|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 20, 2009 13:42:02 GMT -4
First, I greatly appreciate Jay's vast knowledge.Thank you! Aerospace engineering (largely the computational end of it) is my profession and Apollo and space history is my passion. I also enjoy writing, but I can't say I'm very good at it. Second, I have not formed an opinion on whether Baron's death was an accident, suicide, murder, or medical related.Fair enough. Earlier you said you had uncovered discrepancies in Baron's history. In our experience here that usually means you're about to propose some farfetched historical conspiracy. To put it bluntly, that sort of declaration pushes our button. The manner of Baron's death is important to me only in whether it was murder, and if so, why. Accident, suicide, or natural causes make no difference to my work. Conspiracy theorists claim (or at least strongly insinuate) that Baron was murdered to shut him up, or in retribution for having "spilled the beans" about Apollo. The specific question, "Was Thomas R. Baron murdered?" is really the only question I find interesting. Third, I don't know who Jarrah is, nor do I care.Nor should you. He isn't relevant. Fourth, I did not post here to foster an endless debate about the nuances of Baron's investigation/testimony.And I think we can appreciate that. Debate (hopefully not endless) is what we foster here because that's our mode of testing truthfulness. But you arrived to ask a single question, and you got your answer. Luckily at least for us, you touched upon a subject we find interesting. And you have presented the first new information in the Baron case in about six years. That makes us interested in what you have to say, or at least in what you'll end up writing. That's why you've attracted so much interest. ...and I thank Jay for his forthrightness in addressing that misconception.Like you I am interested in the truth. And I don't pretend to be the sole guardian of it, or even an exceptionally competent one. But that said, I rely on others to bring matters to my attention that I may have mishandled. That is one of the principle purposes of this forum. ...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....all things that I would do if I had more resources. Naturally I look forward to reading your piece. Baron's quality of work is interesting because it addresses how valuable his criticisms are, which in turn helps determine his level of threat to powerful interests. That determines the credibility of theories that claim Baron was murdered to suppress his knowledge of Apollo's unreadiness. Naturally an assessment of Baron's competence ought to be based on all available information, which includes the impressions of those with whom he worked. My focus on the 58-page report is not intended to limit my view of Baron's work to that source. It is partly a product of my lack of resources in locating and contacting these people. It is partly based on my understanding that Baron intended that report to be representative of his concerns. It is partly based on my ability as an industry operative to infer Baron's level of competence from what he writes, regardless of his intended emphasis. I agree soundly with a small number of Baron's concerns. For example, verbal directions are generally problematic in an engineering context because there will arise discrepancies in recollection about what was said or meant. Important questions, answers, and directives should always be conveyed or preserved in writing. I disagree soundly with a number of Baron's concerns, such as what has already been mentioned regarding process documents. The majority of Baron's complaints in his document fall into the category of observations that are not technically wrong, but toward which a broader, more sophisticated perspective is required. Baron naively trumpets these findings without providing the broader perspective. It's not his fault; he wasn't trained or experienced appropriately. But that's what makes his subsequent behavior important: he doesn't seem to realize how unqualified he is to pass that sort of judgment to the extent of demanding a certain action. His insistence to be taken seriously is itself a problem. Perhaps no one ever will be able to do so.It's logically impossible to prove it was an accident. At best you'll only be able to say you can't find any evidence of malicious action. But because even the most diligent efforts to do that aren't guaranteed to succeed, that's not logically strong enough to assert it had to have been an accident. The responsible thing to do here is to assume it was an accident until you find evidence it wasn't. It's not wrong to assume here, because it's based on natural epistemological understanding of burden of proof. There is a tedious logical argument to support this assumption, but it's not especially fun to write or to read. In forensic engineering there is really no such thing as a pure accident. There is always a cause, even though we may conclude in retrospect that the cause was unavoidable in some case. If the trooper is accurate in his assessment of the situation, then the cause of Baron's fatal accident would be operator error. That's a sad sort of default when we are unable to determine whether culpable or malicious action has occurred, or whether some process or mechanical failure has occurred. You'll never know what Thomas Baron was thinking when he confronted the train.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Nov 20, 2009 14:35:33 GMT -4
I have to say, I'd rather rely on flawed documents than forty-plus-year-old memories. We know the failings of memory, and I wouldn't expect them to be more valid than usual just because they relate to something major. Indeed, I'd expect them to be less valid!
