Apollo whistleblower revealed at last!

[Evan Burton]

Fine then.

How about providing a clear statement from someone with the requisite expertise saying the Apollo missions were faked?

O'Leary? No - he has clarified his statement.

Van Allen? No - he has disputed any misinterpretation of his statements.

Surely there must be someone who is willing to stand up and provide evidence. Evidence that can be peer reviewed. Evidence that can be independently examined. After all, there were all these "whistleblowers"... surely someone left data that could be confirmed, right?

Or is it just hot air from people who do not have the requisite expertise?

[Guest David Guyatt]

How about providing a clear statement from someone with the requisite expertise saying the Apollo missions were faked?

Surely there must be someone who is willing to stand up and provide evidence. Evidence that can be peer reviewed. Evidence that can be independently examined. After all, there were all these "whistleblowers"... surely someone left data that could be confirmed, right?

I believe this is the person you're looking for, Evan:

I think this definitively puts the matter to rest...

[Dave Greer]

How about providing a clear statement from someone with the requisite expertise saying the Apollo missions were faked?

Surely there must be someone who is willing to stand up and provide evidence. Evidence that can be peer reviewed. Evidence that can be independently examined. After all, there were all these "whistleblowers"... surely someone left data that could be confirmed, right?

I believe this is the person you're looking for, Evan:

I think this definitively puts the matter to rest...

Now that's what I'm talking about! Eye-poppingly good evidence that the photo was taken in a vacuum. That's one dedicated whistleblower...

[Craig Lamson]

How about providing a clear statement from someone with the requisite expertise saying the Apollo missions were faked?

Surely there must be someone who is willing to stand up and provide evidence. Evidence that can be peer reviewed. Evidence that can be independently examined. After all, there were all these "whistleblowers"... surely someone left data that could be confirmed, right?

I believe this is the person you're looking for, Evan:

I think this definitively puts the matter to rest...

Now that's what I'm talking about! Eye-poppingly good evidence that the photo was taken in a vacuum. That's one dedicated whistleblower...

Come on guys, THE SHADOWS are all WRONG! (really)

[Greg Parker]

Sorry to throw a bucket of iced water on your conspiracy theory, Dave, but your analysis s badly flawed.

The first image analysis - upon which you whole subsequent theory shakily rests - is not a rocket. If you look closer at the image, you'll see that it is this:

I happen to know from the many millions of NASA technicians who have approached me for eye-tests and a pair of my world famous patented ispace spectacles... that they are a bunch of cowboys.

Now armed with the truth, please feel free to visit my online spectacle store: www.SuckerSpecs.com, where you too, can apply for an online guaranteed bank loan to be exclusively used to make a down-payment on a pair of extra cool glasses Glasses moreover, that can be used for all occasions -- weddings, birthdays, bar-mitzvahs, funerals, holidays-in-space, queueing for F1 tickets, moon-walks... the list endless (as is the payment plan )

You might be on to something with your Cowboy connection David old bean.

I've managed to dig up photographic proof that cowboys have indeed been to the moon. As you can see, this photo has stars in the background, something NASA curiously left out of their Apollo photos as they knew they would never be able to accurately fake them in 1969, despite the invention of planetaria in the early 20th century.

http://api.ning.com/files/0enKoagnOm*Nam9R.../CowboyMoon.jpg

As for your ispace specs, I've ordered a pair off your "Suckerspecs" website for my mate Bob from down the pub. Hopefully he'll have better luck on a Friday night than he does with just his beer goggles.

Don't let your mate Bob, down the pub, obfuscate things.

He's my best customer to date.

He owns not just a pair of the ispace-specs, and the nifty slimline, bow-tie spinning, "totty-totters" self-dimming shades, but he has two pairs of our popular "willy magnifiers" (the night version has a minute and indispensable torch inspection beam) that are designed to provide a positive interaction for those who have consumed 10 or more pints of lager (Bob obviously falls well within this -- and falls rather often, in fact), but he has just purchased a pair of the newly launched "Egypto bifocals", designed to assist people to accurately transcribe ancient cuneform. I see he has let you borrow these even though he hasn't paid off (and never will either) the loan our subprime mortgage company, "Myopia Finance limited", advanced to him to buy them.

Is this the same "Bob" who dated my cousin Sheila when she was in Redcar for Aunt Madge's Grand Opening of her Swiss/Indian restaurant chain, The Cheesy Curry House?

They apparently met at a pub called the Ferret & Trouserleg.

