|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 30, 2009 17:54:30 GMT -4
First of all, Gillian, I too am in the "vaguely possible" camp. I really am.It doesn't seem like it. You seem to have expended a good deal of thought toward it. You seem to be considering means and motive. ...but car accident is pretty good if you want to make it look like an accident.But not this accident. You write: You're right, its nearly impossible to fathom the logistics of timing such a scenario.Indeed, hence we thoroughly discount it as a credible hypothesis. Cut a brake line or jam an accelerator and viola, instant rollover.That works on TV, but not in real life. In practice these methods are readily noticeable by the driver before they become life-threatening. Further they are highly noticeable to an investigator. Intentional car accidents are credible as accidents generally only when they involve another vehicle controlled by the perpetrator. And they generally don't survive inspection by trained investigators. Let's say for the sake of argument that Baron had formed enemies, and that those enemies could think of no better way to eliminate his influence other than to murder him. Obviously they will want to divert suspicion away from themselves, and if possible to eliminate suspicion of foul play altogether. Anyone embarking on an illegal course of action does not have the guarantee he won't be found out. The problem occurs if the murder attempt fails and tips off the prospective victim. You need a plan that has a high probability of success, and a low probability of detection. Arranging a car-train collision where neither the car driver nor the train driver is a confederate is pretty much the least likely to succeed and the most likely to tip off someone should the timing fail or the sabotage apparatus be discovered. Baron had medical problems. Killing him might have been as simple as replacing insulin with saline. You have a whole range of potentially fatal household activities such as swimming, fishing the bread out of the toaster, or gas explosions. You don't have to kill other members of Baron's family. If you want to say that Baron was killed, you have to look at easier ways of killing him. I think we must keep that scenario as a "vague possibility".It's pretty much in the same category of "possibility" as that he was murdered by the Titusville PTA over bake-sale profits, or that a passing UFO created a magnetic field that sucked his car into the train. Remote control of the vehicle is another "vague possibility".Are you serious? Really? Accident remains the most likely scenario...Accident (i.e., operator error) remains the only credible scenario. Why are you even mentioning any of the others? You're entirely grasping at straws here. You bring up the notion that the railroad crossing was part of Baron's daily routine. And to a trained forensic investigator, that increases the likelihood of operator error. People are more likely to have accidents or exhibit poor judgment around things that are routine to them. If Baron passes the crossing every day, he will have normalized to the risk of passing trains. Further, people tend to take more operational risk on common tasks than on novel ones. Baron would have been more likely to race a train on a route he commonly traveled than on an unfamiliar one. ...anyone who wanted to silence Baron would know how to do so without anyone suspecting foul play, agreed?No, not agreed at all. We need from you a plausible method of sabotaging his car. Cutting brakes or wedging throttles works okay in TV-land, but not in real life. Those aren't credible ways of doctoring a car to bring about an accident or someone's death. This is what we call "handwaving." You acknowledge that there is a hole in your argument, but you can't come up with anything other than vague supposition to fill it. As such we properly dismiss it. As Jason noticed, your argument is circular anyway. You're saying that "properly" done, murder would be indistinguishable from a true accident. And that's the same as saying, in this case, that there is evidence only for a true accident. You're trying to pin cloak-and-dagger stuff onto it with no evidence. And below you try to argue that Baron's death cowed people into silence. But that only works if there's something to convince you his death wasn't an accident, which would in turn compel Baron's family and/or law enforcement to follow up. Your scenario requires Baron's "accident" to be suspicious at one point and completely innocent at another point. That's not investigation; that's just bad fiction. The point isn't what he did or didn't have, the point is that he wasn't going away.I see that what you're trying to argue is that the mere perception of impropriety, such as Baron would attest to, is enough to cause concern. It doesn't matter that Baron had little more than complaints from coworkers, that he was a lousy witness, and that he really didn't know what engineering development entailed -- or so you say. The fact that he was noisy and getting traction was enough. But death isn't the solution. The ideas don't go away with their author's death, as you've seen. Forty years later people are still touting Baron as a martyr. The proper way to deal with him is to discredit him, which wouldn't be especially hard given his preferred method of working. Nor would attempting to do so be illegal if it were to be discovered. Since Baron allegedly worked from anonymous tips, it's very easy to plant false information that can be conspicuously refuted after Baron or one of his newsmen publishes it. Or one can simply dig up skeletons from his past. All he needed to do was get one piece of damning information into the hands of Mondale or someone else in the anti-space camp.Nope. Baron really had nothing, and at the rate he was going he wasn't likely to discover anything. There were far more damning bits of evidence from the real Apollo1 investigation and from the Apollo 13 investigation that came years later, and from qualified engineers and people with vast experience in engineering development. The anti-space camp didn't need Baron. Baron was not credible to NAA nor to NASA. He was only credible to the media, and mostly because neither the media nor the public largely understood how to run a large aerospace corporation. Baron's concerns about safety seem quite logical when that's all you look at. But they pale when seen in a larger, more appropriate context. Mogilevsky believed Baron was being followed.Mogilevsky simply heard Baron say he was being followed. That's not evidence. So did Holmberg.Watched, not followed. The two are not necessarily the same thing. While I agree Holmburg expressed that belief, he presents no evidence for it; it is merely a plausible supposition from his point of view. So Mogilevsky's evidence is hearsay and Holmburg's is supposition. There is no evidence that Thomas Baron was being watched, followed, or otherwise interfered with. I don't think anyone who knew what Baron [was] doing wanted to find out for themselves if his death was an accident or not.Are you writing an investigative piece or a spy novel, Gary? This rampant speculation on your part is starting to become tiresome. Inspectors had already reported to NASA the problems at NAA. Damning evidence had been given already by people who actually knew about the Apollo 1 fire, and it did not paint a pretty picture. You're acting like Thomas Baron was the only person who was criticizing NAA, Apollo, and NASA. I think its safe to say that Baron's death pretty much discouraged anyone else from mouthing off about problems within the space program.Hogwash. There has been a long line of people willing to smack-talk NASA and the manned space program, including me. And I'm a qualified engineer. You're begging the most important question in your investigation. You're simply assuming Baron really amounted to anything, or would have had he been allowed to continue. It's not at all safe to say what you're saying. It's a key premise of the argument that Baron was murdered by someone, so it can't be established by begging the question as you've done here. Baron was still investigating.Because he had an eager audience and expected a bigger one, not because he was necessarily onto something. People tell stories because other people listen, not necessarily because the stories are true. He must have had something though to fill 500 pages.No, that does not follow. As has been mentioned, most of us are familiar with many large-scale works that are essentially hogwash. David Percy's Dark Moon is well over 500 pages of extremely dense print riddled with error, inaccuracy, and supposition. Quantity is not quality. From Baron's short report it is clear he did not fully understand his job, the operation of a large aerospace organization, or his role within that operation. That lack of understanding may not be easy for outsiders and laymen to discern. But Baron's errors are not the kind that will be fixed by more meticulous documentation or simply more of the same. Baron's expectations are naive. Baron just doesn't "get it." He is right to be passionate about safety, and such a passion might convince others he is conscientious and determined to do a good job. But he doesn't understand the role of an inspector in an engineering development program. He doesn't respect the judgment of his superiors or of the engineers of record. Engineering -- especially aerospace engineering -- is about balancing between naturally conflicting requirements and constraints. It is not possible to have an ideal solution. Baron doesn't seem to understand this. He has a very myopic view of what it takes to bring a major new design to fruition. You keep insinuating that somehow this 500-page manuscript must be some masterpiece of engineering and procedural analysis. I see absolutely no evidence that Baron had either the knowledge or the experience to produce such a report credibly, and considerable evidence that he did not. But what happened to that 500 page report?I have been unable to determine that. I hope you have better luck than I did. But if it is your claim that the report was intentionally and explicitly suppressed in order to keep it from being made public, then I'd like to see some evidence for that alleged action, not just a supposed rationale for why such a thing might happen.
|
|
|
Post by garyplus5 on Dec 7, 2009 18:04:15 GMT -4
You seem to have expended a good deal of thought toward it. You seem to be considering means and motive. I am considering possibilities.
Indeed, hence we thoroughly discount it as a credible hypothesis. I'm not sure who the "we" are, but I don't think you have enough information to discredit "an arranged accident". And to clarify, yet again, I did not propose that the car/train accident could have been foul play, only that tampering with Baron's car would have most assuredly ensured an accident since anyone watching Baron would know that his normal route involved a turn onto Kelly Road, up and over railroad tracks bordered by a deep ditch. Is it really so far-fetched? The tracks were 6/10ths of a mile from Baron's home. He would likely touch his brakes for the first time as he approached the intersection of Kelly and Folsom. He was driving a 1959 Volvo 544. Small and no seatbelts. He didn't need to hit a train. The ditch or another vehicle would definitely inflict damage. I bow to your knowledge of engineering, but what do you know about automobiles? What do you know about real life automobile accidents? How many have you investigated? Do you really think a trained investigator was looking for evidence of foul play? Of course he wasn't. The troopers on the scene didn't know Baron was a critic of the space program. They had no reason to suspect anything other than an accident. Again, I am not saying that the accident was arranged, only that it must be considered as a possibility until it can be dismissed. You seem downright upset that I propose foul play even be considered.
Intentional car accidents are credible as accidents generally only when they involve another vehicle controlled by the perpetrator. And they generally don't survive inspection by trained investigators. Says who? What data is this claim based on?
