Hello everyone, this is my first posting, I thought I'd share a debunking story of my own... A friend of mine finally saw the now-infamous Fox program on tape, and he confronted me with the available evidence (or what passes for it, one might say). I was able to explain away the easier anomalies, such as the "waving" flag and the lack of a descent engine-induced lunar crater. As for other anomalies that were beyond my grasp, I must thank Jay, the Bad Astronomer, and all those concerned who possess expertise in the relevant disciplines.

What bothered me the most was that my friend latched onto the Baron murder angle, and wouldn't let go. He was convinced that Baron was silenced, and that this was done in a timely fashion after he had furnished his report and/or testified. I pointed out that if that was indeed claimed by the Fox program (I haven't seen it) then it was misleading... Baron died after the conclusion of the congressional inquiries into the AS-204 accident, which would likely have been several weeks after he actually testified (I'm sure Jay or someone can correct me on that). I told him his death was most likely a suicide, that his report contained nothing that hadn't already been reviewed by his superiors at North American, and that while I have no knowledge of other Apollo 1-related suicides, others involved (Joe Shea, for example) developed mental health issues; therefore, Baron's possible anguish and contemplation of suicide is not hard to explain. I just can't buy the notion that NASA or NAA arranged for the murder of one critic while leaving others unharmed.

I don't believe I convinced my friend, but I feel better for having delivered credible evidence to him. Many thanks to all of you who have helped fill the holes in my understanding of various aspects of the Apollo Program, such as the Baron affair.

~Tim

I don't believe that Baron's death was necessarily related to his experience with the Apollo 1 fire or his testimony regarding that fire. The Hoax Proponents claim that it was, but they also claim that it was a murder, not a suicide. There's no evidence that it was anything but a suicide, and no evidence that the suicide was Apollo-related.

For that matter, why kill him after he testified? A little late to try to silence the guy, don't you think?

If it was supposedly in revenge for his testimony, well, surely all these lovely people writing books about there being a conspiracy would have to be silenced as well. As you've pointed out, killing a single critic seems pointless.

So, there's no (as far as I know) evidence of his death being a murder and no plausible motive for his murder. Seems like a non-issue to me.

Anybody feel free to correct me on the facts. I'm just an (amused) observer, I have no first hand knowledge of this stuff.

And Baron's testimony was relatively insignificant to the Apollo 1 investigation. Sen. Walter Mondale got him on the docket in an attempt to show that money given to NASA was being wasted by inefficient and lackadaisical contractors. It really ended up backfiring on Mondale precisely because Baron was such a poor witness.

I personally feel that Thomas Baron was stitched up somewhat when he testified, and that he may have had genuine cause to feel aggrieved afterwards. He had already demonstrated his ability to be outspoken, and if he was subjected to an injustice, then this may not have bode well for his health. Apollo needed to move forward and the space advocates needed to reassure the coalition that everything was progressing smoothly. News of a conspiracy may well have been followed by serious funding cuts at a time when the program had already been dealt a devastating blow.

That is just my opinion.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Karamoon on 2002-08-22 14:06 ]</font>

Here's a link to his testimony

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

On another note: I recently learnt that Ken Hechler was totally against the idea of collaborating with the U.S.S.R. on a manned lunar mission. He didn't see the need for cooperation when all the signs suggested the U.S. had gained the "upper hand". His attitude was hawkish, from what I can tell.

What evidence is there that it was a suicide?

There doesn't need to be. There was a total lack of evidence that it was anything else, except perhaps an unfortunate accident. The salient point is that there is NO evidence that it was a murder.

He drove his car into a train. Without any evidence that there was another party involved, and with no identifiable motive or opportunity for a third party to carry out the deed, and further no reasonable explanation as to how a third party could carry out the deed, the compelling conclusion is that it was either an inexplicable accident, or a suicide.

Normally when someone is killed, an investiagtion is carried out to determine whether or not there was "foul play". Once that is ruled out, what remains is accident or suicide. Well, I suppose in Baron's case, there was foul play. He killed his family.

Murder-suicide is quite common. That is, heads of households who commit suicide often murder the rest of the household in conjunction.

Thomas Baron manifested two common risk factors for suicide as well: an unspecified nervous condition, and a chronic illness (diabetes). Quality control workers involved with well-publicized failures have a higher rate of suicide as well.

I believe suicide remains the best explanation for Thomas Baron's death. Not the only explanation, just the one that best fits the facts.

I'm saying nothing. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

By saying nothing, you said a lot! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

I know. That is one reason why I said I was "saying nothing". [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif[/img]

Oh, please, no.

Not Thomas Baron again.

I don't think I can take any more.

<a name="1 BEN 7 CHEN"> page 1 BEN 7 CHEN aka 1 BEN 7 CHEN
ah yes Murder? Well they [explative deleated] did try to murder me once
back in what i call the Kent State ERA. TV was doing live coverage of WHAT tv
said was happening on university campuses
Not Thomas
but a PRO.test against the main steam
or something? Anyway the wepon of their choice WAS
a leathel {spelled with a th i think} DOSE of LSD { see Leary }
which "THEY" managed to deliver into my hand..
However instead of taking a "DRINK" like they probaby though i would I just took a very tiny sip.. {Talk about a trip} [see tomorrow's SUMry] 2:55 P.M. PST

What was he distraught about? Seems to me he did just about all he could to warn others about the potential of a tragedy on the scale of Apollo 1. Apollo 1 was some kind of validation that he wasn't exaggerating too much and that maybe he would be listened to now, if not in reality then maybe his own perception. If he was to exagerrate his own importance to the extent that his family couldn't go on without him, then why can't we make the same leap and say that he thought NASA needed him to avoid another tragedy and therefore he shouldn't kill himself but stick around to prevent it? Makes far more sense to me than he was so distraught about people dying on his watch that he killed his family and himself.

ICUranus, it doesn't matter if it seems contradictory. JayUtah is pointing out observed trends in suicides. These are statistical patterns and real behaviors. Does that mean they apply in Baron's case? We can't say that for certainty. We can only speculate. Without a suicide note, it becomes hard to identify a person's motivation.

Jay, it might be helpful to see more information relating to the death. For instance, were there witnesses? The train engineers? Were statements written down by the investigating officers that we can access? A summary report? Did they talk to his friends to find out if he had discussed things with them to indicated marital problems, or some other reason?

It seems to me we only have an outcome - the car was hit by a train, killing Baron and his wife and children. And then we have speculation - it was an accident, or it was suicide, and the suicide was a response to his being ignored or irrational guilt over the deaths or his treatment on the Inquiry Board. Speculation would also allow some type of murder, but there's no evidence to support that notion, so that leaves the other two which by necessity would leave less evidence. Thus they are the reasonable conclusions, though separating between the two is difficult without more to go on than we have here.

There has to be something pretty conclusive to call it a suicide. A car running into a train, seems to me the first thing you'd think was accident.

Is this a rehashed topic? I'm kinda new

See:

http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...ic=745&forum=3

http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...c=1521&forum=3

The original threads that I conributed to on http://www.apollohoax.com/forums are no longer with us.

A lot of things are beginning to make a lot more sense all of a sudden... [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

No...

No more...

What was he distraught about? Seems to me he did just about all he could to warn others about the potential of a tragedy on the scale of Apollo 1.

Assuming hypothetically it was suicide, why must we therefore assume his suicide was connected to his feelings about Apollo 1? This is the frame of mind we have to avoid. Conspiracy theorists want every aspect of Baron's life (and death) to relate to Apollo. This goes along with other "suspicious" deaths associated with the space program -- in the conspiracist's mind no one associated with Apollo can die a natural, accidental, or unrelated death.

If the conclusion is that Baron was murdered, then this is the sort of proposition that must have some sort of discriminating positive proof to support it. You don't conclude that someone is murdered simply because you can't prove some other specific cause of death.

Apollo 1 was some kind of validation that he wasn't exaggerating too much and that maybe he would be listened to now

This is a difficult question because first of all much of Baron's testimony was hearsay and not all that reliable. He alleges, for example, employees drinking on the job when in fact he merely inferred a conclusion based on an nonspecific observation.

Second, he had no contact with s/c 012 nor any evidence for what caused the fire.

Third, the problems with North American's quality of work were known long before Baron was even hired and were addressed without his help.

Fourth, the real reason Baron testified before Congress was not that he was an important, well-informed witness, but because anti-NASA senator Walter Mondale used his influence to get him on the docket hoping to paint a dismal enough picture of Apollo to get its funding cut.

Apollo 1 indeed validated many severe problem with the Apollo program, both in NAA's court and in NASA's court. But to place Thomas Baron in a central role in all of this is highly misleading.

if not in reality then maybe his own perception.

This I can agree with. I believe Baron thought he was a very important and useful pundit for Apollo safety. It is my opinion that he was misguided.

At this point I have to simply handwave and wish that you could all have my experience with quality control people. Good QC inspectors are very hard to find, and a common "pathology" is unbridled pickiness. QC people have to be thorough and meticulous, but they also have to develop an awareness of what is and is not important.

why can't we make the same leap and say that he thought NASA needed him to avoid another tragedy and therefore he shouldn't kill himself but stick around to prevent it?

Well, let me provide some background and you'll understand why this doesn't make much sense.

Baron never worked for NASA. He worked for North American Aviation (NAA) as a quality control inspector in Florida at the launch site. That's pretty low on the totem pole and doesn't necessarily require a lot of engineering know-how or advanced education.

In late 1966 he bucked around the space center trying to get people to listen to his grievances about safety and procedural violations. Eventually the NASA people there arrange for him to meet with NAA's head of quality control. NAA considered Baron's statements, found some of them to have merit, and rejected the others as unsubstantiated or incorrect.

Baron went to the press with his grievances and was fired from NAA. The press treated him as a whistle-blower. This was all before the Apollo 1 fire in January 1967.

Makes far more sense to me than he was so distraught about people dying on his watch that he killed his family and himself.

I'm not trying to search for specific motives. I merely note that he exhibited some common risk factors for suicide. Some of them seemed related to his job, but at least one (diabetes) did not. We must not make the mistake of assuming that a motive for a hypothetical suicide must have arisen from anything having to do with Apollo. It may have, but we do not necessarily restrict the possibilities to that.

I never mentioned or insinuated that Baron was murdered. I'm asking, since it was ruled a suicide, where's the evidence? If you rule it a suicide, then you're calling him a murderer because of his wife and daughter. Shouldn't there be some pretty conclusive evidence that it was murder/suicide?

It was the investigation that resulted in the decision that it was a suicide. I suggest that if you have a concern that the investigation wasn't properly conducted, there isn't anyone here that can help with that. Follow it up with the authorities. Perhaps they can provide a perspective on this that will help explain why suicide was considered the most likely alternative.

Jay's point that it may have absolutely nothing to do with Apollo should not be taken lightly. If Baron were not a darling of the conspiracy theorists, but rather just an anonymous employee of, say IBM, would you still be questioning the determination that his death was suicide? Why does his employment with NAA change that?

In other words you have no idea why they ruled it a suicide? If so, then why do you believe the ruling without question? I have a cousin who was the driver involved in a train/car collision. He survived, but no one, not once, asked him if he was trying to kill himself.


If I heard about it, I'd wonder why it was ruled a suicide without any apparent proof. And given the high profile of this individual, you'd think that the proof of his suicide would be known off hand even to the lesser informed.

I see no difference in calling Baron a murderer than calling NASA or NAA a murderer for the deaths of Grissom, Chaffee, and White without evidence in either case, do you agree?

I dunno, seems like the only evidence we have is whatever came out in the police/ME's investigation. There's no particular reason to doubt them. If it was an accident, that doesn't really change anything except our view of his final actions.

To put it coldly, it made no difference to the Apollo program whether Barron died by accident or by his own hand. He had already had his say at length. His testimony is still there on the NASA web site for all to read.

Do you have any reason to doubt the official ruling of suicide, other than you think it might have been an accident? If so, do you think it makes a difference?

Perhaps there were witnesses? Say, the train driver? If Baron drove his car out onto the tracks and just stopped in front of the train, then that's pretty strong evidence. There may be other factors that caused them to rule suicide, but we can speculate for days what they may be. Anyone here studied the investigation into Baron's death? Jay?

ICUranus said:
Unless your a conspiracy theorist, in which case the first thing you think is murder. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

JayUtah, you stated that suicide was the best explanation. Why is it better than accident?

I follow that murder-suicide is common, instead of just suicide. You mention Baron had some other risk factors, notably a nervous condition and diabetes. I follow that Quality Control workers do sometimes retain a bit of irrational guilt after disasters, and it could have been a factor. Is there anything else in the way of eye-witnesses, the investigation, etc that support suicide? I'm fully willing to believe it was suicide over A1, or suicide for some other reason not related, or suicide for a combination of reasons. But is there more to go on that makes you conclude
I, too, have some experience with them. It's especially bad when they're not too bright, or when they get defensive when they don't understand something and won't admit it. Good ones work with you to understand the concerns (i.e. engineering judgments) and help find solutions, bad ones get obstinate and defensive.

Okay, I just read through the two old threads linked by Karamoon. That was ... informative. JayUtah, you said in one of those threads that Baron's death was ruled a suicide. That is a critical comment for the question that ICUranus is asking. You think it most likely in part because that is what the cops said, no? Okay, my question to you, do you happen to have seen or know online something from the investigation on this? I ask because I know you're pulling together information at Clavius.

In other words you have no idea why they ruled it a suicide?

As such, no.

I have tried to get the details from the Florida medical examiner's office, but apparently it takes more than just a phone call. I don't have anyone in Florida who can pursue this.

I spoke to Dr. Michael Finnegan, former medical examiner of Kansas, about the general topics of determining cause of death, specifically about distinguishing suicide from other potential causes. Of course he knew nothing of the circumstances of Baron's death and could not make informed comment, but did venture to say that based on the train engineer's testimony and physical evidence at the site (e.g., placement of the car, absence of skid marks) it would be possible to make a defensible determination of suicide. Vehicular suicides, in general, are easily distinguished from fatal vehicular accidents by physical evidence.

If so, then why do you believe the ruling without question?

Because I have been given no compelling reason to question it.

Until Florida coughs up the file, I have to rely on general principles. And general principles in this type of case indicate there is not necessarily any grounds for questioning a medical examiner's finding simply on the basis of ambiguity. I presume, but cannot say for sure, that the train driver would have witnessed the collision and may have observed factors which led investigators to conclude suicide instead of an accident.

Specifically I find nothing which indicates foul play of any kind.

If I heard about it, I'd wonder why it was ruled a suicide without any apparent proof.

It is not known whether there is an absence of proof for suicide.

At this point we know nothing of the details of the investigation, save that the authorities involved and in possession of all the available facts ruled it a suicide. There is, obviously, some measure of faith placed in that determination. However, to suppose they were motivated to rule contrary to the facts is quite blatant circular reasoning.

Disprovided with the details, we must rely on generalities. I am informed by experts that the determination of suicide is not as ambiguous as intuition suggests, and not likely to be ambiguous in this case.

And given the high profile of this individual ...

Thomas Baron is not a high-profile person. He has been afforded this high profile posthumously by those who attempt to read a hefty degree of suspicion into his activities and death.

Persons more informed and better known than Thomas Baron gave far more relevant and damaging testimony to the Thompson Board (the NASA body that investigated the Apollo 1 accident) and to the committee hearings held by both houses of Congress. Yet they seem to have survived.

you'd think that the proof of his suicide would be known off hand even to the lesser informed.

Why? The determination of the cause of death (i.e., murder or suicide or accident or natural causes) is typically sufficient and does not require supporting detail. The determination alone is only insufficient when there is cause to doubt the validity of the determination. Conspiracy theorists surely doubt the validity of the determination, but only upon the grounds that they disagree with it, not upon any merit. They simply wish it had been murder.

I see no difference in calling Baron a murderer than calling NASA or NAA a murderer for the deaths of Grissom, Chaffee, and White without evidence in either case, do you agree?

I see a vast difference. The circumstances surrounding the deaths of the Apollo 1 crew were exhaustively investigated by three separate bodies and no criminal culpability was found.

We cannot yet be sure to what degree Thomas Baron's death was investigated. We have no reason to believe it was not investigated sufficiently thoroughly to support the determination of cause. Those who have questioned the determination of cause have unanimously begged the question of cause and hence failed to provide any sort of compelling argument.

Therefore I return to my previous statement: I believe suicide is the best explanation for the cause of Thomas Baron's death. This is based, in part, upon the official determination of cause of death by the relevant authority.