Conclusive Proof the Moon Landings were Faked

[Zakalwe]

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.

Join the loooong list of hoax-believers that have yet to learn that correlation does NOT equal causation. You cannot prove your initial proclamation that this so-called 500 page report is damaging, or indeed relevant.

Case closed unless you can EVIDENCE your claim.

[najak]

Case closed unless you can EVIDENCE your claim.

Is this not also evidence - that he has a 59-page report you can read now, which is damning to Apollo - indicating piss poor quality at the very end of the production chain, fully-ignored and unnoticed -- until Apollo 1 happened.

Here is Baron's claim about the 500-page report, which is VERY clear.  Baron surely knows what's in it. 

BARON: "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."


Then it evaporated.  Nobody is on record even asking about it.

And you don't find this fishy?

[LunarOrbit]

Case closed unless you can EVIDENCE your claim.

Is this not also evidence - that he has a 59-page report you can read now, which is damning to Apollo - indicating piss poor quality at the very end of the production chain, fully-ignored and unnoticed -- until Apollo 1 happened.

Here is Baron's claim about the 500-page report, which is VERY clear.  Baron surely knows what's in it. 

BARON: "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."


Then it evaporated.  Nobody is on record even asking about it.

And you don't find this fishy?

Maybe it was a 500 page report complaining about all of the hippy hairstyles and funny smelling cigarettes that the engineers were smoking. Maybe one of the engineers was scared he'd lose his job over this report and sabotaged Baron's car.

Or maybe it was really just an unfortunate accident.

It's easy to imagine all sorts of scenarios... but until you provide proof of anything it's all just pointless speculation and does nothing to prove Apollo was faked.

[Zakalwe]

Case closed unless you can EVIDENCE your claim.

Is this not also evidence - that he has a 59-page report you can read now, which is damning to Apollo - indicating piss poor quality at the very end of the production chain, fully-ignored and unnoticed -- until Apollo 1 happened.

Here is Baron's claim about the 500-page report, which is VERY clear.  Baron surely knows what's in it. 

BARON: "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."


Then it evaporated.  Nobody is on record even asking about it.

And you don't find this fishy?

Your claim of verification is the author of the report? Excuse me while I laugh myself half to death. I'd love to see your success rate in a court of law with that approach.

I have a 600 page report that proves that Najak's mother was a hamster and his father smells of elderberries*. Can you see the report? Of course not. I have submitted it to my local government office though, so if you ask there I'm sure that they will give it to you. The evidence within the report is exemplary.

Take that, you elderberry-smelling son of a hamster!




*If you get it, you get it.

[najak]

#1: Maybe it was a 500 page report complaining about all of the hippy hairstyles..
#2: Or maybe it was really just an unfortunate accident.

#1: You are bringing up "outlandish speculation" to attempt the dispute of  "very reasonable conclusions".  Why resort to this?

#2: Maybe.... or maybe not.
Do you not find this "fishy"?  One copy of this 500-page report was submitted to CONGRESS... and then never seen again.

==
For me, this Baron evidence goes along with the testimony of Alan Bean describing their fully-schedule-driven mandate for Apollo, more-so than ever.  In the end, the "public perception of success" would have the exact SAME positive impact as "actual success".  And this impact, either way, was fantastic.  Worth the cost.

And James Webb's address to Congress in March 1967, also made things look stark:
"But my own judgment is that if we get this done by the end of 1969, we will be very, very fortunate; that the chance that we will do so, the odds that we will do so, the possibility of doing all the work
necessary is less this year than it was last. And I testified at this table last year that it was less at that time than it had been the previous year. "

His resignation in October 1968 after doing a late-game decision for Apollo 8 to "go around the moon" - for me is also evidence.  He didn't even attend the 1968 Launch - a "crowning achievement" for him, as he was the one who started it all in 1961.  Why didn't Webb attend any more launches?

It's a collection of evidence that I'm looking at here.  And the freak death of Baron along with his 500-page report given to Congress gone missing (and never mentioned, and now NASA site says it never existed)...   all contributes to the MLH case.

[najak]

Your claim of verification is the author of the report? Excuse me while I laugh myself half to death. I'd love to see your success rate in a court of law with that approach.

Baron produced a comprehensive 59 page report for Congress, and then SUBMITTED the 500-page report to as well.  Clearly he had confidence in this report... and wanted to read it in the testimony (they didn't let him).  If it was "crap" as you want to suspect, wouldn't this be something that NASA would gladly reveal?

Yet to you, this is the same as just making a "wild claim out of the blue" with no correlation towards anything.  Do any other Apollogists here think you are making a valid argument?

[Zakalwe]

Your claim of verification is the author of the report? Excuse me while I laugh myself half to death. I'd love to see your success rate in a court of law with that approach.

