PDA

View Full Version : Clyde Lewis is at it again.



LunarOrbit
2002-Jun-16, 05:09 PM
If anyone is interested in "debating" the moon hoax with Clyde Lewis, he has started talking about it in his forum (http://www.aros.net/~gzero/cgi-bin/ikon302/ikonboard.cgi) again.

So far he has only made one post on the subject but he has promised more are on the way.

His first post was in regards to Thomas Baron and the "mysterious" deaths of ten astronauts.

Here is the address for his forum:
http://www.aros.net/~gzero/cgi-bin/ikon302/ikonboard.cgi

I was recently unbanned... I guess he was bored not having anyone there to argue with.

JayUtah
2002-Jun-16, 05:41 PM
The only reason Thomas Baron is anything other than a footnote is Sen. Walter Mondale, who was prepared to latch onto anything he felt would embarrass NASA and redirect its funding. Mondale is responsible for getting him on Congress' agenda. Of course Baron's evidence toward Apollo 1 completely collapsed, so we're left with his hearsay about North American's practices.

His death was ruled a familial suicide, and that's very much what it looks like. Baron had emotional problems, he had a chronic illness, and he had been publicly humiliated. Killing him after he testifies is a bit like closing the barn door after the horse runs away.

The problem of the other astronauts' deaths is mitigated by the issue of incidents versus the fatalities. Bassett and See, for example, were killed in the same incident. Ditto with Grissom, White, and Chaffee. Half of the fatalities are accounted for by only two incidents. Since probability dictates incidents, you have to consider the incidents when deciding whether these were deliberate acts or just bad rolls of the dice.

Then there's Ted Freeman, whose aircraft ingested a bird. There is absolutely no question of that. Did the CIA train a bird to fly up into his engine? Freeman had ample time to eject and save his life. But like many pilots, he chose to put the safety of those on the ground first and aim his aircraft in a safe direction.

The hoax believers want you to see ten "suspicious" deaths. A less hysterical examination reveals a set of accidents not unremarkable in their nature or frequency, however unfortunate and tragic.

LunarOrbit
2002-Jun-16, 06:08 PM
I was planning on making many of those same points in Clyde's forum later.

I guess NASA has a giant weather machine that they used to cause the Bassett/See crash.

I can only think of eight astronauts that died... Bassett, See, Givens, Freeman, Grissom, White, Chaffee, CC Williams... who were the other two?

I don't know what HB's even make such a big deal out of Baron... he was criticizing the safety practices of NASA and North American... he never said going to the moon is impossible.

The really funny thing is that Clyde thinks he's making an original claim, as if no other HB's have even mentioned the astronaut deaths or Thomas Baron before.


Kel

JayUtah
2002-Jun-16, 08:04 PM
I guess NASA has a giant weather machine that they used to cause the Bassett/See crash.

I've read lots of analysis by expert T-38 pilots, some of whom believe Elliot See acted recklessly and some of whom believe he flew the aircraft skilfully. But no one believes he was deliberately downed, and there's no evidence of it.

who were the other two?

Dunno; you'll have to ask him. Perhaps he means to include Jim Irwin or some of the other astronauts who have subsequently passed away. Conspiracy theorists believe Irwin was about to spill the beans and so the CIA caused him to have a heart attack. (Never mind he had had one prior, and the record of his heart problem goes back to the Apollo 15 cardiographic telemetry.)

he [Baron] never said going to the moon is impossible.

But his testimony provides what hoax believers consider circumstantial evidence that the American aerospace industry was not on track to get to the moon. Baron's report and Gen. Sam Phillips' similar denunciation of North American's schedule slippages paint exactly the kind of picture of NASA that Mondale wanted to potray.

But neither formal report addresses NASA's role in the events and conditions leading up to Apollo 1 or NASA's contribution to the NAA schedule slippages: Baron, because it was largely irrelevant to his focus; Phillips because he was arguing NASA's case against NAA. Angle of Attack argues the opposite case, and the truth likely lies somewhere in between.

Of course there's a nugget of truth in all that. Everyone admits that prior to the Apollo 1 fire they program was moving too fast and that some accident was probably inevitable.

The really funny thing is that Clyde thinks he's making an original claim

He may be unaware of the other claims, but they have indeed been made before. Bill Kaysing talks about it all the time.

johnwitts
2002-Jun-16, 08:21 PM
Who is Clyde Lewis?

LunarOrbit
2002-Jun-16, 11:05 PM
He's a nobody. Just a two-bit radio show host with delusions of gradeur... just like Art Bell. I'm not surprised you haven't heard of him.

He likes to scare people with stories of the impending armegeddon. It's ironic that he has the same initials as "Chicken Little".

He is also a big Ashcroft and Bush basher. I would even say he has a vendetta against them. He goes out of his way to turn everything they say or do into something bad.

I don't know why I waste my time with him.


Kel

johnwitts
2002-Jun-16, 11:18 PM
We've never heard of him in the UK, so I've got the advantage of taking his statements at face value, without any 'previous'. Still, you're assessment seems accurate from the little I now know from joining his little forum.

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2002-Jun-17, 11:02 AM
On 2002-06-16 14:08, LunarOrbit wrote:
I can only think of eight astronauts that died... Bassett, See, Givens, Freeman, Grissom, White, Chaffee, CC Williams... who were the other two?


I hope that he's Not Trying to Include Alan B. Shepard, Jr., who was Born only a Dozen Miles, or So, from my Own Hometown.

Not only did he Die of Natural Causes, as well, but his Respiratory Illness, Probably had, at least, a Casual Relationship, with his Lunar Flight!