You need a plan that has a high probability of success, and a low probability of detection. Arranging a car-train collision where neither the car driver nor the train driver is a confederate is pretty much the least likely to succeed and the most likely to tip off someone should the timing fail or the sabotage apparatus be discovered. Again, I never claimed that a plot included controlling the train and tampering with the car. Cutting a brake line would have a high probability of success if you wanted to shake someone up, or maybe injure them and a low probability of detection. It don't think it's any crazier than the scenarios you suggested (replacing insulin, swimming, toaster, gas explosion).
It's pretty much in the same category of "possibility" as that he was murdered by the Titusville PTA over bake-sale profits, or that a passing UFO created a magnetic field that sucked his car into the train. Is the issue here that I have challenged you esteemed opinion? I would hope we could discuss this without belittling each other's opinons.
Remote control of the vehicle is another "vague possibility". Are you serious? Really? While I'm not an expert, I content such a scenario is "vaguely possible". I'm sure its been done before. It is surely the most unlikely of all scenarios though. I'll give it up.
Accident remains the most likely scenario... Accident (i.e., operator error) remains the only credible scenario. Why are you even mentioning any of the others? You're entirely grasping at straws here. It's not the only scenario until others have been proven to be impossible. I'm not grasping at anything, just keeping an open mind. At one time you claimed suicide was a likely scenario.
You bring up the notion that the railroad crossing was part of Baron's daily routine. And to a trained forensic investigator, that increases the likelihood of operator error. Are you a forensic investigator?
We need from you a plausible method of sabotaging his car. Cutting brakes or wedging throttles works okay in TV-land, but not in real life. Those aren't credible ways of doctoring a car to bring about an accident or someone's death. How do you know? Are you saying no one's ever been killed in a car accident in which someone cut the brake line?
You're trying to pin cloak-and-dagger stuff onto it with no evidence. I have exactly as much evidence as you do. All circumstantial. I, however, have visited the accident scene, interviewed a state trooper who investigated the crash, interviewed the lone surviving occupant of Baron's car, recreated Baron's short trip onto the tracks, interviewed a member of the train that was involved, interviewed people who knew Baron intimately, and yet I am the crackpot and you are the expert...
And below you try to argue that Baron's death cowed people into silence. I'm not arguing it, just saying that people who knew Baron and worked in the space program, wondered if he had been murdered. And when you entertain even the slightest notion that foul play might have been involved, you're more likely to keep your mouth shut.
It doesn't matter that Baron had little more than complaints from coworkers, that he was a lousy witness, and that he really didn't know what engineering development entailed -- or so you say. The fact that he was noisy and getting traction was enough. I still believe that. No one knew what Baron was going to say next. What if someone who did know what engineering development entailed wanted to get crucial information to the public. Baron would appear to be an attractive vehicle since he was getting all kinds of press.
The proper way to deal with him is to discredit him, which wouldn't be especially hard given his preferred method of working. You're assuming that people who consider silencing people are as rational as you are. Many murders are irrational acts.
Baron really had nothing, and at the rate he was going he wasn't likely to discover anything. The anti-space camp didn't need Baron. You don't know what Baron had. You don't know what he had discovered, or was likely to discover. All you know is what was in his 55-page report (which was about 50 percent valid and led to changes in procedures according to NAA officials). The anti-space camp that developed didn't need Baron, and the passage of time makes his claims especially weak. But the fact is that in April 1967, he was the point man of the anti-space camp.
Baron was not credible to NAA nor to NASA. He was only credible to the media, and mostly because neither the media nor the public largely understood how to run a large aerospace corporation. Baron's concerns about safety seem quite logical when that's all you look at. But they pale when seen in a larger, more appropriate context. Agreed.
Mogilevsky simply heard Baron say he was being followed. That's not evidence. So did Holmberg. Watched, not followed. The two are not necessarily the same thing. While I agree Holmburg expressed that belief, he presents no evidence for it; it is merely a plausible supposition from his point of view. True and true. Baron told several people he was being watched/followed. You choose to dismiss anything Baron told anyone. I tend to think he may have been telling the truth at times.
Are you writing an investigative piece or a spy novel, Gary? This rampant speculation on your part is starting to become tiresome. Inspectors had already reported to NASA the problems at NAA. I'm writing an investigative piece. My speculation is no more "rampant" that you or other posters here. the only difference is that I haven't made up my mind, and you apparently have.
There has been a long line of people willing to smack-talk NASA and the manned space program, including me. And I'm a qualified engineer. You're begging the most important question in your investigation. You're simply assuming Baron really amounted to anything, or would have had he been allowed to continue. I'm simply stating that NASA had more to lose, and thus was more paranoid, in 1967 than in the decades to follow when one success after another was recorded. I believe NASA officials circa 1967 believed NASA could be shut down if public criticism mushroomed.
It's not at all safe to say what you're saying. It's a key premise of the argument that Baron was murdered by someone, so it can't be established by begging the question as you've done here. I'm not saying Baron was murdered, nor am I trying to prove it. I am trying to prove how he died, and what he had written in his missing report.
Baron was still investigating. Because he had an eager audience and expected a bigger one, not because he was necessarily onto something. People tell stories because other people listen, not necessarily because the stories are true. Again, your opinion. You don't know his motivation.
As has been mentioned, most of us are familiar with many large-scale works that are essentially hogwash. David Percy's Dark Moon is well over 500 pages of extremely dense print riddled with error, inaccuracy, and supposition. Quantity is not quality. Your line of reasoning is hogwash. You don't know what was in Baron's 500 page report. And there is no basis for comparing Percy's work to Barons -- one we can read and evaluate, the other we cannot.
From Baron's short report it is clear he did not fully understand his job, the operation of a large aerospace organization, or his role within that operation. That lack of understanding may not be easy for outsiders and laymen to discern. But Baron's errors are not the kind that will be fixed by more meticulous documentation or simply more of the same. Baron's expectations are naive. I agree. However, this is an analysis of the 55-page report. Again, we don't know what information he gathered for the larger report nor how credible his sources were.
You keep insinuating that somehow this 500-page manuscript must be some masterpiece of engineering and procedural analysis. I see absolutely no evidence that Baron had either the knowledge or the experience to produce such a report credibly, and considerable evidence that he did not. I never insinuated that Baron's report was a masterpiece of engineering and procedural analysis. Your words. I only raise the question of whether the report could have contained one iota of information that could have been damaging to NASA or North American.
But if it is your claim that the report was intentionally and explicitly suppressed in order to keep it from being made public, then I'd like to see some evidence for that alleged action, not just a supposed rationale for why such a thing might happen. I never made that claim. I just wanted to know what you think happened to the report. You have an explanation for everything else, so I wondered what your thoughts were.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Dec 8, 2009 0:56:47 GMT -4
I'm not sure who the "we" are Jay often falls in to the scientific "we" which is used when writing formal papers. The Mythbusters have done it a few times, the control mechanisms are rather obvious to anyone that looks. Hollywood does it occasionally too, and again anyone investigating the wreakage would know the moment they looked inside the vehicle. I'm not, but I know enough about it to know that a forensic investigator is not going to miss a cut brake line, even in 1967. Well while I'm not going to rule it out (one can never prove a negative,) a quick search ion Google didn't locate any, though it did locate a story about 14 people having their's cut by vandels, all lived to tell the tale. A better question is can you provide evidence of people being killed by someone cutting their brake lines? Well that depends, are any of them suggesting that the brake lines were cut and have evidence to back it up? Who believed it was murder? Assuming that there was some critical information to come out. If there wasn't then there was no need to silence him. Murders are often done in a moment of passion. Ones that have been planned out, as the one you are suggesting appears to have been, are done by people who do act rationally. You don't know what he had either. One could take the position that had he had something of importance in the 500-page report, he'd have led with it at his hearing before the committee. People tend to start with their best evidence and work their way to the lesser stuff, they don't hide it in their 500 page report and never tell it. Baron may have been telling the truth and been wrong. Just because he thought he was being followed doesn't actually mean that he was being followed. Jay appears to have made up his mind that the evidence of anything other than an accident isn't there, which unless you have something other than speculation, would be correct. And having 3 dead astronauts wasn't enough to do that already? Then speculation isn't going to help you. If you have evidence of foul play, then by all means put it on the table, but without it you have nothing but an accident. But we have no basis to say that it was any better than his 55 page report either. Besides, Jay's point was that just because it was 500 pages didn't mean that it could not be 500 pages of rubbish, which is totally vaild. Had there been something more substantial in the 500 page report, it would seem unusual that Baron didn't bring this to the attention of the committee when he had the chance. What would have been more damaging than having 3 dead astronauts due to poor practices and overlooking safety procedures?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Dec 8, 2009 5:01:47 GMT -4
