|
Post by tomblvd on Nov 18, 2009 18:44:59 GMT -4
And once again gary, I ask, if he was viewed by someone as enough of a threat that he needed to be silenced, why wait until after he compiles 500 pages of evidence AND testifies before Congress? By that time it was too late.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 18, 2009 20:12:39 GMT -4
I think its clear from Baron's testimony that nobody on the committee read the report.I think it's clear that no one on the panel who questioned him had read it. Whether anyone else associated with the committee had read it cannot really be determined. I have seen no testimony substantiating that anyone other than Baron read it. He sent it to Gurney, but Gurney returned it.The testimony transcript says it went to the chairman of the "full committee" (i.e., on science and astronautics). That would have been George P. Miller. See, the panel that actively questioned Baron and Holmburg was the subcommittee on NASA oversight. Miller died long ago before I could question him, and the present staffers at the present committee don't know anything about the report, or at least they didn't in 2002. Do you have evidence that the report was returned, or is this a conclusion you've drawn? I don't think we can assume the 500-page report was as lame as the 58-page report (which NAA officials admitted had about 50 percent merit).We don't have the long report, so we can't know that based on facts. However, Baron's short report gives us insight into his skill as an investigator. It is poor. Hence we have every good reason to suppose that the same incompetence that pervades his existing work would be found in his longer work. Every company has dirty laundry, especially when working on a large project with aggressive deadlines. We know North American had problems because documents substantiate that, and because their spacecraft burst into flames on the launch pad. Any conscientious person will be able to go into where he works and identify things that should be done differently. Baron got an audience of high-level North American officials. These are the people who bear ultimate responsibility for safety and quality. But they are also the people best equipped to know what is best to do about things and when. A company's performance may not always be stellar, but it is often "good enough" even with defects and discrepancies on the table. Baron certainly didn't have enough first-hand knowledge to fill 500 pages, it must have included info from other sources.That's not in question. Baron explicitly states that the 500-page document is based on reports received from others, and he even names some of the contributors. Unfortunately that indirection is the problem in this case. An affidavit based substantially on reports provided by others is inadmissible hearsay in a legal context such as testimony before Congress. Hence the committee's primary interest is in obtaining from the report the names of people who contributed to it. The 500-page report itself is likely inadmissible, and would be sufficient motivation for rejecting it if that's what the committee indeed did. But it provides the names of people whom the committee can question in order to obtain first-hand testimony. It appears the value of Baron to the committee is solely as the custodian of named informers who can themselves provide valid testimony. Anything damning? Who knows.It is safe to assume that the report did not paint a rosy picture of what was going on at the Kennedy Space Center. However, the contents of the report are less interesting to me as their likely accuracy. And I believe the report held almost no interest to the subcommittee, who realized that Baron had no first-hand information about the Apollo 1 fire. That's my conclusion based on Baron's hesitancy to provide names...The only name he was hesitant to provide was Holmburg's. He happily provides several other names upon request and urges the committee to consult his report for more. Holmburg himself was not reluctant to appear. He testified voluntarily. Keep in mind that this is the individual Baron claimed fed him all kinds of information about the Apollo 1 fire. According to Baron, Holmburg gave him all kinds of information which turned out to be factually incorrect. If Holmburg were being any less than honest about his information or his conversations with Baron, he could have very easily avoided being examined by the committee. Instead he appeared and risked being caught in a lie. Baron, on the other hand, had to be pressed to name Holmburg. Why would Baron want to hide Holmburg's identity? After all, if he (Baron) were being completely honest about Holmburg and his information, he would naturally want to have his claims verified by the man himself who had made them. A more credible interpretation of Baron's and Holmburg's testimony about their meetings is that Baron and Holmburg likely met by chance a week after the fire, that Baron recognized Holmburg as a pad technician and recounted to him all the various rumors and hearsay he had heard about what happened on the pad, and that Baron "remembered" that Holmburg corroborated those statements. Baron would be reluctant to reveal Holmburg's identity to the committee because he knew or suspected Holmburg would tell a substantially different story. ...coupled with Holmburg testifying that people were feeding Baron info.No, Holmburg testified that Baron told him people were feeding him information. The distinction is important. Holmburg does not claim to have any firsthand information about who is contacting Baron or why. I think its highly likely Holmburg did know who some of Baron's sources were.Based on what line of reasoning? They talked several times at Cutler's drug store...Both Baron and Holmburg testified that every time they met it was by accident. These were not planned meetings. I think Holmburg may have been feeding Baron.What line of reasoning supports this? Why else would Baron mention him?Because the committee pressed him to identify a pertinent informant. The purpose of the hearing was not to determine everything that was going wrong with NASA or with North American Aviation. It was to determine the cause of the AS-204 fire. Rep. Teague questions Baron specifically about Holmburg because according to Baron, Holmburg had special knowledge of the AS-204 accident. The committee wants to know what Holmburg knows about the fire, but they require Baron to divulge his identity. I believe that North American Aviation may have viewed Baron as a threat.I don't think there's any question about that. Baron was giving information to the media that was based on inside reports, and may not have been entirely accurate. What honest company would stand for that? After all, Congress listened to him...Not really. The committee's findings included almost nothing of Baron's testimony. As I have said previously, Baron was by this time a media darling, and Sen. Mondale was interested in painting as bad a picture of NASA and its contractors as he could. Baron is an exceptionally poor witness. I should mention that my professional training and activity includes forensic engineering analysis, failure analysis, and incident/accident investigation. I interview witnesses and evaluate eyewitness testimony transcripts as part of my job. ...and Florida Today, the Titusville Star-Advocate and the Orlando Sentinel were giving him considerable press.Yes, that's a huge part of the problem. The Sentinel is known for being anti-NASA, to the point of sensationalism. Baron ran to the media after NAA officials failed to address his personal concerns. These particular organs are not especially concerned about accuracy or fairness, and ate up Baron's claims as fast as he could spew them. Baron's newfound celebrity was based on his ability to continue providing the kinds of stories that these newspapers wanted to publish. Unfortunately Baron's involvement with the media casts a very ulterior shadow over his accuracy. I believe that North American Aviation was very interested in Baron's 500-page report.Perhaps. You can argue that they wanted Baron to be quiet. However, on the other side of that argument is NASA, who had previously censured North American for safety and quality violations. They have a competing desire to see that report prevail, if it had merit. NASA was hoping to distance themselves from any culpability in the Apollo 1 fire. In December, Baron confided to a fellow hospital patient that he was being followed. The ramblings of a madman?Don't be so quick to dismiss that. Consult Baron's testimony regarding his hospital stay in December 1966 and why he was there. But before he died, someone broke into his trailer and turned things upside down but didn't take anything. That information comes from a close relative of Baron.Who? Did this relative witness the break-in, or simply report what Baron had told him or her? And the night he died, a carload of men went through his trailer. That info comes from a next-door neighbor.Just so we're clear: there were two separate break-ins? And after the accident, the trailer was sealed and guarded by law enforcement.Thomas Baron was not the only one to die in the car crash. If there were any suspicion that Baron had been culpable in the deaths of his family, evidence supporting or refuting it would be likely found in his house. Therefore inspecting the house and its contents, and protecting it for forensic purposes, is not unexpected. Why? It wasn't a crime scene.Breaking and entering is not a crime? Whom do you believe had entered Baron's home and why? If you believe that North American employees were ransacking Baron's house, why would it be sealed and guarded by law enforcement? Seems to me someone was very interested in what Baron was working on.How do you know that was the reason behind that activity?
