Conclusive Proof the Moon Landings were Faked

[Zakalwe]

#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.

So you made your outrageous claim based on nothing other than a sentence from the reports author?  I find it so predictable that you demand a high standard of proof from others yet you are willing to blindly accept a narrative as verbatim as long as it aligns with your belief.
You do know what confirmation bias is, don't you?

You simply have no idea what this so-called report contains. It  could be nothing more than pages of rantings and nonsense (much like the increasingly tedious threads of yours). You cannot claim ANYTHING about it other than it was claimed to have been submitted.

Again, standard hoax-believers nonsense. Fabricating a claim out of whole cloth. You should be embarrassed, but I know that you won't.

[najak]

So you made your outrageous claim based on nothing other than a sentence from the reports author?

Seems you haven't read any of this..  Please do, before commenting more.

Here's his shorter-report which contains MANY details to start with.  He said the 500-page report is simply more specific.   Once Apollo 1 happened, it emboldened more people still on the inside to provide him "specifics", since he had been fired and no longer had this access.

58 page, 1st report:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uqfadpD3mprmLyWdXV8R4izOEbkcJabM/view?usp=drive_link

Summation -- read to the bottom - gives a summation of hwat was in his 59 page report:
https://www.nasa.gov/history/Apollo204/barron.html

And the transcript from the hearing:
https://www.nasa.gov/history/Apollo204/baron.htm

This guy deserves some honor and respect.

And his convenient freak accident -- smells more than just fishy.

(and the 500-page report - gone missing.  NASA didn't even seem interested...)

No other signs of his research from his home were recovered...  Do you think he gave them his only copy??    Yet his own copy and source materials -- also gone.

List of names -- never mentioned again.   He tried to read them into the hearing transcript - but never got to.

Fishy, fishy, fishy,  -- no?

[Zakalwe]

So you made your outrageous claim based on nothing other than a sentence from the reports author?

Seems you haven't read any of this..  Please do, before commenting more.

Here's his shorter-report which contains MANY details to start with.  He said the 500-page report is simply more specific.   Once Apollo 1 happened, it emboldened more people still on the inside to provide him "specifics", since he had been fired and no longer had this access.

58 page, 1st report:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uqfadpD3mprmLyWdXV8R4izOEbkcJabM/view?usp=drive_link

Summation -- read to the bottom - gives a summation of hwat was in his 59 page report:
https://www.nasa.gov/history/Apollo204/barron.html

And the transcript from the hearing:
https://www.nasa.gov/history/Apollo204/baron.htm

This guy deserves some honor and respect.

And his convenient freak accident -- smells more than just fishy.

(and the 500-page report - gone missing.  NASA didn't even seem interested...)

No other signs of his research from his home were recovered...  Do you think he gave them his only copy??    Yet his own copy and source materials -- also gone.

List of names -- never mentioned again.   He tried to read them into the hearing transcript - but never got to.

Fishy, fishy, fishy,  -- no?

I'm not talking about Baron, I'm talking about YOU.

You are making a claim based on a report that you freely admit that you haven't seen. In other words your opinion is based on nothing ore than a desire that the report contains something.

That is called, at best, wishful thinking. You don't have the intellectual honesty to say as much.

[najak]

I'm not talking about Baron, I'm talking about YOU.
You are making a claim based on a report that you freely admit that you haven't seen. In other words your opinion is based on nothing ore than a desire that the report contains something.
That is called, at best, wishful thinking. You don't have the intellectual honesty to say as much.

Have you read this testimony or 59-page report, or summation?

From the testimony -  the nature of the 500-page report is CLEARLY described by Baron:

Mr. BARON. I have sent to the chairman of this committee a more thorough report which includes all the names.
...
Mr. BARON. No, sir. You are talking about the 55-page report. I am talking about the 500-page report.
Mr. TEAGUE. Your report went to the chairman of the full committee, not to me. He told me he received 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.

Went missing.  NASA site declares that it didn't even exist yet.   I thought Apollogists didn't need to lie....

[Zakalwe]

I'm not talking about Baron, I'm talking about YOU.
You are making a claim based on a report that you freely admit that you haven't seen. In other words your opinion is based on nothing ore than a desire that the report contains something.
That is called, at best, wishful thinking. You don't have the intellectual honesty to say as much.

Have you read this testimony or 59-page report, or summation?