JayUtah
2002-Jun-17, 03:33 PM
Maybe he means Pete Conrad, who was killed in a motorcycle accident about the same time Shepard died. Strangely, Conrad struck me as the guy most likely to keep a hoax secret, just for the sheer entertainment value of it.

LunarOrbit
2002-Jun-17, 03:38 PM
I think he was refering to just astronauts who died during the time of Apollo, so he better not be talking about Irwin, Shepard, Conrad, etc.


Kel

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: LunarOrbit on 2002-06-17 11:40 ]</font>

Karamoon
2002-Jun-17, 09:26 PM
Jay: Killing him after he testifies is a bit like closing the barn door after the horse runs away.

But was he killed because he had knowledge as to who it was who opened the barn door in the first place, allowing the horse to escape?

NAA had stitched him up, and he wasn't best pleased. And in all likelihood he wasn't about to retire quietly and move out to some far-off land. So before he wrote a third report, or a lengthy article to a tabloid broadsheet, or--heavens above--a book!, they moved to dispose of him and those who he had confided in (i.e. those immediately around him).

Case closed. No more blabbing or fear of retribution from Thomas "people must do what they think is right" Baron, then. "I mean, that guy was so self-righteous." {Brushes hands clean and pats CIA colleague on the back over another job well done}.

It is not that you don't accept this view, Jay, it is simply that you reject it out of hand, which drives me to comment.


LunarOrbit: I don't know what HB's even make such a big deal out of Baron... he was criticizing the safety practices of NASA and North American... he never said going to the moon is impossible.

The Baron issue has kind of taken on a life of its own, where I am concerned. The CIA kill people all of the time -- it is in their job description, for crying out loud. Apollo was vastly important to the Cold War, and failure was not an option. The last thing they needed was people forever stoking the anti-Apollo fire. Some people they managed to get "on-side" by wining-and-dining them, and telling them how much they appreciate their "constructive" criticism. But for some unbending and upstanding folk they chose to blacken the reputations of, and so forth. It is a tried and tested formula, and -- for the most part -- it works a treat. The alpha media corps have been on board for a great many years. Or as Edgar Mitchell eloquently puts it: The history of press collusion with intelligence agencies on matters of "National Security" goes back over 50 years. This special "relationship" is not confined to the media corps, either. Many establishments are willing to protect the "status quo", because they have a part stake in the "status quo" and how it is run.

JayUtah
2002-Jun-17, 09:37 PM
But was he killed because he had knowledge as to who it was who opened the barn door in the first place, allowing the horse to escape?

Your cart is before the horse. The first question is, "Was he killed?" You haven't sufficiently addressed that question. All you have is a very elaborate, subjective house of cards.

It is not that you don't accept this view, Jay, it is simply that you reject it out of hand, which drives me to comment.

I don't reject it out of hand. I'm just waiting for you to prove it. You've concocted quite a wonderful spy thriller plot, but if you want it accepted as historical fact you're going to have to do a bit more than what you've been doing.

The Baron issue has kind of taken on a life of its own, where I am concerned.

And that's the problem. Mondale wanted some way to embarrass NASA and sour its funding. Hoax believers want something that makes NASA and its contractors seem technically incapable of a moon landing. And so all these ulterior motives turn to the spectre of Thomas Baron. But when push comes to shove, Baron doesn't have much to offer. The whole Baron issue is a grossly inflated footnote.

The CIA kill people all of the time -- it is in their job description, for crying out loud.

That doesn't prove the CIA or anyone else killed Thomas Baron.

The rest of your post is just melodramatic speculation. You've spoken at great length about Thomas Baron and his fate. But you've failed to provide Step One: proof that Baron was actually murdered. Until then, the rest of your argument is no more credible than fiction.

Karamoon
2002-Jun-17, 09:59 PM
Jay: Your cart is before the horse. The first question is, "Was he killed?" You haven't sufficiently addressed that question. All you have is a very elaborate, subjective house of cards.

I cannot prove it, granted, but I can still smell the handy work of covert forces. Okay, that is not enough to have the historical record changed -- I will quite gladly acknowledge this also -- but then I do not expect the historical record to be changed, especially when we have organization like the CIA in operation. Truth is a cornerstone of God, and truth is an enemy of the CIA. They are best at misinformation, lies, spin, fabrication, assassination, overthrowing other governments, protecting the status quo, etc. etc. The CIA were involved from the very start to the very end of the Apollo debacle. Their presence was even detected and documented in the aftermath of the Apollo 1 fire. With this knowledge in hand I am calling it as I see it. I believe Thomas Baron was being truthful when he reported what others had told him. You obviously deem Thomas Baron to be a barefaced liar, you just can't bring yourself to say as much.

"When you rig the game, you always win."

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Karamoon on 2002-06-17 18:01 ]</font>

johnwitts
2002-Jun-17, 10:26 PM
Karamoon, NAA had problems with the Apollo 1 Command Module, a fatal flaw. All of the previous tests and procedures said the pressure test was safe, it turned out not to be. This is the nature of testing experimental aircraft/spacecraft. Build the thing as best you can, then test it. At some point, this test would have to be performed, and maybe it had already been performed before, and was due to be performed again. After the fire there was a big investigation. Sen. Mondale had a vested interest in ending the expensive space program. So he went out of his way to find someone who would help him. Who better than a disgruntled ex-employee? Had an accident happened when testing the LM, then perhaps Mondale would have gone looking to Grummen employees for someone willing to bad mouth the company. I know where I work there are always folks ready to complain to anyone who will listen about how bad things are. Imagine being able to do that to an official committee? Ultimate whine.

When they took a similar spec CM and deliberately set it on fire to see what would happen, the engineers were seriously shocked at the lethality of the machine that they had built. Some were so distressed that they left the space program altogether, and some had phsychological problems after.

