Apollo whistleblower revealed at last!

[Matthew Lewis]

You belittle yourself.

Now why would I do that when I have you and Dave and Craig and Kevin and Matthew to do that for me ?

Leave me out of your pathetic little flame war. I have not belittled you. Everything I have said on this forum has been backed up by facts.

[Duane Daman]

You have repeatedly stated that the Moon is entirely radioactive. Where does this idea originate? You do know that radiation levels were measured at the surface of the moon (I guess that is assumed to be disinformation)?

Peter ... I don't pretend to be an expert in the subject of deep space radiation but this NASA article seems to refute some of your claims.

The entire lunar surface is highly radioactive and the cosmic ray radiation there is deadly... I understand that NASA has very much down played the extreme dangers of deep space radiation and the Van Allen belt radiation, for obvious reasons ... As far as Apollo astronauts ever measuring the radiation levels on the surface of the Moon, where would that information be ?

Radioactive Moon

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/08...oactivemoon.htm

Edited February 10, 2008 by Duane Daman

[Duane Daman]

Leave me out of your pathetic little flame war. I have not belittled you. Everything I have said on this forum has been backed up by facts.

If there is a flame war going on here , then it was started by Evan with his "belittle" comment and then as usual, continued by Craig with his constant insults directed to me, which always get worse when he is proven to be wrong .

As for your flame baiting comments about me, they are posted on the Apollo Hoax forum, where you and your pals ridicule every CT who ever dared to post Apollo hoax evidence .

[Matthew Lewis]

Leave me out of your pathetic little flame war. I have not belittled you. Everything I have said on this forum has been backed up by facts.

If there is a flame war going on here , then it was started by Evan with his "belittle" comment and then as usual, continued by Craig with his constant insults directed to me, which always get worse when he is proven to be wrong .

As for your flame baiting comments about me, they are posted on the Apollo Hoax forum, where you and your pals ridicule every CT who ever dared to post Apollo hoax evidence .

I have yet to see you post anything that proves him wrong. When is that expected to start?

[Craig Lamson]

It hurts to lose the argument , doesn't it Craig? ... Sorry but I'm not the one who is confused about this ... The article made a claim that apparently wasn't true by stating that Baron's 500 page report had been submitted, when it was only his 55 page report which NASA had their grubby hands on .

What argument have I lost here Duane? I have not made any claims, only asked you to defend yours. In doing so you have offered differing versions claiming both were correct. I've yet to see you offer ANY concrete proof for either version. Even worse, you offer as evidence a source that you have told us repetedly that cannot be used because it cannot be trusted!

So now you're two for two with your dishonest attack on the A12 photo evidence... Wanna try again to embarrass yourself by never admitting when you're wrong ? .. Or do you prefer to look like the dishonest fool you so obviously are ?

Sorry to burst your bubble Duane but you lost the A12 argument the second you posted it.

First you claimed that I hadn't shown any proof that the 500 page report existed and then you claimed that I had no proof of whether the report had been submitted or not ... I have shown that it existed and that it wasn't sumitted , just as I first stated.

No, you have posted conflicting statements that you have not vetted. You don't know the truth. It is amusing however to see you parroting the NASA and Clavius material as the truth. I'll ask again. Since you accepth the Clavius and NASA material do you now agree that they are correect about the Apoll program as a whole?

NASA had heard Baron's testimony and had read his 55 page report ... And obviously they had no interest in waiting to read his 500 page damaging report againt them and their pathetic Apollo debacle , so they made sure it never got submitted .

There you go again! Will you ever learn?

[Duane Daman]

I have yet to see you post anything that proves him wrong. When is that expected to start?

You can't see where I have proven him wrong because you are just another one of NASA's blind sheep who refuses to acknowledge that any of the hoax evidence is true, even when it is staring you right in the face .

No, you have posted conflicting statements that you have not vetted. You don't know the truth. It is amusing however to see you parroting the NASA and Clavius material as the truth. I'll ask again. Since you accepth the Clavius and NASA material do you now agree that they are correect about the Apoll program as a whole?

It's not my fault if NASA posts conflicting evidence about those who have blown the whistle on their Apollo debacle.... I posted clavius and NASA sources so you WOULD believe my claims about Barnon's report ... Would you have preferred that I used conspiracy sites instead , because they have a lot more to say about this than NASA does !