I am considering possibilities.What other non-accident possibilities are you considering? I'm not sure who the "we" are...I and everyone else here who has dismissed sabotage and murder as a hypothesis and who have given their reasons for it. I don't think you have enough information to discredit "an arranged accident".The null hypothesis is operator error and you have presented no evidence to suggest otherwise. The burden of proof is on the claim of an intentional act. He would likely touch his brakes for the first time as he approached the intersection of Kelly and Folsom.Most people use their brakes for the first time in a drive when they back out of a parking space or a driveway. What specifically leads you to believe Baron would not have attempted to brake before meeting the train, aside from the short distance he drove? I bow to your knowledge of engineering, but what do you know about automobiles?My automotive engineering clients include Audi, Ford, and Caterpillar. I work on my own cars and assist others in working on theirs. Part of my professional experience is hydraulic power systems for aerospace. Where did you study automotive engineering? What do you know about real life automobile accidents? How many have you investigated?Two, as an expert witness. I have formal training in forensic engineering from the University of Michigan, which included numerous case studies and examinations. How many have you investigated as an expert witness? What is your training in forensic engineering? You are the one proposing specific auto mechanics scenarios. You have the burden to show that they are valid at prima facie. Do you really think a trained investigator was looking for evidence of foul play?A trained accident investigator will try to find some cause for the accident other than "it merely happened." Checking the mechanical condition of the car is fairly routine. One checks the steering, the brakes, the signals, etc. Insurance companies want to know that sort of thing because they will want to consider the possibility of negligence. You don't have to be specifically looking for evidence of foul play in order to spot it, especially if the car was sabotaged or doctored as you've suggested. You seem to consider that evidence of foul play would be discovered only by a deliberate search for such things. A perpetrator will not know ahead of time how diligently his handiwork will be investigated. ...only that it must be considered as a possibility until it can be dismissed.No. It can never be "dismissed" because one can't prove a negative. You have the burden of proof. You seem downright upset that I propose foul play even be considered.No, I'm disappointed that you cling to it as any sort of possibility when you don't have any evidence for it. And you don't seem to understand how the epistemology of such investigations work. As I said, I'm often legally liable for the strength and correctness of my findings. Are you? I considered your claim and I found it implausible because there's no credible motive for it and there's no evidence it was actually done. Explain why that line of reasoning fails. You seem upset that your claims of foul play are being met with quite appropriate skepticism. Says who? What data is this claim based on?Years of consulting for law firms that specialize in insurance fraud. What data is the basis for the claim that brake sabotage is a feasible or common method for killing someone? Again, I never claimed that a plot included controlling the train and tampering with the car.You proposed a remotely controlled vehicle! Cutting a brake line would have a high probability of success if you wanted to shake someone up, or maybe injure them and a low probability of detection.A bone-dry brake system is not detectable? A fresh abrasion or incision on a hydraulic line is not a telltale? Tampering with someone's brakes in a way that causes them to bleed dry is undetectable only if the investigator decides not to investigate; and the perpetrator has no guarantee that such apathy will occur. Is the issue here that I have challenged you esteemed opinion?No, the issue is that you're proposing something farfetched with no evidence. And you know there's no evidence. You admit there's no evidence of tampering, and you admit that the most likely scenario is an accident. But you just won't let go of that sabotage hypothesis. Why? You had no problem esteeming my opinion when it was keeping you honest last week. What is wrong with my continuing to keep you honest? You seem to think I'm acting unfairly or inappropriately. But most of your objections boil down to, "But you can't prove otherwise." You're soliciting an affirmative refutation where none is required; your arguments fail to convince because they're unsupported, not because someone else has an obligation to provide and defend a counterclaim. I would hope we could discuss this without belittling each other's opinons.Your hypothesis is not an opinion; it's an allegation of fact. Back your hypotheses with some evidence and then you'll have more credibility. That's what works for me. I and others are simply pointing out that you're proposing something for which you have no evidence. I'd really love to see you on a witness stand being cross examined by opposing counsel with what you have in hand. Not because I'm malicious or mean-spirited, but because that's often what it takes for people to discover how much they really know and why they know it. It's not the only scenario until others have been proven to be impossible.No, that's as wrong as it can possibly be. You'll never be able to prove operator error was impossible. So you can't base a line of reasoning on holding to an unsupported hypothesis while you wait for that other proof to happen. And it can't be proven that sabotage was impossible. But there's no evidence that any of that actually happened, so it ranks very low in the hypothesis set. At one time you claimed suicide was a likely scenario.I believed suicide was the scenario best suggested by the evidence in hand, and others concurred. When it became apparent that such evidence was faulty, and when new evidence was presented to contradict the belief, I changed my conclusion. In other words, I let the evidence guide my conclusion at every step, even if that means changing direction when the evidence does. You seem to be ignoring the evidence and proposing whatever you want instead. You disguise this by saying you're keeping an "open mind." Who is the most open-minded: the person who clings to an idea for which there is persistently no evidence, or the person who immediately re-evaluates his claims as the evidence changes? Are you a forensic investigator?Yes, that is part of my training and part of how I make my living. In my consulting business I am asked to investigate all sorts of accidents, many of which include vehicles of various types. That also includes operater error, negligence, and malfeasance and thus a reasonable understanding of human factors. How do you know? Are you saying no one's ever been killed in a car accident in which someone cut the brake line?I don't know of any off the top of my head. People try sabotaging cars all the time, but it's discovered before it becomes life-threatening. "Shaking up" Baron by tampering with his car arouses and confirms his suspicion, and works for its intended purpose only if Baron is able to determine that he has been deliberately attacked. It is obviously impossible to "send a message" without leaving evidence of that message that may be taken to law enforcement, to Congress, or to the media as proof of interference with his work. Since sabotage is your hypothesis, you have the burden to prove your hypothesis is plausible at prima facie. So far you've just begged the question. I have exactly as much evidence as you do.But you have the burden of proof. You need more evidence than you have. I, however, have visited the accident scene, interviewed a state trooper who investigated the crash, interviewed the lone surviving occupant of Baron's car, recreated Baron's short trip onto the tracks, interviewed a member of the train that was involved, interviewed people who knew Baron intimately......and out of all that due diligence you discover zero evidence that Baron was murdered by having his car tampered with. I acknowledge that you have put considerable research into the circumstances of Baron's unfortunate death. That is why you are expected to provide the evidence to support the hypotheses you advance. You admit the investigating officer believed that Baron simply tried to beat the train. Have you asked this officer whether he can confirm or deny your suspicion that Baron's brakes were sabotaged? Did you ask the officer if he inspected the car's safety and control systems? I'm not arguing it, just saying that people who knew Baron and worked in the space program, wondered if he had been murdered.Do they have any evidence? Wonder is cheap. No one knew what Baron was going to say next.Begging the question. My assessment of Baron's ability is based on what he did say, not speculation about what he may have been about to say. What if someone who did know what engineering development entailed wanted to get crucial information to the public.I'm an expert in engineering development and I wouldn't have trusted Thomas Baron to be my vehicle. I know Baron was fundamentally misguided, even if he had someone's attention. Besides, in the Apollo 1 investigation there was plenty of testimony about the problems North American and NASA were having with engineering development, and it had little to do with Baron's complaints. Nor did those witnesses require Baron in order to get their messages across. You're assuming that people who consider silencing people are as rational as you are. Many murders are irrational acts.Crimes of passion are often irrational acts. You do not propose a crime of passion. You propose that Baron was murdered following a lengthy program of surveillance. That is the work of a dispassionate calculation. You even admitted this when you attempted to excuse your lack of evidence: you suggested that a carefully planned murder would be indistinguishable from an accident. You change horses now only when your coolly calculated murder hypothesis is showing its cracks. Yours is a common yet specious line of reasoning. You confuse morality with reason. People who are immoral or amoral are not necessarily irrational. You don't know what Baron had. You don't know what he had discovered, or was likely to discover.Hogwash. As I explained, Baron's surviving work shows fundamental naivete and misunderstanding. Baron's expectations are simplistic and ill-informed. It is against those expectations that he measures the performance of his former co-workers and superiors. When that's the problem, then measuring additional observations against those faulty expectations -- no matter how well documented the observation -- doesn't fly. ...his 55-page report (which was about 50 percent valid and led to changes in procedures according to NAA officials).Asked and answered. Baron touched upon several items that are legitimate matters of judgment for which there is no deterministically right answer. On the witness stand, under examination by Congress, NAA officials admitted that some of Baron's points were valid. And I've explained how that satisficing works. Of course in the aftermath of fatal accident, with 20/20 hindsight, one will have to admit that one's judgment was wrong. What else could they do? For example, consider the lack of documentation. For forensic purposes, many processes in engineering and fabrication ought to be extensively documented as they are performed. That documentation provides evidence should an incident occur. Baron correctly noted that some of the documentation was being omitted or delayed. Often that's the first corner that's cut when development falls behind schedule, and such a decision is usually a calculated risk. The responsible managers agree that delivering the product on time is more important than filling out the paperwork. It's simply a matter of prioritizing the use of scarce resources. Of course such a decision will be questioned in hindsight, especially after a fatal accident. But Baron didn't have the hindsight, and he didn't have appropriate foresight in that he failed to recognize similar dilemmas as calculated satisficing among inherently conflicting requirements. Baron made many of his claims naively misunderstanding how decisions in those domains must be made. That he accidentally urged people in the right direction is not evidence per se that his analysis was well informed. "Satisficing" (cf. Petroski) is the art of managing conflicting variables, often with scant information. It is the artful robbing of Peter to pay Paul, and is the essential nature of all engineering. Not every occurrence of Peter's deprivation is necessarily wrong, nor necessarily results in catastrophe. But when catastrophe occurs, and it is noted that it may have been averted had Peter