Conclusive Proof the Moon Landings were Faked

[najak]

#1: Najak seems to have the idea that everyone involved with Apollo downed tools and stopped work...
#2: 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.

#1: NASA was under political pressure of cancellation.  Future uncertain...  it became a viable question of "throwing more good money after badly spent money..."

If Baron's reports would have become more publicized, it might have lead to more investigations of MORE of the sub-contractors...  because if it looks THIS-UGLY at the very end of the production chain -- and WASN'T KNOWN - this indicates problems elsewhere.   If you see some roaches, you assume you likely have a bug problem.

For NASA to continue - they needed this 500-page report and Baron to be gone.


#2: Yes, they did change their pace of development by 50% by cutting-corners... and they all declared it was crazy and shouldn't be done.   They did it anyways, and pooof, it was magical.

Here's Alan Bean giving a first hand account..   "That's Crazy!  You can't do that!

https://youtu.be/Qr6Vcvl0OeU?t=1211

Bean's monologue here:

We’re gonna put them all together and test them all at once!  Because we’ve run out of time and we want to get to the moon by the end of the decade.  And people thought that was a CRAZY IDEA!  People said “No way!  It’s too many unknowns!  We couldn’t possibly do that!  There’s no way!”

George Miller kept saying, “If we want to get to the moon by the end of the decade, we’re going to HAVE to do this.  And I can remember when that was proposed, I thought it was a really crazy idea.  Not a very good idea.   Looking back, it was a great idea.

Now, Von Braun might have been in favor of it, or he might not.  But I’m sure if we asked him after it was all done he would have said, “What a great a idea! We never thought of that when we began.”

And that compressed the flight schedule by a whole year, maybe by 8 months or something like that.   We did a LOT of that.   We had a goal to get to the moon by the end of the decade.   And we were trying to do it.  That doesn’t mean we were being careless.  But it meant we were doing everything we possibly could, to make that ahh… goal that president Kennedy set for us.   And we did in fact make it.

Clearly NASA became "Schedule driven" way more so than before.

MLH says yes, they did "everything they possibly could - to meet the JFK goal".  And for all practical purposes, they achieved that victory.

I've worked in product development too long to know that if you are too "schedule driven", bad things happen - and this is for small teams who work in the same building.   NASA's project spanned 50 states, and was coordinated on PAPER (no computers to help them out).

[Zakalwe]

If Baron's reports would have become more publicized, it might have lead to more investigations of MORE of the sub-contractors...  because if it looks THIS-UGLY at the very end of the production chain -- and WASN'T KNOWN - this indicates problems elsewhere.   If you see some roaches, you assume you likely have a bug problem.

For NASA to continue - they needed this 500-page report and Baron to be gone.

Speculation.
Prove it.

[najak]

Speculation.  Prove it.

If you weren't pre-attached to Apollo, how would you view this?  Would you smell any fish?

[Peter B]

#1: NASA was under political pressure of cancellation.  Future uncertain...  it became a viable question of "throwing more good money after badly spent money..."

You don't see the inherent contradiction here?

[Mag40]

Speculation.  Prove it.

If you weren't pre-attached to Apollo, how would you view this?  Would you smell any fish?

Did the Command Module work in space - yes or no?
Are you claiming none of the Moon walkers and CM pilots were present in the Command module - yes or no?

[najak]

You don't see the inherent contradiction here?

I'm sure you can drum one up.  MLH sees it as a choice between admitting to government abject failure at a time of Civil Rights Unrest, Vietnam, and Cold War/Communism scare.  Or pulling the trigger on "Plan B - DoD operation NASAX".

So look at the two choices... Faking it, by far, was the better choice -- especially from govt standpoint.   We created a USA focal point to bring World Peace and Unity - at a time when we needed it.  And Nixon was glad to sell it this way.

So the last few years of NASA spending was money-well-spent -- because it was a near-guaranteed success.

[najak]

Did the Command Module work in space - yes or no?
Are you claiming none of the Moon walkers and CM pilots were present in the Command module - yes or no?

Answer:  Unsure. 

Those who built it generally thought so (might have had some doubts but were settled when they saw it working on TV - and it was a narrative that gave them a big win for their resumes and life stories)

So most of my focus has been upon the Landing itself.  Why?  Because the Landing and Ascent parts were the most difficult aspects of the mission by far.

