safety inspector Thomas Ronald Baron Jan 13, 2010 17:44:27 GMT -4
Post by garyplus5 on Jan 13, 2010 17:44:27 GMT -4
It was Thompson himself who characterized the report 275-page report as an expansion of the 58-page report. If it contained "new" third-party info, Thompson didn't mention it in his summary. While the 204 Review Board did consider eyewitness testimony three weeks in February, it dispensed with Baron relatively early. Baron appeared before the board on Feb. 7. And no, his testimony is not included in Appendix B of the review board's report. But then again, there is no summary of interviews with most of the people who appeared before the board. Baron didn't give his report to Rocco Petrone at NASA until Jan. 24 and, as we know, that "short" report is based on Baron's first-hand observations. I think it's more reasonable to conclude that Baron spent the 14 days between submitting his report to NASA and his appearance before the 204 Review Board expanding his original report than it is to conclude he was "interviewing" sources and writing new material. It's more plausible that the 225 pages Baron compiled between Feb. 7 and April 27 was based on information he never shared with Thompson's group. As for the "new", hearsay material, it obviously was considered old news. But whether members of the subcommittee read it, skimmed it, or assumed it was more of the same is a matter of conjecture. No one on the subcommittee claimed to have read it, they just say they received it. I know you think I'm chasing a phantom. You've made that clear from my first post. Maybe I am. But I'm not prepared to dismiss the 500-page report as "old news" without making a concerted effort to find it, or talk to someone who actually read it. Maybe it was a lot of nothing. But it was something to Tom Baron.