If so, I have to report that the "willy magnifiers" need to be toned down by about 225x magnification. Poor Cousin Sheila thought she was being attacked by a dugong.

http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/anim...als/dugong.html

Below is an ancient rock drawing of an ancient astronaut (standing on the left) sporting a pair of our stylish "Egypto bifocals":

And an ancient lager drinker modeling a pair of our best selling "willy magnifiers":

[Guest David Guyatt]

If so, I have to report that the "willy magnifiers" need to be toned down by about 225x magnification. Poor Cousin Sheila thought she was being attacked by a dugong.

I'e made some changes to the willy magnifiers in line with customer feedback (let it not be said that I don't listen, okay)"

[Guest David Guyatt]

Come on guys, THE SHADOWS are all WRONG! (really)

Nonense, Craig. That picture came from on of the crew of Endeavour during a rotation to international space station and formed a roll of film taken by a crew member and snapped a variety of "downtime" activities, including some cool stuff, like this:

[Duane Daman]

Hey !! .. Part of that guy's right arm is missing ! ... When is NASA ever gonna learn how to fake their photos properly ? .. This has gotta be another Whistle-Blower special !

How about providing a clear statement from someone with the requisite expertise saying the Apollo missions were faked?

O'Leary? No - he has clarified his statement.

O'Leary said that he thinks the landings were real because he doesn't believe his friends would lie .... That's pretty clear alright, and unfortunately not much of an endorsement for Apollo .

Van Allen? No - he has disputed any misinterpretation of his statements.

Dr. Van Allen was the first one to admit that manned space flights to the Moon were not a good idea for many reasons ... But of course the real reason being that they are most likely not even possible .... He wouldn't go as far to admit that though, because he was a team player and didn't want to rock the boat by blowing the whistle on NASA and their Apollo debacle .

Surely there must be someone who is willing to stand up and provide evidence. Evidence that can be peer reviewed. Evidence that can be independently examined. After all, there were all these "whistleblowers"... surely someone left data that could be confirmed, right?

Or is it just hot air from people who do not have the requisite expertise?

I'm sure there are many people who worked for NASA who would like to make a stand against the reality of the official Apollo record , but they don't want to end up like so many people before who did make a stand against NASA and paid the ultimate price of for it with their life ... or even in some cases, the lives of their families as well .... Saftely inspector Tom Baron "commiting suicide" by train and taking his entire family with him comes to mind .

Edited February 4, 2008 by Duane Daman

[Evan Burton]

How about providing a clear statement from someone with the requisite expertise saying the Apollo missions were faked?

O'Leary? No - he has clarified his statement.

O'Leary said that he thinks the landings were real because he doesn't believe his friends would lie .... That's pretty clear alright, and unfortunately not much of an endorsement for Apollo .

You seem to omit what else he did say:

"Somehow I may have given the impression that Apollo may have been hoaxed," says Dr. O'Leary. "It was real," he says succinctly. "Apollo happened."

That's pretty clear - no ambiguity at all.

Van Allen? No - he has disputed any misinterpretation of his statements.

Dr. Van Allen was the first one to admit that manned space flights to the Moon were not a good idea for many reasons ... But of course the real reason being that they are most likely not even possible .... He wouldn't go as far to admit that though, because he was a team player and didn't want to rock the boat by blowing the whistle on NASA and their Apollo debacle .

Surely there must be someone who is willing to stand up and provide evidence. Evidence that can be peer reviewed. Evidence that can be independently examined. After all, there were all these "whistleblowers"... surely someone left data that could be confirmed, right?

Or is it just hot air from people who do not have the requisite expertise?

I'm sure there are many people who worked for NASA who would like to make a stand against the reality of the official Apollo record , but they don't want to end up like so many people before who did make a stand against NASA and paid the ultimate price of for it with their life ... or even in some cases, the lives of their families as well .... Saftely inspector Tom Baron "commiting suicide" by train and taking his entire family with him comes to mind .

I like the way you support them when their meanings are misinterpreted - but when a clarification is given, they have been 'silenced' somehow. Very reminiscent of how you supported someone 100%, calling him a genius IIRC - then drop him and claim he was a disinfo agent. You are nothing if not consistent.

You continually raise Baron - yet forget to mention that he actually did get to testify, that his reports were submitted, and it was only AFTER he had given evidence that he committed suicide. Killing him brings attention to what he said; wouldn't the thing to do would be to kill him BEFORE he testified? You know, to stop what he said going public?

And yet his claims were investigated. Much of what he said was very accurate. A change in attitude and procedures came about. So how exactly was what he knew and said stopped?

"...taking his entire family with him..." - oh yes, that has never happened before, has it?

[James Douglas]

Hello everybody. First post here.