|
|
|
Post by garyplus5 on Nov 19, 2009 13:41:29 GMT -4
I think it's clear that no one on the panel who questioned him had read it. Whether anyone else associated with the committee had read it cannot really be determined. I have seen no testimony substantiating that anyone other than Baron read it. Agreed.
Do you have evidence that the report was returned, or is this a conclusion you've drawn? No evidence. I'm not sure where I read that. I'll look.
However, Baron's short report gives us insight into his skill as an investigator. It is poor. Hence we have every good reason to suppose that the same incompetence that pervades his existing work would be found in his longer work. I don't think Baron knew how poor of an investigator he was until Congress grilled him. I don't think we can assume the longer work was as weak. Baron was pretty intelligent. And the reason he expanded the original report was because he realized he hadn't been specific and detailed the first time around.
Hence the committee's primary interest is in obtaining from the report the names of people who contributed to it. The 500-page report itself is likely inadmissible, and would be sufficient motivation for rejecting it if that's what the committee indeed did. But it provides the names of people whom the committee can question in order to obtain first-hand testimony. It seems to me that the committee was interested in anything and anyone who had any information that might shed light on the Apollo 204 tragedy. The only reasons I can see that they didn't accept the 500-page report was because a) Baron's 58-page report was so weak, b) they didn't want to foot the bill to print it as part of the record. How can something be deemed inadmissible if you haven't read it? I think the committee was ready to wrap things up by the time Baron appeared, already knew why the tragedy happened, and don't discount the very real possibility that NASA was leaning on committee members to wrap things up.
However, the contents of the report are less interesting to me as their likely accuracy. And I believe the report held almost no interest to the subcommittee, who realized that Baron had no first-hand information about the Apollo 1 fire. I'm interested in the contents and the accuracy. Again, I don't know how the subcommittee could not be interested in the report without reading it. That's like saying you don't like a song you haven't heard. It doesn't make sense. The committee knew before questioning Baron that he knew very little about the Apollo 1 fire. That was obvious from reading his report. But they called him anyway. They wanted to know what he knew -- and thought -- about safety procedures and day-to-day operations.
The only name he was hesitant to provide was Holmburg's. He happily provides several other names upon request and urges the committee to consult his report for more. You're right.
Holmburg himself was not reluctant to appear. He testified voluntarily ... If Holmburg were being any less than honest about his information or his conversations with Baron, he could have very easily avoided being examined by the committee. Instead he appeared and risked being caught in a lie. We don't know if Holmburg was reluctant to appear or not. We know he did appear. I don't know how Holmburg could have avoided appearing. Now that would have been suspicious. The only risk he faced was admitting he told Baron anything. And he wasn't about to do that. He never Baron was being cast as a nut job. He knew he wasn't supposed to be talking about Apollo (confirmed when Debus distributed a gag order to NASA employees on Feb. 3, 1967). He knew Baron had been fired for making noise. So he dummied up on Baron even though he had talked to him several times. Even though the meetings were by chance and Baron initiated the phone calls, Holmburg continued to talk with him. Holmburg covered his behind in front of Congress. We'll never know what he discussed with Baron.
Baron, on the other hand, had to be pressed to name Holmburg. Why would Baron want to hide Holmburg's identity? After all, if he (Baron) were being completely honest about Holmburg and his information, he would naturally want to have his claims verified by the man himself who had made them. Baron tried to hide Holmburg's identity for the reasons above. He didn't want to see Holmburg get fired.
A more credible interpretation of Baron's and Holmburg's testimony about their meetings is that Baron and Holmburg likely met by chance a week after the fire, that Baron recognized Holmburg as a pad technician and recounted to him all the various rumors and hearsay he had heard about what happened on the pad, and that Baron "remembered" that Holmburg corroborated those statements. Baron would be reluctant to reveal Holmburg's identity to the committee because he knew or suspected Holmburg would tell a substantially different story.
First, they discussed things more than once. And yes, Holmburg probably shared rumors and skuttlebutt from the Cape, but Baron wasn't afraid of being contradicted. He was afraid of exactly what happened, that Holmburg wouldn't risk his job be confirming what he and Baron had discussed.
No, Holmburg testified that Baron told him people were feeding him information. The distinction is important. Holmburg does not claim to have any firsthand information about who is contacting Baron or why. No, what's important is that people were feeding Baron information. And Holmburg was likely one of them. He admits he and Baron talked on several occasions.
I think its highly likely Holmburg did know who some of Baron's sources were. Based on what line of reasoning? Their discussions. Holmburg probably knew some of the people Baron mentioned to the committee.
Both Baron and Holmburg testified that every time they met it was by accident. These were not planned meetings. Most have been a pretty good drug store if they kept running into each other there. Holmburg also testified that Baron contacted him on other occasions (phone?)
I think Holmburg may have been feeding Baron. What line of reasoning supports this? They kept talking. It wasn't just one conversation. Plus, Baron attributes specific information to Holmburg. We can't assume that Baron was lying and Holmburg was telling the truth. Baron had nothing to lose by telling the truth. Holmburg had everything to lose.
Why else would Baron mention him? Because the committee pressed him to identify a pertinent informant. True. Baron probably thought he could do his thing without involving anyone else, but when he was cornered, he had to give up Holmburg and hope for the best.
The purpose of the hearing was not to determine everything that was going wrong with NASA or with North American Aviation. It was to determine the cause of the AS-204 fire. Rep. Teague questions Baron specifically about Holmburg because according to Baron, Holmburg had special knowledge of the AS-204 accident. The committee wants to know what Holmburg knows about the fire, but they require Baron to divulge his identity. The committee wanted to know more than the cause of the fire. Very little of their questioning of Baron is specific to the fire. They also wanted to know how NASA and NAA conduct their business.
After all, Congress listened to him... Not really. The committee's findings included almost nothing of Baron's testimony. As I have said previously, Baron was by this time a media darling, and Sen. Mondale was interested in painting as bad a picture of NASA and its contractors as he could. Baron is an exceptionally poor witness. They listened to him. They just didn't put any stock in what he had to say. Yes, he was a poor witness.