No, they are not correct about the Apollo program as a whole or even in part ... because as you have seen , they can't even get their stories straight about the Baron report .

Edited February 10, 2008 by Duane Daman

[Matthew Lewis]

I have yet to see you post anything that proves him wrong. When is that expected to start?

You can't see where I have proven him wrong because you are just another one of NASA's blind sheep who refuses to acknowledge that any of the hoax evidence is true, even when it is staring you right in the face .

You have any actual evidence for this statement or is this just another accusation without substance?

[Craig Lamson]

I have yet to see you post anything that proves him wrong. When is that expected to start?

You can't see where I have proven him wrong because you are just another one of NASA's blind sheep who refuses to acknowledge that any of the hoax evidence is true, even when it is staring you right in the face .

No, you have posted conflicting statements that you have not vetted. You don't know the truth. It is amusing however to see you parroting the NASA and Clavius material as the truth. I'll ask again. Since you accepth the Clavius and NASA material do you now agree that they are correect about the Apoll program as a whole?

It's not my fault if NASA posts conflicting evidence about those who have blown the whistle on their Apollo debacle.... I posted clavius and NASA sources so you WOULD believe my claims about Barnon's report ... Would you have preferred that I used conspiracy sites instead , because they have a lot more to say about this than NASA does !

Wade evidence is also conflicting. Thats the problem. NOWHERE have you produced evidence that settles the issue and has been vetted. At best all you can say is that the disposition of Barons 500 page report (that it existed or if it did,it was submitted) is unknown. There is SPECULATION but no fact. And no ,you posted the NASA and CLAVIUS material because you thought it would hepl your case regardless of the source. What IS your fault is not doing the spade work to vet the evidence and posting it anyways as FACT

No, they are not correct about the Apollo program as a whole or even in part ... because as you have seen , they can't even get their stories straight about the Baron report .

Actually the NASA and Clavius material is mostly consistant. You however have just flown the chicken coop. You say NASA is not correct yet you use their evidence when it suits you.

[Duane Daman]

Wade evidence is also conflicting. Thats the problem. NOWHERE have you produced evidence that settles the issue and has been vetted. At best all you can say is that the disposition of Barons 500 page report (that it existed or if it did,it was submitted) is unknown. There is SPECULATION but no fact. And no ,you posted the NASA and CLAVIUS material because you thought it would hepl your case regardless of the source. What IS your fault is not doing the spade work to vet the evidence and posting it anyways as FACT

These are the FACTS , whether you like them or not ....I have proven that his 55 page report existed and that his 500 page report had not yet been submitted when NASA decided to stop him and stop his longer report from ever coming out .

I post NASA information when it's the truth , not that happens very often concerning the Apollo subject .

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

Baron Report (1965-1966)

Excerpt from: Brooks, Courtney G., Grimwood, James M., and Swenson, Loyd S., Jr. Chariots for Apollo: A History of Manned Lunar Spacecraft. (Washington, DC: NASA SP-4205, 1979).

Baron was a rank and file inspector at Kennedy from September 1965 until November 1966, when he asked for and received a leave of absence. He had made observations; had collected gossip, rumor, and critical comments from his fellow employees; and had written a set of condemnatory notes. He had detailed, but not documented, difficulties with persons, parts, equipment, and procedures. Baron had observed the faults of a large-scale organization and apparently had performed his job as a quality inspector with a vengeance. He noted poor workmanship, spacecraft 012 contamination, discrepancies with installations, problems in the environmental control system, and many infractions of cleanliness and safety rules.

Baron passed on these and other criticisms to his superiors and friends; then he deliberately let his findings leak out to newsmen. North American considered his actions irresponsible and discharged him on 5 January 1967. The company then analyzed and refuted each of Baron's charges and allegations. In the rebuttal, North American denied anything but partial validity to Baron's wide-ranging accusations, although some company officials later testified before Congress that about half of the charges were well-grounded. When the tragedy occurred, Baron was apparently in the process of expanding his 55-page paper into a 500-page report.

When his indictments were finally aired before Teague's subcommittee, during a meeting at the Cape on 21 April, Baron's credibility was impaired by one of his alleged informants, a fellow North American employee named Mervin Holmburg. Holmburg denied knowing anything about the cause of the accident, although Baron had told the committee that Holmburg "knew exactly what caused the fire." Holmburg testified that Baron "gets all his information from anonymous phone calls, people calling him and people dropping him a word here and there. That is what he tells me." Ironically, Baron and all his family died in a car-train crash only a week after this exposure to congressional questioning. (22)

I'm glad you brought up the fact that Wade's evidence is also conflicting ... but that's something that I will take up with him later.

Edited February 10, 2008 by Duane Daman

[Craig Lamson]

Wade evidence is also conflicting. Thats the problem. NOWHERE have you produced evidence that settles the issue and has been vetted. At best all you can say is that the disposition of Barons 500 page report (that it existed or if it did,it was submitted) is unknown. There is SPECULATION but no fact. And no ,you posted the NASA and CLAVIUS material because you thought it would hepl your case regardless of the source. What IS your fault is not doing the spade work to vet the evidence and posting it anyways as FACT

These are the FACTS , whether you like them or not

Well no, as we will soon see...

....I have proven that his 55 page report existed

That was never an issue...

and that his 500 page report had not yet been submitted

No, you have posted conflicting accounts of this and have as of yet found a way to clear up your confusion. Your latest "evidence" posted below shows even more conflict...that the 500 page report might not have even been completed.

when NASA decided to stop him and stop his longer report from ever coming out .

Uh sorry Duane, no evidence has been presented that comes even close to proving this.

I post NASA information when it's the truth , not that happens very often concerning the Apollo subject .

And in this case you know its the truth exactly how? Seems to me that has been the entire thrust of my questions to you ...which you have been unable to answer. And given your utter failure in this matter, you want us to believe you can tell the truth from fiction based on nothing but "you believe"? Thats a real TED moment there Duane!

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

Baron Report (1965-1966)

Excerpt from: Brooks, Courtney G., Grimwood, James M., and Swenson, Loyd S., Jr. Chariots for Apollo: A History of Manned Lunar Spacecraft. (Washington, DC: NASA SP-4205, 1979).

Baron was a rank and file inspector at Kennedy from September 1965 until November 1966, when he asked for and received a leave of absence. He had made observations; had collected gossip, rumor, and critical comments from his fellow employees; and had written a set of condemnatory notes. He had detailed, but not documented, difficulties with persons, parts, equipment, and procedures. Baron had observed the faults of a large-scale organization and apparently had performed his job as a quality inspector with a vengeance. He noted poor workmanship, spacecraft 012 contamination, discrepancies with installations, problems in the environmental control system, and many infractions of cleanliness and safety rules.

Baron passed on these and other criticisms to his superiors and friends; then he deliberately let his findings leak out to newsmen. North American considered his actions irresponsible and discharged him on 5 January 1967. The company then analyzed and refuted each of Baron's charges and allegations. In the rebuttal, North American denied anything but partial validity to Baron's wide-ranging accusations, although some company officials later testified before Congress that about half of the charges were well-grounded. When the tragedy occurred, Baron was apparently in the process of expanding his 55-page paper into a 500-page report.

When his indictments were finally aired before Teague's subcommittee, during a meeting at the Cape on 21 April, Baron's credibility was impaired by one of his alleged informants, a fellow North American employee named Mervin Holmburg. Holmburg denied knowing anything about the cause of the accident, although Baron had told the committee that Holmburg "knew exactly what caused the fire." Holmburg testified that Baron "gets all his information from anonymous phone calls, people calling him and people dropping him a word here and there. That is what he tells me." Ironically, Baron and all his family died in a car-train crash only a week after this exposure to congressional questioning. (22)

Did you miss this line:

Baron was apparently in the process of expanding his 55-page paper into a 500-page report.

So now in an attempt to clean your soiled reputation you post more evidence that added even MORE confusion to your position...that the report might not have even been completed!

Good job!

I'm glad you brought up the fact that Wade's evidence is also conflicting ... but that's something that I will take up with him later.

Edited February 11, 2008 by Craig Lamson

[Evan Burton]

"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."

[Evan Burton]

Mr. WYDLER: Could I suggest that if Mr. Baron has some concluding remarks, or if he would like to submit a statement for the record, that he may be afforded an opportunity? I see you have something before you, and perhaps you would like to put it in.

Mr. BARON: I think I have covered most of it. I have the report that I would like to be submitted as a part of the record, the 500-page report.

