Some moonrocks were displayed at the Aalto University of Helsinki, because our chemist dr Birger Wiik analyzed them. I talked with him many times. He was an expert on minerals and meteors. The chemical analyze of the moon rocks was difficult because they contained so much titanium. This fell out as white titanate in his test tubes, which was quite unexpected.
This video is nothing more than a misrepresentation of the facts. This fool argues semantics, but ignores all the REAL science behind the PROOF that the Moon rocks are what the scientists say they are. JW, get a clue, then maybe a life...I mean...C'MON MAN!
JW, to say there is water in SOME lunar samples (in this case the glass spherules) doesn't mean water is in ALL samples. As a matter of English, saying "virtually" no water is about the same thing as saying "no water." That is, unless one is speaking in a very detailed, specific context, it's safe to say that the moon is waterless. What at first appears to you to be some kind of coverup is clearly bad hermeneutics. You're wrongly interpreting one's summation and another's detailed analysis.
If you want to add another smoking gun argument to the Moon Mirrors, one must ask this :
Has anyone shined lazer beams at Mars?
The 'light time' issues are more complex but getting reflections off Mars (where there have never been any mirrors) should work ... but with a 72dbi greater path loss (so your lazer modulation format for AUTORANGING should be different because it is further).
It might work better if one could target a dark side of the planet ... or the poles.
1 there is water EVERYWHERE even in sun. H+He. so why not on moon?
moon and earth has the same elements. but moon has no atmosphere so it is possible that it's little bit different.
but still it doesn't mean that moon has no 'water or oxygen'. it has O² also. people understand it qiuet different. if you say there is H &O² they think we can breath. no no the moon dusk has H&O² but it don't mean we can live there;). EVERYTHING is CREATED from WATER.
@Tweekerhead You confused me....what are you trying to say? What suppositions and assertions did I make? I'm starting to wonder if we are both misunderstanding each other somehow...because those facts you just quoted are really pretty much meaningless as to what I had to say. We regularly use both the Soviets & the U.S. reflectors to measure the Moon, and we have since they were first put there. & Yes Lunokhod 1 was missing for a long while. You do know Lunokhod 2 was never lost, though right?
@frankensteinmoneymac I thought you were making the obvious tired old assertion the hoaxheads make about the Russians soft landing retro-reflectors on the Moon, which renders the issue of the reflectors that Apollo astronauts left on the Moon as proof of the landings to be false.
It's amazing how many arguments the hoaxheads come up with.
@Tweekerhead I don't understand what "soft landing" the retro-reflectors has to do with the argument. However the Russian reflectors landed on the moon, it worked. They are certainly there, and in working order. I'm not arguing that the Moon Landings didn't happen. I'm arguing that the counter argument that because the U.S. has reflectors on the Moon as being proof we went, is illogical. It presupposes that reflectors on the Moon is something unique that only a man could place, which is untrue.
Comets have water, when a comet hits, there is enough energy to create new compounds, and also melt them, when they solidify, they'll be rocks with water.
Ah the moon landing debate. Are the rocks from Antartica? Are they from the moon? Are the isotopes the same? Are they different? The flag was flapping bla bla . You are fighting an un-winnable argument. Trouble is the only real way to prove that man didn't go to the moon is to go back there and find no evidence of man being there. Given that the people who say that it did happen have the means to get there and those who believe it didn't don't, your never going to prove it didn't happen. Give up
If the moon landings were actually a hoax, then people like Bart Sibrel would not feel the need to make up pathetic LIES when they try to support their arguments.
We r fuking lied to daily. We don't have to be burning any fossil fuels. Energy isn't a problem! Wars are all bogus, engineered! Marijuana is healthier than sugar. Truth is an obscure thing, Oppression & lie is the norm. Were all Slaves- our masters, the elite, r at least 50 years ahead of us in knowledge, technology, info., secrets & r using all of it against us!
go here
truthknowledge. com
not selling anything-just sharing Information-something we no longer do & its destroying Humanity!
NASA went about handing out "moonrocks". These are now proved to be hoaxes. They've been determined to have water in them and low calcium contrary to samples retrieved by Russia and ESA's recent analysis. Holland had a "moonrock" on exhibit they got from the NASA boys. They just took it down in embarrassment.
So yes, NASA indeed went about deliberately handing out false rubbish. Simple as that.
The only thing simple here is you and your delusional conclusion Tube. If that would have been a conclusion guided by a shread of evidence than the headlines would be full of it.
51M yanks read at 3rd grade level, that's 1 out of nearly 3 effectively cretinous like robbie here. no surprise then the US of A cesspit has swallowed 911 BS and Apollo nazi rubbish and more.
"winn" fits in the line of stupidities that other monkeys like you have posted. Like "appolo" and "louis armstrong" and "austronots". I am not going to give more examples.
Holland just weeks ago took down in shame and embarrassment their "moonrocks" they got from the NASA boys cuz they're rubbish, just junk from earth. So indeed, either NASA brought back "earth" rocks or they gave out "earth" rocks. Either way they're bastards.
No Tube, not at all. This news didn't even reach the headlines, let alone the 8 o' clock news here. In fact it was a great laugh. The representative of the museum took it as a joke. The two petrochemists of the Amsterdam University did a 2-minute examination and were laughing too.
Not NASA gave the rocks to our former PM, but the US Ambassador. He was a close friend of the family and I guess he was a show off. Nothing more, nothing less.
it doesn't matter how HOlland museum took it. the point is that the NASA moonrocks are proven to be false, so the Apollo nazi boys were giving out rubbish for moonrocks. that's the point. and of course, it didn't make CNN liars cuz they're lying 24/7 if you haven't noticed about everything, especially the beautiful econ crash and collapse of the US of A.
the point is that NASA was passing crap for moonrocks.
Which NASA moonrockS are proven to be false? My neighbour had a German helmet which his father got from a German soldier, that got shot in the war. Some time ago a museum specialist discovered that the helmet was fake.
So according to the 'logic' of moonhoax conspiracists the war didn't happen.
i have that book they quoted at 5:00, it also says stuff about imaginary aliens that live on different planets in our solar system and imaginary scifi spaceships from the 21st century
I wonder why they don't go back to the moon with the new technology we have and shut everybody up. I don't know for sure what is true or not, but sure there's something fishy about this, just like there's something very fishy about 911, so I totally agree that we gotta keep investigating this subjects.
If we ask the same people or organisation to return to the Moon, there will still be same risk of being lied to, and in addition we now have better technology and means of propaganda...
A project to go to the Moon must be made with the full participation of people of all opinions, from the most hardened believer to the most hardened non-believer. It must also be made in total transparency towards the public...
Par for the course with yet another MoonFaker video - no science - just dueling quotations - obfuscation - pointing fingers and rhetorical questions.
Playing shell games with the word "water" from the Space∙com article without acknowledging the MINISCULE amounts found (far lower than in Earth rocks) is very instructive as to why each time he uses the word "proopagandist", there seems to be more that just a hint of admiration in his voice.
Last year I met a prominent Chinese geologist here in Würzburg. As a communist, it doesn't benefit him to agree with us USA capitalists. He said he had examined the moon rocks, himself, and said that man DEFINITELY walked on the moon.
Garveergor, I know 12 Dutch students and two German and one Dutch professor-geology who went to the Lunar Sample Laboratory Facility, together with an international delegation of chemists, geologists and physicists, doing a development of new methods for isotopic and chemical analysis. These delegations by the way come to the Facility every year, together with students of worldwide universities.
They all acknowledged the moon rocks as MOON rocks. Based on their own research and examinations.
ooh... did you? can you post a video please and name the prominent Chinese geologist, because the other day I met stephen hawking and nobody belive me, can you belive it?
There are moon rocks all over the antarctic. Having moon rocks isn't proof that men were put on the moon. And the Russians sent a probe and collected moon rocks. You dont need a guy in a space suit to get them.
Moon rocks are found in Antarctica. The Russians collected moon rocks robotically from the moon. The Russians were ahead of the US in all space firsts until the US suddenly put man on the moon. The Russians never bothered to put man on the moon after that? Everything points to it being hoaxed.
Here is the paper, they detected tiny amounts of water in the Lunar Volcanic Gasses - about 260 Parts per Million, 0.026% water. Far lower than any terrestrial rock.
"Volatile content of lunar volcanic glasses and the presence of water in the Moon's interior"
Terrestrial tholeiites & basalts have 0.06% to 0.98% water. Granite averages 2% to 4% water
"Water content of basalt erupted on the ocean floor"
"The origin of granite: The role and source of water in the evolution of granitic magmas"
This is nonsense! Even if NASA were faking the moon landings, they didn't have to also fake the moon rocks. They could have sent an unmanned probe to collect some samples. Soviet probes started returning moon rocks to Earth even DURING the Apollo program, so any phony moon rocks would have been easily spotted decades ago. This is one of the problems with conspiracy thinking. Before long EVERYTHING is a conspiracy and one sinks irreversibly into a hole of delusional paranoia.
Don't understand what this moon hoax issue is all about? How could one carry out a conspiracy with about half a million people (lots of them worldwide) being involved. To make a conspiracy of this dimensions work, the cost would probably exceed a actual lunar mission tenfold. Its also very dangerous. If the consp. fails, you can say, "this is it" with the credibilty of science and the USA. Such a risk against what benefit? Pls explain, what the profit of such could possibly be.
I find it strange that you would use information gleamed only recently to support the argument of a conspiracy that happened nearly 40 years ago.
That type of arguing could be applied to just about anything, such as the discovery of dinosaur fossils (they knew the truth, but they withheld it to make people think the ground up bones would be a valuable aphrodisiac).
It's, to say the least, a flawed argument.
Discovering water just means we were wrong, not that there was a conspiracy.
The propagandists were telling conflicting and self-contradicting stories about the presence of water in those rocks long before that article was published.