Most people have no idea how incredibly complex/fragile of a maneuver was the Landing... going from sideways at 3000 mph to upright... and balancing on a central thruster with a top-heavy LM, that was barely tested.    And the rendezvous too...

When I get out of jail - I plan to make a new post about this topic in more detail.  And am preparing a real-time 3D "game" in Unity3D that will demonstrate these concepts visually.  It's a fun journey.

[Zakalwe]

Speculation.  Prove it.

If you weren't pre-attached to Apollo, how would you view this?  Would you smell any fish?

So you are unable or unwilling to prove yet another of your wild claims. Noted.

[najak]

If you weren't pre-attached to Apollo, how would you view this?  Would you smell any fish?

So you are unable or unwilling to prove yet another of your wild claims. Noted.

Please answer my question.  How would you view this from a neutral position?

If my conclusion is "reasonable" --- it's surely not "WILD", as you say.

This Baron/500-page-report situation smells very very fishy to me, and believe it would also seem this way to a neutral observer.

(especially with how they accelerated development MORE than before, by taking their existing plans and cutting more corners -- or... they were executing a brilliant Plan B - which was an astonishing success)

[Peter B]

You don't see the inherent contradiction here?

I'm sure you can drum one up.

You said: #1: NASA was under political pressure of cancellation.  Future uncertain...  it became a viable question of "throwing more good money after badly spent money..."

NASA is a government organisation. Therefore NASA's funding comes from the US government.

You say that "NASA was under political pressure of cancellation". Therefore you consider that the US government was considering defunding or disbanding NASA.

You then say "...it became a viable question of 'throwing more good money after badly spent money'.

So you're suggesting that because NASA is in danger of being defunded by the US government, a viable strategy for it is to approach the US government...for more money.

[Zakalwe]

If you weren't pre-attached to Apollo, how would you view this?  Would you smell any fish?

So you are unable or unwilling to prove yet another of your wild claims. Noted.

Please answer my question.  How would you view this from a neutral position?

If my conclusion is "reasonable" --- it's surely not "WILD", as you say.

This Baron/500-page-report situation smells very very fishy to me, and believe it would also seem this way to a neutral observer.

(especially with how they accelerated development MORE than before, by taking their existing plans and cutting more corners -- or... they were executing a brilliant Plan B - which was an astonishing success)

I AM viewing it from a neutral position. You are approaching it with a confirmation bias as you HOPE that there is something to support your claim.
As you have repeatedly stated you have not seen this report. Nor are you able to show anyone that has.  You have zero evidence about the claims contained therein, much less any ability to independently verify those claims.

You are trying to make a claim out of whole cloth.

[najak]

I AM viewing it from a neutral position.

Again, here are the facts:

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 this isn't fishy to you?   Smells like bias to me.

[Zakalwe]

I AM viewing it from a neutral position.

Again, here are the facts:

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 this isn't fishy to you?   Smells like bias to me.

Proof. Proof. Proof.

Without that all you are doing is stringing a load of events together and hoping for a magic trick. Your sense of smell is not important.
You have conceded that you can draw nothing from the so-called 500 page report as you have not viewed it, much less had any of its claims independently verified. We can close this element of your gish-gallop at this stage.

[najak]

So you're suggesting that because NASA is in danger of being defunded by the US government, a viable strategy for it is to approach the US government...for more money.

The funds from Congress were to fund NASA.  Without NASA funding, all is lost.   Baron and his 500-page report needed to not be in the spotlight, else it cast more doubt on NASA as a whole.  But Baron was relentless, and was roping in more witnesses -- until he wasn't.

NASAX didn't have a public budget - it was rolled into the NASA budget and maybe even some from the DoD.  Shifting money around is an easy govt task.

[najak]

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.

Proof. Proof. Proof.

This is Evidence, Evidence, Evidence...  all are facts listed above.

And from this evidence, you can draw reasonable conclusions.  What do YOU conclude from this evidence?

Gish Gallop is when I make unsubstantiated claims, based on untruths or omissions.  What am I omitting from these facts above?

The evidence of what's in the 500-page report comes from Baron's own description of it, from his testimony (and we can know the gist, because of his 59 page report - he says it's the same gist, but with more names, specifics, dates, and details).   

Have you read this testimony yet?  - If not, you should read all of this before commenting more.