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 20, 2009 17:02:59 GMT -4
Well, one problem with posthumous character references is that we have a cultural taboo against speaking ill of the dead. No way to know whether this has happened in this case, but it's best to err on the side of getting information and then deciding what to do with it.
|
|
|
Post by garyplus5 on Nov 23, 2009 10:19:42 GMT -4
I have to say, I'd rather rely on flawed documents than forty-plus-year-old memories. We know the failings of memory, and I wouldn't expect them to be more valid than usual just because they relate to something major. Indeed, I'd expect them to be less valid!
Not me. I'd rather talk to Priscilla Presley than read an Elvis Presley interview. Your logic befuddles me.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Nov 23, 2009 14:02:40 GMT -4
Yes, it would be interesting to talk to someone to know what a friend of theirs was like. On the other hand, if you're looking for factual information, the documents are still probably more reliable and accurate than the memories, again, given the known failings of memory.
|
|
|
Post by tomblvd on Nov 23, 2009 14:07:50 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.[/quote] You are completely ignoring the fact that they allowed him to testify before Congress. They knew he was going to do it, why not off him before he testifies? The timeline makes absolutely no sense at all.
|
|
|
Post by garyplus5 on Nov 25, 2009 18:11:09 GMT -4
I'm not ignoring facts. You continue to miss the point. Baron was STILL gathering information. Newspapers were STILL giving him a platform. He was quoted as saying his work wasn't done. He MAY have been writing a book. You're hung up on the timeline, and its immaterial. Why wasn't Jimmy Hoffa silenced BEFORE he was? Why wasn't JFK assassinated when he was sworn in? I'm not saying anyone "offed" Baron, but he was still out there making noise and could be perceived as a threat by North American Aviation. Why you are so adamant that Baron couldn't have been killed?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Nov 25, 2009 21:24:47 GMT -4
JFK wasn't assassinated before he was sworn in because Oswald/other crazies documented to have attempted it didn't have the opportunity. If you're claiming Oswald didn't do it, you're in the wrong section of the forum.
Personally, sure, he might have been killed. I'd just like to see a bit of solid evidence before I upgrade it from "vaguely possible" to "within the realms of probability."
|
|
|
Post by Mr Gorsky on Nov 26, 2009 5:37:53 GMT -4
If you are going to "off" someone, surely there are more straightforward and foolproof methods of doing so than having him drive his car onto the railway lines so it can get hit by an oncoming train. In the absence of any actual evidence to the contrary, everything about that scenario screams either suicide or tragic accident because there is just too much potential for it not to work for it to be an effective method of assassination. How do the assassins make sure that the car goes across the railway at just the right moment to be hit by the train? How do they make sure it is in the right place and doesn't just suffer a glancing blow leaving Baron injured but still able to continue his work and finish the report? How do they limit collateral damage ... a train hitting a car is likely to kill train passengers as well as those in the car (the Selby train crash right here in Yorkshire a few years ago being a good example). This would lead to the possibility of an investigation into the accident, which might well uncover evidence that the crash was caused/manipulated by outside forces. Right now, without evidence, I have to go with Occam.
|
|
|
Post by nedd on Nov 27, 2009 13:20:56 GMT -4
What is comparable among the events surrounding the JFK assassination, Hoffa's disappearance, and Baron's death?
The problem I see is that Baron wasn't really a threat. It was the information, and it's apparent accessibility. If it was gotten once, it could be gotten again. And since Baron, even by your admission, wasn't a competent investigator, why should NAA risk having him replaced with one or even several more competent investigators?
|
|
|
Post by tomblvd on Nov 27, 2009 13:42:28 GMT -4
<I>I'm not ignoring facts. You continue to miss the point. Baron was STILL gathering information. Newspapers were STILL giving him a platform. He was quoted as saying his work wasn't done. He MAY have been writing a book. You're hung up on the timeline, and its immaterial.</I>
No, the timeline is completely relevant. You are implying (no matter how hard you try to deny it) that he was killed to silence him. For that to be even remotely true, he would have been killed <I>BEFORE. he. testified. before. Congress.</I>
You're just grasping at straws now by saying he was "still investigating". If he hadn't come up with anything as an anonymous insider, there's no way he would find anything new as a well-known whistleblower.