I should mention that my professional training and activity includes forensic engineering analysis, failure analysis, and incident/accident investigation. I interview witnesses and evaluate eyewitness testimony transcripts as part of my job. Thank you. And I'm an investigative journalist. When it comes to witnesses, we do the same thing, although I imagine our approaches and methods may differ.
These particular organs are not especially concerned about accuracy or fairness, and ate up Baron's claims as fast as he could spew them. Wow. What do you base that statement on? Have you read the Star-Advocate and Florida Today reports? Do you know Dave Steinberg, Sanders LaMont, John Wasik, and John McAlleenan? As for the Sentinel's Dick Young, he was so anti-NASA that left the Sentinel to go to work for them! I think, by and large, these reporters and their editors were VERY concerned with accuracy. As a 30-year veteran of newsrooms, I guarantee you that the phone rang every time they printed something critical of NASA. I'm sure they were committed to accuracy as they had to regularly deal with NASA officials in covering the space program. As for eating up Baron's claims, that definitely wasn't the case with at least one reporter. I talked with LaMont a few months ago, and he told me he repeatedly challenged Baron's claims. And Wasik didn't run off at the typewriter either, he contacted John Brooks, Rocco Petrone, John Hansel and interviewed Zack Strickland, NAA's PR guy. Wasik was obviously concerned about fairness and getting both sides of the story.
Unfortunately Baron's involvement with the media casts a very ulterior shadow over his accuracy. That's your opinion. You don't know Baron's motives. Baron went to his superiors, then to the media, then to Congress. Yes, he enjoyed the attention he received, but he didn't set out to receive attention. Those who knew Tom Baron say he was a stickler for details and very conscientious. He didn't write his 58-page report to get attention, otherwise he would have gone straight to the press with it. Baron, although a nitpicker, seemed genuinely concerned about the safety of the astronauts.
However, on the other side of that argument is NASA, who had previously censured North American for safety and quality violations. They have a competing desire to see that report prevail, if it had merit. NASA was hoping to distance themselves from any culpability in the Apollo 1 fire. Agreed.
Consult Baron's testimony regarding his hospital stay in December 1966 and why he was there. I'm not sure what you're inferring. That he had mental problems? Baron testified that he had a nervous condition, and then clarified that he was being treated for an ulcer. Baron was in the hospital for treatment of diabetes. And Mr. Mogilevsky, the man Baron shared the hospital room with, who worked for NASA, said Baron was rational, but concerned. He was impressed with Baron. He found Baron to be very credible.
Did this relative witness the break-in, or simply report what Baron had told him or her? The relative didn't witness the break-in. Baron told him about it in a phone call. I just learned this information and haven't checked to see if the alleged incident was reported to law enforcement.
Just so we're clear: there were two separate break-ins? Yes, although I can't verify either alleged break-in. The incident on the night of his death was alleged by a neighbor and independently confirmed by a relative of Baron's wife. No, he was not there. The neighbor didn't refer to it as a break-in, he said that a couple of men searched the trailer.
If there were any suspicion that Baron had been culpable in the deaths of his family, evidence supporting or refuting it would be likely found in his house. Therefore inspecting the house and its contents, and protecting it for forensic purposes, is not unexpected. There was no suspicion that Baron committed suicide or purposely killed his family. The Florida Highway Patrol trooper who investigated wrote that Baron appeared to try to beat the train. He marked the case closed on the night of the accident. There was no logical reason to seal the trailer, place a guard there, and deny the landlord access to his trailer for days after the accident.
Whom do you believe had entered Baron's home and why? If you believe that North American employees were ransacking Baron's house, why would it be sealed and guarded by law enforcement? The next-door neighbor said the men who entered Baron's home wore suits. He thought they were government officials. I think someone was looking for Baron's 500-page report.
How do you know that was the reason behind that activity? I don't. But Baron was an intelligent guy, and I believe, for the most part, honest. Baron told Mogilevsky he had been followed. He told a relative the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by garyplus5 on Nov 19, 2009 15:32:45 GMT -4
[/b]And once again gary, I ask, if he was viewed by someone as enough of a threat that he needed to be silenced, why wait until after he compiles 500 pages of evidence AND testifies before Congress? By that time it was too late.[/b] First, I'm not saying that Baron was silenced. But to answer your question, maybe Baron's enemies didn't know about the 500 page report until he mentioned it during his testimony. His death was a week later. Maybe said persons didn't act before he testified because they had read his 58-page report and knew it was a lot of nothing. Maybe he wasn't viewed as threat until he and Holmburg testified that Baron was gathering information from employees still working at the Cape.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Nov 19, 2009 16:22:38 GMT -4
It seems to me that the committee was interested in anything and anyone who had any information that might shed light on the Apollo 204 tragedy. The only reasons I can see that they didn't accept the 500-page report was because a) Baron's 58-page report was so weak, b) they didn't want to foot the bill to print it as part of the record. How can something be deemed inadmissible if you haven't read it? I think the committee was ready to wrap things up by the time Baron appeared, already knew why the tragedy happened, and don't discount the very real possibility that NASA was leaning on committee members to wrap things up. First off, you'd be amazed by the sheer size of some government publications. You think 500 pages is a lot? But you know, if I knew Dan Brown had written a second book about the Holy Grail, I wouldn't trust that any more than I'd trust the first one, and size wouldn't enter into it. And when they discovered it wasn't useful, why would they expect him to learn any more? He wasn't an investigator. Why would they expect him to have more to say in 500 pages than he had in 58? Well, again, Baron said that. I genuinely don't know--is there evidence beyond his word that this was true? I have a friend where the only way I see her half the time is running into her at Safeway. Olympia has over 40,000 people in it. I don't even know where she lives in town. But I run into her every couple months. It happens. Again, I genuinely don't know. What did he have to lose? Why would he assume that "people told me X" would be satisfactory to anyone? Hearsay isn't always, or even often, valid evidence anyway. I can pretty much guarantee you that Jay bases it on evidence. I've never seen him not.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 19, 2009 18:04:51 GMT -4
I don't think Baron knew how poor of an investigator he was until Congress grilled him.
Agreed. He may have taken courage from the high-level quality assurance people having given him some attention. He certainly took courage from the attention the media had given him. He appears to have had lots of stimulus that did not amount to a fair or critical assessment of his skill. He was apparently being validated in a role for which he was not ultimately qualified.
I don't think we can assume the longer work was as weak.
I am not assuming anything. I'm basing an assessment of the likely quality of Baron's unseen work on the quality of Baron's existing work. Your hypothesis that NAA feared Baron and his 500-page report enough to kill him over it is based on the premise that the report was meaningfully damning. That means you have the burden to prove it was. So far you're just begging that question.
