Established Member
If anyone is interested in "debating" the moon hoax with Clyde Lewis, he has started talking about it in his forum again.
So far he has only made one post on the subject but he has promised more are on the way.
His first post was in regards to Thomas Baron and the "mysterious" deaths of ten astronauts.
Here is the address for his forum:
http://www.aros.net/~gzero/cgi-bin/i.../ikonboard.cgi
I was recently unbanned... I guess he was bored not having anyone there to argue with.
Order of Kilopi
The only reason Thomas Baron is anything other than a footnote is Sen. Walter Mondale, who was prepared to latch onto anything he felt would embarrass NASA and redirect its funding. Mondale is responsible for getting him on Congress' agenda. Of course Baron's evidence toward Apollo 1 completely collapsed, so we're left with his hearsay about North American's practices.
His death was ruled a familial suicide, and that's very much what it looks like. Baron had emotional problems, he had a chronic illness, and he had been publicly humiliated. Killing him after he testifies is a bit like closing the barn door after the horse runs away.
The problem of the other astronauts' deaths is mitigated by the issue of incidents versus the fatalities. Bassett and See, for example, were killed in the same incident. Ditto with Grissom, White, and Chaffee. Half of the fatalities are accounted for by only two incidents. Since probability dictates incidents, you have to consider the incidents when deciding whether these were deliberate acts or just bad rolls of the dice.
Then there's Ted Freeman, whose aircraft ingested a bird. There is absolutely no question of that. Did the CIA train a bird to fly up into his engine? Freeman had ample time to eject and save his life. But like many pilots, he chose to put the safety of those on the ground first and aim his aircraft in a safe direction.
The hoax believers want you to see ten "suspicious" deaths. A less hysterical examination reveals a set of accidents not unremarkable in their nature or frequency, however unfortunate and tragic.
Established Member
I was planning on making many of those same points in Clyde's forum later.
I guess NASA has a giant weather machine that they used to cause the Bassett/See crash.
I can only think of eight astronauts that died... Bassett, See, Givens, Freeman, Grissom, White, Chaffee, CC Williams... who were the other two?
I don't know what HB's even make such a big deal out of Baron... he was criticizing the safety practices of NASA and North American... he never said going to the moon is impossible.
The really funny thing is that Clyde thinks he's making an original claim, as if no other HB's have even mentioned the astronaut deaths or Thomas Baron before.
Kel
Order of Kilopi
I guess NASA has a giant weather machine that they used to cause the Bassett/See crash.
I've read lots of analysis by expert T-38 pilots, some of whom believe Elliot See acted recklessly and some of whom believe he flew the aircraft skilfully. But no one believes he was deliberately downed, and there's no evidence of it.
who were the other two?
Dunno; you'll have to ask him. Perhaps he means to include Jim Irwin or some of the other astronauts who have subsequently passed away. Conspiracy theorists believe Irwin was about to spill the beans and so the CIA caused him to have a heart attack. (Never mind he had had one prior, and the record of his heart problem goes back to the Apollo 15 cardiographic telemetry.)
he [Baron] never said going to the moon is impossible.
But his testimony provides what hoax believers consider circumstantial evidence that the American aerospace industry was not on track to get to the moon. Baron's report and Gen. Sam Phillips' similar denunciation of North American's schedule slippages paint exactly the kind of picture of NASA that Mondale wanted to potray.
But neither formal report addresses NASA's role in the events and conditions leading up to Apollo 1 or NASA's contribution to the NAA schedule slippages: Baron, because it was largely irrelevant to his focus; Phillips because he was arguing NASA's case against NAA. Angle of Attack argues the opposite case, and the truth likely lies somewhere in between.
Of course there's a nugget of truth in all that. Everyone admits that prior to the Apollo 1 fire they program was moving too fast and that some accident was probably inevitable.
The really funny thing is that Clyde thinks he's making an original claim
He may be unaware of the other claims, but they have indeed been made before. Bill Kaysing talks about it all the time.
Established Member
Who is Clyde Lewis?
