Talk:Thomas Baron

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Thomas Baron article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

It is requested that an image or photograph of Thomas Baron be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

I have some serious concerns about this article as it cites and repeats discounted fringe conspiracy claims as fact. In particular there is no evidence that Baron's second report (variously 300 or 500 pages) even existed, much less that it was ever submitted to Congress and then lost.

Allegations that NASA deliberately murdered the Apollo 1 crew to silence Gus Grissom is probably the single most extreme Apollo conspiracy theory. While I am not a lawyer, common sense tells me that recklessly and falsely accusing someone of murder might well be grounds for a libel action.

The conspiracists completely discount the published reports of the exhaustive large scale investigations into the Apollo 1 fire despite a very detailed and often damning account of the many design and workmanship problems that created the conditions for accident. Mere homicidal negligence doesn't seem to be enough for the conspiracy theorists; they insist it had to be a deliberate conspiracy to commit murder. So they draw their conclusions from a document with a single author that they've never seen and quite likely never existed simply because its conclusions were "said to be" those they personally prefer to be true. Karn (talk) 08:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of half-baked theories around this man on the net. The sites I checked (clavius.org for example) make all kinds of claims (and misspell biography) with no citations. Some say the original report was 55 pages, some 58.
Anyone who wants to turn this into an unsad article needs to nail the facts first. NASA cites an obit in the 29 April 1967 Atlanta Constitution; someone who looked that up might be able to establish that the man really existed, and help others find more facts.Twang (talk) 22:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)...[reply]

you will All find that at youtube video MoonConspiracy topic the following comment area is quite active for Baron info and if NASA Lied about Moon Landings : Uploaded by DanielsNews on Oct 29, 2006 We can see the wires, people! title of video at youtube : Moon Landing Hoax - Wires Footage. visitors viewing : over 3,121,000 as of Sep 2011. number of comments : over 121,000 . BlondeignoreBlondeignore (talk)updated viewers count and number of comments at above youtube site...if there is a vehicle somewhere that drives the Apollo Moon Landing Conspiracy believers, than the untimely death of T. Baron is the motor for that vehicle. Baron died 8 days after a return from delivering a report to USA congress in Washington DC about problems with the building of the Apollo Capsule.Blondeignore (talk) 03:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar

The sentence "After leaking his report to the media, he was fired." is rather dubiously formulated. Technically, it should mean that his employers first leaked the document to the press, and then fired him. However, I suspect that the idea might that he himself leaked the document, and then was fired (as a consequence). Whichever the meaning is, it should be stated in unambiguous terms. JoergenB (talk) 16:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all: the gerund “leaking” has to be grammatically interpreted as related to the subject of the main clause, which is “he”, and thus Thomas Baron, which is the intended meaning; you are confusing this with a case of dangling modifier. — SniperMaské (talk) 17:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]