From the testimony -  the nature of the 500-page report is CLEARLY described by Baron:

Mr. BARON. I have sent to the chairman of this committee a more thorough report which includes all the names.
...
Mr. BARON. No, sir. You are talking about the 55-page report. I am talking about the 500-page report.
Mr. TEAGUE. Your report went to the chairman of the full committee, not to me. He told me he received 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.

Went missing.  NASA site declares that it didn't even exist yet.   I thought Apollogists didn't need to lie....

You really are quite slow on the uptake.
You
Have
No
Idea
What's
In
This
Report.
All you have is a quote from the author. It *may* contain real information. It *may* contain nothing but hearsay from people with an axe to grind. It *may* contain the ramblings of a confabulist.
You simply do not know, yet are continuing to bang your drum as if it absolutely contains something revelatory. You simply cannot say what's in that report. Neither can you asses the veracity of whatever claims are in there. All you can say is "we simply don't know".

For all your bluster you are EXACTLY like every other hoax-believer. Desperate to believe anything that you think shows a knock-out blow. I asked you to show how this "report" can support your claim that it contains

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

. You cannot, simply because you do not have access to it.

Again, you have demonstrated that you are a fantasist.

[najak]

Again, you have demonstrated that you are a fantasist.

First you say I have no idea what's in the report.  Now you just say, "how do you know it's true?"

What we do KNOW:
1. Baron provided a very damning 59 page report...  and even management called it "partly true".  So not just hot air.
2. Apollo 1 happened, for the very CSM that his team/company was working on.
3. Baron submitted his 500-page expanded report with "specifics/names/details" - and that it went entirely missing.
4. Baron's family killed late at night by a one-car train with no witnesses, 6 days after giving testimony and report.
5. We have no more record of follow-up on any of these "specifics" ... zero.
6. NASA responded to this QA/QC tragedy by increasing their development rate ~50%... reducing a 3 years schedule to 2 years.

And you smell no fish?

[najak]

@LunarOrbit - I think Thomas Baron deserves his own thread here.   Even the NASA site authors didn't seem to know the actual details.

[TimberWolfAu]

===  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.

Sorry, you said "corruptions" then spouted of a list of inefficiencies and poor practices that can be found in any government bureaucracy or private business, and having spent over 20 years with the same company, I can honestly say I've seen every item on that list occur.

So, where is this "corruption" you spoke of?

And as you crow about how great Baron was, should we remind you of what the person he named at the hearing said? Sure, let's do that;

Mr. HOLMBURG. He has ideas of what caused the fire. He did most of the talking about it and I listened to speculations on that thing. I never made any comments about what caused it or I never told him exactly what caused it. I was never near the accident when it happened.

Mr. FULTON. Mr. Chairman

Mr. TEAGUE. One question.

Mr. FULTON. You are certain at no time you gave any statement that you had knowledge of the cause of the Apollo 204 accident that killed three astronauts, that you at no time said that they were in the capsule for 5 minutes without getting out, nor that there bad been 9 minutes' noticed of a fire and nothing was done about it?

Mr. HOLMBURG. No, sir.

Mr. FULTON. You are absolutely sure?

Mr. HOLMBURG. Yes, sir.

Remember, Holmburg is the one that Baron claimed told him he knew exactly how the fire occurred, yet Holmburg, under oath, quite clearly states the opposite.

[Zakalwe]

Again, you have demonstrated that you are a fantasist.

First you say I have no idea what's in the report.  Now you just say, "how do you know it's true?"

What we do KNOW:
1. Baron provided a very damning 59 page report...  and even management called it "partly true".  So not just hot air.
2. Apollo 1 happened, for the very CSM that his team/company was working on.
3. Baron submitted his 500-page expanded report with "specifics/names/details" - and that it went entirely missing.
4. Baron's family killed late at night by a one-car train with no witnesses, 6 days after giving testimony and report.
5. We have no more record of follow-up on any of these "specifics" ... zero.
6. NASA responded to this QA/QC tragedy by increasing their development rate ~50%... reducing a 3 years schedule to 2 years.

And you smell no fish?

Crack on, lad. You keep on insisting that a report that youve never seen is somehow damning. SMDH

[onebigmonkey]

Najak seems to have the idea that everyone involved with Apollo downed tools and stopped work while the board of inquiry deliberated. This is not the case, as can be seen in these 'in house' publications

https://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/roundup.html

If he cares to read the relevant ones, he'll also find that recommendations were made and acted upon.

Apollo didn't somehow achieve a magic 50% improvement. It continued with its intended aim: landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to Earth before the decade was out.