possessed more funds, then obviously that management of funds will be questioned. However, when Peter's friends constantly lament that he is deprived of funds, that doesn't amount to an understanding of the overall situation. They are right in a few cases, but accidentally so. Their complaints derive from their love for Peter, not from a thorough understanding of the dilemma in which Peter and Paul find themselves. Hence you cannot necessarily hold up Baron's exhortations as a well reasoned analysis of the problem. Baron urged safety because that's what he was in charge of. In many cases safety is compromised consciously in order to achieve competing goals. Not always successfully, but also not always unwisely. You choose to dismiss anything Baron told anyone.No, I merely identify it correctly as hearsay. You seem to treat Mogilevsky as corroboration that Baron was being followed. Mogilevsky is evidence only that Baron made certain claims, not evidence that those claims are true. I tend to think he may have been telling the truth at times.The question is not really whether Baron was lying. The question is whether Baron's statements conform to the facts. Baron may have quite honestly believed that he was being followed. But his claims are not evidence that he was being followed. Can you provide any evidence that Baron was being followed that does not ultimately trace its way back to Baron simply having said that? My speculation is no more "rampant" that you or other posters here.I disagree. Others have made quite cogent objections to your hypothesis, and you don't seem to be doing much to address them other than to assert that it remains "vaguely possible." If you have only vague possibilities, no viable scenario, no evidence of actuality, and no hard evidence of any kind, then it is not inappropriate to classify your hypothesis as absurd. Reductio ad absurdum is not an invalid method of refutation. ...I haven't made up my mind, and you apparently have.I'm often accused of that by people who wish me to put credence in farfetched propositions for which they can provide no evidence. You admit accident (i.e., operator error) is the most likely explanation for Baron's death. You admit that there's no evidence for sabotage or other form of murder. The real difference is that I'm willing to obey that evidentiary mandate while you apparently are not. That is my method born of having to account with great rigor for my findings. I'm simply stating that NASA had more to lose, and thus was more paranoid, in 1967 than in the decades to follow...I disagree. NASA became more politicized in the post-Apollo era and therefore more paranoid about public policy and opinion. I believe NASA officials circa 1967 believed NASA could be shut down if public criticism mushroomed.How much have you researched the methods of James Webb? I am trying to prove how he died...What does the evidence say about how he died? Again, your opinion. You don't know his motivation.I gave the reasons for my opinion. Baron's behavior is consistent with someone who has an inflated opinion of his own skill and judgment. The extremity of this behavior is known as the Dunning-Kruger Effect. It doesn't mean Baron was lying. It doesn't have to mean he was consciously an egomaniac. Your line of reasoning is hogwash. You don't know what was in Baron's 500 page report.Nor do you; but you suggested that it must have had value because of its length. ("He must have had something in order to fill 500 pages.") It is indeed a valid rebuttal to point out that works of similar length are not per se well reasoned or factual. However, this is an analysis of the 55-page report.No. It is an assessment of Baron's ability to judge the operation of a large-scale engineering development organization. That ability (or the lack thereof) is revealed in his short work. What evidence can you offer that his experience and judgment in those matters improved between November 1966 and February 1967? I only raise the question of whether the report could have contained one iota of information that could have been damaging to NASA or North American.You all but assume it did. I've given my reasons for disputing that assumption, and you've largely ignored the essence of those reasons. You merely respond with handwaving and arguments from ignorance. You want to write me off as entrenched, but I'm merely pointing out how altogether weak your case is. When we have evidence of the way a man thinks and acts, it is not irrational to suppose he will continue to think and act that way. You are the one proposing a different way, so you have the burden of proof. You attempt to shoulder it by saying that Baron was an intelligent man. I've asked for objective evidence of it, and I've received none. And I've pointed out that even if Baron is highly intelligent, he is demonstrably inexperienced in the matters he proposes to judge. You suggest that Baron's work may have been damning enough to make his own death suspicious. Yet there were already three conspicuously dead astronauts killed in a silly preventable accident for which considerable blame had already been levelled at the responsible parties by people who weren't Thomas Baron and who weren't later murdered for their testimony. I never made that claim.You've only insinuated it in just about every post you've written here. You suggest that Baron's house was broken into in order to retrieve the report. You've suggested without evidence that the report was returned to Baron so that it could be stolen from him post mortem. I don't know what happened to Baron's report. I've given my own speculation in that regard, and clearly labeled it as such. The difference is that I don't base any further conclusions on that speculation. Nothing about my analysis of Baron's case requires any specific disposition of the report. You're basing your conclusion on the speculation that Baron's report was returned to him and then stolen after his death in order to keep it from being published. Those are allegations of specific occurrences which require evidence. You suggest his report had value because someone apparently tried to steal it, but that amounts to a circular argument because you can't prove the scenario in which it was allegedly stolen. You suggest his report had value because Baron was an intelligent person. But that doesn't address the flaws in his existing work. The same "intelligent" person made grave errors in judgment. You suggest his report had value because it was lengthy. But you ignore examples of worthless lengthy works. Now you've resorted to shifting the burden of proof: we can't prove his report wasn't valuable. You seem not to understand how burden of proof works. I'm not being contrary. I'm not being antagonistic or dismissive. I am merely applying the standards of analysis that apply in my profession, which are rigorous and unflinching. Investigation intended to have real value must endure the crucible of unrestrained scrutiny. If I were to go to any dispassionate entity with the evidence you've presented, I would be laughed out of the room and rightfully so.
|
|
|
Post by garyplus5 on Dec 8, 2009 11:07:11 GMT -4
I'm obviously not qualified to offer thoughts on Thomas Ronald Baron and his demise. I don't have photos of someone following Baron, so he wasn't being followed. I can't prove that his trailer was broken into. I only have hearsay. I can't prove that his brake line was tampered with, only that the brake fluid reservoir was low. And until I obtain results of IQ tests, I cannot prove that Baron was intelligent. I only have the views of people who lived with him. That's clearly not evidence. And even if I provide data supporting Baron's intelligence, it will be discounted as outdated, unreliable, or unverifiable. You've helped me to appreciate that the only information that's pertinent is cold, hard data. I don't agree with that, but you are clearly the expert. I think memories have merit. How much merit depends on the person, and whether those memories are supported by known facts. Fortunately, I have a few items that fall into the category of cold, hard data you deal with -- the 2-page accident report, a recently-discovered 27-page homicide investigation, a letter Baron's wife wrote, death certificates, Baron's divorce file, etc. Hopefully, I'll find more documentation. Perhaps you'd consider evaluating the data I gather and interviews I conduct when my investigation is concluded. I'd be interested in your expert opinion.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Dec 8, 2009 13:01:07 GMT -4
I'm obviously not qualified to offer thoughts on Thomas Ronald Baron and his demise.Straw man, and a convoluted one at that. First, you're not just "offering thoughts;" you're making specific, putatively testable allegations of fact. It is not inappropriate to attempt to determine what evidence supports those hypotheses and what you have done, if possible, to test them. Second, you admit your case is poor. You say murder by sabotage remains a "vague possibility." But when others say what amounts to the same thing, you bristle. Third, your case for murder fails largely for lack of credible evidence. That's not a matter of qualification but of diligence in part and circumstance in the other part. I am interested in the diligence of your investigation not because I distrust it but because I am attempting to discover its extent. I'm asking you questions that are no more loaded nor ill-intended than those I ask of my own associates. We simply need to know the degree of rigor that has applied to some investigation so that we know how much faith to put in it. As for circumstance, the harsh reality of incident investigation is that happenstance events do not always leave us with enough evidence to conclusively rule in or out some particular hypothesis. Fourth, your case additionally suffers from lack of imagination. You can't even present a viable hypothesis for how the tampering occurred. You handwave vaguely about "cutting the brakes." Fifth, yes -- some of your case suffers from a lack of expertise. If you're going to talk about whether Baron was a credible threat to the aerospace industry or NASA, then you'd better know something about that industry and where Baron's claims fit. If you're going to say that his car was rigged for remote control, then you'd better have done some homework about how to engineer a remotely controlled car. If you're going to talk about the epistemology of incident investigation, then you'd better have studied the formal logic of it to know why the burden of proof lies where it does. When people with pertinent expertise question your findings, it's usually wise to listen. They may be helping you not to make a fool of yourself. I don't have photos of someone following Baron, so he wasn't being followed.Straw man. No one is asserting that Baron wasn't being followed. We are simply pointing out that you have presented no evidence for that proposition that doesn't ultimately amount to an unsupported claim by Baron himself. You don't seem to dispute the observation that the evidence you present rises no higher than supposition and hearsay. But you seem upset that the evidence is not very convincing. Baron did not seem to fear NASA. He delivered his short report to NASA. He met openly with NASA officials. He asked for more NASA inspectors to oversee North American's work. In Baron's mind, NASA are the Good Guys. We might legitimately ask why Baron at no time seems to have said to NASA, "Help me; I think someone's following me." Baron had ordinary access to law enforcement. He was working with the media, the government, and Congress. At no time did he appear to ask these entities for help or report his fears to anyone who could do anything about it. I can't prove that his trailer was broken into. I only have hearsay.Correct. I can't prove that his brake line was tampered with, only that the brake fluid reservoir was low.Now there's a point to follow up on. How low? Have you talked to Volvo engineers or mechanics to determine what the critical reservoir limit is? The power steering reservoir on my Audi is currently below its minimum level because I thought I had fluid in the garage but I don't. The pump whines but the car still steers. Has it been tampered