Baron was pretty intelligent.
What evidence is this judgment based on? And why is it relevant? Are you asserting this as a means of arguing that Baron's lengthier report must have been objectively valuable?
It seems to me that the committee was interested in anything and anyone who had any information that might shed light on the Apollo 204 tragedy.
No, the committee shows evidence of being focused on the proximal causes of the AS-204 fire. It was well known to the committee and to Congress that NAA had had safety and quality violations in the past. Yes, they question Baron generally, but the findings of the subcommittee concern the causes of the fire, not the whole mess among NASA and its contractors.
How can something be deemed inadmissible if you haven't read it?
Because hearsay is automatically inadmissible, and one doesn't need to know the content of the hearsay to recognize it as such.
I think the committee was ready to wrap things up by the time Baron appeared...
Agreed. Baron appeared only because Sen. Mondale insisted on it. Mondale had amassed a paper trail of what he believed would be enough damning evidence to sink North American Aviation, Apollo, and NASA in the wake of Apollo 1. This is why Baron's testimony did not affect the committee's findings: it was a political stunt, and reasonably recognized as such at the time by all involved. The only reason his testimony is given any attention nowadays is because the conspiracy theorists have latched onto it.
Again, I don't know how the subcommittee could not be interested in the report without reading it.
Asked and answered several times. You are presuming the committee had a broader interest than its mandate allowed. Baron had no first-hand information regarding the Apollo 1 fire, and only limited information about the general conditions at NAA. The only information he could provide them was the names of people who did. Baron asserted those names were contained in his report, which was not limited to Apollo 1 but instead treated encyclopedically all the faults he found at NAA's KSC site.
We don't know if Holmburg was reluctant to appear or not.
He stated that he appeared of his own free will, and it was noted that he was not under subpoena or any other compulsion to appear. The NAA official who interjected pointed out that he had given Holmburg a choice whether to testify. Holmburg stated as his purpose in appearing that he wanted to defend his name.
There is absolutely no evidence whatosever that Holmburg was reluctant to appear, and all the evidence points to his willing, purposeful, and voluntary appearance.
The only risk he faced was admitting he told Baron anything.
Hogwash, he risked being caught in a lie and both losing his job and his credibility, and possibly being subject to other liability such as violation of NDA obligations. Holmburg testified that he had essentially told Baron nothing and that the accidental conversations were dominated and driven by Baron. If this were a lie, he had no way of knowing whether the committee or Baron could have produced any eyewitness or documentary evidence proving him wrong.
He knew he wasn't supposed to be talking about Apollo (confirmed when Debus distributed a gag order to NASA employees on Feb. 3, 1967).
...the day after Holmburg first contacted Baron. Besides, the gag order applied to NASA, not to Holmburg. Baron's informants were NAA employees, not NASA employees. At no time does Baron implicate NASA in wrongdoing.
Further, Robert Smart of NAA didn't seem to have a problem with Holmburg having talked to Baron, but rather was concerned more with whether the nature of the conversation was being misrepresented.
You have essentially accused Holmburg of lying to Congress. Please tell me what evidence you have that Holmburg was lying.
Baron tried to hide Holmburg's identity for the reasons above. He didn't want to see Holmburg get fired.
What is your evidence that this is the reason Baron hid Holmburg's identity?
And yes, Holmburg probably shared rumors and skuttlebutt from the Cape...
Your speculation.
Your assessment of motivation is based entirely upon this speculation of what "really" transpired between them. How does this not amount to you simply making up whatever fits your conclusions?
No, what's important is that people were feeding Baron information.
I don't think you're reading these transcripts carefully enough.
Baron claimed in his testimony that people were feeding him information anonymously. If Holmburg had claimed in his testimony that Baron was being fed information anonymously, that would be taken as corroboration. Instead Holmburg clearly states that Baron told him he was being fed information anonymously. The authority in both those cases is Baron and only Baron. Holmburg did not corroborate Baron's claims; he merely reported that Baron had told him essentially what Baron had already told to Congress.
We know Baron's lengthy report was based on others' information. That was never in question. The question is whether that information was given anonymously in large measure. The only source we have for the anonymity of Baron's informants is Baron himself. The question of anonymity is important if one wishes to characterize participation in the report as a dangerous move. You are trying to establish the lengthy report as "dangerous," and therefore you are predisposed to accept that Baron's informants were largely anonymous.
And Holmburg was likely one of them.
You've provided absolutely no evidence of this. Your assessment seems to be based solely on implicitly believing Baron's claims.
[Holmburg] admits he and Baron talked on several occasions.
He admits to chance meetings. He admits to asking Baron generally about the progress of his report. Baron testifies to having called Holmburg, but Holmburg was not asked about that. You are the one guessing that in these chance meetings, Holmburg was habitually passing information to Baron. You have no evidence that this is what happened. You have simply concocted a new conspiracy theory based on your speculation of what happened in these discussions.
Their discussions.
But you have no knowledge of the content of these discussions except for the one that occurred on Feb. 2, 1967. Baron reports that Holmburg told him information that turned out to be false. Holmburg reports that Baron "did most of the talking" and "had his own speculation" about what caused the fire.
Most have been a pretty good drug store if they kept running into each other there.
Are you suggesting that these meetings were in fact arranged, contrary to the testimony of both men involved?
Holmburg also testified that Baron contacted him on other occasions (phone?)
Where did Holmburg say that? Baron testified that he contacted Holmburg on a number of occasions and also that Holmburg made no attempt to contact him.
Plus, Baron attributes specific information to Holmburg.
That doesn't make the information correct or the attribution reliable.
We can't assume that Baron was lying and Holmburg was telling the truth.
I'm not assuming anything; I'm basing my assessment of the credibility of each person based on what I know of his past behavior. You are the one essentially assuming Baron was telling the truth.
Baron had nothing to lose by telling the truth.
Only if Baron had been telling the truth up to that point. By the time Baron testified before the committee, he had already ingratiated himself to the local newspapers. He was a high-profile whistle-blower and there was a lot of scrutiny on him. We know from Baron's short report that he had a tendency to exaggerate and to jump to conclusions. Hence if Baron now recognized he was in over his head, he would naturally be reluctant to reveal any of his sources that happened to be anonymous and about which he had not been especially truthful.
People who make a name for themselves -- however small -- by any measure of dishonesty reach a point where they have to gamble on perpetuating that dishonesty or else come clean.
Holmburg had everything to lose.
Only according to your speculation. If in fact Holmburg was simply humoring Baron in Baron's attempts to extract information from him, then he has everything to gain.
Baron probably thought he could do his thing without involving anyone else, but when he was cornered, he had to give up Holmburg and hope for the best.
Unfortunately this falls into a pattern I see all the time in investigation. You touched on it yourself.