[ApolloEnthusiast]

#1: Could you quantify how much different? I'm not understanding the value of "way different".
#2: Do you believe I could credibly claim the Earth has been faked if I were able to show that rock samples from one part of the world are measurably different from rock samples taken hundreds of miles away?

#1: Did you not see the pie graphs in the chart I posted from that Chinese paper? One is for Apollo, the other is for Chang'e 5.

Sorry, I was away this weekend and am just catching up now.

#1. Yes, I saw the pie graphs and the chart. I'm not a geologist and neither are you. What's missing is some kind of range of acceptable norms. I don't know how much variance should be expected, and I'm very certain you don't either. All this shows there is some difference, but there is no indication of whether it is something significant.

If this is "way different" than the expected range of variance, to use your technical jargon, I'm curious as to why the study is titled, "Extraterrestrial photosynthesis by Chang’E-5 lunar soil" and not something more like, "Holy shit, Apollo rocks were faked!" It doesn't seem like the professionals who conducted the study have reached the same conclusion you did about their data. What do you think the reason for that is?

So why link to the article and use it to prop up your claim if you are unable to verify the veracity of it?

Because it looks accurate/neutral/factual so I present it.  If it's wrong, then it gets challenged, and we reassess.  Do you want to challenge it?  I will accept your challenges if you have them.  If I were to stake my claim ahead, "I KNOW THIS ARTICLE IS FACTUAL" - that would be quite dumb of me.  So I don't.  This is how honest debates go - sometimes you think a claim/source is credible, but later find out it is not.

No, no, no, no, no! This is not how "honest debates go". If something "looks" accurate/neutral/factual to you, then you vet and verify it to be sure that it is, in fact, accurate and factual. Once you have subjected it to enough scrutiny yourself, and documented the ways you verified it, only then should it be presented as fact. We all make errors, so sometimes something that is vetted may still be discovered to be faulty, but that is only legitimate when a thorough investigation has already been performed by the claimant. No one in an honest discussion has the burden of being your research assistant. It is your responsibility to ensure that the material you present is as accurate as possible before presenting it.

Your method is just throwing things against the wall to see if it sticks, and then declaring victory if someone doesn't have a thoroughly documented and verified rebuttal ready. It is lazy and dishonest and has nothing to do with actual research or debate. I have told you variations of this several times already. When are you going to learn?

[LunarOrbit]

@LunarOrbit - I think Thomas Baron deserves his own thread here.   Even the NASA site authors didn't seem to know the actual details.

If you ask me to allow you to start a new threads one more time you will be banned until the new year. I'm not spending my holiday babysitting you.

Grow up and defend the claims you have already made, or retract them.

[TimberWolfAu]

Najak seems to have the idea that everyone involved with Apollo downed tools and stopped work while the board of inquiry deliberated. This is not the case, as can be seen in these 'in house' publications

https://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/roundup.html

If he cares to read the relevant ones, he'll also find that recommendations were made and acted upon.

Apollo didn't somehow achieve a magic 50% improvement. It continued with its intended aim: landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to Earth before the decade was out.

IIRC, they were already working on the Block II Command Module, so it's not like they were starting from scratch.

[najak]

Remember, Holmburg is the one that Baron claimed told him he knew exactly how the fire occurred, yet Holmburg, under oath, quite clearly states the opposite.

... or Holmburg just knew how to stay alive and keep his job...   This seems very likely to me.

If Baron was killed, and his 500-page report discarded -- this casts extreme doubt upon the neutrality/sincerity of this Congressional hearing.

The evidence indicates they wanted to bury this...  and so they did -- Baron, wife, daughter, and 500-page report with names and specifics.

And you don't smell the fish?

[Mag40]

Remember, Holmburg is the one that Baron claimed told him he knew exactly how the fire occurred, yet Holmburg, under oath, quite clearly states the opposite.

... or Holmburg just knew how to stay alive and keep his job...   This seems very likely to me.

If Baron was killed, and his 500-page report discarded -- this casts extreme doubt upon the neutrality/sincerity of this Congressional hearing.

The evidence indicates they wanted to bury this...  and so they did -- Baron, wife, daughter, and 500-page report with names and specifics.

And you don't smell the fish?

Hey, I've got an idea. Why  don't you shut up with your gish gallup unsupported opinion and start answering tabled issues? I smell bullshit and you won't get much change from people used to seeing the same pathetic claims and the same behaviour from HBs.

His 59 page report points the finger at NAA and all you are doing is playing desk chair Columbo with a Cluedo set.