with? I have many enemies. Is someone trying to kill me? Hydraulic power systems routinely leak fluid, especially when they're upwards of ten years old. Parsimony says we don't have to look toward tampering to explain why Baron's brake fluid reservoir was low. It may indeed turn out to be the root cause of the collision, but that's not evidence in favor of sabotage. If brake failure turns out to be the proximal cause, you still have to show what caused the brakes to fail. Fluid leakage is still more probable than sabotage. Besides, the 1959 Volvo 544 has a cable-actuated hand brake within easy reach of the driver. Even if Baron's brake system had been bone-dry, he still would have been able to stop the car. And until I obtain results of IQ tests, I cannot prove that Baron was intelligent.You inferred that Thomas Baron's lengthy report must have been well-argued (and therefore likely damning) because Baron was intelligent. That begs two questions: that Baron was intelligent, and that intelligence is sufficient to the task. Why do you think it's not appropriate to test the strength of those premises? I asked whether you had any objective measurements of Baron's intelligence. You haven't presented any, so we have to question just how rigorously you can know about Baron's intelligence. I have further argued that intelligence is not the same as experience and judgment. I have given examples of where Baron's judgment failed. Again, I too am highly intelligent (by objective measurement), but there are many things I do not know how to do. It would be fruitless of me to pass judgment on the behavior of people who are experienced in those matters, even if they score lower than I on intelligence tests. In the larger scope, you have deployed several disparate arguments in favor of the notion that Baron's lengthy report was damaging and well-reasoned. In my experience that behavior is consistent with someone who has made up his mind about a proposition and is just shopping for a rationalization. You ignore entirely the reasons why Baron's existing work is largely inconsequential, and therefore you don't see why they undermine his larger work regardless of the observations it contains. Baron's scale is faulty, so he inescapably mis-weighs the apples. Telling me that he likely has better apples or more of them doesn't fix the problem with the scales. I only have the views of people who lived with him. That's clearly not evidence.It's a subjective impression of a dead man by his loved ones and former colleagues, on a point that is normally established only by measurement. And even if I provide data supporting Baron's intelligence, it will be discounted as outdated, unreliable, or unverifiable.Straw man. You take us to task when we put words in your mouth or in Baron's, but you seem to have no problem putting words in our mouths. You've helped me to appreciate that the only information that's pertinent is cold, hard data.No one has argued that. The only evidence that's convincing is that which doesn't ultimately reduce to supposition, hearsay, and speculation. I don't agree with that, but you are clearly the expert.I am a trained and experienced investigator. I routinely offer findings that I know will be rigorously scrutinized for correctness and logic by people who have a vested interest in opposing it. I know what makes a strong case and what doesn't. I know how machines work. I know how people and machines interact. I know what goes on in the industry that builds airplanes and spaceships. I know intimately what's involved in aerospace quality control. I know what procedures are or ought to be followed in an incident investigation. My stock in trade is my ability to burn away the irrelevant hogwash and arrive very quickly at the nugget of an issue, then to lay it bare to see how well it survives scrutiny. I think memories have merit.Asked and answered. Human memory is a very poor recorder of fact. We use it only when nothing else is available, and we apply controls to ascertain its reliability. Perhaps you'd consider evaluating the data I gather and interviews I conduct when my investigation is concluded. I'd be interested in your expert opinion.Of course I'm interested in reviewing your evidence. I asked last week whether you'd be willing to share the accident report. I'm also interested in your other evidence. That's why this conversion exists. Naturally since it's the product of your labor and resources, I don't expect you to simply hand it over upon demand. But reviewing cases for strength is largely what I do.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Dec 8, 2009 14:55:25 GMT -4
My quickie computation suggests that the Volvo tandem master cylinder used from 1955 to 1959 will operate with full braking force and maximum cylinder throw with as little as 31 ml, and with half braking force with only 15 ml fluid in the reservoir. At nominal cylinder throw only a few milliliters are required.
|
|
|
Post by garyplus5 on Dec 8, 2009 15:03:17 GMT -4
First, you're not just "offering thoughts;" you're making specific, putatively testable allegations of fact ... You say murder by sabotage remains a "vague possibility." But when others say what amounts to the same thing, you bristle ... Third, your case for murder fails largely for lack of credible evidence ... You can't even present a viable hypothesis for how the tampering occurred ...
I don't believe I ever made allegations of fact. I presented possible scenarios. And I am gathering evidence that should debunk or support one or more scenario. I never claimed to have reached a conclusion. Secondly, I didn't bristle at anyone saying murder was a "vague possibility". I bristled that at those who said, and say, murder is an impossibility. Third, I don't have a case. I am undecided. I'm not making a case for murder. And if I was, I certainly wouldn't enter this court of public opinion without evidence. From the get-go, I've made it clear I was still gathering information. As to the charge of "lack of imagination", I thought I was being skewed for having too much imagination. A viable hypothesis? Okay, how about this: someone enters the wooded lot behind Baron's trailer while the family is eating dinner, slides under the Volvo and loosens two zerks just enough to let brake fluid slightly trickle out. The person enters from Kelly Road, which is adjacent to the property and leaves the same way. Takes five minutes. Baron touches brakes as he exits the property, but doesn't stomp the pedal until he realizes a train is bearing down upon him less than a half mile later. As you know from your automobile expertise, fully depressing the pedal will discharge the brake fluid in the line, not stop the car. Is that a viable scenario, or too far fetched? As for Baron yanking on the parking brake, now that sounds like a scene from a TV movie. When was the last time you touched your parking brake? And with only a split second or two to react, I doubt he would instinctive grab the parking brake (which he never used because Florida is as flat as a pancake). Its more likely he would attempt to downshift to slow the Volvo.
If you're going to talk about whether Baron was a credible threat to the aerospace industry or NASA, then you'd better know something about that industry and where Baron's claims fit. If you're going to say that his car was rigged for remote control, then you'd better have done some homework about how to engineer a remotely controlled car.
I don't contend that Baron was a "credible threat" to the aerospace industry, only that he was a nuisance to North American Aviation and that he was gathering information which he planned to provide to newspapers and/or Congress. As for the remote control car, I abandoned that theory a couple of posts ago. Never should have voiced it. Please let me withdraw it as I've let you withdraw your suicide post. You keep talking about the burden of proof, yet you supported the suicide conclusion without a single shred of proof. What "evidence" did you base that conclusion on?
If you're going to talk about the epistemology of incident investigation, then you'd better have studied the formal logic of it to know why the burden of proof lies where it does. When people with pertinent expertise question your findings, it's usually wise to listen. They may be helping you not to make a fool of yourself.
Believe me, if I didn't value your expertise, I wouldn't continue to engage you in discussion. And I'll gladly risk being perceived as a fool in the interest of gaining knowledge. I was taught that only stupid questions are the ones unasked. I will consider scenarios others may dismiss because I know that things often aren't what they seem. I never claimed to be an expert on accident investigation, but I am well versed in journalistic investigation.
You don't seem to dispute the observation that the evidence you present rises no higher than supposition and hearsay. But you seem upset that the evidence is not very convincing.
Of course I don't dispute it. I'm not upset over the lack of evidence, but I am bothered that any spoken word that cannot be proven is hearsay. Lack of evidence does not always negate the value of someone's recollection, especially when that recollection is independently confirmed by others. Yes, it is hearsay. And yes, evidence must be sought to qualify or nullify it, but absence of evidence doesn't render the hearsay as meaningless. If it did, every memoir would be meaningless unless documentation existed to support it. Yet we as a society have learned much from memoirs and oral histories. If memories weren't important, someone should have told the Warren Commission. They could have saved a few thousand trees.
We might legitimately ask why Baron at no time seems to have said to NASA, "Help me; I think someone's following me." Baron had ordinary access to law enforcement. He was working with the media, the government, and Congress. At no time did he appear to ask these entities for help or report his fears to anyone who could do anything about it.
You make a great point, one I hadn't thought of. This is why I continue to post. Thank you. I could suggest reasons for Baron not approaching NASA or law enforcement, but that would lead us into another "where's the proof" argument, so I won't.
Now there's a point to follow up on. How low? Have you talked to Volvo engineers or mechanics to determine what the critical reservoir limit is? The power steering reservoir on my Audi is currently below its minimum level because I thought I had fluid in the garage but I don't. The pump whines but the car still steers. Has it been tampered with? I have many enemies. Is someone trying to kill me?
I am following up on it. And please refill the reservoir on your Audi.
You inferred that Thomas Baron's lengthy report must have been well-argued (and therefore likely damning) because Baron was intelligent. That begs two questions: that Baron was intelligent, and that intelligence is sufficient to the task. Why do you think it's not appropriate to test the strength of those premises?
No, I never inferred that Baron's lengthy report was well-argued, only that it may have contained information provided by people still working with the space program (who might have been much more intelligent than Baron). I stated that it could have contained information NASA/North American didn't want the public to see.
I asked whether you had any objective measurements of Baron's intelligence. You haven't presented any, so we have to question just how rigorously you can know about Baron's intelligence.
I concluded that Baron was intelligent based on conversations with a woman who was married to him for seven years; conversations with his stepbrother, conversations with a man he worked with, the jobs he performed while in the military, his civilian employment history and finally, a quote by an NAA superior who stated Baron was an outstanding inspector. You conclude that he wasn't intelligent based on a 55-page report and his testimony before Congress. I don't see how your opinion has merit and mine doesn't.
You ignore entirely the reasons why Baron's existing work is largely inconsequential, and therefore you don't see why they undermine his larger work regardless of the observations it contains.