Established Member
He's a nobody. Just a two-bit radio show host with delusions of gradeur... just like Art Bell. I'm not surprised you haven't heard of him.
He likes to scare people with stories of the impending armegeddon. It's ironic that he has the same initials as "Chicken Little".
He is also a big Ashcroft and Bush basher. I would even say he has a vendetta against them. He goes out of his way to turn everything they say or do into something bad.
I don't know why I waste my time with him.
Kel
Established Member
We've never heard of him in the UK, so I've got the advantage of taking his statements at face value, without any 'previous'. Still, you're assessment seems accurate from the little I now know from joining his little forum.
Order of Kilopi
I hope that he's Not Trying to Include Alan B. Shepard, Jr., who was Born only a Dozen Miles, or So, from my Own Hometown.On 2002-06-16 14:08, LunarOrbit wrote:
I can only think of eight astronauts that died... Bassett, See, Givens, Freeman, Grissom, White, Chaffee, CC Williams... who were the other two?
Not only did he Die of Natural Causes, as well, but his Respiratory Illness, Probably had, at least, a Casual Relationship, with his Lunar Flight!
Order of Kilopi
Maybe he means Pete Conrad, who was killed in a motorcycle accident about the same time Shepard died. Strangely, Conrad struck me as the guy most likely to keep a hoax secret, just for the sheer entertainment value of it.
Established Member
I think he was refering to just astronauts who died during the time of Apollo, so he better not be talking about Irwin, Shepard, Conrad, etc.
Kel
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: LunarOrbit on 2002-06-17 11:40 ]</font>
Established Member
Jay: Killing him after he testifies is a bit like closing the barn door after the horse runs away.
But was he killed because he had knowledge as to who it was who opened the barn door in the first place, allowing the horse to escape?
NAA had stitched him up, and he wasn't best pleased. And in all likelihood he wasn't about to retire quietly and move out to some far-off land. So before he wrote a third report, or a lengthy article to a tabloid broadsheet, or--heavens above--a book!, they moved to dispose of him and those who he had confided in (i.e. those immediately around him).
Case closed. No more blabbing or fear of retribution from Thomas "people must do what they think is right" Baron, then. "I mean, that guy was so self-righteous." {Brushes hands clean and pats CIA colleague on the back over another job well done}.
It is not that you don't accept this view, Jay, it is simply that you reject it out of hand, which drives me to comment.
LunarOrbit: I don't know what HB's even make such a big deal out of Baron... he was criticizing the safety practices of NASA and North American... he never said going to the moon is impossible.
The Baron issue has kind of taken on a life of its own, where I am concerned. The CIA kill people all of the time -- it is in their job description, for crying out loud. Apollo was vastly important to the Cold War, and failure was not an option. The last thing they needed was people forever stoking the anti-Apollo fire. Some people they managed to get "on-side" by wining-and-dining them, and telling them how much they appreciate their "constructive" criticism. But for some unbending and upstanding folk they chose to blacken the reputations of, and so forth. It is a tried and tested formula, and -- for the most part -- it works a treat. The alpha media corps have been on board for a great many years. Or as Edgar Mitchell eloquently puts it: The history of press collusion with intelligence agencies on matters of "National Security" goes back over 50 years. This special "relationship" is not confined to the media corps, either. Many establishments are willing to protect the "status quo", because they have a part stake in the "status quo" and how it is run.
Order of Kilopi
But was he killed because he had knowledge as to who it was who opened the barn door in the first place, allowing the horse to escape?
Your cart is before the horse. The first question is, "Was he killed?" You haven't sufficiently addressed that question. All you have is a very elaborate, subjective house of cards.
It is not that you don't accept this view, Jay, it is simply that you reject it out of hand, which drives me to comment.
I don't reject it out of hand. I'm just waiting for you to prove it. You've concocted quite a wonderful spy thriller plot, but if you want it accepted as historical fact you're going to have to do a bit more than what you've been doing.
The Baron issue has kind of taken on a life of its own, where I am concerned.