So you're saying that before we had definite proof there is water in the lunar rocks, people were arguing about it.
That sounds like normal scientific debate to me.
Also, the article states that the water was discovered using a new method of analysis. This means that, up until now, it was believed lunar rocks were absent of water, but now we know some areas contain water. The same article clearly states the moon is heterogeneous and water in one place doesn't mean water everywhere.
"So you're saying that before we had definite proof there is water in the lunar rocks, people were arguing about it."
I said 'self-contradictory stories' at times the propagandists would say there is no water in the rocks, other times the exact same individuals would they there has always been a tiny supply of water in them. They either have water or they don't, find the answer and stick with it. I show these contradictory statements in my video.
Sure, Mr JW is an expert on geology capable to understand the Nature article he's talking about, LOL. (BTW., they detected 45 ppm, that's almost nothing in comparison to earth rocks).
I really wonder why silicondioxide (SiO2) is a gaseous monomer (5.20 min) - did you ever attended chemistry classes at school ?
"(BTW., they detected 45 ppm, that's almost nothing in comparison to earth rocks)"
The fact that there is water in there is a substancal difference to the "total" lack of water propagandists claim. And why do they claim there is "no water" at times and "almost no water" other times?
"I really wonder why silicondioxide (SiO2) is a gaseous monomer (5.20 min)"
I show silicon dioxide because that is what the moonrocks are mostly composed of. More on that later in the series.
@WhiteJarrah "And why do they claim there is "no water" at times and "almost no water" other times?"
(1) Our new unerstanding of water presence on the Moon resulted from the recent ability to look for it in places we couldn't before.
(2) Do you expect the water content to be the same everywhere they sample on the lunar surface... from the equator to the poles? Would you also expect water content to be the same everywhere on Earth?
Rocks of the lunar surface, lying virtually unchanged in a weatherless vacuum since their formation, offer opportunities to investigate the origin and evolution of the solar system available nowhere else, and the study deepens with each new generation of scientists and scientific instruments.
Each year an independent peer review panel evaluates new research proposals, and curators mail out about 400 lunar samples to 40 to 50 scientists worldwide. Almost all are less than one gram in size.
People, see what happens in this apollo video when an asstronot is lifted quite high with a wire. It looks pathetic, because the asstronot does not so much as flinch his legs to make such a "jump". He just looks like a puppet on a string being lifted. Portions of this video are no longer in the Apollo archives, so check it out quick before youtube pulls it.
Could any scientist distinguish a rocks origin lets say from a meteor found on the surface of Antarctica, a meteor that lands in north America or one that they were initially told came from the moon?
In reecent news: It was found that the Moon is actually made of cheese. The sort of cheese is yet to be determined but several countries have already claimed rights to mine the Moon's valuable cheese resources.
bamBozo... You are getting to be just as tiring as your buddies, zakabong, and Head full of rocks...You have been spewing the same propaganda rrhetoric as those other clowns for months now, with absolutely no new ideas, or thoughts. You follow the same silly pattern of name calling rather than debating issues.
If you are "not buying into this", then there are plenty of "I love Apollo" sites for you to go over to. Stop wasting our time by coming in here!
They knew they could not do it, (radiation, technology at the time, etc) but because of the money flowing in, they needed something to give to the public...
The propaganda effect of having the US be the first there due to the so called Cold War....
These are only a start..... And some of the damning evidence justifies these two for a start...
So again, where is the independent verification of the lunar landings????
I see one of the banned propagandists, bambino291, has returned from his exile....
Mr. bambino, as stated before: We have been asking where is the proof that they put men on the moon other than what is put out by NASA... In simpler terms: Is there any independent verification of the authenticity of the so called "Moon Missions" other than what NASA claims?
I can see why you were banned before, and why you are heading towards being banned again!
"We have been asking where is the proof that they put men on the moon other than what is put out by NASA"
So your saying that until you have some sort of independent verification your going to ignore the physical evidence like the Lunar samples? Why don't you at least bring a up a reason as to why NASA would even need to fake the landings in the first place.
Sorry kids, I'm not buying into your claims because they lack any sort of support.
I really admire the hard work you do in exposing the Apollo Hoax, Jarrah .. It takes a lot of guts to go public with your real identity, especially when being constantly lied about and insulted by game playing trolls like zakabog, and lying sociopaths like svector... cont.
You should be proud of your accomplishments and also very proud of the fact that you never allowed these propagandists to stop you with their transparent character assassinations of you and their ridicule of your efforts to uncover the truth about Project Apollo.
Keep up the good work, and hopefully one day "the truth will out'.
This is a most excellent continuation of your 'Moon-Faker' series, i like your videos here because they deal with the hard questions and give you something to really sink your teeth into rather than fan the flames of our imaginations with fantasy stories, your tapping at the root core of the illusion not adding to it, your pursuit of truth in this matter is already legendary and you honor the memories of those lost who also selflessly tried to inform us of this grand illusion.
from what i have seen so far in this video is that virtually all the quotes say that "hardly any" or "virtually no" water was found in the moon rocks" not that none was found.Which is consistent with the latest findings.I dont see the point here,this is not new evidence just attempted manipulation.
No, the point is to clarify the fact that there has been water in the alleged Moon rocks all along. But MSM like to pretend that there isn't. Really. Scientists (if you still want to call some of them that these days) always ASS-U-ME that the water they always find in these rocks is from earth or spaceship or tools contamination.
Almost all of today's science is secular.
Remember, MSM personalities read from a script. They often have no idea what they are reading.
"Remember, MSM personalities read from a script. They often have no idea what they are reading."
So how exactly do you explain the researchers believing that they are the first ones to find water inside these rocks? How about the journal that published their findings? Is it that the scientists were getting their information from the main stream media? Or do the scientists just not know what they're talking about?
"No, you're the one who doesn't know what he's talking about, troll zak."
I asked for an explanation as to why the researchers believed they were the first to detect water in these rocks and rather than answering you simply imply I'm a fool then call me a troll. I thought I was the one using distraction tactics? You obviously don't have an answer to the question and rather than admitting that you come back with insults.
Perhaps this time you'll answer the original question?
We live in a Statist society, we ALL do. Everyone on this damn globe but primitive tribes.
Humanists have created their world religion and developed all kinds of stories backed up by bad science, crazy theories, and consensual opinion fed to us through the mass media.
The stories are just as made up as any religion.
You are a slave and will only be TOLD what will increase profits and/or soothe the population.
Or rally them for war of course. A never ending campaign.
Not likely as the article was published in peer reviewed papers and the scientific community seems to agree that they were in fact the first one to find water.
"Consensus was to say that the water that has been known exist in the rocks is just contamination?"
and
"They were told to keep their trap shut about it if they wanted more funding?"
That can't be the the case because they claim they found water, not that it was contamination.
"Ok, I'm done with this, you playing dumb is getting real old."
Yeah, it's playing dumb to admit that suicide happens. Or that people have emotions that can be affected by things like divorce, losing your job, not having kids.
"Yeah, it's playing dumb to admit that suicide happens.."
Looks like Grumblingone has your number too, TROLL zakabog.. Some things are definately worth repeating.."Ok, I'm done with this, you playing dumb is getting real old. Enjoy your ignorance."
Ditto to that!.. I've known for quite awhile that you play dumb just to frustrate & anger whoever you are debating & that your silly Apollo propaganda is total BULLSHIT!
Now reply real fast troll! Be sure to "win" your little "one up" game!
"So in the end the "evidence" that the Apollo samples are fake is that small trace amounts of water are found in the rocks?"
No, it's not just that.. The Apollo rocks are ALL common feldspar, breccia and besalt Earth rocks.. But aside from that, NO geologists have ever been allowed to study more than very tiny slivers and sand, which could have been picked up by unmanned missions.. Nobody has ever seen ALL of the ALLEGED 840 lbs of Apollo rocks.. So there's no proof that they even exist.
Since there were no cameras on the moon to view this we will have to trus thier assumptions
ESA SMART-1 expected impact results.
esa(dot)int/esaMI/SMART-1/SEMKTCBUQPE_0(dot)html
Possibly SMART-1 will skid for a short distance after impact, throwing up dust ahead of it and spraying dust out on either side like the wings of a butterfly. The crater made by SMART-1 will be 3 to 10 metres wide and perhaps a metre deep
What does this have to do with anything in this video or in the comments? My point was that Thomas Baron was potentially suicidal based on the information I've gathered on his life (middle aged man with no college, no job, once divorced, no children of his own.) You're only pointing to information that is already well known so I really don't understand the point of it?
No didn't say that either, you have no idea if he WENT to the doctor or the doctor CAME to him. And no where in the transcript does it say Dr. Hare IS a psychiatrist. All that was said is that he talked to this man, who was a doctor, and he TOOK it as a psychiatric examination.
Since he's unsure of the name, the doc maybe came to him?
The ulcers were due to job stress. Because his job was to report problems and he was shocked by the magnitude of negligence and outright disregard for the rules.
"How many medical doctors in a hospital come to see you to talk about spacecraft and personal problems?"
I don't know, do you?
"...and would you say someone who is stressed out to the point of having ulcers is generally pretty happy?"
Maybe? Maybe not. Just because he is under stress does not mean he is suicidal.
My father had ulcers my whole life, still has them. He divorced my mom, got fired from a major corp and took 10 years to get back on his feet. Drinks a bit and still alive. Hmmm.
Your tactics of trying to demonize this man by making him out to be depressed and suicidal or crazy, thereby invalidating anything he says in public opinion is weak-sauce.
This commie-marxist-socialist-facist tactic is boring. You lose. Assumptions are fine till you can discover facts. But to espouse assumptions as fact is just plain deceptive.
Now, back to the other evidence in this great film.