I have stated in this forum that Baron's "existing work" was largely consequential, and that he was a poor investigator, but I'm unwilling to assume his larger report was garbage. Maybe it was. Maybe 99 percent of it was. We can't know. I know that I'm a better writer today than I was a year ago. Maybe Baron stepped up his game after being discredited at the hearing.
It's a subjective impression of a dead man by his loved ones and former colleagues, on a point that is normally established only by measurement.
Subjective, yes. But not worthless. And not everyone who knew Baron remembers him fondly. One person who knew him well remembers him as a cruel man, but even she admits that he was extremely intelligent.
You take us to task when we put words in your mouth or in Baron's, but you seem to have no problem putting words in our mouths.
Guilty as charged. Forgive me. We've both put words into each other's mouths.
Human memory is a very poor recorder of fact. We use it only when nothing else is available, and we apply controls to ascertain its reliability.
Let's agree to disagree. A good deal of this country's history is based on human memory. Human memory has often swayed juries and judges. It's a tool that can lead to the truth. Not as good a tool as hard evidence, but a valuable tool nonetheless.
Of course I'm interested in reviewing your evidence. I asked last week whether you'd be willing to share the accident report. I'm also interested in your other evidence.
I have intended from the beginning to provide you with everything I gather and would be honored if you would provide your views. I will do so when my investigation is finished.
|
|
|
Post by garyplus5 on Dec 8, 2009 15:05:06 GMT -4
Jay, that's fantastic information about the Volvo. Can you tell me how deep the actual reservoir was/is?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Dec 8, 2009 16:46:27 GMT -4
Jay, that's fantastic information about the Volvo. Can you tell me how deep the actual reservoir was/is? Looks like about 75 mm, but I'm working from a data sheet and a crude drawing that doesn't give the reservoir capacity. Visually estimating, I'd say the reservoir capacity is about half a liter. Since it's a cylindrical reservoir oriented long-axis horizontal, minimum braking fluid capacity (15-16 ml) would amount to about 5 mm in the bottom of the reservoir, or about 1/20 full. These are pretty crude estimates. But if the reservoir were inspected to be, say, half full, then I'd suggest the braking system would have had enough fluid to operate without aspirating. Normally this would be established in a bench test of the braking system since this is an estimate based on theoretical behavior and does not necessarily reflect real-world operation. A mechanic in your area should be able to set up a bench test with a proper Volvo master cylinder and the necessarily slave cylinders and piping. The minimum reservoir loadout should be established by bench test prior to drawing any engineering conclusions.
|
|
|
Post by garyplus5 on Dec 8, 2009 17:12:47 GMT -4
Nicely done, Jay. So we have a report that says brake fluid in master cylinder was "down 1/2 inch", train whistle blown at least once, and no skids marks by any of the Volvo's tires. Sounds like brakes worked, but weren't applied. Seems to lend credence to Trooper Stattler's conclusion that Baron was trying to beat the train, which seems extremely foolhardy considering wife and two kids are in the car. Or maybe medical related? Diabetic shock? Then again, suicide sounds plausible. I'll keep digging.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 8, 2009 17:52:47 GMT -4
I am nowhere near as qualified as Jay in accident investigation, engineering, or much of anything else relevant, but I do have a little training in history and certain amounts of knowledge in other areas, so let me tackle just a few points. A viable hypothesis? Okay, how about this: someone enters the wooded lot behind Baron's trailer while the family is eating dinner, slides under the Volvo and loosens two zerks just enough to let brake fluid slightly trickle out. The person enters from Kelly Road, which is adjacent to the property and leaves the same way. Takes five minutes. Baron touches brakes as he exits the property, but doesn't stomp the pedal until he realizes a train is bearing down upon him less than a half mile later. As you know from your automobile expertise, fully depressing the pedal will discharge the brake fluid in the line, not stop the car. Is that a viable scenario, or too far fetched? It sounds as though "this part of the braking system was loosened" would make it into any halfway-decent accident report. Besides, okay, so he doesn't brake fully while exiting the property--which seems unlikely, but leave that aside--what if, long before he reached the train tracks (for a given definition of "long before," of course!), perhaps before he even got all the way down his block, a kid had run out after a ball? An idiot teenager had run a light? Any of these things might have happened, and that would not have suited the plans of anyone trying to kill him if the plan involved the train. But if the information wasn't valid, wouldn't it have been easy to discredit him as a crackpot? Oh, I've had more than a few stupid questions asked! (Customer at renaissance faire as I'm standing in front of a large wall of kilt pins: "Do you have any kilt pins?") But when someone who is an expert in accident investigation says your ideas are implausible . . . . Hearsay it is, however; look it up. Now, some hearsay is given more weight than others. However, there is no reason to place more weight on "So-and-so said he was being followed" than to assume that it means the person said he was being followed. It has no validity as to whether he was or was not in truth being followed. You need other evidence for that. Several points. Number one, the Warren Commission was operating a lot closer to the relevant events, which made memories collected at the time more reliable. Number two, the Warren Commission did not entirely rely on eyewitness testimony. Where it was contradicted by physical evidence, it was the physical evidence which was trusted. Number three, it is quite clear in the text itself that, if a witness's testimony regularly contradicted the physical evidence, their testimony about other things was generally distrusted. But wouldn't looking into it be the thing which would precede suggestion of the possibility in public? Isn't it irresponsible to call it a valid hypothesis without looking into the first, most obvious things which would contradict it? Because Jay has expertise in a relevant field? Yes, possibly, but there's no reason to assume he did. It's possible he got a few things right in the 500-page report, but it's also not exactly improbable that whatever he got right was easier obtained from other sources known to be more reliable. By what standards? And, I have to tell you, I don't put much weight on family members telling you, decades after the fact, that someone they loved held any positive quality you like. There are exceptions, of course, but it's a common phenomenon. Agree to disagree? If you haven't researched the known, documented, serious failings of human memory as a research tool, now would be the time. You should also note that far, far more of the country's memory is based on documentation. There are exceptions, but historians know where those exceptions are and give far less weight. (And, so you know, diaries are different, given that most events recorded in diaries are recorded at the time. And even there, we don't take them as the most reliable information.) While, yes, those memories can sway judges and juries, if it's all a prosecutor has, the case won't make it to court. And it shouldn't.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Dec 8, 2009 18:38:13 GMT -4
I don't believe I ever made allegations of fact. But you have. Whether Baron was being followed or not is a matter of fact, so is if his trailer was broken into, whether his brakes were tampered with, or if he was intelligent. All of these are testable. And we'll be very interested in that evidence, but at the current point in time I for one am unsure at your ability to sift through and separate evidence from speculation. No-one has said it is an impossibility, they have said based on the current evidence it is highly improbable and so should not be considered as a valid solution unless new evidence can be presented and examined. This is the basis of scientific theory and Occam's Razor. As one poster here said in a different thread, the scientific method has never heard of "case closed". I'd suggest that the charge of "having too much imagination" came from your apparent willingness to treat the case like a spy novel and speculate with little evidence, while the "lack of imagination" charge comes from using a tired old cliché of the brakes being cut. A great start, but now that you have a hypothesis the hard work has to start, can you prove it? That's where the rubber meets the road. You need to test your hypothesis and see if it is actually possible. If not, then you need to discard it as falsified. If it is possible, then you need to determine what parts of it are unsupported by the evidence, these you need to mark as assumptions. Finally you need to determine if there are other possible competing hypothesises and determine what their assumptions are. Lastly you need to apply Occam's Razor, the simplest hypothesis (i.e. the one with the least major assumptions) is likely the correct one, and should be the one that you go with until such time as new evidence means that you can either falsify it, or decrease the assumptions in a competing hypothesis. This is the scientific method. I tend to find that where the scientific mind tends towards looking for the answers in the mundane, investigative journalism tends towards the spectacular because it makes a far better story. But that's not what is being said. Hearsay is when one person reports that another person said something about an incident, rather than the second person directly reporting the incident themselves. In this case others saying that Baron told them that he was being followed is indeed hearsay. Furthermore, even if Baron really believed that he was being followed and had reported it himself, that still doesn't mean it was actually true. Many people believe that the FBI, CIA, or NSA are following, listening in on and even arguing with them on the net. For the majority of them these groups have never even heard of them, let alone are willing to waste the manpower and time on them. Belief in something doesn’t make it true, regardless of how passionate that belief is. End the end, while Baron might have been being followed, there is no evidence whether he was or wasn't. But in this case it wasn't "independently confirmed by others." What was "independently confirmed by others" was that Baron apparently believed he was being followed, but his belief in the matter doesn’t mean it was actually so. Of course it does. Without proof, hearsay is worthless as evidence because it means nothing. The only value hearsay has is as a marker to help an investigator know where to look in order to locate further possible evidence. If no evidence is forthcoming however, the hearsay should be abandoned until such time as new evidence revives it. You are confusing eye-witness testimony about an incident, which, with the proper safeguards, is acceptable evidence, with what someone else said an eye-witness said about an incident, which is hearsay. Human memory is important, but is also known to be highly unreliable. Well then, there is your starting point. Take your suggestion, determine the assumptions, and see if you can locate the evidence to prove those assumptions. It does seem unusual to me that Baron would tell others that he thought he was being followed, but not someone that might be able to do something about it. If he was worried about someone informing his followers, surely telling anyone would be a risk. And it'll be interesting to see the results, though do be aware that you’ll likely face more questions and testing on them. But without the report this is worthless. We also have to