And that's the problem. Mondale wanted some way to embarrass NASA and sour its funding. Hoax believers want something that makes NASA and its contractors seem technically incapable of a moon landing. And so all these ulterior motives turn to the spectre of Thomas Baron. But when push comes to shove, Baron doesn't have much to offer. The whole Baron issue is a grossly inflated footnote.
The CIA kill people all of the time -- it is in their job description, for crying out loud.
That doesn't prove the CIA or anyone else killed Thomas Baron.
The rest of your post is just melodramatic speculation. You've spoken at great length about Thomas Baron and his fate. But you've failed to provide Step One: proof that Baron was actually murdered. Until then, the rest of your argument is no more credible than fiction.
Established Member
Jay: Your cart is before the horse. The first question is, "Was he killed?" You haven't sufficiently addressed that question. All you have is a very elaborate, subjective house of cards.
I cannot prove it, granted, but I can still smell the handy work of covert forces. Okay, that is not enough to have the historical record changed -- I will quite gladly acknowledge this also -- but then I do not expect the historical record to be changed, especially when we have organization like the CIA in operation. Truth is a cornerstone of God, and truth is an enemy of the CIA. They are best at misinformation, lies, spin, fabrication, assassination, overthrowing other governments, protecting the status quo, etc. etc. The CIA were involved from the very start to the very end of the Apollo debacle. Their presence was even detected and documented in the aftermath of the Apollo 1 fire. With this knowledge in hand I am calling it as I see it. I believe Thomas Baron was being truthful when he reported what others had told him. You obviously deem Thomas Baron to be a barefaced liar, you just can't bring yourself to say as much.
"When you rig the game, you always win."
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Karamoon on 2002-06-17 18:01 ]</font>
Established Member
Karamoon, NAA had problems with the Apollo 1 Command Module, a fatal flaw. All of the previous tests and procedures said the pressure test was safe, it turned out not to be. This is the nature of testing experimental aircraft/spacecraft. Build the thing as best you can, then test it. At some point, this test would have to be performed, and maybe it had already been performed before, and was due to be performed again. After the fire there was a big investigation. Sen. Mondale had a vested interest in ending the expensive space program. So he went out of his way to find someone who would help him. Who better than a disgruntled ex-employee? Had an accident happened when testing the LM, then perhaps Mondale would have gone looking to Grummen employees for someone willing to bad mouth the company. I know where I work there are always folks ready to complain to anyone who will listen about how bad things are. Imagine being able to do that to an official committee? Ultimate whine.
When they took a similar spec CM and deliberately set it on fire to see what would happen, the engineers were seriously shocked at the lethality of the machine that they had built. Some were so distressed that they left the space program altogether, and some had phsychological problems after.
Karamoon, this is not an indication of a conspiracy, it's just life. It's everywhere, in every organisation. I can imagine there are people where you work who are not very good at their job, yet are the first to complain when things go wrong for them. And some people may be driven to suicide because they've been shown to be no good at a job at which they thought they were the best of the best. It happens all the time.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: johnwitts on 2002-06-17 18:28 ]</font>
Order of Kilopi
I cannot prove it, granted, but I can still smell the handy work of covert forces.
No, you just have an obsession with covert forces and see them everywhere, whether there's any evidence of it or not. I'm not convinced or impressed by paranoia.
I am calling it as I see it.
As am I.
I believe Thomas Baron was being truthful when he reported what others had told him.
That he genuinely believed his informants in some cases, and genuinely reported his observations in others, has little to do with whether those descriptions were fully true, unbiased, significant, or relevant.
In the hands of a powerful Democrat with an axe to grind, they were given exposure which they generally did not deserve, and they were largely shot down.
You obviously deem Thomas Baron to be a barefaced liar, you just can't bring yourself to say as much.
I'll state my own arguments, thank you.
I think Baron had an exaggerated opinion of what his hearsay represented, how it affected NAA and the space program, and what should have been done to address it. I think he had difficulty determining for himself what could be considered reliable information and what couldn't. I think he failed to exercise due diligence to verify his information before making public accusations based on them.