|
|
|
Post by garyplus5 on Nov 27, 2009 15:31:29 GMT -4
All right, I'll beat on this dead horse one more time. First of all, Gillian, I too am in the "vaguely possible" camp. I really am. Gorsky, of course there are more straightforward ways of "offing" someone, but car accident is pretty good if you want to make it look like an accident. Also, a minor clarification is due here: Baron's Volvo struck the train, not the other way around (which may be where the suicide theory came from). And I'm not suggesting that "assassins" rammed the train into Baron. You're right, its nearly impossible to fathom the logistics of timing such a scenario. But I can fathom someone tampering with the car. Anyone who observed Baron for a day would know he daily drove across those tracks, which were on a slight grade and were bordered by a deep ditch. Cut a brake line or jam an accelerator and viola, instant rollover. That Volvo was pretty small. And no seat belts back on 1959 models. Not saying that happened, but I think we must keep that scenario as a "vague possibility". Remote control of the vehicle is another "vague possibility". Maybe the train just happened to be there. Accident remains the most likely scenario, but then again, anyone who wanted to silence Baron would know how to do so without anyone suspecting foul play, agreed? As for Baron being a threat, we are looking at this from a far different perspective than existed in 1967. North American had a huge contract (and future contracts) at stake. Baron appeared before Congress, was on national TV, quoted in the Washington Evening Star, and the Associated Press and Florida newspapers -- all that on the basis of a lame 58-page report. The point isn't what he did or didn't have, the point is that he wasn't going away. 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. As for someone coming along and picking up Baron's torch, not likely. Mogilevsky believed Baron was being followed. So did Holmberg. I don't think anyone who knew what Baron doing wanted to find out for themselves if his death was an accident or not. I think its safe to say that Baron's death pretty much discouraged anyone else from mouthing off about problems within the space program. Tomblvd, I'm not grasping at straws. Baron was still investigating. He told family and he told the press that he was still working on. And we have no way of knowing what he learned after he was fired in January. He must have had something though to fill 500 pages. Yes, his death was probably an accident. But what happened to that 500 page report?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Nov 27, 2009 17:15:56 GMT -4
Remote control of the vehicle is so far out I don't even think it's a vague possibility.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Nov 28, 2009 9:00:09 GMT -4
Cut a brake line or jam an accelerator and viola, instant rollover. And without split second timing the probability that his car would be the first in line at the exact time a train was passing is infinitesimally small. Baron stopping to tie his shoelaces before getting in the car would screw the whole thing up. As indeed would his using the brakes or accelerator at any point in his journey before getting to the tracks. The most likely outcome of sabotaging the brakes or accelerator is a minor prang when he can't stop as he pulls out of his parking spot. There are many 'vague possibilities'. The conclusion comes down to how likely they are to actually occur. Remote control of a car would require sufficient modification to the vehicle that it could not possibly go un-noticed after the wreck. Cicular argument. If it was deliberate it would look like an accident because anyone who wanted him out of the way could do so without leaving any evidence behind them. What that boils down to is that you have no evidence whatsoever that there was any foul play involved; only innuendo and unsupported speculation. Generaly speaking the first line of enquiry in this case should be was there foul play, not why there might have been. It would be like putting me on trial for murdering my wife on the basis that I have the means (knives in my kitchen, access to toxic chemicals in the lab I work in and so on) and the motivation (maybe she had an affair, or we have been arguing a lot recently, or she embarrasses me in public), without first establishing that she was, in fact, dead. Or, perhaps more closely relevant to the case of Thomas Baron, noting that I had access to knives and toxic chemicals but she was in fact shot. You'd be assuming that because I had a motive for killing her I must have been able to find a way to make it look like she'd been shot despite my lack of access to a gun. They already had damning information. Due to problems in design, management and safety three men were dead. It doesn't get more damning than that. Didn't stop Gordon Cooper from mouthing off about what he saw as problems in the space program before Alan Shepard took flight on Apollo 14. Anyone who has read any book by any hoax believer knows that it is quite possible to fill hundreds of pages with nothing of consequence.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Nov 28, 2009 14:29:35 GMT -4
Wasn't Wally Schirra also very outspoken regarding his safety concerns about the Apollo spacecraft?
|
|