Karamoon, this is not an indication of a conspiracy, it's just life. It's everywhere, in every organisation. I can imagine there are people where you work who are not very good at their job, yet are the first to complain when things go wrong for them. And some people may be driven to suicide because they've been shown to be no good at a job at which they thought they were the best of the best. It happens all the time.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: johnwitts on 2002-06-17 18:28 ]</font>

JayUtah
2002-Jun-17, 10:46 PM
I cannot prove it, granted, but I can still smell the handy work of covert forces.

No, you just have an obsession with covert forces and see them everywhere, whether there's any evidence of it or not. I'm not convinced or impressed by paranoia.

I am calling it as I see it.

As am I.

I believe Thomas Baron was being truthful when he reported what others had told him.

That he genuinely believed his informants in some cases, and genuinely reported his observations in others, has little to do with whether those descriptions were fully true, unbiased, significant, or relevant.

In the hands of a powerful Democrat with an axe to grind, they were given exposure which they generally did not deserve, and they were largely shot down.

You obviously deem Thomas Baron to be a barefaced liar, you just can't bring yourself to say as much.

I'll state my own arguments, thank you.

I think Baron had an exaggerated opinion of what his hearsay represented, how it affected NAA and the space program, and what should have been done to address it. I think he had difficulty determining for himself what could be considered reliable information and what couldn't. I think he failed to exercise due diligence to verify his information before making public accusations based on them.

Karamoon
2002-Jun-17, 11:18 PM
John, I'm not looking to dispute aspects of the "tragedy and recovery" at this time. I understand the point you are making (and have made several times before). I am examining the process whereby Thomas Baron noted malfeasance, became outspoken, was screwed over (in my opinion), and suddenly committed suicide.

Johnwitts: Sen. Mondale had a vested interest in ending the expensive space program. So he went out of his way to find someone who would help him.

I'm curious. Are you able to tell me exactly what his "vested interest" was?

No conferring.

Who better than a disgruntled ex-employee?

But John, it boarders on convenience to label him a "disgruntled ex-employee". It is very suggestive. I do not believe Baron was as shallow as that (he is just looking to exact revenge, etc.). Regardless of my opinion, some of the committee members conducted a line of enquiry that hoped to establish that possibility, and Baron exonerated himself sufficiently.

And some people may be driven to suicide because they've been shown to be no good at a job at which they thought they were the best of the best. It happens all the time.

Who said Baron was "no good" at his job? Some people say he overstepped his mark (like Jay), but that should not detract from his daily dealings and rectifications.

Karamoon
2002-Jun-17, 11:22 PM
Jay: No, you just have an obsession with covert forces and see them everywhere, whether there's any evidence of it or not. I'm not convinced or impressed by paranoia.

I believe that I have raised serious questions and doubts surrounding the testimony of Mervin Holmburg and Thomas Baron. If you suddenly feel that my contribution is worth very little or that I am plagued with paranoia then, um, huh? Please hold on one moment..

That's odd. My camera light is flashing. You've hacked into my web camera, HAVEN'T YOU!

I'll state my own arguments, thank you.

Well, Baron is on record as having accused Holmburg, yet you believe Holmburg's version of events. So that surely makes Baron a liar, right? Or are you now claiming he is completely delusional, or something?

JayUtah
2002-Jun-17, 11:27 PM
All of the previous tests and procedures said the pressure test was safe, it turned out not to be. This is the nature of testing experimental aircraft/spacecraft.

This is more true than you realize. The Block I CM had been tested numerous times in vacuum chambers, undergone flammability tests, and completed two unmanned flight tests.

So what went wrong with the plugs-out test? In a nutshell: test. That is, the CM was filled with equipment to facilitate the test -- stuff that wouldn't be there during a flight. It was filled with protective coverings and packaging that was to be removed before the flight.

All the anti-combustion tests and designs and reviews had been on the flight configuration of the spacecraft. The scary tests came when they duplicated the exact Apollo 1 cabin environment and lit it up in high-pressure oxygen. The fatal mistake was assuming there was nothing inherently dangerous about the plugs-out test configuration.

So when you read the procedures for implementing the recommendations of the AS-204 Review Board, you have a very few items that relate to the design and manufacture of the spacecraft:

1. Make sure the electrical work is behind armored conduits and its insulation is in good shape.

2. Don't let the ECS coolant leak.

3. Redesign the door so it can be opened in seconds instead of minutes.

4. Don't let the astronauts talk you into putting more Velcro in the cockpit than the rules allow.

5. Don't use a high-pressure oxygen environment.

And lots of the procedures had to do with fixing the test. Such as:

1. Make sure pad test people know how to fight fires.

2. Make sure fire and ambulance crews are on hand during tests.

3. Make sure firefighting equipment is there for the tests.

4. Don't allow non-flight materials in the cockpit even during the test.

And so forth.

With a few exceptions the flight configurations and procedures were reasonably safe. That's why it didn't take forever to return to manned flight status.

Karamoon
2002-Jun-17, 11:28 PM
Jay: The rest of your post is just melodramatic speculation.

Really, what part?

johnwitts
2002-Jun-17, 11:36 PM
I will agree that Baron was screwed over, but not by NASA. If anything, he was put on the stand to testify by the anti Apollo Sen. Mondale. It was he who set Baron up for a fall, in the hope of furthering his orn political agenda. NASA had nothing to fear from Barons Testimony. The evidence of 3 dead astronauts and a burnt out capsule were far more damning than the doom warnings from Baron. Compared to the other evidence, Barons testimony was insignificant.

JayUtah
2002-Jun-17, 11:39 PM
But John, it boarders on convenience to label him a "disgruntled ex-employee". It is very suggestive.

No, I think it's a very accurate characterization. He expressed dissatisfaction with his employment, his employers, and the conditions under which he had been required to work. And he was dismissed for insubordination.

Regardless of my opinion, some of the committee members conducted a line of enquiry that hoped to establish that possibility, and Baron exonerated himself sufficiently.

No, he did not. His answers were evasive and contradictory. For example, he said he was not appropriately promoted, yet he admitted he was not qualified to do the work to which he would have been promoted. Which is it? If he was not qualified, then his lack of promotion was justified. Baron maintains he had been slighted.

Some people say he overstepped his mark (like Jay), but that should not detract from his daily dealings and rectifications.

I strongly disagree. I have quite a bit of experience with underqualified and overzealous quality control inspectors. Not only does that mode of ineffectiveness produce disadvantageous results, it tends to "sour" peers and managers against whatever valid work the zealot might produce. I believe someone's misplaced zeal might extensively pervade various aspects of his life and work.

johnwitts
2002-Jun-17, 11:47 PM
We've got people like that where I work. They are the ones who do nothing to sort a problem that they can see, yet are the first to shout 'I told you so' when something goes wrong.

JayUtah
2002-Jun-17, 11:50 PM
I believe that I have raised serious questions and doubts surrounding the testimony of Mervin Holmburg and Thomas Baron.

All you've been able to raise is your opinion that you would have handled things differently. That's unconvincing.

That's odd. My camera light is flashing. You've hacked into my web camera, HAVEN'T YOU!

Are you kidding? I can't even get my own webcam to work.

Well, Baron is on record as having accused Holmburg, yet you believe Holmburg's version of events. So that surely makes Baron a liar, right?

Not necessarily. If by "liar" you mean an intentional prevarication, that is not my argument. I believe Baron was mistaken or remembered the conversation incorrectly.

In another thread I reported the experience of the so-called Gimli Glider. I got some of it wrong, partly because that's the way the story was told to me, and partly because I didn't remember everything about what had been told to me. Was I lying? Yes, in the sense that I alleged something that turned out not to be true. No, in the sense that I fully believed I was telling a substantially true story including true details.

Or are you now claiming he is completely delusional, or something?

Why must it be all or nothing? You want the argument to be either that Thomas Baron was a flag-draped hero, or that he was a raving, spitting lunatic. I'm not going to be drawn into such straw-man bifurcations. I have stated my argument and I don't believe it requires much amendment. One can have an inflated opinion -- and if that entails a mild delusion, so be it -- without being certifiable.

johnwitts
2002-Jun-18, 12:53 AM
So, does anyone want to help me out with this Clyde bloke. I've started an argument with him and he's finished it, saying I'm sidestepping the question. Help.

LunarOrbit
2002-Jun-18, 01:10 AM
Welcome to my hell (the Clyde Lewis forum) John. He's truly insane.

We give him the answers and he ignores them. We give him reason and logic and he ignores it. He's a typical HB.


Kel Jones
aka KJJ1975

johnwitts
2002-Jun-18, 01:15 AM
Sounds like fun! Now if we could persuade Jay to have a go...

johnwitts
2002-Jun-18, 01:21 AM
He's just not making sense now. So, does he believe what he's saying, or is he just stirring?

LunarOrbit
2002-Jun-18, 01:30 AM
I'm not sure. He has claimed in the past that he doesn't believe 90% of what he talks about... but I'm not sure I believe him.

Part of his attitude problem is just a personal vendetta against me. I guess I have come across sounding like a know-it-all after proving him wrong time after time in the past.

Sorry to drag you into that.

Karamoon
2002-Jun-18, 01:43 AM
Johnwitts: NASA had nothing to fear from Barons Testimony.

I disagree. I believe NASA feared that their paymasters would get the impression that Apollo was a huge waste of money, and that the project wasn't going to yield the desired result any time soon. NASA must surely have feared that Baron would contribute and uphold that negative view.

Johnwitts: Compared to the other evidence, Barons testimony was insignificant.

Again, I disagree. Baron had charged that his seniors were repeatedly turning a blind eye and shifting inexperienced people from one job to another. In light of the Apollo 1 fire, this could have been construed as criminal behavior.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Karamoon on 2002-06-18 17:45 ]</font>

Karamoon
2002-Jun-18, 01:44 AM
Jay: No, I think it's a very accurate characterization.

Okay, it is technically correct. He was disgruntled and he was an ex-employer. What I mean is it is being used in a very suggesting manner, in that his motives were suspect, and that he was looking to exact revenge.

Myself: Regardless of my opinion, some of the committee members conducted a line of enquiry that hoped to establish that possibility, and Baron exonerated himself sufficiently.

Jay: No, he did not. His answers were evasive and contradictory. For example, he said he was not appropriately promoted, yet he admitted he was not qualified to do the work to which he would have been promoted.

Irrelevant. We are talking about examining his motives, remember.

Mr. FULTON. Is your criticism either of NASA or North American directed at engineering procedures or systems? I don't believe it is, is it?

Mr. BARON. In some cases it is,

Mr. FULTON. Now, the other point that I would like to inquire into is your ability to observe or whether your observations might be colored by your own personal reasons or motives.
Myself: Some people say he overstepped his mark (like Jay), but that should not detract from his daily dealings and rectifications.

Jay: I strongly disagree. I have quite a bit of experience with underqualified and overzealous quality control inspectors.

When I said "overstepped the mark," I meant in regard to his observations.

But don't let that stop you from suggesting Baron was an overzealous and inexperience nobody looking to gain status, will you now.

Myself: I believe that I have raised serious questions and doubts surrounding the testimony of Mervin Holmburg and Thomas Baron.

Jay: All you've been able to raise is your opinion that you would have handled things differently. That's unconvincing.

Well if "handling things differently" means doing things thoroughly and dependably, then yes, I would have done it differently.

Jay: In another thread I reported the experience of the so-called Gimli Glider. I got some of it wrong ...

The fact you got the details wrong was not entirely your fault. You were fed incomplete or inaccurate data. As we know, this is a not too uncommon occurrence, almost like: The secret word is "mongoose", pass it along.....the secret word is "mongoon", pass it along.....the secret word is "moongnome", pass it along, and so on. But in Baron's case, he witnessed things firsthand, in his very person. And I would imagine that the information he received is further key, in its importance and that it would have been unforgettable.

Jay: Why must it be all or nothing?

Because I don't believe Baron had just that second got out of bed and was a little befuddled when he spoke to Holmburg, or that he had yawned and misheard what Holmburg had told him, or that an aeroplane passed overhead obscuring part of the conversation, or that Baron was tone-deaf, or that he later thought: "I can't remember a single thing he told me. I know, I'll make something up!", or that he dreamt a different conversation and mixed it up with the authentic one, or he was partially distracted, or that Holmburg's message was so boring he forgot what he had actually told him, or any other seemingly valid excuse you can conjuror up to bend the situation your way.

Jay: You want the argument to be either that Thomas Baron was a flag-draped hero, or that he was a raving, spitting lunatic.

No, I do not. I simply believe you cannot be mistaken over something like this, or that if he had doubts over what he had been told, he would not sell his obvious integrity and present it to the committee as fact. I simply think Baron was a stickler for the rules and he had pride in what he did. He talks about the responsibility he was handed and he carried out his work with an appropriate level of care and cation. This is self-evident from what notes exist today.

Jay: One can have an inflated opinion -- and if that entails a mild delusion, so be it

Finally! In order for Baron's case to be untrue, it actually requires him to be a liar or somewhat delusional. And, six months later (I have a copy of all our initial engagements on this topic) you have opted for delusion.

I can't say I am surprised.

In fact, over that period of time you have suggested or accused Thomas Baron of being overzealous, having an overactive imagination, susceptible to severe bouts of depression, claimed his observations are nitpicky and insignificant, of being badly in debt, being an attention seeker (and a media darling), being emotionally unbalanced, totally inexperience and out of his depth, a failure.

Now we can add to that list delusional.

Goodness me. NASA can't half pick'em, hey?

You initially claimed the reason he killed himself was because he had survivor guilt. That was until someone pointed out that it was much worse than that, because he had actually murdered his family as well. So you promptly shuffled on over to family related murder-suicide instead. Now what was that logical fallacy relating to those people who move from one theory to another the minute their old one is shown to be false?

This all sounds very much like the character assassination I was talking about a little earlier. You know, that post of mine you ended up fobbing off as being "melodramatic speculation."


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Karamoon on 2002-06-17 21:51 ]</font>

pvtpylot
2002-Jun-18, 02:02 AM
On 2002-06-17 21:30, LunarOrbit wrote:
I'm not sure. He has claimed in the past that he doesn't believe 90% of what he talks about... but I'm not sure I believe him.

Part of his attitude problem is just a personal vendetta against me. I guess I have come across sounding like a know-it-all after proving him wrong time after time in the past

Looks like you and john had him figured pretty well, though. His question about the odds was nothing but a setup for the claim you just knew would follow. The way the question was phrased about the odds, well of course they would be high. He was clearly trying to sucker you into arguing against a hypothetical, and leading, question. His last post about having no "bones" seemed, well, strange.

So, is that typical behavior for Mr. Lewis?

LunarOrbit
2002-Jun-18, 04:14 AM
Yep, that's him in a nutshell.

This is how things work at Clyde's forum. He posts a ridiculous theory, I give my opinion (which is usually that he is wrong), and then he goes ballistic.


Kel

pvtpylot
2002-Jun-18, 04:52 AM
Looked to me like he just threw a hissy when he couldn't get anyone to bite on his bogus "apropos of nothing else" question. Then to act like nobody else could figure out where he was going with his insinuations. Sheesh! Obviously he's someone who's used to "debating" with his groupies instead of people who know better. Lots of good belly-laugh topics in some of his other forums, though.

JayUtah
2002-Jun-18, 05:31 AM
What I mean is it is being used in a very suggesting manner, in that his motives were suspect, and that he was looking to exact revenge.

No, that's just continuous melodrama. I'm not claiming he was trying to exact revenge. I'm saying it colored his interpretation of events he either witnessed or which were recounted to him as hearsay.

Irrelevant. We are talking about examining his motives, remember.

No, that's what you want to talk about. Stop making straw men and listen.

Some of his criticisms obviously derived from how he believed he was treated. He believed he was treated poorly by North American. He gave numerous examples of this. But upon further examination, those cases in which he felt he had been mistreated might also have been explained by NAA management exercising due diligence in promotion, or allocating limited resources as prudently as possible.

I don't believe Baron's reaction was, "I'm gonna git NAA for what they did to me." In fact he says on a number of occasions that he was proud to work for the space program. But for those occurrences that have multiple interpretations, he chooses the one that puts NAA at fault without appearing to consider other possibilities.

When I said "overstepped the mark," I meant in regard to his observations.

Sorry, that wasn't clear. I assumed by "overstepped the mark" you were talking about his claims to diligence in his work.

But don't let that stop you from suggesting Baron was an overzealous and inexperience nobody looking to gain status, will you now.

Yeah, your statements are always absolutely crystal clear, and if someone gets the wrong impression it can't possibly be because your argument was stated ambiguously or unclearly.

Sheesh, Karamoon, lay off the gloating for a minute or two and stop putting words in my mouth.