Established Member
John, I'm not looking to dispute aspects of the "tragedy and recovery" at this time. I understand the point you are making (and have made several times before). I am examining the process whereby Thomas Baron noted malfeasance, became outspoken, was screwed over (in my opinion), and suddenly committed suicide.
Johnwitts: Sen. Mondale had a vested interest in ending the expensive space program. So he went out of his way to find someone who would help him.
I'm curious. Are you able to tell me exactly what his "vested interest" was?
No conferring.
Who better than a disgruntled ex-employee?
But John, it boarders on convenience to label him a "disgruntled ex-employee". It is very suggestive. I do not believe Baron was as shallow as that (he is just looking to exact revenge, etc.). Regardless of my opinion, some of the committee members conducted a line of enquiry that hoped to establish that possibility, and Baron exonerated himself sufficiently.
And some people may be driven to suicide because they've been shown to be no good at a job at which they thought they were the best of the best. It happens all the time.
Who said Baron was "no good" at his job? Some people say he overstepped his mark (like Jay), but that should not detract from his daily dealings and rectifications.
Established Member
Jay: No, you just have an obsession with covert forces and see them everywhere, whether there's any evidence of it or not. I'm not convinced or impressed by paranoia.
I believe that I have raised serious questions and doubts surrounding the testimony of Mervin Holmburg and Thomas Baron. If you suddenly feel that my contribution is worth very little or that I am plagued with paranoia then, um, huh? Please hold on one moment..
That's odd. My camera light is flashing. You've hacked into my web camera, HAVEN'T YOU!
I'll state my own arguments, thank you.
Well, Baron is on record as having accused Holmburg, yet you believe Holmburg's version of events. So that surely makes Baron a liar, right? Or are you now claiming he is completely delusional, or something?
Order of Kilopi
All of the previous tests and procedures said the pressure test was safe, it turned out not to be. This is the nature of testing experimental aircraft/spacecraft.
This is more true than you realize. The Block I CM had been tested numerous times in vacuum chambers, undergone flammability tests, and completed two unmanned flight tests.
So what went wrong with the plugs-out test? In a nutshell: test. That is, the CM was filled with equipment to facilitate the test -- stuff that wouldn't be there during a flight. It was filled with protective coverings and packaging that was to be removed before the flight.
All the anti-combustion tests and designs and reviews had been on the flight configuration of the spacecraft. The scary tests came when they duplicated the exact Apollo 1 cabin environment and lit it up in high-pressure oxygen. The fatal mistake was assuming there was nothing inherently dangerous about the plugs-out test configuration.
So when you read the procedures for implementing the recommendations of the AS-204 Review Board, you have a very few items that relate to the design and manufacture of the spacecraft:
1. Make sure the electrical work is behind armored conduits and its insulation is in good shape.
2. Don't let the ECS coolant leak.
3. Redesign the door so it can be opened in seconds instead of minutes.
4. Don't let the astronauts talk you into putting more Velcro in the cockpit than the rules allow.
5. Don't use a high-pressure oxygen environment.
And lots of the procedures had to do with fixing the test. Such as:
1. Make sure pad test people know how to fight fires.
2. Make sure fire and ambulance crews are on hand during tests.
3. Make sure firefighting equipment is there for the tests.
4. Don't allow non-flight materials in the cockpit even during the test.
And so forth.
With a few exceptions the flight configurations and procedures were reasonably safe. That's why it didn't take forever to return to manned flight status.
Established Member
Jay: The rest of your post is just melodramatic speculation.
Really, what part?
Established Member
I will agree that Baron was screwed over, but not by NASA. If anything, he was put on the stand to testify by the anti Apollo Sen. Mondale. It was he who set Baron up for a fall, in the hope of furthering his orn political agenda. NASA had nothing to fear from Barons Testimony. The evidence of 3 dead astronauts and a burnt out capsule were far more damning than the doom warnings from Baron. Compared to the other evidence, Barons testimony was insignificant.
Order of Kilopi
But John, it boarders on convenience to label him a "disgruntled ex-employee". It is very suggestive.
No, I think it's a very accurate characterization. He expressed dissatisfaction with his employment, his employers, and the conditions under which he had been required to work. And he was dismissed for insubordination.