I have a friend who was based in Benbecula about ten years ago when a party from the USA were contracted to work for a company called Vitro Corps helping installing the radar at the RAF base.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RRH_Benbecula

Two of the team (Larry and Bob-surnames withheld) were about retirement age and had worked for NASA receiving the tv/radio transmissions from the Moon. My friend on one occasion was discussing Neil Armstrong and whether they were involved that night with the tv pictures and one of them responded with this comment.

"Don't believe everything you see on the tv"

Needless to say my friend who has absolutely no interest in conspiracy theories is convinced man, or at least Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin, did not land on the Moon.

As regards Brian O'Leary. I found this on the net. His response to a question about a tv programme he appears to have been misquoted in.

In a February 17, 2001 email to former NASA astronaut Brian O'Leary ('67-'68 astronaut training program), I

included the following question. (He was informed his

answer would be distributed to the skeptical ommunity.)

----------------

Dear Dr. O'Leary:

Question: Regarding your comments on the Fox-TV special

"Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?," do you

feel the producers selectively took quotes from your

interview in order to make it appear that you agree with

the claim that the Apollo moon landings were hoaxed, or

do you actually believe that a hoax took place?

Thanks,

James A. Conrad

Member, Tampa Bay (Florida) Skeptics

askjc@usa.com

===============================

(reply follows)

===============================

------Original Message------

From: "Brian O'Leary" <oleary1998@yahoo.com>

To: "James A. Conrad" <askjc@usa.com>

Sent: February 18, 2001 2:30:49 PM GMT

Subject: Re: Fox special - selectively quoted?

Dear Mr. Conrad,

I didn't see the show (I never know about these things

until after they happen), but I believe Apollo did

happen in its entirety (I was there), but have a small

residual doubt about the landings themselves, because

I didn't go, so who am I to know for sure, besides the

official word and comments from my friends and

colleagues who did go? Answers to my questions about

activity on the lunar surface were answered strangely

at times--hence a bit of doubt. These things are

tricky to phrase right, and of course shows such as

these do quote out of context.

In this sense I guess you could call me a skeptic.

Brian O'Leary, Ph.D.

Does anybody know what he meant by this?

but have a small

residual doubt about the landings themselves, because

I didn't go, so who am I to know for sure, besides the

official word and comments from my friends and

colleagues who did go? Answers to my questions about

activity on the lunar surface were answered strangely

at times--hence a bit of doubt.

[Duane Daman]

James .... Welcome to the forum !

"Don't believe everything you see on the tv", indeed !! ... That was an interesting story about the guys who received the TV signals from the "Moon" ... I bet they wanted to say more but couldn't ... "for national security reasons "

Does anybody know what he meant by this?

I would say that he means exactly what he said .... He has doubts about the landings themselves .... His questions to the alleged Moon walkers were answered strangely.... Their answers to interviewers through out the years have always been answered strangley, not to mention their very strange behavior, and that is one of the many reasons why so many people have huge doubts about the "landings".

You continually raise Baron - yet forget to mention that he actually did get to testify, that his reports were submitted, and it was only AFTER he had given evidence that he committed suicide. Killing him brings attention to what he said; wouldn't the thing to do would be to kill him BEFORE he testified? You know, to stop what he said going public?

First of all, Tom Baron had a 500 page WRITTEN REPORT that contained more damging evidence against NASA than his verbal testimony did .... A report which had NOT YET BEEN SUBMITTED and was allegedly in his briefcase in the car with him and family when they were killed .... But when their bodies were removed from the demolished car, his briefcase containing this report was no where to be found .

Second of all, why would NASA have him killed BEFORE he testified if they had no way of knowing how damaging his saftely report would be to the Apollo program ? ... They had no reason to shut him up until AFTER they heard how damaging his report was ... with more to come !

I have heard the audio transcript of his testimony and the members of the NASA committee barely let him reply to their questions .. They acted overly aggressive towards him because of his negative evidence against the Apollo Program and the Apollo LM in particular ... Baron stated that he didn't believe that craft would ever get a crew to the Moon alive ... and if there was even more damaging evidence against Apollo in his 500 page written report, then NASA would have even more reason to shut him up ... permanently.

Edited February 5, 2008 by Duane Daman

[Craig Lamson]

First of all, Tom Baron had a 500 page WRITTEN REPORT that contained more damging evidence against NASA than his verbal testimony did ....

Really Duane? Or are you just being a parrot again? Thats a pretty bold statement and it will require FACTS to back up your claim that this 500 page report even existed.

Lets see if you have any.

[Duane Daman]

Really Duane? Or are you just being a parrot again? Thats a pretty bold statement and it will require FACTS to back up your claim that this 500 page report even existed.