Well if "handling things differently" means doing things thoroughly and dependably, then yes, I would have done it differently.

That's just restating your assertion, not supporting it. You accept only your definition of "thoroughly" and "dependably" in these events and brush off all the other possibilities. No matter how you rephrase it, it's still just your opinion and that proves nothing.

The fact you got the details wrong was not entirely your fault. You were fed incomplete or inaccurate data.

And perhaps Thomas Baron was fed incomplete or inaccurate data. This is exactly why hearsay is not admissible in court or in front of Congress, and exactly why hearsay isn't generally considered good evidence in any context (especially when other evidence is available), and exactly why Thomas Baron's testimony -- spoken or written -- had very limited applicability and reliability, and exactly why I believe it's been overstated by Walter Mondale and by you and the rest of the conspiracy theorists.

You were very gracious in not calling me a liar even though my statements were not factually correct. I have been similarly gracious in not calling Thomas Baron a liar, despite the factual errors in his testimony. You won't grant me credit for extending Baron that courtesy. You won't grant that I can say Baron just made mistakes, or failed to consider other possibilities, or got caught up in his enthusiasm.

Because I don't believe Baron had just that second got out of bed and was a little befuddled when he spoke to Holmburg, or [any of a whole lot of other mitigating factors] ...

It was a chance meeting at a drugstore. Do you think Baron had a notepad with him? Do you think he had a tape recorder?

No, in fact he recorded this conversation -- at the soonest -- after he got home, and possibly much later. And after the preliminary reports and final report of the AS-204 Review Board, which clearly contradicted the conversation he'd had with Holmburg, he did not apparently question his own recollection of the conversation.

I simply believe you cannot be mistaken over something like this, or that if he had doubts over what he had been told

Then you obviously know very little about eyewitness testimony. I can recommend some books if you wish to understand the factors affecting the reliability of memory and eyewitness testimony.

You simply assert that Baron can't have possibly made a mistake and leave it at that. I find it quite easy to believe he simply made a mistake, and perhaps several.

Finally! In order for Baron's case to be untrue, it actually requires him to be a liar or somewhat delusional.

No, "delusional" is the word you insist on using. And I understand why. If you can put that word in my mouth, it makes it a lot easier for you argue that my analysis of the Baron evidence is somehow extreme or polarized.

Sorry, but the argument you're clumsily trying to shove down my throat is not the argument I wish to make.

I have a copy of all our initial engagements on this topic

Then you won't have any trouble substantiating your accusations below.

you have opted for delusion.

No, I have allowed that if you want to call "delusional" the factors I say may have colored or influenced his recollection or interpretation, then you are free to do so.

Honestly, you aren't being very subtle here, Karamoon. You hound me until I say your "magic word" so then you can apply the same slippery slope methods you used above in order to shove my argument out to where it appears absurd and saves you the trouble of dealing with it.

susceptible to severe bouts of depression

No, stop putting words in my mouth. I said he was treated for a "nervous condition" (Baron's words) and that he had diabetes which required hospitalization and that statistically people with chronic diseases have a higher rate of depression and suicide.

And as you note below, I said that aerospace workers involved with technology that sometimes proves fatal have sometimes committed suicide or been treated for various emotional problems that stem from that. I have no evidence that this is true in Baron's case.

of being badly in debt

I don't claim to have any information on Baron's financial situation. Since you say you have records of all my arguments on this matter, I'm sure you can produce the post in which I made this claim.

being an attention seeker (and a media darling)

Thomas Baron sought media attention for his findings. I did not accuse him of grandstanding. I believe, on the contrary, that he felt his concerns were not being sufficiently addressed and so decided to take them to the public.

being emotionally unbalanced

Aside from the aforementioned unspecified "nervous condition" for which he received treatment, and the greater likelihood of depression and suicidal tendencies due to his work and to his state of physical health, I have made no other assertions regarding Baron's likely state of mental health.

totally inexperience and out of his depth, a failure.

No. I said he had less experience and education than those he presumed to criticize, and certainly less education and experience than the engineers who produced the designs and test specifications that Baron was expected to follow.

I did not say he was "totally" inexperienced.

Regarding being "out of his depth", Baron admitted not having the requisite skill and experience for some of the tasks he had been assigned to do. I do not presume that this was the case all the time.

You initially claimed the reason he killed himself was because he had survivor guilt.

No, I listed that among several potential risk factors for suicide that were evident in Baron's case, taken directly or inferred from his own statements.

Further, as I understand the concept of "survivor guilt", that is not my contention. I understand "survivor guilt" to be the emotional state of patients who undergo the circumstances of an accident or event in which others are killed, but the patient survives. I am not aware of any psychological evidence which suggests this condition carries a higher risk of suicide.

The condition of which I am speaking is that of people who are not involved in the actual fatal incident, but contributed in a fashion which they believe to be causal (whether it actually is or not) and the feelings of guilt derive from the belief that they may somehow have been negligent or culpable.

That was until someone pointed out that it was much worse than that, because he had actually murdered his family as well.

No, I have known all along that Baron's entire family had been killed.

So you promptly shuffled on over to family related murder-suicide instead.

No, I pointed out that heads of family who commit suicide -- for whatever reason -- frequently murder family members just prior to their own suicide attempt. And I cited psychological evidence supporting this contention.

I did not advance the murder-suicide evidence with the intent of changing my supposition of the motives for which Baron may have killed himself (and his family). You have implied otherwise, and I require you to specifically show in my prior arguments where this was stated.

Now what was that logical fallacy relating to those people who move from one theory to another the minute their old one is shown to be false?

To answer your question, it's the fallacy of ad hoc refinement.