Regardless of my opinion, some of the committee members conducted a line of enquiry that hoped to establish that possibility, and Baron exonerated himself sufficiently.
No, he did not. His answers were evasive and contradictory. For example, he said he was not appropriately promoted, yet he admitted he was not qualified to do the work to which he would have been promoted. Which is it? If he was not qualified, then his lack of promotion was justified. Baron maintains he had been slighted.
Some people say he overstepped his mark (like Jay), but that should not detract from his daily dealings and rectifications.
I strongly disagree. I have quite a bit of experience with underqualified and overzealous quality control inspectors. Not only does that mode of ineffectiveness produce disadvantageous results, it tends to "sour" peers and managers against whatever valid work the zealot might produce. I believe someone's misplaced zeal might extensively pervade various aspects of his life and work.
Established Member
We've got people like that where I work. They are the ones who do nothing to sort a problem that they can see, yet are the first to shout 'I told you so' when something goes wrong.
Order of Kilopi
I believe that I have raised serious questions and doubts surrounding the testimony of Mervin Holmburg and Thomas Baron.
All you've been able to raise is your opinion that you would have handled things differently. That's unconvincing.
That's odd. My camera light is flashing. You've hacked into my web camera, HAVEN'T YOU!
Are you kidding? I can't even get my own webcam to work.
Well, Baron is on record as having accused Holmburg, yet you believe Holmburg's version of events. So that surely makes Baron a liar, right?
Not necessarily. If by "liar" you mean an intentional prevarication, that is not my argument. I believe Baron was mistaken or remembered the conversation incorrectly.
In another thread I reported the experience of the so-called Gimli Glider. I got some of it wrong, partly because that's the way the story was told to me, and partly because I didn't remember everything about what had been told to me. Was I lying? Yes, in the sense that I alleged something that turned out not to be true. No, in the sense that I fully believed I was telling a substantially true story including true details.
Or are you now claiming he is completely delusional, or something?
Why must it be all or nothing? You want the argument to be either that Thomas Baron was a flag-draped hero, or that he was a raving, spitting lunatic. I'm not going to be drawn into such straw-man bifurcations. I have stated my argument and I don't believe it requires much amendment. One can have an inflated opinion -- and if that entails a mild delusion, so be it -- without being certifiable.
Established Member
So, does anyone want to help me out with this Clyde bloke. I've started an argument with him and he's finished it, saying I'm sidestepping the question. Help.
Established Member
Welcome to my hell (the Clyde Lewis forum) John. He's truly insane.
We give him the answers and he ignores them. We give him reason and logic and he ignores it. He's a typical HB.
Kel Jones
aka KJJ1975
Established Member
Sounds like fun! Now if we could persuade Jay to have a go...
Established Member
He's just not making sense now. So, does he believe what he's saying, or is he just stirring?
Established Member
I'm not sure. He has claimed in the past that he doesn't believe 90% of what he talks about... but I'm not sure I believe him.
Part of his attitude problem is just a personal vendetta against me. I guess I have come across sounding like a know-it-all after proving him wrong time after time in the past.
Sorry to drag you into that.
Established Member
Johnwitts: NASA had nothing to fear from Barons Testimony.
I disagree. I believe NASA feared that their paymasters would get the impression that Apollo was a huge waste of money, and that the project wasn't going to yield the desired result any time soon. NASA must surely have feared that Baron would contribute and uphold that negative view.
Johnwitts: Compared to the other evidence, Barons testimony was insignificant.
Again, I disagree. Baron had charged that his seniors were repeatedly turning a blind eye and shifting inexperienced people from one job to another. In light of the Apollo 1 fire, this could have been construed as criminal behavior.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Karamoon on 2002-06-18 17:45 ]</font>
Established Member
Jay: No, I think it's a very accurate characterization.
Okay, it is technically correct. He was disgruntled and he was an ex-employer. What I mean is it is being used in a very suggesting manner, in that his motives were suspect, and that he was looking to exact revenge.