ask, if it did, why didn’t he put that information in front of the subcommittee when he had the chance? Why when he was asked " I wonder if you could tell us from your own point of view what you think the most serious charges are and why" did he not say, "I have found out this [add big damaging point here]" rather than, " Very well. It is quite varied as to our problems are. As most people have said and realized, it is so extensive and covers so many areas it is difficult to believe that some of them even existed. I would say basically that we have had problems, extensive problems in safety, in cleaning materials, in items getting in the spacecraft that weren't supposed to be there, the morale of the people, the pressures put on the people by management are the things that really indicate that we don't have the proper management that we should have in this program." Even when pushed on the point he didn’t have a huge major issue, he replied, " Probably the lack of communication between almost everyone concerned with this project and the sectionalism that exists in this particular project is probably our main problem. By this I mean if I were to write a letter about a particular instance or a fire or something like this or something that we have had and try to get it up through channels, it would be stopped along the way. This has occurred. Not only to me, it has occurred to other individuals in quality control, also. The communication going up is very, very poor and the communication coming down is very, very poor." So to his mind, and memory since he did note that he'd have to re-read his report, the biggest issue was a lack of communications. Not really that damaging is it? What could it have contained that was worse than three dead astronauts and the incompetency that lead to them being killed? Especially when the author of the report couldn't actually think of it when questioned about it? These are all subjective evaluations. Belief in something doesn’t make it true. He struggled a lot on the stand, and seemed to have trouble understanding relatively simple questions that were put to him. However, Jay has never stated that Baron wasn’t intelligent, but rather that there is not enough evidence to determine how intelligent he was. Instead Jay noted that Baron was inexperienced and well out of his depth in the field that he was attempting to work in. This doesn’t mean he was not intelligent, as Jay also noted, very intelligent people can have problems trying to deal with things outside their experience, for instance I wouldn't want to write up a report on how to do surgery because medicine is not my field, however if you wanted to have a discussion about Chiral Carbons and their effects in the pharmaceutical industry, well then I'm happy to go there. From Baron's 55-page report and his testimony in front of the sub-committee, he was out of his depth in a field he didn’t know enough about to be making the claims he was making. Unfortunately this is the problem. The most likely hypothesis based on his testimony and his 45-page report is that the 500 page one was more of the same, and thus should be the default position. You want to add the assumptions that a) Baron got better at his job, but didn't realise it, or b) that someone gave him something of profound importance, but Baron didn't recognise it. These are both far larger assumptions than that his skills as an investigator remained inadequate and he merely added more of the same to his larger report. Occam’s Razor once again. Subjective speculation is almost always worthless without evidence to back it up, regardless of who it is from. Try putting one hand in a bucket of cold water and one in a bucket of hot water for about a minute, then transfer both hands to one that is room temperature. How useful is the data you are getting from your hands as to the temperature of that bucket? This is what unsupported speculation is. People can see others as intelligent or not based on many things, but that doesn't make their evaluation correct. However it is highly flawed, and nowadays we are starting to recognise this fact for what it is. Human memory has indeed swayed Judges and Juries, but it has also imprisoned innocent men and women, and may even have sent them to their deaths at the hands of an executioner. With research over the past 30 years now showing us how fragile and easily damaged memory is, we have to take it very carefully and do so with an understanding that want someone remembers is not likely to be 100% accurate. As a result we tend to trust memories only as far as "group memory" goes, looking for the specifics via other means where we can. Yes memory is a tool that can help lead us to the truth, but at the same time we need to treat it with suspicion, understanding that the person recalling events does so based on their own perceptions, biases, and interpretations of the event. Can't wait, but do be aware that what you provide will undergo serious scrutiny regardless of your final conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Dec 8, 2009 19:42:22 GMT -4
I don't believe I ever made allegations of fact.You have. By that I mean that there is a qualitative difference between an opinion and an allegation of fact. An opinion rests in part on subjective belief. "Thomas Baron was an excellent inspector," is an opinion because your criteria and mine for that proposition may differ legitimately. We cannot test comparatively because you have your criteria and I have mine. "Thomas Baron's brakes failed, and this caused his collision with the train," is an allegation of fact. It is testable by nature, although it may not be practical to test it with the information we have available. When you make an allegation of fact you have the onus to test it or explain why it cannot be tested. And I am gathering evidence that should debunk or support one or more scenario.And that is good. But you need to pay very careful attention to how the burden of proof works in that approach. Don't fall into the traps of holding important propositions by default, or requiring affirmative proof only, or placing a burden of proof that logically cannot be satisfied. As to the charge of "lack of imagination", I thought I was being skewed for having too much imagination.Yes and no. We need imagination to come up with specific scenarios to test. "Someone must have tampered with his brakes somehow," is unsatisfying and untestable. "Someone loosened the fittings on his brake circuits while he was eating dinner," contains enough detail to test. You must imagine enough of the scenario to provide testable detail. However when imagination is used to compensate for illogical lines or reasoning or gaps in evidence, then it amounts to supposition and doesn't help the proof along. ...loosens two zerks just enough to let brake fluid slightly trickle out.I assume you mean one on each circuit. Now we're getting somewhere. As you know from your automobile expertise, fully depressing the pedal will discharge the brake fluid in the line, not stop the car.No, it's not that straightforward. Applying pressure to the brake pedal raises the fluid pressure in the brake circuit by a proportional amount. If the brake circuit is open, fluid flows out of the circuit. To maintain circuit pressure, the cylinder must continue to travel, about 2 millimeters per second for every milliliter per second of fluid loss. However, the fluid loss rate does not scale linearly. It scales according to the square root of the pressure gradient. Put simply, doubling the foot pressure does not double the volume flow rate through the leak, especially when the fluid is incompressible. If we accept that Baron braked lightly while backing out of his residence area, we have to continue to assume that the leak rate was not great enough to cause the pedal to depress at a noticeable rate. A leak rate of 30 mL/s (one American shot glass per second) would cause the brake pedal to depress to the floor in one second. That's obviously noticeable, so clearly the leak rate would have to be far less than that. If we propose a leak rate that would be unnoticeable in a two-second brake application, let's equate that to (arbitrarily) less than 30 mm per second of pedal travel. That's approximately 6 mm/s of cylinder velocity and about 3 mL/s of fluid loss at that pressure. If we triple that pressure to simulate hard braking, the corresponding leak rate rises to only 5 mL/s and 10 mm of cylinder travel per second, or about 50 mm/s of pedal travel. And at that rate the pedal would sink to the floor in about 3 seconds. Most drivers know to pump the brake when a leak is apparent. Baron would have had about 15-16 good pumps before exhausting the reservoir, so he would have had about 45 seconds total hard-braking time available at the speculated leak rate. And that's at full pressure, because the math doesn't support the notion that a tiny leak rate during Baron's backout would have been followed by a massive, catastrophic leak rate when he went to avoid the train. The bottom line is that your scenario isn't plausible from a fluid-power standpoint. A leak rate catastrophic enough to remove Baron's braking ability when confronting the train would likely be noticeable as he backed out and first applied his brakes there. When was the last time you touched your parking brake?An hour ago. It's a hand brake. It may be used for parking, but it is also designed to function as a backup brake actuator should the hydraulics fail. Because I'm methodical and fastidious, I use my hand brake all the time. For parking, surely. Also while I rummage in the glove compartment while stopped at a stoplight. And I use it on hills when engaging in first gear: left foot on the clutch, right foot on the accelerator, left hand on the wheel, right hand on the handbrake. That saves the right foot from having to release the brake, jump over to the accelerator, and engage a smooth takeoff without rolling backward too far. which [hand brake] he never used because Florida is as flat as a pancake.Speculation. You don't know if Baron habitually used his hand brake. And neither would the perpetrator: that's the point I had wanted to make. Tampering with the hydraulic brakes doesn't make the car unstoppable. The perpetrator would have to consider that Baron might have enough composure to use his hand brake. Then he'd be stuck with Baron discovering that both sides of his brakes were leaking -- something that would be very suspicious indeed. Its more likely he would attempt to downshift to slow the Volvo. I don't know about you or Baron, but it takes me a lot longer to downshift than to pull the handbrake. Granted Baron had that option. He could also have swerved off the road, especially to avoid an object moving transversely to his line of travel; that's also instinctive. But you inspected the accident site and can render judgment about how viable an option that would have been. ...only that he was a nuisance to North American Aviation and that he was gathering information which he planned to provide to newspapers and/or Congress.Asked and answered. Baron is a threat in that scenario because he is perceived by the general public to be a knowledgeable, reliable whistle-blower. You don't remove that threat by attacking Baron's person. Even if Baron is dead, the effect remains. One must defuse that kind of threat by attacking the whistle-blower persona that constitutes Baron's value. That means discrediting him, not martyring him. you supported the suicide conclusion without a single shred of proof. What "evidence" did you base that conclusion on?It was based on email and bulletin-board conversations with someone who purported to be a Florida resident and had supposedly seen done that research. I am bothered that any spoken word that cannot be proven is hearsay.Hearsay is not merely any spoken word. Hearsay is the testimony of a declarant who did not actually witness what he reports. Mogilevsky reports that Baron said he was being followed. We can properly accept Mogilevsky as an authority on what Baron said. However, we cannot accept him as an authority on whether Baron's statement is true according to the facts. You attempted to use Mogilevsky as support for Baron's claims, saying that