“Some integrity issues”? It is trash. I’m not the one making claims I cannot support.
I am not upset that someone would try to lie to me. If I was, I would not be responding to your posts.
Testimony does not equal proof. If Barron actually had a 500 page report of any substance, he would have ensured it got to someone, including the press.
I don’t think anything of Barron at all. I do not have a 500 page report to look at.
I think you are misleading me.
Go back and read what I said about the Pendulum. You’ve posted on that thread.
(reply #128)
This 20 pages of posts is summarized in my gdoc here, summarizing the Apollogist points, vs. the ones I was making.
The Ascent Engine Nozzle was FLUSH with the platform below it, except for a ~1” canting (leaning to one side, to keep it from being totally sealed, to prevent “fire in the hole” explosion).
After 10 seconds, prior to pitch over, it would have been about 100 meters in the sky. With the Rover at 158 meters away, during pitch over the view angle from the bottom was about 30 degrees, meaning that the viewing dept of the nozzle was about 50% scale… so it looked like an oval, and with a 48” diameter nozzle, this permits up to 24” of interior nozzle in view.
Since the nozzle is right next to the combustion chamber throat, it’s well lit – except for Apollo footage - here it’s black.
Because I have better things to prove, than lighting - I’ll leave this one “as is” for now. Preliminary math/science that converts the energy of combustion into a portion being converted to visible light - produced for me a range of 20-40x the equivalence of a 100 W incandescent flood light…. so 2000 to 4000 Watts bulb – very bright.
So imagine a 5” diameter 2000 watt flood light - what would be the impact of this?
Answer: Lit Nozzle, and would also have illuminate the platform from 7’ away – this too was shown as black.
HOWEVER - I realize this argument hasn’t been bullet-proofed, because it’s possible that the math I’m relying upon is wrong, etc.
So I’ll drop this part.
But I won’t drop the part about the Visible Plume. All plumes in space are visible - -except for Apollo’s.
And before you refute - there are a FEW examples where the artist(s) inserted some white plumes for the RCS – but it’s a situation of either “showing” or “not” - depending upon the episode– no in-betweens. Which is not how real-life works – but it’s exactly how “special effects” work - you either do them or you don’t. For nearly all contexts they chose NOT to do the effects, but for 2 specific cases, they chose to show them… different artist, different day – this is not how real-life works. In real life, the visibility wouldn’t either be On or Off – but there would be lots of variances.
And in real life – RCS plumes make plumes. There is no justification at all for Hydrazine always making bright white plumes, while A-50 making ZERO plumes in most situations, but then for just two situations - makes the expected white plume.
(almost as if on that day, a guy was working who knew how to do this film effect – or maybe they did it once, but later thought - “that’s more effort than it’s worth”)
I’m talking about “the system” (behind NASA) purposefully misleading you, to believe something that was hoaxed.
And the congress ACKNOWLEDGED RECEIPT of the 500-page report… and he tried to read it during the testimony but they dismissed him instead, and then brought in a single guy who “randomly” happened to be there to discredit Baron.
So Chariots of Apollo is telling a deliberate Lie, and NASA is deliberately including it on their site, and will not remove nor correct it. And them saying “Ironically” in the context of him being killed with his family on a train track just 7-days afterward – is borderline sadistic/evil.
The evidence here indicates more likely than not - Baron is a hero, murdered for being a whistleblower who’s efforts were going to “lose this Cold War battle” for us all.
His 55 page paper survived, which is pretty damning.
The 500 page report included many names and specific records/dates – why? Because people from within NAA were now leaking docs to him… why would they leak docs to him, unless they too realized the same issues – which were simply being swept under the rug and whitewashed?
Occams Razor - points to the Hoax. It’s the simplest/cleanest way to explain the abundance of evidence involved in all of Apollo.
Regarding Baron - let’s just say you are right - the 500 page report that he says he submitted, and that they acknowledged they had received, from which he requested to read that day – let’s say this was non-existent… (do you see the big stretch you’ve made here)
But even so - Chariots of Apollo has the same evidence as we do – this transcript.. So how on earth could they conclude from the source evidence, “apparently he was in the process of expanding it to 500 pages”…
What evidence indicates he was “in the process”?? The ONLY evidence we have says that it existed, was delivered and acknowledged - and then went missing, without ANYONE making a point about it!
So – not sure how you can’t see this as deliberate deception employed by NASA to cover up something that looks very very bad for them (i.e. the likely murder of Baron + family + destroying his 500 page report).
After Baron - there were no more whistleblowers - and the “General Philips” report exercise was never run again (as Philips report was fully aligned to Baron’s 55 page report).
Once they decided to fake it (given that the engineers had failed – topped off by Apollo 1) – there was no need to run these quality checks – instead they just announced “everything is now working” (well enough to maintain their 1969 schedule, and “win this battle”).
Apollo’s are clearly visible, in the Apollo 17 video you watched.
Post a copy of the receipt then.
I’ve never seen this anomaly debunked (post #21).
wrote: Apollo’s are clearly visible, in the Apollo 17 video you watched.
You realize this is a fixed-throttle engine - that for 10 seconds rose up only 158 meters from the camera with a black background, and a fully invisible plume, right?
So why then would you conclude that the “bright splotch” of the entire LM is “bright plume??”
If you’ll notice the side of the LM, as it nears the pitch-over point, is brighter than the dot that represents the combustion chamber.
Then there is an overbright object, this can causes an effect called “BLOOM” where bright lit objects bleed the light into surrounding parts of the film… This is all this appears to be.
Because we CANNOT intelligently conclude that this is “bright Plume” - when for 10+ seconds we directly witnessed that this engine produces a 100% invisible plume!
In order to hold to the Apollogy, you MUST hold to their narrative that “in a vacuum, these Apollo Plumes are 100% invisible”… you can’t then turn around and point to a white blob that looks like simple “BLOOM” effect and say “look at the plume!”
Is this really what you were trying to claim here?
It’s in the trasnscript:
Mr. BARON. No, sir. You are talking about the 55-page report. I am talking about the 500-page report.
Mr. TEAGUE. Your report went to the chairman of the full committee, not to me. He told me he received it.
Is this not a direct immediate confirmation of receipt?
Where is there ANY documentation that the congress was LYING here?
You started out seeming much smarter than this – but now, the Apollogy has turned your mind to mush. What foundation are you standing on here?
Agreed strongly with Cosmored.
Please do show me where anyone has provided a viable scientific explanation for how that flag moved 8 times on it’s own, while the astronauts were inside.
The unexplained motions, specifically are the ones where it moved on screen, when it’s provably NOT a pendulum activity - i.e. the 3rd motion towards the LM, starts as a sliver barely on screen… then after about 10 seconds of lingering there – it moves another few inches on screen.!…. so the weak theory that Apollogists have tried to posit (that it was pendulum swing back from exhaust pushing it) – is provably false… because for the 3rd motion - we see it for 10 seconds ahead, and there is no way for this to be pendulum motion.
Conspicuously, the modified/damage-control version of this footage CROPS OUT that sliver (which 100% disproves the pendulum theory).
There are no theories left – no one can explain these movements within the context of the Moon. It must be supernatural spirits on the moon — or we simply faked it. Occam’s Razor.
Please join us already – you are here for a reason.