very simple physics context.

I'll happily reduce this to "seemingly breaks physics, with no existing viable physics hypothesis to explain these movements".

Please let me post more items for discussion.  Maybe some of the stuff still-in-my-head can justifiably be contested.

[najak]

#1: Well, I can think of a pretty straightforward explanation. But I'm going to read the relevant thread first and do some research to see if it works in the circumstances.
#2: Well, that's why I asked you to state what the three pre-Apollo hypotheses were for the formation of the Moon, and why I've specifically asked you to answer a question from the Taylor interview. Trust me, they're relevant.
#3: Who is "they"?

#1: Awesome, I can't wait to hear your response.  Maybe you can ask LunarOrbit to re-open this thread, and remove his damning/inaccurate final statements about me not being willing to address the counter claims.

#2: I'll put this on my list.. Please send me the link, and maybe give me a couple highlights, so that I can maximize the value I get from this time spent.

#3: "They" is NASA.

Here is the NASA summation of Baron:
https://www.nasa.gov/history/Apollo204/barron.html

And here is the congressional testimony transcript, look for "500":
https://www.nasa.gov/history/Apollo204/baron.htm

Near the end.

I find this to be horrific, that NASA is pretending that this 500-page report never existed!...   It's perhaps one of the more damaging pieces of evidence against them, and the corruption involved with Apollo.

1960's was a very corrupt period in time for USA Politics.
1. Two Kennedy's assassinated - the most honest of candidates.
2. Bay of Pigs
3. Gulk of Tonkin -> fake evidence, known to be fake - justifying 2 million drafted, and 250K dead, others screwed up for life -- for Military Machine profits?
4. Vietnam - reporting total sham -- Daniel Ellsberg leaks it, else we may have never known.
5. Apollo...  yeah, this one was 100% real.

[TimberWolfAu]

I find this to be horrific, that NASA is pretending that this 500-page report never existed!...   It's perhaps one of the more damaging pieces of evidence against them, and the corruption involved with Apollo.

First you will need to demonstrate that any "pretending" is taking place. Did the person who wrote the description on the page read the testimony? Were they working off notes given to them?

Better yet, have you tried emailing the link at the bottom of the page and advising of the error? This group has shown several times that people are quite often ready to receive updated information and make changes when needed (per other threads where people have contaced other webpages and/or magazines)

[Zakalwe]

I find this to be horrific, that NASA is pretending that this 500-page report never existed!...   It's perhaps one of the more damaging pieces of evidence against them, and the corruption involved with Apollo.

1960's was a very corrupt period in time for USA Politics.
Irrelevant nonsense snipped

How do you know this? Have you seen this report? On what basis do you make this claim?

[najak]

First you will need to demonstrate that any "pretending" is taking place. Did the person who wrote the description on the page read the testimony? Were they working off notes given to them?

Better yet, have you tried emailing the link at the bottom of the page and advising of the error? This group has shown several times that people are quite often ready to receive updated information and make changes when needed (per other threads where people have contaced other webpages and/or magazines)

Give it a shot -- see if you can get it changed -- or more likely, they'll just remove the "conflicting testimony" which looks very bad for Apollo.

[najak]

How do you know this? Have you seen this report? On what basis do you make this claim?

Read the transcript.  He SUBMITTED IT TO THEM, and they said they'd review it.  None of his source materials or other copies ever found.   Totally gone.

And nothing smells fishy to anyone else here but me?

[TimberWolfAu]

Read the transcript.  He SUBMITTED IT TO THEM, and they said they'd review it.  None of his source materials or other copies ever found.   Totally gone.

And nothing smells fishy to anyone else here but me?

Your claim was -

I find this to be horrific, that NASA is pretending that this 500-page report never existed!...   It's perhaps one of the more damaging pieces of evidence against them, and the corruption involved with Apollo.

Would you mind showing Baron's testimony about the "corruption involved with Apollo"? My recollection is that the report was based on activities at NAA (and remember, most of this information was received via 'tips' and anonymously, rarely witnessed by Baron himself), not NASA, given Baron was an employee of NAA. In addition, don't forget that the reports were mentioned by the committee, which acknowledgement that NAA agreed with some of the findings, seems a strange way to hide something.

And, on the side, you're the one taking issue with how a page, last updated in 2003 apparently, describes events almost 40 years earlier, so it would be on you to contact them with the appropriate details, don't you agree?

