Why did the Dutch papers in 1969 question the authenticity of the moon landings?

I too wonder which Dutch papers questioned the authenticity of the moon landings. The question can't be answered until the papers in question are produced.

Why is it NASA records are not classified but not available to the public?

That depends on which records and what you mean by "available". Restriction of information is not always for reasons of "national security" or other lofty such goals. Debriefings were classified, for example, because they discussed private morale and health issues that are private matters between the astronauts and NASA doctors.

I don't know of any Apollo-related material which is yet unclassified and not available to the public. By "available" I mean that someone can go to the relevant authority at NASA, in person, and request to see it. It doesn't necessarily mean that it's published, mass-produced, and can arrive by FedEx at your door the next morning. Historical research often requires going to where the records are archived.

Why did so many astronauts end up as executives of large corporations? Was this their reward for the "trip" to the moon?

No, the prestige works the other way. It was quite fashionable in the 1970s to have an astronaut on one's board of directors. I have no doubt that the corporations in question attracted the astronauts in the customary way: by offering significant compensation packages.

The other reason is that many of the companies on whose boards astronauts served had aspirations to supply the space program. Just as retire generals often go to work for defense contractors, retired astronauts go to work for aerospace contractors. The astronauts offer the perception of an "inside track" to procurement favors. Whether you think this is a good idea or not is immaterial; it happens, and probably happened here.

My experience with astronauts indicates that some are good business leaders and some aren't. But they all tend to have quite a bit of drive, intelligence, and skill, and those qualify them at least in part to be business leaders.

Why did some astronauts die in accidents ...

Because astronauting is a dangerous profession. It requires one to fly high-performance aircraft on a regular basis and operate high-risk, experimental equipment.

The accident rate for astronauts is about the same as that for test pilots.

... others suffer brain damage ...

Who?

... still others have nervous breakdowns?

Buzz Aldrin is the only one that comes to mind. He suffered from depression and alcholism. His crewmate Michael Collins writes that Aldrin was a very driven individual, always seeking bigger and better challenges. Where do you go after walking on the moon? What's more challenging than that? After you reach the top of the mountain, the only direction is down.

What happened to the Baron report?

No one knows for sure. I am conducting inquiries at Congress and at the National Archives to attempt to locate it.

I infer from statements made during Thomas Baron's testimony that the report was likely destroyed. Baron wanted it published as part of the proceedings of the Congressional investigation into Apollo 1, but the House members who interviewed Baron were reluctant to print such a large document as part of the record.

There is also some question about how applicable and admissible (in the legal sense) the report would have been. It was largely hearsay, which has no direct application in law. It would have merely provided a list of people to interview, and it seems that the House had already gleaned that information from the report.

Further, some historians have lately followed up on Baron's reports and have found them to be factually and interpretationally flawed. Baron saw certain things happening, drew conclusions about the motives and reasons, and then considered only that interpretation thereafter.

Baron's involvement with the press taints his motives. We have to consider whether his celebrity status with the Florida press affected his ability and willingness to report his observations fairly.

Further, the only reason Baron was even presented to the Congressional investigation is because anti-NASA senator Walter Mondale made it happen. Sen. Mondale was responsible for getting Baron on the schedule, and for dredging up the Phillips report in an attempt to portray NASA's contractors as wasteful and slipshod. That was pure politics.

Since the lengthier Baron report was not published as part of the Apollo 1 findings, it would normally have reverted back to Baron's possession. However, Baron died shortly after the findings were published. The report would have been the property of his estate and subject to the disposition of the executor. Had the item been retained as an exhibit, it would likely be in the National Archives. However, my inquiries at the Archives have failed to turn up whether the Baron report was ever in their custody.

Conspiracy theorists argue that the "damning" report was destroyed by NASA. Here, in summary, are the major flaws in that argument:

1. NASA never, at any time, had custody of the report.

2. The report would have been inadmissible, thus hardly "damning". The shorter report, admitted by Baron to be equivalent in substance if not in scope to the lengthier report, survives.

3. The report is simply missing. It is not known to have been destroyed or suppressed. Since things are lost more often than they are suppressed, it is parsimonious to conclude, until further evidence suggests otherwise, that it has simply been mislaid or perhaps innocently discarded. It's possible locations include:

(a) the estate of Thomas Ronald Baron;
(b) the records of the House Committee on Science and Technology;
(c) the U.S. National Archives.

Why did the astronauts families often refer to the unreality of events?

We would have to see specific quotes and contexts to propery evaluate this charge.

If I may presume to interpret, expressions of incredulity are not out of place in response to momentous historical occasions. "This is unreal," or "This is so hard to believe," does not necessarily connote a perception of being fooled. It may simply be a reaction to something of great significance. I would argue that man's first steps on a world other than his earth is a moment of great significance.

Why did the landing of all Apollo return capsules take place out of sight of the public and even of the pickup carrier crews?

The Apollo capsules were recovered in the open ocean for obvious practical reasons: the water splashdown simplified the construction of the spacecraft, and the remote location provided for safety so that the spacecraft would not plop down on someone's head by accident. It was also partially dictated by the return trajectory.

It is patently untrue that the splashdowns happened out of sight of the carrier crews. In fact, predictions of the splashdown points were so accurate that the carriers had to be positioned a half mile or so away from the projected splashdown site to avoid the hazard of actually landing on the carrier deck.

There were literally thousands of Navy witnesses to the actual splashdowns.

Why didn't the astronauts attempt to make some visible signal from the moon?

First, this is a circular argument. It argues that NASA's inability to provide directly observable proof of success is suspicious, but that suspicion derives from a presupposed premise that NASA considered that a necessary goal. This in turn would arise only if NASA felt it needed to bolster its credibility, which would only be the case if it felt it had something to hide. In other words, the argument presupposes the hoax and is therefore invalid.

Second, nothing short of a nuclear explosion would be directly visible from this distance. And there would obviously be some significant and justified opposition to exploding a nuclear device on the surface of the moon.

Why were the moon rocks rushed to Switzerland right after they landed?

They weren't. They were rushed to the Lunar Receiving Laboratory where they remain today. Samples have subsequently been sent to laboratories and museums all over the world.

The solar wind experiment was rushed to Switzerland because it was a Swiss experiment, funded by the Swiss government and undertaken by a Swiss investigator. NASA was obligated to deliver the experiment quickly and safely to its owner.