Sometimes people will attribute to others statements or allegations that are not strictly what was reported to them. They maintain the anonymity of that "source" not to protect the source but to protect themselves. The attribution is made in order to shift accountability away from the individual. The individual generally hopes that interest will wane in the ultimate source before he is compelled to reveal it.
Typically this is done for one of two reasons. Either the individual desires a certain degree of recognition and notoriety based on the sensation caused by that information, or he is hiding his own culpability (sometimes on an irrelevant point). Typically when either of those situations is discovered, the source is all too anxious to acquit himself, and the individual must be prodded to reveal the source.
The committee wanted to know more than the cause of the fire. Very little of their questioning of Baron is specific to the fire. They also wanted to know how NASA and NAA conduct their business.
Well, yes and no. I agree that the subcommittee spent considerable time questioning Baron about things having little to do with the fire. However it doesn't seem to have much to do with the relationship between NASA and NAA, but rather simply with conditions at NAA's site.
In fact each panel member had his own particular line of direct questioning.
Rep. Wydler's direct examination asks Baron to single out one instance of egregious deficiency. Baron recounts the story of hypergolic fuel loading, specifically with respect to spacecraft 009, not spacecraft 012. There doesn't appear to be a followup. But later Wydler questions Baron about the relevance of his testimony to certain AS-204 evidence that had been presented earlier.
Rep. Fulton addresses Baron's circle of informants and those to whom Baron habitually speaks. He emphasizes Holmburg. Later he questions Baron's health and well-being.
Rep. Gurney asks about morale and its likely effect on the quality of the work. Clearly this is something about which Baron is expected to have firsthand knowledge. Whether Gurney expected this to be limited to proximal causes of the Apollo 1 fire cannot be determined or accurately inferred.
Rep. Daddario seems to follow a line of questioning intended to determine whether Baron had an axe to grind with NAA on the basis of his personal employment experience. That speaks to evaluating Baron as a credible witness.
Rep. Hechler is openly hostile to Baron, almost to the point of pedantry. However he makes an excellent point in that NASA's board of review (not the subcommittee) had by the time of Baron's testimony conclusively repudiated what Baron reported from Holmburg as hearsay.
Granted Baron was asked about many things having to do with what we surmise his long report discussed. However, the nature of the report remains hearsay. Baron was asked only about things about which he had direct knowledge.
They listened to him. They just didn't put any stock in what he had to say.
Equivocation. Yes, they let him talk. They didn't "listen" to him in the sense that they took him seriously. I think the perception of the subcommittee on the spot at that time is worth quite a bit. You seem to think the panel undervalued Baron and his evidence. Am I right?
Yes, he was a poor witness.
He was a poor witness and his only surviving work is abysmally bad. Yet you seem to want to lean toward his side.
Thank you. And I'm an investigative journalist.
Would it be too forward to ask for other examples of your work? Do you intend to publish this work? If so, would your assessment of the relative credibility of Holmburg versus Baron be colored by the notion that if Baron were correct, you'd have a more sensational story?
When it comes to witnesses, we do the same thing, although I imagine our approaches and methods may differ.
I'm sure they do. Forensic engineering is a highly demanding field whose practitioners are legally liable for the correctness of their findings, including the thoroughness with which eyewitnesses are interviewed and the reliability of the conclusions inferred from them. I do not know what legal standards prevail in journalism or how they compare to those in engineering and forensic investigation.
Wow. What do you base that statement on?
Having read several Sentinel articles on projects and technologies with which I am personally familiar, the most recent being regarding the design of the Ares 1 launch vehicle. The sins seem to be those of omission rather than outright errors or inaccuracies. Accuracy to me means telling the whole story.
I recall vaguely another story about either the Challenger or Columbia accident where the Sentinel had relied heavily upon yet another disaffected former engineer who alleged to have inside knowledge, but who was in essence just another paper tiger. I don't think very highly of the Sentinel's ability to report fairly and accurately on NASA issues.
Have you read the Star-Advocate and Florida Today reports?
No, and therefore I will retract my characterization of them.
That's your opinion. You don't know Baron's motives.
Indeed. I am inferring what I believe may be his motive based on his observed behavior, from the context of patterns I have observed. I expect others may arrive at a different opinion. I will endeavor to set out my line of reasoning that supports my opinion and I invite others to do the same.
Baron went to his superiors, then to the media, then to Congress.
Baron went first to his superiors, who did not generally listen to him. Then he insisted on seeing his superior's superior, all the way up to the head of his division at North American Aviation. That is a rather irregular procedure. Executives rely upon the judgment of those under them to assess what requires their attention and/or to handle problems at an appropriate level of detail. The head of quality control does not need to be concerned, for example, with hearsay tales of people allegedly drinking purge alcohol.
The NAA head of quality control listened to Baron and accepted his report. But Baron wasn't satisfied with the response, so he went to the media. This is tantamount to Baron expressing a belief that he and he alone could save the Apollo command module.
Baron did not go to Congress explicitly. Sen. Mondale was looking for ammunition against NASA and figured that this certain highly-publicized whistle-blower might be a good witness to embarrass NASA and its contractors. He'd had some success stumping NASA administrators with reports their subordinates had written indicating NAA was producing shoddy results.
Yes, he enjoyed the attention he received, but he didn't set out to receive attention.
You don't think Baron would act to protect something he enjoyed, even unconsciously?
Those who knew Tom Baron say he was a stickler for details and very conscientious.
Indeed a stickler for details. And someone who is a stickler for details would probably be viewed as conscientious if one didn't understand the context for them. From my experience as an investigator and as an aerospace engineer, here are my observations on Baron's performance as reported in his testimony.
Baron claimed that NAA had not satisfied their safety obligations in their contract with NASA. But he then had to admit he didn't know what those obligations were, specifically. He was relying on his personal understanding. This is a chronic problem we have in quality control: that inspectors take it upon themselves to define specific safety and quality criteria that have no basis in science, in customer requirements, or in engineering theory and practice. This is important because it addresses whether the violations Baron perceived were actual violations or whether they were simply an imposition of his personal belief. And that in turn colors whether NAA's response was justified or sufficient. And that in turn addresses Baron's propriety in going to the media.
Baron says he wrote copious defect and discrepancy reports, so many that his supervisor habitually ran out of forms. He reports that no other inspector was so prolific. This may be seen as being conscientious and a stickler for details, but it is another chronic problem we have with quality-control procedures. New inspectors are typically instructed to report pedantically until they learn which are the important issues. Baron seems not to have learned this. Not every perceived infraction is useful to report. This is important because Baron's inability to "settle in" to his role as an inspector may legitimately affect his superiors' behavior toward him, and thus Baron's perception of their motives. Baron might be influenced to consider his superiors slothful and disinterested, when in fact they were simply dealing with an overly paranoid inspector.