Mogilevsky believed him and found him credible. Mogilevsky's judgment does not answer the allegation of fact embodied in Baron's claim. That Baron, Mogilevsky, Holmburg, or any other number of people believe that Baron was being followed is not a substitute for evidence of that activity. Belief is not proof. From Baron we have no testable evidence that he was being followed. Mogilevsky does not corroborate Baron because he is merely reporting what Baron told him. Holmburg speculates that Baron is being "watched" but provides no evidence for that belief. ...especially when that recollection is independently confirmed by others.But my whole point is that Baron's claims to being followed are not independently confirmed by others. You tried to hold up Mogilevsky as that independent confirmation, but he's not independent. You tried to hold up Holmburg as independent confirmation, but there is no confirmation -- only speculation. ...every memoir would be meaningless unless documentation existed to support it.Memoirs are not hearsay. If I write in my memoir that I attended the University of Michigan that would be considered appropriate eyewitness testimony. It may be totally false, but it's not false because it's hearsay. If I wrote that my father met Bob Hope at an airport while he was away on business, that would be hearsay because I'm reporting what my father reported to me. I cannot confirm or corroborate that the meeting took place. I am authoritative in reporting what my father said, but not whether what he said is true. You make a great point, one I hadn't thought of. This is why I continue to post. Thank you. I could suggest reasons for Baron not approaching NASA or law enforcement, but that would lead us into another "where's the proof" argument, so I won't.But that's important to do, as long as you don't assume any of those reasons is true and base additional inference upon it. For example it might be valid to say that Baron believed he was being followed but did not consider it harmful. He may have distrusted the police for reasons that had nothing to do with his work. I have friends who have been arrested by the police, and who thereafter don't trust them or wish to have anything to do with them. Such a person would be reluctant to approach the police even if he had a legitimate matter for their attention. Perhaps Baron was unsure who was following him and therefore didn't want to tip off the wrong person. It is unlikely that Baron's reluctance to redress his surveillance was due to an abundance of caution. After all, he shared the statement with Mogilevsky, who was largely unknown to Baron. If Baron felt that he needed to keep the surveillance secret for his own purposes, he wouldn't have blabbed to his roommate at the hospital. I stated that it could have contained information NASA/North American didn't want the public to see.Asked and answered. People were being subpoenaed and were saying damaging things already. It's plausible to suppose that Baron's report (however well or poorly reasoned) did not paint a good picture of North American Aviation. However your line of reasoning supposes that Baron's evidence rises to a level high enough to compel action against him. Given what has been done by others, that would have to be a pretty high level, and one that's likely incongruent with Baron's demonstrated ability and performance. I concluded that Baron was intelligent based on...And we enter that into evidence, but we have to evaluate its characteristics and reliability. It is certainly pertinent to ask the judgment of Baron's friends and relatives. But what do they mean by "intelligent?" To what degree, in what way, and by what standards? I read a great many resumes and a great many employment histories that show success in the workplace, but the people don't necessarily demonstrate a high degree of intelligence. Again, we accept it for what it is. Someone's judgment that Baron was an "outstanding inspector" begs the question that those criteria amount to intelligence. Success at some task does not mean intelligence. You conclude that he wasn't intelligent based on a 55-page report...No. At no time have I asserted that Baron is unintelligent. And my analysis of his 55-page report finds that he is inexperienced and lacks certain specialized knowledge. That's the part you keep overlooking. Again, you offered a line of reasoning that inferred the correctness of his work from an assessment of his intelligence. The strength of that assessment naturally bears on the value of the work according to any such line of reasoning. Hence it is proper to ask how that assessment was obtained. I'm unwilling to assume his larger report was garbage.You keep demoting my line of reasoning to an "assumption" when it clearly is not. I have given my rationale many times. You have yet to face it head-on. Maybe Baron stepped up his game after being discredited at the hearing.But in this case "stepping up his game" would have mean acquiring a great deal of understanding and experience in how to operate a large-scale engineering development program -- experience he clearly didn't have in January 1967. How would he have obtained it? It has taken me 25 years of working in the industry to get to the point where I can apply my judgment to the work of other engineers. How is Baron going to acquire commensurate knowledge as an outsider in a small number of months? Let's agree to disagree.I'd rather not. The fallibility of human memory is a matter of considerable scientific investigation and is duly considered by the FBI, the NTSB, and other investigative bodies. A good introductory text is Dr. Elizabeth Loftus Eyewitness Testimony. If you aren't familiar with that work, it ought to serve you well in a journalism career. I can assure you that incident investigators pay very close attention to Ms. Loftus and her colleagues. A good deal of this country's history is based on human memory.That doesn't make it correct or reliable. Human memory has often swayed juries and judges....and occasionally sent innocent people to jail. Persuasiveness does not make it correct or reliable. It's a tool that can lead to the truth. Not as good a tool as hard evidence, but a valuable tool nonetheless.No one is claiming it doesn't have value. But in order to have value it must be obtained and handled properly, and put into perspective along with any other evidence that arises. Asking people to characterize a man's intelligence subjectively based on 40-year-old recollections is simply not as reliable as obtaining objective (or at least rigorously comparative) measurements of his intelligence. If you can't obtain that, then the best you have will be the recollections. But that may not be good enough for the task at hand. I have intended from the beginning to provide you with everything I gather and would be honored if you would provide your views. I will do so when my investigation is finished.Thank you; I look forward to reading it.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Dec 8, 2009 20:16:53 GMT -4
Nicely done, Jay.And free of charge too. (Normally this is something I would charge money for, but then again I'd be doing a much more rigorous job, frankly.) So we have a report that says brake fluid in master cylinder was "down 1/2 inch",The brake system would have functioned quite adequately with that level of fluid in the reservoir, provided at least one hydraulic circuit remained closed. A 10-percent or so loss of brake fluid in an 8-year-old car is not disbelievable. It would not have impaired the brake function nor have been noticeable to the driver. train whistle blown at least once...Which is usually enough evidence to make it improbable Baron didn't notice the train. It happens occasionally that people miss even blatant warnings, but I don't have enough evidence to pursue any of those patterns in this case. ...and no skids marks by any of the Volvo's tires.With the arbitrary discharge rates I used above, you'd get some braking force, and likely a substantial amount of it -- at least for a short period of time. You'd get a fraction of a second of full braking even under more drastic cases, and that would translate to a meter or so of skidding. Sounds like brakes worked, but weren't applied.If the tubes in both braking circuits were completely severed you'd essentially have no resistance to the brake pedal (i.e., only the cylinder return springs). You'd have no braking force at the slave cylinders, obviously. And if Baron got in a few good pumps of the pedal before the collision, he would have discharged perhaps that much of the reservoir, provided it started full. But again Baron would have likely noticed it earlier. You can't completely sever the brake lines and then brake even lightly without noticing. Seems to lend credence to Trooper Stattler's conclusion that Baron was trying to beat the train, which seems extremely foolhardy considering wife and two kids are in the car.Not to impugn the trooper, but I would need to see his accident report and possibly interview him to assess how rigorous an investigation he did. I don't say his report is unreliable, but I have no way of knowing how reliable it is. Yes, the presence of Baron's family in the car argues against beating the train. That's why I'm interesting in reading the interview of the crash's only survivor. Since we have almost no documentary evidence of the last few seconds of the car's journey, eyewitness testimony is what we must rely on in this case. Or maybe medical related? Diabetic shock?We would be wise to consider the possibility. Baron's blood chemistry at the time of death would be a crucial, fascinating data point. In more rigorous transportation accident investigations this is required data collection. Baron's medical history and his hospitalization for diabetes complications is prima facie evidence that we have an actionable hypothesis. Then again, suicide sounds plausible. I'll keep digging. It sounded plausible at the time we discussed it some ten years ago. That's why I didn't question the alleged provider of the inside information too harshly. Chronic illness is considered a risk factor for suicide, but we'd have to talk to Baron's doctors and inspect his medical history to know whether his diabetes was being controlled and to what extent it was impairing his life. However, this is another case where we would want to interview Baron's friends and relations. Don't misunderstand: eyewitness testimony is not worthless, but you have to ask the right questions. Diabetes-induced depression would have symptoms that others may have noticed. Ironically suicide is a more plausible hypothesis for explaining why his wife and children were in the car. While we rightly wonder why Baron would have gambled with his family's lives while trying to beat the train, familial suicide is a credible pattern. When a head-of-household commits suicide, it occurs a significant percentage of the time that he will arrange for the death of his family so that they are not aggrieved or shocked by his death, and so that they are not left unprovided for. It is tragic, shocking, and not subjects on which an investigator likes to dwell. But they are facts that must be faced in the search for answers. However, the physical dynamic of the collision doesn't ring true here. You say Baron's car struck the train, presumably as a portion of it had already passed. Naturally I would want to see the final disposition of the vehicles before I spoke further. But if I envision the collision correctly based on your description, the train arrived at the crossing first and Baron's car struck the side of one or more cars. Typically vehicular suicide is, for lack of a kinder word, more assertive than that. It would fit the pattern better if Baron had stopped his car on the tracks well in advance of the train, perhaps first stopping at the crossing in while the train approached and then advancing onto the tracks in the last few seconds to ensure the maximum energy. Had I known exactly how the vehicles collided I would have questioned the suicide hypothesis more closely. But at the time, a number of factors were consistent with suicide and so the discussion we had with our anonymous informant did not raise any red flags.
|
|