To answer your accusation, I don't believe you have accurately represented my argument. The murder-suicide behavior in head-of-household suicides does not depend on the stated or inferred motives for the suicide and so does not constitute an "illogical" refinement of the argument. The argument discussed potential risk factors. The refinement discussed specific behaviors once those risk factors had performed their effects.

This all sounds very much like the character assassination I was talking about a little earlier.

Only because you've tried very hard to make it sound like a character assassination by applying slippery slope methodology to my statements and rewriting my prior argument to suit your prearranged plans for refutation.

If you're going to repeatedly attempt to shove my arguments out into left field in order to make them sound more outlandish than I intend, just so they're that much easier for you to dismiss as malice, then this discussion can serve little useful purpose.

JayUtah
2002-Jun-18, 06:13 AM
I believe NASA feared that their paymasters would get the impression that Apollo was a huge waste of money

Many of Congress had that opinion long before the Apollo 1 fire, and many still have it today. These are persistent opinions that are generally impervious to facts. Your characterization of Baron's role in this implies you think he was the only one who testified of misfeasance at NAA and elsewhere. That simply is not true. Baron's testimony, compared to the rest of the damning testimony regarding the Apollo 1 fire, was largely inconsequential.

NASA must surely have feared that Baron would contribute and uphold that negative view.

I don't accept evidence whereby you say "surely" how someone else would have thought and acted. This is no different than you saying how the president of NAA "surely" must have approached Holmburg and Baron, when there are in fact many possibilities.

NASA had little to fear from Baron because Baron's evidence mostly applied to NAA, and NASA was on record as having rebuked NAA for some of the same shortcomings that Baron's report alleged. NASA's kiester was covered. NAA's was not, but they had already demonstrated the willingness to address Baron's arguments and respond to them -- either to acknowledge that they were legitimate problems or to explain what was wrong with them.

In any case there are lesser means than murder to silence someone. If NAA did not want Baron to continue publishing, they could have sued Baron and his journalists for reckless endangerment, for libel, and for breach of any non-disclosure agreements Baron would have been bound by. Then a judge could have enjoined Baron from publishing any further material until the disposition of the case.

Baron had charged that his seniors were repeatedly turning a blind eye and shifting inexperienced people from one job to another.

You completely ignore some very important factors.

First, reliability. Baron can only testify reliably to what he observed or experienced directly. And that, unfortunately, limits the scope of his evidence to his very small corner of the Apollo universe. He may have heard stories from other people, but Baron did not verify those stories and so he (nor you) cannot assume they are true and have not been embellished or exaggerated. I know how corporate grapevines work in the U.S.

Second, relevance. What appears to Baron to be vital and crucial may not be as vital when seen in larger context. Congress did not have to rely on Baron's testimony to get the big picture. They could (and did) subpoena the managers and executives of the relevant companies and government agencies to put all the issues of incompetence and corner-cutting in the larger picture.

Third, interpretation. You simply believe that Baron's interpretation of other people's motives and actions must necessarily be the correct one. What you interpret as a "blind eye" might be the appropriate rejection of overzealous discrepancy chits by people with more education, skill, and experience than a rank-and-file inspector. What you interpret as the assignment of unqualified people to various tasks might be a temporary assignment whose work was checked later by qualified people.

I don't have any evidence that my interpretations are any more valid than Baron's (except that I've managed overzealous Q.C. inspectors before), but I don't have any evidence that Baron's must be true. With several possibilities available, you can't tell me one particular one must be true without providing evidence for it.

In light of the Apollo 1 fire, this could have been construed as criminal behavior.

And the evidence was received, duly considered, and found to be of limited use. Thomas Baron could provide very little information regarding CSM 012, but many other witnesses provided volumes of it. Thomas Baron had somewhat to say about NAA management, but so did lots of other people, including NAA's management and NASA's management. All that evidence seems to have been more reliable, more applicable, and more accurate that Baron's testimony.

And so to explain his presence at all before the committee we turn to the person who got him on the docket: NASA's arch-enemy Walter Mondale. Mondale is a Democrat. Have you looked up the party affiliations of the members of Olin Teague's subcommittee and correlated that with how they received Baron's testimony?

You wishfully want us to believe that Baron's testimony must be supremely relevant, must be supremely damaging, and must be supremely reliable. I simply see too many factors to accept on faith that all this must be the case.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2002-06-18 12:02 ]</font>

Peter B
2002-Jun-18, 07:45 AM
Karamoon said (in part): "The Baron issue has kind of taken on a life of its own, where I am concerned. The CIA kill people all of the time -- it is in their job description, for crying out loud. Apollo was vastly important to the Cold War, and failure was not an option. The last thing they needed was people forever stoking the anti-Apollo fire."

The thing that strikes me is that so many critics of Apollo remained. If people were being knocked off or wined and dined, why were there still so many critics?

Mondale is a particular example. He obviously wasn't killed, yet he presumably also wasn't wined and dined, because he remained a vocal critic.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Peter B on 2002-06-18 03:47 ]</font>

Jim
2002-Jun-18, 01:13 PM
Karamoon: Because I don't believe Baron had just that second got out of bed and was a little befuddled when he spoke to Holmburg, or [any of a whole lot of other mitigating factors] ...

Jay: It was a chance meeting at a drugstore. Do you think Baron had a notepad with him? Do you think he had a tape recorder?

No, in fact he recorded this conversation -- at the soonest -- after he got home, and possibly much later. ...

Part of my job is to hold meetings (I lead a great life!). At those meetings I take notes of what was said, what decisions were made and what actions were assigned. Immediately after those meetings, I write up my notes. I then send a copy to the participants so they can check them for accuracy.

Despite diligently taking notes during the meetings and being very careful to cover what was said as closely as possible, it is not unusual to receive corrections to my memos.

Point being, memory is not always perfect, even if it's written down.

Karamoon: I simply believe you cannot be mistaken over something like this, or that if he had doubts over what he had been told

Jay: Then you obviously know very little about eyewitness testimony. ...

I do.

Eyewitness testimony is extremely unreliable. We all see and hear the same incident differently. This is due in part to our objective observation (some of us hear better than we see, some of us just don't pay attention), our subjective filtering of what we observed (often without knowing we are doing it) and our all too faulty memories.

Ask any trial lawyer. They'll tell you that one eyewitness can be good; more than one can be a disaster.

Kizarvexis
2002-Jun-19, 12:58 AM
On 2002-06-18 09:13, Jim wrote:
Karamoon: Because I don't believe Baron had just that second got out of bed and was a little befuddled when he spoke to Holmburg, or [any of a whole lot of other mitigating factors] ...

Jay: It was a chance meeting at a drugstore. Do you think Baron had a notepad with him? Do you think he had a tape recorder?

No, in fact he recorded this conversation -- at the soonest -- after he got home, and possibly much later. ...

Part of my job is to hold meetings (I lead a great life!). At those meetings I take notes of what was said, what decisions were made and what actions were assigned. Immediately after those meetings, I write up my notes. I then send a copy to the participants so they can check them for accuracy.

Despite diligently taking notes during the meetings and being very careful to cover what was said as closely as possible, it is not unusual to receive corrections to my memos.

Point being, memory is not always perfect, even if it's written down.

Karamoon: I simply believe you cannot be mistaken over something like this, or that if he had doubts over what he had been told

Jay: Then you obviously know very little about eyewitness testimony. ...

I do.

Eyewitness testimony is extremely unreliable. We all see and hear the same incident differently. This is due in part to our objective observation (some of us hear better than we see, some of us just don't pay attention), our subjective filtering of what we observed (often without knowing we are doing it) and our all too faulty memories.

Ask any trial lawyer. They'll tell you that one eyewitness can be good; more than one can be a disaster.



Karamoon I remember reading an article in a magazine, Discover most likely, that mentioned a study on memory. Subjects were shown two car crashes which were identical. (the colors of the vehicles were changed IIRC) The subjects were asked to describe what happened when the vehicles 'smashed' into each other for one picture and what happened when the vehicles 'hit' each other in the other picture. The subjects invariablely described the 'smashed' picture as more violet and destructive than the same 'hit' picture. Memory can be colored by your environment and how questions about the memory are phrased. For example, all the false memory cases where questioners lead children into creating false memories.

In any case, this is from my own faulty memory, /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif so check out this article on memory from the U. of Oklahoma.

http://www.ou.edu/student/ucurrent/archives/volVno2/articles/MemoryAsEvidence.html

Kizarvexis

JayUtah
2002-Jun-19, 02:15 AM
I'm specifically thinking of the work of Elizabeth Loftus, who in addition to debunking the recovered memory syndrome also is a leading authority on the various myths of recollection and eyewitness testimony. The notion that Baron must invariably have remembered his conversation correctly is way too much for me to swallow.

BTW, NPR (America's public radio system) aired a lengthy essay on recovered memory syndrome on its most recent edition of This American Life. It really was quite provocative. We're lucky here in that the consequences of ill memory are not especially profound. In the cases of recovered memory syndrome, people went to jail and families were ruined all due to pseudoscientific hysteria.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2002-06-18 22:24 ]</font>

The Bad Astronomer
2002-Jun-19, 02:19 AM
I finally bit the bullet and registered on Clyde's board.

Yegads. He certainly hasn't changed in the past year, eh?

I will say that I found one post of his very amusing. He is strongly implying that NASA killed 10 astronauts. When pushed, he admitted he made the number up, saying that the Fox special claimed 15, and that seemed too high, so he lowered it. Mind you, he didn't actually lift a finger to look a number up. He just said ten.

Then he posts this when he finally admits this:



You see in my world I don't draw from websites.. I draw from memory .. and if I over estimated the amount of Astronauts by two I am doing pretty good.

Any Moron with a Google search can find anything.


Any moron can look up facts, he says. So what kind of person doesn't even do that?

I can see that posting there will get me nowhere; no matter how calm, rational and factual I will be, he will twist it around.

If ever I wonder if not going on his radio show was a good idea, I just need to drop by his site. That reminds me I made the correct decision.

JayUtah
2002-Jun-19, 02:34 AM
When pushed, he admitted he made the number up, saying that the Fox special claimed 15, and that seemed too high, so he lowered it.

Interesting. You could accuse him of two murders. Tell him your original number was zero, but that seemed low so you raised it.

Any moron can look up facts, he says. So what kind of person doesn't even do that?

Obviously the kind of person who isn't interested in them. What amazes me is that people like him get radio shows where their dysfunctional thinking infects a wide audience. Why do we reward such numbskullery?

LunarOrbit
2002-Jun-19, 05:10 PM
Ok, I think I answered Clyde's original question in a way that he SHOULD accept (he probably won't, but if he is at all reasonable he should).

His question was "What are the odds that 10 astronauts who were CRITICAL of NASA dying in accidents?".

The keyword is "critical". He even emphasized it.

The answer came to me suddenly... the odds were NIL because none of the astronauts that died were critical of NASA before their deaths. Even if you consider Gus Grissoms comments as criticisms the question stated that 10 astronauts were critical of NASA so Clyde has to prove that they were.

Does my answer make sense to you guys?


Kel

pvtpylot
2002-Jun-19, 07:59 PM
Yeah, LunarOrbit, it made a lot of sense, but predictably, he sidestepped the whole question. I love that he complains about being "accused" of not doing research after he admits to the world that he's recalling all the numbers from memory.