Lets see if you have any.

Be careful what you ask for Craig .... You just might get it all .

Yep, I sure do like this Wade guy !

"Grissom’s death (taking White and Chaffee with him) is not the only strange one. Bill Kaysing thinks that another man was silenced by murder. Thomas Baron was an inspector for North American Rockwell, the contractor that built the Command Module. The astronauts are united in the opinion that what Rockwell produced was of initially poor quality. The astronauts comment on it in Moon Shot. Baron was not an engineer, and only had a high school education, but was the detail-oriented fanatic that all technical organizations need. His pals gave him the initials “DR,” which stood for discrepancy report. His supervisor ran out of discrepancy report forms regularly, because Baron used so many of them. He was the squeaky wheel. He made some of his findings public, and Rockwell fired him about three weeks before the Apollo 1 fire. Baron originally produced a fifty-five-page report, and finished a 500-page report that he delivered when he testified to Congress in April of 1967. His testimony received a hostile reception. A few days later he was dead. His car was struck by a train, killing not only himself, but also his wife and stepdaughter. In shades of Casolaro and Wilcher, his death was officially ruled a suicide. It was worse than that, because he did not only “kill” himself, but also murdered his wife and her child. It took some interesting psychology to arrive at that conclusion, going from being overly conscientious to becoming a murderer. One theory is that he was distraught over the Apollo 1 fire, so he killed himself and his family. I have not heard about anybody else connected to the Apollo program killing themselves or becoming murderers over the Apollo 1 “accident.” How strange that the biggest whistleblower did. Just what are those odds? The 500-page report disappeared, and has not been seen since. The moon hoax debunkers have lined up behind the official explanation. Jay Windley thinks that Barons’ report has come up missing partly because it had little investigative value, and that Baron may have indeed killed himself, but if he were murdered, it would have been a private contractor, not NASA, and if they wanted to silence him, they should have done it before he testified. Jay may be right, but I have encountered far too many conveniently timed deaths during my investigations to make my suspicion go away, especially when Grissom’s son thinks he was murdered.

Killing whistleblowers such as Thomas Baron was standard operating procedure for the defense establishment, if it related to military matters. I know people who have been involved in Department of Defense whistle-blowing activities. It could get pretty scary. Sometimes, people would simply “disappear,” Jimmy Hoffa-style. When billions of dollars are at stake, murdering a few people with “big mouths” or who otherwise stand in the way is standard activity. That is the nature of American-style capitalism. Why should it be different regarding space matters? I was challenged to provide some evidence of what I know about whistle-blowers, and without naming names, this footnote presents a little of what I am aware of.[62]

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/cover-up.htm#nature

[Duane Daman]

How appropriate that this thread is titled Whistle-Blowers Revealed at Last !

January 1967

"USA": Apollo 1 catches fire because of a pure oxygen atmosphere and sparks and short-circuits.

The three astronauts who were murdered on Apollo 1: Grissom, White and Chaffee. Until today "USA" rejects any neutral investigation and all facts which don't fit into the NASA version are determined as "conspiracy theory". But facts cannot conspire.

A manned NASA test with the disabled Apollo 1 capsule in a pure oxygen atmosphere with a plug out test to test the independent current supply ends in a disaster. For reasons of time there is no unmanned test before. But already before 1967 there have been heavy accidents in the "USA" with pure oxygen atmospheres with death and injured victims. By all this it's not at all understandable why NASA performs the test in this kind. The fire can be foreseen, the manned test in a pure oxygen atmosphere is a suicide squad and at least it's negligent homicide. Warning indications from NAA security inspector Thomas Ronald Baron are rejected by NASA and the engineer company North American Aviation (NAA). NAA dismisses him after his report.

The test is not successful, the first two times because of acid milk smell in the capsule, then because of interrupted radio communication. At the fourth test trial the astronauts report smoke in the capsule, but the test is not stopped and the oxygen atmosphere with overpressure is started. The control center has the sign of warming batteries which is sign for a short-circuit, but the test is not stopped. After 10 minutes smoke suddenly a fire breaks out, allegedly because of a short-circuit. of the main switch. But a spark of a normal switch on the switch board without special short-circuit is more likely. During the fire the plastic chained binding develops toxic gases.

The hatch can be opened only to the interior side, and with overpressure in the cabin it's not possible to open it. And the life keeping systems maintain the overpressure. After 5 minutes only the hatch is opened from outside. The astronauts have passed out but are living yet.