Baron admits he argued with engineers over the interpretation of his day-to-day inspections. This is generally a red flag, since engineers bear explicit titular authority for the behavior of the systems they design. By red flag I mean this is a sign of an inspector who is clearly exceeding his authority and mandate. Baron suggests that his work with spacecraft 012 and others is no more sophisticated than running field checks on B-52 bombers. As an engineer this makes me cringe; there can be no less faithful comparison than between a well-aged stock aircraft and an experimental spacecraft. This is material because it addresses how Baron perceived his role in the organization, and thus whether the organization behaved appropriately toward him.
He didn't write his 58-page report to get attention, otherwise he would have gone straight to the press with it.
On the contrary Baron sets himself apart as a prolific inspector, better than his peers. I argue that seeking an audience with high-level corporate officers is attention-seeking. He was unsatisfied with his supervisor's efforts and getting his work noticed.
Baron, although a nitpicker, seemed genuinely concerned about the safety of the astronauts.
That may be true, but it is difficult to dissociate genuine concern from a fanatical or paranoid approach to one's work. This is another chronic problem in quality-control contexts: any action can be interpreted as motivated by genuine concern. It generally takes an experienced insider to tell the difference. I would probably be able to, and maybe one or two others on this forum with whom I've had considerable experience. The quality-control executive would almost certainly know. So would Baron's superiors. His colleagues and associates would, if they knew specifically what tasks Baron was working on.
I'm not sure what you're inferring. That he had mental problems?
You have suggested that we dismiss Baron's reports of being followed as being "the ravings of a madman." You broached the subject of Baron's mental state. And well you should, because Rep. Fulton did exactly the same thing and opened a line of questioning intended to determine whether Baron's interpretation of events may have been affected by his physical and mental condition. I have similar questions.
Baron testified that he had a nervous condition, and then clarified that he was being treated for an ulcer. Baron was in the hospital for treatment of diabetes.
No, read the transcript again.
He saw Dr. Osmond an unspecified number of times for an ulcer.
He saw Dr. Chastain once for an unspecified "nervous condition." In discussing what Dr. Chastain might be able to verify, he seems to keep this separate from the ulcer.
He saw Drs. Osmond, Blackburn, and Killinger an unspecified number of times for diabetes.
He saw Dr. Hare and a number of NASA doctors for what he took to be a psychiatric examination, after he had become prominent in his reporting of apparent Apollo defects and violations.
Baron complained that he suffered from exhaustion and overwork, and also that his diabetes (i.e., his blood sugar) was "off kilter" at this time as the result of it. The subcommittee considered this an important enough likelihood to question Baron closely about it and to suggest that Baron submit his medical history to the committee. I also find it credible that Baron's various ailments may have affected his interpretation of the events at the Cape and of his value as a whistle-blower.
And Mr. Mogilevsky, the man Baron shared the hospital room with, who worked for NASA, said Baron was rational, but concerned. He was impressed with Baron. He found Baron to be very credible.
And is Mogilevsky a trained investigator? Is he a trained psychiatrist?
I am, by all measurements, a very intelligent person. And because of my job requirements I know a great deal about human behavior. Yet I spent most of two summers in the company of a person who appeared very rational, intelligent, and cogent, but who was soon diagnosed clinically as a paranoid schizophrenic. I saw no signs of it. Neither did any of the other people who were with this person.
Mogilevsky's failure to note in Baron what he may have considered symptoms of mental illness or instability do not assert Baron to be in fully functional mental state.
Baron told him about [the break-in] in a phone call.
So at this point it's just hearsay. Baron reports that people contact him anonymously out of fear for their jobs. Baron reports that someone was following him. Baron reports that his house was broken into and ransacked.
None of these events seem to have been reported to anyone who could have done anything to redress or alleviate them, or to protect Baron. What did Baron do to protect himself?
The neighbor didn't refer to it as a break-in, he said that a couple of men searched the trailer.
Searched it, or merely entered it and emerged from it some time later? Did she know the people? Could they perhaps have been friends or relatives of Baron who were going to his house to get something or do something on his behalf? Feed the cat, etc?
The Florida Highway Patrol trooper who investigated wrote that Baron appeared to try to beat the train.
Since I discuss Baron's death on my site, I am quite interested in any official documentation regarding it. Would you be willing to share that report?
Clearly the trooper was not there to witness the accident. Clearly the occupants of Baron's car could not testify what happened. The only other witness would seem to be the train engineer. Do you know what the train engineer testified?
I'm naturally interested in the manner of death because conspiracy theorists claim Baron was murdered to silence him. Pointing out that Baron apparently committed suicide is valuable only as an affirmative rebuttal -- i.e., it couldn't have been murder because it was "ruled" a suicide. Now that it's clear there was no such ruling, the affirmative rebuttal fails. However that doesn't mean that the conspiracists' accusation of murder automatically holds. If the investigation of his death does not support an accusation of murder, then we are back to the null hypothesis that he was just a guy who tried unsuccessfully to beat a train and that his death had nothing to do with his work.
There was no logical reason to seal the trailer, place a guard there, and deny the landlord access to his trailer for days after the accident.
I concede that the reason I hypothesized is not supported by evidence. If the crash was ruled an accident at the scene, then there would be no need to seal off Baron's house for suspicion of murder-suicide. However since we do not know the reason for law enforcement's involvement, it is premature to suspect that the reason is illogical. I presume you have attempted to contact law enforcement to determine why that action was taken. Do you have any information from them?
The next-door neighbor said the men who entered Baron's home wore suits. He thought they were government officials.
All government officials wear suits? Only government officials wear suits? That doesn't sound like reliable judgment. In fact you cannot establish the identity of these individuals.
I think someone was looking for Baron's 500-page report.
Your speculation.
But Baron was an intelligent guy...
Do you know Baron's high school grades? Do you have Baron's job performance records? Do you know Baron's score on any standardized intelligence tests? Do you have evidence of any adjudication of Baron's intelligence? In short, upon what basis do you conclude that Baron was "an intelligent guy," and why is that important?
...and I believe, for the most part, honest.
Yet his surviving short report contains errors, misconceptions, misjudgments, and conclusions jumped to without cause. Regardless of Baron's apparent intelligence, do you agree that Baron's work in investigating alleged safety violations at North American is poor investigation and reporting?