Baron produced a comprehensive 59 page report for Congress, and then SUBMITTED the 500-page report to as well.  Clearly he had confidence in this report... and wanted to read it in the testimony (they didn't let him).  If it was "crap" as you want to suspect, wouldn't this be something that NASA would gladly reveal?

Yet to you, this is the same as just making a "wild claim out of the blue" with no correlation towards anything.  Do any other Apollogists here think you are making a valid argument?

Sorry...I can't hear you over the smell of elderberries and hamsters...

[TimberWolfAu]

... 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?

Or, and the most likely scenario I can see, is that you have built Baron up as this great 'hero of the people', and woe betide anyone who speaks ill of him. Based on what we know, Baron's 500pg report was most likely based on hearsay and 3rd party reports, with very little witnessed by Baron himself, and would have been of little actual value beyond the original smaller report. With the deaths of Baron, his wife, and one-of-two stepdaughters (why do you keep leaving this out?) as nothing more than a tragic accident.

And the freak death of Baron

What freak death? Are you not aware that trains and cars quite often collide, especially at uncontrolled crossings? Currently it's something like 2,000 per year, at controlled crossings.

If it was "crap" as you want to suspect, wouldn't this be something that NASA would gladly reveal?

How could NASA reveal what was given to a congressional committee?


For the record, from what I've seen from the threads combined, you approach this from the position that Apollo was faked, and are merely conclusion shopping your hypothesis. Even more so, when almost every thread so far has you admitting to not knowing much about a subject, yet still defaulting to the position of 'it was fake, until someone else can show me (in the exact method I demand) that it wasn't', rather than the more honest 'I don't know how it was done, and so will reserve judgement'.

[najak]

#1: How could NASA reveal what was given to a congressional committee?
#2: ... rather than the more honest 'I don't know how it was done, and so will reserve judgement'.

#1: It was a report directly pertaining to NASA, and part of public record.  So you think NASA wouldn't even care enough to read it?  Or they read it, and said "oh crap" then Baron was dead 6 days later, and his report disposed.  This 500-page Disposal is a huge deal. It was supposed to become public record...

#2: Same for you -- you've already concluded that everything I believe is "wrong from the get-go" and that the only viable conclusion is the Apollogy.
I've seen enough so far, to believe "this is very fishy" -- and as I dig deeper, I find that "things I was told" aren't really so substantiated, and the bad stuff is all suppressed, hard to even find.

Just as the "whole narrative of society" has given you your beliefs.  Mine were formed on seeing "too many holes in the story" -- too many reasons to suspect..  And then seeing how strongly Google/YT/FB/etc and the whole mainstream is setup to prevent most people from finding the "good MLH arguments" - motivates me more.  This is a dangerous mechanism to accept.  If you try to find any MLH support from Google/YT/FB, you'll never find anything but the "strawman arguments" - the bad MLH arguments, all debunked.

8-flag-motions - is not something Google/YT will allow you to find.

Did Myth Busters address the 8-flag-motions?  Nope - they addressed the Strawman that "Flags can't wave like a pendulum in a Vacuum"-- pretending that THIS is the real MLH argument.  They ignored the ONE argument about flags, for which there isn't a valid hypothesis to debunk it.

This kind of crap motivates me to try and discover the full list of "MLH claims that aren't viably refuted"...  But even here, on a forum dedicated to "the Hoax" - I'm not allowed to start any of these new threads, to explore those claims.

[Mag40]

Your claim of verification is the author of the report? Excuse me while I laugh myself half to death. I'd love to see your success rate in a court of law with that approach.

Baron produced a comprehensive 59 page report for Congress, and then SUBMITTED the 500-page report to as well.  Clearly he had confidence in this report... and wanted to read it in the testimony (they didn't let him).  If it was "crap" as you want to suspect, wouldn't this be something that NASA would gladly reveal?

Yet to you, this is the same as just making a "wild claim out of the blue" with no correlation towards anything.  Do any other Apollogists here think you are making a valid argument?

Sorry...I can't hear you over the smell of elderberries and hamsters...

I don't know which smells worse, the pong from the dead horse being flogged or the whiff from the fart in his general direction.

[onebigmonkey]

Webb's assessment of the likelihood of success was entirely fair, as was Armstrong's own pessimistic view that they were as likely to die as not. Realism about your chances us not the same as those chances being nil. Kennedy's political grandstanding put them all under pressure to complete a program that had already been started. Has he not done so, and committed the funds, it may well never have happened.

Webb's resignation came because LBJ  opted not to stand. Webb knew he would have no political support for hisxpolitically appointed role so told LBJ he would stand down with him. LBJ pretty much effected that decision there and then (very much to Webb's surprise)
0 rather than wait until he formally left office.

You've also mentioned Bob Seaman's resignation. That came about because he felt sidelined and undermined by some of Webb's decisions. Nothing else. Uf ypu dispute the motivations for these resignations, produce evidence.