By incomprehensible reasons NASA boss Gilruth is blocking any connection to the launch pad, a gagging order. Doctors are coming. They are said the astronauts would have died and by this the doctors may not even see the bodies of the astronauts and are sent away. Any First Aid is missing. The astronauts have passed out but are living yet and develop a lethal pulmonary edema by the toxic gases. The development of pulmonary edemas needs some hours. After 6 hours only the dead astronauts are taken from the burnt capsule. The NASA procedure is threefold murder.

A neutral fact-finding commission is not admitted but the bosses of NASA and NAA are investigating together and covering themselves together. The ex safety commissioner of "North American Aviation" (NAA), Thomas Ronald Baron, presents at the hearing of the Congress commission a report with 500 pages with the aim to stop the dangerous Apollo project. Baron gets the answer: He is probably killed together with his wife and his stepdaughter. An autopsy is never performed. Officially the death of the Baron family is presented as "an accident at a level-crossing". In the following time also the widow of astronaut White is murdered. She officially commits suicide but never was depressive or in danger of committing suicide. Probably she "spoke" too much. So there are three murders and four suspicions of murder against NASA in connection with CIA and NAA. A neutral investigation never takes place, but the facts are called "conspiracy theory"...

Wikipedia declares the short-circuit with insufficient cables: The cause for the short-circuit were the Teflon coating of the electric cables in combination with the aluminium structure of the cable forms. Defect cables can provoke electric arcs and fire in combination with aluminium. And the nylon of the astronaut suits was too easily flammable.

(http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_1)

http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/atmo...soyus-ENGL.html

[Craig Lamson]

Really Duane? Or are you just being a parrot again? Thats a pretty bold statement and it will require FACTS to back up your claim that this 500 page report even existed.

Lets see if you have any.

Be careful what you ask for Craig .... You just might get it all .

Yep, I sure do like this Wade guy !

"Grissom’s death (taking White and Chaffee with him) is not the only strange one. Bill Kaysing thinks that another man was silenced by murder. Thomas Baron was an inspector for North American Rockwell, the contractor that built the Command Module. The astronauts are united in the opinion that what Rockwell produced was of initially poor quality. The astronauts comment on it in Moon Shot. Baron was not an engineer, and only had a high school education, but was the detail-oriented fanatic that all technical organizations need. His pals gave him the initials “DR,” which stood for discrepancy report. His supervisor ran out of discrepancy report forms regularly, because Baron used so many of them. He was the squeaky wheel. He made some of his findings public, and Rockwell fired him about three weeks before the Apollo 1 fire. Baron originally produced a fifty-five-page report, and finished a 500-page report that he delivered when he testified to Congress in April of 1967. His testimony received a hostile reception. A few days later he was dead. His car was struck by a train, killing not only himself, but also his wife and stepdaughter. In shades of Casolaro and Wilcher, his death was officially ruled a suicide. It was worse than that, because he did not only “kill” himself, but also murdered his wife and her child. It took some interesting psychology to arrive at that conclusion, going from being overly conscientious to becoming a murderer. One theory is that he was distraught over the Apollo 1 fire, so he killed himself and his family. I have not heard about anybody else connected to the Apollo program killing themselves or becoming murderers over the Apollo 1 “accident.” How strange that the biggest whistleblower did. Just what are those odds? The 500-page report disappeared, and has not been seen since. The moon hoax debunkers have lined up behind the official explanation. Jay Windley thinks that Barons’ report has come up missing partly because it had little investigative value, and that Baron may have indeed killed himself, but if he were murdered, it would have been a private contractor, not NASA, and if they wanted to silence him, they should have done it before he testified. Jay may be right, but I have encountered far too many conveniently timed deaths during my investigations to make my suspicion go away, especially when Grissom’s son thinks he was murdered.

Killing whistleblowers such as Thomas Baron was standard operating procedure for the defense establishment, if it related to military matters. I know people who have been involved in Department of Defense whistle-blowing activities. It could get pretty scary. Sometimes, people would simply “disappear,” Jimmy Hoffa-style. When billions of dollars are at stake, murdering a few people with “big mouths” or who otherwise stand in the way is standard activity. That is the nature of American-style capitalism. Why should it be different regarding space matters? I was challenged to provide some evidence of what I know about whistle-blowers, and without naming names, this footnote presents a little of what I am aware of.[62]

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/cover-up.htm#nature

Nice try Duane, but even Wade does not supply any FACTS . You lose again...please try again next time.

Added on edit:

You do understand that you have supplied two different versions of the story...right? Don't you even read the stuff you parrot? In one this supposed 500 page report goes missing in the train crash, and the other has this report getting being delivered to the hearing and then going missing. So which one is it and where are the FACTS to back up at least ONE of the many stories about this supposed 500 page report?

Edited February 5, 2008 by Craig Lamson