"Your tactics of trying to demonize this man by making him out to be depressed and suicidal or crazy, thereby invalidating anything he says in public opinion is weak-sauce."
You really don't get the point of what I'm saying, the official story is that he committed suicide. The conspiracy theory is that he was murdered. I'm just pointing out that it's not so improbable that a man in his position commits suicide.
Links? Something? If not then you are just speculating. Or should I say desperately trying to get someone to admit you are right. Not gonna happen without something from you.
Nice tactic to compare "official" with "conspiracy" so that you can hope to give your side more credence.
Lets make this fair. We don't know. Although 3 random cops I have spoken to think this seems suspicious at the least.
Newspaper articles from the county in florida at the time, and Thomas Baron's death certificate.
"Lets make this fair. We don't know. Although 3 random cops I have spoken to think this seems suspicious at the least."
Were they there at the accident? If not, their opinion doesn't matter much, since the cops that showed up at the crash site ruled his death a suicide (according to his death certificate.)
So now we have a death certificate? Well of course there is one. Why didn't you bring this up along time ago we could have saved a ton of typing.
Do you have a link to it? Have you seen it? What about the articles you cite? It appears the article is not online. It is only referenced on Wiki and NASA as a collision that killed everyone in the car. No mention of suicide.
So you can say cops ruled it a suicide with no reference but I can't say I told the story to cops in return for an opinion?
"Why didn't you bring this up along time ago we could have saved a ton of typing."
Because every conspiracy theorist website already says the death was ruled a suicide. I figured you'd believe those sites over an official government document...
"Do you have a link to it?"
It's not public information, you're going to have to contact Brevard County, FL for it.
"What about the articles you cite?"
It's called a library, browse through the newspapers from the time.
Oh, so as long as the government says they didn't kill the guy than you'll believe them?
"I can browse all I want, but since you are bringing it up, it is in your court to present the evidence."
I don't expect you to believe anything the mass media says so I'm not going to do the leg work (again) just to have you say "Well obviously they're lying."
"So you can say cops ruled it a suicide with no reference but I can't say I told the story to cops in return for an opinion?"
Just about conspiracy theorist site out there dealing with Thomas Baron's death points out that the official story was suicide, then goes on to say that murder was more likely.
I don't care what assumptions are made by other sites, we are dealing with clear information published on a site folks consider to be credible. A STATE run site.
What you are failing to realize is, the Official Story is an assumption strengthened by rumor and gossip and speculation. Just as it is on conspiracy sites. One side speculates one thing, the other speculates the opposite. The story isn't really Official, it's consensual opinion of people who support the STATE.
By your own admission you didn't read any of the cited articles, so how do you know how it was reported?
Join ancestry[dot]com with a trial membership, find out all the information you can about Thomas Baron (including his SSN), use that information along with some basic social engineering to get a detailed death certificate from Brevard County FL (you need to be "family", unless you want to wait 8 more years for it to become public information) and see for yourself.
"Read the testimony he gave in court, he was seeing a psychiatrist as well."
I would probably want to see a shrink too if my job was to list all of the overwhelming saftey concerns of Project Apollo.. But since when does seeing a psychiatrist mean that someone wants to end their life and take their whole family with them?
Your arguments are not only meaningless rhetoric, but also an insult to everyone's intelligence.
The point is, he died less than a week after testifying.
The fact that he didn't go to college is just a cheap shot at his intelligence. He obviously was qualified for his job. They hired him didn't they?
Baron was a rank and file inspector at Kennedy from September 1965 until November 1966, when he asked for and received a leave of absence. (getting ready to get himself fired)
So, he knew he was probably going to get fired anyway but went through with the hearings. So job loss no suprise.
"The point is, he died less than a week after testifying."
After spending a year of his life compiling a report which the court basically dismissed. That would be a pretty harsh blow to someone's self-esteem.
"The fact that he didn't go to college is just a cheap shot at his intelligence."
I was only pointing out that he isn't likely going to find another job at his age with his minimal education level, especially since no one in that field would ever want to hire him again.
I'm sorry but to which point? I didn't assume he went to a psychiatrist he said that under oath in court.
As far as the report it was ignored in the trial as they only really wanted to know the names of people he talked to, they didn't quote the report or ask anything related to the actual text of the report (implying that they never read it.)
I'm only offering evidence that supports the theory that he could have been suicidal, not claiming that he definitely was.
"You mean unemployed, uneducated, once divorced Tom Baron? Yeah, he was suicidal and ran his family into a train."
No, I mean Apollo Saftey Inspector Tom Baron, who was married with an adopted daughter. They were ALL permanently silenced exactly ONE WEEK after Baron submitted his 500 page WHISTLE BLOWING "missing" report, against the NAA, who was developing the Apollo crap for NASA. He claimed it would never get men to the Moon alive.. Strange how he's the one who didn't stay alive, isn't it?
"No, I mean Apollo Saftey Inspector Tom Baron, who was married with an adopted daughter."
Well the Tom Baron I'm talking about was a safety inspector but he was a safety inspector at NAA, not Apollo, till he was fired a year before his death.
"Well the Tom Baron I'm talking about was a safety inspector but he was a safety inspector at NAA, not Apollo, till he was fired a year before his death."
Baron worked for NAA as a SAFTEY INSPECTOR for the APOLLO CRAFT THEY WERE DEVELOPING FOR NASA .. The same craft that Baron told Congress ONE WEEK before he was KILLED, would NEVER GET MEN TO THE MOON AND BACK ALIVE.
Baron and his family all died for that one!
But you still wonder why geologists etc. won't out Apollo? .. Riight.
"Ah, but not at the time of his death. At the time of his death he was unemployed, no college degree, and had been once divorced."
Of course he was unemployed .. NAA fired him after he did his job correctly and then blew the whistle on their complete incompetence! .. Do you really think him being "once divorced" had anything to do with his and his family's convienently timed "accident"? .. How absurd!
"Do you really think him being "once divorced" had anything to do with his and his family's convienently timed "accident"?"
So you've never heard of anyone ever being depressed after a divorce? After they lost their job? If Tom Baron just won the lottery and then drove into a train I'd say that's suspicious. But to say that a middle aged man on the 10th anniversary of his first wedding, with no job, no formal education, no kids of his own, killed himself is not that far of a stretch.
"But to say that a middle aged man on the 10th anniversary of his first wedding, with no job, no formal education, no kids of his own, killed himself is not that far of a stretch."
If that's all it takes to want to kill yourself, then half the people still alive in the world, should be dead already.
"So you've never heard of anyone ever being depressed after a divorce?"
I believe I already cited a study on this. Yes it's possible but unlikely. 1 out of 866 isn't common.
"But to say that a middle aged man on the 10th anniversary of his first wedding, with no job, no formal education, no kids of his own, killed himself is not that far of a stretch."
Actually it is, you are only making assumptions about his state. What you described actually happens to quite a few men.
"Actually it is, you are only making assumptions about his state."
You're kidding... what exactly in that sentence am I assuming?
"What you described actually happens to quite a few men."
No shit, really? Did you also know that people in that sort of situation are more likely to kill themselves than someone not in that situation (someone employed, married, college education, with children of their own)? Sometimes the suicide involves taking along the family.
You are assuming and trying to get others to assume that a person who seeks to talk to someone about person issues is suicidal, and there is something wrong with him/her.
"more likely to kill themselves"
.000001% is more likely. Agreed.
This is an underlying theme in society today, deliberately introduced to cause strife and an excuse to dismiss peoples' testimonies, observations and evidence.
"You are assuming and trying to get others to assume that a person who seeks to talk to someone about person issues is suicidal, and there is something wrong with him/her."
I said in that sentence, in that sentence I'm only pointing out the facts, each one known to statistically increase a persons chances of committing suicide.
".000001% is more likely. Agreed."
Actually divorce is the number one linking factor in suicides today.
"But with the events leading up to the crash in question, the assumption of suicide seems less likely, as there was motive for murder."
What motive? Baron's report had already been presented, Baron had already testified.
Also, Baron's testimony before Congress ended up being quite embarrassing, not to mention that he believed that three men had burned alive because of failures in his former department. It seems perfectly reasonable that he might do something crazy.
"Whether or not he killed himself or was silenced the problems went away and the program moved ahead."
What are you talking about? How would Thomas Baron's death have made any problems go away? The Apollo 1 fire had already happened and an investigation was underway. Please describe exactly why you believe Thomas Baron was killed. What influence did his death have on anything?
"Please describe exactly why you believe Thomas Baron was killed."
He was killed because he went public with the Apollo debacle .. He also wrote a detailed 500 page report, describing the saftey hazzards and the shoddy hardware, being developed by NAA for NASA .. A report that went missing right after he and his family "committed suicide by train", one week after he testified that NASA didn't have a shot of getting men to the Moon in the NAA crap.
"one week after he testified that NASA didn't have a shot of getting men to the Moon in the NAA crap."
You think he was the only person that felt NASA couldn't make it to the moon? Why do you think NASA cares what some high school educated quality inspector thinks? He thought EVERYTHING was shoddy, according to NAA and his co-workers he submitted reports about everything. Why would NASA care about the boy that cried wolf especially when he worked at NAA and never saw what NASA was building?
"You think he was the only person that felt NASA couldn't make it to the moon?"
No, I'm sure many people thought that.. Especially the ones developing the shoddy Apollo hardward.
"Why do you think NASA cares what some high school educated quality inspector thinks?"
Because he was hired to inspect everything being developed for Apollo, and he publicly blew the whistle on NAA's complete incompetence in developing the craft that was suppossed to get men to the Moon and back alive.
"Because he was hired to inspect everything being developed for Apollo"
No he wasn't, he was hired as a general safety inspector by NAA, not specifically for Apollo craft (unless you think he has some spacecraft expertise?).