[Mag40]

Read the transcript.  He SUBMITTED IT TO THEM, and they said they'd review it.  None of his source materials or other copies ever found.   Totally gone.

And nothing smells fishy to anyone else here but me?

Something smells and it's bovine orientated.
https://www.clavius.org/baron.html
"Thomas Baron's report was especially damning to NASA?

If anything it was especially damning to North American, not to NASA. The 58-page report (which has survived) does not bring any allegations against NASA, therefore it's unsupportable to assume the longer report (which has not survived) necessarily would have.

The investigation after the fire pitted North American against NASA. If either one of them appeared clearly at fault, the other would likely be exonerated. NASA charged that NAA had been negligent in building the spacecraft and filling it with flammable items. NAA charged that NASA demanded far too many changes in the design without giving NAA time to accommodate them, and unsafely operated the spacecraft with a high-pressure oxygen environment, and that the flammable items had been demanded by NASA's astronauts and therefore could not be easily refused.

If anything, NASA would have wanted Baron's report to be given special attention because it outlined lax safety procedures on the part of North American alone, exonerating NASA. NASA had previously questioned the effectiveness of North American's development program. Although this seems callous to think this way, NASA would have been motivated to pin the blame on North American, and Baron's report would have helped that."

[Zakalwe]

How do you know this? Have you seen this report? On what basis do you make this claim?

Read the transcript.  He SUBMITTED IT TO THEM, and they said they'd review it.  None of his source materials or other copies ever found.   Totally gone.

And nothing smells fishy to anyone else here but me?

So you have never seen this report?
So how exactly did you reach the conclusion that this "report" was

one of the more damaging pieces of evidence against them, and the corruption involved with Apollo.

?

Surely you didn't just pull this outrageous claim out of your arse did you? Surely not?

[najak]

#1: so it would be on you to contact them with the appropriate details, don't you agree?
#2: Would you mind showing Baron's testimony about the "corruption involved with Apollo"?

#1: These are your kinsmen, you should police your own.
No matter, I sent them an email.   See if they respond.

#2: Baron reported the "corruption of QA" within NASA -- even so poorly done at the "end of the pipeline" for the CSM itself..  So the QA/QC of Apollo was highly corrupted.  And we have no record of any attempts to contact any names listed in his 500-page report -- which remains missing, and never mentioned again... as though it had never existed -- SAME as reported by the NASA site summary.

===  Corruptions he reported - because many of these are inexcusable for the mission they were claiming to be doing =====

Lack of coordination between people in responsible positions.
Lack of communication between almost everyone.
The fact that people in responsible positions did not take many of the problems seriously.
Engineers operating equipment instead of technical people.
Many technicians do not know their job. This is partly due to the fact that they are constantly shifted from one job to another.
People are lax when it comes to safety.
People are lax when it comes to maintaining cleanliness levels.
We do not make a large enough effort to enforce the PQCP.
People do not get an official tie-in time period.
We do not maintain proper work and systems records.
NAA does not give the working force a feeling of accomplishment.
There is not one procedure that I can remember that was completed without a deviation, either written or oral.
Allowing ill practices to continue when the Company is aware of them.
The constant transfer of QC and technical types of people to different types of tasks. Many of the techs will tell the QC man that they have never done that type of job before, or used that type of equipment before. This is one of the most prevalent problems NAA has.

[najak]

#1: So you have never seen this report?
#2: Surely you didn't just pull this outrageous claim out of your arse did you? Surely not?

#1: Thanks to govt/NASA and Baron's freak accident death -  NO ONE got to see this report, nor ever will.

#2: It's clear from his summation of it:

Mr. BARON. I have a 500-page report. I have an opening statement which I wanted to read, which described this 500-page report, and in this I think you can get all the possible names that there are, the times, the dates, the tests that were being run and the internal letters of the company, proper specifications, especially in regard to flamability of materials. All this is in this new report.

===
You are denigrating someone whom you should probably be honoring.

[najak]

If anything, NASA would have wanted Baron's report to be given special attention because it outlined lax safety procedures on the part of North American alone, exonerating NASA.

I AGREE - this is how it SHOULD have been.  But NASA made no deal of it, nor did anyone.  Their response was to accelerate development 50%... not slow down, or figure out how to fix these very deep-rooted issues at the bottom levels.

Smell the fish?