Myself: Regardless of my opinion, some of the committee members conducted a line of enquiry that hoped to establish that possibility, and Baron exonerated himself sufficiently.
Jay: No, he did not. His answers were evasive and contradictory. For example, he said he was not appropriately promoted, yet he admitted he was not qualified to do the work to which he would have been promoted.
Irrelevant. We are talking about examining his motives, remember.
- Mr. FULTON. Is your criticism either of NASA or North American directed at engineering procedures or systems? I don't believe it is, is it?
Mr. BARON. In some cases it is,
Mr. FULTON. Now, the other point that I would like to inquire into is your ability to observe or whether your observations might be colored by your own personal reasons or motives.
Myself: Some people say he overstepped his mark (like Jay), but that should not detract from his daily dealings and rectifications.
Jay: I strongly disagree. I have quite a bit of experience with underqualified and overzealous quality control inspectors.
When I said "overstepped the mark," I meant in regard to his observations.
But don't let that stop you from suggesting Baron was an overzealous and inexperience nobody looking to gain status, will you now.
Myself: I believe that I have raised serious questions and doubts surrounding the testimony of Mervin Holmburg and Thomas Baron.
Jay: All you've been able to raise is your opinion that you would have handled things differently. That's unconvincing.
Well if "handling things differently" means doing things thoroughly and dependably, then yes, I would have done it differently.
Jay: In another thread I reported the experience of the so-called Gimli Glider. I got some of it wrong ...
The fact you got the details wrong was not entirely your fault. You were fed incomplete or inaccurate data. As we know, this is a not too uncommon occurrence, almost like: The secret word is "mongoose", pass it along.....the secret word is "mongoon", pass it along.....the secret word is "moongnome", pass it along, and so on. But in Baron's case, he witnessed things firsthand, in his very person. And I would imagine that the information he received is further key, in its importance and that it would have been unforgettable.
Jay: Why must it be all or nothing?
Because I don't believe Baron had just that second got out of bed and was a little befuddled when he spoke to Holmburg, or that he had yawned and misheard what Holmburg had told him, or that an aeroplane passed overhead obscuring part of the conversation, or that Baron was tone-deaf, or that he later thought: "I can't remember a single thing he told me. I know, I'll make something up!", or that he dreamt a different conversation and mixed it up with the authentic one, or he was partially distracted, or that Holmburg's message was so boring he forgot what he had actually told him, or any other seemingly valid excuse you can conjuror up to bend the situation your way.
Jay: You want the argument to be either that Thomas Baron was a flag-draped hero, or that he was a raving, spitting lunatic.
No, I do not. I simply believe you cannot be mistaken over something like this, or that if he had doubts over what he had been told, he would not sell his obvious integrity and present it to the committee as fact. I simply think Baron was a stickler for the rules and he had pride in what he did. He talks about the responsibility he was handed and he carried out his work with an appropriate level of care and cation. This is self-evident from what notes exist today.
Jay: One can have an inflated opinion -- and if that entails a mild delusion, so be it
Finally! In order for Baron's case to be untrue, it actually requires him to be a liar or somewhat delusional. And, six months later (I have a copy of all our initial engagements on this topic) you have opted for delusion.
I can't say I am surprised.
In fact, over that period of time you have suggested or accused Thomas Baron of being overzealous, having an overactive imagination, susceptible to severe bouts of depression, claimed his observations are nitpicky and insignificant, of being badly in debt, being an attention seeker (and a media darling), being emotionally unbalanced, totally inexperience and out of his depth, a failure.
Now we can add to that list delusional.
Goodness me. NASA can't half pick'em, hey?
You initially claimed the reason he killed himself was because he had survivor guilt. That was until someone pointed out that it was much worse than that, because he had actually murdered his family as well. So you promptly shuffled on over to family related murder-suicide instead. Now what was that logical fallacy relating to those people who move from one theory to another the minute their old one is shown to be false?
This all sounds very much like the character assassination I was talking about a little earlier. You know, that post of mine you ended up fobbing off as being "melodramatic speculation."
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Karamoon on 2002-06-17 21:51 ]</font>
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote