HB Mode: On

Why was Thomas Baron's death ruled a suicide, why not an accident?
And why did Baron make those claims about Al Homburg telling him what caused the Apollo 1 fire if he knew it to be untrue and easily refuted by Holmburg's testimony (which Holmburg did immediately following Baron's testimony)?

Mr. HECHLER. Is this the same man who told you that the astronauts smelled smoke, noticed smoke before the fire, and were talking about it 10 or 12 minutes before the fire?

BARON. Yes, sir, the same man gave me this information.

Mr. HECHLER. Did the same man give you the information that the astronauts tried for 5 minutes to get out of the capsule?

Mr. BARON.. Yes, sir, be did.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...o204/baron.htm

Was Baron recalled as a witness after Holmburg's testimony? Were any perjury charges brought against him?

What would be the difference in calling NASA a murderer for the deaths of Grissom, Chaffee, and White then calling Baron a murderer for the death of his wife?

HB Mode: Off

CzC

Why was Thomas Baron's death ruled a suicide, why not an accident?

There were witnesses. Trains don't drive themselves.

And why did Baron make those claims about Al Homburg ...

Obviously we can only speculate. Baron's meeting with Holmburg was a chance encounter, not a formal interview. Perhaps Baron recalled it incorrectly later, or confused it with some other bit of rumor he'd heard at the same time.

If Baron had simply made a mistake he could still testify to Congress about what Holmburg said, while believing his testimony was accurate. We do not need to suppose malice on Baron's part.

We cannot assume Baron knew Holmburg's alleged account of the Apollo 1 fire was inaccurate, but we can definitely assume that he should have known. The Thompson report (the official findings) had been published prior to Baron's testimony. Since his investigation of NAA's procedures and their connection to the Apollo 1 fire had consumed all of Baron's time since the fire, we wonder why he did not enthusiastically seek out a copy of this report. And if he did, we wonder why he did not attempt to reconcile that report's contents with what he had understood Mr. Holmburg's statements to be.

At the very least he should have called up Holmburg and said, "Hey, did you know that the Thompson report describes the fire very differently than you told me?" Baron's inattention to verification is what undermines his value as a witness and as an investigator.

Was Baron recalled as a witness after Holmburg's testimony?

No. You have to consider the overtones. The members of the committee knew exactly why Baron was there -- not to provide any substantial evidence, but to further Sen. Walter Mondale's agenda against NASA. They let him have his say, established his credibility for the record, listened to rebuttal testimony, and let him go.

The hearings were about the AS-204 accident and less about the general state of NASA and its contractors. That was relevant, of course, but it wasn't something that they needed Baron's testimony in order to establish. Why would they need the testimony of someone who had compiled a summary when they could talk directly to the people who contributed to the summary?

Were any perjury charges brought against him?

No, because perjury implies malicious intent to deceive. Baron may simply have been mistaken. Besides, if he was there just because Mondale had dragged him into it, it seems a shame to go and complicate the poor man's life any further.

If you've spent much time around congressional hearings or reading about them, you understand this happens a lot. Political influences determine who testifies, and not all the testimony is relevant, unbiased, or helpful. It's just what some politician wants said. Best just to let it fall by the wayside.

CzC: Why was Thomas Baron's death ruled a suicide, why not an accident?

According to NASA Historian, Howard McCurdy, it was officially reported as a "railway accident."

Here is the text I posted recently over at ApolloHoax:

Howard McCurdy: The material that was contained in these memos there were other reports within NASA that were circulating at that time that the workmanship on the Apollo capsule was shoddy. There were other reports that the technicians who were working on the Apollo capsule weren't always attentive that they'd fool around on the job, that they weren't paying attention to their work. And when they started to take the 204 capsule apart, it became very apparent that the workmanship was not up to the technical specifications that NASA had provided. It really was true that the workmanship was not up to the specification that NASA expected . . . There were a lot of people that were worried about manufacturing practices at North American, including special assistants to Werner von Braun. Baron was reporting the same things that were appearing in these other memoranda and were being talked about inside NASA.

Interviewer: And what was the reaction from the members of the House Committee -- did they believe him [Baron], did they think he was nuts, what did they think?

Howard McCurdy: I think they thought he was borderline. He was under doctor's care. He claimed not for anything in his head, he claimed he had an ulcer and he was diabetic. But they were very suspicious of who this person was. They were talking to just an inspector who had for reasons of his own prepared memoranda at the time before the accident detailing what he thought to be shoddy practices and suddenly finds himself thrust into the national limelight in front of a major congressional investigating committee. And they just wondered: What motivated him to keep these records that he did keep at the time. And I think they were suspicious. Ken Heckler, one the members of the committee challenges him and his background and his credibility for doing this. But remember: even if he was a marginal character, he was right on target in his criticisms.

Interviewer: The very first time we talked -- when you were telling me good stories to pursue for this program, you told me about the really creepy ending to Thomas Baron's story. What happened to Baron after the hearing?

Howard McCurdy: He died! He was killed in what was officially reported as a railway accident, crossing a railway trestle and hit by a train. With I believe members of his family.

Interviewer: How did NASA proceed after the hearings had died down?

Howard McCurdy: Oh gosh, it was just turbulent. First of all, the signal that came down to Jim Webb and everybody at the top was: "You can't fail again." Plus the fact that they're 18 months behind schedule. The only way they can make that up is by taking huge risks.

McCurdy goes on to say that: "the conspiracy theorists immediately assumed that [Baron] had been picked out by the CIA or some other organization as someone who knew too much."

Personally, I don't think he may have been murdered because he "knew to much", I believe he may have been disposed of because the CIA were looking to move Project Apollo forward. The success of Apollo had been deemed vital to National Security ever since the Soviet Union had made a complete monkey out of the United States with the orbiting of Sputnik, Yuri Gagarin & friends.

Thomas Baron was not only preventing old wounds from healing, but he was on the verge of opening up a new can of worms! Furthermore, Baron had been treated with utter contempt by some members of the committee and he was very likely pi**ed off about that. Baron had already demonstrated that he was prepared to voice his displeasure and I suspect the CIA feared that he may well do it again, especially if he was bitter about the way he had been treated. So when opportunity permitted, and before he was allowed to propagate his version of events, the CIA moved to dispose of him. Then people scraped together the mud Ken Hechler had thrown at him to concoct a possible suicided fairy tale, and Apollo was allowed to move on.

Of course, now we hear from Bill Wood who says: "No autopsy was performed," although one is required by Florida state law. And that, "his body was immediately cremated." I don't know if this is true or not, and I am in no position to verify it.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Karamoon on 2002-07-08 15:11 ]</font>

According to NASA Historian, Howard McCurdy ...

Howard McCurdy is not a "NASA historian" in the sense that he works for NASA. He is a professor of public administration at the American University in Washington, D.C.

He is, however, a noted and well-respected expert on NASA, so we would be foolish to dismiss him. But we should keep in mind that he does not work for NASA and so is not giving us the "inside" scoop, and that he does make his living criticizing NASA.

I'm rather disappointed that you excised certain key statements from McCurdy's well-known interview on WAMU radio. Statements such as:

"It's not clear that he [Baron] sent a report to the House committee. You see references throughout the literature on an Apollo program to a 500-page report. I have never seen such a report. It's not in the NASA history office files. Apparently, it's not in the congressional files, and that's part of the mythology that comes out of this particular episode and gives rise to all kinds of conspiracy theories. What did exist was a 50-page collection of memoranda which he had written after observing the workmanship at the Kennedy Space Center on the Apollo capsule. And the issues in that 50-page set of memoranda were the same things that a lot of people were talking about all over NASA." (emphasis mine)

and

"Baron is also responsible for giving rise to a lot of urban legends if you will about the space program. One of them one of the more widely circulated legends is that the workers at the pad were drinking on the job. Now he didn't see anybody drinking. But what would happen is that the cleaning fluid, which was ethyl alcohol distilled spirits would disappear after a cleaning episode so he concluded that somebody was making Jungle Juice with the ethyl alcohol."

Dr. McCurdy does not state a belief that the CIA murdered Baron, and in fact the context of the unedited interview makes it clear he considers all that part of the mythology that conspiracy theorists have built around Thomas Baron.

As for whether it was ruled a suicide or an accident, I now have several secondary sources which disagree, so I'm going to go find a primary source. I am fully aware that Clavius makes the claim that it was ruled a suicide, so I shall put that on my list of things to fix in the short-term.

Regarding the autopsy, it has not yet been verified that Baron's body was not autopsied and that it was summarily cremated. That's an allegation awaiting support from those who propose it.

I have been able to learn of some exceptions to Florida's mandatory autopsy policy, but I can't be sure any of them would have applied. If Baron's medical history was sufficiently documented, for example, an autopsy might be waved.

LOL! So Baron was murdered by the CIA so that Apollo wouldn't be held up any longer. Baron was that powerful?

And what does this have to do with a hoax?

JayUtah: Howard McCurdy is not a "NASA historian" in the sense that he works for NASA. He is a professor of public administration at the American University in Washington, D.C.

Yes, I am well aware of that.

JayUtah: But we should keep in mind that he does not work for NASA and so is not giving us the "inside" scoop, and that he does make his living criticizing NASA.

I think that is quite unfair. It appears to me that many his books just tell it like it is, and he gives us the appropriate history of NASA where applicable. Here follows a selection of just some of his books:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/se...324916-1288905

Note, too, that he is a close friend is Roger D. Launius -- who does work for NASA. They have edited a number of books together and their combined insight is indisputable.

JayUtah: I'm rather disappointed that you excised certain key statements from McCurdy's well-known interview on WAMU radio.

Why should you be disappointed? I am not trying to hide anything. Indeed, if you can recall, it was myself who first shared the details of this excellent radio production. I have even posted the link to it on numerous occasions and the web site clearly list all the transcripts and testimonies.

I pasted selected passages which I deemed relevant to the points I had previously made here and elsewhere. You yourself have done the same on various occasions (even in relation to Howard McCurdy). Everybody is free to do so.

JayUtah: Dr. McCurdy does not state a belief that the CIA murdered Baron,

At no time did I state that he did hold such a belief, nor was it my intention to paint such a picture.

I copied various passages that support my own position: that even [b]if[/i] Baron was a marginal character, his criticisms were spot on, etc. etc.

John: LOL! So Baron was murdered by the CIA so that Apollo wouldn't be held up any longer. Baron was that powerful?

Thomas Baron wasn't, but the combined efforts of people (inside and outside of Congress) who would be quick to use his sustained criticisms to oppose Project Apollo most certainly were that powerful.

Yes, I am well aware of that.

Are you also aware that the natural interpretation of "NASA historian" is "a historian who works for NASA"? No matter. I don't believe you were trying to deceive by that.

I think that is quite unfair.

On further thought, I agree. I withdraw and deny the characterization.

They have edited a number of books together and their combined insight is indisputable.

I think it's more accurate to say their combined insight is authoritative. Anything which comes down to an opinion can always be disputed. It's McCurdy's opinion that Baron was "right on target", while other researchers disagree and say that he got some things right and some things wrong.

I pasted selected passages which I deemed relevant to the points I had previously made here and elsewhere.

... while omitting the selected passages in which McCurdy disputes your conclusions regarding Thomas Baron and the Apollo 1 investigation.

Everybody is free to do so.

Not without consequence.

[/b]At no time did I state that he did hold such a belief, nor was it my intention to paint such a picture.[/b]

But you went from McCurdy's statement that conspiracy theorists believe Baron was murdered by the CIA because he knew too much, to your own statements that Baron was murdered by the CIA for other reasons. That's a hair-split.

In fact, McCurdy doesn't believe Baron was murdered at all -- by the CIA or anyone else for any reason. Now that you've clarified your remarks it's moot.

[b]I copied various passages that support my own position: that even if[/i] Baron was a marginal character, his criticisms were spot on, etc. etc.

You edited McCurdy's remarks so that it made it sound like he supported your position, which in fact he does not. Further, if you had left McCurdy's other comments intact, the reader would have a better context for his "right on target" remark. McCurdy points out that Baron committed errors of fact and inference. This mitigates his "on target" statement. I don't believe McCurdy is saying that the Baron Report is to be considered perfectly reliable.

I have already conceded that Thomas Baron's report contained some parts which were true, but that this does not make his entire testimony and report true. I have argued that Baron was the pawn of Sen. Mondale. I have argued that Baron's credibility was a serious problem. I have argued there is no evidence he was murdered.

In fact, the unedited quote from McCurdy substantially agrees with what I have said regarding Thomas Baron.