"and he publicly blew the whistle on NAA's complete incompetence"
Yes, NAA, not NASA. NASA could have used his argument to put all the blame on NAA since Baron claimed NAA wasn't up to the standards required by their contract.
"No he wasn't, he was hired as a general safety inspector by NAA, not specifically for Apollo craft (unless you think he has some spacecraft expertise?)."
NAA wouldn't have hired Baron if he didn't know how to do his job right.. It was the fact that he blew the whistle on their shoddy workmanship of the Apollo craft, that got him fired.
"NAA wouldn't have hired Baron if he didn't know how to do his job right.."
I didn't say he didn't know how to do his job right, I just said he wasn't hired especially for Apollo. He was a general safety inspector. His only contact with Apollo craft was through NAA so how could he have any expertise with Apollo craft before NAA hired him?
"His only contact with Apollo craft was through NAA so how could he have any expertise with Apollo craft before NAA hired him? "
It didn't take a rocket scientist to see that the craft being developed by NAA, to fly men to the Moon, was a pile of crap and that the men responsible for the astronauts saftey were completely incompetent .
Three dead Apollo astronauts in the Apollo 1 fire was proof of that!
I was really looking forward to watching this video series until I heard this guy's voice
lordpeterfunk 9 months ago 3
Whether the rocks came from the moon or not seems a moot point, because it doesn't prove they were collected by human beings, by hand
overlordddrp 9 months ago
Some moonrocks were displayed at the Aalto University of Helsinki, because our chemist dr Birger Wiik analyzed them. I talked with him many times. He was an expert on minerals and meteors. The chemical analyze of the moon rocks was difficult because they contained so much titanium. This fell out as white titanate in his test tubes, which was quite unexpected.
BjornPalmen 1 year ago
This video is nothing more than a misrepresentation of the facts. This fool argues semantics, but ignores all the REAL science behind the PROOF that the Moon rocks are what the scientists say they are. JW, get a clue, then maybe a life...I mean...C'MON MAN!
Monkeyboysdontknow 1 year ago 2
JW, to say there is water in SOME lunar samples (in this case the glass spherules) doesn't mean water is in ALL samples. As a matter of English, saying "virtually" no water is about the same thing as saying "no water." That is, unless one is speaking in a very detailed, specific context, it's safe to say that the moon is waterless. What at first appears to you to be some kind of coverup is clearly bad hermeneutics. You're wrongly interpreting one's summation and another's detailed analysis.
LunarTuner 1 year ago
If you want to add another smoking gun argument to the Moon Mirrors, one must ask this :
Has anyone shined lazer beams at Mars?
The 'light time' issues are more complex but getting reflections off Mars (where there have never been any mirrors) should work ... but with a 72dbi greater path loss (so your lazer modulation format for AUTORANGING should be different because it is further).
It might work better if one could target a dark side of the planet ... or the poles.
eyreland 1 year ago
The Russians have been bouncing lazors off the moon since the 50s. To claim we are precisly sending pulses to those set targets is nonsense.
MrTommYYZ 1 year ago
i'm not expert but i'm not also stupid:)
1 there is water EVERYWHERE even in sun. H+He. so why not on moon?
moon and earth has the same elements. but moon has no atmosphere so it is possible that it's little bit different.
but still it doesn't mean that moon has no 'water or oxygen'. it has O² also. people understand it qiuet different. if you say there is H &O² they think we can breath. no no the moon dusk has H&O² but it don't mean we can live there;). EVERYTHING is CREATED from WATER.
karakan1453 1 year ago
@karakan1453 comets, rocks has water. most comets exist from water. they are frozen. it's not drinkable :)).
they faked the moonlanding. man DID NOT go to the moon.
- on moon everything is white &black. but in shuttle is fully colored view.
lazerbeams can also deflect other things :)).
moon is cold why is there no frozen parts of the shuttle or the suit?
why is the reflect of the sun not round but broken?
why throwing hammer?? to let us believe? :))
karakan1453 1 year ago
One word .."reflectors" Don't tell me they spent millions of bucks to soft land some reflectors up there.
Next hoax please.
Tweekerhead 1 year ago
Comment removed
frankensteinmoneymac 10 months ago
@Tweekerhead You do realize that the Soviets have reflectors up there too, right? Does that mean they landed a man on the Moon too? LMAO
frankensteinmoneymac 10 months ago
@frankensteinmoneymac Do you realize, the Moon expands it's orbit 3.8 cm a year?
Do you know how we know that?
Did you know they just found Lunokhod 1, last heard from on September 14, 1971?
See ..it's easy to make suppositions and assertions. What else you got?
Tweekerhead 10 months ago
@Tweekerhead You confused me....what are you trying to say? What suppositions and assertions did I make? I'm starting to wonder if we are both misunderstanding each other somehow...because those facts you just quoted are really pretty much meaningless as to what I had to say. We regularly use both the Soviets & the U.S. reflectors to measure the Moon, and we have since they were first put there. & Yes Lunokhod 1 was missing for a long while. You do know Lunokhod 2 was never lost, though right?
frankensteinmoneymac 10 months ago
@frankensteinmoneymac I thought you were making the obvious tired old assertion the hoaxheads make about the Russians soft landing retro-reflectors on the Moon, which renders the issue of the reflectors that Apollo astronauts left on the Moon as proof of the landings to be false.
It's amazing how many arguments the hoaxheads come up with.
Tweekerhead 10 months ago
@Tweekerhead I don't understand what "soft landing" the retro-reflectors has to do with the argument. However the Russian reflectors landed on the moon, it worked. They are certainly there, and in working order. I'm not arguing that the Moon Landings didn't happen. I'm arguing that the counter argument that because the U.S. has reflectors on the Moon as being proof we went, is illogical. It presupposes that reflectors on the Moon is something unique that only a man could place, which is untrue.
frankensteinmoneymac 10 months ago
The narrator's voice is painful on this video.
maburns210 1 year ago 2
The USA in the 60's was much more technological advanced than now.
Perhaps in 2020 people could go to the moon "again".
LockupSean 1 year ago
Comets have water, when a comet hits, there is enough energy to create new compounds, and also melt them, when they solidify, they'll be rocks with water.
newbetterandhappy 1 year ago
Ah the moon landing debate. Are the rocks from Antartica? Are they from the moon? Are the isotopes the same? Are they different? The flag was flapping bla bla . You are fighting an un-winnable argument. Trouble is the only real way to prove that man didn't go to the moon is to go back there and find no evidence of man being there. Given that the people who say that it did happen have the means to get there and those who believe it didn't don't, your never going to prove it didn't happen. Give up
Dico6 1 year ago
This guy has a huge following on ATS and blog site... he is becoming a hero!!
RClark886988 1 year ago
what about the reflectors on moon
randeepabraham 1 year ago
@whiteJarrah - hmm what about the reflectors on the moon left by the astronauts.. what is your take on that?
randeepabraham 1 year ago
Funny but no matter how i try i cannot get to RedZero's site in the UK. Has it been disconnected?
cadu1995 1 year ago
If the moon landings were actually a hoax, then people like Bart Sibrel would not feel the need to make up pathetic LIES when they try to support their arguments.
nesokretep 1 year ago
Driv3r music...
BlacksVideos 2 years ago
We r fuking lied to daily. We don't have to be burning any fossil fuels. Energy isn't a problem! Wars are all bogus, engineered! Marijuana is healthier than sugar. Truth is an obscure thing, Oppression & lie is the norm. Were all Slaves- our masters, the elite, r at least 50 years ahead of us in knowledge, technology, info., secrets & r using all of it against us!
go here
truthknowledge. com
not selling anything-just sharing Information-something we no longer do & its destroying Humanity!
MopDMTBARTL 2 years ago
@MopDMTBARTL 10000000% agreed, but what can we do. only a nihil fraction of the population knows, and only a fraction of them care about it.
We are 0, we have no power, and it will stay that way for a while
ziaolol 2 years ago
for those with a bit of brain.
NASA went about handing out "moonrocks". These are now proved to be hoaxes. They've been determined to have water in them and low calcium contrary to samples retrieved by Russia and ESA's recent analysis. Holland had a "moonrock" on exhibit they got from the NASA boys. They just took it down in embarrassment.
So yes, NASA indeed went about deliberately handing out false rubbish. Simple as that.
tubelogin1 2 years ago
"Simple as that"
The only thing simple here is you and your delusional conclusion Tube. If that would have been a conclusion guided by a shread of evidence than the headlines would be full of it.
Oh.. . . I forgot. NASA owns the media.
Rob260259 2 years ago
Robbie, you little fool... "shread".
For others:
yanks have 48M illiterate retards today.
51M yanks read at 3rd grade level, that's 1 out of nearly 3 effectively cretinous like robbie here. no surprise then the US of A cesspit has swallowed 911 BS and Apollo nazi rubbish and more.
tubelogin1 2 years ago
"shread"
as in
"science will winn"
Teletube.
Rob260259 2 years ago
"winn"???? what's that? another one of your barfs or should i say barphs for you? LOL get out here, you simpleton.
tubelogin1 2 years ago
"winn" fits in the line of stupidities that other monkeys like you have posted. Like "appolo" and "louis armstrong" and "austronots". I am not going to give more examples.
Rob260259 2 years ago
robbie boy, you're psychotic. go away.
tubelogin1 2 years ago
No, I will not.
Rob260259 2 years ago
Holland just weeks ago took down in shame and embarrassment their "moonrocks" they got from the NASA boys cuz they're rubbish, just junk from earth. So indeed, either NASA brought back "earth" rocks or they gave out "earth" rocks. Either way they're bastards.
tubelogin1 2 years ago
No Tube, not at all. This news didn't even reach the headlines, let alone the 8 o' clock news here. In fact it was a great laugh. The representative of the museum took it as a joke. The two petrochemists of the Amsterdam University did a 2-minute examination and were laughing too.
Not NASA gave the rocks to our former PM, but the US Ambassador. He was a close friend of the family and I guess he was a show off. Nothing more, nothing less.
Rob260259 2 years ago
it doesn't matter how HOlland museum took it. the point is that the NASA moonrocks are proven to be false, so the Apollo nazi boys were giving out rubbish for moonrocks. that's the point. and of course, it didn't make CNN liars cuz they're lying 24/7 if you haven't noticed about everything, especially the beautiful econ crash and collapse of the US of A.
the point is that NASA was passing crap for moonrocks.
tubelogin1 2 years ago
Which NASA moonrockS are proven to be false? My neighbour had a German helmet which his father got from a German soldier, that got shot in the war. Some time ago a museum specialist discovered that the helmet was fake.
So according to the 'logic' of moonhoax conspiracists the war didn't happen.
Rob260259 2 years ago
you stupid or what? yours! the one you bastards had in a museum. those are BS rocks. get it? whats a matter, you idiot can't follow simple english?
tubelogin1 2 years ago
".. the one you...."
1 (one)
"those are BS rocks"
rockS?
Are you able to count Tube?
"NASA went about handing out moonrocks"
And these are now proved to be hoaxes? Well tell me Tube, in which musea in what countries?
Rob260259 2 years ago
Why does the guy doing the quotes sound like he has down syndrome?
ns88ster 2 years ago
Hahaha, stupid fucks don't believe in science.
santosbl01 2 years ago
i have that book they quoted at 5:00, it also says stuff about imaginary aliens that live on different planets in our solar system and imaginary scifi spaceships from the 21st century
wtfr3nch 2 years ago
I wonder why they don't go back to the moon with the new technology we have and shut everybody up. I don't know for sure what is true or not, but sure there's something fishy about this, just like there's something very fishy about 911, so I totally agree that we gotta keep investigating this subjects.
Nsight420 2 years ago
If we ask the same people or organisation to return to the Moon, there will still be same risk of being lied to, and in addition we now have better technology and means of propaganda...
A project to go to the Moon must be made with the full participation of people of all opinions, from the most hardened believer to the most hardened non-believer. It must also be made in total transparency towards the public...
Simboiss 2 years ago
nsight20, you pay for this?
fuzzygrid 2 years ago
China Fakes Space Walk
/watch?v=gMxQEHfU6hM
Bubbles rising from visor at 3:04
Other bubbles throughout video.
Why does NASA cover this up?
bpbiv31 2 years ago
Par for the course with yet another MoonFaker video - no science - just dueling quotations - obfuscation - pointing fingers and rhetorical questions.
Playing shell games with the word "water" from the Space∙com article without acknowledging the MINISCULE amounts found (far lower than in Earth rocks) is very instructive as to why each time he uses the word "proopagandist", there seems to be more that just a hint of admiration in his voice.
Manelvagorio 2 years ago
Last year I met a prominent Chinese geologist here in Würzburg. As a communist, it doesn't benefit him to agree with us USA capitalists. He said he had examined the moon rocks, himself, and said that man DEFINITELY walked on the moon.
Garveergor 2 years ago 10
Garveergor, I know 12 Dutch students and two German and one Dutch professor-geology who went to the Lunar Sample Laboratory Facility, together with an international delegation of chemists, geologists and physicists, doing a development of new methods for isotopic and chemical analysis. These delegations by the way come to the Facility every year, together with students of worldwide universities.
They all acknowledged the moon rocks as MOON rocks. Based on their own research and examinations.
Rob260259 2 years ago 6
So what? Moon rocks also exist naturally and were easily found in Antarctica.
Focoist911 2 years ago
Says who? Can you provide us with some peer reviews about that? Or may be the names of a few geologists?
Rob260259 2 years ago
ooh... did you? can you post a video please and name the prominent Chinese geologist, because the other day I met stephen hawking and nobody belive me, can you belive it?
libidowolf 2 years ago
Yes, his name is Dr. Jun Gao. Look him up you sarcastic asswipe.
Garveergor 2 years ago
There are moon rocks all over the antarctic. Having moon rocks isn't proof that men were put on the moon. And the Russians sent a probe and collected moon rocks. You dont need a guy in a space suit to get them.
Focoist911 2 years ago
...but you might have trouble reading Chinese---you definitely have trouble writing in English. No I don't "belive" you.
Garveergor 2 years ago
Moon rocks are found in Antarctica. The Russians collected moon rocks robotically from the moon. The Russians were ahead of the US in all space firsts until the US suddenly put man on the moon. The Russians never bothered to put man on the moon after that? Everything points to it being hoaxed.
Focoist911 2 years ago
I'm not sure if China is communist, though...
Simboiss 2 years ago
Words fail me! Except two. Fucking rubbish!
Look mum! I am using a 19 year old manual.
No free oxygen NOW!
Water was found recently. If it was earth rock it would have on the first day!
You are relying on semantics to prove a point. It makes you sound dumb!
WTF have you ever done for the world?
What is the difference between zero and almost none? How much water do earth rocks contain?
Does science not change and find new facts? You are on thin ice!
AbelMagwitch73 2 years ago
fuck you prick !
commodore64738 2 years ago
OOHH! Good point well made!
At the end of the day you moon hoaxers rely on nothing more than semantics, shadows and paranoia.
Did you know last week was the 40th year since the moon landings?
AbelMagwitch73 2 years ago
Not last week, on the 21. Juli 40 years of NASAnutters space man studio-production.
commodore64738 2 years ago
Here is the paper, they detected tiny amounts of water in the Lunar Volcanic Gasses - about 260 Parts per Million, 0.026% water. Far lower than any terrestrial rock.
"Volatile content of lunar volcanic glasses and the presence of water in the Moon's interior"
Terrestrial tholeiites & basalts have 0.06% to 0.98% water. Granite averages 2% to 4% water
"Water content of basalt erupted on the ocean floor"
"The origin of granite: The role and source of water in the evolution of granitic magmas"
Diamonddavej 2 years ago
This is nonsense! Even if NASA were faking the moon landings, they didn't have to also fake the moon rocks. They could have sent an unmanned probe to collect some samples. Soviet probes started returning moon rocks to Earth even DURING the Apollo program, so any phony moon rocks would have been easily spotted decades ago. This is one of the problems with conspiracy thinking. Before long EVERYTHING is a conspiracy and one sinks irreversibly into a hole of delusional paranoia.
jamesbooty 2 years ago 2
Don't understand what this moon hoax issue is all about? How could one carry out a conspiracy with about half a million people (lots of them worldwide) being involved. To make a conspiracy of this dimensions work, the cost would probably exceed a actual lunar mission tenfold. Its also very dangerous. If the consp. fails, you can say, "this is it" with the credibilty of science and the USA. Such a risk against what benefit? Pls explain, what the profit of such could possibly be.
WolYou 2 years ago
what about 13 why fake a failure
matthewfaustin 2 years ago
I find it strange that you would use information gleamed only recently to support the argument of a conspiracy that happened nearly 40 years ago.
That type of arguing could be applied to just about anything, such as the discovery of dinosaur fossils (they knew the truth, but they withheld it to make people think the ground up bones would be a valuable aphrodisiac).
It's, to say the least, a flawed argument.
Discovering water just means we were wrong, not that there was a conspiracy.
rm06c 2 years ago
The propagandists were telling conflicting and self-contradicting stories about the presence of water in those rocks long before that article was published.
WhiteJarrah 2 years ago
So you're saying that before we had definite proof there is water in the lunar rocks, people were arguing about it.
That sounds like normal scientific debate to me.
Also, the article states that the water was discovered using a new method of analysis. This means that, up until now, it was believed lunar rocks were absent of water, but now we know some areas contain water. The same article clearly states the moon is heterogeneous and water in one place doesn't mean water everywhere.
rm06c 2 years ago
"So you're saying that before we had definite proof there is water in the lunar rocks, people were arguing about it."
I said 'self-contradictory stories' at times the propagandists would say there is no water in the rocks, other times the exact same individuals would they there has always been a tiny supply of water in them. They either have water or they don't, find the answer and stick with it. I show these contradictory statements in my video.
WhiteJarrah 2 years ago
Sure, Mr JW is an expert on geology capable to understand the Nature article he's talking about, LOL. (BTW., they detected 45 ppm, that's almost nothing in comparison to earth rocks).
I really wonder why silicondioxide (SiO2) is a gaseous monomer (5.20 min) - did you ever attended chemistry classes at school ?
amontaiyagala 2 years ago
Absolutely right Amontaiyagala.
Rob260259 2 years ago
"(BTW., they detected 45 ppm, that's almost nothing in comparison to earth rocks)"
The fact that there is water in there is a substancal difference to the "total" lack of water propagandists claim. And why do they claim there is "no water" at times and "almost no water" other times?
"I really wonder why silicondioxide (SiO2) is a gaseous monomer (5.20 min)"
I show silicon dioxide because that is what the moonrocks are mostly composed of. More on that later in the series.
WhiteJarrah 2 years ago
"why do they claim there is "no water" at times and "almost no water" other times?"
Advances of Scientific Research?
Simply because 45 ppm water is less than what could have been detected before they managed to lower the detection limit of SIMS to 5 ppm.
Did you (as an expert on.....) tried to understand the original research article (maybe the abstract ?) or just "researched" the news?.
amontaiyagala 2 years ago
"I show silicon dioxide because that is what the moonrocks are mostly composed of."
No, you don't.
You epically failed to show the structure of SiO2 because you don't know anything about chemistry & geology.
But, hey, let's quote a Nature article...
The structure of SiO2 would be the lowest basics... if you left school with medium education.
I really like your video production skills but you do need a scientifc advisor; but then you would stop making those type of videos.
amontaiyagala 2 years ago
100 points Amontaiyagala.
Rob260259 2 years ago
you're a fuggin scat muncher
solgoode1 2 years ago
@WhiteJarrah "And why do they claim there is "no water" at times and "almost no water" other times?"
(1) Our new unerstanding of water presence on the Moon resulted from the recent ability to look for it in places we couldn't before.
(2) Do you expect the water content to be the same everywhere they sample on the lunar surface... from the equator to the poles? Would you also expect water content to be the same everywhere on Earth?
Today is July 18, 2010... What DAY is it, Jarrah?
satweavers 1 year ago
Say what?
Fourhundred samples to 40 to 50 scientists WORLDwide.
And all those people at their institutes and universities are fooled.
Sure.
Rob260259 2 years ago
Its not hard to fool someone about moon rocks, especially when they don't have a primer to base true moon rocks on.
CheckmateBuddy 2 years ago
They had from the unmanned missions. Not much, but they had examples.
Rob260259 2 years ago
Rocks of the lunar surface, lying virtually unchanged in a weatherless vacuum since their formation, offer opportunities to investigate the origin and evolution of the solar system available nowhere else, and the study deepens with each new generation of scientists and scientific instruments.
Each year an independent peer review panel evaluates new research proposals, and curators mail out about 400 lunar samples to 40 to 50 scientists worldwide. Almost all are less than one gram in size.
Rob260259 2 years ago
Moon Dehoax: Wire Tales
Analysis of the evidence against the race to the moon: Theories about wire-supported astronauts.
watch?v=PMxvw6-4PWE
jcgmed 2 years ago
People, see what happens in this apollo video when an asstronot is lifted quite high with a wire. It looks pathetic, because the asstronot does not so much as flinch his legs to make such a "jump". He just looks like a puppet on a string being lifted. Portions of this video are no longer in the Apollo archives, so check it out quick before youtube pulls it.
FF to the 5:00 min mark.
watch?v=Ui1TVGEJqHA
Shills go ape and jump off the deep end when they see this chit.
fanbutton 2 years ago
check all my vids, fanbutton, combed nasa for long time to find the best
pt1gard 2 years ago
ugh
you must be hoaxtard #1
StraydogO2 2 years ago
Nut job.
dbnstng 2 years ago
Could any scientist distinguish a rocks origin lets say from a meteor found on the surface of Antarctica, a meteor that lands in north America or one that they were initially told came from the moon?
bil1yjoe 3 years ago 3
In reecent news: It was found that the Moon is actually made of cheese. The sort of cheese is yet to be determined but several countries have already claimed rights to mine the Moon's valuable cheese resources.
DevilDan83 3 years ago
bamBozo... You are getting to be just as tiring as your buddies, zakabong, and Head full of rocks...You have been spewing the same propaganda rrhetoric as those other clowns for months now, with absolutely no new ideas, or thoughts. You follow the same silly pattern of name calling rather than debating issues.
If you are "not buying into this", then there are plenty of "I love Apollo" sites for you to go over to. Stop wasting our time by coming in here!
northerntruthseeker 3 years ago 4
Reasons for NASA to fake a moon mission:
Lets just start with a few:
They knew they could not do it, (radiation, technology at the time, etc) but because of the money flowing in, they needed something to give to the public...
The propaganda effect of having the US be the first there due to the so called Cold War....
These are only a start..... And some of the damning evidence justifies these two for a start...
So again, where is the independent verification of the lunar landings????
northerntruthseeker 3 years ago 3
I see one of the banned propagandists, bambino291, has returned from his exile....
Mr. bambino, as stated before: We have been asking where is the proof that they put men on the moon other than what is put out by NASA... In simpler terms: Is there any independent verification of the authenticity of the so called "Moon Missions" other than what NASA claims?
I can see why you were banned before, and why you are heading towards being banned again!
northerntruthseeker 3 years ago 2
"We have been asking where is the proof that they put men on the moon other than what is put out by NASA"
So your saying that until you have some sort of independent verification your going to ignore the physical evidence like the Lunar samples? Why don't you at least bring a up a reason as to why NASA would even need to fake the landings in the first place.
Sorry kids, I'm not buying into your claims because they lack any sort of support.
bambino291 3 years ago
This video is not playable here in Brazil.
katananja 3 years ago
Dam Youtube!
Aurinkohirvi 2 years ago
It takes lots of guts for you to go out there and make an ass of yourself. I mean, it takes balls to put your name on this kind of BS.
I want to know one thing, what experts in their relevant fields support your claims that Apollo was a hoax?
Is there any?
bambino291 3 years ago
I really admire the hard work you do in exposing the Apollo Hoax, Jarrah .. It takes a lot of guts to go public with your real identity, especially when being constantly lied about and insulted by game playing trolls like zakabog, and lying sociopaths like svector... cont.
straydog02 3 years ago 2
You should be proud of your accomplishments and also very proud of the fact that you never allowed these propagandists to stop you with their transparent character assassinations of you and their ridicule of your efforts to uncover the truth about Project Apollo.
Keep up the good work, and hopefully one day "the truth will out'.
straydog02 3 years ago
This is a most excellent continuation of your 'Moon-Faker' series, i like your videos here because they deal with the hard questions and give you something to really sink your teeth into rather than fan the flames of our imaginations with fantasy stories, your tapping at the root core of the illusion not adding to it, your pursuit of truth in this matter is already legendary and you honor the memories of those lost who also selflessly tried to inform us of this grand illusion.
b6gm6n 3 years ago
from what i have seen so far in this video is that virtually all the quotes say that "hardly any" or "virtually no" water was found in the moon rocks" not that none was found.Which is consistent with the latest findings.I dont see the point here,this is not new evidence just attempted manipulation.
delahaye100 3 years ago
No, the point is to clarify the fact that there has been water in the alleged Moon rocks all along. But MSM like to pretend that there isn't. Really. Scientists (if you still want to call some of them that these days) always ASS-U-ME that the water they always find in these rocks is from earth or spaceship or tools contamination.
Almost all of today's science is secular.
Remember, MSM personalities read from a script. They often have no idea what they are reading.
Grumblingone 3 years ago
"Remember, MSM personalities read from a script. They often have no idea what they are reading."
So how exactly do you explain the researchers believing that they are the first ones to find water inside these rocks? How about the journal that published their findings? Is it that the scientists were getting their information from the main stream media? Or do the scientists just not know what they're talking about?
zakabog 3 years ago
"Or do the scientists just not know what they're talking about?"
No, you're the one who doesn't know what he's talking about, troll zak.
straydog02 3 years ago
"No, you're the one who doesn't know what he's talking about, troll zak."
I asked for an explanation as to why the researchers believed they were the first to detect water in these rocks and rather than answering you simply imply I'm a fool then call me a troll. I thought I was the one using distraction tactics? You obviously don't have an answer to the question and rather than admitting that you come back with insults.
Perhaps this time you'll answer the original question?
zakabog 3 years ago
We live in a Statist society, we ALL do. Everyone on this damn globe but primitive tribes.
Humanists have created their world religion and developed all kinds of stories backed up by bad science, crazy theories, and consensual opinion fed to us through the mass media.
The stories are just as made up as any religion.
You are a slave and will only be TOLD what will increase profits and/or soothe the population.
Or rally them for war of course. A never ending campaign.
Grumblingone 3 years ago
"So how exactly do you explain the researchers believing that they are the first ones to find water inside these rocks?"
They are uninformed of original experiments?
Consensus was to say that the water that has been known exist in the rocks is just contamination?
They were told to keep their trap shut about it if they wanted more funding?
I can go on.
The point is they are feeding us this info now for some reason.
MSM is propaganda not truth. Learn it know it live it.
Grumblingone 3 years ago
"They are uninformed of original experiments?"
Not likely as the article was published in peer reviewed papers and the scientific community seems to agree that they were in fact the first one to find water.
"Consensus was to say that the water that has been known exist in the rocks is just contamination?"
and
"They were told to keep their trap shut about it if they wanted more funding?"
That can't be the the case because they claim they found water, not that it was contamination.
zakabog 3 years ago
Ok, I'm done with this, you playing dumb is getting real old. Enjoy your ignorance.
Grumblingone 3 years ago
"Ok, I'm done with this, you playing dumb is getting real old."
Yeah, it's playing dumb to admit that suicide happens. Or that people have emotions that can be affected by things like divorce, losing your job, not having kids.
zakabog 3 years ago
"Yeah, it's playing dumb to admit that suicide happens.."
Looks like Grumblingone has your number too, TROLL zakabog.. Some things are definately worth repeating.."Ok, I'm done with this, you playing dumb is getting real old. Enjoy your ignorance."
Ditto to that!.. I've known for quite awhile that you play dumb just to frustrate & anger whoever you are debating & that your silly Apollo propaganda is total BULLSHIT!
Now reply real fast troll! Be sure to "win" your little "one up" game!
straydog02 3 years ago
So in the end the "evidence" that the Apollo samples are fake is that small trace amounts of water are found in the rocks?
bambino291 3 years ago
"So in the end the "evidence" that the Apollo samples are fake is that small trace amounts of water are found in the rocks?"
No, it's not just that.. The Apollo rocks are ALL common feldspar, breccia and besalt Earth rocks.. But aside from that, NO geologists have ever been allowed to study more than very tiny slivers and sand, which could have been picked up by unmanned missions.. Nobody has ever seen ALL of the ALLEGED 840 lbs of Apollo rocks.. So there's no proof that they even exist.
straydog02 3 years ago 2
"The Apollo rocks are ALL common feldspar, breccia and besalt Earth rocks.."
OMG! It's like the moon was formed from the same stuff as the earth! Oh, yeah, that's the widely accepted theory for the formation of the Moon.
"NO geologists have ever been allowed to study more than very tiny slivers and sand,"
Except the ones in this video that got to examine much larger glass beads for water.