I see evidence that Baron was narcissistic to some degree. He exaggerates his value as a quality inspector. He takes it upon himself to assess whether the company has responded adequately to his claims. He argues with engineers. He reports he is being followed, searched; but he fails to take reasonable steps to redress it. He reports he is the center of anonymous attention and is reluctant to reveal them.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 19, 2009 18:49:36 GMT -4
First, I'm not saying that Baron was silenced.I thought that's what you were claiming. That certainly seems to be the direction you're heading, and you mentioned something earlier about "Baron and his report disappearing." So clarify please what exactly you believe about Baron's death and activities in the first half of 1967 and to what extent you have investigated or substantiated that belief. ...maybe Baron's enemies didn't know about the 500 page report until he mentioned it during his testimony.Let's say that's true. How do the events that preceded and followed fit into that scenario? You say the 500-page report was returned to Baron, but you have no evidence of that. The documentary evidence establishes that the report was sent to Rep. George P. Miller, that its existence was known and discussed by Miller's people, and that the whereabouts of the report are currently unknown. If you hypothesize that the motive of Baron's enemies was to remove the report from circulation, then you have to account for all copies of the report. Your hypothesis requires that the report be returned, because breaking into Baron's house or pushing Baron in front of a train doesn't make the report held by Congress go away. His death was a week later.Unfortunately your own evidence writes that off as a mere accident, ill-timed. You have no more evidence that it was murder than I do that it was suicide. Further, if the danger came not from Baron personally but from his report, why does murdering him solve anything? So for now we have to consider Baron's death to be unconnected to his work. Baron was not "eliminated," so put that idea out of your head. Face it: without assigning some sort of meaning to the timing of Baron's death, all you have is a marginally-relevant hearsay report written by a political pawn that went missing after its author's untimely death. Maybe said persons didn't act before he testified because they had read his 58-page report and knew it was a lot of nothing.But there's nothing in his testimony that suggests the 500-page report would have been any more carefully reasoned or analyzed than his 58-page report. Why the sudden fear? If Baron was roundly dismissed as a blow-hard, why the sudden interest unless they too had exactly the same speculation you have about the report's content and reliability. Maybe he wasn't viewed as threat until he and Holmburg testified that Baron was gathering information from employees still working at the Cape.Let's be clear: Holmburg didn't testify that Baron was getting information from people at the Cape. He testified that Baron said that. The difference is material because it involves a difference in the number of people who actually know the pertinent facts. The problem with all these claims is that they all point back to Baron in hearsay fashion. This is likely why the subcommittee was so interested in corroborating Baron's accusations. Some of Baron's first-report information came from anonymous sources who were clearly insiders. This didn't raise a red flag. Baron's contributions to newspaper articles were based on insider information. Why the sudden increase in information when Baron reports to Congress that anonymous insiders are contacting him? It seems that all your lines of reasoning rest very heavily on unsubstantiated bits of speculation: that the 500-page report was going to be substantially more valuable than its largely-worthless little brother, that the report was returned to Baron, that Baron had no motive to lie, that Holmburg was lying, etc.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 19, 2009 20:50:30 GMT -4
First off, you'd be amazed by the sheer size of some government publications. You think 500 pages is a lot?Yeah I have to deal with huge government publications too. The problem is that Baron asked specifically for his report to be included in "the record." That's a specific request for a specific disposition to the report. The panel is right in considering whether a marginally-relevant report of that length would be useful. They also considered accepting it as an exhibit. The difference is that while "the record" will be printed in many copies and distributed to designated government document repositories, only one copy of the exhibits need be retained. That is, if the committee had accepted it as an exhibit, the one copy that Baron provided to Rep. Miller would be archived with several other exhibits. It would still have been a part of the record of the inquiry, but one would have to go to the National Archives in order to see it. This understanding is important because not everything that pertains to an investigation is printed as part of the official record, even if it is retained. The reluctance of the committee to print the lengthy report as part of its printed findings should not be construed as a general rejection of the report itself, but of concern over the special disposition Baron was raising. Why would they expect him to have more to say in 500 pages than he had in 58?Gary's (I assume that's his name) line of reasoning seems to be that in 500 pages Baron could more carefully document his grievances. Unfortunately the problem with the short report is not documentation but subject matter. What Baron considers an "infraction" is based in no small measure upon his personal standards and expectations. Basically Baron had it in his mind exactly how to run a major aerospace company and a major government contract, and anything that ran afoul of his personal expectations was a defect or discrepancy that needed to be addressed by his superiors. What do we mean when we say that some of Baron's grievances "have merit?" In the literal sense it means that Baron correctly identified problems at North American Aviation. But in a deeper sense it means I can take nearly all of Baron's meritorious grievances and apply them to nearly any company with or for which I have worked, and they would remain valid. Do people at Boeing today have everything they need to do their jobs? Do they have to work in inclement weather? Are they occasionally compelled to work hard and for longer than their schedule shifts? Do they communicate effectively at all times? No large company can meet the standard Thomas Baron proposed to apply to his employer. Executives realize this. Congress realizes this. Other industry operatives realize this. We all strive for perfection, but we all fall short. That puts Baron's accusations in an infuriating gray area: we can't say he's wrong, but we can't meet that ideal. Baron complains that people are lax when it comes to safety. He notes some legitimate safety infractions. And from the forensic engineer's standpoint, complacency is one of the biggest problems we face. One of the most effective tools we have for combatting complacency is to change up people's routines. We move them to different tasks so that the "newness" of it compels them to pay closer attention to it and be enthusiastic about it. Lo and behold, that's another one of Baron's complaints: NAA transfers people to different roles and tasks. In other words, we can't win. These are two ideals that legitimately conflict. We can't satisfy one except at the partial expense of another. That's why it requires someone of great skill and experience to decide how much of one to allow and how much of the other, for an overall optimal outcome. Unfortunately someone without that knowledge and understanding might come away with the impression that more should be done. This is why going to the media when management doesn't immediately do what you want, is a bad thing. Another example: Baron complains about procedures being rewritten based on the outcome of tests. He says that once process documents are written, they should never be changed. Now from the layman's point of view that makes sense. In our debates here we require people to set clear goalposts and then either hit or miss them. Unfortunately in the real world of developmental engineering that's not the case. Baron explicitly says that running development qualification tests is no different than running qualification checks on production aircraft. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Baron says one doesn't need an engineering degree to operate and comprehend these tests. Unfortunately one does need an engineering degree and considerable experience to know whether the operation of a newly designed machine is proper. On machinery such as a B-52, whose fine grained behavior is well understood, testing and qualification can be a matter of rote procedure and well-established target values. On machinery such as an Apollo command module undergoing development, that situation simply doesn't hold. The premise of requiring procedures to be immutable is that the system is already well understood. From the engineering perspective this isn't often the case. An engineer designing a glycol cooling system for a spacecraft that previously didn't exist will indeed base his design on known principles, but the fine-grained behavior of the system may not be well understood until it has been built and subjected to systematic, comprehensive testing. It is unreasonable to expect the engineer of record to be able to predict the end behavior of the system to the degree that he can write immutable procedures for testing and operating it. The engineer will naturally examine any variant test results, attempt to understand why they occur, and then render his expert opinion on whether they constitute real failures or simply innocent variations in behavior that can be tolerated. The system is expected to behave unexpectedly during initial testing. After considerable operational experience under engineer supervision the operating and validation procedures can be codified, but it is unreasonable to expect them to be known ahead of time. This is one case where Thomas Baron clearly oversteps his role, and one that would easily be mistaken for being "conscientious" by a lay observer. And if Baron goes to the media and tells them that the test standards are being rewritten based on the outcomes, it will indeed sound like cheating unless the reporter is also an aerospace engineer. These and other similar errors Baron makes are not solved by adding more pages to the report or more documentation to the observations. They are fundamental misunderstandings and misplacements of expectations on Baron's part. They are the primary reason his 58-page report has so little value. Why would he assume that "people told me X" would be satisfactory to anyone?That's the real rub. It's irresponsible to take second-hand testimony, regardless of whether the subject matter is pertinent and interesting. The panel properly quizzed Baron on what he himself knew. They asked Baron who could corroborate his other statements, and Baron offered them the names in his report. That's appropriate, and for that purpose the report is useful and necessary. Then when Holmburg was shoved under their noses, they asked him corroborating-type questions that pretty much failed to corroborate Baron. I can pretty much guarantee you that Jay bases it on evidence. I've never seen him not.In this case he has a point; I'm speaking generally about the Orlando Sentinel, and the other papers got lumped in inappropriately by association.