Mr. WYDLER: That means printing it. That is something we should leave to the committee, something of that length, whether we want to print it as part of the public documents. We can take it as an exhibit. Whether we will print it as part of the public record is something we should decide after we see it. Is that all right with you?

Mr. BARON: Yes.

Mr. TEAGUE: I think we are through with you. The Board has found some of the things you have said to be true. What you have done has caused North American to search their procedures. Thank you very much.

[Dave Greer]

You have repeatedly stated that the Moon is entirely radioactive. Where does this idea originate? You do know that radiation levels were measured at the surface of the moon (I guess that is assumed to be disinformation)?

Peter ... I don't pretend to be an expert in the subject of deep space radiation but this NASA article seems to refute some of your claims.

The entire lunar surface is highly radioactive and the cosmic ray radiation there is deadly... I understand that NASA has very much down played the extreme dangers of deep space radiation and the Van Allen belt radiation, for obvious reasons ... As far as Apollo astronauts ever measuring the radiation levels on the surface of the Moon, where would that information be ?

Radioactive Moon

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/08...oactivemoon.htm

Duane

Could you point out exactly where in that article the author refuted any clais made by Peter or anyone else? It contains statements such as "All this radiation penetrating human flesh can damage DNA, boosting the risk of cancer and other maladies."

Where does it say that ambient levels of radiation on the moon make a 3 day stay impossible? Does it specify anything about levels of radiation or does it just talk in general terms?

We've been discussing space radiation in another thread where I provided empirical evidence that contradicts your claims about ambient levels of lunar radiation. Here's a reminder for you:-

Link to other thread

Source

Do you have anything to back up your claims about radiation being an Apollo show-stopper, other than articles which talk in very general terms about the potential hazard of space radiation?

[James Douglas]

Mr. WYDLER: Could I suggest that if Mr. Baron has some concluding remarks, or if he would like to submit a statement for the record, that he may be afforded an opportunity? I see you have something before you, and perhaps you would like to put it in.

Mr. BARON: I think I have covered most of it. I have the report that I would like to be submitted as a part of the record, the 500-page report.

Mr. WYDLER: That means printing it. That is something we should leave to the committee, something of that length, whether we want to print it as part of the public documents. We can take it as an exhibit. Whether we will print it as part of the public record is something we should decide after we see it. Is that all right with you?

Mr. BARON: Yes.

Mr. TEAGUE: I think we are through with you. The Board has found some of the things you have said to be true. What you have done has caused North American to search their procedures. Thank you very much.

Evan do you know if the report was 'printed' or published?

[Duane Daman]

"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."

Mr. BARON: I think I have covered most of it. I have the report that I would like to be submitted as a part of the record, the 500-page report.

That last statement does not say if his report was submitted and they both also contradict what was written on this NASA site ... Which proves my point that their information is conflicting and that they can not be trusted to tell the truth about ANYTHING !

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

Source: NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

Yet I'm suppossed to know if the report had been submitted when APPARENTLY NASA doesn't even know if it was or not ? ... This discussion, as most of the discussions with Craig and the rest of you , has now become a ridiculous waste of my time.

Here's the bottom line .... Tom Baron wrote a 55 page report condeming NASA'S incompetence concering the Apollo Program ... He either submitted a 500 page report , or he didn't ( depending on which NASA source you read ) and after he and his family "committed suicide" by being run over by a train, his 500 PAGE REPORT MAGICALLY DISAPPEARED AND WAS NEVER TO BE SEEN AGAIN .

Whether it had been submitted or whether he was still in the process of writing it is hardly the point ! ... The point is the FACT that is was never seen after he was so convienantly killed one week after he testified in front of the commitee that Apollo was in such a shambles that NASA would never safely get a manned craft to the Moon in the near future .

Do you have anything to back up your claims about radiation being an Apollo show-stopper, other than articles which talk in very general terms about the potential hazard of space radiation?

Not yet .

Can you please provide the source again for the chart you posted above , which allegedly shows the empirical radiation doses for the lunar surface ?

The link shows up as this .

Your search - cache:NmXd4r9IDpMJ:villaolmo.mib.infn.it/ICATPP10th_2007/SW%20Applications/HayatsuK.pdf gamma ray moon mSv - did not match any documents.

Suggestions:

Make sure all words are spelled correctly.

Try different keywords.

Try more general keywords.

Try fewer keywords.

Edited February 11, 2008 by Duane Daman