Plus I've given you a site that lists a lot of people that studied large samples of moon rocks.
zakabog 3 years ago
Grrr zakabog, you and your little nitpicking without doing any research of your own. V. annoying.
By now I'm quite sure you are either a shill or just only have a fifth grade education.
Here are a few other links that support JW.
Grumblingone 3 years ago
"Grrr zakabog, you and your little nitpicking without doing any research of your own. V. annoying."
Care to be more specific on what I'm being nitpicky about or what research I'm failing to do?
zakabog 3 years ago
The hole is 10m WIDE not 10m DEEP
So... the material should be very similar.
Since there were no cameras on the moon to view this we will have to trus thier assumptions
ESA SMART-1 expected impact results.
esa(dot)int/esaMI/SMART-1/SEMKTCBUQPE_0(dot)html
Possibly SMART-1 will skid for a short distance after impact, throwing up dust ahead of it and spraying dust out on either side like the wings of a butterfly. The crater made by SMART-1 will be 3 to 10 metres wide and perhaps a metre deep
Grumblingone 3 years ago
"So... the material should be very similar."
Why? Are the minerals found in the granite rocks of Yosemite similar to those found in the limestone rocks of Sedona?
zakabog 3 years ago
LOL I knew you would say that. My bad. Point was about the width not the depth of the hole.
I'm still looking into this info. Too many abstracts.
Grumblingone 3 years ago
A couple of links about the search for the missing tapes.
PDF documenting the search for the missing NASA tapes
parkes(dot)atnf(dot)csiro(dot)au/news_events/apollo11/The_Apollo11_SSTV_Tapes_Search(dot)pdf
Hoagland C2C interview about the missing NASA tapes
youtube(dot)com/watch?v=w6p2-v8A6rc
Grumblingone 3 years ago
Report from about 1 year before they announced to Space(dot)com
2007 Brown U. Report Page 11 Intro.
"Small amounts of water have always been detected..."
docstoc(dot)com/docs/828060/Lunar-and-Planetary-Science-XXXVIIIfull554
They always ASSUMED the water was earth contamination. Ass-U-Me
Grumblingone 3 years ago
Quick timeline for Tom Baron's last days.
"On 5 January a North American spokesman told newsmen that the company was terminating Baron's services"
hq(dot)nasa(dot)gov/office/pao/History/SP-4204/ch18-4(dot)html
NASA Hearing 4-21-67 with Baron
clavius(dot)org/baron-test(dot)html
Baron's Death on or before 4-29-67
Ref. 22, last entry
history(dot)nasa(dot)gov/SP-4205/ch9-3(dot)html
Grumblingone 3 years ago
"Quick timeline for Tom Baron's last days."
What does this have to do with anything in this video or in the comments? My point was that Thomas Baron was potentially suicidal based on the information I've gathered on his life (middle aged man with no college, no job, once divorced, no children of his own.) You're only pointing to information that is already well known so I really don't understand the point of it?
zakabog 3 years ago
"What does this have to do with anything in this video or in the comments?"
Uh, 2 days ago this was discussed here. geeze.
"Thomas Baron was potentially suicidal"
says you and the propagandists.
archives(dot)cnn(dot)com/2000/HEALTH/03/15/divorce.suicide.wmd/index(dot)html
This study puts suicide/divorce at about 1/866
Not really that high, and is both men and women.
I can't find any info that says he was suicidal. Maybe as far as his current job went.
Grumblingone 3 years ago
"I can't find any info that says he was suicidal."
Read the testimony he gave in court, he was seeing a psychiatrist as well.
zakabog 3 years ago
Liar, he said he talked to Dr. Hare once. It was not an official psychiatric session.
Mr. BARON: That is all the doctors I had seen lately. I talked to Dr. Hare, the astronauts' doctor, I believe, or one of them on the staff.
Mr. FULTON: Was that for a physical condition or a mental condition?
Mr. BARON: I wouldn't know. It was after the inquiry board hearing. And I took it as a psychiatric examination.
The other doctors were medical for diabetes and a nervous condition/ulcer.
Grumblingone 3 years ago
"Liar, he said he talked to Dr. Hare once."
He went to the doctor, the doctor was a psychiatrist. Which part of "he went to a psychiatrist" am I lying about?
By the way, what did Thomas Baron say was causing his ulcers?
zakabog 3 years ago
No didn't say that either, you have no idea if he WENT to the doctor or the doctor CAME to him. And no where in the transcript does it say Dr. Hare IS a psychiatrist. All that was said is that he talked to this man, who was a doctor, and he TOOK it as a psychiatric examination.
Since he's unsure of the name, the doc maybe came to him?
The ulcers were due to job stress. Because his job was to report problems and he was shocked by the magnitude of negligence and outright disregard for the rules.
Grumblingone 3 years ago
"All that was said is that he talked to this man, who was a doctor, and he TOOK it as a psychiatric examination."
How many medical doctors in a hospital come to see you to talk about spacecraft and personal problems?
"The ulcers were due to job stress."
...and would you say someone who is stressed out to the point of having ulcers is generally pretty happy?
zakabog 3 years ago
"How many medical doctors in a hospital come to see you to talk about spacecraft and personal problems?"
I don't know, do you?
"...and would you say someone who is stressed out to the point of having ulcers is generally pretty happy?"
Maybe? Maybe not. Just because he is under stress does not mean he is suicidal.
My father had ulcers my whole life, still has them. He divorced my mom, got fired from a major corp and took 10 years to get back on his feet. Drinks a bit and still alive. Hmmm.
Grumblingone 3 years ago
Your tactics of trying to demonize this man by making him out to be depressed and suicidal or crazy, thereby invalidating anything he says in public opinion is weak-sauce.
This commie-marxist-socialist-facist tactic is boring. You lose. Assumptions are fine till you can discover facts. But to espouse assumptions as fact is just plain deceptive.
Now, back to the other evidence in this great film.
Care to comment on the other links I provided?
Grumblingone 3 years ago
"Your tactics of trying to demonize this man by making him out to be depressed and suicidal or crazy, thereby invalidating anything he says in public opinion is weak-sauce."
You really don't get the point of what I'm saying, the official story is that he committed suicide. The conspiracy theory is that he was murdered. I'm just pointing out that it's not so improbable that a man in his position commits suicide.
zakabog 3 years ago
Where is this "official story" please.
Links? Something? If not then you are just speculating. Or should I say desperately trying to get someone to admit you are right. Not gonna happen without something from you.
Nice tactic to compare "official" with "conspiracy" so that you can hope to give your side more credence.
Lets make this fair. We don't know. Although 3 random cops I have spoken to think this seems suspicious at the least.
Grumblingone 3 years ago
"Where is this "official story" please."
Newspaper articles from the county in florida at the time, and Thomas Baron's death certificate.
"Lets make this fair. We don't know. Although 3 random cops I have spoken to think this seems suspicious at the least."
Were they there at the accident? If not, their opinion doesn't matter much, since the cops that showed up at the crash site ruled his death a suicide (according to his death certificate.)
zakabog 3 years ago
So now we have a death certificate? Well of course there is one. Why didn't you bring this up along time ago we could have saved a ton of typing.
Do you have a link to it? Have you seen it? What about the articles you cite? It appears the article is not online. It is only referenced on Wiki and NASA as a collision that killed everyone in the car. No mention of suicide.
So you can say cops ruled it a suicide with no reference but I can't say I told the story to cops in return for an opinion?
Grumblingone 3 years ago
"Why didn't you bring this up along time ago we could have saved a ton of typing."
Because every conspiracy theorist website already says the death was ruled a suicide. I figured you'd believe those sites over an official government document...
"Do you have a link to it?"
It's not public information, you're going to have to contact Brevard County, FL for it.
"What about the articles you cite?"
It's called a library, browse through the newspapers from the time.
zakabog 3 years ago
"It's not public information"
Exactly so you haven't seen it either.
Neither one of us has any Idea what it really says.
"I figured you'd believe those sites over an official government document"
Now you are making assumptions about me.
I don't need conspiracy sites to point out the flaws in your case.
"It's called a library"
I can browse all I want, but since you are bringing it up, it is in your court to present the evidence. If you can't, your statements hold no water.
Grumblingone 3 years ago
"Exactly so you haven't seen it either."
It's called social engineering.
"Now you are making assumptions about me."
Oh, so as long as the government says they didn't kill the guy than you'll believe them?
"I can browse all I want, but since you are bringing it up, it is in your court to present the evidence."
I don't expect you to believe anything the mass media says so I'm not going to do the leg work (again) just to have you say "Well obviously they're lying."
zakabog 3 years ago
"So you can say cops ruled it a suicide with no reference but I can't say I told the story to cops in return for an opinion?"
Just about conspiracy theorist site out there dealing with Thomas Baron's death points out that the official story was suicide, then goes on to say that murder was more likely.
zakabog 3 years ago
I don't care what assumptions are made by other sites, we are dealing with clear information published on a site folks consider to be credible. A STATE run site.
What you are failing to realize is, the Official Story is an assumption strengthened by rumor and gossip and speculation. Just as it is on conspiracy sites. One side speculates one thing, the other speculates the opposite. The story isn't really Official, it's consensual opinion of people who support the STATE.
It's reported as a CRASH
Grumblingone 3 years ago
"It's reported as a CRASH"
By your own admission you didn't read any of the cited articles, so how do you know how it was reported?
Join ancestry[dot]com with a trial membership, find out all the information you can about Thomas Baron (including his SSN), use that information along with some basic social engineering to get a detailed death certificate from Brevard County FL (you need to be "family", unless you want to wait 8 more years for it to become public information) and see for yourself.
zakabog 3 years ago
"Read the testimony he gave in court, he was seeing a psychiatrist as well."