|
|
|
Post by seemoe on Nov 19, 2009 21:53:20 GMT -4
hey jarrah is back. looking forward to your next video. have you seen the latest LRO pics since your "break"?
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Nov 19, 2009 22:17:14 GMT -4
Is there evidence that Garyplus5 is Jarrah White? What is the evidence?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Nov 19, 2009 22:54:46 GMT -4
Just to clarify, hearsay can be entered into evidence, but only under very specific circumstances. Based on what I've read here, I see no reason to believe this meets any of those circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 20, 2009 1:14:35 GMT -4
Just to clarify, hearsay can be entered into evidence, but only under very specific circumstances. We should also clarify that Congress is not explicitly bound by Federal rules of evidence unless acting in the capacity of a judicial body, such as during an impeachment. They are bound in spirit to them during any deliberation at which fault may be found, such as in the investigation of an accident that may discover culpability. That bond derives from the essential nature of the rules of evidence, the principle of which that involves hearsay being that evidence attested by a witness should be subject to examination and, where appropriate, cross-examination. Hearsay evidence is limited only to that which is heard. The hearsayer can only testify to the extent he heard the original source. The source may have more information that would be brought out under examination. Hence the general rule is that when the original source is available, hearsay evidence is not permitted. The subcommittee was not necessarily constrained to hear only that which Baron could present regarding Holmburg. Since Holmburg was himself reasonably available, he is the proper authority on what he said. The panel thus appropriately examined him. In contrast if today someone said that Thomas Baron had said something to him, we would be constrained to accept that as somewhat valid testimony because Baron is not alive and thus cannot be examined. Holmburg's statement that Baron told him he received anonymous tips is an example of admissible hearsay. First, Baron had previously testified to that point. Second, the issue at hand was not whether Baron was receiving anonymous tips, but Holmburg's understanding of Baron's procedures and declarations. When the interest of the matter lies in the passing of information and the witness's subsequent belief and actions, and not in the content or validity of the declaration, then hearsay is sometimes admissible. From what we infer about the content of Baron's long report, from the context of its reference in Baron's testimony, we understand that it contained the declarations of people who were alive, identified, and reasonably available for examination. It would be inappropriate to accept Baron's reproduction of those claims because Baron cannot be cross-examined on the nature or validity of its content.
|
|
|
Post by seemoe on Nov 20, 2009 6:12:00 GMT -4
Is there evidence that Garyplus5 is Jarrah White? What is the evidence? no one but jarrah would have such a keen interest in the apollo 1 fire conspiracy and debating with jay in great detail
|
|
|
Post by ineluki on Nov 20, 2009 6:41:34 GMT -4
no one but jarrah would have such a keen interest in the apollo 1 fire conspiracy and debating with jay in great detail But Jarrah couldn't stay polite with Jay for so long.
|
|
|
Post by garyplus5 on Nov 20, 2009 10:40:46 GMT -4
First, I greatly appreciate Jay's vast knowledge. Second, I have not formed an opinion on whether Baron's death was an accident, suicide, murder, or medical related. However, I am keeping an open mind and hoping my on-going investigation will provide concrete proof of why he died. If I stopped investigating today and was pressed to draw a conclusion, I would say "accident", primarily because that's the conclusion of trained Florida Highway Patrol investigators. Plus, its the most plausible explanation. Third, I don't know who Jarrah is, nor do I care. I am happy to identify myself. I am Gary Corsair, senior writer for The Villages Daily Sun in The Villages, Florida. Fourth, I did not post here to foster an endless debate about the nuances of Baron's investigation/testimony. I wanted to know if there was any documentation to support the Clauvis (and other) website's claim that Baron's death was "officially ruled a suicide". I now know there is not, and I thank Jay for his forthrightness in addressing that misconception. Fifth, I value the exchanges I've had with Jay. Although we disagree on several points, I always welcome opposing viewpoints. They keep you honest if you are committed to objectivity, which I am. Obviously, we are taking different approaches to what I believe is the same cause: to establish the truth. Jay is obviously more intelligent than I am, and his engineering, investigative background and knowledge of Apollo 204 make him a voice to be listened to. He, however, approaches the Baron matter from analyzing testimony, statements, reports, etc. While I have gathered and examined every document I can get my hands on, my approach is to balance what has been recorded by interviewing as many people with first-hand knowledge of Baron, his work, and his death. Of course, 42-year-old memories must be viewed with an amount of skepticism. But then again, as Jay has pointed out, we must apply the same standard to the written word. You can't believe everything you read. Still, I put great stock in what I've learned from the trooper who investigated the accident, Baron's first wife, the lone survivor of the crash, Baron's landlord, Baron's neighbor, Baron's stepbrother, the physician who signed the death certificates, the brothers and sister-in-laws of Baron's second wife, two reporters who interviewed Baron, a member of the train crew involved in the crash, and the hospital patient Baron confided in. Hopefully, I'll find others who can help me understand who Baron was and why he died. My method of operation is to begin with what's been published or believed and try to prove or disprove it. In the case of Tom Baron, two scenarios prevail -- the most logical, that the car/train crash was an accident, and the sensational, that Baron was murdered. To date, I can't prove or disprove either one. Perhaps no one ever will be able to do so. My hope is to contribute to body of information and let people draw their own conclusion. I just believe that those conclusions should be based on more than a 58-page report, 15 minutes of testimony, a handful of newspaper clippings, and a truckload of speculation.
|
|