All this is documented fact. Take a look at Piers Bizony's "The man who ran the moon" for details. These people are administrators, not scientists and engineers. They do not build machines or do equations.

Baron had no involvement with NASA. He worked for NAA. His reports embarrassed them both because their content was discussed publicly. As neither you nor I know the exact content of the larger report beyond what was publicly discussed and recorded anything in it is speculation and hearsay. The smaller report will do. If you wanted to suppress the reports, doing it after they've been made public is pretty inept.

[onebigmonkey]

#1: How could NASA reveal what was given to a congressional committee?
#2: ... rather than the more honest 'I don't know how it was done, and so will reserve judgement'.

#1: It was a report directly pertaining to NASA, and part of public record.  So you think NASA wouldn't even care enough to read it?  Or they read it, and said "oh crap" then Baron was dead 6 days later, and his report disposed.  This 500-page Disposal is a huge deal. It was supposed to become public record...

Take it up with Congress.

#2: Same for you -- you've already concluded that everything I believe is "wrong from the get-go" and that the only viable conclusion is the Apollogy.
I've seen enough so far, to believe "this is very fishy" -- and as I dig deeper, I find that "things I was told" aren't really so substantiated, and the bad stuff is all suppressed, hard to even find.

And you are on record as not trusting anyone with "vested interests", so there's pretty much no point in anyone giving you anything from a source you are automatically going to dismiss.

Just as the "whole narrative of society" has given you your beliefs.  Mine were formed on seeing "too many holes in the story" -- too many reasons to suspect..  And then seeing how strongly Google/YT/FB/etc and the whole mainstream is setup to prevent most people from finding the "good MLH arguments" - motivates me more.  This is a dangerous mechanism to accept.  If you try to find any MLH support from Google/YT/FB, you'll never find anything but the "strawman arguments" - the bad MLH arguments, all debunked.

If I google 'Moon Hoax' I will find all manner of pages by people who believe Apollo was faked. It is not our problem that most of htoase arguments are written by dribbling morons with no understanding of science, engineering, or historical fact and base their unfounded opinions on messianic hubris and paranoid delusion. Write your own page if you don't like it.

8-flag-motions - is not something Google/YT will allow you to find.

How many other people do you believe think this is an actual thing. And again, it's not 8 movements. it's a continuous motion for which you only see an occasional part.

Did Myth Busters address the 8-flag-motions?  Nope - they addressed the Strawman that "Flags can't wave like a pendulum in a Vacuum"-- pretending that THIS is the real MLH argument.  They ignored the ONE argument about flags, for which there isn't a valid hypothesis to debunk it.

Strawman itself, that's not what they examined.

This kind of crap motivates me to try and discover the full list of "MLH claims that aren't viably refuted"...  But even here, on a forum dedicated to "the Hoax" - I'm not allowed to start any of these new threads, to explore those claims.

Find them. They'll be refuted, just as they are being already. Your problem is a refusal to listen to the refutations.

[najak]

#1: If I google 'Moon Hoax' I will find all manner of pages by people who believe Apollo was faked. It is not our problem that most of htoase arguments are written by dribbling morons with no understanding of science, engineering, or historical fact and base their unfounded opinions on messianic hubris and paranoid delusion. Write your own page if you don't like it.
#2: "8 flag motions": it's not 8 movements. it's a continuous motion for which you only see an occasional part.

#1: I type "Moon Hoax" and google only shows me links where MLH is debunked, or "how we know we went to the moon".  No links by people who actually make a case for MLH.
Please show me a few links that are supportive MLH links from this search.

#2: "Continuous motion" -- Does anyone here agree with you on this?   Are you watching the video?  It comes on screen, and stays still for up to 33 seconds at a time... no motion... and there remains no viable explanation for what "pushed it - gently- and held it there".

Do you really want to defend your notion of "continuous motion"??  I'd be happy to continue this line of reasoning with you in detail, if you genuinely think "continuous motion" explains what we see in these videos.

[Zakalwe]

#1: I type "Moon Hoax" and google only shows me links where MLH is debunked, or "how we know we went to the moon".  No links by people who actually make a case for MLH.
Please show me a few links that are supportive MLH links from this search.

That's because the vast vast VAST majority of them are posted by blithering idiots who haven't done a jot of proper research, or by those with vested financial interests (books and seminars to flog)..

As you don't seem to have a boog to promote I'm guessing that narrows the field down considerably....

[najak]

In Google, I also type "proof that we did not land on the moon", and AI is quick to respond with:

"The claim that humans never landed on the moon is a conspiracy theory with no credible scientific evidence to support it."

And then nothing but links that give proof why we "know we went to the moon" and "why the moon landing hoax is false".

100%.   Google has spoken.  And among the Apollogists, "there was much rejoicing...  yay"