I would probably want to see a shrink too if my job was to list all of the overwhelming saftey concerns of Project Apollo.. But since when does seeing a psychiatrist mean that someone wants to end their life and take their whole family with them?
Your arguments are not only meaningless rhetoric, but also an insult to everyone's intelligence.
straydog02 3 years ago
The point is, he died less than a week after testifying.
The fact that he didn't go to college is just a cheap shot at his intelligence. He obviously was qualified for his job. They hired him didn't they?
Baron was a rank and file inspector at Kennedy from September 1965 until November 1966, when he asked for and received a leave of absence. (getting ready to get himself fired)
So, he knew he was probably going to get fired anyway but went through with the hearings. So job loss no suprise.
Grumblingone 3 years ago
"The point is, he died less than a week after testifying."
After spending a year of his life compiling a report which the court basically dismissed. That would be a pretty harsh blow to someone's self-esteem.
"The fact that he didn't go to college is just a cheap shot at his intelligence."
I was only pointing out that he isn't likely going to find another job at his age with his minimal education level, especially since no one in that field would ever want to hire him again.
zakabog 3 years ago
Nothing but assumptions.
Like... Water in moon rocks is just earth contamination.
Grumblingone 3 years ago
"Nothing but assumptions."
I'm sorry but to which point? I didn't assume he went to a psychiatrist he said that under oath in court.
As far as the report it was ignored in the trial as they only really wanted to know the names of people he talked to, they didn't quote the report or ask anything related to the actual text of the report (implying that they never read it.)
I'm only offering evidence that supports the theory that he could have been suicidal, not claiming that he definitely was.
zakabog 3 years ago
"You mean unemployed, uneducated, once divorced Tom Baron? Yeah, he was suicidal and ran his family into a train."
No, I mean Apollo Saftey Inspector Tom Baron, who was married with an adopted daughter. They were ALL permanently silenced exactly ONE WEEK after Baron submitted his 500 page WHISTLE BLOWING "missing" report, against the NAA, who was developing the Apollo crap for NASA. He claimed it would never get men to the Moon alive.. Strange how he's the one who didn't stay alive, isn't it?
straydog02 3 years ago
"No, I mean Apollo Saftey Inspector Tom Baron, who was married with an adopted daughter."
Well the Tom Baron I'm talking about was a safety inspector but he was a safety inspector at NAA, not Apollo, till he was fired a year before his death.
zakabog 3 years ago
"Well the Tom Baron I'm talking about was a safety inspector but he was a safety inspector at NAA, not Apollo, till he was fired a year before his death."
Baron worked for NAA as a SAFTEY INSPECTOR for the APOLLO CRAFT THEY WERE DEVELOPING FOR NASA .. The same craft that Baron told Congress ONE WEEK before he was KILLED, would NEVER GET MEN TO THE MOON AND BACK ALIVE.
Baron and his family all died for that one!
But you still wonder why geologists etc. won't out Apollo? .. Riight.
straydog02 3 years ago
"Baron worked for NAA as a SAFTEY INSPECTOR for the APOLLO CRAFT THEY WERE DEVELOPING FOR NASA."
Ah, but not at the time of his death. At the time of his death he was unemployed, no college degree, and had been once divorced.
zakabog 3 years ago
"Ah, but not at the time of his death. At the time of his death he was unemployed, no college degree, and had been once divorced."
Of course he was unemployed .. NAA fired him after he did his job correctly and then blew the whistle on their complete incompetence! .. Do you really think him being "once divorced" had anything to do with his and his family's convienently timed "accident"? .. How absurd!
straydog02 3 years ago
"Do you really think him being "once divorced" had anything to do with his and his family's convienently timed "accident"?"
So you've never heard of anyone ever being depressed after a divorce? After they lost their job? If Tom Baron just won the lottery and then drove into a train I'd say that's suspicious. But to say that a middle aged man on the 10th anniversary of his first wedding, with no job, no formal education, no kids of his own, killed himself is not that far of a stretch.
zakabog 3 years ago
"But to say that a middle aged man on the 10th anniversary of his first wedding, with no job, no formal education, no kids of his own, killed himself is not that far of a stretch."
If that's all it takes to want to kill yourself, then half the people still alive in the world, should be dead already.
straydog02 3 years ago
"So you've never heard of anyone ever being depressed after a divorce?"
I believe I already cited a study on this. Yes it's possible but unlikely. 1 out of 866 isn't common.
"But to say that a middle aged man on the 10th anniversary of his first wedding, with no job, no formal education, no kids of his own, killed himself is not that far of a stretch."
Actually it is, you are only making assumptions about his state. What you described actually happens to quite a few men.
Grumblingone 3 years ago
"Actually it is, you are only making assumptions about his state."
You're kidding... what exactly in that sentence am I assuming?
"What you described actually happens to quite a few men."
No shit, really? Did you also know that people in that sort of situation are more likely to kill themselves than someone not in that situation (someone employed, married, college education, with children of their own)? Sometimes the suicide involves taking along the family.
zakabog 3 years ago
"what exactly in that sentence am I assuming?"
You are assuming and trying to get others to assume that a person who seeks to talk to someone about person issues is suicidal, and there is something wrong with him/her.
"more likely to kill themselves"
.000001% is more likely. Agreed.
This is an underlying theme in society today, deliberately introduced to cause strife and an excuse to dismiss peoples' testimonies, observations and evidence.
Grumblingone 3 years ago
"You are assuming and trying to get others to assume that a person who seeks to talk to someone about person issues is suicidal, and there is something wrong with him/her."
I said in that sentence, in that sentence I'm only pointing out the facts, each one known to statistically increase a persons chances of committing suicide.
".000001% is more likely. Agreed."
Actually divorce is the number one linking factor in suicides today.
zakabog 3 years ago
"But with the events leading up to the crash in question, the assumption of suicide seems less likely, as there was motive for murder."
What motive? Baron's report had already been presented, Baron had already testified.
Also, Baron's testimony before Congress ended up being quite embarrassing, not to mention that he believed that three men had burned alive because of failures in his former department. It seems perfectly reasonable that he might do something crazy.
ImTheSecretSquare 3 years ago
"What motive? Baron's report had already been presented, Baron had already testified. "
And that would have been the end of it?
How stupid are you?
He would have just said his peace and everyone would have gone on their merry way as if nothing had happened?
Whether or not he killed himself or was silenced the problems went away and the program moved ahead.
"It seems perfectly reasonable that he might do something crazy."
You watch too much TV
Grumblingone 3 years ago
"Whether or not he killed himself or was silenced the problems went away and the program moved ahead."
What are you talking about? How would Thomas Baron's death have made any problems go away? The Apollo 1 fire had already happened and an investigation was underway. Please describe exactly why you believe Thomas Baron was killed. What influence did his death have on anything?
ImTheSecretSquare 3 years ago
"Please describe exactly why you believe Thomas Baron was killed."
He was killed because he went public with the Apollo debacle .. He also wrote a detailed 500 page report, describing the saftey hazzards and the shoddy hardware, being developed by NAA for NASA .. A report that went missing right after he and his family "committed suicide by train", one week after he testified that NASA didn't have a shot of getting men to the Moon in the NAA crap.
straydog02 3 years ago
"He was killed because he went public with the Apollo debacle"
So? There were senators that wanted to cut funding because they felt it was a waste, why were they still alive?
"He also wrote a detailed 500 page report, describing the saftey hazzards and the shoddy hardware, being developed by NAA for NASA"
Which would hurt NAA, not NASA.
"A report that went missing right after he and his family "committed suicide by train""
Conveniently you lost the source for that information.
zakabog 3 years ago
"one week after he testified that NASA didn't have a shot of getting men to the Moon in the NAA crap."
You think he was the only person that felt NASA couldn't make it to the moon? Why do you think NASA cares what some high school educated quality inspector thinks? He thought EVERYTHING was shoddy, according to NAA and his co-workers he submitted reports about everything. Why would NASA care about the boy that cried wolf especially when he worked at NAA and never saw what NASA was building?
zakabog 3 years ago
"You think he was the only person that felt NASA couldn't make it to the moon?"
No, I'm sure many people thought that.. Especially the ones developing the shoddy Apollo hardward.
"Why do you think NASA cares what some high school educated quality inspector thinks?"
Because he was hired to inspect everything being developed for Apollo, and he publicly blew the whistle on NAA's complete incompetence in developing the craft that was suppossed to get men to the Moon and back alive.
straydog02 3 years ago
"Because he was hired to inspect everything being developed for Apollo"
No he wasn't, he was hired as a general safety inspector by NAA, not specifically for Apollo craft (unless you think he has some spacecraft expertise?).
"and he publicly blew the whistle on NAA's complete incompetence"
Yes, NAA, not NASA. NASA could have used his argument to put all the blame on NAA since Baron claimed NAA wasn't up to the standards required by their contract.
zakabog 3 years ago
"No he wasn't, he was hired as a general safety inspector by NAA, not specifically for Apollo craft (unless you think he has some spacecraft expertise?)."
NAA wouldn't have hired Baron if he didn't know how to do his job right.. It was the fact that he blew the whistle on their shoddy workmanship of the Apollo craft, that got him fired.
straydog02 3 years ago
"NAA wouldn't have hired Baron if he didn't know how to do his job right.."
I didn't say he didn't know how to do his job right, I just said he wasn't hired especially for Apollo. He was a general safety inspector. His only contact with Apollo craft was through NAA so how could he have any expertise with Apollo craft before NAA hired him?
zakabog 3 years ago
"His only contact with Apollo craft was through NAA so how could he have any expertise with Apollo craft before NAA hired him? "
It didn't take a rocket scientist to see that the craft being developed by NAA, to fly men to the Moon, was a pile of crap and that the men responsible for the astronauts saftey were completely incompetent .
Three dead Apollo astronauts in the Apollo 1 fire was proof of that!
straydog02 3 years ago